Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mountain Lion and Windows for PPC

justperry

justperry

macrumors G5
Aug 10, 2007
12,558
9,750
I'm a rolling stone.
rabidz7 said:
It is an emulator.
http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/20830/q-emulator
Click to expand...

Thanks, but NOT.

The last nightly build was 5 years ago, the stable version even older.

This Q crap does not work well, slow like molasses, even VPC after MS took over is much faster and even that one is slow.

I tried running Linux on it, did not work, Windows crashed and so on.

Anything running originally on Intel will be slow on a VM in PPC.

A cheap second hand PC works better.
 
rabidz7

rabidz7

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 24, 2012
1,205
3
Ohio
Intell said:
No it can't. Q doesn't provide the proper things for a Mac OS X system. If it did, it would run Intell 10.4.X extremely slowly and 10.8.X would take days too boot.
Click to expand...

Why can I run YDL a PowerPC linux distro on my 2011 MBP.
 
rabidz7

rabidz7

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 24, 2012
1,205
3
Ohio
justperry said:
Impossible, PPC code does not directly run on Intel, if you have 10.6 and rosetta it can run PPC Apps but you can not boot of a PPC Linux Distro.

Edit: There is no MBP in your sig, you probably run it from the G5.
Click to expand...

A cpu emulator can.
I will post screenshots later.
The MBP is in the about me.
 
rabidz7

rabidz7

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 24, 2012
1,205
3
Ohio
justperry said:
Even if that works why even have an old PPC linux distro running on it while there are new ones which run without any emulator.
Thiss just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

That also would mean that mountain lion would work on PowerPC.
 
W

Wildy

macrumors 6502
Jan 25, 2011
323
1
Please read up on what QEMU actually is. It is a multi-architecture virtualization/emulation engine which is capable of handling x86, x86_64, PowerPC (G3), ARM, SPARC and many more.

As stated, Q has not been updated in a while and, as such, the version of QEMU it uses is very old and probably not that likely to work. As I said before, you are not going to get Mountain Lion running without making modifications - it is not designed to run on BIOS-based x86 computers and thus requires extra kexts and other such modifications to bypass EFI etc.
 
Intell

Intell

macrumors P6
Jan 24, 2010
18,955
509
Inside
rabidz7 said:
Why can I run YDL a PowerPC linux distro on my 2011 MBP.
Click to expand...

You can run YDL in Q because that doesn't require much. But you cannot run any version of Mac OS X inside of Q without major hacking. And if you did get it running, it would be extremely slow.
 
rjcalifornia

rjcalifornia

macrumors 6502a
Oct 4, 2012
668
7
El Salvador
Bottom line, Mountain Lion or even Snow Leopard will never run on a powerpc computer without emulation. If there were an amount of never, this will be the maximum amount of never that would ever exist.:rolleyes:
 
rabidz7

rabidz7

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 24, 2012
1,205
3
Ohio
rjcalifornia said:
Bottom line, Mountain Lion or even Snow Leopard will never run on a powerpc computer without emulation. If there were an amount of never, this will be the maximum amount of never that would ever exist.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Of course is emulation! But it works.
 
ybz90

ybz90

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2009
609
2
rabidz7 said:
That also would mean that mountain lion would work on PowerPC.
Click to expand...

Everything about this statement and the logic that brought you to it is unfortunately wrong. Just because A can work on B via software emulation does not mean B will work on A via the same process.
 
PowerPCMacMan

PowerPCMacMan

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
800
1
PowerPC land
My say on this

Wishful thinking... this is all I can say. Too bad Apple abandoned PowerPC so early. We could have had the ability to run Snow Leopard.. There is no way on this Earth that a G5 Dual Core and Quad could NOT have run Snow Leopard, alone Lion or Mountain Lion.. Its bad enough that Lion and ML boot up slowly on my Mac Pro, while Snow Leopard boots up in less than 10 seconds on my 6-core Mac Pro.

I think we all should come up with some way to make this happen, but again.. its just a pipe dream to try and get SL, Lion or ML to run under emulation on PowerPC hardware.. Nothing is impossible, but I see its impractical as well. I think PowerPC as a whole is still a very WORTHY architecture to consider for future projects.

With the right dedication and ideas I believe it might be possible to get SL at least to run, albeit via emulation.

Again, these are of course, just dreams which may never ever come true. Something to ponder on..

PPCMM
 
ybz90

ybz90

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2009
609
2
PowerPCMacMan said:
Wishful thinking... this is all I can say. Too bad Apple abandoned PowerPC so early. We could have had the ability to run Snow Leopard.. There is no way on this Earth that a G5 Dual Core and Quad could NOT have run Snow Leopard, alone Lion or Mountain Lion.. Its bad enough that Lion and ML boot up slowly on my Mac Pro, while Snow Leopard boots up in less than 10 seconds on my 6-core Mac Pro.

I think we all should come up with some way to make this happen, but again.. its just a pipe dream to try and get SL, Lion or ML to run under emulation on PowerPC hardware.. Nothing is impossible, but I see its impractical as well. I think PowerPC as a whole is still a very WORTHY architecture to consider for future projects.

With the right dedication and ideas I believe it might be possible to get SL at least to run, albeit via emulation.

Again, these are of course, just dreams which may never ever come true. Something to ponder on..

PPCMM
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not so sure Snow Leopard as we know it would be useful on PowerPC. The reason SL was so fast is because they cut a ton of legacy code and used lots of Intel-specific optimizations.

That said, on a TDP basis, PowerPC computers weren't that far behind. Don't quote me on this, but I recall reading that certain G4s only used something like 20-30W. People complained about those laptops as being hot, but that's only because Macs are designed for the entire computer to be a giant heatsink, which is how it can dissipate heat on such a thin form factor. I know that the fans almost never even turn on in my PowerBook.

The main issue is that G4s could not achieve higher clock speeds without horrible, non-linear increases in power, an inefficiency that caused the CPU to lag behind Intel over the years. Also, the G5s were just tremendously inefficient period. I redirect you to PA Semi's PWRficient line of PowerPC processors -- they seem like they could have been the solution, but were too late to be impactful.
 
PowerPCMacMan

PowerPCMacMan

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
800
1
PowerPC land
True, how true..

Yeah, I didn't think about that. PA Semi could have saved the PowerPC and allowed it to be in future mac laptops. Right now as I type this on my DLSD G4 1.67 PowerBook its so rock solid and it never gets extremely hot, compared to my Gateway P-7805u FX running on a core 2 extreme 3.06 ghz Intel processor. That thing is HOT as blazes!! While my PB G4 doesn't even get hot to the touch.

That should say something about the PowerPC. It certainly was not a bad chip, underpowered, yes with its mediocre 167 mhz bus. I do agree about the G5s though. That would never have made it into a laptop.. but given the Power architecture today I am sure Freescale could come up with a dual core or quad-core solution to compete against Intel.

I, for one, would like to see PowerPC come back.. and while Intel reigns supreme right now.. Apple wants to eventually make their own chips. I welcome ARM as a solution.. but it has a while to go before it can beat Intel's chips.



ybz90 said:
Well, I'm not so sure Snow Leopard as we know it would be useful on PowerPC. The reason SL was so fast is because they cut a ton of legacy code and used lots of Intel-specific optimizations.

That said, on a TDP basis, PowerPC computers weren't that far behind. Don't quote me on this, but I recall reading that certain G4s only used something like 20-30W. People complained about those laptops as being hot, but that's only because Macs are designed for the entire computer to be a giant heatsink, which is how it can dissipate heat on such a thin form factor. I know that the fans almost never even turn on in my PowerBook.

The main issue is that G4s could not achieve higher clock speeds without horrible, non-linear increases in power, an inefficiency that caused the CPU to lag behind Intel over the years. Also, the G5s were just tremendously inefficient period. I redirect you to PA Semi's PWRficient line of PowerPC processors -- they seem like they could have been the solution, but were too late to be impactful.
Click to expand...
 
rabidz7

rabidz7

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 24, 2012
1,205
3
Ohio
PowerPCMacMan said:
Yeah, I didn't think about that. PA Semi could have saved the PowerPC and allowed it to be in future mac laptops. Right now as I type this on my DLSD G4 1.67 PowerBook its so rock solid and it never gets extremely hot, compared to my Gateway P-7805u FX running on a core 2 extreme 3.06 ghz Intel processor. That thing is HOT as blazes!! While my PB G4 doesn't even get hot to the touch.

That should say something about the PowerPC. It certainly was not a bad chip, underpowered, yes with its mediocre 167 mhz bus. I do agree about the G5s though. That would never have made it into a laptop.. but given the Power architecture today I am sure Freescale could come up with a dual core or quad-core solution to compete against Intel.

I, for one, would like to see PowerPC come back.. and while Intel reigns supreme right now.. Apple wants to eventually make their own chips. I welcome ARM as a solution.. but it has a while to go before it can beat Intel's chips.
Click to expand...

ybz90 said:
Well, I'm not so sure Snow Leopard as we know it would be useful on PowerPC. The reason SL was so fast is because they cut a ton of legacy code and used lots of Intel-specific optimizations.

That said, on a TDP basis, PowerPC computers weren't that far behind. Don't quote me on this, but I recall reading that certain G4s only used something like 20-30W. People complained about those laptops as being hot, but that's only because Macs are designed for the entire computer to be a giant heatsink, which is how it can dissipate heat on such a thin form factor. I know that the fans almost never even turn on in my PowerBook.

The main issue is that G4s could not achieve higher clock speeds without horrible, non-linear increases in power, an inefficiency that caused the CPU to lag behind Intel over the years. Also, the G5s were just tremendously inefficient period. I redirect you to PA Semi's PWRficient line of PowerPC processors -- they seem like they could have been the solution, but were too late to be impactful.
Click to expand...

If only they would have waited a year, then I would be typing this on a powerbook G5.

PowerPC 970GX
The PowerPC 970GX is a cancelled single-core version of PowerPC 970MP. It featured a 1 MB L2 cache and would have been available in frequencies of 1.2 to 3 GHz. Power dissipation would have been 16 W at 1.6 GHz, and 85 W at 3 GHz. It was to be fabricated in the same 90 nm fabrication process as the 970MP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_970
 
ybz90

ybz90

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2009
609
2
rabidz7 said:
If only they would have waited a year, then I would be typing this on a powerbook G5.

PowerPC 970GX
The PowerPC 970GX is a cancelled single-core version of PowerPC 970MP. It featured a 1 MB L2 cache and would have been available in frequencies of 1.2 to 3 GHz. Power dissipation would have been 16 W at 1.6 GHz, and 85 W at 3 GHz. It was to be fabricated in the same 90 nm fabrication process as the 970MP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_970
Click to expand...

A very possible implementation, but I think with PWRficient around the corner, Apple's closeness with then-startup PA Semi (who Apple eventually bought to absorb engineering talent), and Apple's increasing displeasure with partners IBM, this wouldn't have made it vs PWRficient PA6T-1682M.

Also, an anecdote regarding G5 performance was that though it had on-chip improvements and 64-bit/G5-specific instruction sets, performance wasn't significantly better on a clock for clock basis over the G4. For laptops, we probably could have seen anywhere from 1.8GHz to 2.2GHz-ish before the wattage became unreasonable. Still a somewhat disappointing performance increase. There is something about the all-alu design that strikes me though -- the black on alu of today's computers feels cheap and commoditized by comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom