Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

If Windows Came to PPC, Would You Switch?

Cliff posted about 10 years ago | from the converse-questions dept.

Windows 906

An anonymous reader asks: "This question was posted on Ask Slashdot about a week ago: 'If Mac OS X Came to x86, Would You Switch?' This makes me ask why not have Windows run on PowerPC? Windows/PPC would not necessarily have to run on Apple hardware, or at least not exclusively on it. I'm sure their friends at IBM and Motorola would be happy to provide chips to anyone that wanted to make computers to run this new OS. Microsoft could dust off the code from NT4/PPC, add some code from Virtual PC to get Windows/x86 compatibility, and have it up and running in about the same amount of time it would take Apple to get Mac OS X running on common Intel hardware." An additional question comes to mind, however: If Microsoft made this move, how would Intel react?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obligatory Quote (5, Funny)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | about 10 years ago | (#10531092)

"You can't polish a turd"

nth post! (-1, Offtopic)

Shulai (34423) | about 10 years ago | (#10531094)

Of course, I think I will not so lucky to get the first! :-D

How to put this... (5, Funny)

daveschroeder (516195) | about 10 years ago | (#10531097)

No []

awwww yeah, werd up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531098)

I gotz da skillz to make da Benjamins
Da Benjis pay da billz

what up in this shazbot, yo?

Bling, muthafuckin bling bling

Hmm.... (1)

Demanche (587815) | about 10 years ago | (#10531099)

Wouldn't Intel like the extra competition?

Well... (1)

graznar (537071) | about 10 years ago | (#10531100)


first post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531101)

first post!

Cost? (3, Insightful)

Klar (522420) | about 10 years ago | (#10531104)

Personally, if I was going to buy a mac, I would use the mac stuff with it.. I mean you are paying extra for the look and feel of being on a mac. If you are just gunna use windows, why not just buy a PC--if I'm not mistaken they are a fair bit cheaper.

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531184)

I would use the mac stuff with it.. I mean you are paying extra for the look and feel of being on a mac.

I don't know, if I ever bought a mac it would be for the hardware, and I'd probably format the drive and put Debian PPC on it.

Re:Cost? (0, Offtopic)

Klar (522420) | about 10 years ago | (#10531235)

If you're gunna spend that much cash just for hardware.. why not get an AlienWare [] gaming desktop. PCI Express, raid, etc.. plus I like the look a lot more than macs. A dual G5 would be nice, but costs way too much money.

Re:Cost? (5, Insightful)

John Harrison (223649) | about 10 years ago | (#10531226)

You aren't answering the question. The question was about PowerPC hardware. This needn't be Mac hardware. IBM has provided open PowerPC hardware architecture specs that anyone is free to implement. There is probably a bad one-button mouse joke to be made here. I will resist.

Of course the question mentions that this question was asked and answered in the past, when IBM produced PowerPC machines that ran WinNT. Notice that there are no such machines (or OS) being produced anymore. Not enough people found the hardware to be an advantage to make it fly.

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531266)

Exactly, you generally buy a mac to use mac based programs, you generally buy an x86 to use windows based programs. Yes, you can install other OS'es on these platforms, but we're talking generally.

Thus, if you were smart, you have tailored your computer/OS choice to your needs, and so the question of whether you would use Windows on a PPC, should abso-fucking-lutely not.

And of course vice-versa, the question of whether you would use Windows on an x86, should abso-fucking-lutely not.

Of course not. (0, Redundant)

Solra Bizna (716281) | about 10 years ago | (#10531105)

Speaking as an almost exclusive PowerPC user, I can wholeheartedly say that I would never allow a Windows machine inside my network, whether on PowerPC or an Intel compatible machine.
Although, it probably would not hurt Apple's hardware sales... ;)

Not in a million years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531107)

hells no fool.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (5, Funny)

lordkimbot (631248) | about 10 years ago | (#10531108)

Oh, you're serious.


"If Mac OS X Came to x86, Would You Switch?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531109)

"If Mac OS X Came to x86, Would You Switch?"

Um no, i enjoy paying top dollar for equilivant hardware and software for no reason.

Go Apple!

Well of course (2, Funny)

willoc (601052) | about 10 years ago | (#10531112)

Intel would start crying...

OS 9.2 (1)

Starve (672909) | about 10 years ago | (#10531113)

I have this fear it would be like OS 9.2 was Engineer:"well it's kinda stable" Marketing:"OK RELEASE IT!!!!" I actually reinstalled OS 9.1 to avoid all the pain of having it crash every other lame reason it could.

But why... (1)

elid (672471) | about 10 years ago | (#10531118) more for hardware if you're going to run Windows anyway?

For Shame! (5, Funny)

Draconix (653959) | about 10 years ago | (#10531176)

Once more, people are overlooking an oft ignored market base:


Re:But why... (2, Insightful)

ozzmosis (99513) | about 10 years ago | (#10531183)

Big Endian [] which makes a huge difference depending on what you're doing. For example most multimedia applications.

Re:But why... (0)

TarlCabbot (778401) | about 10 years ago | (#10531212)

Yes, ridiculus question.
I have to play with windows (all part of the rent/beer equasion). No great love, but that's what I get paid to know.
Windows needs to fix what's there, not start porting crap to other platforms.

This is already an option (2, Insightful)

compactable (714182) | about 10 years ago | (#10531119)

... if I want to run a crappy system on PPC architecture, I can simply fire up System 7. Windows not needed - Historical Mac software gives me all the crappy I need - peddle that filth elsewhere ...

No (1)

diablo-d3 (175104) | about 10 years ago | (#10531123)

I wouldn't.

Of Course. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531124)

The quality of Microsoft software combined with the cost-effective PPC hardware! Not to mention the compatibility!

No (5, Interesting)

ozzmosis (99513) | about 10 years ago | (#10531125)

Mac OS X is 90% of the reason I have PPC.

If Mac OS X was on x86 I'd have a x86.

Why? (1)

ftzdomino (555670) | about 10 years ago | (#10531127)

Why would you run Windows on much more expensive hardware?

Anything to see here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531128)

Should I move along?

Intel's reaction (5, Insightful)

kbs (70631) | about 10 years ago | (#10531131)

Intel would have to sit there and bear it, since Microsoft has more command of its market than Intel would. If you recall back around '98 Intel had been developing graphics software to encourage people to use more processor power, and Microsoft basically told them to stop since it wasn't Intel's place to write software... Microsoft basically threatened to stop developing for Intel, and since at that time AMD was starting to gain market share, this scared the shit out of them. Suffice it to say, Microsoft is the dominant player in the WinTel relationship.

would do (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531132)

even though microsoft will never switch winxp to PowerPC, hypothetically, I would switch.
The efficiency of the PowerPC architecture is very nice and since I don't depend on software other than a media player, mozilla and a large number of open-source tools, the binary incompatability won't be a problem.

Re:would do (1)

suckmysav (763172) | about 10 years ago | (#10531198)

If that is all you require, why not just just run Linux PPC today? It works as well as Windows for these things but has far less baggage.

Re:would do (2, Funny)

Performaman (735106) | about 10 years ago | (#10531250)

A wise Finn once wrote:
"The memory maagement on the PowerPC can be used to frighten small children."

Thats a retarded fucking question (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531133)

Thats a retarded fucking question

This is hilarious! (2, Insightful)

ravenspear (756059) | about 10 years ago | (#10531134)

I am in disbelief. Was the poster actually serious? Who would give a fuck?

I mean, those that use PPC (mostly Mac and PPC Linux users) use it becasue they don't want to use Windows. What conceivable reason would they have to switch to Windows? Hell, what reason would M$ have to port Windows to a platform where they know that no one will buy there product.

This is just dumb. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:This is hilarious! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531223)

The real question here is: If Martians landed on earth, would they use PPC WIndows, or would they prefer x86?

Slashdot will now officially post anything.

sure!!! (1)

bobbabemagnet (247383) | about 10 years ago | (#10531135)

Let's put expensive software on expensive hardware!

Is this a joke? (2)

dupper (470576) | about 10 years ago | (#10531136)

Why the hell would anyone pay PPC prices to run Windows?!

In a word... (5, Insightful)

example42 (760044) | about 10 years ago | (#10531137)

No. OS X is a great OS and I choose to run it in my PPC hardware (Powerbook). It fits my needs perfectly. I choose to run Windows on my gaming system (AMD CPU) and Linux on my servers. I don't see any advantage to running Windows on PPC hardware. I think the performance gain would be minimal to nonexistant over x86 with Windows, and the initial invest in hardware would be much more costly. I choose my OS based on my needs for that particular system. The platform it runs on is incidental.

wwwhhhhaat???? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531138)

yeah in ppc?? Why on earth would anybody do that????

Already done. It's called Microsoft Virtual PC. (2, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | about 10 years ago | (#10531139)

It works. Don't do games on it, and don't run it with low memory. There are a few gotchas, but they're minimal. It's not as slow as you would want to believe, and it occasionally gets bogged down but it's tennable. It's like running on a 900mhz box when run on a ppc32/PowerBookG4. It costs a few bucks, and you still have to buy Norton or McAfee, etc. But it's otherwise as useful and harmless as XP. Oh, except you need to buy an XP license for it, too.

Doesn'r buy anything... (2, Interesting)

pdaoust007 (258232) | about 10 years ago | (#10531140)

MacOS is already superior ro Windows IMHO. And powerful x86 hardware is already much cheaper if you insist on running Windows. I don't see any incentive here... Didn't Microsft use to have an old version of NT that ran on the Alpha before?

muuuh. (4, Insightful)

FrenZon (65408) | about 10 years ago | (#10531141)

I think most Windows users (myself included) don't care what hardware they use, as long as it's fast+cheap and all their apps/games run on it. I doubt that a PPC platform would be much faster/cheaper than x86 (even if you did magically manage to port Windows to it at full efficiency), and if it was, Intel/AMD would change so that it wasn't.

To sum up: I'd switch if there was a point. However there doesn't seem to be too many points.

The reason the OSX on x86 discussion came up is because people want the OS they think they want on the hardware they know they like. Asking a bunch of Linux nerds if they want to run the OS they don't like on the hardware they aren't entirely familiar with isn't going to provoke a huge discussion.

Re:muuuh. (5, Funny)

rlwhite (219604) | about 10 years ago | (#10531268)

I'm still waiting for Windows on x86 to have full efficiency.

The answer is allready out there (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | about 10 years ago | (#10531142)

How many people run virtual pc on their macs as a coequal platform ?

Ick, no! (1, Interesting)

MsGeek (162936) | about 10 years ago | (#10531143)

Keep that crap off my G3! I wouldn't do it if they gave it away for free.

Microsoft called ... (1)

ggvaidya (747058) | about 10 years ago | (#10531144)

... they say Bill Gates is in hysterics, can you knock it off with the weird jokes?

Why would anyone think this would happen? (4, Insightful)

lseltzer (311306) | about 10 years ago | (#10531145)

There was NT for the MIPS, Alpha and PPC, and they all failed miserably in the market. Windows users see no value in running on anything other than the volume-leading processor architecture. There's no value in it.

Are you serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531146)

One of the main reasons I use a PPC proccessor is to enjoy Mac OS X. If I didn't like Mac OS I'd already be using a Windows machine now. To the 'Cult of Mac', most of the users of PPC, it would be ridiculous to run Windows on their precious computers. After all what kind of Cult lets outsiders enter in on their computers.

It even dosen't make sense that Microsoft would do this. They'd probably lose more money than they would make and ultimatley would make Intel very, very angry.

Not possible. (1, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | about 10 years ago | (#10531148)

There isn't enought PPC production capacity to even supply 20% of the x86 market demand.

Re:Not possible. (1)

soward (6325) | about 10 years ago | (#10531238)

well, dude, supply ~= demand. I don't think the question was 'should PPC _replace_ x86?'.

"Hey let's ramp up production to 100Million plus of these chips" "but the market is only for ~ 10Million"
"so what! we can never sell 100M if we only make 10M!"

Re:Not possible. (4, Funny)

finkployd (12902) | about 10 years ago | (#10531253)

Umm, basic economics my friend. If the demand is there, the production capacity will rise with it. It isn't like PPC chips are a scarce, natural resource, IBM certainly has the ability to boost production.

"Sir, we cannot keep up with the damand, we need to find more PPC mines"

That would be kinda cool actually.

"Eureka! We have struck Altivic!"


I Used To Think So ... (4, Insightful)

Mad Martigan (166976) | about 10 years ago | (#10531149)

When I was in college (I'm a second-year grad student now) was right about when Apple starting producing the G4s and I thought, Wow, those machines rock. They look nice and they are super powerful. It's too bad I don't like the MacOS. When I got to grad school, I bought a Powerbook laptop and it was the best computer-buying decision I ever made. Once I actually sat down and spent some time with OS X, I realized that I liked it much better than any flavor of Windows. So, no, I wouldn't switch, and I'm glad I spend the time to learn OS X instead.

Why? (1, Insightful)

ImTwoSlick (723185) | about 10 years ago | (#10531154)

I'm left to wonder what benefits would prompt anybody to switch to PPC running windows. I know the benefit for users running OSX on x86 would be the increased range of hardware for users to select from, but is there anything special PPC has over x86 that would warrent such a switch?

Intel ? (1)

SmegTheLight (521218) | about 10 years ago | (#10531155)

If Microsoft made this move, how would Intel react?

pffft.. Screw Intel, How would AMD [] react ?

No (-1, Troll)

metlin (258108) | about 10 years ago | (#10531156)

No. If I wanted a Mac, I'll buy a Mac.

Apple's business is primarily hardware, why would they want to do something like this?

Besides, I do not quite like the UI of the MacOS. I think it really sucks.

Price/Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531157)

Unless you are doing Altivec codes, PowerPC offers very little advantage over PowerPC hardware. It is not faster, it is not cheaper.

Also, PPC is rightly or wrongly percieved as a "Proprietary" platform backed by two extremely propreitary vendors (IBM and Apple). The move in the enterprise is away from "wierd" hardware and towards standard x86 kit that is available from many vendors. So, I see zero corporations moving away from cheap Dell/HP stuff to lock-in PowerPC kit.

Dual (1)

Clown Jizz (766585) | about 10 years ago | (#10531158)

This is only useful if you dual boot. I guess this is more likely to happen than OSX coming to x86, so it would be a happy medium between having both a PC and a Mac and having a single computer.

Virtual PC (2, Insightful)

erick99 (743982) | about 10 years ago | (#10531161)

I am assuming that if a Mac user needs a Windows application to run on their machine they use something like Virtual PC [] . Otherwise, I wonder what the point would be of running Windows on a Mac or PowerPC machine when the folks that own those probably have a strong preference for a non-Windows OS.

Can you say dual Opteron love? (0, Offtopic)

igorsway (669877) | about 10 years ago | (#10531162)


Push ./ers buttons (2)

screwedcork (801471) | about 10 years ago | (#10531165)

This might just be the most dangerous Ask Slashdot post ever. It plays RIGHT into the anti-windowsism here :)

I remember asking, once upon a time (1, Interesting)

goneutt (694223) | about 10 years ago | (#10531169)

I remember asking a computer teacher in middle school why the programs on the Macs wouldn't work on the PC's, and I was just told "Thats the way it is" Here we are, within striking distance of program/platform interoperability and independence.

Just slap your favor flav of linux on whatever system you want, forget Windows, forget MacOS. And forget vendors that wont follow the lead to platform interoperability.

OS Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531171)

Krusty blew up Courtesy!
DTR is going to be pissed!!!

April Fool came early this year, n'est pa? (1, Funny)

ggvaidya (747058) | about 10 years ago | (#10531172)

Strangest. Ask Slashdot. Ever.

This reminds me of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531177) response to my sister asking me, "Didja hear? Britney Spears got married?"

Me: "Apple sure sells alot of iPods?"

Yes! (2, Funny)

Axem (713217) | about 10 years ago | (#10531180)

So I can run Windows, on a Mac, running Virtual Machine, which in turn will emulate OSX! Genius I tell you!

Oh yeah (4, Funny)

cubicledrone (681598) | about 10 years ago | (#10531181)

People are going to switch to Windows from OS X. Oh sure. They'll probably line up around the Best Buy at midnight. Yeah. Uh huh.

Dell makes an iPod. Sony makes an iPod. Windows is trying to be OS X. Microsoft has a music store. HP licenses the iPod. Hmmm.

Yep. Everybody wants to be Apple.

If the Astros put on Yankees uniforms... (5, Funny)

PollGuy (707987) | about 10 years ago | (#10531186)

would you root for them?

Re:If the Astros put on Yankees uniforms... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531209)

No. But then, I don't like Yankees in Yankee uniforms :-)

Worst. Idea. Ever. (1)

3) profit!!! (773340) | about 10 years ago | (#10531187)

No. Just no. This OS would have all the bad things about Mac OS (no x86 software will run), with none of the good (iApps, UNIXness, Cocoa, etc). Sure, the developers could just recompile, but what about all your legacy apps? VPC doesn't really cut it. Sorry, but this idea will never happen, especially considering Microsoft's devotion to legacy app support.

Remember Windows NT for Alpha? (4, Insightful)

k98sven (324383) | about 10 years ago | (#10531191)

You probably don't.

The biggest thing Windows has going for it is the massive number of existing applications. But a different processor architecture would require porting. But unless the platform catches on, noone is going to port.

So why would anyone switch? This is pretty much the fate of the old Windows-Alpha port. Very few apps got ported (PuTTY is one of the few I know). Besides, most people were using Alphas as server machines, for which the software they needed was already available on the competing Unixes.

So.. no.. I don't think Windows could ever haul itself off the x86 platform. Too many legacy apps which are x86-specific.

Re:Remember Windows NT for Alpha? (2, Interesting)

goneutt (694223) | about 10 years ago | (#10531263)

I vaguly remember seeing LightWave(maybe 4 or 5) on an alpha box. Then I had to go back to class and use LightWave 2 on an amiga 2000 video toaster. A blazing 16mhz with a whopping 16meg of ram. (~1995-96, high school budget)

Only if the PPC were commoditized (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 years ago | (#10531195)

Otherwise the processors are going to cost more than x86 chips and there'll be no point. We don't run windows because we have the superior architecture you know.

No. (1)

naoursla (99850) | about 10 years ago | (#10531196)

I like the unix functionality on mac osx. cygwin doesn't cut it for me. I like the OSX UI more than the free window managers. Beside, I doubt Windows on the mac would have very much support from software vendors.

analogy (3, Insightful)

flacco (324089) | about 10 years ago | (#10531200)

this is like asking if you would like dogshit any better if it were spread on a ritz cracker instead of a graham cracker.

Switch? Not entirely... (3, Insightful)

MP3Chuck (652277) | about 10 years ago | (#10531203)

But it would be cool to dual-boot OSX and a WinOS, perhaps for gaming or whatever...

Not without Apple (1)

AJ_Levy (700911) | about 10 years ago | (#10531205)

The problem with PPC Windows is that the vast bulk of the market share - at least in the consumer market - for PPC hardware is held by Apple. Therefore, unless Apple wanted to continue making PPC's and were to drop OSX, I really can't see this happening.

As mentioned numerous times already in this thread, OS-X is arguably a much better OS than Windows, and I doubt that most OS-X users would switch from it to Windows. Again, especially without Apple's support.

They already tried, they found out the answer. (5, Interesting)

THotze (5028) | about 10 years ago | (#10531207)

Ok, so in 1996, NT4 came out on x86, which was the first step that Microsoft really took into making Windows a real OS.

It ran on PPC, Intel, Alpha and MIPS. That's a lot of architectures. Now, think about it: One of the things about Microsoft is, generally speaking, they have no soul. If they make money selling a product, they'll sell it. Now, that's not to say they won't STOP selling any product that's not making money (*cough*XBOX*cough*) just to drag their competition to the ground, but they also won't turn down cash for ideological reasons.

The fact that when Windows 2000 came out reflects that no one really used NT 4 on anything other than Intel hardware. Now, this might be because the hardware developers never really were 100% behind MS, or it might be because someone that was shelling out cash for an Alpha or a MIPS workstation (but I do remember there being a drop-in MIPS chip that would work in a socket.... 5? Pentium board?) wanted a better OS, or any other reason.

The fact is, you can say that PPC might be a faster processor platform today, with a higher bus speed and better performance per clock, but its close. Very close. I don't think MS would be able to polish a PPC version of Windows as much as they have the Intel version, meaning you might take a relative performance penalty... and there isn't a price advantage in PPC over x86.

So yeah, the previous failure, combined with the pitfalls of a new version listed above make a pretty strong case for "no."

Short Awnser: no (1)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | about 10 years ago | (#10531210)

I might try it for a bit as a novelty, but there's just no good reason to switch from MacOS or Linux/PPC to WindowsPPC.

Seriously, porting to PPC, or any other platform for that matter, would take away Window's biggest advantages: their wide software and hardware support due to their virtual monoply.
Why would anyone want to use windows on an architecture where there are far less windows apps then mac or linux apps? I suppose MS might soften that blow by bundling an integrated version of VirtualPC to run x86 software, but it would still mean a significant speed hit.

I suppose PPCs do have advantages for certain kinds of calculations over current x86 stuff, but if you really want to do that kind of stuff you can allready do it on mac or linux, so there's not much of an opening for MS there.
And for everything else you'd do under windows, you can allready do things just as well on x86 hardware..

PPC OS, maybe, but what about the software? (1)

fruitbane (454488) | about 10 years ago | (#10531215)

Windows on a PPC platform would create an interesting conundrum. The programs on x86 Windows would have to be, at the very least, recompiled for PPC hardware. For once, Mac users (of whom I am one from time to time) could finally claim that all the software was designed for the Mac OS, as none of the existing Windows software would actually work on this Windows on PPC OS.

Because combining Virtual PC with a souped up WinNT on PPC core wouldn't really be any better than VPC with OS X.

Dual Boot? (3, Interesting)

rattler14 (459782) | about 10 years ago | (#10531221)

The only advantage that I see is the possibility of dual booting. This would solve the age old problem of "not having enough games on the mac". That being said, you can see why microsoft would NOT want to port it to the PPC, as it would only give them a paltry increase in sales, while making the mac platform that much more enticing. And let's face it, microsoft has ZERO control over the devlopment over apple's hardware.

I know there are other PPC vendors than apple, but it's the one we all think about when discussing these "port this OS to that architecture" questions.

Hhahhahahfhahahhahaowiefha (1)

redhotchil (44670) | about 10 years ago | (#10531224)

Would I like to run windows on cheap, competitive hardware or slower, more expensive, older hardware wow let me see

I can equate this to those people exclusively running Linux on G4 desktops, etc

I would install it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531231)

I would install it, and I'm a bit suprised that others wouldn't too.

I certainly wouldn't install ONLY Windows. MacOS X would still be my main platform. But at the moment, when I go on international business trips, I'm stuck with either the Mac or the Win laptop I have. In reality, it's not really a choice. I NEED to have a Windows machine (not a slow emulated version) with me to run certain tests that are not hardware specific, but require the speed not available with VirtualPC on MacOS X.

That also means that during my business trips I am currently stuck with using Windows, and don't have my favorite apps with me for all the other tasks that DON'T require Windows.

So if Windows were available for my PowerBook, sure, I'd load it. Dual boot. Isn't that what a lot of linux people do?

(Now the question, would I BUY a copy of Windows to install on my PPC... Now we're getting into sticky grounds. ;-)

History would probably repeat itself (2, Insightful)

Radical Rad (138892) | about 10 years ago | (#10531233)

Microsoft could dust off the code from NT4/PPC

You are obviously aware that they tried to make a go of NT on several other hardware platforms already. In addition to PowerPC there was also MIPS and Alpha. If I remember correctly, MS was dropped by one vendor and the other two were dropped by MS. There just wasn't enough of a demand for NT on workstations to pay for the development even with the cash cow of Windows on x86 PC's. So I guess my question to you is if they failed before what makes you think they could do well now?

My answer is the same as before... (1)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | about 10 years ago | (#10531240)

It would be silly to run out and adopt Windows for the PPC, just as OSX on x86. For instance, none of your current Windows applications would run on the PPC box, just as none of your Mac's OSX applications would run on an x86. Developers would have to retool their applications for the other processors. This costs time and money, which are not available to most companies. Personally, I would rather them invest more time in porting their applications over to Linux. At least this would offer a clear benefit to the market.

Personally, I feel these moves would do nothing but damage to IT. It would require more support and more development work for no real benefit.

New Poll (5, Funny)

Nova Express (100383) | about 10 years ago | (#10531241)

What do you think of running Windows on the PowerPC Platform?

  1. Finally! The stability and ease of use of Windows combined with the Mac's huge library of games!
  2. I think you should put down the crack pipe.
  3. Hmm, there's something just not right about this ice cream. I know! I'll improve it by adding this dead rat!
  4. Don't make me hurt you.
  5. You'll install Windows on my PPC over my dead body.
  6. The goggles! They do nothing!
  7. Seriously, I really, really have to hurt you now.
  8. I'm still trying to install Windows 3.0 on my PDP-11. Just 12,500 more dip switch flips and I'm done!
  9. With my 5000 node XServe cluster, I can now achieve a Blue Screen of Death in picoseconds!
  10. I'll use Windows when it runs on CowboyNeal.

Good news/bad news (2, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 10 years ago | (#10531242)

The good news:

Windows users would enjoy big a big boost in security because most of the exploits for holes in the OS wouldn't run on the new architecture.

The bad news:

None of their apps or device drivers would run either.

(OK, maybe most of the apps would run under emulation, but that's never going to be particularly fast or trouble-free.)

Why? Nobody did the first time around. (2, Insightful)

AJWM (19027) | about 10 years ago | (#10531246)

The NT4 disks came with Windows for x86, MIPS, Alpha, and PPC.

It didn't succeed then, it sure wouldn't now.

OTOH, I wouldn't mind if I could get a commodity PPC platform to run, say, Yellow Dog Linux on. The x86 architecture um, how to put this delicately, leaves something to be desired.

Would I switch? (1)

gonzalezeb (792849) | about 10 years ago | (#10531247)

I would probably put it on a test system...No I would not switch (doubt I ever would leave Slackware)but it would be fun to tinker with (I always enjoy going to the Apple stores to play around with their UNIX-Like systems)...but the first thing I would do is get a real mouse (regardless of platform). Eric

-1 Redundant (4, Funny)

wazzzup (172351) | about 10 years ago | (#10531248)


Really, why was this story even posted? The barrier for entry to Windows is already lower on Intel than PPC. 99% of people buy PPC to get MacOS and have made a decision to stay away from Windows. Maybe for some obscure server configuration or something - I don't know. Ewww. I think I just felt my PowerBook shudder.

It's like going to church and asking the congregation if, next week, they would like to hold a Satanic mass and worship the devil rather than the usual Sunday drill.

If Windows came to PPC, would you switch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531251)

It would only be worthwhile as a dual-boot machine, as was planned with the original CHRP/PPCP. And, just like back then, MS wouldn't want users to be able to compare Windows and Mac side-by-side.

Uhhh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531254)

How about "Hell No!" ? Why use a real, decently architected ISA with a poorly architected OS? Nah, x86 and windows are pefect companions. And I say this as the owner of a 2 CPU K7.

Ancient History.... (1)

Monkey_Genius (669908) | about 10 years ago | (#10531257)

There used to be a version of Windows that ran on PPc PREP; it was Windows NT 3.1 (3.5?) fo PPC. It was discontinued years ago because of its' overwhelming popularity and availability of hardware.

NT Did, nobody switched. (4, Interesting)

TheCrazyFinn (539383) | about 10 years ago | (#10531258)

NT4 ran on PPC, up until SP3 (the last install discs with PPC support were SP3 based).

Nobody switched, and that was in the days of the gratuitously unstable System 7.5 and Mac OS 7.6, which tended to crash if you looked at them wrong.

I suspect that BeOS has more users than NT for PPC, at least for Macs. And neither OS ran on G3's or later CPU's.

Now, with OS X and VPC, why the hell would I want to run Windows of all things on a Mac? other way 'round I can see, especially with WINE support or something similar (like Mac-on-Linux) to get Windows software compatibility. But even then, I'd probably stick to PPC, as the hardware is generally better quality and definitely better designed.

Been there, done that (1)

putaro (235078) | about 10 years ago | (#10531259)

This was actually the plan back around 1995. Apple and IBM were working on something called "CHRP" (Common Hardware Reference Platform) which was to be a design spec for a computer that could run MacOS (System 7 at the time, but moving to System 8 (the real System 8, Copland!) soon after), OS/2, AIX and Windows NT.

You may recall that at around this time, Intel entered the motherboard market and for a short time kicked the Taiwanese out on their butts. Hence, the Taiwanese were looking seriously at building CHRP motherboards and systems. Had Apple completed the spec on time and gotten it out there, things might have been quite different.

As it happened, internal politics killed CHRP inside Apple, IBM got tired of the nonsense and Microsoft put a bullet into the head of NT/PPC.

XBOX2 --- XP on PPC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10531261)

Didn't the game developers given G5s with Windows on it?

Wrong Question (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 10 years ago | (#10531272)

The question should have been something along the lines of "If you could buy a G5 system for x86 money,
would you be OK with switching to a REAL OS at the same time?"

I'm reasonably sure I'll get modded "troll" for speaking the truth in public.

Funny (1)

TheWordOfB (696275) | about 10 years ago | (#10531274)

Reading everyone's comments about PowerPC sucking makes me realize that most of these people have never had the pleasure of taking a masters level Organization and Architecture class.. because if people truely understood the power of a RISC processor and its simplicity and superior design.. they'd dump CISC in a minute. The fact remains.. intel could never shake the 8086 CISC precedent.. and it will forever remain backwards compatibe to 1980's technology... seeing a horribly inefficient CISC pipeline makes me want to cry. Branch Hazard! Bubble! Data Hazard! Flush or glorious 16 stage Pipeline! errrrrrr... Hazard! Hazard! Hazard!!

*waits for fanboys* (1)

The Foo (794948) | about 10 years ago | (#10531276)

All this topic is going to do (over a long period of time), is spark incessent flames. PowerPC = Mac X86 = Windows / Linux / Unix They both do their jobs well on both systems, so why change?

I would be too scared (1)

xelph (542741) | about 10 years ago | (#10531279)

That a horde of tens of thousands of viruses would leave the Windows partition to invade my Mac OS X partition, where life is definitely more attractive. A little bit like the yearly spring break assault on Mexico.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?