Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
desertrout

Portable / Powerbook SWIMs

Recommended Posts

In an effort to nail down a potential replacement SWIM for my 5120, I began looking at SWIMs on other boards of a similar vintage. I have narrowed down the potential options to:

344S1029: the direct replacement, what I pulled off my 5120

344S1029-A: seen on 5126, PB100, 140, 170

343S1029-A: seen on PB100, 140, 170, 145B, 165, 180c (and I assume all others prior to the 150).

 

The SE/30, IIvi, LC, LCII, Classic, IIsi etc. all use the 344S0061-A, which is also PLCC-44 like the above but I'm not sure if they would be suitable as a replacement if power is a factor. My understanding is that SWIM is 100% backward compatible, even with IWC... and seeing that the PB100 / 140 / 170 are seen with two versions of the SWIM, one of those versions is found on the 5126, I'm venturing that early PB SWIMs would work just fine as a replacement on the 5120.

 

Does anyone have any specific knowledge about this? I haven't been able to find anything in search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, techknight said:

They are all the same. ive used desktop logic board SWIMs on Portables without issue. 

Interesting, and awesome - thanks!  I'll source a donor board.

 

I'd be very curious to know the differences between the PN's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL - I suppose that's all that matters ultimately. If it works, it works.

 

Still, even if it's ultimately trivial, there was an intentional choice to put 344/343S0061-1/A in desktops, and 344/343S1029-A in laptops. I'm not going to lose sleep over it... probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can't imagine it'd be anything else (floppy drives are floppy drives), and probably less of an issue for the Portables than for the PB's. Anyway, a seller on eBay is offering 343S0061-A's for $10 (or make an offer, which I did), so one's on the way. I'll update once it's in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that relates to power consumption, then its entirely possible. Unless we have internal apple documentation, then we have no way of knowing, unless you know how to do certain experiments? 

 

Regardless, ive used them interchangeably and luckily have had no ill-effects as of yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, CMOS is less power hungry, but it also has a lower voltage for logic high and has a lower maximum current throughput. CMOS driving TTL/NMOS chips can cause them damage due to excessive power draw. Also the TTL chip can sometimes not see the logic '1' values. There are special CMOS chip types which can interface with TTL/NMOS chips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×