Bring back the "Turbo" button

wickedmonster

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2006
70
0
18,630
I remember when I got my first computer, a 486-66, and I pressed the Turbo button, it felt sooo cool and empowering. I wish computer manufacturers would bring it back. Perhaps a button to slow down the CPU and one to overclock it. I would gladly pay extra $$$ for that option.
 

Gangrene

Distinguished
Aug 28, 2006
6
0
18,510
I had that button on my very first pc, an 8086.

Normal mode was 8mhz, Turbo was 10mhz.

I voted best in your poll, but in reality, the button wouldn't be used as 99.9% of the time you'd have it in it's fastest mode.

Good times :)
 
I remember when I got my first computer, a 486-66, and I pressed the Turbo button, it felt sooo cool and empowering. I wish computer manufacturers would bring it back. Perhaps a button to slow down the CPU and one to overclock it. I would gladly pay extra $$$ for that option.

You all apparently don't have a clue what a "Turbo" button was for.
Pressing it actually slowed your computer down. "Turbo" was a slower compatability mode so that old IBM software could run on the new "fast" computers, like a 486-DX66.
 

intelamduser

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2004
183
0
18,680
You evidently don't know what you are talking about.

The turbo button as one other poster stated was used clean back to the 8088 days and continued to be on some systems throught the 8086, the 286, the 486 and even on the 586.

Some systems even had three speedsteps. Turbo mode was the higher speed.

You are correct that some early software which had did not have any timing restrictions written into the programming had a hard time running at faster speeds, these were mostly early games which were written around a 6 mhz clock speed. For these you would run the system at the lower stock speeds rather than in turbo mode.
 

drcroubie

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2006
162
0
18,690
Hey, just do what i do, and have a dedicated "old box" for DOS games like Commander Keen. It's a K6-2, can be clocked anywhere from 66->300MHz, using mobo switches (i love unlocked multipliers). One day i'm going to desolder the DIP switch and rewire it to a front panel switch somehow, so i don't have to take the case lid off to change speed (although i assume i'll have to reboot each time, thank god MSDOS 5.0 boots in under 5 seconds).


And isn't Cool&Quiet / EIST supposed to throttle CPU speed down using ACPI? Couldn't someone just write a software hack to choose CPU speed manually? (at least in linux it should be possible, dunno about win)
 

NaDa

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
574
0
18,980
It actualy isnt a bad idea at all.

While playing games I keep my x2 3800 at 2.45GHz@1.4V but when I'm surfing the net I dont need to waste energy and my proc to heat up my room and my fans to be so loud.
I have a couple of programs that lower my x2 to 1.4Ghz an 0.9V it can run on my BigTyphoon without a fan and you can watch movies do everything and dont notice the lack of performance at all.

Im actualy in the process of making a button like that but it would actualy be a shortcut on the desktop that downclocks my CPU/GPU and a few switches on the front panel of my case so that I run only my HDD fans and at lover voltage so my comp is quiet. Its good for listening music and watching movies I dont need 10x fans at full throtle then.
 
You evidently don't know what you are talking about.

The turbo button as one other poster stated was used clean back to the 8088 days and continued to be on some systems throught the 8086, the 286, the 486 and even on the 586.

Some systems even had three speedsteps. Turbo mode was the higher speed.

You are correct that some early software which had did not have any timing restrictions written into the programming had a hard time running at faster speeds, these were mostly early games which were written around a 6 mhz clock speed. For these you would run the system at the lower stock speeds rather than in turbo mode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_button

I just love it when people who think they know what they are talking about really DON"T have a clue. Read my lips. When you press the Trubo button, it slows the computer down. When the button is off, the PC runs at it's normal speed. Don't feel bad, a LOT of people actually thought pressing the button marked "Turbo" was somehow a speed booster.
Yes, I had all those PC's "clean" back to the days of the 8086. Now you may have had some buttons to change the speed on them. That I vaugely remember. But the "Turbo" button on the 486DX-66 like the original poster stated, did not speed up anything.
 

commanderspockep

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2006
200
0
18,680
Of course, calling it a "turbo" button when its function slows the system down can be a bit misleading, but the button was usually set up so the system would be at full speed when the button was "on".

I just love it when people who think they know what they are talking about really DON"T have a clue. Read my lips.


I'm confused....who doesn't have a clue??? It looks like to me after READING (and having used those same systems myself).....that the button worked differently depending on the computer. Some when the button was pressed meant turbo mode was on. Others when it was not pressed meant turbo mode was on. So it was a freaking Turbo button no matter how it worked!! :p :p

Now back to arguing with AMD and Intel fanboys..sheesh. :roll: :roll:
 

kamiri

Distinguished
Aug 18, 2006
24
0
18,510
You evidently don't know what you are talking about.

The turbo button as one other poster stated was used clean back to the 8088 days and continued to be on some systems throught the 8086, the 286, the 486 and even on the 586.

Some systems even had three speedsteps. Turbo mode was the higher speed.

You are correct that some early software which had did not have any timing restrictions written into the programming had a hard time running at faster speeds, these were mostly early games which were written around a 6 mhz clock speed. For these you would run the system at the lower stock speeds rather than in turbo mode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_button

I just love it when people who think they know what they are talking about really DON"T have a clue. Read my lips. When you press the Trubo button, it slows the computer down. When the button is off, the PC runs at it's normal speed. Don't feel bad, a LOT of people actually thought pressing the button marked "Turbo" was somehow a speed booster.
Yes, I had all those PC's "clean" back to the days of the 8086. Now you may have had some buttons to change the speed on them. That I vaugely remember. But the "Turbo" button on the 486DX-66 like the original poster stated, did not speed up anything.

I just love it when morons quote wikepedia as if it is the definitive source for any topic. Do you even know how wikepedia gets its information? I can link a couple sites too and claim that I am right...

http://www.murky.org/blg/2006/08/04/and-today-we-remember-the-486/

http://www.opentechsupport.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5318

Although I do know that this is not proof of being right or wrong. Simply quoting websites serves no purpose. I read the manual when we had one of these PCs at work which stated that it increased the speed. I believe that you are somehow confused in that you actually do have to hit the turbo button to slow down the PC, but thats because hitting the button turned it off. However since I doubt anyone can produce a manual or official document with how the turbo button actually works, I am sure that this debate will go on and on and on.... /sigh
 

WR

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
603
0
18,980
JITPublisher, would you read your link more carefully? That Wikipedia article implies that depressing the Turbo button on most, but not all, machines causes the computer to run faster. That is in line with my experiences on 286-based machines, where text lines displayed faster upon pressing the Turbo button. A 25% or higher overclock was definitely noticeable back then. It is, however, trivial to reverse the polarity of a button at system assembly.
Of course, calling it a "turbo" button when its function slows the system down can be a bit misleading, but the button was usually set up so the system would be at full speed when the button was "on".
 

rodney_ws

Splendid
Dec 29, 2005
3,819
0
22,810
So was this discussion ever resolved? I'd like to know... just to know.

On a related note... I had a chess game on my IBM PS/2 30-286 (yes, a 286 10 Mhz) and it was a worthy opponent (keep in mind I was a kid) on the easier levels of difficulty... the differing levels of difficulty on that particular program allowed the computer to think for progressively longer time periods... well, when I upgraded to a 486, I couldn't beat the computer on its easiest level... it still had the same amount of time to think... it just had a lot more transistors firing. Damn you Chessmaster 2000.
 

michaelahess

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2006
1,711
0
19,780
The Turbo button had a sole function of toggling the max speed of the cpu to the at standard speed of 8Mhz. If you had a 486 with a turbo button it would toggle from 25, 33, 66, whatever down to 8. I had a 286, two 386's, and 6 486's with it and they all did the same thing. Some you pushed the button in (turned on) some you pushed the button so it popped out (turned off) same damn effect. Stop arguing.

Now if you had an XT it would toggle from 8Mhz to 4Mhz I believe, don't quote me on that one, only had one XT and it never ran :)

The Turbo button sure as h*ll never made the computer faster than it's rated speed.
 

dean7

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
1,559
0
19,780
:lol:

You morons are arguing about absolute crap. Look at yourselves.

:lol:

Why do you think Al Gore invented the Internet in the first place?

Answer: To have a place to argue with other morons.

Nice! :lol:

I wonder what Al Gore thinks about the Turbo button??
 

bigbadjohnnyb

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2006
39
0
18,530
After my mom blew up her NEC 8088 back in the day, our next computer was an IBM 80-286 model 30! Sweet machine. A SPACIOUS 20MB drive, HIGH DENSITY 1.44MB floppy, 1 MEGABYTE of Random Access Memory (they call it RAM for those in the "know"). Weird tho - no turbo button. Just realized that...

Anyways, I thought that the turbo did 2 things? didn't it max out the CPU speed AND also activate the math coprocessor where present? Answer might be in that wiki thing, but I never read those, too much unreliable content. I'd trust a consensus opinion on these good ol' Forumz over a wiki anyday...
 

wickedmonster

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2006
70
0
18,630
It actualy isnt a bad idea at all.

While playing games I keep my x2 3800 at 2.45GHz@1.4V but when I'm surfing the net I dont need to waste energy and my proc to heat up my room and my fans to be so loud.
I have a couple of programs that lower my x2 to 1.4Ghz an 0.9V it can run on my BigTyphoon without a fan and you can watch movies do everything and dont notice the lack of performance at all.

Im actualy in the process of making a button like that but it would actualy be a shortcut on the desktop that downclocks my CPU/GPU and a few switches on the front panel of my case so that I run only my HDD fans and at lover voltage so my comp is quiet. Its good for listening music and watching movies I dont need 10x fans at full throtle then.

NaDa you have a million dollar idea. With today's multi-ghz CPU, it's no longer necessary to run at stock speed all the time. The original "turbo" button failed because CPUs were so slow back then that people had to leave it on turbo all the time. But with the power hungry beasts that we have today, it's time to bring back "TURBO"! I mean, wouldn't it be nice to have a "Cool&Quiet" button for most daily activities like net surfing&email so you can save energy and noise? And a "turbo" button that overclocks the CPU for games or heavy encoding work?

The time has come for "Turbo" to make a comeback. If enough of us make a big deal out of it, the powers that be might listen and give us what we want.
 

M_with_one_M

Distinguished
May 6, 2006
123
0
18,680
I don't like the idea of a turbo button. If there was a button, people would be pissed if it didn't work, so the manufacturers would have to guarantee that the higher speed worked.
If you are going to guarantee the higher speed, then why have a button?
 

rodney_ws

Splendid
Dec 29, 2005
3,819
0
22,810
My PS/2 had the 30 MB hard drive as well as VGA graphics... my mom totally got ripped off... $2700 for it as well as a dot matrix printer. That was in 1989 (we totally should have bought a 386 SX by that point) and the last I heard it was still running as recently as 2001. Definitely built to last... but man, it was pricey for what it was.
 

distortion

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2004
34
0
18,530
huh, interesting. when i had my 386 way back when, it would clock up when the turbo button is pressed down. as a sign, it would turn on an led and also show a higher clock speed on the front of the case. i guess these things are wired differently? :?
 

michaelahess

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2006
1,711
0
19,780
Like I said, they worked both ways depending on who put it together. The LCD BTW didn't mean shit, if you set the jumpers on it you could have your 66Mhz go 99Mhz! They didn't really "read" and "report" the cpu speed :)