It called Apple spending R&D money wisely as usual, the A9 or A10 chips will be in a Mac laptop or Mac desktop in the future.
What is your basis for this? While it has been a common meme lately, they're still quite far behind intel. If you look at the last time Apple made a significant architectural change, they went from a combination of G4 and G5 chips to intel across the board. Even though intel had significantly better performance, the initial performance was regressive. They have migrated to slower hardware on other occasions. Iris pro in the rmbp is slower in most situations than the 650m from the prior generation, sometimes by a wide margin. They still use it. It does not necessarily mean that the same thing will happen with ARM. You figure that they spend money on research, and that is to be expected. It does not necessarily mean that the research will be in favor of your conclusion. That is where you drift into unfounded fanboy nonsense. I'll add that if they bring something like that to market, there's no way to know when it will happen. To bring it to something like a fanless design with significantly higher battery life would require more than a change of processor. I suspect we'll eventually see something like that, but without some knowledge of the available hardware components, it's not possible to say if the timing is likely.
A link for OSX running on ARM? Really? It's a no brainer to assert that somewhere Apple has full up OSX running on ARM. Just like full up iOS running on an x86. Why wouldn't they?
A link for OSX running on ARM? Really? It's a no brainer to assert that somewhere Apple has full up OSX running on ARM. Just like full up iOS running on an x86. Why wouldn't they?
If you have proof this exists please post it, if not, then I would hope people would be sane enough to know the difference between what is likely the case and the case they can prove.
If you have proof this exists please post it, if not, then I would hope people would be sane enough to know the difference between what is likely the case and the case they can prove.
LOL. I had the proof on this iPhone I found in a bar near Cupertino but sold it to Gizmodo.
While a lot of what he wrote is stupid it is equally, if not more, stupid to mock the assertion that OSX isn't running on ARM somewhere on Apple's campus and demand a link "proving" it to be so.
But here you go, a link that in 2010 the Apple Platform Technology Group had multi user Darwin ported by an intern.
"The goal of this project is to get Darwin into a workable state on the MV88F6281 processor so that other teams can continue their work on this platform. The project has three major milestones"
The interesting part isn't that he was porting parts of darwin onto the time capsule (arm v5) but this comment:
"Snow Leopard comes with libraries for ARMv6 and ARMv7 targets, but has only a compiler for the ARMv5 target. This is not a problem for the goal we?re trying to achieve, which is building the kernel. The kernel does not rely on any of the libraries, thus we should just be able to build it with nothing but a kernel."
That's as close as you're getting to a smoking gun out of apple. Yah, yah. That the platform target would exist anyway because of the iPhone is obvious but it is equally obvious and well known that more than just the darwin kernel had been ported to arm. The userland is present and given all the Core libs have a port onto iOS what's left? Not much at all. To demand "proof" that Apple never had that last bit ever running is idiotic and not at all sane.
That's even without being a pendant and pointing at the same banners you provided a picture of that stated iPhone OSX to "prove" his simple assertion that OSX runs on ARM. He didn't claim Mavericks is already running on ARM although I would.
While a lot of what he wrote is stupid it is equally, if not more, stupid to mock the assertion that OSX isn't running on ARM...
Who stated it wasn't a possibility?
That's even without being a pendant and pointing at the same banners you provided a picture of that stated iPhone OSX to "prove" his simple assertion that OSX runs on ARM. He didn't claim Mavericks is already running on ARM although I would.
I was actually supporting his comment even though he was bright enough to realize that. It should also be noted that Mac OS X is running on ARM is not the same as defunct nomenclature that uses OS X in the name. I would have expected you to be able to tell the difference between an opinion base on a perceived likelihood and a fact.
The request for a link implies that and certainly is mocking. What he wrote in that particular post wasn't controversial at all.
Quote:
It should also be noted that Mac OS X is running on ARM is not the same as defunct nomenclature that uses OS X in the name. I would have expected you to be able to tell the difference between an opinion base on a perceived likelihood and a fact.
No, it doesn't. Apple choose that terminology for good reason. OSX runs on ARM just fine. That you have to put "Mac" into his mouth doesn't mean that's what he said:
"OS X is already running on ARM, and Apple knows exactly how fast it runs and with what software combo."
OSX indeed already runs on ARM. This is a known fact. Requiring a link is stupid.
Apple does know exactly how fast it runs and with what software combo because they aren't incompetent. Requiring a link to show that Apple isn't incompetent is also stupid.
Stating that Mavericks is running on ARM is only very mildly speculative.
Stating that a future MBP or MBA will someday run the A8 or A9 is wildly speculative.
I would expect most folks to be able to tell the difference...for that matter also be able to tell it is obviously a prediction rather than a statement of fact requiring "proof".
Besides, even if Tim Cook and Jony Ives stated on stage that the Macs were going ARM within two or three generations that wouldn't be "proof" but well informed predictions that still might not come to be. Kinda like Steve promising a 3 Ghz G5. So exactly why are you asking for something that can't be satisfied? So he is forced to put mealy-mouthed disclaimers that those are predictions and not facts before you simply state "that opinion is stupid because X, Y and Z"?
I was indeed mocking; there' really no basis to say what Apple will do in the future. People really should remember that this is all text, black on white, and will read as fact. If it were a verbal conversation one might alter there tone and together with body language we could be hearing a different take on 'what Apple will do'.
If there's a strong desire for someone to want Apple to change their CPU architecture... than write that. Saying things are fact is just dumb, obviously.
The request for a link implies that and certainly is mocking. What he wrote in that particular post wasn't controversial at all.
No, it doesn't. Apple choose that terminology for good reason. OSX runs on ARM just fine. That you have to put "Mac" into his mouth doesn't mean that's what he said:
"OS X is already running on ARM, and Apple knows exactly how fast it runs and with what software combo."
OSX indeed already runs on ARM. This is a known fact. Requiring a link is stupid. Apple does know exactly how fast it runs and with what software combo because they aren't incompetent. Requiring a link to show that Apple isn't incompetent is also stupid.
Stating that Mavericks is running on ARM is only very mildly speculative. Stating that a future MBP or MBA will someday run the A8 or A9 is wildly speculative.
I would expect most folks to be able to tell the difference...for that matter also be able to tell it is obviously a prediction rather than a statement of fact requiring "proof".
Besides, even if Tim Cook and Jony Ives stated on stage that the Macs were going ARM within two or three generations that wouldn't be "proof" but well informed predictions that still might not come to be. Kinda like Steve promising a 3 Ghz G5. So exactly why are you asking for something that can't be satisfied? So he is forced to put mealy-mouthed disclaimers that those are predictions and not facts before you simply state "that opinion is stupid because X, Y and Z"?
Your lack of objectively or intelligence is mind boggling. I have trouble believing an adult can figure out how use this forum but then not be able to understand how making the statement "I believe the A9 will be in the Mac" is different from "The A9 will be in the Mac."
Or, another example, I could say, "You ate paint chips as a child which accounts for your low IQ" but without proof that would be slanderous. I have absolutely no idea what accounts for your low IQ but you, Daxon and Ireland are perfectly fine with the first statement. I, however, am not.. I would say, "Based on your comments I would not be surprised if you found lead paint chips a tasty treat as a child." I have not only included my reasoning in my comment but have clearly stated it as an opinion and even made a point of clarify that the paint chips were lead-based.
Your lack of objectively or intelligence is mind boggling. I have trouble believing an adult can figure out how use this forum but then not be able to understand how making the statement "I believe the A9 will be in the Mac" is different from "The A9 will be in the Mac."
Or, another example, I could say, "You ate paint chips as a child which accounts for your low IQ" but without proof that would be slanderous. I have absolutely no idea what accounts for your low IQ but you, Daxon and Ireland are perfectly fine with the first statement. I, however, am not.. I would say, "Based on your comments I would not be surprised if you found lead paint chips a tasty treat as a child." I have not only included my reasoning in my comment but have clearly stated it as an opinion and even made a point of clarify that the paint chips were lead-based.
Lol. Lack of objectivity. You don't like his statement because you don't like his attitude, not because there is anything wrong with his statement.
Again, the statement that OSX runs on arm is a factual statement.
The statement that apple knows how fast osx runs on arm is self evident given the first statement.
At no point did I discuss the assertion that the a9 will be in the Mac except to say that it was conjecture and a stupid one at that.
Since we're now name calling I guess we know who the adults are and who are not.
This is an incredible advance and I think that it indicates the direction of Apple's next innovation, while the iWatch will be interesting I think the real power shift in how we use portable devices will be in the iPad Pro. After the release and announcement of the iPad Air, I'm sure everyone saw the link in naming conventions to Macbook Air and Macbook Pro.
I wouldn't be surprised if a iPad pro had some kind of capacitive pen as well as natural touch recognition along with some real power features for the iPad Pro driven by a desktop class A8 chip. In addition, such a device and chipset could provide a template for a very powerful Media/gaming/TV device to compete with xbox1, PS4, Amazon video player, etc.
The next big battles will be in Mobile Power applications (including cars/transport), health and wearable tech and the battle for living room supremacy and a desktop class A8 chip would be a real enabler as well as competitive advantage for all of those
I was indeed mocking; there' really no basis to say what Apple will do in the future. People really should remember that this is all text, black on white, and will read as fact. If it were a verbal conversation one might alter there tone and together with body language we could be hearing a different take on 'what Apple will do'.
If there's a strong desire for someone to want Apple to change their CPU architecture... than write that. Saying things are fact is just dumb, obviously.
Again, saying that apple will use the A9 is conjecture and saying OSX runs on ARM is not.
You guys went from justifably derisive to making silly anti-apple commentary in your zeal. Like apple would be so incompetent that a full desktop osx port to arm doesn't exist anywhere at apple and demanding proof when the proof lies in apples actions in the past.
The rejoinder is that of course osx runs on arm and apple knows exactly how fast it goes which is why they are highly unlikely to use ARM within 2 generations (2016) in the Mac product line. That doesn't preclude any "iPad pro", just that trucks require more horsepower to do the jobs trucks do.
In 2 generations, based even on the massive improvements of the A7, the A9 will likely be on par with current gen i3 or possibly the low power dual core i5s seen in the MBA.
Using a two year old MBA will be a very so-so user experience. Apple doesn't do so-so user experiences except on rare occasions (aka mistakes)...of course I'm sure that soli will object to this statement because I have stated this as fact without mealy words. -roll eyes-
Apple software isn't going to sit still for two years. Both the core libraries and apple apps like iLife will continue to evolve and require current gen truck like performance to provide exceptional user experience (oh no! Another prediction stated like a fact...when will the atrocities end?). I don't doubt that while many windows OEMs would gladly provide the lesser ARM experience but apple will not. Otherwise we would already see core i3 or pentium based macs. Either to hit lower price points or for greater margins or both.
Just when I thought the thread was on the right track again. Well, was a good read though.
Thank you.
Complaining about derailment after helping derail in the first place is amusing.
There's not much to say narrowly "on topic" other than the A7 is really cool is there? The interesting bits is just conjecture on what lies in the future.
Sorry, didn't mean to derail. Don't think I was; I merely wanted to indicate it's not possible to provide a link to someone's believe there might be...
So a rhetorical link it was, so to speak.
Yes, the A7 is great and yes, they might port OSX to ARM, and no, history won't be providing answers to wishes, only what could seem to be likely. But that's not proof.
Sorry, didn't mean to derail. Don't think I was; I merely wanted to indicate it's not possible to provide a link to someone's believe there might be...
So a rhetorical link it was, so to speak.
Yes, the A7 is great and yes, they might port OSX to ARM, and no, history won't be providing answers to wishes, only what could seem to be likely. But that's not proof.
Again, what is "proof". Was Steve Jobs saying there would be a 3ghz g5 Mac sufficient "proof" or simply conjecture?
I will boldly assert that based on nothing more than history that the sun will rise tomorrow. What link would satisfy you that this is a statement of fact and not mere belief? After all, eventually I will be wrong.
Again, saying that apple will use the A9 is conjecture and saying OSX runs on ARM is not.
You guys went from justifably derisive to making silly anti-apple commentary in your zeal. Like apple would be so incompetent that a full desktop osx port to arm doesn't exist anywhere at apple and demanding proof when the proof lies in apples actions in the past.
The rejoinder is that of course osx runs on arm and apple knows exactly how fast it goes which is why they are highly unlikely to use ARM within 2 generations (2016) in the Mac product line. That doesn't preclude any "iPad pro", just that trucks require more horsepower to do the jobs trucks do.
In 2 generations, based even on the massive improvements of the A7, the A9 will likely be on par with current gen i3 or possibly the low power dual core i5s seen in the MBA.
Using a two year old MBA will be a very so-so user experience. Apple doesn't do so-so user experiences except on rare occasions (aka mistakes)...of course I'm sure that soli will object to this statement because I have stated this as fact without mealy words. -roll eyes-
Apple software isn't going to sit still for two years. Both the core libraries and apple apps like iLife will continue to evolve and require current gen truck like performance to provide exceptional user experience (oh no! Another prediction stated like a fact...when will the atrocities end?). I don't doubt that while many windows OEMs would gladly provide the lesser ARM experience but apple will not. Otherwise we would already see core i3 or pentium based macs. Either to hit lower price points or for greater margins or both.
Of course 2 years from now at rate of Intel progress - i3 will likely be like todays i7 and lower power.
I would not doubt if Apple is so concern about battery life - they could in theory come up with lost cost MacBook Air using say the Z37xx cpu and have 10+ hours battery life
Keep in mind there is a big difference between iOS and OS X which is multitasking. IOS has limited multitasking, which I believe was done to increase battery life. Running multiple processes at same time eats of processing power and battery life.
As for iOS on ARM, a lot depends on how much of the core OS is written in Assembly Language. As a former OS developer - there are instructions in the Intel based language specifically for OS operation, these will have to be implemented in ARM code and it very likely ARM does not have such functional. One I know sure they don't have and probably never have is Virtual x86 mode. The question is how much is actual used in OS X. Also for OSX applications, they would have to be ported with new compiler and some application will probably have portions of code in Assembly also.
To me an MacBook pro using ARM cpu is a pipe dream - I would think more likely it will be just a bigger iPad with detachable keyboard run a version iOS with it limitations.
Lol. Lack of objectivity. You don't like his statement because you don't like his attitude, not because there is anything wrong with his statement.
His attitude was fine when he made his sweeping claims of what Apple will do. It was only after I stated his facts aren't actually facts did he get all upset. Same for you.
Again, the statement that OSX runs on arm is a factual statement.
Again, I statement I proved by showing Apple's own banners stating it as such, but, again, OS X is not the same as Mac OS X which is not the same as Macs will be sold running on A9 processors.
Since we're now name calling I guess we know who the adults are and who are not.
Again, what is "proof". Was Steve Jobs saying there would be a 3ghz g5 Mac sufficient "proof" or simply conjecture?
I will boldly assert that based on nothing more than history that the sun will rise tomorrow. What link would satisfy you that this is a statement of fact and not mere belief? After all, eventually I will be wrong.
Are you fucking kidding me? What is proof?
proof |pro?of| noun
• evidence
conjecture |k?n?jekCH?r| noun
• an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information:
Steve saying there will be a 3GHz PPC Mac can be proven. It's conjecture to assume that a 3GHz PPC Mac was in the works. It's false to say that a 3GHz PPC Mac was ever sold. Note that Steve also said FaceTime would be open source, which hasn't happened and I later read that the engineers that built FaceTime hadn't heard of that before Steve said it on stage.
Sorry, didn't mean to derail. Don't think I was; I merely wanted to indicate it's not possible to provide a link to someone's believe there might be...
So a rhetorical link it was, so to speak.
Yes, the A7 is great and yes, they might port OSX to ARM, and no, history won't be providing answers to wishes, only what could seem to be likely. But that's not proof.
Again, what is "proof". Was Steve Jobs saying there would be a 3ghz g5 Mac sufficient "proof" or simply conjecture?
I will boldly assert that based on nothing more than history that the sun will rise tomorrow. What link would satisfy you that this is a statement of fact and not mere belief? After all, eventually I will be wrong.
@nht, your posts, here, are usually reasoned -- Why are you taking this tack?
It is one thing to assert something, as you have done above -- and quite another to state something as fact (with no tolerance for discussion or ability to prove or disprove). IMO, this is the height of ego and rudeness -- and has no place in a forum such as this, as it is not conducive to discussion or enlightenment.
I usually ignore posts such as the OP's because I consider them a form of trolling -- mudding the water, to no advantage. However, I must admit to a temptation to "bring the OP down a notch" -- put up or shut up! But, that just adds dissonance.
Looking at the OP's post count, I suspect he is a troll -- matters not if he is pro or anti Apple -- his actions have derailed this thread ... We all lose!
As for iOS on ARM, a lot depends on how much of the core OS is written in Assembly Language.
For the core bits of OSX these are all ported due to the iPhone/iPad. All of Darwin has been at one point or another. Then we're talking the Core libraries and there are iOS versions of the important bits that implies to me that for the most part this is a non-issue as well. That leaves drivers and those are covered as part of supporting the hardware you want to deploy to.
Comments
It called Apple spending R&D money wisely as usual, the A9 or A10 chips will be in a Mac laptop or Mac desktop in the future.
What is your basis for this? While it has been a common meme lately, they're still quite far behind intel. If you look at the last time Apple made a significant architectural change, they went from a combination of G4 and G5 chips to intel across the board. Even though intel had significantly better performance, the initial performance was regressive. They have migrated to slower hardware on other occasions. Iris pro in the rmbp is slower in most situations than the 650m from the prior generation, sometimes by a wide margin. They still use it. It does not necessarily mean that the same thing will happen with ARM. You figure that they spend money on research, and that is to be expected. It does not necessarily mean that the research will be in favor of your conclusion. That is where you drift into unfounded fanboy nonsense. I'll add that if they bring something like that to market, there's no way to know when it will happen. To bring it to something like a fanless design with significantly higher battery life would require more than a change of processor. I suspect we'll eventually see something like that, but without some knowledge of the available hardware components, it's not possible to say if the timing is likely.
Link?
A link for OSX running on ARM? Really? It's a no brainer to assert that somewhere Apple has full up OSX running on ARM. Just like full up iOS running on an x86. Why wouldn't they?
If you have proof this exists please post it, if not, then I would hope people would be sane enough to know the difference between what is likely the case and the case they can prove.
LOL. I had the proof on this iPhone I found in a bar near Cupertino but sold it to Gizmodo.
While a lot of what he wrote is stupid it is equally, if not more, stupid to mock the assertion that OSX isn't running on ARM somewhere on Apple's campus and demand a link "proving" it to be so.
But here you go, a link that in 2010 the Apple Platform Technology Group had multi user Darwin ported by an intern.
"The goal of this project is to get Darwin into a workable state on the MV88F6281 processor so that other teams can continue their work on this platform. The project has three major milestones"
http://repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:2f66fe0c-4080-4148-a01c-acd530160797/Report_BSc_complete.pdf
The interesting part isn't that he was porting parts of darwin onto the time capsule (arm v5) but this comment:
"Snow Leopard comes with libraries for ARMv6 and ARMv7 targets, but has only a compiler for the ARMv5 target. This is not a problem for the goal we?re trying to achieve, which is building the kernel. The kernel does not rely on any of the libraries, thus we should just be able to build it with nothing but a kernel."
That's as close as you're getting to a smoking gun out of apple. Yah, yah. That the platform target would exist anyway because of the iPhone is obvious but it is equally obvious and well known that more than just the darwin kernel had been ported to arm. The userland is present and given all the Core libs have a port onto iOS what's left? Not much at all. To demand "proof" that Apple never had that last bit ever running is idiotic and not at all sane.
That's even without being a pendant and pointing at the same banners you provided a picture of that stated iPhone OSX to "prove" his simple assertion that OSX runs on ARM. He didn't claim Mavericks is already running on ARM although I would.
Who stated it wasn't a possibility?
I was actually supporting his comment even though he was bright enough to realize that. It should also be noted that Mac OS X is running on ARM is not the same as defunct nomenclature that uses OS X in the name. I would have expected you to be able to tell the difference between an opinion base on a perceived likelihood and a fact.
Who stated it wasn't a possibility?
The request for a link implies that and certainly is mocking. What he wrote in that particular post wasn't controversial at all.
No, it doesn't. Apple choose that terminology for good reason. OSX runs on ARM just fine. That you have to put "Mac" into his mouth doesn't mean that's what he said:
"OS X is already running on ARM, and Apple knows exactly how fast it runs and with what software combo."
OSX indeed already runs on ARM. This is a known fact. Requiring a link is stupid.
Apple does know exactly how fast it runs and with what software combo because they aren't incompetent. Requiring a link to show that Apple isn't incompetent is also stupid.
Stating that Mavericks is running on ARM is only very mildly speculative.
Stating that a future MBP or MBA will someday run the A8 or A9 is wildly speculative.
I would expect most folks to be able to tell the difference...for that matter also be able to tell it is obviously a prediction rather than a statement of fact requiring "proof".
Besides, even if Tim Cook and Jony Ives stated on stage that the Macs were going ARM within two or three generations that wouldn't be "proof" but well informed predictions that still might not come to be. Kinda like Steve promising a 3 Ghz G5. So exactly why are you asking for something that can't be satisfied? So he is forced to put mealy-mouthed disclaimers that those are predictions and not facts before you simply state "that opinion is stupid because X, Y and Z"?
If there's a strong desire for someone to want Apple to change their CPU architecture... than write that. Saying things are fact is just dumb, obviously.
Your lack of objectively or intelligence is mind boggling. I have trouble believing an adult can figure out how use this forum but then not be able to understand how making the statement "I believe the A9 will be in the Mac" is different from "The A9 will be in the Mac."
Or, another example, I could say, "You ate paint chips as a child which accounts for your low IQ" but without proof that would be slanderous. I have absolutely no idea what accounts for your low IQ but you, Daxon and Ireland are perfectly fine with the first statement. I, however, am not.. I would say, "Based on your comments I would not be surprised if you found lead paint chips a tasty treat as a child." I have not only included my reasoning in my comment but have clearly stated it as an opinion and even made a point of clarify that the paint chips were lead-based.
Lol. Lack of objectivity. You don't like his statement because you don't like his attitude, not because there is anything wrong with his statement.
Again, the statement that OSX runs on arm is a factual statement.
The statement that apple knows how fast osx runs on arm is self evident given the first statement.
At no point did I discuss the assertion that the a9 will be in the Mac except to say that it was conjecture and a stupid one at that.
Since we're now name calling I guess we know who the adults are and who are not.
I wouldn't be surprised if a iPad pro had some kind of capacitive pen as well as natural touch recognition along with some real power features for the iPad Pro driven by a desktop class A8 chip. In addition, such a device and chipset could provide a template for a very powerful Media/gaming/TV device to compete with xbox1, PS4, Amazon video player, etc.
The next big battles will be in Mobile Power applications (including cars/transport), health and wearable tech and the battle for living room supremacy and a desktop class A8 chip would be a real enabler as well as competitive advantage for all of those
Thank you.
Again, saying that apple will use the A9 is conjecture and saying OSX runs on ARM is not.
You guys went from justifably derisive to making silly anti-apple commentary in your zeal. Like apple would be so incompetent that a full desktop osx port to arm doesn't exist anywhere at apple and demanding proof when the proof lies in apples actions in the past.
The rejoinder is that of course osx runs on arm and apple knows exactly how fast it goes which is why they are highly unlikely to use ARM within 2 generations (2016) in the Mac product line. That doesn't preclude any "iPad pro", just that trucks require more horsepower to do the jobs trucks do.
In 2 generations, based even on the massive improvements of the A7, the A9 will likely be on par with current gen i3 or possibly the low power dual core i5s seen in the MBA.
Using a two year old MBA will be a very so-so user experience. Apple doesn't do so-so user experiences except on rare occasions (aka mistakes)...of course I'm sure that soli will object to this statement because I have stated this as fact without mealy words. -roll eyes-
Apple software isn't going to sit still for two years. Both the core libraries and apple apps like iLife will continue to evolve and require current gen truck like performance to provide exceptional user experience (oh no! Another prediction stated like a fact...when will the atrocities end?). I don't doubt that while many windows OEMs would gladly provide the lesser ARM experience but apple will not. Otherwise we would already see core i3 or pentium based macs. Either to hit lower price points or for greater margins or both.
Complaining about derailment after helping derail in the first place is amusing.
There's not much to say narrowly "on topic" other than the A7 is really cool is there? The interesting bits is just conjecture on what lies in the future.
So a rhetorical link it was, so to speak.
Yes, the A7 is great and yes, they might port OSX to ARM, and no, history won't be providing answers to wishes, only what could seem to be likely. But that's not proof.
Again, what is "proof". Was Steve Jobs saying there would be a 3ghz g5 Mac sufficient "proof" or simply conjecture?
I will boldly assert that based on nothing more than history that the sun will rise tomorrow. What link would satisfy you that this is a statement of fact and not mere belief? After all, eventually I will be wrong.
Again, saying that apple will use the A9 is conjecture and saying OSX runs on ARM is not.
You guys went from justifably derisive to making silly anti-apple commentary in your zeal. Like apple would be so incompetent that a full desktop osx port to arm doesn't exist anywhere at apple and demanding proof when the proof lies in apples actions in the past.
The rejoinder is that of course osx runs on arm and apple knows exactly how fast it goes which is why they are highly unlikely to use ARM within 2 generations (2016) in the Mac product line. That doesn't preclude any "iPad pro", just that trucks require more horsepower to do the jobs trucks do.
In 2 generations, based even on the massive improvements of the A7, the A9 will likely be on par with current gen i3 or possibly the low power dual core i5s seen in the MBA.
Using a two year old MBA will be a very so-so user experience. Apple doesn't do so-so user experiences except on rare occasions (aka mistakes)...of course I'm sure that soli will object to this statement because I have stated this as fact without mealy words. -roll eyes-
Apple software isn't going to sit still for two years. Both the core libraries and apple apps like iLife will continue to evolve and require current gen truck like performance to provide exceptional user experience (oh no! Another prediction stated like a fact...when will the atrocities end?). I don't doubt that while many windows OEMs would gladly provide the lesser ARM experience but apple will not. Otherwise we would already see core i3 or pentium based macs. Either to hit lower price points or for greater margins or both.
Of course 2 years from now at rate of Intel progress - i3 will likely be like todays i7 and lower power.
I would not doubt if Apple is so concern about battery life - they could in theory come up with lost cost MacBook Air using say the Z37xx cpu and have 10+ hours battery life
Keep in mind there is a big difference between iOS and OS X which is multitasking. IOS has limited multitasking, which I believe was done to increase battery life. Running multiple processes at same time eats of processing power and battery life.
As for iOS on ARM, a lot depends on how much of the core OS is written in Assembly Language. As a former OS developer - there are instructions in the Intel based language specifically for OS operation, these will have to be implemented in ARM code and it very likely ARM does not have such functional. One I know sure they don't have and probably never have is Virtual x86 mode. The question is how much is actual used in OS X. Also for OSX applications, they would have to be ported with new compiler and some application will probably have portions of code in Assembly also.
To me an MacBook pro using ARM cpu is a pipe dream - I would think more likely it will be just a bigger iPad with detachable keyboard run a version iOS with it limitations.
His attitude was fine when he made his sweeping claims of what Apple will do. It was only after I stated his facts aren't actually facts did he get all upset. Same for you.
Again, I statement I proved by showing Apple's own banners stating it as such, but, again, OS X is not the same as Mac OS X which is not the same as Macs will be sold running on A9 processors.
What name did I call you?
Are you fucking kidding me? What is proof?
proof |pro?of|
noun
• evidence
conjecture |k?n?jekCH?r|
noun
• an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information:
Steve saying there will be a 3GHz PPC Mac can be proven. It's conjecture to assume that a 3GHz PPC Mac was in the works. It's false to say that a 3GHz PPC Mac was ever sold. Note that Steve also said FaceTime would be open source, which hasn't happened and I later read that the engineers that built FaceTime hadn't heard of that before Steve said it on stage.
@nht, your posts, here, are usually reasoned -- Why are you taking this tack?
It is one thing to assert something, as you have done above -- and quite another to state something as fact (with no tolerance for discussion or ability to prove or disprove). IMO, this is the height of ego and rudeness -- and has no place in a forum such as this, as it is not conducive to discussion or enlightenment.
I usually ignore posts such as the OP's because I consider them a form of trolling -- mudding the water, to no advantage. However, I must admit to a temptation to "bring the OP down a notch" -- put up or shut up! But, that just adds dissonance.
Looking at the OP's post count, I suspect he is a troll -- matters not if he is pro or anti Apple -- his actions have derailed this thread ... We all lose!
There [is, is no] God!
As for iOS on ARM, a lot depends on how much of the core OS is written in Assembly Language.
For the core bits of OSX these are all ported due to the iPhone/iPad. All of Darwin has been at one point or another. Then we're talking the Core libraries and there are iOS versions of the important bits that implies to me that for the most part this is a non-issue as well. That leaves drivers and those are covered as part of supporting the hardware you want to deploy to.