Just as the original 68000 processor gave way to the 68020, so too did the PowerPC 601 give way to the PowerPC 603. The PowerMac 6200 was one of the first Macs to use the new processor and expectations were high...sadly they weren't met.

Despite being a faster processor, Apple once again allowed history to repeat itself and, just as with the LC series, managed to cripple the final machine before it even got off the drawing board. In a cost cutting exercise, Apple based the new machine on the older Quadra 605 motherboard. The speed may have been adjusted for the new chip but the memory wasn't. The 64 bit 603 processor was forced to run on a 32 bit bus (meaning that every access to memory took twice as long as was needed as data had to be fetched in two halves, in exactly the same way that the 32 bit 680X0 processors usedin the LC series ran on a 16 bit bus) but sadly this wasn't the end of the stupidity. The IDE system (as opposed to the SCSI system used in earlier Macs) was designed around an 8 bit controller and this slowed hard disk access down enormously.

If this had been the end of the story things would have been bad enough but the 6200 was endowed with all manner of quirks that did nothing to endear it to Macintosh fans. The serial ports didn't support hardware handshaking which is needed for modems rated at 9600bps and above (users wanting to use a faster modem had to use the comm slot); Using a serial printer when no modem was connected could cause network problems (plugging the printer into the modem port apparently helped); Network stability was affected when no SCSI devices were attached (fitting a SCSI terminator into the SCSI port apparently helped)... All in all, a less than shining example of computing power.

Early in my Mac collecting I set out to get as many machines as possible. I was new to the Mac world and knew nothing about the differences between PowerMacs and 68K Macs except for the fact that PowerMacs ran faster. Compared to an 8MHz Mac, a 75MHz Mac looked very tempting and one duly found its way onto my desk.

To look at, the 6200 is somewhat uninspiring, lacking the design flair and 'cute' factor that marked the Compact Macs out. It's a big, heavy, faceless box that just sits there doing nothing. I know that all machines just sit there and do 'nothing' but the 6200 seemed to do more 'nothing' than anything else. It lacks character and spirit and, although it booted up and did things quicker than any other Mac that I owned (at the time), it just seemed to lack that 'fun' quality.

In its favour, this was the first time I'd ever come across a Mac with a CD drive (I didn't even have an external SCSI drive at the time) and the 6200 was powerful enough to run something like Doom (although not at highest resolution or with all the options turned on). Also, by having 72 pin SIMMs (rather than the 30 pin variety that I was used to in the Mac world) upgrading the memory was far easier than in any of my other Macs (PCs are so easy to 'borrow' from...wuhahaha).

The 6200 is a decent machine but it just doesn't have that spark of imagination and inventiveness that seems to typify the Compact Macs. It'll run 'better' software and does run things a bit quicker than a 68K Mac but, when push comes to shove, give me an SE/30 any day.