Thread
Powerbook 500 Series Developer Note
I was looking through the Powerbook 500 series developer note:
http://tech-insider.org/mac/research/acrobat/9405-a.pdf
And thought it was interesting that the PDS slot was originally designed to allow for processor upgrades. Considering the Rev C. card cage actually contains a 68000 processor to translate PC card commands into commands that make sense for the '030 bus used in the 500 series, I can see how this would be possible. There really isn't much of a difference between the processor daughterboard connection and the PDS slot, they are both just meant as interfaces to the main '030 bus.
What do you guys think, is it possible to upgrade the processor through the PDS slot (even though it mentions that this function isn't enabled) on the 500 series? Or is it possible to make further use of the PDS slot than how it was used [implement a CardBus slot rather than just simple PCMCIA, etc...] Anything that can run on a '030 bus should be possible to implement, right? I have read that Sonnet successfully used it to add a 68882 FPU upgrade to the PB 500 series (although I will admit, I have never even seen a picture of one, so, while it is mentioned in more than one place, it's hard to say if this particular upgrade ever actually existed)
http://tech-insider.org/mac/research/acrobat/9405-a.pdf
And thought it was interesting that the PDS slot was originally designed to allow for processor upgrades. Considering the Rev C. card cage actually contains a 68000 processor to translate PC card commands into commands that make sense for the '030 bus used in the 500 series, I can see how this would be possible. There really isn't much of a difference between the processor daughterboard connection and the PDS slot, they are both just meant as interfaces to the main '030 bus.
What do you guys think, is it possible to upgrade the processor through the PDS slot (even though it mentions that this function isn't enabled) on the 500 series? Or is it possible to make further use of the PDS slot than how it was used [implement a CardBus slot rather than just simple PCMCIA, etc...] Anything that can run on a '030 bus should be possible to implement, right? I have read that Sonnet successfully used it to add a 68882 FPU upgrade to the PB 500 series (although I will admit, I have never even seen a picture of one, so, while it is mentioned in more than one place, it's hard to say if this particular upgrade ever actually existed)
I have a problem with my PowerBook 1400c.
Suddenly, as I came to do some writing in ClarisWorks I realised that it was running off the battery, even though the power adaptor was working, plugged in and switch on. I fiddled about with the power connector but it made no difference.
Luckily, the battery lasted long enough to allow me to type 1 and a half pages
, but then it finally died. Now, because of the power issue, it won't switch on at all.
I have tried two different power supplies, both of which I know work. I have check the power connector on the motherboard and it seems firmly attached to the PCB. So all I can think of is that there could be something faulty on it.
It has switch on for a few seconds after the battery dies, but then went off again due to the battery not being charged enough. Now it won't come on at all like this as there is no charge left in the battery.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
Cheers
Steve
Suddenly, as I came to do some writing in ClarisWorks I realised that it was running off the battery, even though the power adaptor was working, plugged in and switch on. I fiddled about with the power connector but it made no difference.
Luckily, the battery lasted long enough to allow me to type 1 and a half pages
, but then it finally died. Now, because of the power issue, it won't switch on at all.
I have tried two different power supplies, both of which I know work. I have check the power connector on the motherboard and it seems firmly attached to the PCB. So all I can think of is that there could be something faulty on it.
It has switch on for a few seconds after the battery dies, but then went off again due to the battery not being charged enough. Now it won't come on at all like this as there is no charge left in the battery.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
Cheers
Steve
You haven't mentioned the OS in use. 8.6? Certainly the best for a 1400, in grace, stability and speed, given 48-64MB of physical RAM. What you describe is conceivably a case for resetting the PMU, which gets confused and narky from time to time. This is also the technique for recovery from GLOD, which could be the next step in the PMU's forgetfulness. The (internal) secondary backup (not just a PRAM) battery, which has an essential part to play in preservation of the contents of RAM when the system battery gets terminally low in charge, may be undergoing conniptions. It typically does not recharge unless the system battery has near-full terminal voltage (10.5V upwards), not charge, so see whether you can get the system battery to near-full voltage, and then leave the battery charging for at least another day or so to take care of the backup battery.
de
_________________
(60x) 13DT + 3PB + PTPro; (G3) 7DT/MT; (G4) 3T + PB. System 8.1 to OS 10.5.8
de
_________________
(60x) 13DT + 3PB + PTPro; (G3) 7DT/MT; (G4) 3T + PB. System 8.1 to OS 10.5.8
There was a 603ePPC Upgrade for the 500 series, but I do not know of that was a logic board upgrade or a processor swap. I believe it was a CPU Card swap.
Now this got me thinking. The 1400 CPUs are on a card as well, as well as the ROMs, I believe. As are other CPUs on a card, also contain their on ROMS. The problem where is being the compatibility of the 1400CU Card to the CPU Card connector on the 500 Motherboard. If it fits and is compatible, it could solve a lot of problems with the PCMCIA Booting on the 540. But would it accept the way the 500 has their PCMCIA set up? In the 1400, the PCMCIA is tied to the CPU through a buffering chip, not a through translator.
Again, it depends of it fits and if it is compatible. Unfortunately, the 190/5300/2300 has their CPUs on the motherboard. and not on a card. If it were on a card, I would think it would be ore compatible with the 500 series. Alas it never happened that way. This would undertake a lot of research before applying such a theory to work. And if it does work, it would no longer be a 500 series, but a 1400 series in a 500 series case.
Now this got me thinking. The 1400 CPUs are on a card as well, as well as the ROMs, I believe. As are other CPUs on a card, also contain their on ROMS. The problem where is being the compatibility of the 1400CU Card to the CPU Card connector on the 500 Motherboard. If it fits and is compatible, it could solve a lot of problems with the PCMCIA Booting on the 540. But would it accept the way the 500 has their PCMCIA set up? In the 1400, the PCMCIA is tied to the CPU through a buffering chip, not a through translator.
Again, it depends of it fits and if it is compatible. Unfortunately, the 190/5300/2300 has their CPUs on the motherboard. and not on a card. If it were on a card, I would think it would be ore compatible with the 500 series. Alas it never happened that way. This would undertake a lot of research before applying such a theory to work. And if it does work, it would no longer be a 500 series, but a 1400 series in a 500 series case.
Hi equill.
I use OS 8.6 due to it's compatibility with the orinoco software. OS7 would be my prefered option for productivity though as it is faster. OS 8 is quite slow on the 1400.
I tried resetting the PMU and it made no difference. I also left it on charge for a day and the battery voltage didn't increase at all. It was about 10.26V and didn't change from that.
I can only assume that it is a hardware problem.
I use OS 8.6 due to it's compatibility with the orinoco software. OS7 would be my prefered option for productivity though as it is faster. OS 8 is quite slow on the 1400.
I tried resetting the PMU and it made no difference. I also left it on charge for a day and the battery voltage didn't increase at all. It was about 10.26V and didn't change from that.
I can only assume that it is a hardware problem.
That is understandable, as I can see the 68K being the better processor in a lot o things both Mac and non-Mac Related.
This leaves a big hole in what can be done with what was done. But I'm most certain that you can interface a 68851/2 to the 680LC40 on the 540c either directly or indirectly.
This leaves a big hole in what can be done with what was done. But I'm most certain that you can interface a 68851/2 to the 680LC40 on the 540c either directly or indirectly.