The Power Mac 4400

https://512pixels.net/2024/12/the-power-mac-4400/

by speckx • 2 years ago

114 150 2 years ago

512pixels.net

twoodfin2• 2 years ago

Of course, 65scribe has a great (if you appreciate his passion and shtick) video on the 4400:

https://youtu.be/40VtkZdOAGo

toddmorey• 2 years ago

The article doesn't mention them, but the keyboard and mouse felt super cheap, too. Light and flimsy and unpleasant.

JeremyHerrman• 2 years ago

But they were the same Apple Design Keyboard and ADB Mouse II that shipped with all of the other mid 90s macs though right?

rbanffy7• 2 years ago

It was a noticeable step down from the previous keyboards. Certainly not Apple's best.

Incredible as this might sound, I think the best keyboard Apple made was the Butterfly. It was fragile and unreliable, but it felt great and sounded crisp and precise.

system7rocks• 2 years ago

I managed a lab full of these. So painful to work on because of all those sharp edges. We upgrade the RAM by hand though, which did help. And went from OS 7.6 to 8.6 eventually... which made things a bit more stable. Such weird machines.

hedgehog2• 2 years ago

Only weirder machine I remember was the Mac TV, I knew someone with a school equipped with those.

duskwuff• 2 years ago

It's almost cheating given that it was a limited-edition model, but the TAM [1] was even stranger.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Anniversary_Macintos...

Lammy6• 2 years ago

The 4400 also uses 3.3V EDO DIMMs like some of the clones. Most of the other Apple-branded Power Macs of its era used 5V FPM DIMMs.

fredoralive3• 2 years ago

They quite possibly use the same LPX-40 logic board design.

Going by the developers note Apple created for it, the LPX-40 is somewhat interesting, but the PowerMac 4400 is basically the most "boring" and normal Mac like configuration. PS/2 and VGA connectors, PC style MFM only manual eject floppy drives, support for "hard power" configurations and an AT like PSU connection - they were really going for "shove this into a PC case, and you've got a Mac". Also, Apple could've fitted a PPC604...

musicale• 2 years ago

Cheap in more ways than one.

Fast forward to 2020 and Apple introduces the M1 MacBook Air. (Though people still complained about the 8GB memory configuration.)

Apple seems to have learned their lesson with entry-level machines; the basic iPad and Mac mini are quality designs (though storage/memory upselling is still a thing - the cheapest iPad is probably aimed at classrooms/kiosks/streaming.)

MBCook3• 2 years ago

I had no idea Apple ever did this. And the idea of a floppy drive that doesn’t have auto-inject is just sacrilege.

Even after leaving the Mac in the late 90s and building my own PCs getting to mess with a Mac was always a nice experience because they were so nicely built physically.

pvg2• 2 years ago

And the idea of a floppy drive that doesn’t have auto-inject is just sacrilege.

Auto inject was gone from Macs well before this model so it wasn't directly connected to the cheapness of this thing.

MBCook3• 2 years ago

Oh. That’s too bad.

The first 3.5” drive I ever had was in an LC II. Before that I had only used a 5.25 in a PC XT or something like that. Being able to have it suck a disc in or ejecting a disc and having it pop out with that great mechanical noise was fantastic.

Because my age I thought all drives were like that. The first time I used a Windows PC (3.0?) I was surprised that you had to push the disc in by hand and that it didn’t just show up on the desktop in Windows. I had to be introduced to the concept of drive letters. Seemed relatively barbaric to young me.

Of course within about two years I was asking for my own PC for all the great games. So that didn’t last all that long.

rbanffy7• 2 years ago

It vanished with the 800K drives, in the Motorola era. My Color Classic doesn't inject the disk.

Mikhail_Edoshin2• 2 years ago

There is a small hole near the floppy drive and there also was a pin to eject a disk when the computer was off, similar to how SIM cards are handled in modern phones. Good design, actually; harder to damage data.

cmiller1• 2 years ago

I used to have a 4400/200 with the PC card and honestly loved the thing. It was my first Powermac and I could press cmd+enter to switch into windows 95, it felt so cool at the time.

kasey_junk• 2 years ago

I had a 7600 with the PC Card. Favorite computer I ever owned.

Lammy6• 2 years ago

TIL that's also the fastest PC card Apple shipped and is Gestalt-locked to the 4400/7220: http://www.oliver-schubert.com/DOScard/DOScard.html#wishiwer...

undersuit• 2 years ago

There seems to be a lot of hate for the left side disk drive. Are right handed people so incapable that they can't handle a bit of ambidexterity? /s

I just went and tried inserting a floppy disk with either hand and it was exceptionally easy.

Wouldn't a left side disk drive and the standard right side mouse placement be a superior workflow?

Was the dislike just because of the change?

firecall• 2 years ago

IIRC no in the real world cared about the left sided mounting of the drive.

I've never heard that complaint mentioned before, so that article is the first I've heard of it.

My anecdata is working at Apple and Apple Dealers in the mid 90s to 2001.

But then not many of them got sold in my sphere IIRC. We were selling 8600s and then G3s into Ad Agencies etc.. at that point.

MBCook3• 2 years ago

I suspect it’s more just that it doesn’t “fit“ the way all the other machines were, it stands out and not in an impressive way. It just sort of increases the otherness.

I agree the stuff about being harder for right hand is probably just made up after the fact as color commentary.

Lammy6• 2 years ago

Was the dislike just because of the change?

It's just because it looked like a WIntel PC and thus was a threat to the collective illusion that 1996-Apple offered anything substantially different or better than Windows '95 (source: was a 1996 Macintosh user who used the term “WIntel”)

Compare:

- Compaq DeskPro https://serialport.org/pcs/compaq/compaq-deskpro-en-c300a/#p...

- Packard Bell Legend https://old.reddit.com/r/retrobattlestations/comments/hjomez...

- HP Pavilion https://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/histnfacts/museum/personal...

- Gateway 2000 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Gateway_...

Lammy6• 2 years ago

Downvote all you want but I was there and literally heard people complain about it for this reason lol

MikeRichardson2• 2 years ago

the collective illusion that 1996-Apple offered anything substantially different or better than Windows '95

PowerPC

SllX• 2 years ago

Reads like it was just a bad Mac all-around but the left-hand floppy drive was a visible symbol of that on the face of the machine because it was different from what was normal for a Macintosh in a machine that was full of things that were different from a normal Macintosh.

Also knowing Stephen Hackett, I don't think he's capable of hate for older Macs. He seems to love even the oddest of ducks and has a lab full of them.

fredoralive3• 2 years ago

I think there’s just a bit of snobbery. It’s an off the shelf LPX chassis with a “Logic Board LPX-40” that Apple also supplied to clone makers. The floppy drive being on the “wrong” side is just proof that it somehow lacks that special something.

nikau• 2 years ago

Whole thing seems like a bunch of whining about things that don't matter and are good ways to reduce cost with minimal impact.

The auto voltage switching - how often are you taking your PC to another country with a different voltage?

The lower quality case finish - how many mac users ever dared open the case?

dhosek• 2 years ago

The era of 4-digit Mac names was such a mess, trying to figure out which one was the best option available at your price point, One of the best things Steve Jobs did on his return was to trim the number of Mac models to a minimum. When my ex-wife was looking to upgrade her Windows laptop a few years back, she ended up in analysis paralysis because the options just from HP were so complicated that she couldn’t figure out what she should buy. Say what you will about Apple’s extreme overcharging for internal memory and storage, it’s at least easy to pick the right Mac for yourself.

bombcar2• 2 years ago

It’s also a better strategy for the company because you’ll easily pick the right “level” and then it’s much easier to upsell you on a part or two.

If instead they give you ten thousand combinations you’re much more likely to just grab “the cheapest”.

rbanffy7• 2 years ago

you’re much more likely to just grab “the cheapest”.

And then realize there were better deals at the time and tarnish the brand.

Absolutely simplifying the lineup to four Macs was the best decision. Right now they have one more than they should - the MacPro and Mac Studio seem to clash a lot, especially since you can't use the PCIe slots of the Pro for GPUs. What do people put in those slots? I'd assume storage and fast networking.

sgt5• 2 years ago

Especially as a developer - Macs are like a godsend for us. And it's a device that you use 8-14 hours a day. Sure, pay a bit extra for RAM (which btw has much better bandwidth than the competition), in the end that extra cost is negligible.

adastra225• 2 years ago

Yeah both RAM and storage aren’t comparing apples to apples (heh) when compared as people often do. If you double the storage on your MacBook, Apple doubles the number of storage chips, with dedicated pcie lanes to each. Since it internally operates with something like RAID0, you also get double the speed.

prmoustache2• 2 years ago

Aren't Mac the opposite for the developers with subpar support for say, containers and dev tools, and crappy out of the box window management compared to a laptop running on linux?

Seems to me you have to do a lot of manual tweaking and install before having something half decent as a dev.

scarface_744• 2 years ago

All of the Macs finally come with 16 GB RAM which is decent.

prmoustache2• 2 years ago

she couldn’t figure out what she should buy.

I am not sure what "should" means in that context.

Surely many models would have been suitable. It is more a self induced SKU nightmare/issue for the manufacturer.

lproven13• 2 years ago

I am not sure what "should" means in that context.

Really?

The phrase means "what was the best choice", which means "she could not figure out which model offered the best balance of price, performance and features."

I can't offhand think of a more efficient way to phrase it, TBH.

amelius2• 2 years ago

One of the best things Steve Jobs did on his return was to trim the number of Mac models to a minimum.

So much for choice.

kwanbix• 2 years ago

100% agree. I call it the "toothpaste paralysis." It’s like when you’re shopping for toothpaste, and brands like Colgate have so many overlapping options that it becomes impossible to figure out which one is actually the best. Unfortunately, I think the same thing is starting to happen with MacBooks again. It’s not as bad as before, but it’s definitely not as straightforward as it used to be.

KerrAvon2• 2 years ago

The MacBook choices today seem relatively clear?

- Pro if you need maximum CPU/GPU power.

- Air if you want something lightweight and don't need the "Pro" level CPU/GPU power

If you're only doing email/web, you should probably go Air. (There are no bad choices with the Apple silicon Macs for general use, it's mainly a question of how slow you want your video rendering chores and Xcode builds to be.)

Then multiply by screen sizes, which determines the overall size of the machine.

Edit: formatting. HackerNews support markdown challenge.

Edit 2: fuck, forgot non-Pro. Maybe you're right.

rqtwteye• 2 years ago

iPad has reached that state. The regular iPad and the Pro make some sense but the Air is in a very awkward middle.

kergonath2• 2 years ago

The era of 4-digit Mac names was such a mess, trying to figure out which one was the best option available at your price point

Yeah. I really liked my 9600 but the Performa lines were way too confusing.

troyvit2• 2 years ago

I didn't mind it that much because the higher the number was the more powerful the computer tended to be. The 9500 was super good. The 8500 not bad. The 7500 was the best of the mediocre, and the 7200 was similar but not as great.

During that time we bought our Macs from a local computer store. Our guy, Fred, always helped advise us, but he was pretty frustrated overall with the whole situation. I mean he also didn't get why anybody would want a Mac when Windows devices were cheaper, more standard, and less buggy.

One of the best things Steve Jobs did on his return was to trim the number of Mac models to a minimum.

Fred always said that if they ever introduced colors to computer cases he was going to quit. Jobs came along with the iMac and less than a year later he retired. It cracks me up how he stuck to his word.

KerrAvon2• 2 years ago

Keep in mind the 9500 (and 9600) and 8500 were at or near the top of the line and relatively easy to figure out. If that and the 7000 had been the only things Apple shipped, fine. The problem was the 4000/5000/6000 range, and Performa vs Quadra/Centris/Whatever. It was a complete and total mess.

Your Fred also clearly had a weird sense of "less buggy." At that time, Windows was essentially a GUI atop an extended version of MS-DOS. Look up any contemporary serious review and you'll find complaints about stability. Compare to OS/2.

tcdent• 2 years ago

I used an 8500 as my personal machine for way too long. With a Sonnet G3 upgrade and maxed out RAM, it stayed viable for way longer than it should have.

Lammy6• 2 years ago

I didn't mind it that much because the higher the number was the more powerful the computer tended to be. The 9500 was super good. The 8500 not bad. The 7500 was the best of the mediocre, and the 7200 was similar but not as great.

The general rule was that the first digit represented the form factor, the second digit represented the base model (logic board), the last two digits represented the value-add configuration (amount of RAM, size of HDD, and included software package), then CPU speed was given after a forward-slash, and there might be a CD somewhere in there for configurations which included an internal AppleCD drive.

The PowerPC-era form factor numbering scheme was actually established in the 68k era with the all-in-one LC 500-series, the pizza-box Centris 600-series (descendant of the original LC form factor), the desktop Quadra 700 (descendant of the Macintosh Ⅱᴄx/ᴄɪ [compact] form factor), the mid-tower Quadra 800/840AV, and the full tower Quadra 900/950. Computers were called Macintosh when sold by Apple (like to schools) or sold through Apple's dealer network, called Workgroup Server (WGS) when sold in server configurations (like with AppleShare/IP) and called Performa when sold direct to consumers (like through CompUSA, etc).

It started well with the initial models of NuBus Power Mac: the pizza-box 6100/60, desktop 7100/66 (I had this one!!!), mid-tower 8100/80, and full-tower WGS 9150 — different form factors but obviously denoted as the first PowerPC model (x1xx) of each series.

The 6100 makes a good example of this era because it got an especially large number of consumer-focused SKUs where it was known as the Performa 611{0..8}CD, a server version known as the WGS 6150/60, and an eventual speed-bump when it became the Power Macintosh 6100/66 and WGS 6150/66: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_6100#Models

Then the exceptions to the numbering scheme started with the second generation of PowerPC machines, the first to switch from NuBus to PCI. They reintroduced all-in-ones as the Power Mac 5200 series (famously horrible machines) and stuck the same board in a Quadra 630 style case as the 6200, both with a PowerPC 603. They introduced a desktop 7200 and mid-tower 8200 with PCI but still using a PowerPC 601, so the x2xx still seemed to represent release order and not CPU. But then they simultaneously released the 7500 and 8500 with a PowerPC 604. Were these supposed to be fifth-gen models? What happened to 3 and 4? They introduced a six-slot PPC604 machine at the same time, the Power Mac 9500, but there was no PPC601 9200.

Next year, the 6400 appeared in a curvy and quite nice-looking consumer mid-tower case, but 6xxx has now represented three different form factors. The 7600, 8600, and 9600 replace their respective x500 counterparts, so now we're back to release order? It doesn't mean CPU generation, because there are higher-end 9500s with PPC604e instead of just 604, and lower-end 7600s with just 604 and not 604e.

The year after that, the Power Macintosh 7300 (I had this one!!!) replaces the 7200 and the 7600, so now we're going backwards even though it's a better computer? It doesn't mean release year, because the 5300 and 6300 are a year older and are just speed bumps of the 5200 and 6200. Except the 5260 which is newer than the 5300 and a much better machine, which was replaced by the 5400 which is a 6400 board in a 5xxx-style case. Except the 6360 which is a 6400 board in a 6200/6300-style case because they had already used 6400 for the tower form-factor the board came from. The 6500 and 5500 were speed bumps of the 6400 and 5400, but at the time of their release were two years newer than the 7500/8500/9500.

The 4400 falls outside of all of this, so at the time it felt like Apple trying to build a cheap Wintel-style business machine. There had been 68030 machines numbered 4xx, but they were consumer-only Performa variants of the LC Ⅲ. Except the LC 475 which was a Quadra 605 in a LC Ⅲ style case.

Except, except, except. What a fucking mess lol

have_faith• 2 years ago

I think the iPad is the current outlier of that strategy. There's the iPad, iPad Mini, iPad Air, and iPad Pro, with overlapping sizes. It's too much differentiation I think.

robertoandred• 2 years ago

Don't forget iPad keyboards! That's a whole other level of overload.

drooopy• 2 years ago

I still don't understand why the iPad mini needs to be its own separate product category instead of it just being the 8" iPad Air.

vardump• 2 years ago

The era of 4-digit Mac names was such a mess...

Same goes for a lot of other products. For example CPUs, GPUs, TVs and fridges.

Sometimes appliance names are nearly impenetrable.

mrcwinn• 2 years ago

How dare you attempt to sully the honor of my beloved Power Mac 9500, or take an implicit shot at my Performa 638CD — which was not even 4 digits, but 3 digits and 2 letters. You need to check your wiring, friend, or dial up your SoftRAM.

Suppafly• 2 years ago

When my ex-wife was looking to upgrade her Windows laptop a few years back, she ended up in analysis paralysis because the options just from HP were so complicated that she couldn’t figure out what she should buy.

It's like cars where they bundle one feature you want with a bunch of stuff you don't care about to force you into overspending.

webwielder2• 2 years ago

6400 on the other hand was up there with the Color Classic, Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh, and PowerBook 500 as objects of 90s pre-Jobs desire.

Mikhail_Edoshin2• 2 years ago

I had that model. Modernized it later by adding more memory, more video memory and eventually a Sonnect G3 extension card that made it very fast. With that card it did run Mac OS X, 10.3, as far as I remember, and was fairly usable.

What it did not have though was true color; the video card simply did not produce it, even with maxed out video memory. As far as I understand the cause was that the memory was too slow for that.

scarface_744• 2 years ago

It could have been worse. Apple use to love selling Macs that were crippled by horrible buses.

My first Mac was an LCII. It had a 32 bit 68030–16Mhz processor with a 16 bit bus.

I won’t even get started with the 12 inch 512x384 monitor that few games were compatible with

TacticalCoder• 2 years ago

TFA says it s been followed by the Macintosh G3 desktop... But the G3 was just a beige PC too. Slightly heavier than a regular tower PC but still very beige.

Not Apple s greatest era. They weren't the old Mac cool anymore and they weren't yet iPod/iPhone/iPad cool.

Some G4 were actually good looking and had a great monitor too. But to me the G3 that followed that 4400 was just as bad Apple.

I have fond memories of the OS and still own it though.

johnklos• 2 years ago

I don't think it was that bad. I think it was different, and it was confusing to compare the Tanzania systems to anything else Apple, but it wasn't a bad system by itself.

I found a Motorola Starmax desktop (not tower) in the trash in Manhattan in the early 2000s. It chimed but didn't show video, so I installed a disk, installed NetBSD and used it as server for many, many years. It was very decently performant and incredibly stable.

These days I think it'd need a recap and the 160 megabyte limit would make it less useful than it was, but I still have only good things to say about it.

The Power Mac 4400

Related Stories