Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1


    Member Since
    Feb 25, 2008
    Posts
    15
    How and Why are Macs able to run Windows?
    I was just wondering about the specifics on the topic. How and Why are macs able to run windows and why PC's can't run OS X... Let me know any reasons I need anything I can get!!!

    Thanks!!!!

  2. #2

    eric's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 04, 2006
    Location
    twin cities, mn, usa
    Posts
    8,708
    also, license-wise, windows is meant to run on any number of branded machines or homebuilt machines with various processors.

    apple licenses OS X specifically for apple built computers.
    Please participate in our Member of the Month polls. Every vote counts! And remember to use the user reputation system!
    ["Dear Homer, I. O. U. one emergency donut. Signed, Homer." - Note by Homer Simpson]

  3. #3


    Member Since
    Mar 17, 2008
    Posts
    73
    You can run Windows on a Mac because the Mac now runs on the same hardware as Windows. It is an intel architecture known as the x86 platform.

    OS X has pretty much always had an x86 counterpart even when they were running PPC as they were anticipating the switch since PPC processors sucked.

    OSX out of the box can't be installed onto a PC because Mac hardware has a specific chip (I can't remember what its called right now) that OSX looks for upon install. PC's lack that hardware layer so you can't install on them.

    Macs and PC's are the same exact hardware now though.

  4. #4

    bryphotoguy's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 02, 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,978
    Specs:
    Quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro, Edge iPhone
    Before PPC's sucked? I assume you meanted sucked too much power....
    PPC chips are superior to Intel. I think there is a 4.7GHz PPC processor chip out.
    They run too hot to be put into laptops and not enough could be made to support Apple's demand.

    January 2008 Member of the Month

  5. #5

    jram's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 08, 2005
    Posts
    472
    PPC chips are superior to Intel.
    You got that right. Also my 5 year old PB never had a problem like I see here everyday. I wish the stayed with PPC. That company didn't need all the hassle with heat, instead PPC out in most gaming consoles like Nintendo's Wii and makes more money. They might even buy AMD, that's in the future.

  6. #6


    Member Since
    Apr 28, 2006
    Posts
    2,542
    Specs:
    iMac Core Duo 20", iBook G4, iPhone 8GB :)
    I'm pleased with the move to Intel. The speeds are dramatically improved, Bootcamp for the switchers. The mac has gained a lot of ground due to Intel.

  7. #7

    bryphotoguy's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 02, 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,978
    Specs:
    Quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro, Edge iPhone
    As good as their chips are, I am glad they switched to Intel. I would have kept my PC if they didn't. The switch has enabled every Mac user to do a lot more with their system, both hardware and software wise.
    The cooling systems on the last PowerMacs were noisy, leaky and gigantic. It allowed room for 2 HD's instead of 4 and 1 optical drive instead of 2.
    I haven't had a problems with any of my Intel Macs and I'm on my 4th.

    January 2008 Member of the Month

  8. #8

    bryphotoguy's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 02, 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,978
    Specs:
    Quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro, Edge iPhone
    Quote Originally Posted by goobimama View Post
    I'm pleased with the move to Intel. The speeds are dramatically improved, Bootcamp for the switchers. The mac has gained a lot of ground due to Intel.
    I don't know about improved speeds. Certainly, the Core2 is faster than a G4 or G5 but those are older technologies. I can't find the article anymore but the new IBM chips are so much faster than anything Apple is putting the Macs now.

    EDIT:
    Found one- Power6
    EDIT:
    Another- ars technica

    January 2008 Member of the Month

  9. #9


    Member Since
    Jan 01, 2007
    Location
    Cow Town, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,988
    Specs:
    PowerBook G4 15 inch 1.5 GHz, iMac
    If apple would of made the iMac slightly thicker so it could have the PS3 cooling fan design (albeit slightly different) they could stick a Cell processor in there. Sweeet.

  10. #10


    Member Since
    Mar 16, 2008
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by bryphotoguy View Post
    Before PPC's sucked? I assume you meanted sucked too much power....
    PPC chips are superior to Intel. I think there is a 4.7GHz PPC processor chip out.
    They run too hot to be put into laptops and not enough could be made to support Apple's demand.
    I disagree with that. I think Intel is far superior. Although, my judgment may be bad. I used to think AMD was the best. LOL. How wrong I was about that.

  11. #11

    dtravis7's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 04, 2005
    Location
    Modesto, Ca.
    Posts
    28,899
    Specs:
    iMac 2010 27" QuadI7 OSX10.11, iMac 2008 OSX10.11, MBP Late2011OSX10.11 , iPad Air, iPhone 3GS
    Quote Originally Posted by MacintoshGeek View Post
    I disagree with that. I think Intel is far superior. Although, my judgment may be bad. I used to think AMD was the best. LOL. How wrong I was about that.
    At one point AMD was really besting Intel in every front. Then the Core Duo came out. Now AMD is playing catch up.

  12. #12


    Member Since
    Mar 17, 2008
    Posts
    73
    If it is too hot to put into anything then yes, it sucks compared.

    And I would never buy a ppc processor. One of the smartest moves apple made was moving to intel. Got me to finally make an apple my primary machine.

  13. #13


    Member Since
    Apr 28, 2006
    Posts
    2,542
    Specs:
    iMac Core Duo 20", iBook G4, iPhone 8GB :)
    Quote Originally Posted by bryphotoguy View Post
    I don't know about improved speeds. Certainly, the Core2 is faster than a G4 or G5 but those are older technologies. I can't find the article anymore but the new IBM chips are so much faster than anything Apple is putting the Macs now.

    EDIT:
    Found one- Power6
    EDIT:
    Another- ars technica
    The Power6 (and the Power5) is quite a different chip from the PowerPC G6 (and the PowerPC G5), if there ever was one. They are meant for high end hardware and not for consumer electronics. So they can't be used for this comparison.

    Also, if Apple had not moved to Intel, they would never have gotten a dual core into the Powerbook. They just sucked too much power, resulting in low performance per watt. And notebooks as you know are a top selling item.

  14. #14

    bryphotoguy's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 02, 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,978
    Specs:
    Quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro, Edge iPhone
    Quote Originally Posted by goobimama View Post
    The Power6 (and the Power5) is quite a different chip from the PowerPC G6 (and the PowerPC G5), if there ever was one. They are meant for high end hardware and not for consumer electronics. So they can't be used for this comparison.

    Also, if Apple had not moved to Intel, they would never have gotten a dual core into the Powerbook. They just sucked too much power, resulting in low performance per watt. And notebooks as you know are a top selling item.
    That's true. the Power6 is a high end server processor. I am not sure but I think one one Mac uses server processors....
    I was comparing the fact that IBM was able to get past that glass ceiling Intel can't break, 4GHz. Surely, IBM could make a desktop version of the Power6; they haven't because there is no demand.

    January 2008 Member of the Month

  15. #15


    Member Since
    Apr 28, 2006
    Posts
    2,542
    Specs:
    iMac Core Duo 20", iBook G4, iPhone 8GB :)
    Ghz don't count anymore. So even if they made a 4.7Ghz PowerPC G6, it would be slower than the current fastest Core2/Xeon. The Power6 on the other hand would BE THE BEE'S KNEES, but alas, it's not a desktop processor.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Newbie question - Can Macs run Mac OS, Windows and Linux at the same time?
    By dc10 in forum Running Windows (or anything else) on your Mac
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-18-2008, 01:04 AM
  2. How well do the new OSs run on the older macs?
    By iRobot in forum Switcher Hangout
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-25-2006, 10:09 AM
  3. will the new intel macs run games for windows?
    By Mikey Chopps in forum OS X - Apps and Games
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-17-2006, 03:09 AM
  4. will the new intel macs run games for windows?
    By Mikey Chopps in forum Apple Rumors and Reports
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-15-2006, 06:55 PM
  5. run OS X/windows/linux simultaneously on new intel macs?
    By thoughtCoat in forum Apple Rumors and Reports
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-09-2006, 03:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •