or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel also hearing rumors Apple testing MacBooks based on own A-series chip
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel also hearing rumors Apple testing MacBooks based on own A-series chip - Page 3

post #81 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

I only run boot camp for games, and I wouldn't be running game on this class of portable.

I think it would be a great upgrade for the MacBook Air - thinner, cooler, longer battery life - I hope they do it! Of all companies, Apple has the experience in changing CPU architectures already booked - it wouldn't be that disruptive. Especially with the Mac App store - just re-downlod your new universal app to your Mac - hopefully, especially with the small SSD sizes out there, the Mac App store or OS could auto-strip the non-ARM/Intel code to keep apps small as possible.

Those fat binaries aren't that big in comparison to the rest of the app. Keeping the non-needed binaries from the system code could save a little space, but the comparatively few apps people are likely to load from the MAS tell me that Apple wouldn't even bother.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #82 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by sda3 View Post

Yes, but it was in the news recently that none of the software developed for win x86 would be compatible with the ARM version of windows 8.

Without a recompile, sure - but I would hope that Microsoft would have a universal binary strategy in mind like Apple did for 68K/PowerPC/Intel

Granted, they won't be able to have the luxury of a Rosetta emulation to emulate Intel on ARM since ARM is typically not as beefy as the Intel stuff, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing anyway - look how long it took for people to finally abandon PowerPC code; Apple dropping Rosetta in Lion and people are still pitching a fit
post #83 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickwalker View Post

Microsoft has no history of developing an operating system on something other than Intel.

Er, Windows NT 4 was on PowerPC (similar but not the same as Apple's PowerPC, more close to IBM's POWER Unix boxes) and there is a current Itanium version of Windows so Microsoft has a demonstrated history of supporting multiple hardware architectures.

It's not as clean, nice or polished as Apple's approach - but really is that a surprise at this point?

EDIT: And MIPS. They also supported MIPS. I forgot about that! I think Tivo is the last box shipping with a MIPS core.... good times.... Architectures supported in NT 4...
post #84 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Those fat binaries aren't that big in comparison to the rest of the app. Keeping the non-needed binaries from the system code could save a little space, but the comparatively few apps people are likely to load from the MAS tell me that Apple wouldn't even bother.

I dunno - Windows 7 has some cool background processes that keep their consolidated code store cleaned out - I could see Apple doing something similar if we get back to multi-architecture reality. Every bit counts with these SSDs!
post #85 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by pooman625 View Post

Windows 8 is going to run on ARM processors...

A version of Windows 8 will run on ARM processors. We know no details. It could be as seamless as Mac OSX with PowerPC/Intel, or it could fee like a totally different OS. Until at least a beta shows saying that "Windows 8 is going to run on ARM" is kind of meaningless at this point.
post #86 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Did Apple learn from the PowerPC fiasco? We need x86 compatibility with the 97% of the world, and that means Intel chips inside Macs!

The world is a much different place today, and Windows compatibility is far less an issue as it was then. Just look at the influx of new applications with iOS and the Mac App store - it's just the tip of the iceberg.

While bootcamp is nice, I sure as heck didn't base my purchasing decisions solely on it's existence, and I doubt there are many who will.

Probably fewer than those who go on about the lack of Matte displays
post #87 of 131
I can see Apple coming out with a notebook similar to a Chrome notebook from Google that runs iOS and has a keyboard and trackpad and is based around iCloud. I think this would fill a nitch market between the Mac and iPad...

I cannot see the majority of the Mac models moving away from Intel chips. If I ( and many other Mac users) could not run Virtual x86 PC's I would have drop Apple computer products from any consideration period....!!!!

An emulator will NEVER be fast enough in my lifetime to even attempt to use in a work environment....

I can also see a hybrid MacBook Air that has both and ARM in the iPad like detachable screen and an Intel processor in a docking station that you plug an iPad like device into. When you are traveling it can act like an iPad to conserve battery and still give you access to the web, emails, iOS apps, etc.... Then you can dock it and turn on the Intel processor to do some real work.....

This would actually be a be pretty cool.....
post #88 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by mretondo View Post

You're joking right? Apple isn't a processor company

No, they aren't - that's why they licensed the design from ARM - who is a world-class processor company

What Apple excels at is integration. With the ability to license a reference design and create a chip that meets their exact specifications they can optimize for functionality and capabilities (be they size, power or heck even price) that competitors can't match.

Hmm... What would be very interesting is if Apple becomes the first licensee for Intel much like they license from ARM so they can produce their own custom X86 chips. That would be highly desirable for Apple, allowing them to optimize for their needs while making it impossible for a competitor to follow them by just slapping together the same commodity parts.

This could be fun...
post #89 of 131
Maybe it ties in with this:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...years_end.html

It makes sense for people who have iPad or iPhone and want a "netbook" type of laptop running an Apple OS, in this case maybe both OSX and iOS.
post #90 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

Silicon Graphics had its own.

MIPS, which they eventually acquired. Not sure who owns them now...

Quote:
Motorola's RISC was the merchant 88000.

Apple had an A/UX box that was a cube server that ran those. The 88000's were cool chips, but Motorola stalled out on them.

Quote:
A book was written about Data General's development of its 88000-based AViiON midrange.

A government agency I worked for in the late 80's had scads of them. Cheaper than SUN, faster than anything else and very easy to maintain. Very futuristic white cabinets too

Quote:
IBM had invented RISC. The Power PC was a one-chip implementation of its POWER architecture.

Yup, Power was originally four chips if memory serves...

Quote:
Intel processors run in 32-bit mode or 64-bit mode.

And are a nightmare of registers and state changes. If it wasn't for their design group in Israel that came up with NetBurst AMD would have cleaned their clock. The original Pentium 4's were a disaster - hot and slow. A great combination!

That Intel has managed to keep the gawd-awful x86 architecture alive and competitive for as long as they have is the real marvel.

Quote:
Without question, the ability to run Windows natively on a Mac has brought some new customers to the platform. However, Windows is now on the decline. The Intel processor is just not that important to Windows because Windows is not that important.

Exactly. Excellent post - I rather enjoyed it!
post #91 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by microtaint View Post

Apples success directly correlates with them switching to Intel.

Apple's success directly correlates with them releasing the iPod and then iPhone and now iPad and the halo effect from those devices.

Yup, Windows compatibility was icing on the cake, but I doubt if Apple had stayed PowerPC that their growth would have been that different. It just doesn't matter to most people.

And no, those of us posting in forums discussing "inside baseball" topics like this are not the definition of "most people"
post #92 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

I'd love to see a new Mac that has BTO for AMD Bulldozer/APU options.

If it's faster, runs cooler and cheaper then maybe. Then again I'm sure Apple gets some pretty good concessions from Intel for staying Intel-only, even though they refuse to advertise for Intel like most manufacturers.

I wouldn't hold my breath
post #93 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

Good joke

made in america, that is a strange concept
post #94 of 131
1. The only thing at risk is the Mac Pro, since its form of PCI-E is somewhat architecture dependent. Thunderbolt is not.
2. Apple is NOT dropping x86 architecture.
3. When the hardware is known, x86 can be emulated faster than an actual x86 processor. The hardware emulation is the most complex part.
4. Apple wants control over its destiny. They will not allow themselves to be handcuffed to Intel, regardless of what they do.
5. Intel's UltraBook initiative was precisely the wrong thing to do if they want to keep Apple as a customer. Apple can't be scared into line. However, they can be scared into ensuring they have alternatives.
post #95 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

Better that Apple buy AMD and innovate the X86 architecture than to move to a wholly new platform.

Yes, besides, if AMD had half of Intel's cash they would have 100% better performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

Apple needs to remember. Though the profits are low for the likes of Dell/HP/Lenovo, etc, the intel/windows machines outsell Macs by a wide margin. When Apple has a good quarter selling 5M macs, the Windows world will still sell 95M.

Dell/Hp/Lenovo (idea___/essential lines)/acer/some of toshiba/other small random manufactures sell for little.

Lenovo cost a lot if you want a real Lenovo (think line)

PC means personal computer.  

i have processing issues, mostly trying to get my ideas into speech and text.

if i say something confusing please tell me!

Reply

PC means personal computer.  

i have processing issues, mostly trying to get my ideas into speech and text.

if i say something confusing please tell me!

Reply
post #96 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Did Apple learn from the PowerPC fiasco? We need x86 compatibility with the 97% of the world, and that means Intel chips inside Macs!

No, it doesn't.

There's still AMD. Granted, there would be some heat/performance tradeoffs, but Apple could have x86 compatibility without using Intel chips.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #97 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobr View Post

Isn't Windows 8 supposedly being designed to run on ARM processors? If so maybe bootcamp and virtualization software could endure.

Those legacy apps would be i86 only.
post #98 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by microtaint View Post

Yeha I guess its a coincidence that Apple was basically dead before they switched over to Intel. Switching to Intel was a HUGE step for apple. ...

It is probably a bigger coincidence that you have no idea what you are talking about. You may have been born yesterday, but many of us have been around just a bit longer. Apple switched to Intel in 2006. This was ten (10) years after Steve Jobs's return to Apple. The product manifestation of Apple's comeback began with the the original iMac in 1999, some seven (7) years prior to the Intel transition. The OS manifestation of Apple's comeback was the release of MacOS X 10.0 in 2001, some five (5) years prior to the Intel transition.

Apple's was already doing quite well when it initiated the Intel transition. Without question, it has done even better since then. After Apple walked away, IBM begged it to return. Had Apple been in the bad shape that you claim, then IBM would have said "Good riddance to bad trash."

Since Apple adopted Intel, Apple introduced the iPhone (2007) and the iPad (2010). Perhaps, you have heard of them? Neither of these devices use Intel processors, but they are the products that put rocket boosters under Apple's fortunes.

To the extent that Intel is responsible for Apple's current success, I would argue that it was not Intel's processors, but Intel's connection technology that played a huge role. Specifically, Intel's USB technology in the original iMac. Apple was the first OEM that abandoned its older connection technology in favor of USB and Ethernet.

The iMac not only revitalized the Mac, but it also saved USB. This pretty blue computer began a march by Apple to the largest capitalized company in America.
post #99 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Transitions take awhile. Remember it will also support x86_32 and x86_64 which has plenty of apps -AND- MS will offer an app store for Win8. You can't make a cartel without breaking a few heads or something like that.

At least not with and anything resembling reasonable performance.
post #100 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

No more BootCamp ?

Windows 8 will run on ARM...

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #101 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

He did say 'some of the Macs'. It would make sense for Apple to keep some Intel based Macs but the vast majority of users don't want Windows. Having said that I'd hope VMWare could come up with a VM for the new CPU for at the very least OS X itself as it has now on Intel (if not iOS in a VM ... might be fun - kind of like the iOS SDK).

The extra control, tight integration and heck, profits, make this a no brainer for at least some Macs or 'other' Apple product yet to be revealed IMHO.

Yeah but that will introduce fragmentation. I don't expect all the software for Intel-based Macs will be available for A4-based Macs, not initially anyway, and some of it not at all. In addition, I don't really see the gain - will it not make such computers, basically, an iPads with keyboards?

I think Apple will rather release such thing - an iPad in Air form, and target it against netbooks - especially Google's Chrome OS based netbooks... but Pros', I'm expecting to see them on Intel hardware for quite some time.
post #102 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

ARM isn't going to support i86 apps through emulation.

At least not with and anything resembling reasonable performance.

My implication would be an updated SDK that would allow for native compiling, not emulation. They did pretty well with the PPC/Intel transition and with the App Store could probably do even better.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #103 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by sda3 View Post

While this would undoubtably increase the efficiency of the macbook computers it would also alienate millions of us that still on a rare occasion have to run windows. I probably only spend about 10% of my time using windows but there are still things that I have to have it for. If apple went to a proprietary chip myself, and I am sure millions of others would be stuck going back to windows only PCs.

Isn't Microsoft also working on adding support for ARM CPU architecture in Windows 8 (which is essentially what Apple's A series CPUs are). So you perhaps still could install Windows on Mac.

However, I'm more concerned about performance. I think ARM is fine for small mobile devices, but ARM would have a tough time competing with Intel Core i7 and newer processors on performance. Intel would shred it every time in any benchmark except power consumption .

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #104 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Assuming a program doesn't have any assembly code, most programs should able to compile for any instruction set without a lot of work. Microsoft Office has already shown to be running on ARM and that's the world's premier productivity suite.

The issue isn't how hard is it to compile for ARM but will businesses bother updating. I'm sure they'll see the future when they realize that low power, high performance computing is the future.

The problem is most end users don't have source code. The architecture isn't a huge problem from the developers perspective other than the limitation of 32 bit hardware. The problem is that in business legacy code is at times impossible to replace and the source code just isn't there even if you wanted to rebuild it.

I actually think you will see Microsoft Office start to fall from grace. It is way over priced for what it is and has become bloated. The best possible approach for Apple would be to delver productivity software tailored for the ARM processors performance which is relatively crappy compared to the i86 line. This is what they in effect have done with the iPad and iPhone. It might at times force people to compromise, as tailored software can't support some of the more advanced features in office suites.

It isn't a matter of bothering in many cases it is the ability to do so at all that is the problem. Heck I work on machinery every day where to get access to the various controller modules you need to run DOS based software. Sure we run that in Windows but this highlights just how far back legacy support has to go.
post #105 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

There are some unmistakable inherent issues with transitioning away from x86 CPUs and moving to ARM.

First in line is the fact that all Mac software would have to be, at a minimum, recompiled, if not rewritten. We've gone through this pain before, and the transition still isn't fully complete. Asking developers to do it again this soon might just be a bit too much.

Second is that fact that not all Macs sold are running MacOS. My organization has 6 Macs, only 2 of which are running MacOS. One is running Linux, and the others are running Windows. Whether Apple understands that millions of Macs sold today end up running an OS other than MacOS is unknown. If they're seriously considering a CPU switch, then they might not be seeing this reality. Compatibility is one of the best selling points for Mac computers now. Going back to the days of incompatible platforms would be a big mistake.

Finally, current ARM processors are extremely efficient, but not as powerful as Intel CPUs (yet). While they consume far less power, it's not always about having the smallest gadget or the longest battery life. Occasionally (all the time) people have to generate info, not just consume it. No current or even near-future ARM chip is going to out-perform a quad-core Intel i7. The PC isn't quite dead yet, regardless of the punditry.

Anyone whinning about windows and thier mac should be given a refund and a coupon for Dell and then thrown out of the apple store.pc are dirt cheap.go buy one.
post #106 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Isn't Microsoft also working on adding support for ARM CPU architecture in Windows 8 (which is essentially what Apple's A series CPUs are). So you perhaps still could install Windows on Mac.

However, I'm more concerned about performance. I think ARM is fine for small mobile devices, but ARM would have a tough time competing with Intel Core i7 and newer processors on performance. Intel would shred it every time in any benchmark except power consumption .

Most people dont need that bs. Ios desktop, laptops etc is the way to go.
post #107 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by microtaint View Post

Yeah like the huge response of everyone buying apple computers because they contained some quality hardware (I.E. iNTEL) Yeah so, take intel out of the equation, and boom there goes the company, and the stock price. It's not rubbish, its the way it is. Watch and see.

In other words these won't be Mac Machines per say. Macs will be retained for professional use or people with simply higher performance expectations. I suspect that these machines will represent a completely different approach to hardware and user software. Sort of like iOS amplified.

So yeah you are right, Apple can't abandon i86 without totally screwing themselves. They could however come out with a completely different line up of hardware that focuses on the needs of a different class of user. Apple has been fairly smart these days so I don't suspect that they have no plans to drop i86 anytime soon. In fact I would suggest that they might actually come out with additional i86 products.

Frankly I can and have imagined all sorts of iOS device that would be strong sellers (in my mind). I'm certain the engineers at Apple have even more interesting ideas floating about. I know people die every time I say this but a Touch or even an iPad with slide out keyboard would be very welcomed in some circles. A true E-Book reader wouldn't be bad either. Then we can get into automobile automation with an iOS computer embedded in my next F150. Apple could also consider a clam shell that rotates into a table or a screen and keyboard. The list can go on and on. The point is Apple doesn't have to drop the i86 line up at all, there is so many possibilities for iOS devices that they don't have too.

Dave
post #108 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Does this guy really talk like that? What sort of affectation causes this manner of speech?

Oh, come on! There's nothing wrong with that manner of speech. It's plain English! Don't be such a stick in the mud.
post #109 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by sda3 View Post

While this would undoubtably increase the efficiency of the macbook computers it would also alienate millions of us that still on a rare occasion have to run windows. I probably only spend about 10% of my time using windows but there are still things that I have to have it for. If apple went to a proprietary chip myself, and I am sure millions of others would be stuck going back to windows only PCs.

Personally, I don't think it would be a smart move for Apple at this point. Everything noted in the article is exactly what alienated Apple for so many years. What did Jobs do when he came back after being fired? He pushed the move to x86. I know the ARM chips looks promising with the explosion of iOS devices but I don't expect anything in the ARM mix to be able to compete with the GPUs we see in most of the Macs. Could an A6 play 1080p content on a Mac? Yes. Can it do anything respectable with a modern desktop game? Not likely. The only systems the ARM chips make sense for may be the MacBook Airs. If the Pro line is maintained, IMO, it'd be product suicide to try and shoehorn power users into using ARM for high end purposes. Needless to say, I can't see the ARM chips even in the iMac lines and certainly not the Mac Pros. Then again, leave it to Apple to prove me/us wrong.

That said, Microsoft is pushing for some degree of convergence with ARM as well with Windows 8 (W8) given the heavy and growing presence of tablets (iPads). I'm not stoked about what I've seen with W8 (Double entendre: Wait, it'll be here soon! and Weight, as in, it may be bloated. =P ) but if this is the path Apple chooses I'm guessing the loophole for windows apps will be W8. Granted it won't be legacy support but it will allow a "bootcamp" portal to the Windows world. I have no idea offhand how ARM may function in trying to do translation/rosetta for x86 apps whether they're Windows or Apple. I do recall that PPC was dog slow even on high end Windows systems running Apple virtual machines before the x86 switch.
post #110 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post

I don't see any Mac's using ARM CPUs at all until they become far more powerful. Isn't there a report floating around that the A5 iPad2 performs as well as a PowerBook G4? Last Time I checked, even the 1.3GHz Core2Duo CULV in my Toshiba Satellite T130 performs better than a G4 CPU.

Maybe it will be like the GPU in the MacBook Pros - ARM CPUs for the lower power tasks - x86 kicks in when power is needed.

I'm sure Apple's been experimenting with this for some time but I wouldn't expect anything until at least Cortex-A15-based chips with multiple cores. I think they will have 40-bit memory addressing, and up to 4 cores and 2.5GHz. And that's an at least so I don't expect anyone to be holding their breath for such a Mac.

Then again, they are now rumoured to be introducing a new class of Mac and have stopped selling the low-end MacBook which was their cheapest 13" 'PC'. Maybe they do have plans for an $800 notebook that could still give them good profit margins in 2012. The Cortex-A15 could be that chip.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #111 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by siromega View Post

Yes, Windows 8 will have an ARM port. However not much has been said of the capabilities of said ARM port and how the whole MS App Store thing will work out. And don't expect to do any heavy lifting - I'm not expecting AutoCAD compiled for ARM anytime soon.

That is for sure. However a decent CAD program designed specifically for the device is possible.
Quote:
The question I have is would an A5/A6 chip have any form of virtualization hardware? e.g. VMWare Fusion for ARM would allow me to run Windows 8 in a VM on an ARM Mac. Also, ARM chips are still 32bit. They wont be 64bit for a while (2015) so its a long way off until Apple would be able to replace the entire lineup.

A VM is not an instruction set emulator. So that only goes part way to running Windows on one of these devices. I'm assuming here that any Windows support without i86 support is useless.

The whole 64 bit thing is very important. This is why I think any ARM hardware would be targeted at the low end market and would never be marketed as a Mac. For many uses 32 bit is all you need. However I honestly believe that is a short term thing.
Quote:

Back to the main topic at hand, if Apple does release an ARM MacBook, I'd expect it to be a lot lower priced - $800 or so because they don't have to include a $250 Intel CPU and $50 northbridge, rather a $50 ARM SoC will suffice. The BOM would go from $800 (for a 13" MBA) down to $550, plus a 33% margin is $825.

I think we would be talking much lower than that. Remember Apple TV is $99. If it was me I'd shoot for the less than $500 market.
Quote:
And Apple might not even take them mass market at first, perhaps just open them to K12 institutions (primarily grade schools) and work with specific developers to recompile their apps for ARM.

Actually that is a very good idea. As long as the OS is open enough to allow easy configuration and management it would fly into education. The main trick is to have enough compatibility with either iOS or Mac OS/X that the systems would remain familiar to current personnel. If I was in education I would prefer a Mac OS/X based machine so that all the good open tools could be used to support the machines.
post #112 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVlad View Post

Amusing. You really think that Apple's success is based on Intel chips and Bootcamp? You couldn't be more wrong. You really think that people buy macs just because they can run Windows on it? Not a chance. Apple's success is ability to overtake and shake markets. This move would do the same to Intel as Apple can become a competitor to Intel.

If anything Apple is the safest place to invest money, even with such rumors.

The ability to run Linux or Windows in a VM is a huge advantage of the Intel Macs.
post #113 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

An Intel executive said this week it would be foolish to ignore reports that Apple is considering switching some of its Macs away from Intel's mainstream processors and towards its own A-series of mobile chips because it's been hearing the same rumors.

Asked about ARM and Apple's potential use of its A series of ARM processors in future MacBooks, Greg Welch, director of Intel's Ultrabook group, told CNet News.com that the chip maker is taking the threat seriously, and hopes to continue to innovate its way into Apple's product portfolio.

"We hear the same rumors and it would be remiss of us to be dismissive," he said. "We endeavor to innovate so they'll continue to look to us as a supplier."

The comment, which came at the end of a Q&A session on Intel's fledgeling Ultrabook slim notebook initiative, appears to lend support to claims from a few months ago that Apple built a test Thunderbolt MacBook Air around the same A5 chip found in the iPad 2 and found that the system performed "better than expected."

For Apple, a move away from generally-available, off-the-shelf CPUs and towards its own breed of proprietary designs would not only afford it more control over product release schedules and its intellectual property, but it would also pave the way for the Mac maker to introduce new patent-protected features on its Mac line that rivals would have trouble reproducing for their own designs.

Similarly, the company wouldn't need to compete with competitors for its supply of processors and would have more flexibility to fine-tune battery and overall performance, delivering even more of the features to the Mac line that have seen its iOS devices top the ranks of consumer satisfaction surveys for years.



Through its acquisitions of Intrinsity and P.A. Semi, Apple last year introduced the its first ARM-based A-series chip -- the A4 -- inside its iPad and iPhone 4. It then rapidly followed up earlier this year with the iPad 2's A5-chip, which features dual-core graphics and processor cores. An A6 chip expected to power the iPad 3 in early 2012 has just entered trial production, though no details on its design have yet to surface.

Perhaps, Apple is developing just an iPad with flip down keyboard.

Everything hand-held these days are person computing devices.
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #114 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by sda3 View Post

If only ESRI would release some OSX software then I could

I do Arc, too. It would be great if they made a Mac ArcGIS. You know, they used to have it on OS 9! It would also be nice if their software wasn't a pile of crap in terms of user interface. I can't believe we still have to "connect" to folder and only can edit things in one folder. Hey, have you used Arc 10 yet sda? I have the latest version w/ patches on Win 7 on a vanilla PC and it crashes all the time. And no multiple attribute windows.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #115 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastLaneJB View Post

You know Windows 8 will have an ARM version. I know a lot of apps won't run at least to start off with but clearly if it takes off in the Windows world Apple must be ready as well. ARM chips might not be as fast but they are probably fast enough for browsing, writing documents, email, etc. They'll have the advantage of better battery life. So Apple cannot afford for MS laptops to have that kind of advantage over them.

Also mean bootcamp can still hang around.

Arm version of Windows 8 will be as close to desktop version as iOS is close to OSX.

I think target here will be to bring phones, tablets and "big boys" closer together, in terms of data sharing/compatibility and services, plus familiar GUI across the whole product line... of course MS will have their productivity software on both platforms (maybe some others), but Apple already has Pages etc. on iOS and OSX anyway.

I'm not expecting to see ARM on Windows laptops/desktops, again, unless there is something to compete with Google Chrome netbooks. But mainstream will remain Intel architecture. Don't forget thar burden of legacy support is much harder on MS than it is on Apple.
post #116 of 131
Maybe an ARM device is this "totally new Mac" that was the subject of the other rumor today?

Anyway, it makes perfect sense to me that Apple would at least consider ARM. Steve Jobs said back in 2006 that they had been testing OS X on Intel since the day OS X came out. That means that they spent 5 years looking at it before making the switch, and did so when it made sense (when IBM was unable to deliver a lower voltage, cooler running version of its latest chips). Apple wasn't ready for Intel in 2001, nor was Intel ready with appropriate chips. But in 2006 when they were, Apple was ready to make the move. It might not be until 2016 or even later when ARM chips are capable of running PC/Mac software, but Apple ought to be ready for it.

At the same time, Intel has committed to reducing the power consumption of its newer chips. Standard voltage Haswell chips (in 2013 or 2014) supposedly will have the same power consumption as today's ULV Sandy Bridge chips. Don't think that would have happened had Apple not given Intel an ultimatum, and been credible while giving it. Apple, unlike Dell, HP, Acer, or any other large manufacturer has changed processor architectures not just once, but twice in the last 17 years. And they are a very influential manufacturer. Winning Apple as a customer was a major coup, and losing them would be a big blow.
post #117 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twelve View Post

1. The only thing at risk is the Mac Pro, since its form of PCI-E is somewhat architecture dependent. Thunderbolt is not.

5. Intel's UltraBook initiative was precisely the wrong thing to do if they want to keep Apple as a customer. Apple can't be scared into line. However, they can be scared into ensuring they have alternatives.

Intel owns the rights to Thunderbolt, so there could be licensing issues in switching to ARM.

As for point 5, I don't think that Intel is trying to "scare" Apple with the Ultrabook program. Rather, what they are trying to do is build economies of scale. While Apple is big enough and influential enough that losing them would be a big deal, they aren't big enough to buy all those low-voltage processors that Intel will be developing over the next two years. By promoting the Ultrabook, Intel is attempting to expand the market for the ULV Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge chips beyond Apple (who is the most prominent customer so far).

Take a look at the big PC manufacturers, and you'll see that today they using mostly the standard voltage or mid-range "low" voltage 25-35W chips (the same ones Apple uses in the MacBook Pros) throughout their lines. Apple selected the 17W chips not only for the 11" model but also the 13" Air. With the Ultrabook, Intel is getting others to commit to using the chips, too, which allows them to spread the development costs over a larger customer base.

Besides, the success of the 2010 MacBook Air and now the 2011 MacBook Air would have prompted some competition, anyway. Before the late 2010 model, the Air occupied the same ultraportable niche that premium/luxury products like the Sony Vaio line did, which was small enough for the rest of the industry to ignore. When last year's MacBook Air shot up the sales charts, even with an ancient processor, it made the industry take notice. Intel is just speeding the process along a bit.
post #118 of 131
Apple has processor designers.
Apple is a investor and licensor of PowerVR Graphics technologies
They merge it all into iPad 1/2 which is hitting at least Playstation 2 graphics.
But ridiculously good battery life.
But doesn't have a keyboard.

People complain about no full desktop, but...

Lion is so...touchy. Everything from dock to mission control to launchpad just screams, "TOUCH ME!"

Roadmap...
post #119 of 131
The comment, which came at the end of a Q&A session on Intel's fledgeling Ultrabook slim notebook initiative, appears to lend support to claims from a few months ago that Apple built a test Thunderbolt MacBook Air around the same A5 chip found in the iPad 2 and found that the system performed "better than expected."

For Apple, a move away from generally-available, off-the-shelf CPUs and towards its own breed of proprietary designs would not only afford it more control over product release schedules and its intellectual property, but it would also pave the way for the Mac maker to introduce new patent-protected features on its Mac line that rivals would have trouble reproducing for their own designs.
post #120 of 131
As for point 5, I don't think that Intel is trying to "scare" Apple with the Ultrabook program. Rather, what they are trying to do is build economies of scale. While Apple is big enough and influential enough that losing them would be a big deal, they aren't big enough to buy all those low-voltage processors that Intel will be developing over the next two years. By promoting the Ultrabook, Intel is attempting to expand the market for the ULV Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge chips beyond Apple (who is the most prominent customer so far).

Take a look at the big PC manufacturers, and you'll see that today they using mostly the standard voltage or mid-range "low" voltage 25-35W chips (the same ones Apple uses in the MacBook Pros) throughout their lines. Apple selected the 17W chips not only for the 11" model but also the 13" Air. With the Ultrabook, Intel is getting others to commit to using the chips, too, which allows them to spread the development costs over a larger customer base.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel also hearing rumors Apple testing MacBooks based on own A-series chip