Apple partner TSMC to mass produce 10nm chips by early 2017, on pace to beat Intel

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 88
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,543member
    Okay, I'm gonna spell out the reply in the terms you used:

    Yes, I'm saying that Mac App Store software wouldn't run well. In fact, it won't run AT ALL unless it is all completely recompiled for a new hardware platform - which, if you remember PPC and Intel transitions, is a process that takes years and is completely impossible without a transitional framework that relies upon - yep, EMULATION.

    Apple would have been dead in the water without Rosetta during the Intel transition, and they dragged that emulation framework through three major OS revisions.

    It worked because Intel was so much faster than PPC at many things that mattered.

    But if you say that all the basics will work, should Apple create a THIRD fork, or should they just let the high end - that musicians and video and sound guys depend upon - die off entirely?
  • Reply 82 of 88
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    spheric wrote: »
    Okay, I'm gonna spell out the reply in the terms you used:

    Yes, I'm saying that Mac App Store software wouldn't run well. In fact, it won't run AT ALL unless it is all completely recompiled for a new hardware platform - which, if you remember PPC and Intel transitions, is a process that takes years and is completely impossible without a transitional framework that relies upon - yep, EMULATION.

    Apple would have been dead in the water without Rosetta during the Intel transition, and they dragged that emulation framework through three major OS revisions.

    It worked because Intel was so much faster than PPC at many things that mattered.

    But if you say that all the basics will work, should Apple create a THIRD fork, or should they just let the high end - that musicians and video and sound guys depend upon - die off entirely?


    2000
  • Reply 83 of 88
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,543member
    Okay. I'm lost.
  • Reply 84 of 88
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,526member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    :???:

    That makes no sense. How do you use a desktop or notebook without an OS? Magic?!

    That statement makes even less sense. When did I say that an OS wasn't needed? We're talking about OS X vs. iOS. We're not talking about OS X vs. no OS. You insist that OS X is needed for basic tasks that iOS is perfectly suited for.
  • Reply 85 of 88
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,526member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    I said running things on a desktop and notebook and you're saying that no one needs to use a desktop or notebook? Fucking brilliant¡ I guess Apple should just shut down their Mac segment because you don't see a need for Macs¡

    It's difficult to know whether you really don't understand what we're saying, or pretending to not understand. No one is saying the things you are stating we're saying.

    I really get the feeling that you aren't reading our posts with any care today. What's going on, you're not usually like this?
  • Reply 86 of 88
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,526member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    1) The specific list of things are things that people do with a desktop and notebook.

    2) The problem is, people like you and Melgross have no ability to perceive of anything outside some neat little make-believe world you've constructed for yourselves. You've convinced yourselves that ARM is only for mobile and the Intel is only for traditional PCs simply because of some "tradition" you've mistakenly applied to technology, even in the face of all the evidence that says it's not just possible but feasible (which isn't to say it's the most advantageous avenue for Apple, that's a different situation altogether).

    You are really in la la land here now.
  • Reply 87 of 88
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,526member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Weird that you assume this will be a requirement.

    No, it's weird that you assume it won't be.
  • Reply 88 of 88
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,526member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Clearly I have, otherwise the specific comments of yours in which I've quoted would not have replies that directly relate to them (like this one).
    Passive-aggressiveness doesn't look good on anyone.
    All of that was answered. In fact, you and/or Melgross directly responded to my comments after I spelled it out in what I thought was clearly written text but clearly that's the case since you've repeated your emulation and high-end [HW] comments again.

    You are making several major errors in your assumptions. First of all, it's interesting that Apple hasn't come out with this mythical machine that you are saying they can come out with, with the A8x. Obviously, they don't agree with your assumptions. And shortly, we'll have the A9, and possibly, an A9x. If they don't come out with this machine then, what will you say?

    Now, I inderstand what you are saying, which is why I responded pretty specifically to it. I just don't agree with it. That I don't agree doesn't make me traditional, or,whatever you want to call it. It might make me more perceptive as to what is possible, and needed, than you are.
Sign In or Register to comment.