How and Why are Macs able to run Windows?

Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
1
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!!!!
 

eric


Retired Staff
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
447
Points
83
Location
twin cities, mn, usa
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.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
73
Reaction score
2
Points
8
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.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
3,978
Reaction score
99
Points
48
Location
Chicago, IL
Your Mac's 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.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
472
Reaction score
23
Points
18
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.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
79
Points
48
Your Mac's 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.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
3,978
Reaction score
99
Points
48
Location
Chicago, IL
Your Mac's 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.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
3,978
Reaction score
99
Points
48
Location
Chicago, IL
Your Mac's Specs
Quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro, Edge iPhone
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
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
73
Points
48
Location
Cow Town, Alberta, Canada
Your Mac's 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.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Points
1
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.
 

dtravis7


Retired Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
30,133
Reaction score
703
Points
113
Location
Modesto, Ca.
Your Mac's Specs
MacMini M-1 MacOS Monterey, iMac 2010 27"Quad I7 , MBPLate2011, iPad Pro10.5", iPhoneSE
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.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
73
Reaction score
2
Points
8
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.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
79
Points
48
Your Mac's Specs
iMac Core Duo 20", iBook G4, iPhone 8GB :)
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.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
3,978
Reaction score
99
Points
48
Location
Chicago, IL
Your Mac's Specs
Quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro, Edge iPhone
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.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
79
Points
48
Your Mac's 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.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
47
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Because mac is universal machine! :) I think, to run have two OS in the same time is great, isn't it?
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top