Thread
Cooling for Better 040 Speed
My 33mhz LC 575 hardly feels fast. It's chip has no cooing whatsoever - completely exposed. Even when the memory is upgraded, it still feels sluggish. Would a heatsink help at all?
No, it is just a slow computer in general.
I think the reason is because it is 33MHz. An LC575 was my first computer, bought new for $3000, and it wasn't fast back then in 1994.
That would be why it is slow. If it were me, I'd leave her alone and just enjoy her for what she is. She will never be a thoroughbred with high resolution and lightning speed. Probably not what you want to hear, and they are a great machine, but you might be flogging a dead horse.
That would be why it is slow. If it were me, I'd leave her alone and just enjoy her for what she is. She will never be a thoroughbred with high resolution and lightning speed. Probably not what you want to hear, and they are a great machine, but you might be flogging a dead horse.
Cooling the chip won't help because the 68040 has no mechanism for throttling itself if it overheats. Overheating would cause crashes, not slowdowns. (Possibly if you were to cool the chip to cryogenic levels you could radically increase the clock speed and make a significant difference, but obviously that would require some motherboard modifications.)
Speed is really relative in systems of that age. If you run only period software (or better yet, software that was released a few years before the system debuted) a '040 can seem quite capable. My long-departed Quadra 650 "felt" surprisingly quick running A/UX, for instance. The illusion of speed would of course dissipate completely if you performed a task, such as compiling software or, the one test everyone cares about now, surfing the web, that you regularly do on a more modern machine. Even the crufty old 133Mhz Cyrix machine I used as a server at the time would have the Q650 up against the ropes and beaten to a pulp before the bell had stopped echoing in comparisons like that.
"A pint cannot hold a quart. If it holds the pint it's doing the best it can."
Speed is really relative in systems of that age. If you run only period software (or better yet, software that was released a few years before the system debuted) a '040 can seem quite capable. My long-departed Quadra 650 "felt" surprisingly quick running A/UX, for instance. The illusion of speed would of course dissipate completely if you performed a task, such as compiling software or, the one test everyone cares about now, surfing the web, that you regularly do on a more modern machine. Even the crufty old 133Mhz Cyrix machine I used as a server at the time would have the Q650 up against the ropes and beaten to a pulp before the bell had stopped echoing in comparisons like that.
"A pint cannot hold a quart. If it holds the pint it's doing the best it can."
What about putting a Full 040 w/ FPU?
Don't all LC575s come with "full" '040 CPUs? It certainly helps things along in general.
The LC575 came with a 68LC040 processor, but no FPU.
The FPU will not make any noticeable difference, except for niche software such as CAD packages or UNIX (or benchmarking utilities!). Other possibilities: more RAM needed? Hard drive full/ hard drive on the way out? Drive needing optimized?
As has been said, however, the very best way to speed the thing up is to run period software, and I would say that this should begin with the original System (7.1) rather than 7.5.5, 7.6.1 or 8.1. An LC575 running 7.1 can boot in maybe 25 seconds. If you max it out you slow it down. So keep it simple. If speed is the goal, small programs are not bad but good, as is elegant code generally. If, on the other hand, you are trying to run the likes of that bloated excretion called Word 6 on it, well, then you'll need to get used to going slow.
Though "fast" is a relative term, quite frankly an LC575 running the right software should not feel anything but fast. A 33MHz 68LC040 was not really a slow chip in the early 90s, but was marketed when the LC575 was manufactured in much the same way that a Core 2 Duo is today. I know; I was there.
But it was seen as fast in running OLD software, and everyone knew that at the time, because there was a problem implicit in buying the machine. By the time the LC575 was marketed, Apple had transitioned to PPC, at least at the high end of its lineup. Software was being written for the future, then as now, and companies (with the aid of new coding tools) consequently produced larger, more complex programs for PPC machines. An entirely new OS was promised, and it would be PPC-based. You had to write for it or lose your market. To remain viable in what was always a small market niche, however, they also needed to produce 68k versions of those same large programs, given the number of 68k machines still in use. Even Microsoft did it. The result was a dog's breakfast, especially for the small companies, many of which went belly-up.
Then Apple failed, and failed, and failed again to produce the promised Copland, things got worse and worse, and the collapse of the company beckoned. It was at the beginning of that era that the LC575 was manufactured.
The situation then is not unlike the difference between buying a Core 2 Duo today and a Quad i7 today. The Core 2 Duo will run a heck of a lot faster than an old 867MHz G4. But if we really do get software that takes advantage of multiple processors and multithreading, that Core 2 Duo is basically a dead end. Ten years from now, some kid will complain to an online forum that the Core 2 Duo he found in a junkshop seems slow, and that other ten year old computers seem much faster. And you, or someone else at a similar stage on life's way, will write back saying that if you run period software on it, it will run fast. And that, then as now, is the only answer it's really possible to give.
As has been said, however, the very best way to speed the thing up is to run period software, and I would say that this should begin with the original System (7.1) rather than 7.5.5, 7.6.1 or 8.1. An LC575 running 7.1 can boot in maybe 25 seconds. If you max it out you slow it down. So keep it simple. If speed is the goal, small programs are not bad but good, as is elegant code generally. If, on the other hand, you are trying to run the likes of that bloated excretion called Word 6 on it, well, then you'll need to get used to going slow.
Though "fast" is a relative term, quite frankly an LC575 running the right software should not feel anything but fast. A 33MHz 68LC040 was not really a slow chip in the early 90s, but was marketed when the LC575 was manufactured in much the same way that a Core 2 Duo is today. I know; I was there.
But it was seen as fast in running OLD software, and everyone knew that at the time, because there was a problem implicit in buying the machine. By the time the LC575 was marketed, Apple had transitioned to PPC, at least at the high end of its lineup. Software was being written for the future, then as now, and companies (with the aid of new coding tools) consequently produced larger, more complex programs for PPC machines. An entirely new OS was promised, and it would be PPC-based. You had to write for it or lose your market. To remain viable in what was always a small market niche, however, they also needed to produce 68k versions of those same large programs, given the number of 68k machines still in use. Even Microsoft did it. The result was a dog's breakfast, especially for the small companies, many of which went belly-up.
Then Apple failed, and failed, and failed again to produce the promised Copland, things got worse and worse, and the collapse of the company beckoned. It was at the beginning of that era that the LC575 was manufactured.
The situation then is not unlike the difference between buying a Core 2 Duo today and a Quad i7 today. The Core 2 Duo will run a heck of a lot faster than an old 867MHz G4. But if we really do get software that takes advantage of multiple processors and multithreading, that Core 2 Duo is basically a dead end. Ten years from now, some kid will complain to an online forum that the Core 2 Duo he found in a junkshop seems slow, and that other ten year old computers seem much faster. And you, or someone else at a similar stage on life's way, will write back saying that if you run period software on it, it will run fast. And that, then as now, is the only answer it's really possible to give.
Beachycove, great answer. Well written and makes a lot of sense.
For interest's sake, my LC575 came with System 7.5.3, and seemed to run it fine.
For interest's sake, my LC575 came with System 7.5.3, and seemed to run it fine.
@ Beachycove, how poetic.
Currently the 575 runs 7.5.5 - wouldn't dare anything higher. I have tried using Norton Speed Disk, but the program requires a special startup disk to work.
Currently the 575 runs 7.5.5 - wouldn't dare anything higher. I have tried using Norton Speed Disk, but the program requires a special startup disk to work.
You could get one of those overclock crystals for it. 
I bet you could overclock it quite a bit if you add a heat sink. You could use an adhesive thermal pad or something.
As others have said, speed is all relative. If you've been running your Classic software on a G3 or G4, an 040 will definitely feel slow. However, at the time, it wasn't a bad chip.
I remember when we got LC 475s at school way back when. (The 475 is the modular version of the 575). Compared to the LCs and LC IIs we were running at the time, these things were speedy. Load times were cut in half, if not more, on some of the programs we ran. To make a fair call on the speed of the 575, it's best to put it next to something like an original LC or a Color Classic that hasn't been upgraded. (Try it against an SE or Classic for an even more noticeable effect).
Remember too that the 575 was one of many machines targeted at schools. In the education market, the lower-spec computers are usually the hot commodity and generally are marketed as mass purchases towards schools. We saw this with the entire LC series, the base model iMac G3, the eMac, the 17" iMac, and other low-cost computers that are nonetheless capable (the white MacBook would be a good current example). The 040 was pretty cheap by the time the 575 came out (the PPC processors were also appearing) and thanks to an integrated color monitor and CD-ROM drive, schools snapped the 575s up, particularly in the 1994-1995 school year. (The 5200s came out for the following year, but the 575 was also available for a discount--a very attractive option in schools where funds were running low and computers were needed to replace aging Apple IIs and older Macs and also to create new labs at a time when technology programs were becoming more prominent, both as computer classes and as integration into the general curriculum).
Educational software system requirements are always fairly low since not all schools can afford new computers every year, and the 575s did have fairly long and productive lives as lab and later classroom machines as a result. (When the 575 came out, many educational titles could still run on Pluses). I saw the 040s in use in schools around here as late as 2003; by that point the iMacs and eMacs had largely replaced them due in large part to the hardware required for online software packages (again, the base level iMacs and eMacs were entry-level computers with decent power and a low price tag, plus the CD-ROM and color display was integrated into one easily movable package).
I remember when we got LC 475s at school way back when. (The 475 is the modular version of the 575). Compared to the LCs and LC IIs we were running at the time, these things were speedy. Load times were cut in half, if not more, on some of the programs we ran. To make a fair call on the speed of the 575, it's best to put it next to something like an original LC or a Color Classic that hasn't been upgraded. (Try it against an SE or Classic for an even more noticeable effect).
Remember too that the 575 was one of many machines targeted at schools. In the education market, the lower-spec computers are usually the hot commodity and generally are marketed as mass purchases towards schools. We saw this with the entire LC series, the base model iMac G3, the eMac, the 17" iMac, and other low-cost computers that are nonetheless capable (the white MacBook would be a good current example). The 040 was pretty cheap by the time the 575 came out (the PPC processors were also appearing) and thanks to an integrated color monitor and CD-ROM drive, schools snapped the 575s up, particularly in the 1994-1995 school year. (The 5200s came out for the following year, but the 575 was also available for a discount--a very attractive option in schools where funds were running low and computers were needed to replace aging Apple IIs and older Macs and also to create new labs at a time when technology programs were becoming more prominent, both as computer classes and as integration into the general curriculum).
Educational software system requirements are always fairly low since not all schools can afford new computers every year, and the 575s did have fairly long and productive lives as lab and later classroom machines as a result. (When the 575 came out, many educational titles could still run on Pluses). I saw the 040s in use in schools around here as late as 2003; by that point the iMacs and eMacs had largely replaced them due in large part to the hardware required for online software packages (again, the base level iMacs and eMacs were entry-level computers with decent power and a low price tag, plus the CD-ROM and color display was integrated into one easily movable package).
It's interesting!
I've been through a few schools, thanks to moving states and suburbs a few times. Here is a list of Apple computers I encountered in my schooling years:
First was a //e, playing Carmen Sandiego in Monochrome.
Then it was a Mac Classic, still playing Carmen and Type!
After that was Classic Color and Classic Color II, with an LC475 thrown in for good measure, using ClarisWorks 2.0.
Then it was a mainly PC school, but in the Art Dept, they had PowerPCs, mainly PM 5500s and 6100s.
Then, in my final year, they opened up a classroom that hadn't been touched in years, and we all played with Mac Pluses, with Dot Matrix printers. People complained so bad about how slow they were, but I was just glad to get away from the PCs (although I did enjoy Wolfenstein 3D/Doom/Quake over the network!).
Although I owned an LC575, I never saw one in a school. Maybe they weren't discounted over here?
I've been through a few schools, thanks to moving states and suburbs a few times. Here is a list of Apple computers I encountered in my schooling years:
First was a //e, playing Carmen Sandiego in Monochrome.
Then it was a Mac Classic, still playing Carmen and Type!
After that was Classic Color and Classic Color II, with an LC475 thrown in for good measure, using ClarisWorks 2.0.
Then it was a mainly PC school, but in the Art Dept, they had PowerPCs, mainly PM 5500s and 6100s.
Then, in my final year, they opened up a classroom that hadn't been touched in years, and we all played with Mac Pluses, with Dot Matrix printers. People complained so bad about how slow they were, but I was just glad to get away from the PCs (although I did enjoy Wolfenstein 3D/Doom/Quake over the network!).
Although I owned an LC575, I never saw one in a school. Maybe they weren't discounted over here?
That reminds me - I have quite a few school-mac stories of my own, which i'd be happy to tell here (in another thread)
I'm assuming that the clock crystal replacement would be a soldering affair, right?
I'm assuming that the clock crystal replacement would be a soldering affair, right?
I have a Daystar 040/33 overclocked to 47mhz using a heatsink and a big fan (mounted in a IIci, no cache module). Basically you just remove the old oscillator and install a new one, if you have a cache module it will probably not work if you overclock the chip much.
I also have a 68040/50 in a 950 that came with a heatsink and fan combination, works just fine (think it is a 40 mhz chip overclocked).
I also have a 68040/50 in a 950 that came with a heatsink and fan combination, works just fine (think it is a 40 mhz chip overclocked).
I honestly would recommend strongly against bothering with overclocking your LC 575, but that's just me.
Look at it this way... did you buy the computer because you wanted a genuinely useful-in-today's-world machine, or did you buy it out of nostalgia? If you bought it for the former reason than, well, you're going to get nothing but disappointment out of it. There's nothing you can do to it short of gutting it and replacing all the innards that will make it even remotely comparable to a newer computer. It's sort of astounding when you think about the fact that Apple was selling machines as slow as the LC 575 as late as 1995 when just three years later their entry-level box was the 233Mhz iMac. That's a 7x spread in clock speed *alone*, and real terms we're looking at something in the ballpark of a 20-50x performance gap, depending on the task. Of course, scale this appropriately for comparisons to machines made after mid-1998. Even if you could double the speed of the original CPU it would still be *slow*.
I would definitely stay away from machines like the SE/30 or, worse yet, the original 8Mhz 68000 Macs. if the LC 575 seems disappointing you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Look at it this way... did you buy the computer because you wanted a genuinely useful-in-today's-world machine, or did you buy it out of nostalgia? If you bought it for the former reason than, well, you're going to get nothing but disappointment out of it. There's nothing you can do to it short of gutting it and replacing all the innards that will make it even remotely comparable to a newer computer. It's sort of astounding when you think about the fact that Apple was selling machines as slow as the LC 575 as late as 1995 when just three years later their entry-level box was the 233Mhz iMac. That's a 7x spread in clock speed *alone*, and real terms we're looking at something in the ballpark of a 20-50x performance gap, depending on the task. Of course, scale this appropriately for comparisons to machines made after mid-1998. Even if you could double the speed of the original CPU it would still be *slow*.
I would definitely stay away from machines like the SE/30 or, worse yet, the original 8Mhz 68000 Macs. if the LC 575 seems disappointing you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Come now, Gorgonops, I like my SE & Plus just the way they are. :beige:
LC_575, I would recommend that you leave your 575 just the way it is. As an owner of a Performa 5215CD running at 75MHz, there's not much you can do to improve speed. And yes, I do run programs that are specifically designed to run on the PowerPC chip, like Adobe PageMaker, and WordPerfect 3.5, but yet the computer still crashes and/or hangs from time-to-time, which can be really annoying, but you learn to cope with these things.
There was a time where AOL used to run on my 5215. Now I can barely stay online at all (random disconnections) & the fact that AOL stopped support for the Mac a couple of years back. But that's why I have a MBP & an iMac G3 that are wireless ready & run perfectly on Rogers Hi-Speed Internet.
A 68000 is ok with OS 6.x and the old software designed for it. I assume a faster 68040 would be to speed up software designed for an 040.
I run System 7.1 on my SE, and there are no significant "speed-related" issues with it (although I must agree, System 6, especially version 6.0.8, runs very well with the 68000 processor).
Lest it have not shown well enough my comment about 68000 Macs was tongue-in-cheek. Of course they run software of the appropriate scale and vintage well enough... although I suppose to be honest the Macintosh was rarely described as being a "fast" machine even at the time. (Contemporary software reviews often describe the 8Mhz Macs as being about as fast as 4.77Mhz IBM PCs for doing a given task... which means of course the hardware is faster because in addition to doing the task itself it's running a GUI. But it did mean a similarly clocked 80286 PC AT could run rings around a Mac in a task like recalculating a spreadsheet.) I was only underlining my point was that if you're expecting an old machine to live up to a new one you're going to be disappointed.
Computer years are far shorter than dog years, so adding just a few years can mean a several-fold decrease in capability. And, sad to say, you'll see this even if you run period software. Take normal everyday tasks like a loading 200k document or manipulating a color image file which uncompressed occupies a megabyte or two of RAM. A modern mass storage device and CPU can handle tasks like that essentially instantaneously, while loading or saving a few hundred K or performing some sort of transform on a moderately-sized framebuffer will take a perceptible amount of time on an old system, no matter how efficient the software is. Undoubtedly any given old computer felt "fast" when it was born because those perceptible delays were that much more perceptible on the last computer its user owned... or if it was the person's first computer having it at all seemed like a quantum leap compared to breaking out the typewriter and slide rule. Unfortunately for the perception of these old machines time moves forward rather than backwards.
Remember when it "mattered" how fast a given web browser would render a page? People used to go crazy obsessing over side-by-side speed tests, because it did matter how efficient the rendering engine was when we were still running double-digit-Mhz-speed CPUs. Some still do, I guess, but... come on, on a new-ish computer *any* web browser can render a simple web page faster than your network connection can give it to you unless you're sitting behind an OC-48. Now the thing that matters is whether that computer is fast enough to handle the latest Flash video standard or amazingly inefficient HTML5 animation. Nobody even *thinks* about how long it should take to load a 200k Word document simply because it doesn't take any time anymore.
When you fire up your LC 575 you're activating up a time machine. Enjoy it! Or don't.
Computer years are far shorter than dog years, so adding just a few years can mean a several-fold decrease in capability. And, sad to say, you'll see this even if you run period software. Take normal everyday tasks like a loading 200k document or manipulating a color image file which uncompressed occupies a megabyte or two of RAM. A modern mass storage device and CPU can handle tasks like that essentially instantaneously, while loading or saving a few hundred K or performing some sort of transform on a moderately-sized framebuffer will take a perceptible amount of time on an old system, no matter how efficient the software is. Undoubtedly any given old computer felt "fast" when it was born because those perceptible delays were that much more perceptible on the last computer its user owned... or if it was the person's first computer having it at all seemed like a quantum leap compared to breaking out the typewriter and slide rule. Unfortunately for the perception of these old machines time moves forward rather than backwards.
Remember when it "mattered" how fast a given web browser would render a page? People used to go crazy obsessing over side-by-side speed tests, because it did matter how efficient the rendering engine was when we were still running double-digit-Mhz-speed CPUs. Some still do, I guess, but... come on, on a new-ish computer *any* web browser can render a simple web page faster than your network connection can give it to you unless you're sitting behind an OC-48. Now the thing that matters is whether that computer is fast enough to handle the latest Flash video standard or amazingly inefficient HTML5 animation. Nobody even *thinks* about how long it should take to load a 200k Word document simply because it doesn't take any time anymore.
When you fire up your LC 575 you're activating up a time machine. Enjoy it! Or don't.
First off, I didn't buy this machine: I found it in the garbage. My uses of it are a combination of nostalgia and actual productivity, mainly with MORE 3.1.
I forgot to mention that it seems my speed was faster when the 575 had it's original Apple-Approved IBM hard drive. My new HP SureStore disk feels considerably slower. Yet I believe it has a faster transfer speed. Odd...
I forgot to mention that it seems my speed was faster when the 575 had it's original Apple-Approved IBM hard drive. My new HP SureStore disk feels considerably slower. Yet I believe it has a faster transfer speed. Odd...
The only thing I can think of is that maybe that the newer drive uses a newer, faster SCSI standard, and when connected to the 575, it goes into a compatibility mode that is slower than the original drive. That's nothing more than a guess though.
Regardless of what your uses are (in my case, it's to read old files & play old games), and how you got it, you can only squeeze so much out of a tube before that tube ruptures, and your computer is reduced to shit.
In my opinion, the LC-series stank, but there was a market for it, and that kept Apple's factories humming (for the most part, anyway). The bottom line is we have to accept the limitations of these units, and appreciate them for what they are.
I'm assuming that the IBM drive has a faster RPM rating than the HP drive. If it's the other way around, perhaps there are defects with your HP drive (or the 575' board cannot handle it).
What about a PDS PowerPC card?
LC PPC PDS cards are either rare on non existant. The common PPC PDS cards are for Quadra machines.
*whining* awww.....
hook u an external scsi HD (format if necessary), copy your system to the external, copy Speed disk to the external
> control panel > chose startup disk of the external HD, restart
run Speed disk for the internal HD of the LC
not compatible with quadra AV's