Would such a machine be compatible with existing OS X software? Would a Rosetta like emulator be required for the transition? Would developers jump on board?
Apple was on PowerPc and then switched to Intel because PowerPc was moving ahead too slowly.
And then they went "mainstream" with Intel, with a supported CPU which received updates regularly, along with everybody else.
In "mobile" they can do what they want since they have such a high market share and sell in volumes. But Apple didn't start its mobile adventure with a custom made CPU/GPU. They first went "mainstream" there as well.
So, if Apple uses ARM for their Mac line. What happens? They will:
a) have to move the entire Mac line to ARM (from the Air to the Pro) or
b) have OSX run on two different architectures simultaneously. Which is a complete mess.
If Apple moves to their own CPU (sort of like the A series) then they will have to constantly upgrade and develop an entire CPU/GPU system just for their Mac line, which doesn't sell enough to support such an investment.
So all in all.
No. Just no.
It doesn't make any sense now to switch from Intel to ARM (in my opinion) because ARM is pushing slowly into "computer" territory and doesn't offer a wide enough array of CPUs (to my knowledge) to cover the Mac line from "Mini" to "Pro".
Interesting, when I worked at Apple in QA, I tried to get a engineer friend a job, and he told me that his interviewers were asking questions that indicated to him an ARM based laptop was in the works. This was about three or four years ago.
Interesting, when I worked at Apple in QA, I tried to get a engineer friend a job, and he told me that his interviewers were asking questions that indicated to him an ARM based laptop was in the works. This was about three or four years ago.
I am sure Apple had prototype ARM-based laptops much early than that. Remember, the Newton was ARM-based.
In terms of R&D, i would think it imperative that Apple has a laundry list of devices running multiple configs simply to stay abreast of what is in the realm of market possibilities for the next 1, 3, 5 and 10+ years.
How would an entry-level, low-cost, ARM-based Mac hurt Mac adoption more over having Macs that only run expensive Intel Core chips if all processing power isn't needed by entry level users and the biggest hurdle is cost, not the ability to use Windows in 2014?
Apple could just use Intel's low cost chips. There is no need to make the move to ARM for Apple to create an entry level OS X computer.
Why is the assumption always that ARM would have to replace Intel? Is there any reason that certain apps and parts of the OS couldn't be compiled for both architectures, and the motherboard contains both? Just like the GPU can be switched to low power integrated when the task allows, and switched to the higher power discreet as needed, the ARM chip could do most of the basic stuff, at very low power, and then hand off to the intel chip when needed? I can even imagine something similar to the new FTL compiler for Safari, so code is compiled first for ARM, and when parts need more power they are JIT compiled for Intel, with the Intel CPU handling the compile so it happens fast.
Aren't they already doing a bit of this with GrandCentralDispatch and OpenCL? Where the actual bare metal code is compiled on the machine for the specific CPU/GPU environment available? And, added benefit, when running on wall power, the machine is now an 8 core machine, and certain "background" tasks could go to ARM while Intel does the heavy lifting. And all PowerNap functionality would be ARM, to minimize drain while not actively working.
I am layman to be sure, so if there is some fundamental law of the universe that makes this not possible, be gentle.
Gordon
You nailed it! That is exactly what I was thinking about since the last rumor about the port. It would also help developers slowly get accustomed to the ARM CPUs. Simultaneously, Apple would have the time to slowly develop and accustom their arm designs for desktop class.
I'm pretty sure that if Apple did this, they'd put enough firepower under the hood to make it emulate X86 and run windows.
However, why do people degrade their Macs by running windows? I used to but it was infuriating. Windows is truly horrible to use.
If running Windows is so important, you should sell your Mac and buy a PC. If however, you need to use Windows every now and then because a software designer wasn't clever enough to make a Mac version, go and buy a cheap laptop like I did.
That way, Windows doesn't spoil and slow down your Mac and you can hide the horrible windows machine all the time you aren't using it.
I love how AI always phrases these stories in such tautological ways.
"Apple's most popular computing devices, ..., could all be powered by the same ARM-based processors, if the company were to decide to make such a switch, according to a new report."
This formula can be used for anything.
"President Obama could invade North Korea, if he decided to do such a thing."
"Microsoft could abandon Office and Windows and focus exclusively on the Xbox platform, if they decided to."
I think this rumor will make more sense when we see what's coming in OS X 10.10.
I think it's distinctly possible that Apple will release something that runs "OS X" with a physical keyboard and trackpad, that runs on ARM. If there are a tonne of people who love and use iPads, and iPads are on ARM, why wouldn't it be possible for a subset of "Macs" to run on ARM? No one cares about running Windows on their iPad. This makes me wonder whether they could perhaps brand an ARM "Mac" as something different. Something that makes it distinct, like "MacPad" but not that specifically. Maybe "Mac Light", or maybe even the WHOLE "air" category could switch to ARM, and the "air" would make the distinction.
Regardless, if they did this, they'd end up with 2 types of Mac. The new Mac Pro didn't just get designed for nothing. It would definitely stay on x86, and so would highend MacBook Pros.
Given that XCode made it (relatively) straight forward to compile fat binaries for PPC/Intel, they could resurrect that and make it relatively easy to compile fat binaries for Intel/ARM. It's part of the Mach binary format for a reason!
Almost 70% of WWDC sessions are listed as TBA this year. I don't think we'd see that many TBA sessions just for a new design UI in OSX. There has to be bigger things in the works. Mark Gurman at 9to5Mac indicated its likely we'll see new hardware at WWDC. I wouldn't be surprised if we see Apple announce a new ARM based Mac. And perhaps some of these TBA sessions will be related to developing for that.
I love how AI always phrases these stories in such tautological ways.
"Apple's most popular computing devices, ..., could all be powered by the same ARM-based processors, if the company were to decide to make such a switch, according to a new report."
This formula can be used for anything.
"President Obama could invade North Korea, if he decided to do such a thing."
"Microsoft could abandon Office and Windows and focus exclusively on the Xbox platform, if they decided to."
AI is a rumor site, thats all. When all you have are rumors you have to come up with something to justify your existence.
I love how AI always phrases these stories in such tautological ways.
"Apple's most popular computing devices, ..., could all be powered by the same ARM-based processors, if the company were to decide to make such a switch, according to a new report."
This formula can be used for anything.
"President Obama could invade North Korea, if he decided to do such a thing."
"Microsoft could abandon Office and Windows and focus exclusively on the Xbox platform, if they decided to."
The writers at AI do their best. Most of them didn't get job offers from the NY Times ;=)
Yes, Apple tests LOTS of things in the lab -- sometimes for many, many years. Do you remember (or are you aware of) the old StarTrek project? Apple had rudimentary versions of Mac System Software (long before it was called Mac OS) running on Intel processors in the lab almost 15 years before Apple made the switch to Intel processors on the Mac.
It would not surprise me if an ARM-like variant were used for the entire Mac line in 10 years or so. Is it going to happen in the next couple of years? Absolutely not!
The 64-bit ARM chips are not significantly slower than a variety of x86 chips, but they use an order of magnitude less power. By going massively parallel, Apple can make devices that are more powerful and use less energy at the same time. Part of switching to x86 was improved performance per Watt. The reason for going ARM on iOS devices was the lack of comparable x86 choices, and after many years, Intel is still lagging behind, while ARM's 64-bit cores have been rapidly catching up. Parallels can license/develop Rosetta-type technology and Windows compatibility won't be an issue, and who knows, maybe Apple and M$ have a deal for a full desktop-class ARM based windows, which would also help M$' tablet/laptop hybrids. The technology is there, so it's just a matter of marketing. It would also be easy to use ARM in the consumer space and for server products, and use x86 or an x86/ARM combo for pro laptops and desktops. Apple already has multiple CPUs in the system so this is totally doable and allows Apple to go places where that competition can't easily follow.
So, if Apple uses ARM for their Mac line. What happens? They will:
a) have to move the entire Mac line to ARM (from the Air to the Pro) or
b) have OSX run on two different architectures simultaneously. Which is a complete mess.
And why would Apple have to move its entire Mac line to ARM? Is it possible that some more economical Macs would be ARM-only, thereby maintaining excellent profit margins and battery life? And possibly higher end Macs might have ARMs and Intel chips, thereby running IOS, OSX and Windows software?
A "complete mess"? Is that possibly just a bit of hyperbole? The original Mac OS ran simultaneously on Motorola and PPC for a while. OSX ran on PPC and Intel. And since half of OSX is shared with IOS, we can say that today, much of the current OS is already shared by two architectures. I can see that if we asked Microsoft to do this it my devolve into your "complete mess", but I think the engineers at Apple are pretty organized.
The main problem is incompatibility with the rest of the world (read Windows and Linux on Intel x86). Hopefully Apple will keep the Mac x86, or they will repeat previous catastrophic mistakes. In such a case, the only way would be migrating to Windows.
Actually, what Apple should do is just the opposite: eventually migrating iOS to the x86.
Every single Windows equivalent app that runs in OS X is recompiled first for that platform. Why would it matter if they change the processor? It's just another recompile. Of course there are differences but that's why they call it work.
Apple should migrate iOS to X86? Holy crap. Yeah, I want a fan strapped to my phone. Cracks me up what people think Apple "should" do.
Very likely you were running Windows under an Intel Processor emulator -- unless, of course, you got your hands on one of those very rare versions of Windows that were actually issued for the PowerPC (even then it must have been a bit of a kluge to get it to run on a MAC with different BIOS and such.)
Running OSes non natively is MUCH slower than running them natively on the intended processor -- sometimes you can get hit with a 2x to 4x speed hit. ARM is NOT 2x to 4x times faster than the processors used in Macs today. Apple's A7 isn't even as fast as a mid range Intel i5 chip for many tasks. The A7 absolutely isn't as fast as the i7 chips in the MacBook Air. Don't even think about an ARM variant keeping up with the top of the line i7 in the rMBP.
So, could you run multiple OSes on an Apple ARM chip in the near future? Yes. Does it make sense? No!
Very likely you were running Windows under an Intel Processor emulator -- unless, of course, you got your hands on one of those very rare versions of Windows that were actually issued for the PowerPC (even then it must have been a bit of a kluge to get it to run on a MAC with different BIOS and such.)
Running OSes non natively is MUCH slower than running them natively on the intended processor -- sometimes you can get hit with a 2x to 4x speed hit. ARM is NOT 2x to 4x times faster than the processors used in Macs today. Apple's A7 isn't even as fast as a mid range Intel i5 chip for many tasks. The A7 absolutely isn't as fast as the i7 chips in the MacBook Air. Don't even think about an ARM variant keeping up with the top of the line i7 in the rMBP.
So, could you run multiple OSes on an Apple ARM chip in the near future? Yes. Does it make sense? No!
Apple is iterating through new ARM CPU upgrades faster than intel: intel's tic-tok model is a two year cycle and they are falling behind that, which is why new Mac announcements are stalled and overdue: the relevant Intel CPU upgrades aren't available.
An A8 may already have closed the performance gap, and given the low power consumption of ARM chips, you can double or triple the CPU core count compared to x86 CPUs meaning anything that can run in parallel will be significantly FASTER than on equivalent x86 platforms with similar power consumption.
Also, while CPU emulation is a factor of two-four slower than native execution, the same does NOT apply to Rosetta-style on-the-fly recompilation, which has only a moderate overhead of maybe 25% or less, IIRC, and which in some cases even ran code faster than on the native CPU.
So if they put an ARM chip in a low-cost, machine running Mac OS X and you'll the Mac behind even though it doesn't change the processor on any of the other Macs? How does that make sense to you?
Am I missing something in the question? You mean if they continue to sell high-end intel-based machines and only the low end machines are ARM-based? You mean like Microsoft did with Windows 8? I don't believe Apple would pursue that course.
Or, did you mean my old mac will continue to work and won't suddenly stop working? Well, that is a given. I'm obviously talking about whether my next laptop would be ARM based. It would not (not unless during this process Microsoft also agreed to go ARM-based with Windows).
There are simply too any pieces of necessary software for various tasks (especially gaming or belonging to a corporate network/exchange domain) that are only available or function well on Windows.
I am sure Apple had prototype ARM-based laptops much early than that. Remember, the Newton was ARM-based.
In terms of R&D, i would think it imperative that Apple has a laundry list of devices running multiple configs simply to stay abreast of what is in the realm of market possibilities for the next 1, 3, 5 and 10+ years.
It's true, and some of them never make it to market either, like blu-ray iMacs back in 2009. I wrote a lot of bug reports on those and kinda wished they released them, but I can't really remember the last time I watched a movie on a computer or any small screen.
Comments
No. Just no.
Would such a machine be compatible with existing OS X software? Would a Rosetta like emulator be required for the transition? Would developers jump on board?
Apple was on PowerPc and then switched to Intel because PowerPc was moving ahead too slowly.
And then they went "mainstream" with Intel, with a supported CPU which received updates regularly, along with everybody else.
In "mobile" they can do what they want since they have such a high market share and sell in volumes. But Apple didn't start its mobile adventure with a custom made CPU/GPU. They first went "mainstream" there as well.
So, if Apple uses ARM for their Mac line. What happens? They will:
a) have to move the entire Mac line to ARM (from the Air to the Pro) or
b) have OSX run on two different architectures simultaneously. Which is a complete mess.
If Apple moves to their own CPU (sort of like the A series) then they will have to constantly upgrade and develop an entire CPU/GPU system just for their Mac line, which doesn't sell enough to support such an investment.
So all in all.
No. Just no.
It doesn't make any sense now to switch from Intel to ARM (in my opinion) because ARM is pushing slowly into "computer" territory and doesn't offer a wide enough array of CPUs (to my knowledge) to cover the Mac line from "Mini" to "Pro".
Interesting, when I worked at Apple in QA, I tried to get a engineer friend a job, and he told me that his interviewers were asking questions that indicated to him an ARM based laptop was in the works. This was about three or four years ago.
I am sure Apple had prototype ARM-based laptops much early than that. Remember, the Newton was ARM-based.
In terms of R&D, i would think it imperative that Apple has a laundry list of devices running multiple configs simply to stay abreast of what is in the realm of market possibilities for the next 1, 3, 5 and 10+ years.
Apple could just use Intel's low cost chips. There is no need to make the move to ARM for Apple to create an entry level OS X computer.
You nailed it! That is exactly what I was thinking about since the last rumor about the port. It would also help developers slowly get accustomed to the ARM CPUs. Simultaneously, Apple would have the time to slowly develop and accustom their arm designs for desktop class.
I'm pretty sure that if Apple did this, they'd put enough firepower under the hood to make it emulate X86 and run windows.
However, why do people degrade their Macs by running windows? I used to but it was infuriating. Windows is truly horrible to use.
If running Windows is so important, you should sell your Mac and buy a PC. If however, you need to use Windows every now and then because a software designer wasn't clever enough to make a Mac version, go and buy a cheap laptop like I did.
That way, Windows doesn't spoil and slow down your Mac and you can hide the horrible windows machine all the time you aren't using it.
I love how AI always phrases these stories in such tautological ways.
"Apple's most popular computing devices, ..., could all be powered by the same ARM-based processors, if the company were to decide to make such a switch, according to a new report."
This formula can be used for anything.
"President Obama could invade North Korea, if he decided to do such a thing."
"Microsoft could abandon Office and Windows and focus exclusively on the Xbox platform, if they decided to."
I love how AI always phrases these stories in such tautological ways.
"Apple's most popular computing devices, ..., could all be powered by the same ARM-based processors, if the company were to decide to make such a switch, according to a new report."
This formula can be used for anything.
"President Obama could invade North Korea, if he decided to do such a thing."
"Microsoft could abandon Office and Windows and focus exclusively on the Xbox platform, if they decided to."
AI is a rumor site, thats all. When all you have are rumors you have to come up with something to justify your existence.
I love how AI always phrases these stories in such tautological ways.
"Apple's most popular computing devices, ..., could all be powered by the same ARM-based processors, if the company were to decide to make such a switch, according to a new report."
This formula can be used for anything.
"President Obama could invade North Korea, if he decided to do such a thing."
"Microsoft could abandon Office and Windows and focus exclusively on the Xbox platform, if they decided to."
The writers at AI do their best. Most of them didn't get job offers from the NY Times ;=)
Yes, Apple tests LOTS of things in the lab -- sometimes for many, many years. Do you remember (or are you aware of) the old StarTrek project? Apple had rudimentary versions of Mac System Software (long before it was called Mac OS) running on Intel processors in the lab almost 15 years before Apple made the switch to Intel processors on the Mac.
It would not surprise me if an ARM-like variant were used for the entire Mac line in 10 years or so. Is it going to happen in the next couple of years? Absolutely not!
By going massively parallel, Apple can make devices that are more powerful and use less energy at the same time.
Part of switching to x86 was improved performance per Watt.
The reason for going ARM on iOS devices was the lack of comparable x86 choices, and after many years, Intel is still lagging behind, while ARM's 64-bit cores have been rapidly catching up.
Parallels can license/develop Rosetta-type technology and Windows compatibility won't be an issue, and who knows, maybe Apple and M$ have a deal for a full desktop-class ARM based windows, which would also help M$' tablet/laptop hybrids.
The technology is there, so it's just a matter of marketing.
It would also be easy to use ARM in the consumer space and for server products, and use x86 or an x86/ARM combo for pro laptops and desktops. Apple already has multiple CPUs in the system so this is totally doable and allows Apple to go places where that competition can't easily follow.
So, if Apple uses ARM for their Mac line. What happens? They will:
a) have to move the entire Mac line to ARM (from the Air to the Pro) or
b) have OSX run on two different architectures simultaneously. Which is a complete mess.
And why would Apple have to move its entire Mac line to ARM? Is it possible that some more economical Macs would be ARM-only, thereby maintaining excellent profit margins and battery life? And possibly higher end Macs might have ARMs and Intel chips, thereby running IOS, OSX and Windows software?
A "complete mess"? Is that possibly just a bit of hyperbole? The original Mac OS ran simultaneously on Motorola and PPC for a while. OSX ran on PPC and Intel. And since half of OSX is shared with IOS, we can say that today, much of the current OS is already shared by two architectures. I can see that if we asked Microsoft to do this it my devolve into your "complete mess", but I think the engineers at Apple are pretty organized.
Every single Windows equivalent app that runs in OS X is recompiled first for that platform. Why would it matter if they change the processor? It's just another recompile. Of course there are differences but that's why they call it work.
Apple should migrate iOS to X86? Holy crap. Yeah, I want a fan strapped to my phone. Cracks me up what people think Apple "should" do.
Very likely you were running Windows under an Intel Processor emulator -- unless, of course, you got your hands on one of those very rare versions of Windows that were actually issued for the PowerPC (even then it must have been a bit of a kluge to get it to run on a MAC with different BIOS and such.)
Running OSes non natively is MUCH slower than running them natively on the intended processor -- sometimes you can get hit with a 2x to 4x speed hit. ARM is NOT 2x to 4x times faster than the processors used in Macs today. Apple's A7 isn't even as fast as a mid range Intel i5 chip for many tasks. The A7 absolutely isn't as fast as the i7 chips in the MacBook Air. Don't even think about an ARM variant keeping up with the top of the line i7 in the rMBP.
So, could you run multiple OSes on an Apple ARM chip in the near future? Yes. Does it make sense? No!
Apple is iterating through new ARM CPU upgrades faster than intel: intel's tic-tok model is a two year cycle and they are falling behind that, which is why new Mac announcements are stalled and overdue: the relevant Intel CPU upgrades aren't available.
An A8 may already have closed the performance gap, and given the low power consumption of ARM chips, you can double or triple the CPU core count compared to x86 CPUs meaning anything that can run in parallel will be significantly FASTER than on equivalent x86 platforms with similar power consumption.
Also, while CPU emulation is a factor of two-four slower than native execution, the same does NOT apply to Rosetta-style on-the-fly recompilation, which has only a moderate overhead of maybe 25% or less, IIRC, and which in some cases even ran code faster than on the native CPU.
So if they put an ARM chip in a low-cost, machine running Mac OS X and you'll the Mac behind even though it doesn't change the processor on any of the other Macs? How does that make sense to you?
Am I missing something in the question? You mean if they continue to sell high-end intel-based machines and only the low end machines are ARM-based? You mean like Microsoft did with Windows 8? I don't believe Apple would pursue that course.
Or, did you mean my old mac will continue to work and won't suddenly stop working? Well, that is a given. I'm obviously talking about whether my next laptop would be ARM based. It would not (not unless during this process Microsoft also agreed to go ARM-based with Windows).
There are simply too any pieces of necessary software for various tasks (especially gaming or belonging to a corporate network/exchange domain) that are only available or function well on Windows.
I am sure Apple had prototype ARM-based laptops much early than that. Remember, the Newton was ARM-based.
In terms of R&D, i would think it imperative that Apple has a laundry list of devices running multiple configs simply to stay abreast of what is in the realm of market possibilities for the next 1, 3, 5 and 10+ years.
It's true, and some of them never make it to market either, like blu-ray iMacs back in 2009. I wrote a lot of bug reports on those and kinda wished they released them, but I can't really remember the last time I watched a movie on a computer or any small screen.