[ryaxnb]

The Mac, running Mac OS X, is NOT IBM PC compatible, nor is it modern IBMBIOS/PCI-e-compatible a significant amount more than the G5 Power Mac. The myth of the IBMBIOS/PCIe-compatible (my term for the modern era of PCs) Mac. Let's check the Intel Mac and PPC Mac's compatibility with each item on a modern PC.

DiskThe Mac uses SATA. The PC uses SATA. But wait, the PPC Mac ALSO used SATA! This is a trend you'll see a lot of. PC also uses PATA quite a bit still, as do some PPC Macs, but no Intel Mac has any built-in PATA controllers AFAIK. As far as disk format, the Mac & PC work on separate formats, unless they're both running Linux (unlikely), or you're thinking external/secondary and you have your PC/Mac drives setup as FAT32 for the secondary drives. The Mac can read but not write NTFS OOTB, and can not work with ext3 OOTB. Plugins for the Mac allow reading & writing of ext3 and NTFS, AFAIK, with limitations. The PC can not work with ext3 or hfs OOTB running Windows, running Linux, it depends on the distro, but it can usually handle ext3. Add-ons for Linux and Windows (free for Linux, pay for Windows) allow HFS+ reading and writing.
Bus The Mac uses PCI-e. The PC uses PCI-e, or on old PCs, PCI. PPC Macs use PCI-e or PCI, both PC-compatible standards. Yes, they use a different endian level. But not when the PPC is running at a different endian level (G4 Macs Only,) and that's a minor difference anyway. Admittedly, no one that I know made an OS that ran the PPC in a different endian level and was compatible with PPC Macs. But it's worth noting.[p
BIOS The Mac uses EFI, an official BIOS replacement standard, not yet widely adopted, by Intel. The PC uses BIOS, or BIOS emulation on EFI, or if you're running Linux, and you happen to have an EFI machine (yeah, right) AND you manually configure it, EFI with elilo. In other words, the Mac is not at all compatible with BIOS software without a BIOS-level emulator. Yes, they created one (Boot Camp.) But it's essentially a emulator; it translates calls. There will be a speed penalty for using BIOS calls I believe, and the only reason there is no speed penalty in Vista is because Vista never really uses BIOS calls, except to boot.
Because the Mac uses EFI, it is not compatible with IBMBIOS-compatibles. Just because there is a translator available that makes it compatible does not mean it is compatible.
Motherboard The Mac uses some variant on a typical PC motherboard. The PC uses a typical PC motherboard or a variant. The PPC Mac uses a PPC standard motherboard, which no one outside of Apple ever really used. Admittedly, this means the motherboard on a Mac is more like a PC than before. In fact, it's almost a PC motherboard, except I don't think it makes any use of ISA at all, not even for the EFI BIOS chip, or for ports.
OS: The Mac runs Mac OS X. The PC runs any OS you want it to. The Mac can also run Linux (directly on EFI), although I'm not sure if this is supported by Apple. The Mac runs Windows through a translator of BIOS calls. The PPC Mac could run OS X, OS 9 (some), and Linux.
Processor: The processor used by the Mac & PC now, is, of course, i686. The one used by the PPC is PPC. The one used by some older PCs when the Intel Mac was introduced, was i686 without SSE3. SSE3 is required by OS X.
I/O: PCs, Intel Macs and PPC Macs all use FireWire (less on PCs and MacBook Airs), USB2, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, sound, and RJ-11 modem, although most Macs no longer have modem ports built-in (you can add them externally and possibly internally, if any PCI-e modems are compatible with Mac Pros.)

I propose a new term: IBMBIOS-compatibles, short for IBM BIOS & PCI-e & PC motherboard Compatible. This is what a modern PC is, and it's not really what a Modern Mac is. As you can see, Macs in the PPC area had everything but the processor and the motherboard; every I/O and internal I/O jack was pretty much standard. The Bus was standard & the RAM was DDR like PCs. There really wasn't much difference.

[Brass]

There are only two real differences between INTEL Macs (ie, ALL Macs that are CURRENTLY made/sold by Apple), and 'IBM-compatible' PCs, the way I see it:

BIOS vs EFI
and
Ability to run various operating systems.

When it comes to different operating systems, the Mac is the only one that can run them all. Non-Macs can run all except Mac OS X. This is a rather artificial difference too, as Apple has deliberately built this into the hardware.

The definition of 'IBM Compatible PC' has evolved, and once more brands switch to EFI, the IBM PC definition will move with it. So in effect, the PC (definition) and the Mac are kind of moving in the same direction, and the Mac will be a PC much the same as any other.

It is already much the same, really.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

So... in other words... Macs are now a lot more like PCs?

greg

[Eriamjh]

DiskThe Mac uses SATA. The PC uses SATA. But wait, the PPC Mac ALSO used SATA! This is a trend you'll see a lot of. PC also uses PATA quite a bit still, as do some PPC Macs, but no Intel Mac has any built-in PATA controllers AFAIK.

ALL Intel Macs have PATA for their CD/DVD drives. The MacBook Air has a PATA HDD. No one makes SATA optical drives.

Now you know.

[nonhuman]

The myth is that Macs were ever anything other than PCs... Macs were the original PCs. Well, Apples were, but you get my meaning...

Hardware is just hardware, what makes a Mac special is the operating system. (And yes, the fancy design is nice, but in the end just a frill. Run Linux on an old PPC PowerMac and you're still just running Linux.)

[mduell]

I don't really understand the point of this post... Intel Macs and "PCs" are pretty much the same hardware; the most notable difference is the pre-boot environment architecture, which is pretty minor since the new one can emulate the old one anyway.

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

No one makes SATA optical drives.

Wrong.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The myth is that Macs were ever anything other than PCs... Macs were the original PCs. Well, Apples were, but you get my meaning...

Hardware is just hardware, what makes a Mac special is the operating system. (And yes, the fancy design is nice, but in the end just a frill. Run Linux on an old PPC PowerMac and you're still just running Linux.)

Ha. Thats so darn true. I'm going to have to use that next time.

[Tiresias]

I've never heard of this myth.

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I don't really understand the point of this post... Intel Macs and "PCs" are pretty much the same hardware; the most notable difference is the pre-boot environment architecture, which is pretty minor since the new one can emulate the old one anyway.



Wrong.

yeah, no kidding...i got 2 SATA lightscribe burners in my windows rig. have had for hmm, 7 months? HP GF343AT Lightscribe DVD Burner - 16x DVD�R Burn&Read, 8x DVD+RW, 6x DVD-RW, 8x DVD+R DL, 4x DVD-R DL, 48x32x CD-RRW, SATA at TigerDirect.com

[SirCastor]

This 'myth', doesn't have anything to do with hardware. I really can't tell you the last time (prior to this) I heard someone use the term IBM-compatible.

The definition of computers these days is based greatly (if not solely) on the operating system that your computer runs. Whether it be OS X, Vista, XP, Ubuntu, Red Hat, etc.

The convergence of functionality was bound to happen sooner or later, as much as we like to say that it hasn't. The truth is that Microsoft has gotten quite a bit better at what they do, and so has Apple. The two have been borrowing features and concepts from each other since, and only most the most ardent Fanboys start calling names other either side.

Yes Macs have become a bit more Windows like. No one will argue with you when you say that Windows looks a lot like OS X. It's not a negative thing. It means there's competition in the market place, and that's good for consumers.

[Big Mac]

How exactly has the Mac OS become more Windows like? By supporting some popular Windows services like SMB?

It's no myth that what Apple now sells are actual PCs. Apple had to sell out.

[MacosNerd]

IBM-Compatible - holy 1990s batman. That term is not used anymore.

Except for OSX, a Macintosh is a PC, it can and does run windows. I never heard of this myth but I go by the saying if looks like a duck and sounds like a duck its a duck. The intel macs uses components that are found in other peecees and can run windows. It that isn't a definition of a pc, then I don't know what is.

The difference, is the design of the computer and of course the software. The OS and applications are vastly superior to windows.

[olePigeon]

I think it's more the other way around. PCs are more like Macs now. Granted, Apple wasn't the first to a lot of markets, but they made the technology popular and they helped to standardize on them. PC users can thank Apple for making the following accessible and useable to the average Joe:

Affordable Personal Computer
User friendly Personal Computer
Computer as a gaming platform
GUI
WYSIWYG
Mouse
5.25" Floppy
3.5" Floppy
CD-ROM
USB
FireWire

I'm sure I'm missing a bunch more.

[Big Mac]

There was a great Apple t-shirt years back that listed all the ground-breaking technologies the Mac brought to the world over the years.

[Eriamjh]

I guess I should have checked before posting.

Oh well, my point about PATA on every Mac is still valid!

[@pplejaxkz]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think it's more the other way around. PCs are more like Macs now.

I have to agree. I recently installed Vista on my Macbook and I can say PC's are becoming more (appearance wise atleast) like Mac. The translucency, aqua style folders, dashboard like application, expose like feature. A list of more, but I've only been on the dumb OS for a little while.....and I can't stand it.

[Andhee]

So for macs to be different they have to engineer some new hardware? Good one!

Apple make computers, PC's use similar hardware as they are computers also.

Honda make cars, so do Vauxhall, they use the same ideas and make their own along the way. They also use similar parts, eg, wheels are pretty much standard for any car (I don't know any road car without wheels), and they can be put on any road car, but it doesnt mean the cars are all the same. Your argument is completed flawed (in my opinion).

Oh and I've never heard this myth before :/

[Hinton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think it's more the other way around. PCs are more like Macs now. Granted, Apple wasn't the first to a lot of markets, but they made the technology popular and they helped to standardize on them. PC users can thank Apple for making the following accessible and useable to the average Joe:

Affordable Personal Computer
User friendly Personal Computer
Computer as a gaming platform
GUI
WYSIWYG
Mouse
5.25" Floppy
3.5" Floppy
CD-ROM
USB
FireWire

I'm sure I'm missing a bunch more.

The only thing you're missing is a clue.

Well ok, there's Firewire, but that wasn't ever popular and wont be either. Uh, thanks?

[peeb]

Apple Hardware is generally nice, but it's the OS, not the hardware, that's important to me.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Hinton 

The only thing you're missing is a clue.

Care to explain?

[ibookuser2]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb 

BIOS The Mac uses EFI, an official BIOS replacement standard, not yet widely adopted, by Intel. The PC uses BIOS, or BIOS emulation on EFI, or if you're running Linux, and you happen to have an EFI machine (yeah, right) AND you manually configure it, EFI with elilo. In other words, the Mac is not at all compatible with BIOS software without a BIOS-level emulator. Yes, they created one (Boot Camp.) But it's essentially a emulator; it translates calls. There will be a speed penalty for using BIOS calls I believe, and the only reason there is no speed penalty in Vista is because Vista never really uses BIOS calls, except to boot.
Because the Mac uses EFI, it is not compatible with IBMBIOS-compatibles. Just because there is a translator available that makes it compatible does not mean it is compatible.

The primary functions of BIOS (and EFI, for that matter) are to boot the machine and do things like power management. On a modern operating system, most I/O is handled by system drivers, not BIOS. No OS should be making frequent BIOS calls.

Even if an operating system did make frequent BIOS calls, translating them in EFI is so small of a performance hit that it hardly exists. I/O operations on a modern computer take hundreds, if not thousands, of CPU cycles to complete. Adding five or ten cycles to translate calls is nothing compared to that.

There are some PCs that are now using EFI with the BIOS CSM. Are you saying these are no longer real PCs?

The Mac uses PCI-e. The PC uses PCI-e, or on old PCs, PCI. PPC Macs use PCI-e or PCI, both PC-compatible standards. Yes, they use a different endian level. But not when the PPC is running at a different endian level (G4 Macs Only,) and that's a minor difference anyway. Admittedly, no one that I know made an OS that ran the PPC in a different endian level and was compatible with PPC Macs. But it's worth noting.

"Endian level"? I've never heard that one before...

If I recall correctly, the endianness of the PowerPC has been selectable at boot time since the 601. It's not a G4 specific feature.

The Mac runs Mac OS X. The PC runs any OS you want it to. The Mac can also run Linux (directly on EFI), although I'm not sure if this is supported by Apple. The Mac runs Windows through a translator of BIOS calls. The PPC Mac could run OS X, OS 9 (some), and Linux.

The Mac runs any OS you want it to. Of course Apple doesn't officially support running anything other than Mac OS X (with the exception of some support for running Windows as a secondary operating system.) There are a lot of PC manufacturers that don't support anything other than Windows.

The Mac, given proper device drivers, can run any operating system that your generic Windows PC can. Your argument about the Mac not being "compatible" with these operating systems because it's using the BIOS CSM is nonsense.

Before you start trying to argue about hardware semantics, you should make sure you at least know what you're talking about.

[nonhuman]

Hardware convergence is the inevitable consequence of progress. We've moved into an age where computer power is ubiquitous (or will be there very soon). There's no longer any reason to bother trying to find the best processor technology out there, because they're all so cheap and so powerful that we can afford to throw enough 'bad' processors at any problem to solve it for the same price as if we had 'good' processors. This will only become more and more true as our technological prowess continues to progress.

[Hinton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Care to explain?

You first, given the premises, please explain why what you said is correct.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb 

The Mac, running Mac OS X, is NOT IBM PC compatible

I don't know WTF you are talking about, but my OS X is IBM PC compatible, thanks to VMWare fusion.

-t

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by Hinton 

You first, given the premises, please explain why what you said is correct.

You're the one challenging him. You should be the one to explain what you think is wrong.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

There's no longer any reason to bother trying to find the best processor technology out there, because they're all so cheap and so powerful that we can afford to throw enough 'bad' processors at any problem to solve it for the same price as if we had 'good' processors.

If a good processor and a bad processor are the same price, why not buy the good processor?

The change we've seen lately is that it's better to go with the processors that can get more development (architecture and fab process) money than go for a specialized processor for each niche. Apple switching to Intel CPUs, IBM merging POWER and mainframe CPUs (just swap out the front-end decoder), Intel/AMD moving x86 into the low power arena, etc.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb 

The myth that Macs are now a lot more like PCs

ummmmmm .... so?

coke is a lot more like pepsi
ford is a lot more like gm

or, they're all the same and why should we do apple's marketing department work? I like my Apple products as much as the next guy, but I'm sure as hell not gonna evangelize for them.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

IBM-Compatible - holy 1990s batman. That term is not used anymore.

IBM doesn't even make PCs anymore, so the term has virtually no current meaning. "Wintel" would be slightly more up to date, but even that no longer really works.

The OP is so full of proclamations of the blatantly obvious (X Y and Z use SATA...!) and strange inaccuracies, it makes my head spin.

IBMBIOS? Say what? The big BIOS makers are companies like Award and AMI, not IBM.

The reality of PCIe is that it hasn't really replaced PCI- it's more a replacement for AGP . Most PC motherboards still have PCI slots. PCIe 1x and 4x cards are still far and few between, and a lot of what used to be slot-based components are now generally onboard.

What exactly is a "typical PC motherboard?" ATX? Micro ATX? PCs use either Intel or AMD based motherboards around a small variety of socket types (AM2, Intel LGA775, etc) and Macs use a variant of Intel LGA77x, not 'typical PC motherboards' whatever those are.

Motherboards and processor types are virtually the only hardware that's ever really differed between Macs and PCs. And as others have pointed out, currently, Macs and PCs differ in those categories less than ever.

[MacosNerd]

I can see the OP has failed to reappear in this thread. Probably a good thing based on his inaccurate and ignorant ramblings.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

IBM doesn't even make PCs anymore, so the term has virtually no current meaning. "Wintel" would be slightly more up to date, but even that no longer really works.

Exactly. Intel/IBM/PC vs. Apple no longer work. The difference now is ultimately Windows vs. MacOS, with the later having some extremely specific hardware requirements.