Why is it that Mac is not compatible with a regular PC hardware? Why is it alway have to be on a Macintosh machine? or Why it have to run with a special CPU?

I don't get it!! Pleas explain, i do not want to be an ignorant!

I don't know how 'MAC' would be
compatible with anything? Can you
explain further?
The APPLE/Macintosh OPERATING
SYSTEM is made to run on Apple
Hardware, and using what Apple
engineers have decided to be the
optimum CPU (And, yes thanks, it is
quite 'special'!)
And: Why would you want a 'regular'
ANYTHING, when Apple products are by
far superior?

All the neat things you find in Windows is
actually Mac technology. Mac users have
long been familiar with things like pop up
windows, graphics, daisy chaining, and
using a mouse. When IBM allowed others
to clone their computers, that pretty much
opened the floodgates to the industry we
know today. Mac (Apple) didn't go this
route but maintained a smaller dedicated
following while virtually taking computers
to a sophisticated level. It took years for
windows to "catch up" to Mac technology.
Compatibility is really a business
decision. There is actually no problem
making Macs and Windows work
together, it's done that way on purpose for
business reasons. Bill Gates certainly
wanted Mac users to run out and buy his
most popular program Microsoft Office.
But not until he got a HUGE chunk of the
profits. Mac users suffered for years
waiting for these negotiations to end.
Once the deal is cut, compatibility is a few
key strokes away from the programmers.
Sadly, the answer to your question has to
do with greed, industry, business,
contracts, royalties and the stock market.
Nothing more. Perhaps one day Mac and
window users will co-exist without these
obstacles...p

Why can't you run MacOS on a PC?
[well, I do, but via an emulator]
Because they're different CPUs and they use different machine language. Can a person knowing only English read a book written in Russian or any other foreign language? Consider it that way.

------------------
Mac was not the only GUI, nor the first. Nor did all the ideas come from it...

http://toastytech.com/guis/
1973 - the first operational Alto computer
is completed at Xerox PARC. The Alto is the first system to pull together all of the elements of the modern Graphical User Interface. Features 3-button mouse, bit-mapped display, graphical windows, ethernet network.
1980: Three Rivers Computer Corporation introduces the the Perq graphical workstation.
1981: Xerox introduces the Star, the commercial successor to the Alto.
Notable features: Double-clickable icons, overlapping windows, dialog boxes and a 1024*768 monochrome display.
--------
1983: Apple introduces the Lisa
Visi Corp releases Visi On, the first integrated graphical software
environment for IBM PCs.
Microsoft announces their new "Windows" program for the IBM PC but does not release it until 1985. Notable features: Is supposed to have overlapping / resizable windows.
'84 Apple - Mac
Digital Research - GEM
MIT - X Window System
et cetera.

Basically, the original ideas came from earlier GUIs.
Although I will give it to you that MacOS was far ahead of Windows.
....................
About Windoze "catching up" to Mac, or anything else for that matter: MS refers to Unix and Linux things as 30 years old and obselete, and then turns very early features of them into "advanced features" in the next Windows version. They have nearly always been behind and copy off of features from new products... this goes practically all the way back to DR-DOS, PC-DOS and MS-DOS.
....................
"...done that way for business reasons"? Is that why Linux runs on just about everything? As in i386, IA-64, SPARC, Alpha, MIPS, SuperH, PowerPC (G3/G4 for those who don't understand 'PowerPC'), and others that I can't remember now.
Oh well, I won't go into open source and all that.

....let's keep this very simple....

1) windows covers up gobbledygook with a clever Mac - like veneer.
but underneath it's still gobbledygook. and thusly it sucks.

2) macintosh machines are the best in the world right now. why suffer
like the other fools who aren't clued in to macintosh. i pity them....

3) another hint: anything that says the words Microsoft, or AOL,
put in the trash immediately. keeps my machine running like silk.
good luck with whatever you choose....!

1) I agree.
2) "Macs are the best machines in the world right now" is a false statement. It's an opinion. I respect that. Don't blow it off as a fact, because it's not true.
If someone doesn't know about Mac, they don't suck.
If someone doesn't use Mac, they don't suck.
If someone ignores everything that exists about why they are better and refuse to accept anything but their beloved M$, then.....okay.
Perhaps they have their reasons.
But their adherence to M$ products keeps them from knowing anything about technology.
3) I agree, but some don't. AOL is taking business away from MS, so I figure they can stay for the time being. They have improved somewhat.

less viruses for macs too :)

one major thing thats different about mac and windows: Mac was made for a 64-bit processor, whereas windows was made for 32-bit (that's why a 1ghz g4 is comparible to a 2.2ghz pentium4).

until osx linux and other unix' where the best. since osx is unix based, its questionable. although os9 and down sucked major. so congrats u mac users, u finally have something to be proud of. windows 2000 and xp are probobly half unix based but they hide that (how else could they have made windows so comparitvly stable to the older versions?)

i have my own question: if a company wanted to make a clone of the g4 processor, and they knew how, could they legally?

Windoze has *never* had a *nix base; the reason 2000 and XP are "stable" is that they're based on the relatively better NT code.

The Mac OS has never been written "for a 64-bit CPU," or it wouldn't be able to run on the 32-bit CPUs that are currently used. Until WinNT/2000, though, Windoze was basically a 32-bit patch sitting on top of a 16-bit OS (DOS) that was written for an 8-bit CPU (the 8088). That .sig line defining Windoze is really pretty accurate.

The reason a 1GHz G4 is pretty comparable to a 2.2GHz P4 (or why a 1.5GHz Athlon will beat up on one also) has to do with CPU architecture, mostly caching and pipelining setups. The P4 uses something insane like a 20-stage pipeline now, which enables it to run at 2.2GHz but handicaps it with huge penalties if the speculative processing guesses wrong. Of course, AltiVec doesn't hurt the G4 either, but it doesn't help if the code isn't compiled for it.

Since the G4 architecture is patented, I highly doubt Motorola would allow anyone else to clone it without a big legal fight.

p

someone doesn't know their cpus, of course the mac processors are 64-bit! intel and amd are finally researching 64-bit architectures. the sparc processor is also 64-bit