Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!van-bc!mdivax1!brindle Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware Subject: Re: RAM for a Mac + and monitor Message-ID: <1990Sep21.224309.2349@mdivax1.uucp> Date: 21 Sep 90 22:43:09 GMT References: <71349.26F6CEFC@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> <15050@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> Reply-To: mdivax1!fh06c!brindle (Jack Brindle) Organization: Mobile Data International Lines: 24 Return-Path: Apparently-To: van-bc!rnews In article <15050@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: > >The power supplies on the 128K Macs were worthless; the power supplies >on the Mac Pluses has been improved to almost marginal. I've had a >Mac for six years and have had the power supply replaced three times >so far; I understand this is about average. So go ahead and Interesting. My original Macintosh has been upgraded to the 512KE level. I bought in in early February 1984. It still has the original clock battery (still keeping correct time). It also has its original, unmodified, power supply board. I understand from talking with many people that this is not all that unusual. It appears that a few bad apples (sorry :-)) caused a lot of publicity. In fairness, however, I have worked on my Plus and 512K machines to make sure their power supplies did not fail. Both started to show the wobbles. Beefing up the connections to the yoke connectors took care of the problem. The very early 128K Macs apparently had good power supplies. Apparently some problems were introduced with the usual cost reductions. Why else would later Macs show problems that the early Macs do not? I hope my current IIci gives me as few problems as the original 128K! - Jack Brindle