Talk:Turbo button

Computing Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Video games Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Misleading

It was kind of stupid to have a turbo button that actually would just slow down the system, why didn't they just called it "slow" button instead?

Genesis

It probably doesn't add anything to the article but I remember that On the Mega Drive (II) (overseas known as a Sega Genesis), you could get 3-button controllers with an additional row of buttons for six buttons total - rather confusingly only emitting three signals, unlike actual six-button controllers. The upper row of buttons were "turbo buttons" which pulsed quickly as described in the article, and had adjustable speed. For me as a small boy this was terrible, when my neighbour had one and I didn't. In Street Fighter II (turbo champion edition) he started picking characters like E Honda, who do special attacks if you just hold down one of the turbo buttons. (Minimum effort, maximum advantage. Of course, I promised to not play with him any more if he did that kind of rubbish - he stopped*) Anyway, I digress. The controller was called a pro-turbo controller or something to that effect.... Ah, it was so long ago...

And even after stopping the cheap playing, he still beat be 99.999% of the time that we played that game. Couldn't handle losing ;) For the record I came to read about the turbo button on the 80486's case, not the turbo button on a control pad. 125.236.211.165 (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo button analog in modern PCs

Modern PCs still have the remnants of a turbo button. Granted, the clock speed of a PC no longer directly controls the speed of animation, as most multimedia applications' speeds are tied to the timer, video refresh, or audio playback. Nor does it have a button on the case. But PC operating systems still have a "power management settings" form, which has the same end result: a user-accessible way of underclocking a powered-on PC. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The modern use of underclocking is power savings or possibly lifetime extension. The Turbo Button was a hardware kludge to accommodate the then common practice of using CPU cycles to regulate the timing of real-time, user interface events. The primary defining characteristic of the turbo button is that it be a physical button, and neither BIOS settings nor acpi have that feature. A second defining characteristic was the ability to change clock speed while applications were actively running. Modern underclocking is either by BIOS or by software daemon and not a design equivalent to the Turbo Button. 130.207.76.74 (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A power management applet can certainly "change clock speed while applications were actively running." And I wouldn't be surprised if some laptops provide a dedicated Fn-key combination for switching between "cool" and "fast" modes. I'd be happy with wording like the following: "Since the 1990s, most PC applications adjust automatically to faster or slower CPU speeds using time values from the operating system. However, some modern PCs that support ACPI allow the user to switch a PC's performance state between low- and high- performance modes." --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of “Turbo” switch on early PCs that ran faster than the original 4.77 MHz.

It seems that there is something that this article could and should make much more clear about the original use of the “Turbo” switch on PCs. I could write it up, but it would all be from memory, with no sources to cite, so it would surely constitute “Original Research”. The original IBM PC, and its immediate successors, all ran an 8088 at 4.77 MHz. As was common at the time on all personal computer platforms, much software was written on the assumption that that was the processor and speed on which it would be run, and depended on timing loops where necessary to control the speed at which the program would run. This was particularly relevant to interactive games, which would become unplayable if they ran too fast, or to any software that needed to perform timing-sensitive operations.

When it became common for PCs to run faster than the original 4.77 MHz, such timing-sensitive software became unusable. Thus, the “Turbo” button came to be, which would slow the computer down to 4.77 Mhz so that it would run at the same speed as the original PC, and be able to run software that depended on the CPU speed for timing purposes.

Of course, as the technology advanced, and we got different, more advanced descendants of the 8088 with entirely different timing characteristics, and typically ran them at much higher speeds, the “Turbo” button ceased to be useful for its original purpose; even in “non-turbo” mode, such a computer still wouldn't have the right timing characteristics to properly run software that depended on the assumption that it was running on a 4.77 MHz 8088. But the “Turbo” button remained a feature of PCs for many, many years afterward, always providing, for no longer any real purpose, a way to slow the computer down to something less than its normal, optimal speed.

Bob Blaylock (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to go hunt up some sources for this, but copy protection was one of the reasons for having a turbo switch: some copy protection schemes, which used time-sensitive checks for dongles or floppy disk defects, would not work at speeds above 4.77 - so the system was set to slow while the software initialized, and then could usually be sped up afterwards, once the copy protection checks were completed.

--Chris Tyler (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

33/66Mhz

While growing up, most computers I saw, of the ones that had a turbo button, actually had a numerical display that changed from 33 to 66Mhz. I do remember though, at least one instance that had jumpers to define what the double 7-segment display would show, so I guess it is possible that due to a preference of the people assembling computers where I lived back then, instead of displaying "HI"/"LO" they made them display the actual numbers associated with the two modes. --TiagoTiago (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]