if a PCI PS/2 Card is installed into a PowerMac will a PS/2 Keyboard and Mouse Work on the Mac OS?

I'm not aware of any Mac-compatible PS/2 PCI cards, but I suppose they might be out there. As with any PCI card, it should say if it's Mac-compatible.

But rather than using a PCI card, it would probably be better to use a USB adapter. For example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812107544&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Cables-_-Belkin-_-12107544

i had one of those PS/2 to USB adaptors they say they not Mac compatible but they are so im assuming Generic Drivers in Mac OS X would allow a PS/2 PCI card to work do PowerMac logic boards have any USB 2.0 Headers on them?

if a PCI PS/2 Card is installed into a PowerMac will a PS/2 Keyboard and Mouse Work on the Mac OS?Let me put this into a context. On Macs, USB replaced the Apple Desktop Bus (ADB) and DIN-8 RS-232 serial ports beginning with the introduction of the original iMac in 1998. On the Wintel side, USB was intended to replace PS/2 keyboard/mouse ports, DB-9 RS-232 serial ports, and parallel printer ports beginning in the 1996 time frame. For the better part of the decade that followed, most Wintel PCs shipped with USB and legacy ports.

Except for a limited number of very obscure cases, there was never a market for additional PS/2 ports on Wintel PCs. There was never a market for PS/2 ports on the Mac either before or after the USB transition. [Mac clones used PS/2 ports.] There are no PS/2 cards for the Mac and never have been.

It might be helpful if you would explain why you "need" PS/2 ports.

well i can install PS/2 ktexts to enable the use but i need a PS/2 Card because i have no USB keyboards and the PowerMac G4 will not come with a keyboard or mouse and its pointless to invest in a USB keyboard when i have over a dozen keyboards now

i should also add the PS/2 to USB adaptors are too bulky i dont like a mess of cables behind my computers

reading up all PS/2 PCI cards use PS/2 Emulation via USB so in aspect it being a USB card the PS/2 Ports should work just fine on Mac OS using native USB Drivers

I though of a Question: Would a PS/2 keyboard support the various keyboard boot commands, that might be needed before PS/2 drivers would load?

well all PS/2 to PCI card Emulate PS/2 Through USB so if a Mac allows boot commands thru a PCI USB Card than it should with a PCI PS/2 Card as well

Well if Mac OS supports Boot commands through a USB PCI Card than it will with a PS/2 PCI card because a PS/2 Card emulates the PS/2 Ports through USB

well all PCI PS/2 cards Emulate PS/2 thru USB so if a Mac can use boot commands through a PCI USB Card than it should be able to do that with a PS/2 Card as well

PS/2 Cards use PS/2 Ports on a USB Chip same thing as the USB to PS/2 Y Cables but more reliable connection

well i can install PS/2 ktexts to enable the use but i need a PS/2 Card because i have no USB keyboards and the PowerMac G4 will not come with a keyboard or mouse and its pointless to invest in a USB keyboard when i have over a dozen keyboards nowYou are trying to run all around Job's barn to no good end. You may not have a USB keyboard, but you can buy one at your nearest Walmart, Office Depot, Radio Shack, or any number of other stores that sell technology. If you can't afford one, then you may have a friend who will give you one. I can guarantee that a USB keyboard will be less expensive and less time-consuming than locating a non-existent PS/2 card and developing the kexts to make it work on your Power Mac G4. The same goes for a USB mouse.

read my post above

read MY post above

Even if your own solution has the PS/2 device communicating through USB, you're still subject to the main limitation of PS/2 - you can't expect hot connect, or hot swap to work on a PS/2 device, where a USB device does that easily. USB drivers with a PS/2 device would be nothing more than a kludge, likely not too stable...

true but PS/2 PCI Cards are much more stable and reliable connection than the USB to PS/2 Y cables

all im asking is if putting in a PS/2 PCI Card would work does PowerMac G4s support boot commands through USB Cards? such as the Apple C to boot from CD? also using a Windows keyboard on a Mac what key is the same as the Eject key? i think it is F12? i do have the original keyboard from my iMac G3 if i hook that up can i turn on the system by pressing the Power Button on the iMac Keyboard?

Yes, the alternate key for CD eject is f12 (but not alway, you would have to just try it)

The power button on an older Apple keyboard is generally not supported now.
The old iMac (with a CD tray, not the newer iMac G3 with slot CD drive) would support that keyboard power button. Probably not on any G4 Mac that I can think of.
But, on the G4, the power button is right in front on the tower.

so does this mean my eMac wont turn on with a power button on the keyboard?

Yes, that's correct. Macs moved away from that keyboard power button during the time that G3s were sold. Later G3s moved to the New World ROMs, and I think that's about the time that bus switch was also dropped.
The only way to power up the eMac is the power button on the side.
I seldom shut my eMac off, maybe twice a year. Usually it's asleep, so a key press wakes it up. That's pretty close to the convenience of the keyboard power button, eh?

i have used Macs a few times thru my life but i would not depend on one enough to leave it on all the time i leave my Linux machines on all the time but i do not trust Mac enought to never shut them off expecially one with a CRT leaving those on all the time kills the tube fast

i have used Macs a few times thru my life but i would not depend on one enough to leave it on all the time i leave my Linux machines on all the time but i do not trust Mac enought to never shut them off expecially one with a CRT leaving those on all the time kills the tube fastI might remind you that Linux is a Unix-workalike. All versions of MacOS X are POSIX-compatible. All versions of MacOS X beginning with MacOS X 10.5 (Leopard) are certified UNIX 03. The notion that Linux is more trustworthy than MacOS X is just that, a notion. Like DeltaMac I do not turn off my primary Mac except on rare occasion.

I might remind you that Linux is a Unix-workalike. All versions of MacOS X are POSIX-compatible. All versions of MacOS X beginning with MacOS X 10.5 (Leopard) are certified UNIX 03. The notion that Linux is more trustworthy than MacOS X is just that, a notion. Like DeltaMac I do not turn off my primary Mac except on rare occasion.

unlike linux however Mac OS X would be the 1st thing to crash with a virus and the fact there is no Anti Virus or Firewalls for the Mac OS that is total unsecurity unlike Linux which is total security

This is wrong on so many levels. The Mac would not be the first to crash due to a virus because there are no MacOS X viruses in the wild. As it happens, I am one of the few members of this forum who has actually experienced MacOS X viruses. It was back in 1989 when the extant OS was System 6. I used my Symantec Antivirus for Macintosh to remove 62 infections from the computer--not 62 viruses, 62 infections. Suffice it to say, that 1989 Macintosh II did not even hiccup. MacOS X is much more robust than System 6. If real viruses could not take down System 6, then I am confident that imaginary viruses cannot take down MacOS X.

This is wrong on so many levels. The Mac would not be the first to crash due to a virus because there are no MacOS X viruses in the wild. As it happens, I am one of the few members of this forum who has actually experienced MacOS X viruses. It was back in 1989 when the extant OS was System 6. I used my Symantec Antivirus for Macintosh to remove 62 infections from the computer--not 62 viruses, 62 infections. Suffice it to say, that 1989 Macintosh II did not even hiccup. MacOS X is much more robust than System 6. If real viruses could not take down System 6, then I am confident that imaginary viruses cannot take down MacOS X.

a hackers convension proved the same virus written for os x windows and linux chashed mac in 3 mins windows in 5 and uneffective at all on linux

A proof-of-concept at a 'hacker's convention' does not mean that viruses for OS X exist in the wild - and there's no proof of that.
If you want the built-in firewall in OS X, then use it.
Some would say that firewall can be improved on, so there are third party improvements on that. You can also add to the built-in (since Snow Leopard) "known-dangerous-files" detection that is part of the system now. Can you lock OS X down fairly tight? Yes... Is that lock down foolproof? probably not - so you again go to some of the major players for that, such as Doorstop X, and others.

A proof-of-concept at a 'hacker's convention' does not mean that viruses for OS X exist in the wild - and there's no proof of that.
If you want the built-in firewall in OS X, then use it.
Some would say that firewall can be improved on, so there are third party improvements on that. You can also add to the built-in (since Snow Leopard) "known-dangerous-files" detection that is part of the system now. Can you lock OS X down fairly tight? Yes... Is that lock down foolproof? probably not - so you again go to some of the major players for that, such as Doorstop X, and others.

i know with most Linux system you CANNOT have root (admin) access at all no login only an admin password is it possible to only have a Standard User Account and have a admin password?

An admin account in OS X is not a root-level user, although you can sudo to do most root-level tasks. But, an admin account is still not a root-level user.
The root user is NOT enabled by default, unless you choose to make it so.

An admin-level task for a standard user requires the standard user to provide an admin user name and password for authentication.

Most experienced users will recommend that until you gain some knowledge in what you should NOT do, and can appreciate the power (and the accompanying risks) of the root user, you should operate from a standard account, which will not allow the user to directly sudo.
Lastly, if you choose to enable the root user for a temporary requirement, you should disable that root user as the important last step when you have completed that task.

What is your real question, here?

An admin account in OS X is not a root-level user, although you can sudo to do most root-level tasks. But, an admin account is still not a root-level user.
The root user is NOT enabled by default, unless you choose to make it so.

An admin-level task for a standard user requires the standard user to provide an admin user name and password for authentication.

Most experienced users will recommend that until you gain some knowledge in what you should NOT do, and can appreciate the power (and the accompanying risks) of the root user, you should operate from a standard account, which will not allow the user to directly sudo.
Lastly, if you choose to enable the root user for a temporary requirement, you should disable that root user as the important last step when you have completed that task.

What is your real question, here?

well with Linux you can give your account Admin settings but still need a password for Updates, software install, connecting wifi, uninstalling software and waking from sleep

That's no different from the default admin account in OS X.
An admin account still needs to enter the admin password for software updates, and most other modifications to the system. You can always choose to leave the password out of your wifi connection, so you always have to enter a password when you want to connect (assuming a secured wireless connection, anyway). Then, a password to come out of sleep is just a setting in your System Preferences.

Are you trying to show how Linux is somehow more secure than OS X (which, again, has a Unix core?) So far, you haven't mentioned anything that OS X doesn't do...
Do you have other questions that some of the experienced users here (some, like you, also have extensive backgrounds in a variety of other OSes) can answer?

That's no different from the default admin account in OS X.
An admin account still needs to enter the admin password for software updates, and most other modifications to the system. You can always choose to leave the password out of your wifi connection, so you always have to enter a password when you want to connect (assuming a secured wireless connection, anyway). Then, a password to come out of sleep is just a setting in your System Preferences.

Are you trying to show how Linux is somehow more secure than OS X (which, again, has a Unix core?) So far, you haven't mentioned anything that OS X doesn't do...
Do you have other questions that some of the experienced users here (some, like you, also have extensive backgrounds in a variety of other OSes) can answer?

i have no expecience in OS X past Panther so anything that changed between Panther and Leopard please let me know (features not appearence)

i have no expecience in OS X past Panther so anything that changed between Panther and Leopard please let me know (features not appearence)Almost everything of significance that DeltaMac told you about was a feature of Panther. IIRC, there were not even proof-of-concept viruses while Panther was the extant version of MacOS X.

Looks like this thread diverged pretty far. All I want to add to the current discussion is that OS X handles root privileges much like Ubuntu and several other Linux distros. The root account does not exist by default; if you need root access, you need to use sudo. Depending on what your needs and expectations are, this can be a good thing or a bad thing. In any case, you can tweak it to suit your needs by configuring your sudoers file or even enabling the root account (though I wouldn't recommend it for general use).

can u use sudo commands to "force" install Intel based apps on PCC based macs simular to forcing 32 bit install on 64 bit ubuntu systems

can u use sudo commands to "force" install Intel based apps on PCC based macs simular to forcing 32 bit install on 64 bit ubuntu systemsIt is unclear exactly what you mean. If by "PCC based macs" you mean PPC-based Macs, then it depends. The Power PC family of processors are inherently 64-bit with the ability to transparently run a mixture of 32-bit and 64-bit code. However, the Finder in PPC-compatible versions of MacOS X was 32-bit. If you want to develop 64-bit Aqua-based applications, then you must develop a hybrid application. The UI must be 32-bit. The backend may be 64-bit.

As for the notion of running Intel code on PPC hardware--assuming that indeed you mean PPC hardware--no, it can't be done. However, if you have the source code, then Intel and PPC are not issues. Use the Developer Tools to compile your code to your favorite target. In the case of commercial software, you will not have access to the source code. If you want generic Unix applications, then you may use Fink, MacPorts, or your standard Unix tools.

pretty much im asking how to make software requiring intel mac to install and run on ppc macs

It cannot be done. Apple included a built-in emulation layer called Rosetta to run PPC apps on Intel Macs (no longer supported in Lion, if I'm not mistaken), but there was never a way to go backwards, and realistically, there never will be.

i thought the emulator used was called Darwin

There's no real need to guess at this stuff... a quick search will give you all the knowledge that you need:
Darwin is the core set of components upon which OS X is based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
Rosetta is the code translator that allows Intel Macs to run older PPC apps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
Unfortunately, there's no translator layer to run intel apps on PPC Macs.

You can install, or copy an intel app to a PPC system. You can copy any app to an older Mac, but that doesn't mean that app is usable. In fact, if the installer runs, it will normally tell you that you can't install an app, when it can't run anyway.
Because the architecture is not compatible, it can't run.

If you need to run an intel-only app, then you need intel hardware (an intel Mac)

i thought the emulator used was called DarwinYou are confusing Darwin with Darwine. Darwin is the certified UNIX 03 underpinning of MacOS X. Darwine is MacOS X port of WINE. WINE is a set of cloned Windows frameworks for Unix and Unix-like operating systems. WINE is a recurve acronym for WINE Is Not an Emulator. It is right there in the name--WINE is not an emulator. Darwine is no longer called Darwine. The latest version is simply WINE--WINE 1.2.3 to be specific.

WINE allows Intel-based Windows applications to run natively on Intel-based Unix/Unix-like computers. Prior to the Intel transition, there was indeed an effort to port Darwine to PPC. Because Windows applications use Intel executable code, an emulator was needed. The Darwine-PPC effort looked to integrate the QEMU emulator into the project. While Macs were based on the PPC family, however, Darwine did not imply PPC. Darwin ran perfectly fine on Intel-based PCs. Darwine worked as well as any other port of WINE on Intel-based computers.

After Apple announced the switch to Intel, the Darwine-PPC effort ended.

so does that mean the the Intel MacBooks use Socket P CPUs and the PowerMacs use Intel Socket 775?

so does that mean the the Intel MacBooks use Socket P CPUs and the PowerMacs use Intel Socket 775?You are talking about Intel motherboards that were designed for Windows PCs. Macs are not Windows PCs. Power Macs use Power PC processors from either Motorola (now Freescale) or IBM. The G4 was manufactured by the former. The G5 was manufactured by the latter. Neither had anything to do with Intel. In the case of Intel-based Macs, those are also not Windows PCs. Windows PCs still use ancient BIOS firmware. Macs use EFI. EFI can emulate BIOS, but it is not BIOS. Intel-based Macs do not use Windows PC motherboards.

MacOS X can be installed on Windows PC hardware. Such a computer is known as a Hackintosh. Hackintoshes violate the Apple EULA for MacOS X. It is a violation of the rules of this forum to discuss Hackintoshes here.

I will close this post by stating the obvious. The processor socket must be physically compatible both geometrically and electronically with the pins of the processor inserted into the socket. However, the processor is just one IC out of many components on a motherboard. Even if specific model Macs share the same processor with specific model Windows PCs, virtually nothing else between the CPSs is interchangeable.

so does that mean the the Intel MacBooks use Socket P CPUs and the PowerMacs use Intel Socket 775?

And the short answer is:
MacBook processors are soldered permanently to the logic board - no socket.
PowerMacs may have the processor on some type of card, and may be replaceable, but in no case is that a processor that will change how it works, or the architecture that it will use natively. If your question is, can the PowerMac be upgraded to an Intel processor? that will be a No, not possible.
There have been upgrade processors for G3 and G4 towers, but not too many now - the sales interest has kind of dried up (for obvious reasons)