> On Aug 27, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Matt Rhinesmith wrote:
> 
>> This DOES work, and it proves that this is so in one simple way. If reset 
>> the PRAM, it still says 533 MHz. If you try that with the speed-changing 
>> commands, it resets itself on every PRAM wipe.
> 
> Nope, you're wrong. This is written to NVRAM, not PRAM. Resetting the PRAM 
> doesn't reset the NVRAM. I'll PROVE you wrong. Boot to Open Firmware using 
> Cmd-Opt-O-F.
> 
> At the Open Firmware prompt, type:
> 
> set-defaults<Return>
> reset-all<Return>
> 
> where <Return> means hit the Return key. The replies should be "OK" to the 
> first command, and a restart to the second command.
> 
> NOW you'll see that your "About this Mac" and "System Profiler" are back to 
> their normal settings, and are showing you the REAL speed of you Mac, which 
> HASN'T CHANGED.
> 
> What you were doing was simply changing the value stored in the NVRAM that 
> tells the About this Mac & System Profiler what the speed is. If you change 
> the speed of a Mac FOR REAL by moving the required jumpers (or soldered on 
> resistor jumpers) AND the new speed ISN'T one of the speeds available in the 
> look-up table in the firmware, THEN the About this Mac & System Profiler will 
> say "0 MHz" or default to a lowest possible MHz, both of which will be WRONG, 
> the HARDWARE jumpers set the ACTUAL speed, and the # shown in About this Mac 
> and System Profiler ISN'T from an actual test, it simply comes off a value 
> stored in a look-up table in the firmware which is copied over to NVRAM. What 
> you've done is copied a FAKE number into NVRAM and now it shows your FAKE 
> speed. If you want, I can supply you with a list of more FAKE speeds, and you 
> can play around and make your clamshell iBook say that it's 1.67 GHz if you 
> want, but that won't make it 1.67 GHz. You'll be lucky to overclock 15-20%, 
> and 10% would likely be best. Anything greater and you'll likely overheat 
> your CPU and burn up your Mac without some significant cooling modifications.

Sorry everyone, he's right. I ran Geekbench on it, intending to prove you 
wrong, and it came up with a score of 170. I looked on the result browser, and 
that was the same score as the 366. There were also some listings on there for 
a 467 MHz overclock, and they were in the 200s. Sorry to give you false info, 
and this pretty much confirms that Mark Sokolovsky is a lying #?€£¥$&@. 

-- 
You received this message because you are a member of G-Books, a group for 
those using G3 iBooks and PowerBooks (we run a separate list for G4 'Books).
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-books.html and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To leave this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g-books

Support for older Macs: http://lowendmac.com/services/

Reply via email to