Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

acv · Apr 10, 2006, 02:55 AM

Hello friends,
Actually i want to know why Power pc base Macintosh computer cannot install OS XP, and intell base processor can install " i mean XP can boot on intel base processor" XP operating system.
I want to know is there difference between processors or Logic boards.
I will be very thankfull to you if you give me the answer of my question.

harrisjamieh · Apr 10, 2006, 02:57 AM

The processors speak totally different 'languages', hence it is impossible for windows to speak the same language as a PPC based mac. This is the same reason software for PPC runs much slower on intel macs than it does on PPC, and hence the reason 'universal' apps have been developed.

acv · Apr 10, 2006, 03:04 AM

Thanks,
i understand but little bit, could you more define it in detail, Plz.
I am very glad to see your reply. Its help full.

acv · Apr 10, 2006, 03:10 AM

Before discus this topic on this forum i was thought, that power pc cannot install XP because the firmware in power pc based computer is not able to read FAT format of disk.
Thats why its not able to boot the operating system that is not installable on HFS format of disk.
Tell me plz, how much this concept is true.

Yutuke · Apr 10, 2006, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by abubakar_119

Before discus this topic on this forum i was thought, that power pc cannot install XP because the firmware in power pc based computer is not able to read FAT format of disk.
Thats why its not able to boot the operating system that is not installable on HFS format of disk.
Tell me plz, how much this concept is true.

harrisjamieh is correct. The processors "machine language" is completely different from each other and are incompatible.

The reason why Intel CPU's can run Windows XP is because the code has been compiled for the Intel Machine Language. In order for your PowerPC to run Windows XP you will either need to run it in emulation mode (meaning, a program to convert Intel instructions into PowerPC ones) or get Microsoft to compile their entire XP program using the PowerPC.

If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft provided versions of Windows NT 3.1 for different processors. That was a long time ago though.

Hope that helps.

acv · Apr 10, 2006, 04:15 AM

O great you change my view. If you have more information about it plz share.
thanks

kick52 · Apr 10, 2006, 07:11 AM

wouldnt mac apps writing in C+ or whatever run the same speed, on PPC or Intel?
Because, its not a direct call to the proccesor, but a call to the OS, right?

Tuoder · Apr 10, 2006, 07:19 AM

C++ is not a machine language. Machine languages by nature speak directly to the hardware. One of the purposes of programming languages (C, anyway) is to be able to move between platforms. Hardware doesn't speak english so well, and so languages were invented to make it easier to code by using english-like commands in place of 100101110101010011010101100.

tooki · Apr 10, 2006, 09:11 AM

One thing to remember: the fact that XP won't boot on PowerPC is XP's fault, not the PowerPC's. This thread should be titled "Is XP not able to boot on PowerPC?"

tooki

Tuoder · Apr 10, 2006, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by tooki

One thing to remember: the fact that XP won't boot on PowerPC is XP's fault, not the PowerPC's. This thread should be titled "Is XP not able to boot on PowerPC?"

tooki

lol, everything is Microsoft's fault.

kick52 · Apr 10, 2006, 02:11 PM

do carbon apps spaeak dirctly to the hardware?

nuggetman · Apr 10, 2006, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by kick52

do carbon apps spaeak dirctly to the hardware?

when you compile a program, it converts it from human-readable C, C#, C++, Objective-C, whatever, into machine-readable language. it doesn't matter what API it uses - coccoa and carbon are just variations of how you program (think british english vs american english)

Tuoder · Apr 10, 2006, 04:16 PM

Apps do not commonly need to speak directly to hardware. Applications are almost exclusively written in a programming language. I could sort of see how you might come to that conclusion though, kick52.

mduell · Apr 10, 2006, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Yutuke

If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft provided versions of Windows NT 3.1 for different processors. That was a long time ago though.

Slightly off-topic...
NT 4.0 shipped with i386, PPC, MIPS, and Alpha binaries on the same disk; the PPC binaries were intended for RS/6000 machines, but a few people managed to get them to boot on Macs.

Velocity211 · Apr 10, 2006, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Tuoder

lol, everything is Microsoft's fault.

But it's true!