[acv]

I was thinking why we can't install OS X in Intel base computers and OS XP in PowerPc base computers
Now i am excited because i got a technical reason for my Question, and i want to share it on forum.
Architectural Differences [B]
The Power Pc and x86 architectures have some fundamental differences that can prevent code written for one architecture from running properly on the other architecture.
1: Alignment
All PowerPC instructions are 4 bytes in size and must be 4 byte aligned. x86 instruction are variable in size (from 1 to >10 bytes), and as consequence do not need to be aligned.

2: Byte order
Microprocessor architectures commonly use two different byte-ordering methods (little endian and big endian) to store the individual bytes of multibyte data formats in memory. this different become critical important if you try to read data from files that were created on a computer that uses a different byte ordering thatn yours.
for more information about "Byte Order" see this link
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...section_1.html

3: Calling Conventions
The x86 C-language calling convention (application vinary interface, or ABI) specifies that arguments to functions are passed on the stack. The power pc ABI specifies that arguments to funcations are passed in registers. Also, x86 has far fewer registers, So many local veriables use the stack for their storage. Thus, programming errors, or other operation that access past the end of a local variable array or otherwise incorrectly manipulate values on the stack may be more likely to crash applications on x86 systems than on powerpc.

So here i write some difference between Intel and PowerPc, many of other i can't write because i Don't want this a boring topic.
If any one have time and he want to see the Architectural differences then he can visit,
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...section_1.html

Thanks for reading this. plz give me your comments, is this a usefull information.
But for me its realy a usefull information.

[mduell]

You can install OSX on Intel based computers; Apple does it on many of theirs, and despite Apple's efforts to prevent it, many people run it on non-Apple computers.

[©öñFü$íóÑ]

I'm curious to know which is faster...

1) The -FASTEST- Intel-iMac currently available (2.0 GHz Core-Duo model), running Windows XP (via BootCamp), rendering a "radial blur" filter/function on a 100 MB image on Photoshop CS2 (Windows version)

-OR-

2) A similarly equipped PC, running Mac OS X (hacked/unofficial), doing the same task on Photoshop CS2 (Mac version)

[Simon]

Isn't that clearly going to be the Mac, for the simple reason that under XP CS2 is running native and on the PC it would be running under Rosetta emulation?

[acv]

Actually i was talking about without any emulator you can't install OS X on Intel base computer.
I know about one Emulator that use to install OS X on Intel base computer.
See link for more detail: http://www.windowsdevcenter.com/pub/...18/PearPC.html

The computer will give more performance when you not using emulator. The binary language that understand by PowerPc processors will not understand by Intel processors.
So for this you need to use universal binay program. This program must effect on you processor proformance.

[Chuckit]

You can install OS X on an Intel-based computer. That's what universal binaries are for — OS X running on an Intel-based machine such as the new iMacs.

[Apfhex]

Yes, Intel and PowerPC processors are different. Not really sure what this thread is for...? It may be interesting to know the technical reasons behind it but it's not like it's anything new.

And like Chuckit said, of course you can install (the Intel version of) OS X on Intel-based computers, that's what Apple's doing with all their new computers. You can't install the PowerPC version, because of reasons already explained/obvious.

Apple has put protection in place to prevent OS X from being installed on *other* PCs (plus I think there are more issues than just that), but I don't doubt that hackers have had some luck in this regard.

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by abubakar_119

This program must effect on you processor proformance.

This was very true until a few months ago. Originally, OS X was written only for PowerPC. It would not install on Intel machines without an emulator such as PearPC. This emulator, while functional, was excruciatingly slow.

The new, Intel-specific versions of OS X that have been released since January (starting with OS 10.4.4, and currently only available with the purchase of a new Intel Mac) are coded to work NATIVELY on the very same x86 structure that standard Intel PCs use. The only reason that the OS will not install (legally or easily, at least) on these "beige boxes" is special protection written by the engineers at Apple. Basically, the OS can tell if it's on a real Mac or not, and won't run properly if it isn't. There are hacks to go around this, resulting in OS X on a standard PC at full speed. It can be done, and I have done it in the past, te prometo.

PS: You are confused about the term "universal". It has nothing to do with emulators and everything to do with the architectual differences between x86 and PowerPC that you mentioned in your first post. A Universal app has been compiled to run on either structure (but still requires Mac OS X). There is no speed reduction whatsoever with a universal app running on any Mac.

[©öñFü$íóÑ]

Originally Posted by Simon

Isn't that clearly going to be the Mac, for the simple reason that under XP CS2 is running native and on the PC it would be running under Rosetta emulation?

Well, i was assuming the PC user would have the -hacked- Mac OS X (the so-called "OSx86") installed on their machine, and then run an OSX-Intel version (either current or beta) of Photoshop CS2. (yes... -in- the Mac OS X side)

To clarify, i'm -not- talking about the PC-user running the Windows version of Photoshop CS2.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by abubakar_119

The Power Pc and x86 architectures have some fundamental differences that can prevent code written for one architecture from running properly on the other architecture.

You have forgotten the most obvious difference. Intel and PowerPC processors have a different instruction set. This is all trivial knowledge, and your knowledge is a little bit outdated already since OS X is available for Intel based computers for some time now already.

[acv]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

This is all trivial knowledge, and your knowledge is a little bit outdated already since OS X is available for Intel based computers for some time now already.

Before i don't know about the difference between PowerPc and Intel processor.Yesterday i got this information on internet. i was very exciting last night. Today morining i decide to upload this information on internet, because to discus this topic on internet i can update my knowledge, and i also hope its also use full for others.
So if you help me to update my knowledge in this way i will be very thankfull to you.

[Tomchu]

http://www.apple.com/macmini/ - Intel Core Solo/Duo
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/ - Intel Core Duo
http://www.apple.com/imac/ - Intel Core Duo

Those are all x86 Macs. They have an x86 processor. They run an x86-compiled version of OS X.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ©öñFü$íóÑ

Well, i was assuming the PC user would have the -hacked- Mac OS X (the so-called "OSx86") installed on their machine, and then run an OSX-Intel version (either current or beta) of Photoshop CS2. (yes... -in- the Mac OS X side)

To clarify, i'm -not- talking about the PC-user running the Windows version of Photoshop CS2.

I understand. But still, CS2 on OS X and Intel means running it theough Rosetta emulation which is slow. Much slower than running it native under Windows on Intel. It might be about as fast as running it native on OS X on a G4 at similar clock speeds. No chance against running it native on a Core Duo.

[RevEvs]

these posts hurt my head

[Catfish_Man]

Here's a good intro to CPUs: http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu.ars

[Tyre MacAdmin]

For the record I know people whp have indeed ran OS X Intel on regular P4 systems... no problems (other than a bit of a hack to get it going)

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by ©öñFü$íóÑ

Well, i was assuming the PC user would have the -hacked- Mac OS X (the so-called "OSx86") installed on their machine, and then run an OSX-Intel version (either current or beta) of Photoshop CS2. (yes... -in- the Mac OS X side)

There is no such thing. Adobe has said that they will not release a Universal Binary version of Photoshop until their next major release.

[CharlesS]

[Detrius]

To the original poster: you haven't spawned much actual discussion because most of us know this already--this is how computers work. Different architectures are different in more ways than you listed. It is fabulous that you are thinking about it and trying to understand how things work.