If you are running 68K programs, the 190 can actually be faster than a 5300 because of the latter's lack of an L2 cache.
This is a misleading statement. AFAIK, NEITHER the 190 nor the 5300 has any L2 cache. Cache isn't what makes the difference, anyway. The problem is that a 100 (or 117, for that matter) MHz 603e does not have the "oomph" to emulate a 68k faster than a real 68k can operate natively (at 33 MHz, in this case). This is an issue with ALL first generation PowerPC based Macs (6100, 7100, 8100, 52xx, and PowerBooks 5300 and 2300).
There is only one way to upgrade a 190 to PowerPC, and that is by swapping the motherboard of the 190 for the motherboard of a 5300. There is no upgrade card. The processors are soldered directly to the motherboard - there is no CPU daughter card like in the 5x0, 1400, and 2400 series. Upgrading will also require a 5300 PMU board as the 5300 doesn't have an integrated PMU like the 190 does. There are significant differences between the 190 and 5300, but there are quite a few similarities, too.If you want to turn your 190 into a 5300, you can do it just as easily by buying a 5300 motherboard and installing it into your 190 case, as to try to find one of those upgrade cards which are very rare. The 190 and 5300, as I understand it, are basically the same system with a different CPU attached.
They are completely different processor architectures (PowerPC versus 68LC040). They do share the same 68030 I/O bus bridge, however. So things like the PC Card interface, infrared board, processor direct slot, and other peripheral interfaces are common.
It seems to me that the 190 is actually faster then a 5300ce!!!. I have OS 8.1 installed on both and MS office is way faster on the 190. I tried with both Office 4.2.1 (word 6, excel 5..) and OFFICE 98 (WHICH CANNOT BE INSTALLED ON THE 190). BTW: the 190 is faster: offive 4.2 vs 4.2 or 4.2 vs 98...
Ideas?
I don't think Office 4.2.1 is PowerPC native. It's a 68k program that must be run under the 68k emulator on PowerPCs like the 5300. So, naturally, it would run better on a real 68k. If the PPC were faster (133 MHz at least), the performance difference would be negligible.
Office 98 is fairly bloated. Just what are you comparing between the 4.2.1 and 98 versions? You can't compare start times as the code bases are completely different - apples and oranges and all that... Anyway, it's not surprising that Office 98 is slower on the 5300 than Office 4.2.1 is on the 190...
Find software that's available as a so-called FAT application. FAT apps contain both 68k and PowerPC binary code in the same executable package. Compare the 190 to the 5300 with the same software and I think you'll find that the 5300 is indeed faster.
Peace, Drew
--
Author of ClassicStumbler email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> web: <http://www.alksoft.com/>
Visit the PowerBook 5300 FAQ! <http://www.alksoft.com/5300_FAQ/>
-- PowerBooks is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and...
Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Enter To Win A | -- Canon PowerShot Digital Cameras start at $299 | Free iBook! |
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
PowerBooks list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/powerbooks.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/powerbooks%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
