O/S Cross Platform Operability

[tekbro]

Greetings.
I haven't posted here in ages. I really like the new look and feel of the site. It's much more clean and organized (unlike my room) than before.

I have what many of you will probably regard as a silly noob question. But the only reason I'm asking is because someone asked me, and I don't think I had a good answer! So I'm coming to the experts.

How is it that Windows and other operating systems like OS/2 will work on processors from two completely different chip makers? Namely, Intel and AMD, but not on Mac computers?

I suspect it has something to do with the close relationship that Intel and AMD shared in the early days (if I recall correctly, AMD actually made and sold Intel chips, until they got into some kind of licensing dispute).

I'm a little fuzzy on this, so I'm hoping somebody can explain why there are so many varieties of operating systems, some of which will work on computers using one brand of CPU, but not others.

BTW, I *THOUGHT* I was placing this in the correct folder, so please feel free to move it if it belongs elsewhere)

Thanks, folks!

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Greetings.
I haven't posted here in ages. I really like the new look and feel of the site. It's much more clean and organized (unlike my room) than before.

I have what many of you will probably regard as a silly noob question. But the only reason I'm asking is because someone asked me, and I don't think I had a good answer! So I'm coming to the experts.

How is it that Windows and other operating systems like OS/2 will work on processors from two completely different chip makers? Namely, Intel and AMD, but not on Mac computers?

I suspect it has something to do with the close relationship that Intel and AMD shared in the early days (if I recall correctly, AMD actually made and sold Intel chips, until they got into some kind of licensing dispute).

I'm a little fuzzy on this, so I'm hoping somebody can explain why there are so many varieties of operating systems, some of which will work on computers using one brand of CPU, but not others.

BTW, I *THOUGHT* I was placing this in the correct folder, so please feel free to move it if it belongs elsewhere)

Thanks, folks!

Well it really depends on what processor architecture the Operating System was designed to run on. In the Case of Windows, it was designed to run on x86 compatible processors. Both Intel and AMD make x86 compatible processors, therefore they can both run Windows.

MAC computers used to use Power PC Processors from IBM and before that they used Processors that were RISC in design from Motorola. Both of these processors are not designed using the x86 architecture therefore MAC computers needed an O/S that would run on there hardware. So they created the MAC OSx Operating system.

But nowadays MAC have turned to Intel to provide them with there processors. So technically you could run Windows on the new MAC computers but MAC have sorta imposed some dirty BIOS tricks to prevent there MAC OSx from running on NON MAC computers and to try and hinder the Windows performance on MAC Computers. So New MAC's are x86 but not the G5 and earlier based MAC's.

The only thing stopping you from running MAC OSx on an x86 processor outside of a MAC computer is a feature in the MAC Bios. Many have found ways around this of course.

 

[racekarl]

tekbro, you were generally correct that AMD and Intel chips are compatible with the x86 instruction set, but much of your other information was incorrect.

The PowerPC chip was the RISC (reduced instruction set) chip you were thinking of. It was designed jointly by IBM and Motorola. Prior to that, Macs used the Motorola 68000 family of chips, which were CISC (complex instruction set) chips, architecturally more similar to an Intel x86 chip than the PowerPC chip.

Also, Apple doesn't really do any "dirty" tricks with their BIOS, because Macs don't use BIOS at all. Macs use the new standard called EFI, which has replaced BIOS. However, Windows is still dependent on BIOS as it is designed to be compatible with the millions of existing PCs that still use it.

 

[tekbro]

tekbro, you were generally correct that AMD and Intel chips are compatible with the x86 instruction set, but much of your other information was incorrect.

The PowerPC chip was the RISC (reduced instruction set) chip you were thinking of. It was designed jointly by IBM and Motorola. Prior to that, Macs used the Motorola 68000 family of chips, which were CISC (complex instruction set) chips, architecturally more similar to an Intel x86 chip than the PowerPC chip.

Also, Apple doesn't really do any "dirty" tricks with their BIOS, because Macs don't use BIOS at all. Macs use the new standard called EFI, which has replaced BIOS. However, Windows is still dependent on BIOS as it is designed to be compatible with the millions of existing PCs that still use it.

But isn't UEFI an Intel initiative? It seems like supporting Apple machines wasn't important to IBM and Moto because they're off building chips for embedded and high end servers. So Mac decided to source with Intel now. So does this mean that Intel is trying to design their processors to interface more easily with other operating systems? What about other chip makers? Is this extensible spec something that goes beyond Intel?

I mean, is the idea here that as long as your O/S understands the EFI specification, (and the specification is running on the processor) it should run the hardware? That way you could run Solaris on a Mac or Windows on a Sun SPARC platrom. Thus, the architecture of the chip becomes irrelevant. Or maybe I'm just hallucinating... 8O

 

[Hawkeye22]

I think you're confusing a bios/EFI with a CPU's instruction set and architecture. A SPARC processor does not use the x86 instruction set, thus there are two versions of Solaris, one for sparc, and one for x86 (PC's).

 

[rodney_ws]

I agree that Apple doesn't want us all installing OS X on our PCs... but do you REALLY believe Apple does anything (anything at all!) to limit the performance of Windows running on an Intel-based Apple? Come on now! What purpose would that serve?

 

[sailer]

tekbro, you were generally correct that AMD and Intel chips are compatible with the x86 instruction set, but much of your other information was incorrect.

The PowerPC chip was the RISC (reduced instruction set) chip you were thinking of. It was designed jointly by IBM and Motorola. Prior to that, Macs used the Motorola 68000 family of chips, which were CISC (complex instruction set) chips, architecturally more similar to an Intel x86 chip than the PowerPC chip.

Also, Apple doesn't really do any "dirty" tricks with their BIOS, because Macs don't use BIOS at all. Macs use the new standard called EFI, which has replaced BIOS. However, Windows is still dependent on BIOS as it is designed to be compatible with the millions of existing PCs that still use it.

But isn't UEFI an Intel initiative? It seems like supporting Apple machines wasn't important to IBM and Moto because they're off building chips for embedded and high end servers. So Mac decided to source with Intel now. So does this mean that Intel is trying to design their processors to interface more easily with other operating systems? What about other chip makers? Is this extensible spec something that goes beyond Intel?

I mean, is the idea here that as long as your O/S understands the EFI specification, (and the specification is running on the processor) it should run the hardware? That way you could run Solaris on a Mac or Windows on a Sun SPARC platrom. Thus, the architecture of the chip becomes irrelevant. Or maybe I'm just hallucinating... 8O

I agree with the idea of the architecture being different is irrevelant in the long run. Whatever chip design was used may have made something more or less effiecient, but the different chips could all run the same programs when emulator programs or cards were used. Emulators slowed things down a bit, but they functioned. Sure, Solaris runs a different code then the x86 instructions, but it could be programed to use x86 or other chips to use the Solaris code. The main difference remains in efficiency of the chip with a particular code, not the ability or inability to use a different code.

Maybe I'm hallucinating a bit too. Of course, I used to think that OS/2 was the best programing around and I was disappointed in the lack of support and developement it was given. Oh well, time marches on and we work with what we have.

 

[tekbro]

Maybe it's a little Machiavellian (and I'm not trying to take a side to this argument), but isn't Apple's loyalty to it's own product (OS X)? Thus, is it not in their best interest to promote even the preception that Windows is "slower". Thus, they're promoting the idea that "you might as well just use the Apple O/S X along with your Apple hardware if you want THE BEST performance-screw Windows!"

Granted this it might be a specious scenario for Apple. But then how often do other companies simply assume that 99.9% of the consumer population is just stoopid and market intelligence insulting products if it is to their advantage? They know most won't bother understanding why things are the way they are.

I'm not saying that Apple is necessarily doing this, however.