Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > PowerPC Macs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 15, 2013, 09:16 PM   #26
justperry
macrumors 603
 
justperry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 7 Km South of an active upside down (boat) volcano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidz7 View Post
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.
justperry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:39 AM   #27
rabidz7
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Isla De Juventud, south Havana provence, Cincinnati Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intell View Post
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.
rabidz7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:45 AM   #28
justperry
macrumors 603
 
justperry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 7 Km South of an active upside down (boat) volcano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidz7 View Post
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.
justperry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:48 AM   #29
rabidz7
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Isla De Juventud, south Havana provence, Cincinnati Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by justperry View Post
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.
rabidz7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 06:02 AM   #30
justperry
macrumors 603
 
justperry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 7 Km South of an active upside down (boat) volcano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidz7 View Post
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.
justperry is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 06:18 AM   #31
rabidz7
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Isla De Juventud, south Havana provence, Cincinnati Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by justperry View Post
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.
rabidz7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 06:59 AM   #32
Wildy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
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.
Wildy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 09:34 AM   #33
Intell
macrumors G5
 
Intell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Inside
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidz7 View Post
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.
__________________
Last edited by Intell; Yesterday at 10:24 AM.
Intell is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 10:16 AM   #34
rjcalifornia
macrumors 6502a
 
rjcalifornia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: El Salvador
Talking

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.
__________________
CEO, Lead Developer and Sales Manager of SW Social Web LLC PowerPC Blog iBook G4 1.2 Ghz 60 GB HDD, Black Macbook Core 2 Duo, Powerbook G4 & iMac G4 700 Mhz Owner.
rjcalifornia is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 01:19 PM   #35
rabidz7
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Isla De Juventud, south Havana provence, Cincinnati Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcalifornia View Post
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.
rabidz7 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 01:46 PM   #36
rjcalifornia
macrumors 6502a
 
rjcalifornia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: El Salvador
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidz7 View Post
Of course is emulation! But it works.
Emulation is useless. Period. I can believe you are giving 1999 news lol
__________________
CEO, Lead Developer and Sales Manager of SW Social Web LLC PowerPC Blog iBook G4 1.2 Ghz 60 GB HDD, Black Macbook Core 2 Duo, Powerbook G4 & iMac G4 700 Mhz Owner.
rjcalifornia is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 02:16 PM   #37
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Hey I have a great program that emulates Android so I can use Whatsapp from my desktop it's not slow at all
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 02:19 PM   #38
666sheep
macrumors 68030
 
666sheep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Poland
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
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?
666sheep is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 02:22 PM   #39
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by 666sheep View Post
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
GermanyChris is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 04:51 PM   #40
ybz90
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidz7 View Post
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.
ybz90 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:37 PM   #41
PowerPCMacMan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: 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
PowerPCMacMan is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:41 PM   #42
ybz90
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPCMacMan View Post
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.
ybz90 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:49 PM   #43
PowerPCMacMan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: 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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ybz90 View Post
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 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 05:35 AM   #44
rabidz7
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Isla De Juventud, south Havana provence, Cincinnati Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPCMacMan View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ybz90 View Post
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
rabidz7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 06:48 AM   #45
ybz90
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidz7 View Post
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.
ybz90 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > PowerPC Macs

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC