I’d bet my pension check that macOS is already running on ARM in Apple’s labs and has been for some time.
Probably... But really, why bother?
All they have to do is add mouse/trackpad input to IOS and they have pretty much the same thing. Well, OK, add a decent way to access files too -- rather than just through a pre-assigned program..
As personal computing reverts back to mainframe days -- aka "Cloud Computing", there will be less and less need for computing power at the user level. So, as computer power needs decrease and ARM based computing power increases, the convergence will eliminate the need for Intel processors in all but specialized tasks.
I’d bet my pension check that macOS is already running on ARM in Apple’s labs and has been for some time.
Probably... But really, why bother?
All they have to do is add mouse/trackpad input to IOS and they have pretty much the same thing. Well, OK, add a decent way to access files too -- rather than just through a pre-assigned program..
It really isnt the same thing, not paradigmatically. Firstly adding a mouse means you get to click as well as touch, and that means its a different UX. With a mouse pointer everything can be ( and should be) smaller. Then there is the sandboxing of applications, and the filesystem and more.
Dual-processor MacBooks are coming: ARM and Intel.
The ARM will run macOS. The Intel chip will kick in for legacy apps. iLife apps will be recompiled for ARM and save tons of power and battery life compared to running the old apps on Intel.
All transparent to the user.
It will be like having an x86 PCI card in your old PowerMac.
I think this is what will happen. They need thunderbolt integrated with ARM (for all macs) and ability to use external GPU (for some macs) with ARM. Then, just use intel (for next couple years) for legacy apps/windows compatibility; they can buy the slowest clocked version of intel chip with slowest integrated-GPU since still faster than software emulation. For most intel chips buying the slowest clocked version will cut the price in half; more than enough to pay for souped-up Apple-designed ARM chip. Could then announce nearly simultaneously for all macs. After 4-5 years drop the intel chip. By then hopefully most Mac and Windows apps will have transitioned to having ARM versions.
There is no need for legacy app compatibility as xCode will handle that. Anything that can still compile in xCode will be built to run on ARM, or Intel. Maybe both in the same executable.
For apps already on the app store ( which on the Mac isnt nearly as universal as iOS) there wont even be the need for a re-compile.
But some legacy apps may no longer be supported by companies (for example if they are out of business), such that no simple recompile will be performed. Or some people may not want to upgrade to a new version, since their older version will not be recompiled. Of course, eventually they will need to upgrade; hence the 4-5 years to support x86 apps with actual intel chip (or bottom end AMD chip). Since x86 apps will run 20-40% slower on lower clocked as compared to higher clocked intel chips and hopefully ARM apps will run faster than current intel chips there will be enough incentive for ARM (or dual) compiled apps and owners will eventually upgrade their software.
On the whole ARM replacing Intel issue I'm of mixed feelings. One of the reasons for switching from PowerPC to Intel was that IBM did not have enough customers to pursue making chips that meshed with what Apple wanted (low power laptop chips). So Apple switched to Intel who has a ton of PC & laptop manufacturer customers. I suspect AMD comes into play somewhere as competition for Intel, but they seem to have fallen by the wayside of late. If Apple were to move to custom ARM chips, I suspect for the first few years people would be cheering and thumbing their noses at Intel. But five years down the line, when Intel is roused and continues innovating, and Apple realizes making your own CPUs is expensive and time consuming, I think people would start looking longingly at Intel and complaining that Apple is resting on their laurels, and how annoying it is to be locked into a proprietary CPU architecture, etc., etc.
And there's the whole issue with GPUs and drivers. Apple can barely get GPU drivers now. Imagine how terrible they will be when Apple has their own CPU architecture.
Or maybe that's just the natural march of progress. Apple goes off and does their own thing for a while. That gets troublesome and they move to a different solution. That gets stale and Apple heads out on their own. Repeat.
Intel x86 inside Mac is a must for true full compatibility with the rest of the world (read Windows). Switch Mac to ARM and we will switch to Windows. Sadly. A shame for all.
I'm a software developer and currently use VirtualBox to run various Linux VMs and Docker to run containerized applications. Fortunately I don't need to run Windows, but I could if I had to. A switch to ARM may make that work environment impossible and would require me to switch to a Windows machine.
Like someone else said I doubt Apple will be on stage saying "and for the low end models we're using our brand new chips".
They might if the battery life was significantly better. 2x battery when running ARM native apps, maybe with an emulator mode for x86 which would consume more power.
I’d bet my pension check that macOS is already running on ARM in Apple’s labs and has been for some time.
Probably... But really, why bother?
All they have to do is add mouse/trackpad input to IOS and they have pretty much the same thing. Well, OK, add a decent way to access files too -- rather than just through a pre-assigned program..
It really isnt the same thing, not paradigmatically. Firstly adding a mouse means you get to click as well as touch, and that means its a different UX. With a mouse pointer everything can be ( and should be) smaller. Then there is the sandboxing of applications, and the filesystem and more.
Different UX? Nah, just a different input source. To users it might be a big deal. To a program or OS, not so much. IOS, Watch OS, MacOS are programs, not religions.
Apple rejected touch screens on Macs because, from a user perspective, they suck. Microsoft proved though that from a technical perspective, they are no big deal (If MS could do it, anybody could do it!). Mouse input into IOS is a similar paradigm -- just another input source.
BUT: from an evolutionary perspective it is revolutionary because then the IPad could function as a laptop. That changes everything.
I’d bet my pension check that macOS is already running on ARM in Apple’s labs and has been for some time.
Probably... But really, why bother?
All they have to do is add mouse/trackpad input to IOS and they have pretty much the same thing. Well, OK, add a decent way to access files too -- rather than just through a pre-assigned program..
It really isnt the same thing, not paradigmatically. Firstly adding a mouse means you get to click as well as touch, and that means its a different UX. With a mouse pointer everything can be ( and should be) smaller. Then there is the sandboxing of applications, and the filesystem and more.
Different UX? Nah, just a different input source. To users it might be a big deal. To a program or OS, not so much. IOS, Watch OS, MacOS are programs, not religions.
Apple rejected touch screens on Macs because, from a user perspective, they suck. Microsoft proved though that from a technical perspective, they are no big deal (If MS could do it, anybody could do it!). Mouse input into IOS is a similar paradigm -- just another input source.
BUT: from an evolutionary perspective it is revolutionary because then the IPad could function as a laptop. That changes everything.
Obviously they are not religions -but they have hugely different paradigms. The issue isnt the technical challenge, it is making a touch screen app work well with the mouse, when the UX of how you interact is fundamentally different between touch and click. Beyond that the iPad is never going to expose its filesystem, once you do that you have a whole new user interface - the icon list becomes like the Finder.
This isnt just my idea - I am quoting what Apple have said numerous times.
Dual-processor MacBooks are coming: ARM and Intel.
The ARM will run macOS. The Intel chip will kick in for legacy apps. iLife apps will be recompiled for ARM and save tons of power and battery life compared to running the old apps on Intel.
All transparent to the user.
It will be like having an x86 PCI card in your old PowerMac.
I think this is what will happen. They need thunderbolt integrated with ARM (for all macs) and ability to use external GPU (for some macs) with ARM. Then, just use intel (for next couple years) for legacy apps/windows compatibility; they can buy the slowest clocked version of intel chip with slowest integrated-GPU since still faster than software emulation. For most intel chips buying the slowest clocked version will cut the price in half; more than enough to pay for souped-up Apple-designed ARM chip. Could then announce nearly simultaneously for all macs. After 4-5 years drop the intel chip. By then hopefully most Mac and Windows apps will have transitioned to having ARM versions.
There is no need for legacy app compatibility as xCode will handle that. Anything that can still compile in xCode will be built to run on ARM, or Intel. Maybe both in the same executable.
For apps already on the app store ( which on the Mac isnt nearly as universal as iOS) there wont even be the need for a re-compile.
But some legacy apps may no longer be supported by companies (for example if they are out of business), such that no simple recompile will be performed. Or some people may not want to upgrade to a new version, since their older version will not be recompiled. Of course, eventually they will need to upgrade; hence the 4-5 years to support x86 apps with actual intel chip (or bottom end AMD chip). Since x86 apps will run 20-40% slower on lower clocked as compared to higher clocked intel chips and hopefully ARM apps will run faster than current intel chips there will be enough incentive for ARM (or dual) compiled apps and owners will eventually upgrade their software.
I doubt that Apple will do a rosetta for non-supported legacy apps that wont recompile. Maybe, but I doubt it. If it is it wont be part of the OS but something you have to download.
I’d bet my pension check that macOS is already running on ARM in Apple’s labs and has been for some time.
Probably... But really, why bother?
All they have to do is add mouse/trackpad input to IOS and they have pretty much the same thing. Well, OK, add a decent way to access files too -- rather than just through a pre-assigned program..
It really isnt the same thing, not paradigmatically. Firstly adding a mouse means you get to click as well as touch, and that means its a different UX. With a mouse pointer everything can be ( and should be) smaller. Then there is the sandboxing of applications, and the filesystem and more.
Different UX? Nah, just a different input source. To users it might be a big deal. To a program or OS, not so much. IOS, Watch OS, MacOS are programs, not religions.
Apple rejected touch screens on Macs because, from a user perspective, they suck. Microsoft proved though that from a technical perspective, they are no big deal (If MS could do it, anybody could do it!). Mouse input into IOS is a similar paradigm -- just another input source.
BUT: from an evolutionary perspective it is revolutionary because then the IPad could function as a laptop. That changes everything.
Obviously they are not religions -but they have hugely different paradigms. The issue isnt the technical challenge, it is making a touch screen app work well with the mouse, when the UX of how you interact is fundamentally different between touch and click. Beyond that the iPad is never going to expose its filesystem, once you do that you have a whole new user interface - the icon list becomes like the Finder.
This isnt just my idea - I am quoting what Apple have said numerous times.
You or Apple or anybody can say it all they want. That doesn't change the fact that both are easily performed -- ask Microsoft. They did it several years ago. A laptop with a touch screen is essentially the same as a tablet with mouse.
I’d bet my pension check that macOS is already running on ARM in Apple’s labs and has been for some time.
Probably... But really, why bother?
All they have to do is add mouse/trackpad input to IOS and they have pretty much the same thing. Well, OK, add a decent way to access files too -- rather than just through a pre-assigned program..
It really isnt the same thing, not paradigmatically. Firstly adding a mouse means you get to click as well as touch, and that means its a different UX. With a mouse pointer everything can be ( and should be) smaller. Then there is the sandboxing of applications, and the filesystem and more.
Different UX? Nah, just a different input source. To users it might be a big deal. To a program or OS, not so much. IOS, Watch OS, MacOS are programs, not religions.
Apple rejected touch screens on Macs because, from a user perspective, they suck. Microsoft proved though that from a technical perspective, they are no big deal (If MS could do it, anybody could do it!). Mouse input into IOS is a similar paradigm -- just another input source.
BUT: from an evolutionary perspective it is revolutionary because then the IPad could function as a laptop. That changes everything.
Obviously they are not religions -but they have hugely different paradigms. The issue isnt the technical challenge, it is making a touch screen app work well with the mouse, when the UX of how you interact is fundamentally different between touch and click. Beyond that the iPad is never going to expose its filesystem, once you do that you have a whole new user interface - the icon list becomes like the Finder.
This isnt just my idea - I am quoting what Apple have said numerous times.
You or Apple or anybody can say it all they want. That doesn't change the fact that both are easily performed -- ask Microsoft. They did it several years ago. A laptop with a touch screen is essentially the same as a tablet with mouse.
nht said: An ARM based Mac is redundant for this market segment.
Nope.
Yep. Apple has been saying this...that the iPad is the next computing platform for consumers and replaces laptops.
Oh, so you're saying that when Apple included fat binaries for 32-bit and 64-bit it was "afragmented product line like Windows" when they had to create two separate versions of Windows? Short answer: Nope. Longer answer: Don't use MS as your guide when Apple has a very long history of proving everything you've said wrong.
Yep. Because fat binaries are annoying. Moreover none of your legacy apps will work because they were not compiled for ARM.
I can still use Aperture for a while but that will never get ported to ARM. Likewise FCP7. There's a good number of utilities I use that are no longer being maintained that I still use. A much smaller percentage of Mac apps are on the Mac app store and not all developers will support both platforms quickly because not all developers will immediately move to the latest Xcode.
Going to ARM would require Rosetta except that you are trying to emulate a faster processor using a slower one.
nht said: An ARM based Mac is redundant for this market segment.
Nope.
Yep. Apple has been saying this...that the iPad is the next computing platform for consumers and replaces laptops.
Don't be daft. Even Jobs gave a brilliant analogy of cars and trucks, which even you should be able to grasp. As of now, there is no Xcode for iOS. Let me know when you can start building a Mac app on your iPhone.
I’d bet my pension check that macOS is already running on ARM in Apple’s labs and has been for some time.
Probably... But really, why bother?
All they have to do is add mouse/trackpad input to IOS and they have pretty much the same thing. Well, OK, add a decent way to access files too -- rather than just through a pre-assigned program..
It really isnt the same thing, not paradigmatically. Firstly adding a mouse means you get to click as well as touch, and that means its a different UX. With a mouse pointer everything can be ( and should be) smaller. Then there is the sandboxing of applications, and the filesystem and more.
Different UX? Nah, just a different input source. To users it might be a big deal. To a program or OS, not so much. IOS, Watch OS, MacOS are programs, not religions.
Apple rejected touch screens on Macs because, from a user perspective, they suck. Microsoft proved though that from a technical perspective, they are no big deal (If MS could do it, anybody could do it!). Mouse input into IOS is a similar paradigm -- just another input source.
BUT: from an evolutionary perspective it is revolutionary because then the IPad could function as a laptop. That changes everything.
Obviously they are not religions -but they have hugely different paradigms. The issue isnt the technical challenge, it is making a touch screen app work well with the mouse, when the UX of how you interact is fundamentally different between touch and click. Beyond that the iPad is never going to expose its filesystem, once you do that you have a whole new user interface - the icon list becomes like the Finder.
This isnt just my idea - I am quoting what Apple have said numerous times.
You or Apple or anybody can say it all they want. That doesn't change the fact that both are easily performed -- ask Microsoft. They did it several years ago. A laptop with a touch screen is essentially the same as a tablet with mouse.
It's. Not. Going.To.Happen .
Perhaps not. But, it's a marketing limitation, not a technical one. I wonder what Jobs would say?
What about running Windows on a Mac with an ARM chip, how will
Apple figure out the best of both. If Apple switches to ARM Windows
users who use Macs will be pissed if one can't run Windows anymore.
BUMP! Looks likes no one has answered my question yet, anyone know the answer?
The problem is not whether macOS can run on ARM. The problem is can the software run on ARM?
A move to ARM will break ALL games not specifically designed to run on macOS. It will break Parallels and other virtual machine software. It will break Wine which in turn brings us back to the games breaking.
For Apple to move to ARM on Macs they will have to develop some sort of layer that will allow current software to run flawlessly. HINT: It's not going to happen in the next couple of years.
The problem is not whether macOS can run on ARM. The problem is can the software run on ARM?
A move to ARM will break ALL games not specifically designed to run on macOS. It will break Parallels and other virtual machine software. It will break Wine which in turn brings us back to the games breaking.
For Apple to move to ARM on Macs they will have to develop some sort of layer that will allow currently software to run flawlessly. HINT: It's not going to happen in the next couple of years.
How will producing an $800 ARM-based Mac for entry-level users with simple needs make my $3000 MBP no longer work with Parallels or VMWare?
nht said: An ARM based Mac is redundant for this market segment.
Nope.
Yep. Apple has been saying this...that the iPad is the next computing platform for consumers and replaces laptops.
Don't be daft. Even Jobs gave a brilliant analogy of cars and trucks, which even you should be able to grasp. As of now, there is no Xcode for iOS. Let me know when you can start building a Mac app on your iPhone.
Don't be an ass. You said the low end Mac ARM laptop would be for people that need cars not developers that want trucks:
You get those that need a basic email and internet machine and the handful of apps that they can get from the Mac App Store
Comments
All they have to do is add mouse/trackpad input to IOS and they have pretty much the same thing. Well, OK, add a decent way to access files too -- rather than just through a pre-assigned program..
https://lowlevelbits.org/bitcode-demystified/
Since x86 apps will run 20-40% slower on lower clocked as compared to higher clocked intel chips and hopefully ARM apps will run faster than current intel chips there will be enough incentive for ARM (or dual) compiled apps and owners will eventually upgrade their software.
On the whole ARM replacing Intel issue I'm of mixed feelings. One of the reasons for switching from PowerPC to Intel was that IBM did not have enough customers to pursue making chips that meshed with what Apple wanted (low power laptop chips). So Apple switched to Intel who has a ton of PC & laptop manufacturer customers. I suspect AMD comes into play somewhere as competition for Intel, but they seem to have fallen by the wayside of late. If Apple were to move to custom ARM chips, I suspect for the first few years people would be cheering and thumbing their noses at Intel. But five years down the line, when Intel is roused and continues innovating, and Apple realizes making your own CPUs is expensive and time consuming, I think people would start looking longingly at Intel and complaining that Apple is resting on their laurels, and how annoying it is to be locked into a proprietary CPU architecture, etc., etc.
And there's the whole issue with GPUs and drivers. Apple can barely get GPU drivers now. Imagine how terrible they will be when Apple has their own CPU architecture.
Or maybe that's just the natural march of progress. Apple goes off and does their own thing for a while. That gets troublesome and they move to a different solution. That gets stale and Apple heads out on their own. Repeat.
I'm a software developer and currently use VirtualBox to run various Linux VMs and Docker to run containerized applications. Fortunately I don't need to run Windows, but I could if I had to. A switch to ARM may make that work environment impossible and would require me to switch to a Windows machine.
They might if the battery life was significantly better. 2x battery when running ARM native apps, maybe with an emulator mode for x86 which would consume more power.
Nah, just a different input source. To users it might be a big deal. To a program or OS, not so much.
IOS, Watch OS, MacOS are programs, not religions.
Apple rejected touch screens on Macs because, from a user perspective, they suck. Microsoft proved though that from a technical perspective, they are no big deal (If MS could do it, anybody could do it!). Mouse input into IOS is a similar paradigm -- just another input source.
BUT: from an evolutionary perspective it is revolutionary because then the IPad could function as a laptop. That changes everything.
This isnt just my idea - I am quoting what Apple have said numerous times.
I doubt that Apple will do a rosetta for non-supported legacy apps that wont recompile. Maybe, but I doubt it. If it is it wont be part of the OS but something you have to download.
Yep. Because fat binaries are annoying. Moreover none of your legacy apps will work because they were not compiled for ARM.
I can still use Aperture for a while but that will never get ported to ARM. Likewise FCP7. There's a good number of utilities I use that are no longer being maintained that I still use. A much smaller percentage of Mac apps are on the Mac app store and not all developers will support both platforms quickly because not all developers will immediately move to the latest Xcode.
Going to ARM would require Rosetta except that you are trying to emulate a faster processor using a slower one.
BUMP! Looks likes no one has answered my question yet, anyone know the answer?
The problem is not whether macOS can run on ARM. The problem is can the software run on ARM?
A move to ARM will break ALL games not specifically designed to run on macOS. It will break Parallels and other virtual machine software. It will break Wine which in turn brings us back to the games breaking.
For Apple to move to ARM on Macs they will have to develop some sort of layer that will allow current software to run flawlessly. HINT: It's not going to happen in the next couple of years.