or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › 64-bit CPUs seen bolstering possible 13" iPad notebook from Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

64-bit CPUs seen bolstering possible 13" iPad notebook from Apple - Page 2

post #41 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

Ridiculous to speculate that Apple wants to produce what's basically a Surface.

 

why not? 

 

The technology is there, and beside is already there.

post #42 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

Because it likes sucks and no one wants it???

That doesn't mean that the concept is bad. Dell have just announced a new range of hybrids which seem to be a better proposition than the Surface 2.

Besides, and iPad with a Bluetooth keyboard IS a sort of hybrid. It's just that it wasn't designed as a hybrid from the outset.
post #43 of 84
Quote:
Reitzes suspects that...

Stop. This is not even a rumor. It is fantasy.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #44 of 84
Originally Posted by WP7Mango View Post
That doesn't mean that the concept is bad.


Oh, the ‘hybrid’, you mean? Yeah, the concept is bad. You’re attaching mechanical legs to a car.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #45 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Oh, the ‘hybrid’, you mean? Yeah, the concept is bad. You’re attaching mechanical legs to a car.

What are you going to do when Apple makes a hybrid?

So, what you are you saying is that adding a keyboard to an iPad is like attaching mechanical legs to a car?
Edited by WP7Mango - 10/8/13 at 3:13pm
post #46 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawson100 View Post

I had not expected that Apple would give away iWork. Guess they're not getting enough traction on selling it. I see it in iCloud and haven't given it much of a spin yet. But it makes sense. Now is a good opportunity to take advantage of Microsoft's lumbering steps into the tablet world that already exists. It just showcases how far ahead the iOS ecosystem remains.


Microsoft Office isn't dominant because it's the best. It's because they're great at licensing and catering to the communities of developers, instructors and IT support staff.

Actually, iWork is very popular. It's been consistently at the top of the paid listings as individual apps.

What Apple is doing is cutting Microsoft off at the pass. iOS 7 has many more business features than ever, and is being looked at very favorably by business and government. iWork is also the most popular, by far, office suit in mobile for business and government.

Microsoft tried to play the Office card with Surface RT but has failed so far. A problem with it is that the license only allows personal use, and nothing for business. It's even being questioned whether the license allows one to write their personal business resume with it. Meanwhile, you can do anything with iWork that you need.

The Surface Pro, meanwhile, costs far more, and doesn't include a free Office, you need to pay for it.

This is a major push for Apple. When you include that in June Apple said that there would be a major upgrade to iWork coming, and introduced their cloud suite as well, we can see where Apple is going here. Apple sells hardware, and their software is there for the purpose of making the hardware more desirable. Apple is now big enough that the few hundreds of millions a year they may make from this has become inconsequential. But the extra hardware they may sell could end up in the billions. Remembering that they only sell apps once in iOS (free upgrades), the income from that software is trivial.

They are taking a page out of Microsoft's book, which is that of giving software away to hobble a competitor who can't afford to do the same. That's how Microsoft destroyed Netscape, and how they took the presentation program crown away from Adobe.

The shoe is now on the other foot, as the income from Office is not only important to Microsoft, but is their biggest division, with the greatest sales and profits. If Apple can prevent them from making money on it in mobile, they will cut off a major source of funding for Microsoft, and keep them out of the market, while solidifying Apple's strong hold on both business and government mobile markets.

Remembering the old adage about Office, which is that 80% of the users use 20% of the features, iWork doesn't need to be 100% equal to Office to take much of their user base away. They need to be mostly compatible, and that they are already. If the new upgrade to iWork moves them close enough, then many workers and home users will find the $99 per year license for those who already have Office giving them the ability to access it on their iPads and iPhones to be very overpriced, and unnecessary.

We now read that Ballmer has just said that they are working on Office for the iPad. But that it's waiting for their touch version which will first come out for the Windows suit in mid 2014, with the ipad version not debuting until the end of the year. That at least a year from now. It may already be too late, but a year?

And then what will it cost? If it's tied to the desktop versions in license as I just mentioned, it's way too much. If it's much cheaper, Microsoft will have an income problem, and people will demand they lower the price for the desktop version as well. Uh oh! That's a major problem for Microsoft.

So after that long winded explanation, I hope you get a better idea of what's really going on.
post #47 of 84

A convertible is a laptop that turns into a tablet, those are just cases. Maybe Apple will make a keyboard for the iPad someday, but I doubt it. And if they ever make a convertible, they've lost their way.
post #48 of 84
J
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlosDeBernard View Post

why not? 

The technology is there, and beside is already there.
Just because the technology is "there" doesn't make it appropriate.
post #49 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not a chance.

Apple will not release a product that is dramatically slower than its predecessor. An iPad convertible (what I've been calling an 'Ipad Pro' for the year or more that I've been talking about it) would not be a replacement for the MBA, but would rather be an extension of the iPad line. Although some people might buy it instead of the MBA, it wouldn't be marketed as an MBA.

You know, I've been giving this some thought myself. It's really an interesting question.

What would Apple need to do to come out with a notebook that used a more powerful version of the A7? Well, they would need all the software that most people would use a notebook for. That would be browsing, writing, homework, content watching and listening, games, finance, reading books, magazines, etc., photo editing, movie editing, painting, drawing, CAD, and other 3D work.

In other words, all the things that can be now done with iOS apps. Well, that's just amazing! What advantage would we get from this device though? That hard to say. Apple, so far, has been against the touch screen notebook format, so would that change? With Apple, no one will ever know unless it does. I would say; "The Shadow knows." But then, the Shadow is dead.

Could some version of OS X run on a more mature version of the A series chip? It's possible. Apple demonstrated, and Anandtech showed, that the A7 is equal to the mid Bay Trail Atom, and pretty close to the top chip there. Next year, if Apple can keep up their advances, it will push the mobile i3. And remember that it's still two core. If it were four core today, it would already be pushing the mobile i3.

Even if Apple must slow speed advances over the next few years, they will still be advancing much faster than intel can, and will have a chip, even with the small batteries iPad must use, that will be getting close to serious performance in the form of Intel's mobile i5 line.

But I see much more interesting things happening here. While we never know what's happening in Apple's labs, I get a feeling that Apple is doing more with the A line than just making them better iOS engines.

Apple, being unique in that they are the only ones today making both the OS and the chips, has an opportunity to do something special. What they can do is to look at the way x86 processes and the way ARM processes, and modify, or even change some of ARM's instructions to mimic x86. Those could be the areas in which an OS and its apps would have the most work in an emulation situation, and would therefor slow that emulation down the most. Remember that Apple has a lot of experience in this area.

If they could work out the worst performing areas, emulation might not be nearly as much of a chore. Giving the chip more power could allow Apple to raise the speed at which the chip is running. Right now, the A7 is running at the same 1.3Gz as the A6. But is twice as powerful. Many other top ARM designs are already running well beyond 2Gz, up to 2.7Gz. Imagine if Apple doubled that speed to 2.6Gz! Around twice the performance. In a notebook, that could be done because cooling would be far better. Of course, going by past experience, Apple will raise that to maybe 1.5Gz in the iPad, so we can talk about 3 Gz.

Now figure a four core version, with a newer design as well. I could easily see an A8x, if Apple were to do it, that could run at 3Gz in a notebook that would be at least ten times as powerful as today's A7, and more so in graphics, if they use the iPad's extra graphics abilities. That's already pushing the mobile i7 line.

It could be done. Whether Apple wants to do it is another affair, but the fact that they said the A7 had desktop performance shows that they may be thinking it. It could have been a tease.
post #50 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post
 

 

Not sure you followed me.  I'm suggesting that it would have been easier for Apple to increase clock speed and/or the number of cores on the A6X without the major upgrade to 64 bit.    However, if this SOC is intended for uses on other devices with greater processing AND RAM requirements, then this would explain why Apple chose the more complex path.  

 

I don't know much about PA Semi and Intrinsity, just remember reading some high level announcement when they were bought by Apple.  Didn't realise they were that good!

Easier... nope.   

 

In fact, the 64bit solution is amazingly elegant from a hardware and compiler level. and the dual 32/64 bit SoC made the upgrade 'less major.'  The major issue is purely in the OS, and apple has solved that a few times already... 

 

In short, this solved a problem now.  I don't see this chip or the next turn of it being 'workstation worthy.'  But a MacBook Air is probably sporting an A7 as we speak, and being shown to Intel as a 'We expect you to keep your price performance in line, as we do have options";-)

 

As noted elsewhere,  the key benefit in 64 bit A7 is the  handling of object creation and deletion events 50% faster (primarily taking advantage of 64bit register to register 1 clock MOVs... to do the same with a 32 bit would have required doubling clock speed, unlikely in today's power envelope).  And having multiple cores on a non-compute intensive device (really, how many threads can my fingers have in RUN state at a time) wouldn't have sped stuff up much if this is the perceived bottleneck to the user (responsiveness 'feeling' as I drag or touch, all those events are being created, acted on and destroyed [I saw a finger touch[highlight], it moved[drag], it moved again[drag it some more], again[move it more], again[ditto... a couple hundred times a second], it stopped[what's it doing?], it lifted off[unhighlight] and the hundreds of thousands of graphics request messages that were fired off to display this simple action]

 

Make that 50% faster (handle 3 events in the CPU time it used to take to do 2].  That's like turning your clock from 2ghz to 3ghz(or more...).

 

The problem is, Qualcomm doesn't see the problem as 'make dragging seem less 'draggy'',  just 'you need a faster processor' or you have a RAM bottle neck, or your GPU isn't polygonning fast enough....   Nope... it's just needing a wider data path.

 

The issue is less about how great the chip guys are, and more about 'old school' computer design.  Back in the day, chip guys and compiler guys and OS guys were in same company, if not the same division or same building.  Today, Apple and IBM are the only ones I know of that do it now (anyone build a better Zseries Mainframe lately?).   Compilers, and systems developers often overlapped teams.   in 'open systems' solutions, now you got to interface waste, as each interface is generalized, instead of optimized.

 

Apple can build a processor _for_themselves_, for  One OS, One compiler, One set of frameworks.   And provide a canonical profile of how iOS COULD operate if in a chip had these characteristics.  This bi-directional (SW guys telling chip guys how to build, and chip guys telling compiler guys how to exploit) synergy of a organically integrated and optimized compute model (from the silicon up to the UI) is the Strong Sauce that Apple is exploiting.

 

What is old is new again.


Edited by TheOtherGeoff - 10/8/13 at 4:25pm
post #51 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


You know, I've been giving this some thought myself. It's really an interesting question.

.....
 
It could be done. Whether Apple wants to do it is another affair, but the fact that they said the A7 had desktop performance shows that they may be thinking it. It could have been a tease.

 

I've posted before that the next Rosetta will be between OS X and iOS, thus allowing Apple to have the Ax chip in the MBA and then beyond which would increase margins as well as keep the competition at bay. You can easily and quickly copy software, you can't do the same with hardware. Apple could have a preprocessor core that quickly translates x86 to ARM. 

 

Then it is only a matter of time when devs offer both the x86 and iOS versions until such time that x86 is no longer viable on the platform. And why not? If Apple can maintain momentum with the ARM, then they control one more piece of the puzzle. 

post #52 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
[...]

Even if Apple must slow speed advances over the next few years, they will still be advancing much faster than intel can, and will have a chip, even with the small batteries iPad must use, that will be getting close to serious performance in the form of Intel's mobile i5 line.

But I see much more interesting things happening here. While we never know what's happening in Apple's labs, I get a feeling that Apple is doing more with the A line than just making them better iOS engines.

Apple, being unique in that they are the only ones today making both the OS and the chips, has an opportunity to do something special. What they can do is to look at the way x86 processes and the way ARM processes, and modify, or even change some of ARM's instructions to mimic x86. Those could be the areas in which an OS and its apps would have the most work in an emulation situation, and would therefor slow that emulation down the most. Remember that Apple has a lot of experience in this area.

If they could work out the worst performing areas, emulation might not be nearly as much of a chore. Giving the chip more power could allow Apple to raise the speed at which the chip is running. Right now, the A7 is running at the same 1.3Gz as the A6. But is twice as powerful. Many other top ARM designs are already running well beyond 2Gz, up to 2.7Gz. Imagine if Apple doubled that speed to 2.6Gz! Around twice the performance. In a notebook, that could be done because cooling would be far better. Of course, going by past experience, Apple will raise that to maybe 1.5Gz in the iPad, so we can talk about 3 Gz.

Now figure a four core version, with a newer design as well. I could easily see an A8x, if Apple were to do it, that could run at 3Gz in a notebook that would be at least ten times as powerful as today's A7, and more so in graphics, if they use the iPad's extra graphics abilities. That's already pushing the mobile i7 line.

It could be done. Whether Apple wants to do it is another affair, but the fact that they said the A7 had desktop performance shows that they may be thinking it. It could have been a tease.

No, it's not a tease... it's an over the bow shot at Intel.

 

Intel is driving power demands down as quickly as Apple is driving AxX speeds up.  my guess is that Intel will maintain a slight lead with the x86 line for a while.   Any posturing will only be for price and functionality concessions (ie, optimizing parts of the chip to better handle OSX unique and high use instruction pipelining).

 

It will be 4-5 years before Apple can evolve the A series into a significant desktop compute platform, but in 4-5 years will there be a desktop?

 

I think it's more impressive the 'other stuff' apple integrates into their platforms.   When the Laptops start getting LTE integrated in, and  M7 chips, or gyros or touchID, then you'll start looking at the 'family' of apple, not iOS and OSX.    A corporation that commits to touchID as it's auth standard (or someone like the DoD), and apple is able to be the laptop and the iPad, and the phone, and the iPod, and the Thumb Drive manufacturer for them.... that's leverage of the apple difference... the CPU... that's just an implementation detail

post #53 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

I've posted before that the next Rosetta will be between OS X and iOS, thus allowing Apple to have the Ax chip in the MBA and then beyond which would increase margins as well as keep the competition at bay. You can easily and quickly copy software, you can't do the same with hardware. Apple could have a preprocessor core that quickly translates x86 to ARM. 

Then it is only a matter of time when devs offer both the x86 and iOS versions until such time that x86 is no longer viable on the platform. And why not? If Apple can maintain momentum with the ARM, then they control one more piece of the puzzle. 

If Apple chooses to do what I've outlined, then emulation could be fairly easy. Not easy, but fairly easy. In the old days, it was considered necessary to have the machine doing the emulation about 5 times as powerful as he one being emulated for the feel of speed to be the same. From my experiences with emulation, I would agree.

If all Apple did was to increase the lower of their SoC, it wouldn't be enough. ARM would need to be as powerful as the most powerful mobile i7 to emulate a top mobile i3, at best. Not acceptable!

If Apple can eliminate some of the worst bottlenecks, then it could be done. Considering how expensive Intel's solutions are, and how cheap Apple's are (that is, the cost of the chips for a complete system), then Apple may have a major cost advantage. We can look to why Surface Pro is so expensive, including the new, slightly less expensive model. It's because the chips are so expensive. If Microsoft could cut the cost of the chips to a quarter, the surface Pro could cost $495 instead of $895, and who knows what profit Microsoft is getting on that price?

So could we see an arm powered OS X notebook at some point? It's not impossible. There is a way. Whether there is the will is something else.
post #54 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

No, it's not a tease... it's an over the bow shot at Intel.

Intel is driving power demands down as quickly as Apple is driving AxX speeds up.  my guess is that Intel will maintain a slight lead with the x86 line for a while.   Any posturing will only be for price and functionality concessions (ie, optimizing parts of the chip to better handle OSX unique and high use instruction pipelining).

It will be 4-5 years before Apple can evolve the A series into a significant desktop compute platform, but in 4-5 years will there be a desktop?

I think it's more impressive the 'other stuff' apple integrates into their platforms.   When the Laptops start getting LTE integrated in, and  M7 chips, or gyros or touchID, then you'll start looking at the 'family' of apple, not iOS and OSX.    A corporation that commits to touchID as it's auth standard (or someone like the DoD), and apple is able to be the laptop and the iPad, and the phone, and the iPod, and the Thumb Drive manufacturer for them.... that's leverage of the apple difference... the CPU... that's just an implementation detail

When I said tease, I meant to the developers sitting in the hall listening to the presentation, and to Apple users, and prospective Apple users watching the video of it later on.

I don't see it needing four or five years. And as I said, it's already performing at the top of the brand new Bay Trail Atom line.

Apple can do things to their OS and chips that neither Microsoft nor Intel can do, because Intel needs to have their chips perform well with a number of OS's, from the cheapest tablets to the most expensive supercomputers.

Apple can break whatever they want to, and have, if they find a major increase in performance warrants it. This can lead to much greater advances that Intel can manage with their need for backward compatibility.

Just to add to this, Apple could also retain the old instructions. Detect OS X, run this, detect iOS, run that.
post #55 of 84

I'll repeat this post in this newer thread:

 

From Daring Fireball:

 

Agam Shah, reporting for IDG:

“The comments made by Anand Chandrasekher, Qualcomm CMO, about 64-bit computing were inaccurate,” said a Qualcomm spokesperson in an email. “The mobile hardware and software ecosystem is already moving in the direction of 64-bit; and, the evolution to 64-bit brings desktop class capabilities and user experiences to mobile, as well as enabling mobile processors and software to run new classes of computing devices.”

Qualcomm did not provide further comment.

 

 

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/10/08/qualcomm

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #56 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

I'll repeat this post in this newer thread:

From Daring Fireball:

Agam Shah, reporting for IDG:
“The comments made by Anand Chandrasekher, Qualcomm CMO, about 64-bit computing were inaccurate,” said a Qualcomm spokesperson in an email. “The mobile hardware and software ecosystem is already moving in the direction of 64-bit; and, the evolution to 64-bit brings desktop class capabilities and user experiences to mobile, as well as enabling mobile processors and software to run new classes of computing devices.”
Qualcomm did not provide further comment.


http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/10/08/qualcomm

I'm happy to see Qualcomm again, is being honest about something. They're a pretty good company. They resisted both Motorola and Samsung's efforts to get them to improperly sue Apple over patents Qualcomm licensed from them.
post #57 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

You think being the best Semiconductor Manufacturer in the world is cheap?

Define "best."

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #58 of 84
Since we are wishing for our Dream Machine, I wish for a 13" Mac that has a touch screen and is capable of running OS X, iOS and a virtual machine. A Mac that has the ability to switch between processors or virtual iOS & Windows capability. I just don't think iOS is very close to being what we want in a Mac, but I sure would like to occasionally run some iOS apps on my Mac, either as some type of switched processor task or virtual type of machine.

Just wishing to have a Mac that can run A7 iOS tasks and OS X.
post #59 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTBuzz View Post

Since we are wishing for our Dream Machine, I wish for a 13" Mac that has a touch screen and is capable of running OS X, iOS and a virtual machine. A Mac that has the ability to switch between processors or virtual iOS & Windows capability. I just don't think iOS is very close to being what we want in a Mac, but I sure would like to occasionally run some iOS apps on my Mac, either as some type of switched processor task or virtual type of machine.

Just wishing to have a Mac that can run A7 iOS tasks and OS X.

Since the iOS SoC is so cheap, they could add one to a Mac. I keep wondering if they ever will.
post #60 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

A larger 13" iPad would be cool, I have no objections against that, but screw the notebook part. Leave it as an iPad, large and super thin, with an even bigger screen! I think that there is definitely a market of people who would be interested in a larger iPad, and who would be willing to pay for such an iPad. 

If people want lame, failed, frankenstein contraptions, like the Surface tablets, then go buy one of those. I hope that Apple doesn't make any so-called convertibles or hybrid messes. Those already exist, and why should Apple make such a failed and terrible item?

If you want a laptop, go buy a Macbook Pro or Macbook Air.

These clueless analysts should just STFU. Apple is doing just fine without their braindead ideas and dumb predictions. A hybrid piece of junk? Forget it, Apple has better things to do with their time.

For you and all the other people vehemently trashing this idea - maybe you should start by realizing that not everyone has the same needs.

I can see a great demand for the product. When I'm traveling, an extra pound or two is a pain. An iPad does about 90% of what I need to do when I'm traveling, but I still end up carrying an iPad PLUS my MBP. With an iPad Pro (10-13" screen, keyboard, but otherwise an iPad), I'd only need one device and could leave the MBP at home. For that matter, I'd have an iMac on my desk rather than an MBP in the first place. An iMac and iPad Pro would be the ideal computing environment for me - and a lot of business executives I know.
"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 #61 of 84

Called it.

post #62 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post
 

 

almost almost almost agree.

 

The question will always be how much SSD will they put in an iPad.   It has to be over 128GB for me to forgo the laptop (I have a lot of standard content that I need to include in my work, and most of my work requires disconnection from the outside world).  64GB isn't quite enough for the work I do, and I'm not sure the touch UI as primary works in my primary content creation mode.  I could be wrong… but it's the old 'how to accelerate creating tables and multi-depth outlines' that I tend to love a nice 'tabbed' UI (as in, Tabbing sets the nesting level… old Pascal programmer;-)

 

But 13" retina… under 2 lbs, and a 24 hours battery… I'd like that, and carry a bluetooth keyboard.

2 lbs may be too much weight. The new Ipad 5 is rumore to be in the 1lb+ category. If a 13 inches Ipad can be have with 1 1/2 lbs (the current Ipad 3/Ipad 4) weight and long battery life. We may have a deal even without the retina display.  There are a lot of enterprise applications that can use the bigger screen size and give up the higher display resolution. Older user may also  want the bigger size for web surfing.. 

post #63 of 84
Originally Posted by WP7Mango View Post
What are you going to do when Apple makes a hybrid?

 

They won’t. Because it’s sheer idiocy. Period. Everyone agrees with this, otherwise the Surface would actually be selling and the half tablet, half laptops from whoever PC makers would be selling. Touchscreen laptops are useless and lappish (not to be confused with Lappish) tablets don’t provide any benefit over either proper tablets or proper laptops.

 
So, what you are you saying is that adding a keyboard to an iPad is like attaching mechanical legs to a car? 

 

Marketing and building that as a second primary usage scenario (distinct from a secondary usage scenario) equals failure. I find exceedingly few instances where the iPad’s on-screen keyboard is lacking, but for when I do and I’m not by my desktop, I do have the Keyboard Dock. When using it, I don’t expect the UI to accommodate the keyboard means of entry, and it doesn’t. Because it shouldn’t. It’s a tablet. I use the Keyboard Dock for HEAVY word processing, by which I mean “when there’s a character I need that the iPad’s on-screen keyboard doesn’t let me type,” which isn’t often.

 

Making a laptop and saying, “Oh, look, it’s a tablet!” or a tablet and saying, “Oh, look, it’s a laptop!” works as well as making a phone and calling it a tablet.

 

Oh! Or a car and calling it a truck.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #64 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post
 

You think being the best Semiconductor Manufacturer in the world is cheap?

 

They think they're getting one over on The Man.

post #65 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by WP7Mango View Post


So basically Microsoft was right - hybrids are the future!

 

Possibly. The question is whether or not MS can compete with Apple's design tempo. Personally I'd be interested in an 11" iPad notebook concept with wireless USB (or some such). An iOS-optimized MS Office 365 suite would be icing on the cake.

post #66 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post
 

Called it.

 

Not until it actually exists outside of Ben Reitzes' tech porn fantasies.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #67 of 84
Reitzes left off the paragraph about 13" and larger iPads coming with detachable sets of casters so users can roll them around. You heard it here first, because I have an inside pipeline to Jony.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #68 of 84
Sigh, if you see "64 bit is just needed to address more than 4GB of RAM" you know you're the person saying it is an idiot.

The A7 probably doesn't even have a 64 bit address bus... the bits of the processor are about its internals, not its address bus. (and the address bus is what determines how much RAM you can address.)
post #69 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post

We're already seeing the A7 roughly at parity with BayTrail, so this seems a smart move on Apples' part. Who would have believed a few years ago that Apple would be rivaling Intel in SOC design? If the whole phone/tablet thing doesn't work out for Apple in the future, I think they've got a shot at being the next Intel 1wink.gif

 

Bay Trail is Intel's new Atom-based tablet chip, so I would say that Intel caught up to Apple in the mobile SoC space, not that Apple caught up to Intel in the mobile SoC chip space.  The A-seires competes with Atom, not the i3-i5-i7 chips we find in our Mac laptops/desktops.

 

Could Ax compete in laptops - perhaps, but then they would have the same power constraints when you crank up the performance (power-performance is not linear).

 

I would argue that Apple is an industry leader in mobile SoC design and that others try to catch-up from an SoC design standpoint.  Then again, Apple SoCs only have to work for one customer's products - Apple!

post #70 of 84
I just don't see a convertible tablet / notebook coming out of Apple. I can't imagine how they'd execute that idea in a high quality way. If I have a built in physical keyboard all the time, wouldn't I just want OS X? Could ios be modded so that it were more OS X like, like had a cursor and multiple windows? To me the coolest way to physically do it would be a Smart Cover that looks and feels just like it does now, but that had a keyboard that was soft to the touch, but on software... No clue.
post #71 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

No, it's not a tease... it's an over the bow shot at Intel.
Or a wake up call for Intel. I don't think there is any other company in the world that has driven Intels shift to low power chips than Apple. They demanded power improvements in Intels chips and got part of what they wanted. Thy didn't tease they showed Intel exactly where the market was going.
Quote:
Intel is driving power demands down as quickly as Apple is driving AxX speeds up.  my guess is that Intel will maintain a slight lead with the x86 line for a while.   Any posturing will only be for price and functionality concessions (ie, optimizing parts of the chip to better handle OSX unique and high use instruction pipelining).
It is hard to say what technology Apples new A7 implements as Apple isn't to forthright in that respect. The thing is Apple only runs the chip at 1.3 GHz to manage power in the iPhone. We really don't know what the ultimate clock rate is on the chip. However many competitors are running much higher clock rates, so it is reasonable to assume A7 has a much higher clock rate potential. They would come close to trumping every SoC Intel has with a 50% clock rate increase.
Quote:
It will be 4-5 years before Apple can evolve the A series into a significant desktop compute platform, but in 4-5 years will there be a desktop?
It could be sooner than that. If they can get to 14nm next year all bets are off, even something in the 20 nm range would be a step forward. Of course you may have to adjust a bit as to what is acceptable. On the other hand a little OpenCL here and some dedicated hardware there and you can make up for a lot of CPU shortcomings.
Quote:
I think it's more impressive the 'other stuff' apple integrates into their platforms.   When the Laptops start getting LTE integrated in, and  M7 chips, or gyros or touchID, then you'll start looking at the 'family' of apple, not iOS and OSX.
The last thing I want to see is the convergence of the two OS's. In fact I'd rather see Apple focus more on power users with respect to Mac OS.
Quote:
   A corporation that commits to touchID as it's auth standard (or someone like the DoD), and apple is able to be the laptop and the iPad, and the phone, and the iPod, and the Thumb Drive manufacturer for them.... that's leverage of the apple difference... the CPU... that's just an implementation detail

Having spent way to much of my life at a large corporation I have to say corporate standards suck!
post #72 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTBuzz View Post

Since we are wishing for our Dream Machine, I wish for a 13" Mac that has a touch screen and is capable of running OS X, iOS and a virtual machine.
This is an interesting idea and frankly I have to agree with the idea of Mac OS running iOS apps as a task. Then would give us all the capability of a real OS along easy to use iOS apps that are identical to our programs on iOS. I think this will be very doable on Apples ARM chips in short order, more cores and a higher clock rate would do wonders when it comes to performance. Cores here could be GPU or CPU or both.
Quote:
A Mac that has the ability to switch between processors or virtual iOS & Windows capability. I just don't think iOS is very close to being what we want in a Mac,
Exactly, I use both machines extensively (iPad and a MBP.) and the two just aren't interchangeable. Given that I'd love to see an ARM based Mac OS machine that gives us Unix in an extremely low power platform.
Quote:
but I sure would like to occasionally run some iOS apps on my Mac, either as some type of switched processor task or virtual type of machine.
An ARM based machine does away with the absolute need for a virtual machine though Apple could isolate out the iOS apps via a VM. It might be easier to imbue Mac OS with the idea of personalities for each App, so one variant is a standard Mac Window and another a iOS window.
Quote:
Just wishing to have a Mac that can run A7 iOS tasks and OS X.

Yeah even I might have a Nerdgasm over such a machine. Even if Apple didn't go that far I'd still be hot for an ARM based laptop with Mac OS.
post #73 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by junctionscu View Post

Bay Trail is Intel's new Atom-based tablet chip, so I would say that Intel caught up to Apple in the mobile SoC space, not that Apple caught up to Intel in the mobile SoC chip space.  The A-seires competes with Atom, not the i3-i5-i7 chips we find in our Mac laptops/desktops.
You could say that but at this point Intel hardware isn't as integrated as Apples, so it is hard to say the caught up.
Quote:
Could Ax compete in laptops - perhaps, but then they would have the same power constraints when you crank up the performance (power-performance is not linear).
The thing here is that Apples solution is apparently very power efficient. They literally have a 64 bit solution in a cell phone. Not some half assed solution that is 64 bit only in name, this processor delivers. The truth of the matter here is that we don't have a spec sheet with the high end clock rate defined. Let's say though that A7 can scale by 500 Hz that would beat all current Atoms.
Quote:
I would argue that Apple is an industry leader in mobile SoC design and that others try to catch-up from an SoC design standpoint.  Then again, Apple SoCs only have to work for one customer's products - Apple!
Earle
Tripp
post #74 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

I've posted before that the next Rosetta will be between OS X and iOS, thus allowing Apple to have the Ax chip in the MBA and then beyond which would increase margins as well as keep the competition at bay. You can easily and quickly copy software, you can't do the same with hardware. Apple could have a preprocessor core that quickly translates x86 to ARM. 

Not a chance. Rosetta was a marvelous piece of software, but Rosetta apps were still far slower than native apps. You lose something like 3/4 of your performance in the translation. Since the A7 is still far slower than even the slowest i3, that would be unacceptable. Slower chip further dragged down by emulation. That makes it even LESS likely that you'd see an A-series MBA any time soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

They won’t. Because it’s sheer idiocy. Period.

'And Apple will never make a smaller iPad. 10" is perfect and a smaller one would be sheer idiocy. And Apple will never make a phone larger than 3.5" '

How's that working out for you?
Edited by jragosta - 10/9/13 at 7:35am
"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 #75 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Marketing and building that as a second primary usage scenario (distinct from a secondary usage scenario) equals failure.

No it's not a failure - marketing is about selling to your target audience. In the case of hybrids, it's about marketing a productivity tablet as opposed to a consumption tablet. Like you said, heavy typing sessions are a good example. In this case, a hybrid tablet like the Surface is exactly that - designed from the outset as a productivity tablet where the protective case doubles up as a keyboard, which BTW is completely optional - you don't need the physical keyboard on the Surface just like you don't need it on the iPad.

Your car / truck analogy is inaccurate - it's actually more like the hybrid device being a performance SUV instead of a single-seat sports car.

BTW, the on-screen keyboard on the Surface is much better than the one on the iPad.
post #76 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTBuzz View Post

Since we are wishing for our Dream Machine, I wish for a 13" Mac that has a touch screen and is capable of running OS X, iOS and a virtual machine. A Mac that has the ability to switch between processors or virtual iOS & Windows capability. I just don't think iOS is very close to being what we want in a Mac, but I sure would like to occasionally run some iOS apps on my Mac, either as some type of switched processor task or virtual type of machine.

Just wishing to have a Mac that can run A7 iOS tasks and OS X.

So basically, you want Apple to make a 13" equivalent of the Microsoft Surface Pro or a Lenovo Helix, or an Apple equivalent of a 13" touch-screen Ultrabook running Windows 8.
Edited by WP7Mango - 10/9/13 at 6:07am
post #77 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by WP7Mango View Post

So basically, you want Apple to make a 13" equivalent of the Microsoft Surface Pro or a Lenovo Helix, or an Apple equivalent of a 13" touch-screen Ultrabook running Windows 8.

No. I want Apple to make a product that doesn't suck.
"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 #78 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

Reitzes left off the paragraph about 13" and larger iPads coming with detachable sets of casters so users can roll them around. You heard it here first, because I have an inside pipeline to Jony.

If Apple came out with a 13" iPad, instead of the 9.7" models I've been buying, I would buy that for the house, and a Retina mini to take with me.
post #79 of 84
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
How's that working out for you?

 

How’s it working out for Apple? I see the large iPad selling more. Thanks for going on record saying a hybrid device would be anywhere near the concept of “good”, by the way.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #80 of 84

Really wish that the iPad could take advantage of more keyboard shortcuts such as:

 

Ctrl C & Copy X: Copy and paste, Ctrl B: Bold etc for Emails

Arrow keys for scrolling up and down in Safari

Arrow keys for selecting emails in inbox, Enter key to select

Hold Escape for 1 second: Close current app
Hold Shift+Ctrl plus Left Arrow left: Previous app (multi-task switch)

Hold Shift+Ctrl plus Right Arrow left: Next app (multi-task switch)
 

As it stands right now, the keyboard is really only useful for typing when it could be used for so much more to make the iPad a more productive device.
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › 64-bit CPUs seen bolstering possible 13" iPad notebook from Apple