Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by macswitcha2, Oct 3, 2009.
Can this be done through a partition or something?
No. Boot Camp requires an Intel Macintosh.
This sucks!!! No way possible?
You can install it via a Mac version of Microsoft Virtual PC, although they don't sell it anymore. And it'll be extraordinarily slow.
you can install it with Q and you dont need these intelthings that call themself processors
Can Windows be installed on an eMac?
Yes, it is installed on windows.
Huh? that makes no sense. eMacs use PPC chips and windows is for x86.
While virtualization software is available, it is extremely SLOW since it has to translate every single instruction from x86 to PPC. It's really not worth trying in my opinion; buy an Intel Mac. Not only do you have to deal with CPU mismatch, but you'd need a lot of memory or you'd be swapping like crazy.
Yes, Virtual PC (now owned by Microsoft) VERY VERY VERY VERY SLOW
Yeah. Get a new or a refurb Mac Mini in a few weeks after new ones are introduced.
the question was if its possible not how fast it will be
but if its for performance then there would be the option to install Q
and run linux in q which is considerable faster then windows on q
and install wine in linux then ..job done
I had XP installed through VirtualPC on my old 1.33 GHz iBook G4 w/ 1.25 GB of RAM for a while, and it was so slow it was nearly unusable. It had trouble with Firefox, so I used K-meleon, which was still very slow, as was every other app.
If you have no other option, yes, it is possible to do. But I wouldn't recommend it.
If you still have Windows 2000 floating around then I'd suggest using it instead of XP. I used to run 2000 on an old 800 MHz G3 for Microsoft Project, and it was bearable.
the thing to remember is windows operating systems are wasting resources
in terms of ram and processor
(some windows operating systems more, others a bit less)
and that was the reason for the megeherz myth
Microsoft once showed off Windows NT running on a PowerMac. If you get a version of Windows NT 4.0 or older, you will find that it supports four CPU architectures: Intel x86, MIPS, PowerPC and DEC Alpha.
However, you won't be able to run an current Windows software on NT for PowerPC -- the software must be compiled for the CPU. Only DEC implemented a technology roughly comparable to Rosetta that allowed the execution of x86 code on the Alpha CPUs.
Other than that: No, you won't be able to run Windows on an eMac at tolerable speed. Q and VirtualPC will be as painful as hell. And forget about Wine on Linux as someone suggested here: First of all, that will only work on an x86 version of Linux, and then you will run into even more performance overhead: You will have to emulate the x86 CPU, you will have to run Linux in an virtualization AND Wine has to translate Windows API calls to Linux API calls. It possibly can't get any worse than this.
simple sollution for the problem if you really need windows and cant live without it , then you have two options , either emulators to run it on your
eMac with performance loss ,or to buy a second computer that runs it nativly
at some sort of speed
Not to mention that Windows NT only runs on "PReP" or "CHRP" PowerPC systems, (basically, IBM RS/6000 workstations,) not on Macs. (There is no way to get Windows NT running on a PowerPC Mac natively.) And NT for PPC does have a Rosetta-like translation layer, but it only allows 16-bit Windows applications to run (i.e. old Windows 3.x "Win16" software, not newer Windows 95/NT "Win32" software.) I have Microsoft Office 4.2 (a 16-bit x86-only app) running just fine on my Windows NT PPC machine. That said, native PPC Windows software is essentially impossible to find. (I haven't found a single one yet. I have found REFERENCES to some, but have never found the actual software.)
Depending on what software you are going to run, VirtualPC is perfectly adequate. I ran it on my 1.25 GHz eMac as my primary way of running Windows for quite a few years. Note that Windows Vista won't even *TRY* to install, so XP is the highest you can run. And if you turn off all the eye candy, XP is perfectly usable.
I might soon get my hands on an old eMac that is topped out at OS 10.3.9 due to the non-Intel processor. I was considering putting a Linux build on it, but from what I am reading here I might just be asking for it.
As far as performance and driver compatibility is it best to stick with the 10.3.9, or is there a current Linux build out for PowerMacs? I have a newer aluminum iMac running Leopard already... and a white MacBook. I was really just looking to do something interesting with this older machine. Otherwise it looks like I am just running the current version of Camino and a bunch of other outdated programs.
theres virtual pc
it sucks though
Depending on the exact age, it may run up to 10.5 just fine.
The ones that run at less than 1 GHz officially top out at 10.4; but with a simple OpenFirmware hack, even those can run 10.5 with no problems.
Okay, you definitely have my attention. So where would I check the specs to see if this one would work, and where would I acquire the openfirmware that would help me out?
If I can actually get a decent machine running there actually is a family on my street who could probably use it for their kids.
Thanks for the help.
Well, you can look up the specs in Apple System Profiler, under the Apple Menu in OS 9; or via "About This Mac" under the Apple Menu in OS X.
If the processor is 1 GHz or higher (technically 867 MHz or higher; but 1 GHz is the slowest eMac that meets that definition,) then 10.5 will install just fine.
If it's 700 MHz or 800 MHz, you would follow the instructions here to install Leopard.