Internal differences MAC and PC

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Jassen M. West, Sep 24, 2003.

  1. Jassen M. West

    Jassen M. West Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2000
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Subject says it all. could a mac be formatted and setup to run like a PC , could a PC be formatted to run like a mac. Are the differeces only OS related or are the internals different?

    I'm not thinking of doing it , i just wanted to know if it could be done, why/whynot.

    thanks
    jay
     
  2. Vince Maskeeper

    Vince Maskeeper Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 1999
    Messages:
    6,499
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes- the internal hardware is completely different. A program (or OS in your example) would need to be compiled for the different hardware and processor architecture.
     
  3. NicholasL

    NicholasL Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can always get virtual PC for Mac.
     
  4. JamesHl

    JamesHl Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some parts are interchangeable, but mostly not.

    Do macs still use scsi for most stuff?
     
  5. gregstaten

    gregstaten Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 1997
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    3
    James: not really. Modern Macs don't have SCSI built-in as they used to. They use Firewire and IDE just like PCs. That said, there are certainly a wide variety of SCSI cards avaiable from ATTO and others.

    -greg
     
  6. Joseph S

    Joseph S Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 1999
    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    0
    The reason you can't do it is because Macs have a system and PCI bus that's too advanced for Windows. [​IMG]

    Nothing is fast enough to justify Virtual PC though. It's not worth the money. Buy a cheap PC or use the Remote Desktop client to connect to someone else's.
     
  7. Keith Mickunas

    Keith Mickunas Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 1998
    Messages:
    2,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    The key difference is the CPU. Macs use a completely different CPU, the PowerPC line (I think the G4 and G5 are still in that line), that is not compatible with the x86 instruction set used by AMD and Intel in the PC CPUs. EXEs, and whatever the Mac executable format is, are completely specific to the instruction set used by the CPU.

    Of course, since OSX is largely based on BSD, which is cross platform, with some modifications it could be ported to the CPU, but all the software would have to be ported also. Also, with linux or BSD, they can run on multiple CPUs, But porting the code to another CPU requires recompiling code into an executable specific to the CPU.

    At one time MS supported Windows NT on PowerPC, MIPS and DEC Alpha, but that's a long time gone. And it would still require new versions of the apps in most cases. Although I think DEC Alpha version had an emulator but that's not really relevant.

    There's been the occasional rumor that Apple was going to port OSX to the x86 architecture, but I doubt Jobs would ever let that happen. But you'd still have to get separate copies of the OS from Apple to run on the PC and the Mac if that ever came to be. And you'd have to get "Adobe Photoshop for OSX on the PowerPC" and "Adobe Photoshop for OSX on the PC" and so on.
     
  8. John_Berger

    John_Berger Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,489
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  9. Joseph S

    Joseph S Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 1999
    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  10. Patrick Larkin

    Patrick Larkin Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    1,759
    Likes Received:
    0
    Porting OS X to x86 in general isn't a bad idea - but only if a.) apple MADE the x86 systems or b.) had a partnership with a limited amount of manufacturers.

    OS X would turn into an unreliable POS like Windows if it had to support every 3rd party piece of hardware. No thanks. I'll gladly pay "double" (even though an eMac is $799, egads!). [​IMG]
     
  11. John_Berger

    John_Berger Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,489
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow! I didn't realize that Macs had dropped in price that much! Hmmmm....

     
  12. Patrick Larkin

    Patrick Larkin Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    1,759
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...and then the criticism would be MacOS X doesn't support 3rd party peripherals. Its a lose-lose for Apple.
     
  13. Ken Chan

    Ken Chan Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 1999
    Messages:
    3,301
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...and at the price they would have to charge
    ...for the volume they'd expect to sell
    ...to offset the lost hardware profits
    ...to cover the increased development and support costs

    Seems risky.

    //Ken
     
  14. John_Berger

    John_Berger Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,489
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. Walter Kittel

    Walter Kittel Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 1998
    Messages:
    5,698
    Likes Received:
    555
    Why would Apple have ported to an Intel architecture? Purely speculation of course, but it may have been due to concerns about Motorola's ability to provide processor support, prior to IBM's G5 processor. I am certain that they felt pressured by the speed advances of the Intel and AMD processors and having an x86 OS X would have given Apple an alternative if the G5 failed to materialize.

    -- Walter.
     
  16. Patrick Larkin

    Patrick Larkin Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    1,759
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  17. DonRoeber

    DonRoeber Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2001
    Messages:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think Apple was really ever thinking about putting their OSes on Dell type PCs. Instead, they'd probably develop hardware that had Mac like boot prom information, and an x86 processor. Walter is right, Apple wants to remain in business even if their first choice of processor manufacturer goes out of business (or closes that line of business).
     

Share This Page