I don't get it. Aren't the instructions different?
I don't get it. Aren't the instructions different?
Nope, not anymore they aren't. Intel wins. Apple and Mac realized that their CPUs were not helping them at all. In fact they were isolating them from the rest of the computer world because they used diff instruction sets and byte ordering. Now they've gone Intel so expect to see a lot more Mac apps running on x86 PCs. It helps Mac and Apple out a lot and solves the compatibility issues. If you can't run what is the most popular software out there you can't do business. I think they figured this out and dumped their proprietary CPUs.
Don't get me wrong, their instruction set was faster...but in business faster or better does not mean successful. He who exploits best wins. AKA: Microsoft, Intel, etc.
Last edited by VirtualAce; 02-16-2006 at 12:02 AM.
I did some searching about this and it seems that Vista might be able to run on a Mactel (that's what it seems they will be called), but Mac has no intention of designing their OS to work on a Windows PC. It was actually stated that it'd be legal to install windows on a Mactel if you owned a full version(not an upgrade), but illegal even if possible to installl the MacOS on a Windows PC due to licensing (Mac doesn't sell their OS, each new version is considered an upgrade edition.) Linux was a different story why it couldn't run on a Mactel yet, but I didn't read much into it.
Last edited by axon; 02-16-2006 at 01:35 AM.
It has always been a license violation to install MacOS on anything other than Apple-supplied hardware.
That's what helped kill the Apple clones which were released several years ago when Apple was forced to open up their hardware architecture to outside suppliers...
It also means you're not allowed to run MacOS in a virtual machine on another computer unless that computer is a Mac itself.
I don't know if this has ever been challenged in court.
The main reason Apple went with Intel now is them falling out with IBM. IBM couldn't deliver the faster CPUs Apple wanted, didn't consider the contract lucrative enough in fact to even bother designing them...
Kinda sad (although uniformity is nice in a way), ppc was a nice architecture, but inferior to other risc machines. Also to the first post, it wouldn't be horribly difficult to make an app which ports old mac progs to x86. The ppc to x86 instruction set is pretty trivial, endianess isn't a big problem, the real problem would be all the library calls (and possible memory references), but apple already recompiled (and rewrote some I imagine) all that crap.
I actually recall hearing about something they made which allows old mac apps to run on the new intel machines, what was that called?
Last edited by valis; 02-16-2006 at 02:57 AM.
That Mac commercial really ........es me off. "Dull little tasks...." it will be doing the same thing in a Mac. I just don't understand why they think they are better than PC's. Macs just suck IMO. Also, how is playing a game like "Half-Life 2" a dull little task for an Intel chip, you can't even play Half-Life 2 on a Mac....So I think that Mac commercial needs to die....
>>Macs just suck IMO<<
have you ever used one? Really used one, for more than an hour or two?
The reason Mac dumped IBM for its chips is because they run way too hot. The high-speed (2.5GHz IIRC) G5 processors need to be water-cooled (I think some are air-cooled, maybe later models...). They couldn't be used in laptops because of this and the power they used (related to their heat output).
Windows won't be able (just yet) to run on one of these computers because they don't have BIOS. They have this thing called IFF (or FFI, can't say for sure) which does basically the same but differently. I think Red Hat wants to try to get Linux to boot on one of these things.
Having an Intel chip will definately solve heat problems. Intel chips are good at that (this coming from an AMD fan). Well, chips up to the P3, which is what PentiumMs are.
I don't really see this as doing any good to Apple. I've always wanted to have a Mac, but since they've moved to x86, I don't see any point in buying a Mac. The only reason I wanted one was because it was a PPC chip. If I want to buy an x86(-64) chip, I'll buy an AMD one for less money. You can also get something equivalent to a MacBook from Acer a lot cheaper (so it doesn't have MacOS. I don't care, I was gonna install Debian on it anyway).
A Mac won't be able to exec Half-Life or in fact any other program if it hasn't been compiled to be used on that OS/architecture, the same as for any other OS/architecture. Some games have been ported, but not many. I believe this is mainly because most games are programmed on DirectX, which no other OS but Windows has.
Mac has always been about been the well though-out option. A lot of work has been put on its GUI, and I think that shows. I think the last Mac I used ran MacOS 7 a long time ago, but I did like it much more than the Windows versions that came after.
SoKrA-BTS "Judge not the program I made, but the one I've yet to code"
I say what I say, I mean what I mean.
IDE: emacs + make + gcc and proud of it.
I think it's EFI, and Vista is supposed to support it. If Vista can run on a Mactel, then Microsoft just expanded it's consumer market.Originally Posted by -=SoKrA=-
But if people start buying Macs because they can support Windows as well as, say, Dell. It will not only expand Microsoft's market but it will also expand MacOS's. :-)
I got an intel iMac. I haven't had any problems with any software, and have hardly noticed that the processor is not what other software is used to (but then again, I have not downloaded much third party software). The switch is not really that big a deal -- correctly written software, unless it relies on huge chunks of assembly language code, should be trivial to port between architectures. I have already downloaded some programs written for PPC OS X and compiled and run them on Intel just fine.
Who'd buy a Mac to run Windows? That Mac costs twice as much at least as any other i86 machine...Originally Posted by joeprogrammer
Only reason to buy one is to run MacOS.
mac's also keep their value.
my old ibook (4 years old) that i bougt for about $1000, resales between $450 - $600 - can you say the same about most 4 year old pc's?
hell, my 1 and 1/2 year old dell is worth about $200, and i paid nearly $1200 for it.
so yes, they are pricier, but after about 2 or 3 years, you can resell it for half the price you bought it at.
Get off my Intarweb!!!!
hey DK, get off my intarweb, k? babe?