The idea of "low end" is a subjective one. One might say that my
400 MHz G4 is low end - but for me it is the fastest Mac I own, and
I don't consider it to be outdated at all. After all, it's still
running current software perfectly, and it works with modern
peripherals.
You might consider the PC that I'm typing this on low-end, as
it's only 466 MHz. But it does its job. Microsoft Office and
Windows in general run fine on it.
You could say that your Power Mac
7300 does everything you want, and you probably wouldn't
consider it low end. But an SE you
might.
You could go out and buy a cheap 1 GHz Celeron PC, and it
would be called low-end as well, even though that 1 GHz PC
would be several times faster than the Power Mac 7300.
The Low End Mac website (and Low End PC, for that matter) tries to
say that no matter what type of computer you own, it's considered
low-end by someone, but that doesn't mean it's obsolete.
Low-end Macs tend to be considerably more salable than low-end
PCs. I'd estimate that my 466 MHz PC isn't worth much more than
$150 (this includes a CD-RW drive), while a 300 MHz Power Mac G3 from around the same time
is worth twice that - even though it doesn't have a CD-RW drive, as
much RAM, or as large a hard drive.
Part of the reason is the PC's quick upgrade cycle. In 1999, a
550 MHz Pentium was a great machine. A year later, 1 GHz was
great. Now we're pushing 3 GHz. But for the Mac, in 1999 you
could buy a 450 MHz G4 at the high
end - and three years later we haven't gone much past
1 GHz.
We know that Apple is behind in the CPU speed race. If Apple were to
suddenly release a 2 GHz Power Mac, values of anything over a
year old would fall significantly.
It's impossible to keep up with computer upgrade cycles, no
matter what platform. Those who thought a 200 MHz Pentium sounded
great in 1996 were disappointed when the Pentium II, running at 233
MHz, came out shortly thereafter. Those who bought "powerful"
Mac IIvxs were quite annoyed to find
the Centris 650 released almost
immediately afterward with twice the performance.
The point of Low End Mac is not to
criticize users for not being able to upgrade. When I started at
Low End Mac, much of the focus was on 68K Macs - however, I think
that much of the world has evolved past that stage. And for those
who haven't, there's no problem because the folks at the Low End Mac help desk most likely
won't object to answering a question about your Mac IIsi. As Dan Knight stated earlier this week, there are also
archives of articles available about older Macs.
While I can't speak on behalf of the site itself, as I see it,
part of the reason Low End Mac carries articles about things other
than old Macs is because there are other things to talk about
besides old Macs. The Internet in general seems to be a popular
topic for columns. The invasion of privacy that some ISPs may end
up practicing, the ongoing file sharing dilemmas, and the
exchanging of text based vs. HTML email. New items in the PC world
are even creeping up on Low End Mac. Tablet PCs, PDAs, and other
things are slowly appearing.
And, of course, Low End Mac still
focuses on the Mac.
I believe that change can be a very good thing. I think Low End
Mac is significantly better than it was three years ago when I
started writing for it. When I started, there were not a huge
number of columns: At last count
there are 17 active columns, 10 on hiatus or appearing
occasionally, and 11 discontinued. I'm glad I've been able to be
part of the change, and I look forward to seeing and contributing
to Low End Mac's future as well.
