Microsoft XP/2000 on your Mac?

krazyfoolkrazyfool
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Scared ya huh? Windows users want Mac OS X on there x86. What about Microsoft XP *shivers* or 2000 (i don't care just pick one) on your Mac? Porting all the crap that would run on it would be a pain don't you think? Would the mac people even use it? I wouldn't. I'm not saying I want this to happen, I'm just wondering what do you think would happen to Microsoft or to Apple? Would Steve piss his pants? Would this be like a Time/iMac thing 10x? Also, I'm not talking emulation here on top of Mac OS, I'm saying a full blown OS from Microsoft that runs on PPC just to make sure we are all on the same page



[ Edited to make a little more since, I hope <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> ]



[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: KrazyFool ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by KrazyFool:

    <strong>Scared ya huh? Everyone wants Mac OS X on there pc's. What about Microsoft XP *shivers* or 2000 (i don't care just pick one) on your Mac? Porting all the crap that would run on it would be a pain don't you think? Would the mac people even use it? I wouldn't. I'm not saying I want this to happen, I'm just wondering what do you think would happen to Microsoft or to Apple? Would Steve piss his pants? Would this be like a Time/iMac thing 10x. Also, I'm not talking emulation here on top of Mac OS, I'm saying a full blown OS from Microsoft that runs on Mac just to make sure we are all on the same page </strong><hr></blockquote>





    then apple would kindly and quietly issue a "firware update" that made it incompatible.



    isn't it great controlling the hardware and the software

  • Reply 2 of 11
    brian j.brian j. Posts: 139member
    I'd love a PPC port of Windows. I would use it instead of VPC which is unbearably slow IMHO. I wouldn't have to lug both a Mac laptop and a PC laptop when traveling. However, it wouldn't have much financial affect on any company other than Connectix. PC users think Mac hardware is too expensive. Mac fans only use Windows when they have to, and would rather be running Mac OS.



    [ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Brian J. ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 11
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    [quote]Originally posted by Brian J.:

    <strong>I'd love a PPC port of Windows. I would use it instead of VPC which is unbearably slow IMHO. I wouldn't have to lug both a Mac laptop and a PC laptop when traveling. However, it wouldn't have much financial affect on any company other the Connectix. PC users think Mac hardware is too expensive. Mac fans only use Windows when they have to, and would rather be running Mac OS.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Rather than have M$ port Winblows to PPC, I would rather have full speed emulation (don't ask how it would be done - I don't know ) to run games like SimCity 3000 Unlimited, which I am currently stuck with using on my PC (which isn't portable like my iBook...I don't have a PC laptop).



    But a PPC port would be better than nothing. And I think if M$ dared to do that, Apple should then release OS X for x86 <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 4 of 11
    iks_iviks_iv Posts: 11member
    Well NT 4 had a PPC port, I dont know what it would take to get it to work on macintoshes though... It probably doesn't work. (The PPC builds are used to install windows on ppc based pc's like the ibm ppc desktops of earlier times...)



    I guess nobody would be using it since there would be no binairy compatability, then again, portability should be faster since it would only take a recompile to get the software to work so more developers might be doing it upon request.



    Also, I guess there would be much less porting from the windows to the mac going on, which would most defenetively be a Bad Thing for the Mac OS.



    It could be very cool to run a windows environment in a virtual machine on the desktop instead of on an emulated processor. It would be LOTS faster.



    Me personally, I like to stay away as much as I can for Windoze. I currently have a piecie for temporary machine, and it is Vastly Inferior to my mac in terms of integration between components, quality and usability. A sorry excuse for a computer!



    /x4
  • Reply 5 of 11
    greyisgoodgreyisgood Posts: 53member
    virtual PC is pretty good... considering you're using a PC. and if you think about it, it's only $250 bucks... not a couple thousand for a complete PC... makes a shit load of sence to me.
  • Reply 6 of 11
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    [quote]not a couple thousand for a complete PC<hr></blockquote>



    lol, a PC is a couple thousand dollars? You can build a fine system for far less than $1K.



    It would be nice to get WinXP on my Mac to run a few things, but why bother? People buy Macs for the MacOS. Anyone who buys Windows to run it on Mac hardware would be an idiot. PC hardware is faster/cheaper, while the MacOS is more intuitive (well, depends on who you ask).
  • Reply 7 of 11
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by FreshApple:

    <strong>





    Rather than have M$ port Winblows to PPC, I would rather have full speed emulation (don't ask how it would be done - I don't know ) to run games like SimCity 3000 Unlimited, which I am currently stuck with using on my PC (which isn't portable like my iBook...I don't have a PC laptop).



    But a PPC port would be better than nothing. And I think if M$ dared to do that, Apple should then release OS X for x86 <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Dude, you need to get over this SimCity addiction that you've got





    On topic, even if there were windows on the mac, how would applications run? I think it would probably be more than a simple recompile and it would be too expensive to do so what would the point be?
  • Reply 8 of 11
    the toolboithe toolboi Posts: 557member
    I'd love a PPC port of Windows. I would use it instead of VPC which is unbearably slow IMHO.

    and

    and it would be too expensive to do so what would the point be?





    Post 2 has it slightly better at hand then one, but in both cases it would take a LOT to send a program over from windows x86 to win PPC. In fact, correct me if Im wrong, but wouldnt it be MUCH easier to get a mac version of Direct X and the various other little bits of software and then just write MacOS ports...?



    virtual PC is pretty good... considering you're using a PC. and if you think about it, it's only $250 bucks... not a couple thousand for a complete PC... makes a shit load of sence to me.





    its about $700 canadian for a 1.4 ghz Athalon DDR system right now (with a GF2MX). Thats about...$500. However for twice the price of VPC you get a computer that will be 10-20x faster than VPC even on the fastest G4s.



    Edit: sorry, $800 not $700, so a little over $500 ($533) but its a 1.7ghzathalon.

    Man I hope that the AMD Hammer comes soon before my system becomes obsolete...



    [ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 11
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    [quote]its about $700 canadian for a 1.4 ghz Athalon DDR system right now (with a GF2MX). Thats about...$500. However for twice the price of VPC you get a computer that will be 10-20x faster than VPC even on the fastest G4s.



    Edit: sorry, $800 not $700, so a little over $500 ($533) but its a 1.7ghzathalon.

    Man I hope that the AMD Hammer comes soon before my system becomes obsolete...<hr></blockquote>



    Okay, two things: Athlon, not Athalon, and there is no 1.7GHz Athlon out right now. Supposedly it will be released next week (2100+).



    You're probably confusing a 1.7GHz Athlon with a 1700+ (1.47GHz). And $550 sounds way too low for a 1700+ system of any quality.



    [ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: radar1503 ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 11
    brian j.brian j. Posts: 139member
    [quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:

    <strong>

    In fact, correct me if Im wrong, but wouldnt it be MUCH easier to get a mac version of Direct X and the various other little bits of software and then just write MacOS ports...?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>

    No, that's totally wrong. Aside from endianess issues and assembly language, it's MUCH EASIER to port programs to different processors than to port them to different operating systems. Most of the time, porting a program to another processor just requires recompiling the program. For instance, Windows runs on Alpha. Porting an x86 program to Alpha requires just checking the Alpha option in Visual Studio, and hitting the recompile button. That's super easy.



    [ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Brian J. ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 11
    fotnsfotns Posts: 301member
    This is a coincidence because recently I got a hold of Windows NT 4.0 PowerPC and tried to install it on a 9500. But after much experimentation I found out it would not work for a few reasons. One, Apple did not fully implement the industry standard for Open Firmware; at least they didn't in version 1.05. A compliant version like that found in the IBM RS/6000 line or Alpha machines is required. Second, Power Macs are not ARC (Advanced RISC Computing) compliant. ARC is the boot loader that loads Windows NT on RISC machines.

    As to why I tried, I like to experiment and wanted to see if I could get it to run. If anyone knows of a way to get it to load I would love to hear your ideas.



    [ 02-28-2002: Message edited by: FotNS ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.