PowerBook 5300-gotchas?

[croissantking]

Maybe because those who have a PPC upgrade in their 500 series feel fortunate to do so?

 

[Phipli]

I do feel like people undersell the 5300's performance because of how underwhelming it was on launch though. Doom is a laggy mess on my 540c, but the 5300 plays it smooth. Neither feel fast in the OS, but the improvements are there and obvious once you start running programs.

But looking at it retrospectively, the 1400 is effectively the same thing done better... So you get a PB1400?

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

Maybe because those who have a PPC upgrade in their 500 series feel fortunate to do so?

Well yeah, as a rare 5300 fan, I'd kill to have one of those upgrades in my 540c. I just find it curious how the perception is so different.

But looking at it retrospectively, the 1400 is effectively the same thing done better... So you get a PB1400?

The 1400 is another funny case to me. The 133MHz 1400c with L2 didn't launch until February of 1997 - on launch in August of 96', it was the same performance that was underwhelming in 1995, only a year later. Shows what a good design can do for the reputation of a product. They essentially released the 5300ce again with a much better case and CD-ROM support, and it did well.

 

[croissantking]

For the avoidance of doubt, the 117MHz PB1400 is painfully slow.

 

[Phipli]

The 133MHz 1400c with L2 didn't launch until February of 1997

Everymac says Nov 1996, but I have to admit I don't trust any of the Launch dates online.

It was a bad period for laptops. Apple's machines went from very similar performance to desktops, to the 603 based machines through to the Main Street, then back to making good machines again.

When they were new though, our family's "portable" computer was an SE/30 in a carry bag.

For the avoidance of doubt, the 117MHz PB1400 is painfully slow.

My PB5300 takes forever to boot, between the slow disk interface and the slow CPU.

My PB1400 has a CPU upgrade so it feels much more responsive. That's another thing - there weren't CPU upgrades for the 5300 were there?

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

It performs just like a 5300ce. I've got my nice 1400c/166 with maxed out RAM, but I've also got a 1400c/117 with the base 16, and until last year, I only had the 117. I never liked it much more than the 5300, and I suspected I'd like one a lot more if I had a faster one, and I was right.

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

Everymac says Nov 1996, but I have to admit I don't trust any of the Launch dates online.

Dates I mentioned are pulled directly from the 1400 Series Service Source, so they *should* be correct. I wouldn't put it past 90s Apple to get it wrong though.

It was a bad period for laptops. Apple's machines went from very similar performance to desktops, to the 603 based machines through to the Main Street, then back to making good machines again.

What was wrong performance wise with a G3 Kanga or a Wallstreet? (As far as I've been able to tell, Mainstreet is more of a nickname for the Wallstreet than an official codename. From Apple, it went Kanga > Wallstreet > PDQ > Lombard > Pismo). I do know that the slowest Wallstreets had no L2 (and passive matrix displays for that matter), so those are likely glacial, but the Kanga and higher end ones should be pretty fast, no? My PDQ feels pretty zippy.
The L2-equipped 603 systems aren't slow either, although I'm sure a 604 desktop would put one in their place. It was probably all just a question of heat and power consumption. That's around the time when desktop chips started to run hot. Then again, plenty of PC laptops from the time managed to cram desktop Pentiums in them, although the heat output usually ranged from tolerable to toasty.

My PB5300 takes forever to boot, between the slow disk interface and the slow CPU.

My PB1400 has a CPU upgrade so it feels much more responsive. That's another thing - there weren't CPU upgrades for the 5300 were there?

5300 uses a soldered QFP CPU, so no upgrades. Definitely a negative.

 

[Snial]

<snip>How come when you're talking about a 5300, someone always brings up how they're slow and therefor not desirable

I wasn't much of a fan of my 5300, but that was primarily because it had an awful mono display & a small, not amazingly reliable HD. It was, however fast enough for my needs and the second video card went a long way to addressing the internal display problem. It's quite possible that if the HD had been much bigger (≥3GB would have been OK) I would probably have kept it from about 1998.7 to 2002.3.

Well yeah, as a rare 5300 fan, I'd kill to have one of those upgrades in my 540c. I just find it curious how the perception is so different.

It's good to see a 5300x fan, it was a pioneering laptop!

The 1400 is another funny case to me. The 133MHz 1400c with L2 didn't launch until February of 1997 - on launch in August of 96', it was the same performance that was underwhelming in 1995, only a year later. Shows what a good design can do for the reputation of a product. They essentially released the 5300ce again with a much better case and CD-ROM support, and it did well.

The 1400x has been appealing to me, I admit, because it has a better reputation. The shape looks like a better design and whereas the 5300 looks chunky, the way the 1400x is wider at the front gives a kind of wide-angled lens effect which makes it look cool and 'sleek'. At 117MHz, again that was fine for me as it gave me a similar performance experience to my 5300 (the ambling nature of Mac OS 8.1 paradoxically appeals), and at 166MHz it's close to my PM4400/160 (which with no L2 cache is about 19% faster).

I didn't mean this thread to be an attack on the 5300, I'm only thinking about being potentially helpful when I meet up with my friend & his 5300 in February!

 

[Snial]

For the avoidance of doubt, the 117MHz PB1400 is painfully slow.

I think of it as leisurely , especially under Mac OS 8.1!

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

I didn't mean this thread to be an attack on the 5300, I'm only thinking about being potentially helpful when I meet up with my friend & his 5300 in February!

I have a good summary of the most common faults on my website. I have a page finished for the 5300cs variant specifically, but I don't have it online yet.
Here's the 190cs page though: https://macdat.net/macintosh/powerbook/5300/190cs/issues.html
Everything listed there pretty much also applies to the 5300cs, with the only real difference being that the 190's DC/DC circuity is directly integrated on the logic board, whereas it's on a daughtercard on the 5300 laptops.
A lot of this has already been mentioned here, but I thought I'd link it anyway for an easy summary.

 

[Phipli]

What was wrong performance wise with a G3 Kanga or a Wallstreet? (As far as I've been able to tell, Mainstreet is more of a nickname for the Wallstreet than an official codename

Kangas are rare, I don't know much about them.

Mainstream is the nickname for the bottom end Wallstreet - it was Apple at their old tricks. It is a G3 without a cache which is absolutely insane. Not including a cache on a G3 about halves the performance. It everything short of makes it perform like a 603. Seriously - not exaggerating.

They got a very bad reputation and reviews absolutely tore them to pieces. The second generation Wallstreet (aka PDQ - PDQ is also not their real name, they were second generation Wallstreet) were much better accepted all around, but the first gen ones were good if you avoided the 233MHz one.

It was probably all just a question of heat and power consumption.

I suspect they were going for battery life.

It's quite possible that if the HD had been much bigger (≥3GB would have been OK) I would probably have kept it from about 1998.7 to 2002.3

Mine ended up with a disk from a 10 year newer machine - the disk interface was a huge bottleneck on them sadly.

I didn't mean this thread to be an attack on the 5300, I'm only thinking about being potentially helpful when I meet up with my friend & his 5300 in February!

Mostly my fault sorry. Genuinely the only Mac I really actually dislike. I was trying to keep one running while it crumbled in front of me and I got "had" buying a "better" replacement on eBay that turned out to be worse than mine. I basically couldn't afford to keep it running at the time (student) and had no other Classic Mac OS macs with me at university. I ended up using emulators instead.

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

The second generation Wallstreet (aka PDQ - PDQ is also not their real name, they were second generation Wallstreet)

List of Apple codenames - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here says it's just Wallstreet for the 1st gen and PDQ for the second gen. I thought Wallstreet II was the nickname? I can absolutely believe that Wikipedia is wrong here, but I'm pretty sure it's right here. Either way, I'd like to see a reference from a more official source on the matter. There's a lot of codename confusion online about those two with conflicting sources everywhere.

 

[Phipli]

List of Apple codenames - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here says it's just Wallstreet for the 1st gen and PDQ for the second gen. I thought Wallstreet II was the nickname? I can absolutely believe that Wikipedia is wrong here, but I'm pretty sure it's right here. Either way, I'd like to see a reference from a more official source on the matter. There's a lot of codename confusion online about those two with conflicting sources everywhere.

Officially, they were all "Powerbook G3" because Apple decided we couldn't be trusted with unique names that could be used to quickly identify what machine you were talking about.

But I really do believe that the PDQ is still a Wallstreet. It was considered a refresh, not a new model.

 

[croissantking]

I actually quite liked my 5300c. It was my first PowerBook, and I bought it for £7 from my friend’s Mum’s office during stock liquidation. This must have been the very early 2000s but I don’t recall too much. It had all the usual problems which I eventually sorted out then sold the thing on eBay for £30 a few years later.

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

unique names

They gave us very totally unique and easy to understand names, totally (sarcasm).
Kanga = "PowerBook G3"
Wallstreet = "PowerBook G3 Series"
PDQ = "PowerBook G3 Series (September 1998)"
Lombard = "PowerBook G3 (Bronze Keyboard)"
Pismo = "PowerBook (FireWire)" (yep, no G3)

On the whole G3 codenames thing - I do really believe it is supposed to be Wallstreet and PDQ, but after this long, at this point, any of the names are honestly valid since most people will know what you're talking about either way.

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

I actually quite liked my 5300c. It was my first PowerBook, and I bought it for £7 from my friend’s Mum’s office during stock liquidation.

This sums it up pretty well honestly.
$7 - not a bad deal. Pretty decent laptop.
$3,900 - yikes

 

[Phipli]

yikes

Nah, that's a G4

 

[croissantking]

This sums it up pretty well honestly.
$7 - not a bad deal. Pretty decent laptop.
$3,900 - yikes

I mean it was still, objectively, a piece of junk in ~2000. But I was 14-15 and I just liked the novelty of owning it. I think I remember taking it on holiday to Turkey and playing Hellcats on the flight there/back. It was early enough that the battery still held a decent charge, and there were no leaked caps.

 

[Snial]

Mostly my fault sorry.

No worries!

I was trying to keep one running while it crumbled in front of me <snip> at the time (student) and had no other Classic Mac OS Macs <snip>

I actually quite liked my 5300c. It was my first PowerBook<snip> I was 14-15 and I just liked the novelty of owning it..

I also had mine as a student (postgrad in this case). I think a common theme is developing here & if @3lectr1cPPC also had a 5300 as a student, we're several steps towards a half-brained theory on their second-hand target audience .

 

[jmacz]

Another thing I just thought of - how come no one complains about performance on a PPC-upgraded PowerBook 500 Series? I mean, yes, there are some EXTREMELY rare high clocked ones, but the majority you'll find are ones that are running at similar speeds to the 5300, still with no L2. How come when you're talking about a 5300, someone always brings up how they're slow and therefor not desirable, yet people are typically way more positive when talking about the upgrades for the 500 series.

Are you talking about complaints about performance now/today or complaints about performance back then?

Do people care about the performance of these vintage machines today? If so, I guess I'm not in that camp since my brain's already wired expecting these machines to be super slow compared to what I use most of the time every day (ie. modern machines). Personally, I purchase the accelerators/upgrades only because I remember coveting them back in the day and it's interesting trying them out. That plus the novelty of collecting something that is rare. I missed out on two PPC upgrades for the 500 series on eBay recently but I also wasn't willing to pay close to the winning bid. With the fixes I've done to my 5300c, not worried so much about the quality/strength anymore. But it's sitting there idle because the 500 design is more unique and thus I enjoy using it more. At least for the things I do, the performance is negligible (even 68K vs PPC -- I know you're talking about PPC vs PPC) between the two so I don't really care. But that's just me. My mental cut off on interest is around 1994/1995. Anything newer isn't "old enough" .. maybe that changes though in the next 5 years.