Mountain Lion and Windows for PPC

[justperry]

Originally Posted by rabidz7

It is an emulator.
http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/20830/q-emulator

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]

Originally Posted by Intell

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.

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

[justperry]

Originally Posted by rabidz7

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

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.

[rabidz7]

Originally Posted by justperry

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.

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

[justperry]

Originally Posted by rabidz7

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

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.

[rabidz7]

Originally Posted by justperry

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.

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

[Wildy]

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]

Originally Posted by rabidz7

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

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]

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.

[rabidz7]

Originally Posted by rjcalifornia

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.

Of course is emulation! But it works.

[rjcalifornia]

Originally Posted by rabidz7

Of course is emulation! But it works.

Emulation is useless. Period. I can believe you are giving 1999 news lol

[GermanyChris]

Hey I have a great program that emulates Android so I can use Whatsapp from my desktop it's not slow at all

[666sheep]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

Hey I have a great program that emulates Android so I can use Whatsapp from my desktop it's not slow at all

Great! So maybe you can emulate Mountain Lion on your emulated Android somehow? Would this work on my Clamshell?

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by 666sheep

Great! So maybe you can emulate Mountain Lion on your emulated Android somehow? Would this work on my Clamshell?

I think I'll try

When I get it working I'll drop box you the instructions

[ybz90]

Originally Posted by rabidz7

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

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]

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]

Originally Posted by PowerPCMacMan

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

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]

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.

Originally Posted by ybz90

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.

[rabidz7]

Originally Posted by PowerPCMacMan

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.

Originally Posted by ybz90

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.

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]

Originally Posted by rabidz7

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

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.