on 8/13/01 Gerard Tripptree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After successfully upgrading my 280c to a 2300c, I re-installed OS 8.1 - "
> ... for this Macintosh only ..." which should have given me a PPC OS
> install. Well, strangely enough, it seems to me that the 2300 actually runs
> SLOWER than the 280c was running with the 68040 and OS 8.1. I did install
> PowerPC versions of the application software I was using on the 280c.
>
> I have 36MB of real RAM on board as well as RAM Doubler 8.x to bump the
> effective RAM up to 72MB. 128KB of disk cache and no virtual memory.
>
> Why would the PowerPC seem slower than the 68040? What can be done to see
> an appreciable (noticeable) boost in speed?
>
I made a post on July 28, 2001 re: Math co processor for 2300? For which the
following extracted comments are re-posted as relevant to your
question--sorry to disappoint :
""
Ha! You'd one (of many) unwitting victims of Apple's (not entirely
transparent) early PPC PR (see bottom)*
<snip>
*A few comments on emulation. At the risk of offending 2300 users, a 100mhz
PPC is much slower than leaner 68k native apps running on an 040 processor.
The worst upgrade I ever made was the PPC 167mhz in a 540c. It was much
slower than the 040 native processor. Boot up times on early DT PPCs are
also miserable. The problem has been (and decreasingly continues to be) that
Apple's OS has never entirely purged its 68k based code, even in 9.1. You'd
be amazed at how fast an 040 can run tightly coded software and how
miserably slow a PPC-601 can run bloatware. Thus Photoshop 2.5.1 is an
excellent portable solution--if you don't need all the bells and whistles.
To amplify on my original reply, you can install a PPC, 68k or universal
version of PS251--it runs fine on a 540c.
I keep an old Performa 636/68040 in case I ever need the ROMs to run Mac
emulation experimentally in Windows, and an "archived" universal installed
suite of older apps on Toshiba 840 mb 2.5" SCSI in an ADB case which powered
my 540c some time ago. I'm "re-amazed" at how well and fast some of the old
stuff runs. Too bad Apple never did an 040 Duo.
""
->[Add: only 68LC040 to avoid repeating the math co-processor discussion]
In a purists's sense your move was a "downgrade". I was MUCH happier going
back to the 540c after getting rid of the 167 mhz PPC (in every way except
psychologically). There were also a swarm of peripheral reasons (as in
constrained cache and pipelines) why early PPCs were good Apple propaganda
but unimpressive computing. The 5300 was most miserable. The
3400-180-200-240 (and later our beloved 2400-180) were the first "usable"
PPC based Powerbooks. Even the 1400 was a comparative snail, but very nice
in certain ways.
----------
Duo/2400 List, The friendliest place on the Net!
A listserv for users and fans of Mac subportables.
FAQ at <http://www.themacintoshguy.com/lists/DuoListFAQ.shtml>
Be sure to visit Mac2400! <http://www.sineware.com/mac2400>
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Need help from a real person? Try. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------
Dr. Bott | 10/100 Ethernet for your 2400 is finally here!
MPC-100 | <http://www.drbott.com/prod/mpc100.html>
NineWire | If they are cool enough to host this list...
Digital Solutions | ...you should check them out! http://www.NineWire.com/
Midwest Mac Parts ][ <http://www.midwestmac.com>
After-market parts for Macs. ][ 888-356-1104 ][
MacResQ Specials: LaCie SCSI CDR From $99! PowerBook 3400/200 Only $879!
Norton AntiVirus 6 Only $19! We Stock PARTS! <http://www.macresq.com>
