VOGONS


First post, by Doornkaat

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Hey, everyone! 😀
I just noticed my AOpen AP5T Rev. 3.5 has a weird spot that looks a bit like a homemade rework but then again it's pretty clean so I don't know what to make of it.
I googled for pictures of the board and found that Rev. 3.1 has a resistor at R400 while my Rev. 3.5 has this hand soldered looking solder bridge and an IC at U31 where my Rev. 3.5 has only got empty pads.
From an angle the bridge looks like it there's a very thin piece of metal underneath all that solder too. There's also a bit of flux residue underneath the solder bridge that seems to have spilled onto the pads of U31.
Otherwise the revisions look very similar.
Now I'm wondering wether this is a factory rework or if some previous owner just removed the IC and bridged R400.
Does anyone have another Rev. 3.5 board to compare?

Thank you for any feedback! 👍

Attachments

  • AP5T 1.jpg
    Filename
    AP5T 1.jpg
    File size
    105.56 KiB
    Views
    527 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception
  • AP5T 2.jpg
    Filename
    AP5T 2.jpg
    File size
    116.47 KiB
    Views
    527 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception

Reply 1 of 9, by pentiumspeed

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Normal. The solder blob is because the pads is made to be shorted depending on options.
8 pads is for a sub-regulator feed back IC to regulate the main high current regulator.

Do not worry about that, this is original.

Cheers,

Great Northern aka Canada.

Reply 2 of 9, by Doornkaat

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
pentiumspeed wrote on 2020-12-12, 16:55:
Normal. The solder blob is because the pads is made to be shorted depending on options. 8 pads is for a sub-regulator feed bac […]
Show full quote

Normal. The solder blob is because the pads is made to be shorted depending on options.
8 pads is for a sub-regulator feed back IC to regulate the main high current regulator.

Do not worry about that, this is original.

Cheers,

Hey, thanks for the quick reply! 👍
Any thoughts on why the sub-regulator feed back IC was implemented in the first place?
Would you expect dropping the IC (since it was present on an earlier revision) to be a cost cutting measure or do you have any other theory?

Reply 3 of 9, by pentiumspeed

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Depends on needs. IC is more precise, adjustable and can use higher current regulator than the complex low dropout regulator usually found on higher quality motherboards. Acer/Aopen is not known for quality.

Don't need to overthink over this. 😀

Cheers,

Great Northern aka Canada.

Reply 4 of 9, by Doornkaat

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Thank you again for the explanation!
However I can not agree with

pentiumspeed wrote on 2020-12-12, 19:03:

Acer/Aopen is not known for quality.

for this generation of hardware when Anand Lal Shimpi was full of praise for AOpen boards back in the late 90s and my personal experience with them is 100% positive.

Doesn't mean I'd buy Acer today though.😉

Last edited by Doornkaat on 2020-12-15, 06:15. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 5 of 9, by Deksor

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Would you like to upload a nice photo of your board to improve our page here ? http://www.win3x.org/uh19/motherboard/show/188

Trying to identify old hardware ? Visit The retro web - Project's thread The Retro Web project - a stason.org/TH99 alternative

Reply 6 of 9, by pentiumspeed

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Back in the day, we worked on Aopen and Acer stuff and they were not same level of quality as big names like ibm, compaq etc. Even compared to Asus, they were lesser quality and frequently has quirks.

Cheers,

Great Northern aka Canada.

Reply 7 of 9, by Doornkaat

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Deksor wrote on 2020-12-13, 19:24:

Would you like to upload a nice photo of your board to improve our page here ? http://www.win3x.org/uh19/motherboard/show/188

Yeah, sure. I was planning on seeing what else I could contribute anyway.
The page you linked to is for Rev. 3.0 while my board is Rev. 3.5.
Should I upload my pics anyway?

Reply 8 of 9, by Deksor

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Yes ! We'll figure it out (actually the rev numbers you see on here are manual revisions, not board revision)

Trying to identify old hardware ? Visit The retro web - Project's thread The Retro Web project - a stason.org/TH99 alternative