PPC Macs can't run Windows... only through painfully slow emulation software... not natively as on Intel-based Macs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro to Finally See Updates Next Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
PPC Macs can't run Windows... only through painfully slow emulation software... not natively as on Intel-based Macs.
Mac OS X Lion has been around for quite a while now and Mountain Lion will be out in the not too distant future. It would be highly surprising if Apple updated Snow Leopard to work with new Macs.
Well even if you can get it to work you could well find a number of issues.
If you insist on using PowerPC apps yes. Better to update to Intel software and ditch the PowerPC stuff.
vSphere, yes!
Amen, brother. Hopefully they come out with a new slimmed-down Mac Pro that has an option rack-kit AND let you run server on it or other hardware. They could charge $1,000 for each copy and make money, but I bet they still restrict it to Apple hardware.
PowerPC was not made in such a way. PowerPC is a CPU architecture. Windows doesn't work on it because Microsoft didn't maintain the PPC port of Windows NT :
And PowerPC is not something that is exclusive to Apple. IBM used it extensively in their systems, running OSes such as AIX and OS/400 (on the AS/400/iSeries server family).
----------
Not even a year...
I made a mistake by purchasing a top of the line 2011 iMac. It was great when it worked. Feels just like a MacPro and 6970M is decent too. Upgraded the RAM to 12GB, I was using it intensively. And it was fast.
But yeah, several months later the display getting dirty and smudged (common problem actually). And it came back again months later, and now I had to brought it back again since it stucked on white screen while booting.
WTF .. 3 consecutive problems in less than a year machine. .. Now the MacPro has showed life sign, I really really feel sorry for purchasing an iMac. What can I do really? It was the best Mac I could buy. MacPro was an outdated $2500 machine when I bought my iMac. You wouldnt buy it either, would you?
"iMac is enough for pros" statements should stop! It fails more quickly and easily than a MacPro could. That's what you get for cramping hot CPUs on thin sexy case with no enough cooling.
But yeah, several months later the display getting dirty and smudged (common problem actually). And it came back again months later, and now I had to brought it back again since it stucked on white screen while booting.
WTF .. 3 consecutive problems in less than a year machine.
.. Now the MacPro has showed life sign, I really really feel sorry for purchasing an iMac. What can I do really? It was the best Mac I could buy. MacPro was an outdated $2500 machine when I bought my iMac. You wouldnt buy it either, would you? "iMac is enough for pros" statements should stop! It fails more quickly and easily than a MacPro could. That's what you get for cramping hot CPUs on thin sexy case with no enough cooling.
Higher clock speed =/= faster when comparing diffetent generations of CPU. You might as well buy a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 if you really believe that. Your older generation MBP is not faster than the current gen even though it has a faster clock speed. Look at benchmarks, not GHz.
But the Mac Pro has already gone well over a year without ThunderBolt, so why is it that you think that it needs it now. The new Mac Pro will be the first Mac to be sold with a parallel port on it that is not a SCSI port.
I assume you are being sarcastic...but if not...
Go try and run Houdini on an iPad, or Maya, or ZBrush, or Renderman Studio, and then get back to me
Oh but you are wasting your time & all of these pixels using anything other than the zenith in graphics & heavy duty computing, the iPad. Why waste your money on 3+ GHz dual 8 core processor with 128 GB of ram, at least 4 3 TB hard drives, 2 16X 3 display cards running at least 30" 1560 X 1600 or higher resolution displays, even more hardware additions & all of that expensive no longer needed software? Why spend the money & waste all of that aluminum when the iPad has it all?
Just because I'll be doing it doesn't mean that you have to. I never was too smart that way.
Windows didn't support PPC. PPC was not invented to not run windows.
Whats funny, the Microsoft XBOX 360 Runs off PPC.
----------
Because some people run programs and run projects that need that kind of hardware, my current workstation at work has 128gb of ram ( just upgraded it yesterday, 64gb was getting to small ). It has 4 Quadros, dual Xeon some clock speed, I forget, and 12TB of internal storage. I actually use all of that.
Some " pros " in fact do use that kind of power.
Um, my Pro1,1 has the 5770 in it, and I can stick CUDA cards in it. The only drawback is the EFI, so it either has to be a "Mac" card or you have to flash the card.
Just shows that even a company as terrible and MS knows that PPC is the better platform/architecture when they don't have x86 makers (Intel mainly) pressuring them.
Somewhat surprised you got down-voted multiple times for stating facts. Have an up-vote on me.
Hate to tell you this dude, but the days of clock speed increases are over. No chip manufacturers are planning higher clocked chips. This is due mainly to two things: the increasing importance of wire delay, and the problem of leakage current. Wire delay limits how far signals can propagate per clock cycle which forces either simpler designs (to limit how far the signal needs to travel), or lower clock speeds (to give the signal more time to travel). The "make the chip simpler" approach was tried (for example, IBM Power6, Sony Cell SPE) and didn't work out. Leakage current as chips have gotten smaller has also forced clock speeds lower to stay within power budgets. Consider Intel's "Turbo Boost" for example. The existence of this feature shows that the chips can run faster, except that they use too much energy when they do. So parts of the chip have to be disabled when running at this higher speed. If not for leakage current, we wouldn't have this problem.
All future improvements in CPU performance will come from improved parallelism, whether that's more cores or more instructions per clock.
Last edited:
I need to get out more
So excited about this. I've been reading every post on this thread. I clearly need to get out more
I've got an original first generation MacPro 1,1. I only recently found out that it won't run Mountain Lion but the main reason for wanting an upgrade is that it's starting to show its age now. CS6, Xcode, Parallels with Windows 8 - all need more oomph. This machine has done very well for me, though, and like so many other people on this thread an iMac just isn't going to do it for me.
Really, really REALLY hope this is true. I've got my hopes up now... Will be so disappointed if it doesn't happen. (If it does, I can change my signature below)
So excited about this. I've been reading every post on this thread. I clearly need to get out more
I've got an original first generation MacPro 1,1. I only recently found out that it won't run Mountain Lion but the main reason for wanting an upgrade is that it's starting to show its age now. CS6, Xcode, Parallels with Windows 8 - all need more oomph. This machine has done very well for me, though, and like so many other people on this thread an iMac just isn't going to do it for me.
Really, really REALLY hope this is true. I've got my hopes up now... Will be so disappointed if it doesn't happen. (If it does, I can change my signature below
)
Last edited:
Windows does run on PPC, just not the recent versions
Microsoft did sell and support Windown NT on PowerPC from 3.51 through NT 4.0 SP3. Didn't sell though, because few significant apps were available.
Microsoft did sell and support Windown NT on PowerPC from 3.51 through NT 4.0 SP3. Didn't sell though, because few significant apps were available.
I was wondering about this. It was common to see CPU speeds double every 2 years, but there has been very little change lately. How much does cooling play a factor in performance? I often suspect my iMac I7 of slowing down when rendering a video, due to extreme heat.
So on these new MP, I wonder if they'll finally up the number of ram slots on the base model? It always seemed dumb to have 8 on the higher end but only 4 for the base, hopefully it will be 8 across the board this time around.
For high speed external connections. Makes no sense for it not to have it. The only reason it took so long was because they weren't going to update the machine just to add TB. Now that they are updating with new CPU, it would be silly not to include TB, USB 3, and SATA III as well.
PPC chips did outperform x86 chips for a while (in actual benchmarks, not just comparing clock speed).
For high speed external connections. Makes no sense for it not to have it. The only reason it took so long was because they weren't going to update the machine just to add TB. Now that they are updating with new CPU, it would be silly not to include TB, USB 3, and SATA III as well.
PPC chips did outperform x86 chips for a while (in actual benchmarks, not just comparing clock speed).
Last edited:
Based on something I read recently, I am of the opinion that Intel purposely does not increase cpu speeds beyond a certain point simply to keep AMD in the race and avoid a regulated monopoly situation. Current gen cpus can easily be overclocked substantially using stock heat sinks and cooling without any ill effects. Plenty of folks over at hardocp and xtreme forums can attest to this. Heck, back in 2007 I was running PC's 24/7 at 4ghz with no hiccups. Yes performance has increased in other ways, but I still think it is a marketing decision as it has been for years and years.
I get downvoted all the time for no apparent logical reason. It's fine, I don't really care.
----------
Moores' law still applies. Don't be fooled by GHZ numbers, we're now firmly entrenched in the realm of instruction pipelines and processing cores.
A 2012 Ivy Bridge 2 GHZ processor destroys a 2010 1st generation 2GHZ Nehelem processor.