or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bsimpsen

They already did field a chip that was much larger than the competition. Analysts were surprised by the large die size of the A5, and reasoned (correctly) that Apple could afford the extra silicon because they'd dispensed with the margins of a Qualcomm or NVIDIA.
Core Audio, Core Animation, Core Image, Quartz, OpenGL, OpenCL, Grand Central Disptach all exist under iOS. Anyone who's developed using Cocoa needn't do much more than recompile. Just as Apple ran parallel development of OS X for PowerPC/X86, they're doing it for ARM. The differentiation of iOS/OS X is functional, not architectural. It's already been reported (take it with a grain of salt, but only a grain) that MacBook Air chassis have been tested running OS X on...
Don't ask me how running Office on Apple hardware is better, ask all those who say Apple is doomed without that capability. I haven't used Office in ten years. I'm simply saying that Apple is capable of addressing that issue, if it is an issue, and many claim it is.
Agreed, Microsoft's move to ARM is reactive. Apple's agglomeration of chip design experts seems proactive to me.
I'd much rather see Apple make Windows compatibility irrelevant by fielding good native applications (or creating an environment attractive enough for others to do so), so I agree that Win RT emulation will probably not be a big deal. While Apple may have seen the ability to virtualize Windows as important during the PowerPC->Intel transition, I don't think they're seeing that now.
Apple stated, at the introduction of the iPhone five years ago, that iOS is a slimmed down OS-X. A So OS X ALREADY runs directly on ARM, in more than 400 million devices. Applications written in Objective C under X-Code (which is used for both iOS and OS X development, already supporting both instruction sets) could be recompiled into ARM with the flick of a switch (once 64-bit arrives), so that takes care of the bulk of existing native OS X applications.   When Apple...
I forgot to add that Microsoft's forking of Windows into both ARM (RT) and X86 variants may open the door for Apple ARM hardware to virtualize Win RT. That brings Office to iOS, which is a pretty big deal.
  ARM runs OS X natively already, so emulation is pointless. I believe you meant that ARM would have difficulty emulating the X86 instruction set. As Apple is designing the processor, emulation of the X86 instruction set is probably more a legal problem than a technological one. The PA Semi folks have already implemented two different instruction sets, PowerPC and ARM. X86 would not be beyond their grasp. However, they can't get a license to run X86 by purchasing AMD...
Given that iOS is OS X, it's fair to say that Apple ported to ARM quite some time ago.   If you plot the increase in performance of the A-Series over time, it's growing faster than X86. Intel's expertise may be more in process than in architecture. I think there is some room for architecture, particularly one optimized by the same company that fields the OS and rest of the hardware, to match Intel's advantage in process. Remember that Apple's elimination of Intel also...
Thanks for explaining why this line of reasoning doesn't work for you.
New Posts  All Forums: