Difference between PowerPC and Intel Macs

**Neptune** · 11-12-2007, 07:20 PM

Do you think that the PowerPC Macs are the "real" Macs because the Intel Macs currently use the x86 architecture which is PC standard. Does the PowerPC architecture make Macs "real" Macs and x86 architecture Macs are just "PCs running OS X"?
I think Intel Macs are still Macs and are different than PCs. Intel Macs use EFI instead of BIOS which separates it being from a "PC" and I am sure that there are more little differences in between.

**NanoBite** · 11-12-2007, 07:42 PM

Not off topic, but just a side note about EFI .... IIRC, Microsoft had first dibs on EFI but in the end asked themselves; "why should we changed over from BIOS to EFI when this change could have an adverse negative affect on our consumer market".

If they changed over then might their buyers go somewhere else? Ergo, why change something that works?

I do have the source of this somewhere if it's requested.

.

**Zoolook** · 11-12-2007, 07:59 PM

Two things make something a Mac, at least now, IMO. Mac OS X and Apple Design. It doesn't matter what is under the bonnet.

**NanoBite** · 11-12-2007, 08:02 PM

Very good response .... The design and OS look/feel is undeniably unique and they are the things that the average user are in touch with most frequently.

**baggss** · 11-12-2007, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Neptune

Do you think that the PowerPC Macs are the "real" Macs because the Intel Macs currently use the x86 architecture which is PC standard. Does the PowerPC architecture make Macs "real" Macs and x86 architecture Macs are just "PCs running OS X"?
I think Intel Macs are still Macs and are different than PCs. Intel Macs use EFI instead of BIOS which separates it being from a "PC" and I am sure that there are more little differences in between.

IMHO, the last "real" Macs were the ones made with the 68K (680XX) Mototola Chips. But that's just me...

**Neptune** · 11-12-2007, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Zoolook

Two things make something a Mac, at least now, IMO. Mac OS X and Apple Design. It doesn't matter what is under the bonnet.

But the PowerPC architecture was more "special", right?

**baggss** · 11-12-2007, 11:43 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by "special"....

**Thundermoon1994** · 11-12-2007, 11:46 PM

Only if "special" means more limiting. The way I understand it, the Intel architecture makes it easier for software developers to adapt Windoze software to Macs. This increases the number of choices we have.

**D3v1L80Y** · 11-12-2007, 11:46 PM

A "real" Mac is a nothing more than a computer made by Apple that runs the Mac OS.

**baggss** · 11-13-2007, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by Thundermoon1994

Only if "special" means more limiting. The way I understand it, the Intel architecture makes it easier for software developers to adapt Windoze software to Macs. This increases the number of choices we have.

While one might like to believe that is true, anecdotal evidence would suggest it is not. The major differences between the Windows and Mac OS's are what keeps things from being ported over. That, market-share and ignorance. With bootcamp and Parallels, any push to port major amounts of software is just not there.

**PinkLemonade** · 11-13-2007, 12:53 AM

I do believe that "real" macs use PPC. I keep a number around for very real needs. My white iBook G3 is one of my daily users, and I think that PPC makes it special, different from all the other x86 PC's out there.

**Levi** · 11-13-2007, 06:09 AM

I don't think it really matters; PPC isn't any more special than Intel... you really don't know the difference when using the software, and today's Intel Macs offer better performance.

It's like saying a car isn't "really" an Aston Martin because it uses a Rolls Royce engine... it's the other things that make it what it is.

**dtravis7** · 11-13-2007, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Zoolook

Two things make something a Mac, at least now, IMO. Mac OS X and Apple Design. It doesn't matter what is under the bonnet.

Agreed 1000%. Very good and simple explanation.

Agreed with DB also. Take Mac OSX or even Mac OS in the older days away, it's just a box with IC Chips that does nothing. It's the OS that really has always made the Mac great.

Also all my Macs here but one are PPC based. I have everything from a Plus to iMac G5. I have only the Intel Mini. No Windows on my Intel Mac either!

**Leukeh** · 11-13-2007, 06:22 AM

It's an Apple branded computer... it runs OS X... it's "real Mac" enough for me!

**jram** · 11-13-2007, 06:32 AM

I still have a 17in PB that I use everyday, it does everything a new Intel can do. I remember when you would go on any Mac forum and Mac users use to say they hated x86 architecture, little different now. I would never install XP or Vista on my Mac. You ask 10 Mac users now that have new Intels, they all would say they have XP or Vista running, a little phony to me. I can see installing XP if you needed it for school or work, but just to install it makes no sense.

Thread: Difference between PowerPC and Intel Macs

Thread Tools

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

PowerPC G5 to Intel?

PowerPC to Intel

intel/powerpc, software

Difference in CPU between INtel and Intel Core Duo processor

Compiling for PowerPC and Intel-based Macs

Posting Permissions