• Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.

Distinguishing PowerBooks

Garrett

Well-known member
How can you tell a PowerBook 140 from the PowerBook 170s/etc. by looking at it (excluding the badge.) Did they use different cases?

So far I've been telling 140s apart from 170s by looking at the speaker grill, until I learned that they used the same short speaker grill.

 

techknight

Well-known member
Hate to say it, the passive matrix displays, as ugly as they are, are really the last of the Mahicans as far as longevity. 

 

Elfen

Well-known member
It's worst on the Duo end of the Spectrum! The only one that differs from the others is the 2300c, which uses a different display plastics. Other than that, if I handed you my entire PB Duo Collection, you would not be able to tell them apart from the outside, even the keyboards are the same on all of them!

 

raoulduke

Well-known member
Let me clarify that what I meant is that the screen on a 140 may appear glassier or cloudier (when off) than a 170. If you physically have the machine, it should be pretty straightforward to tell when they're on. If you physically have two machines that for whatever reason are both missing their badges, it'd probably be more reasonable to open them up and make a determination based on the components. That's what I'd do if it were, for instance, a Kanga vs. 3400c.

But to extrapolate from Elfen's hypothesis (I don't know Duo's really), one could also just swap displays on a bunch of models (I assume between 140s and 170s, but between 5300s and 5300c's/cs's or 3400c's and Kangas (apparently) - and then at least with the 5300 series I don't think there would be a way to tell them apart - with the exception of the 5300ce, which uses a slightly faster processor). - Maybe serial number.  I know that the old Serial Lookup algorithms can determine the model based on the serial; I don't know if (i.e.) 140/170 5300/c/cs 3400c/3500 have uniquely identifying serials.

(Note the reflectiveness of the 5300cs's screen (on the left): )

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Garrett

Well-known member
Well, I'm actually trying to figure it out via video. The quality of the video is low (dubbed from VHS) and I can't really make out the badge or any major features, except that the speaker grill is short. I'll get a screen grab tomorrow.

 

raoulduke

Well-known member
I won't bother to broach why...  But a link to the video and a time stamp would probably be better, if possible.

 

Garrett

Well-known member
I thought 140 too, but the video's resolution is so low that I can't really tell.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elfen

Well-known member
But to extrapolate from Elfen's hypothesis (I don't know Duo's really), one could also just swap displays on a bunch of models (I assume between 140s and 170s, but between 5300s and 5300c's/cs's or 3400c's and Kangas (apparently) - and then at least with the 5300 series I don't think there would be a way to tell them apart - with the exception of the 5300ce, which uses a slightly faster processor). - Maybe serial number.  I know that the old Serial Lookup algorithms can determine the model based on the serial; I don't know if (i.e.) 140/170 5300/c/cs 3400c/3500 have uniquely identifying serials.
Well, we can take the case of the 190 and 5300 and remove all identifying markers off them. Since they use the same case, you would not be able to tell them apart without opening the cases and see what CPU in the actual machine! This is the same problem with the 68K Powerbook Duos - they all share the same case.

The 3400/Kanga has a slightly taller case than the 5300, and things are arranged differently to make a CD ROM Drive and battery fit in the case. But other than that the cases are similar enough to need a closer look. 

You may have something in the reflection of the screen to determine what the machine is, as long as it is the original screen it came with. In the case of the 190cs passive LCD, it can be upgraded with the 5300c screen to give it the better active matrix screen.

Compared to the 5300s, the 5300ce has a larger sized screen (800X600) than the 5300 (B/W/Grey Scale), 5300cs (passive screen) and 5300c (active screen) which were all the same size (600X480). and the 5300ce has a different video circuit to support the larger screen, which you could not transplant to another 5300 to get the better screen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

raoulduke

Well-known member
I didn't know that about the 5300ce screen.  The Kanga and 3400c cases themselves actually aren't all that compatible (those things on the sides for instance); I never actually compared the sizes - or noticed, that's interesting.  But yea inside its' very obvious.  Although interesting Apple's manual doesn't make it very clear which parts are cross-compatible.  The manual is the same for both but some of the parts in my Kanga have different part numbers.

 

Elfen

Well-known member
Somewhere I have a 5300 manual. All over the place it has "190/5300" in its pages and only 5300 that is mentioned by itself is the 5300ce, and that is in for a few pages.

When John Draper was in NYC looking for talent for a world tour to eliminate Globally Y2K, he sat down with NYC Geeks (which I was part off then). He had a Kanga and I the 5300ce and much of that meeting was spent between him and I comparing notes and exchanging files. This tour was seriously needed, as many military Mainframes connected to nuclear missile launch systems had come version of the Y2K Bug. The Indian and several Russian mainframes came very close to launching their nuclear missiles on 01/01/2000. Talk about a freaking close call!

 

raoulduke

Well-known member
It's funny.  New Year's Y2K is probably the first time I spent hours in front of a computer screen streaming videos from around the world - pretty much out of that fear.

 

Garrett

Well-known member
Elfen, my question is this about Y2K that I never understood: How could the clock resetting from 1999 to 1900 set off missiles? And how did everyone feel when they woke up on January 1, 2000?

I know there is some Y2K-esque thing that is supposed to happen in 2037 or 2038 with modern computers. How will that affect us then?

Please keep in mind that at the time of Y2K (New Years 2000), I was only six months old.

 

Elfen

Well-known member
It is not that the clocks reset to 1900. It depends on the clock system used. Some clocks reverted to 1900, others would do strange things like setting the year as 19001. Others would so stranger things, like try to flip the 19 into a 20 and end up with a year of 201900 or 19100. In any case, Missile Clocks were verified with a main clock in some city somewhere. If the Missile Clock did not compare to the main clock correctly, the computer assumed that the main clock is down, the city nuked and it would launch the missiles automatically! The crews manning the silos would be powerless to shut them down. Ain't Mutual Assured Destruction grand?!!

And now all of this a automated, the crews in the silos eliminated.

But on a more easier to the stomach, credit companies a banks also had similar problems and would have shut down everyone's credit and bank accounts, and money would become worthless when Y2K hits. Everyone would become poor all of the sudden!  Because of this, there were 2 suicides in Wall Street shortly after Y2K.

Now if we need to get technical, the next Y2K Bug is with the Apple IIs as their Y2K is in 2048 -> 2049. Hopefully the Woz will fix it! (LOL!) There are a few systems that will kick in at 2038 -> 2039, but they are not major. Unix and modern Windows do not have the time on a fixed string anymore, like people do, when it runs out space, it adds another Zero.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elfen

Well-known member
Nada, zilch, nothing!!!

But maybe some old hacker will open up a bottle of champagne when it happens!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

techknight

Well-known member
32-bit timestamps end at 2038 including classic mac... Now, I have to verify my sources, but 32-bit timestamps are going to become a HUGE problem here in 2038. Granted thats a long time from now, but....

Most if not all integrated-circuit solutions, such as the Dallas ICs, DS1302+ are all 32-bit timestamped, This also includes most 32 bit machines, and etc...

So as you can imagine, this is going to become a problem especially in the embedded electronics industry. 

Again, its a long time from now so its possible the industry will shift around it, and new Dallas ICs will be revised but backwards compatible, etc... 

But With the apple macintosh, vintage macintosh in particular, Sure you can patch the OS or something to go 48bit or 64bit timestamp, but.. the problem becomes the RTC IC thats on the logic board.. whoops... cant do much about that. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top