Apples advancements in their ARM processors are far ahead of what Intel has been doing. Specifically, Apple has been increasing the performance of their energy efficient chips at a rate far faster than Intel is lowering the power consumption of their higher performance processors. This is why the A9X and A10 already match the low-end Intel notebook chips for performance but do so at a fraction of the cost.
I think we're very close to seeing an ARM MacBook. And in a couple years we could see the full range of Apple computers using ARM. Just like Apple is in full control of the complete package of iOS, Xcode, Swift, A Series processors and the iPhone/iPad, they can soon be in complete control of the hardware and software for ALL of their products.
Apples advancements in their ARM processors are far ahead of what Intel has been doing. Specifically, Apple has been increasing the performance of their energy efficient chips at a rate far faster than Intel is lowering the power consumption of their higher performance processors. This is why the A9X and A10 already match the low-end Intel notebook chips for performance but do so at a fraction of the cost.
I think we're very close to seeing an ARM MacBook. And in a couple years we could see the full range of Apple computers using ARM. Just like Apple is in full control of the complete package of iOS, Xcode, Swift, A Series processors and the iPhone/iPad, they can soon be in complete control of the hardware and software for ALL of their products.
Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Multiple chips do not always make software run faster. Multiple processors will only speed up software which can be parallelized. Software with serial computations (i.e x must be done before y) will only benefit from fast single core performance. 'Serial' software is pretty much most everyday software.
That explains why I've been mostly underwhelmed by this new MacBook Pro. One app that I use a lot for a specific transcoding task takes exactly the same length of time to process a given file on this machine as it did on my 2009 MBP. I thought more cores and improved architecture would speed things up, but they didn't. So apparently for some things, higher clock speeds WOULD be better.
yes higher clocks are the best solution for speed hands down because it just speeds of software without it being needed to be modified. The problem is that around 3.5-4GHZ plus the processor is operating so fast that the next clock pulse comes even before the previous instruction has been completely processed (limit of transistor technology). This causes instability and limits us from increasing clock speed. Life would be amazing for software engineers like me if we could just crank up clock speed forever
Does that mean it would be worth having 3 or 4 logical threads per core ( super hyper threading ) in processors? Give even more time for the result of one operation to flow back for the next cycle.
Pretty sad isn't it!!!! LPDDR support would have made them a rational upgrade for some of Apples hardware even if the performance increases suck. Oh and by the way it is more like 4 years now that we have seen CPU performance increases that are and embarrassment. At least in real world performance the CPU's have gained very little often all you get is a very minor clock rate boost.
This is abject nonsense.
In single core benchmarks the 2015 4.0Ghz Core i7-6700K iMac scores 5201 on Geekbench. The 2012 3.4Ghz Core i7-3770 iMac scores 3844.
Even the 2015 3.2 Core i5-6500 is much faster at 4320.
The 2013 iMac Intel 3.5Ghz Core i7-4771 scores 4187.
In terms of multi-core performance we see 16434 for 2015, 13111 for 2013 and 12003 for 2012.
The only embarrassment is making silly assertions that are easily disproved. Anyone on a 3 year replacement cycle sees a 35% increase in CPU performance.
The only embarrassment is making silly assertions that are easily disproved. Anyone on a 3 year replacement cycle sees a 35% increase in CPU performance.
To be fair that was while we were still riding high on "tick tock". It's yet to be seen how things will shake out with the new "process - architecture - optimization" cycle in full. Kaby Lake is kinda the first of the 'optimization' part of that new cycle, and its a huuuuuuuuuuuuggggggeeeeee disappointment on the high end. The reaction is going to be bigger just by virtue of the fact that it's kind-of the first of those.
It's also likely that how you feel about the gains correlates directly to whether or not you remember the massive gains of the past. If you're sneaky and want to compare directly against ARM chipsets, which are still fairly rapidly improving, you can make things look extra dire.
Everyone needs to make some expectation adjustments when it comes to CPUs, we're starting to bump up hard against physics. Graphene, germane, and Titanium trisulfide have shown promise over Silicon, but there's very real problems with all of those approaches. And if we want to keep shrinking these things, there's tons of hard work to be done. We can't just parallelize forever.
Apples advancements in their ARM processors are far ahead of what Intel has been doing.
I'm no silicon architect so I may be off base here, but I'm not sure it's a fair comparison.
If I'm building go-karts, there's lots of room for each iteration to be WAAAY better than the one before it. If I'm building F1 cars, this year's model is already so close to the limit of what's possible that next year's model will likely only manage small improvements. Thus one could argue that the the go-kart builder is advancing faster/better/more than the F1 team. It would be true, but only because there's so much more ROOM for improvement to the go-kart than there is to the F1 car.
At this point, I think it's a fair (if obviously exaggerated) comparison. Who knows if that will still be true in three years.
The only embarrassment is making silly assertions that are easily disproved. Anyone on a 3 year replacement cycle sees a 35% increase in CPU performance.
To be fair that was while we were still riding high on "tick tock". It's yet to be seen how things will shake out with the new "process - architecture - optimization" cycle in full. Kaby Lake is kinda the first of the 'optimization' part of that new cycle, and its a huuuuuuuuuuuuggggggeeeeee disappointment on the high end. The reaction is going to be bigger just by virtue of the fact that it's kind-of the first of those.
It's also likely that how you feel about the gains correlates directly to whether or not you remember the massive gains of the past. If you're sneaky and want to compare directly against ARM chipsets, which are still fairly rapidly improving, you can make things look extra dire.
Everyone needs to make some expectation adjustments when it comes to CPUs, we're starting to bump up hard against physics. Graphene, germane, and Titanium trisulfide have shown promise over Silicon, but there's very real problems with all of those approaches. And if we want to keep shrinking these things, there's tons of hard work to be done. We can't just parallelize forever.
Your right -- even if you have a CPU gain of 35% you will be lucky to see a 1/3 of that in real world scenario performance given everything else the same.
Also for the vast majority of users -- the computers that they use have 80% or 90% average idle time on the processors -- and only in short spurts do you see it hit the max.... and depending on the task that might not even be noticeable using a faster processor. I could of course temporarily use one.... been running my Mac Pro 2008 (8-Core) at 750% CPU usage (i.e. almost 100% of all cores) for the last 6 weeks straight
And what does power consumption have to do in a desktop processor?
One thing at a time, why do you believe that power consumption isn't an issue with desktop-class processors?
It's not an issue because you're not running on a battery. It does have some benefits like allowing slimmer packaging, but these are minimal.
I think it has more to do with just if battery operated or not. Heat is a big factor - the power consumed is directly related to the heat produced. Apple doesn't like fans in the iMac, Mini so they rely on convection to vent the heat. I have a 2011 i7 @3.4 Ghz and a 2013 at similar speed. The 2011 is the first one to come from Apple with an SSD & the combo of the screen, processor, SSD... it gets hot as a fire cracker on top. The extra heat slows the performance and also surely shaves time off the life of the iMac.
And what does power consumption have to do in a desktop processor?
One thing at a time, why do you believe that power consumption isn't an issue with desktop-class processors?
It's not an issue because you're not running on a battery. It does have some benefits like allowing slimmer packaging, but these are minimal.
I think it has more to do with just if battery operated or not. Heat is a big factor - the power consumed is directly related to the heat produced. Apple doesn't like fans in the iMac, Mini so they rely on convection to vent the heat. I have a 2011 i7 @3.4 Ghz and a 2013 at similar speed. The 2011 is the first one to come from Apple with an SSD & the combo of the screen, processor, SSD... it gets hot as a fire cracker on top. The extra heat slows the performance and also surely shaves time off the life of the iMac.
Mac Mini's have fans... so does my old Mac Pro.... in fact the only Mac that I know of that does not have a fan is the MacBook 12". It will be adjusted automatically based on temperature. Maybe you have a broken fan ??
You could always install something like smcFanControl and crank up the fan and it will definitely become audible if it is working....
Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Possibly, but then we'd lose the ability to virtualize which is (sadly) still a requirement for some of us who use our Macs in the enterprise.
Don't look at it as an all-or-nothing option. Just because they re-introduce the MacBook with an ARM chip and with a much lower MSRP, doesn't mean that the MacBook Pro wouldn't still get Intel chips for the foreseeable future.
Wouldn't that cause the same kind of software compatibility issues Microsoft ran into with RT? "This software works on this Mac but not that one, whereas that title works on that Mac but not this one."
Not at all. What MS did for Surface RT is not unlike their 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows. It was poorly thought out and implemented. Apple, on the other hand, has made the transition from discrete architectures many, many times throughout their history, and today it's even better for them since they have the Mac App Store, many low-level coding elements which will allow developers to build for multiple architectures with relative ease, and since their most popular platform is already ARM there will be the ability to use these advancements to further the App Store for an ARM-based notebook without forcing every device they sell to be shifted to ARM when they are ready to include a low-end option. However, I don't expect this to occur until their desktop OS reaches an evolutionary state that makes less instructive and offer a shorter learning curve like iOS.
"However, I don't expect this to occur until their desktop OS reaches an evolutionary state that makes less instructive and offer a shorter learning curve like iOS."
I've been going on about a proOS in several threads -- specifically something in between iOS and macOS -- to exploit the iPad Pro hardware.
Implemented correctly, proOS could subsume macOS over time.
eeh gads! not another OS to support. I seriously hope that you are wrong! This proOS sounds like what Microsoft has done for years (that has not worked) i.e., with their so-called tabletbooks going back well over a decade. They have all sucked IMHO - your mileage may vary ;-)
"However, I don't expect this to occur until their desktop OS reaches an evolutionary state that makes less instructive and offer a shorter learning curve like iOS."
I've been going on about a proOS in several threads -- specifically something in between iOS and macOS -- to exploit the iPad Pro hardware.
Implemented correctly, proOS could subsume macOS over time.
eeh gads! not another OS to support. I seriously hope that you are wrong! This proOS sounds like what Microsoft has done for years (that has not worked) i.e., with their so-called tabletbooks going back well over a decade. They have all sucked IMHO - your mileage may vary ;-)
I don't. see it happening. What I can see as a possible route is iOS, at least starting with the iPad Pro due to its performance capabilities and lower-volume sales, would also contain an Cocoa UI that is very similar to macOS' UI in many regards. Just like CarPlay is an additional UI that is sent from the iPhone to your automobile's display, the iPad Pro could push a Mac-like UI to an external display with a traditional keyboard and mouse to help bridge the gap between those that mostly need an iPad but occasionally need a desktop OS. This could actually help boost sales for both the iPad Pro and the Mac for those Apple customers that buy iPhones and iPads, but not Macs.
I still think the odds are relatively slim, but I can see a path to how this could make sense. It could also be a trial run before we get a Mac or Mac-like low-end "PC" from Apple that runs on ARM.
Pretty sad isn't it!!!! LPDDR support would have made them a rational upgrade for some of Apples hardware even if the performance increases suck. Oh and by the way it is more like 4 years now that we have seen CPU performance increases that are and embarrassment. At least in real world performance the CPU's have gained very little often all you get is a very minor clock rate boost.
This is abject nonsense.
In single core benchmarks the 2015 4.0Ghz Core i7-6700K iMac scores 5201 on Geekbench. The 2012 3.4Ghz Core i7-3770 iMac scores 3844.
Even the 2015 3.2 Core i5-6500 is much faster at 4320.
The 2013 iMac Intel 3.5Ghz Core i7-4771 scores 4187.
In terms of multi-core performance we see 16434 for 2015, 13111 for 2013 and 12003 for 2012.
The only embarrassment is making silly assertions that are easily disproved. Anyone on a 3 year replacement cycle sees a 35% increase in CPU performance.
Not to mention the benefits for converting video and outputting to 4K and 5K displays with USB 3.x and TB3 support. There are certainly areas where these newer chips are going to be a huge boon in certain types of processing data but they are absolutely better than chips made 4+ years ago.
That will be awesome for Apple to roll out new models 4 months after I invested in their below average iteration of the MacBookPro.
If you were so unhappy with it then why didn't you return it? Obviously something made you keep it. If you thought it was "below average" then why did you buy it in the first place? What are you using it for that makes it "below average"?
I find it funny that any time a negative comment is made there are alway a group that has a little hissy about it. I have been running MacBooks for years. The new one is not that impressive to me. I kept my other one for 4 years which is way too long in my world so that is why I am keeping this one. I don't have to like it. It really isn't any better than my 2012. Has a little more zip and the screen is a bit better also. It is below average because the touch bar is a gimmick. It is below average because it and maybe Sierra is buggy as hell. Let me guess yours works just fine and you have no issues...Save your lecturing for your kids.
Nobody was getting hissy about anything. I was simply asking a question. No, I don't have one so I don't know how well they work or don't work. So I'll ask again, why didn't you just return it then? Something made you keep it and you're just not saying.
For the record, yes it does have a little more zip and from what I've read it has continuous zip because of the efficient processor it doesn't have to clock down the CPU for thermal reasons. So depending on what you're doing it may be significantly faster. It also has much faster flash storage and yes as you mentioned the screen is better. Sierra issues are irreverent unless you mean something specific is happing only to 2016 MacBook Pros because of Sierra, but that can be fixed with a software update so even then its kinda irreverent. I have yet to try the touch bar, but most actually seem to like it. Apple can't make something everyone will absolutely love...they never have and they never will. You will please some and displease others. Its just how it works. Everyone wants something different.
"However, I don't expect this to occur until their desktop OS reaches an evolutionary state that makes less instructive and offer a shorter learning curve like iOS."
I've been going on about a proOS in several threads -- specifically something in between iOS and macOS -- to exploit the iPad Pro hardware.
Implemented correctly, proOS could subsume macOS over time.
eeh gads! not another OS to support. I seriously hope that you are wrong! This proOS sounds like what Microsoft has done for years (that has not worked) i.e., with their so-called tabletbooks going back well over a decade. They have all sucked IMHO - your mileage may vary ;-)
I don't. see it happening. What I can see as a possible route is iOS, at least starting with the iPad Pro due to its performance capabilities and lower-volume sales, would also contain an Cocoa UI that is very similar to macOS' UI in many regards. Just like CarPlay is an additional UI that is sent from the iPhone to your automobile's display, the iPad Pro could push a Mac-like UI to an external display with a traditional keyboard and mouse to help bridge the gap between those that mostly need an iPad but occasionally need a desktop OS. This could actually help boost sales for both the iPad Pro and the Mac for those Apple customers that buy iPhones and iPads, but not Macs.
I still think the odds are relatively slim, but I can see a path to how this could make sense. It could also be a trial run before we get a Mac or Mac-like low-end "PC" from Apple that runs on ARM.
I get the resistance to another OS... But, realistically Apple already supports multiple OSes (or variants) quite well -- see below. Add to that list the iOS variant for CarPlay.
In 2007, when iOS arrived, it was closed to developers. But, for users it was simple, intuitive and in-your-face. Apple culled the necessary bits from OS X and ported them to ARM. In fact, this gave Apple the opportunity to reimplement some OS X APIs the right way own iOS, then port them back to OS X.
In the ensuing years, iOS (with all its variants) and macOS have grown more complex independently (iPad Pro Pencil, Split Screen, PIP, etc.) and jointly with each other (AirPlay, HandOff, Siri, etc.).
IMO, today's iOS is at least as complex as OS X was not that many years ago... Now, where is that button to turn of Find My iPhone?
Another thing, Apple has protected iOS users from the complexity of the macOS FileSystem/Finder. But at what cost? Developers of Apps that need to access multiple files (Pages, Numbers, KeyNote, Swift Playgrounds, etc. -- have each had to implement their own [mostly] similar FileSystem/Finder within the app (and its sandbox) and/or in iCloud, DropBox, etc. Now, an iOS app can kinda' access files from other iOS apps...
Here's my point. iOS is already a very complex OS -- but it is artificially restricted -- especially for the iPad Pro hardware and user (a poster in another thread called iOS on the iPad safariOS.
I've been suggesting a less-restrictive OS calling it proOS -- you can call it whatever you like. But, it's just another variant implementation of iOS nee macOS -- one that exploits the latest hardware.
I suspect that Apple is very close to the point where they can modularize their OS (under the covers), install a simple, easy to use base system for most iDevice users. An OS that ad hoc adapts to what the user wants to do by automatically installing needed OS modules from the App Store:
You, guy, just wanna' make phone calls, texts, take photos -- you got it!
You, gal, need to make movies and access files from everywhere -- you got it!
You, developer guy, need to write and test Xcode in multiple windows on an iPad -- you got it!
You, artist gal, you want to use the iPad Pro/Pencil as a graphics tablet on your Mac -- you got it!
"However, I don't expect this to occur until their desktop OS reaches an evolutionary state that makes less instructive and offer a shorter learning curve like iOS."
I've been going on about a proOS in several threads -- specifically something in between iOS and macOS -- to exploit the iPad Pro hardware.
Implemented correctly, proOS could subsume macOS over time.
eeh gads! not another OS to support. I seriously hope that you are wrong! This proOS sounds like what Microsoft has done for years (that has not worked) i.e., with their so-called tabletbooks going back well over a decade. They have all sucked IMHO - your mileage may vary ;-)
I don't. see it happening. What I can see as a possible route is iOS, at least starting with the iPad Pro due to its performance capabilities and lower-volume sales, would also contain an Cocoa UI that is very similar to macOS' UI in many regards. Just like CarPlay is an additional UI that is sent from the iPhone to your automobile's display, the iPad Pro could push a Mac-like UI to an external display with a traditional keyboard and mouse to help bridge the gap between those that mostly need an iPad but occasionally need a desktop OS. This could actually help boost sales for both the iPad Pro and the Mac for those Apple customers that buy iPhones and iPads, but not Macs.
I still think the odds are relatively slim, but I can see a path to how this could make sense. It could also be a trial run before we get a Mac or Mac-like low-end "PC" from Apple that runs on ARM.
I get the resistance to another OS... But, realistically Apple already supports multiple OSes (or variants) quite well -- see below. Add to that list the iOS variant for CarPlay.
[…]
I get that they support multiple OSes, but that's not the issue here, and CarPlay isn't an OS but an alternate UI that is built into iOS for when you're connected to a CarPlay-capable automobile. It's still iOS on the iPhone pushing the CarPlay UI and responding to touchscreen and button inputs from the automobile. Whether you have an automobile that supports CarPlay or not you're iPhone's iOS build still contains all the CarPlay code.
Here's Apple's OS variants:
There is an argument to made that all those iOS variants as unique OSes, but they could be combined into a single build that that is much larger and then requires additional code to determine with HW iOS needs to be run on, but that screenshot is an argument as to why Apple will not make a single unifying OS for macOS, iOS, watchOS, touchbarOS, and every other OS that will possibly use their OS X/Darwin codebase. Macs can simply handle it better at this point. Even now there might be some HW variations within select iOS devices that is effetely a combo update that will then remove the code for HW that it doesn't have, but it's surely on a very limited scale compared to how macOS works.
"However, I don't expect this to occur until their desktop OS reaches an evolutionary state that makes less instructive and offer a shorter learning curve like iOS."
I've been going on about a proOS in several threads -- specifically something in between iOS and macOS -- to exploit the iPad Pro hardware.
Implemented correctly, proOS could subsume macOS over time.
eeh gads! not another OS to support. I seriously hope that you are wrong! This proOS sounds like what Microsoft has done for years (that has not worked) i.e., with their so-called tabletbooks going back well over a decade. They have all sucked IMHO - your mileage may vary ;-)
I don't. see it happening. What I can see as a possible route is iOS, at least starting with the iPad Pro due to its performance capabilities and lower-volume sales, would also contain an Cocoa UI that is very similar to macOS' UI in many regards. Just like CarPlay is an additional UI that is sent from the iPhone to your automobile's display, the iPad Pro could push a Mac-like UI to an external display with a traditional keyboard and mouse to help bridge the gap between those that mostly need an iPad but occasionally need a desktop OS. This could actually help boost sales for both the iPad Pro and the Mac for those Apple customers that buy iPhones and iPads, but not Macs.
I still think the odds are relatively slim, but I can see a path to how this could make sense. It could also be a trial run before we get a Mac or Mac-like low-end "PC" from Apple that runs on ARM.
I get the resistance to another OS... But, realistically Apple already supports multiple OSes (or variants) quite well -- see below. Add to that list the iOS variant for CarPlay.
[…]
I get that they support multiple OSes, but that's not the issue here, and CarPlay isn't an OS but an alternate UI that is built into iOS for when you're connected to a CarPlay-capable automobile. It's still iOS on the iPhone pushing the CarPlay UI and responding to touchscreen and button inputs from the automobile. Whether you have an automobile that supports CarPlay or not you're iPhone's iOS build still contains all the CarPlay code.
If you are going to make the distinction that it is just the UI that is different for CarPlay, then technically speaking ALL Apple OSs are the same operating system .... "Darwin" with different UIs.
Comments
Apples advancements in their ARM processors are far ahead of what Intel has been doing. Specifically, Apple has been increasing the performance of their energy efficient chips at a rate far faster than Intel is lowering the power consumption of their higher performance processors. This is why the A9X and A10 already match the low-end Intel notebook chips for performance but do so at a fraction of the cost.
I think we're very close to seeing an ARM MacBook. And in a couple years we could see the full range of Apple computers using ARM. Just like Apple is in full control of the complete package of iOS, Xcode, Swift, A Series processors and the iPhone/iPad, they can soon be in complete control of the hardware and software for ALL of their products.
Give even more time for the result of one operation to flow back for the next cycle.
In single core benchmarks the 2015 4.0Ghz Core i7-6700K iMac scores 5201 on Geekbench. The 2012 3.4Ghz Core i7-3770 iMac scores 3844.
Even the 2015 3.2 Core i5-6500 is much faster at 4320.
The 2013 iMac Intel 3.5Ghz Core i7-4771 scores 4187.
In terms of multi-core performance we see 16434 for 2015, 13111 for 2013 and 12003 for 2012.
The only embarrassment is making silly assertions that are easily disproved. Anyone on a 3 year replacement cycle sees a 35% increase in CPU performance.
It's also likely that how you feel about the gains correlates directly to whether or not you remember the massive gains of the past. If you're sneaky and want to compare directly against ARM chipsets, which are still fairly rapidly improving, you can make things look extra dire.
Everyone needs to make some expectation adjustments when it comes to CPUs, we're starting to bump up hard against physics. Graphene, germane, and Titanium trisulfide have shown promise over Silicon, but there's very real problems with all of those approaches. And if we want to keep shrinking these things, there's tons of hard work to be done. We can't just parallelize forever.
If I'm building go-karts, there's lots of room for each iteration to be WAAAY better than the one before it. If I'm building F1 cars, this year's model is already so close to the limit of what's possible that next year's model will likely only manage small improvements. Thus one could argue that the the go-kart builder is advancing faster/better/more than the F1 team. It would be true, but only because there's so much more ROOM for improvement to the go-kart than there is to the F1 car.
At this point, I think it's a fair (if obviously exaggerated) comparison. Who knows if that will still be true in three years.
Also for the vast majority of users -- the computers that they use have 80% or 90% average idle time on the processors -- and only in short spurts do you see it hit the max.... and depending on the task that might not even be noticeable using a faster processor. I could of course temporarily use one.... been running my Mac Pro 2008 (8-Core) at 750% CPU usage (i.e. almost 100% of all cores) for the last 6 weeks straight
You could always install something like smcFanControl and crank up the fan and it will definitely become audible if it is working....
eeh gads! not another OS to support. I seriously hope that you are wrong! This proOS sounds like what Microsoft has done for years (that has not worked) i.e., with their so-called tabletbooks going back well over a decade. They have all sucked IMHO - your mileage may vary ;-)
Got it. Beam me up Scotty!
I still think the odds are relatively slim, but I can see a path to how this could make sense. It could also be a trial run before we get a Mac or Mac-like low-end "PC" from Apple that runs on ARM.
Not to mention the benefits for converting video and outputting to 4K and 5K displays with USB 3.x and TB3 support. There are certainly areas where these newer chips are going to be a huge boon in certain types of processing data but they are absolutely better than chips made 4+ years ago.
For the record, yes it does have a little more zip and from what I've read it has continuous zip because of the efficient processor it doesn't have to clock down the CPU for thermal reasons. So depending on what you're doing it may be significantly faster. It also has much faster flash storage and yes as you mentioned the screen is better. Sierra issues are irreverent unless you mean something specific is happing only to 2016 MacBook Pros because of Sierra, but that can be fixed with a software update so even then its kinda irreverent. I have yet to try the touch bar, but most actually seem to like it. Apple can't make something everyone will absolutely love...they never have and they never will. You will please some and displease others. Its just how it works. Everyone wants something different.
In 2007, when iOS arrived, it was closed to developers. But, for users it was simple, intuitive and in-your-face. Apple culled the necessary bits from OS X and ported them to ARM. In fact, this gave Apple the opportunity to reimplement some OS X APIs the right way own iOS, then port them back to OS X.
In the ensuing years, iOS (with all its variants) and macOS have grown more complex independently (iPad Pro Pencil, Split Screen, PIP, etc.) and jointly with each other (AirPlay, HandOff, Siri, etc.).
IMO, today's iOS is at least as complex as OS X was not that many years ago... Now, where is that button to turn of Find My iPhone?
Another thing, Apple has protected iOS users from the complexity of the macOS FileSystem/Finder. But at what cost? Developers of Apps that need to access multiple files (Pages, Numbers, KeyNote, Swift Playgrounds, etc. -- have each had to implement their own [mostly] similar FileSystem/Finder within the app (and its sandbox) and/or in iCloud, DropBox, etc. Now, an iOS app can kinda' access files from other iOS apps...
Here's my point. iOS is already a very complex OS -- but it is artificially restricted -- especially for the iPad Pro hardware and user (a poster in another thread called iOS on the iPad safariOS.
I've been suggesting a less-restrictive OS calling it proOS -- you can call it whatever you like. But, it's just another variant implementation of iOS nee macOS -- one that exploits the latest hardware.
I suspect that Apple is very close to the point where they can modularize their OS (under the covers), install a simple, easy to use base system for most iDevice users. An OS that ad hoc adapts to what the user wants to do by automatically installing needed OS modules from the App Store:
You, guy, just wanna' make phone calls, texts, take photos -- you got it!
You, gal, need to make movies and access files from everywhere -- you got it!
You, developer guy, need to write and test Xcode in multiple windows on an iPad -- you got it!
You, artist gal, you want to use the iPad Pro/Pencil as a graphics tablet on your Mac -- you got it!
...ad nauseam
Here's Apple's OS variants:
There is an argument to made that all those iOS variants as unique OSes, but they could be combined into a single build that that is much larger and then requires additional code to determine with HW iOS needs to be run on, but that screenshot is an argument as to why Apple will not make a single unifying OS for macOS, iOS, watchOS, touchbarOS, and every other OS that will possibly use their OS X/Darwin codebase. Macs can simply handle it better at this point. Even now there might be some HW variations within select iOS devices that is effetely a combo update that will then remove the code for HW that it doesn't have, but it's surely on a very limited scale compared to how macOS works.