Editorial: Apple's move to ARM is possible because most users want power more than compati...

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 154
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,138member
    But my Mac IS compatible -- except it's with my iPhone instead of my laptop.

    As I moved increasingly into the world of iOS from Windows the need for a Mac became ever more important:   It integrates well with the world of iOS -- which is more important to me than integrating with my world of Windows.  (For instance, it's a lot easier to update a Numbers spreadsheet on the Mac than on either the iPhone or a Windows laptop.)

    But, that said, the Mac actually does integrate better with my Windows desktop (which I use as a pseudo-server) than my Windows Laptop does!  Despite both being Windows 10 I cannot get my laptop and desktop to talk to each other.   But the Mac talks to the desktop just fine!   It's SO ironic!   
    raoulduke42iqatedodocno42
  • Reply 42 of 154
    Sorry, have to flatly disagree with this.

    I’m a professional engineer and a Mac user for over 25 years, and the engineering software just isn’t there on the Mac, and for a lot of clients (if you are consulting), and nearly every company I’ve worked for do not use macs for engineering. It’s only through Virtualisation that it works, and quite nicely too.

    The big engineering software companies have no interest in Apple -  Cadence, Mentor Graphics, SolidWorks, Altium, Xilinx, etc., etc.

    if Apple abandons the x86 architecture, then engineering will abandon Apple, which would be really sad.
    macplusplus
  • Reply 43 of 154
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,876administrator
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article. As a developer, you need both Mac and Windows support, sure. However, there is no mandate that it be in one machine.

    FTA: "In all likelihood, Apple is going to move away from Intel to using ARM processors in the Mac. You can expect that it will start soon with the MacBook, and you can bet that it won't happen with the Mac Pro for many years, if at all."

    Don't conflate what you need and is essential to you, with what a larger market that Apple is paying more attention to, and has much, much larger buying power, needs or cares about. Not all use cases are the same.
    edited June 21 StrangeDaysdocno42
  • Reply 44 of 154
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member
    Soli said:
    jeremy c said:
    @damk, agreed. There are linux tools that a lot of us use in macOS that would require porting over to ARM from x86.
    What "linux tools" are you referring to that are not part of any Linux distro that is ARM compatible?
    He listed them.  Docker probably being the primary one.  Can it be done?  Sorta.  Is it a major PITA that is prone to breakage?  Yes.  There's a lot of stuff that assumes x86.
  • Reply 45 of 154
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,270member
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    jeremy c said:
    @damk, agreed. There are linux tools that a lot of us use in macOS that would require porting over to ARM from x86.
    What "linux tools" are you referring to that are not part of any Linux distro that is ARM compatible?
    He listed them.  Docker probably being the primary one.  Can it be done?  Sorta.  Is it a major PITA that is prone to breakage?  Yes.  There's a lot of stuff that assumes x86.
    1) I'm seeing Docker platforms as x86_64, ARM, s390x, and ppc64le.

    2) Since Docker is platform-as-a-service SW I don't know why one would expect to ever VIRTUALIZE x86_64 Windows running on any ARM-based platform. Can you detail how that's even possible?

    StrangeDays
  • Reply 46 of 154
    rcomeaurcomeau Posts: 31member
    It is far worse for Intel than Apple users wanting performance over compatibility: "Compatibility" means compatibility with malware, viruses and huge security holes built right into Intel's CPUs. Compatibility means paying extra for an ancient bloated instruction set that has been repeatedly proven to be less efficient and more difficult to code in assembly language than reduced instruction set CPUs such as ARM. From a developer's point of view, all it takes to support an "incompatible" CPU is to select it as a build target. Xcode does the rest. Programming in a high level language, such as C++ or Swift, for ARM is exactly as easy as it is for Intel. In other words, Intel compatibility is a negative feature. We don't want it at all!
    Compatibility means the ability to run software that some fo us need for our living. Until AutoCad and/or SolidWorks as well as the hundreds of other applications that are Windows-only and industry standard move to the Mac, we need virtual machines that can run as fast as a dedicated PC. Going back to the old days of VirtualPC is not a viable option.
  • Reply 47 of 154
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "
    for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are pros and most normal users migrates to iPads (which appears to be Apple's long term strategy) then a significant fraction of the remaining Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    edited June 21 macplusplus
  • Reply 48 of 154
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,876administrator
    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.

    There are lots of dissenting opinions on this site, and on this piece, and very few overall do I call out because somebody hasn't read a piece. It's pretty obvious when somebody gets pissed that we aren't taking for them, specifically, and has only read the headline, or just a paragraph or two and vents about it.
    edited June 21 StrangeDaysheadfull0winedocno42
  • Reply 49 of 154
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,270member
    rcomeau said:
    It is far worse for Intel than Apple users wanting performance over compatibility: "Compatibility" means compatibility with malware, viruses and huge security holes built right into Intel's CPUs. Compatibility means paying extra for an ancient bloated instruction set that has been repeatedly proven to be less efficient and more difficult to code in assembly language than reduced instruction set CPUs such as ARM. From a developer's point of view, all it takes to support an "incompatible" CPU is to select it as a build target. Xcode does the rest. Programming in a high level language, such as C++ or Swift, for ARM is exactly as easy as it is for Intel. In other words, Intel compatibility is a negative feature. We don't want it at all!
    Compatibility means the ability to run software that some fo us need for our living. Until AutoCad and/or SolidWorks as well as the hundreds of other applications that are Windows-only and industry standard move to the Mac, we need virtual machines that can run as fast as a dedicated PC. Going back to the old days of VirtualPC is not a viable option.
    Why can't someone else uses a slower and cheaper Mac that is ARM-based while you use your Intel-based Mac for your virtualization and CAD needs? If Apple loses you do as a customer because you don't like lower-end notebooks running ARM do you think they'll care?
    docno42
  • Reply 50 of 154
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    jeremy c said:
    @damk, agreed. There are linux tools that a lot of us use in macOS that would require porting over to ARM from x86.
    What "linux tools" are you referring to that are not part of any Linux distro that is ARM compatible?
    He listed them.  Docker probably being the primary one.  Can it be done?  Sorta.  Is it a major PITA that is prone to breakage?  Yes.  There's a lot of stuff that assumes x86.
    1) I'm seeing Docker platforms as x86_64, ARM, s390x, and ppc64le.

    2) Since Docker is platform-as-a-service SW I don't know why one would expect to ever VIRTUALIZE x86_64 Windows running on any ARM-based platform. Can you detail how that's even possible?

    The point is that the target platforms are x86 servers and you can easily run the same docker containers on your x86 Mac that you would in the real environment.  On an ARM Mac, not so much,  ARM based servers are still largely MIA.
  • Reply 51 of 154
    wallymwallym Posts: 14member
    Soli said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    Wanting ARM-based Macs on the power end doesn’t mean that you’re losing Windows support unless you’re cheap.
    If apple produces a mac that has intel for windows and legacy mac apps and then arm for future stuff, then I'm all in.  I don't see that happening, but I'd be all in on it.

    The problem is that emulating one cpu architecture on another cpu has horrific performance.  x86 on PowerPc was horrible in the 90s.  x86 emulation was tried again in the early 2000s and performance was horrible again.  When Mac moved in 2005/6, I rejoiced.  I can run windows in a virtual machine on my mac and it works well enough.  I have what I need.  I can do mac work and switch over to do windows work.  Emulation is still horrible today.  Running an arm emulator for android is horrible even with tons of memory and ssd. 

    Now, I'm going to have to go back to two systems?  Ugh, what a hassle.  That's bad enough.  To openly campaign for two systems, that's just dumb.
  • Reply 52 of 154
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member

    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
    Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

    And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

    The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

    Nope.

    But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
  • Reply 53 of 154
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,523member
    DAalseth said:
    larrya said:
    The question I have is, if you're kissing off 35% of your customers, where do the replacements come from?  I doubt you can grow the base back by adding a bunch of ported iOS apps.  I will probably be one of them because, although I stopped running Parallels a long time ago, I need the option for work stuff.

    ...clip...

    Long story, shorter:   The CAD scene is dominated by Vectric apps: VCarve and Aspire.  These are Windows only!

    So, I bit the bullet and bought:

    1. VMWare Fusion Emulator
    2. VCarve Desktop CAD app
    3. TotalAV Mac Virus Scanner

    Yes, sadly, after a few days my Mac had been infected by viruses...

    ...clip...
    I know that it's a bit late, but I would have approached the problem slightly differently. Rather than emulation, I would have used a virtual environment. Run Windows in this virtual environment. That would have two advantages. First it is a sealed box, malware can't get out. Secondly if your virtual machine gets infected you can restore to the last known good backup from before the infection. Now getting ports in and out of a virtual machine can sometimes be a problem. I've fought with that several times when I was supporting servers. But for me the added security is worth it.

    That said, yes there are some times when Windows software is the only option. It sucks, but that's the way it is.
    I don't understand...  VMWare Fusion runs Windows 10 (and other OSes including Windows XP, Linux, etc,) [each] in a Virtual Machine.  How is that different than what you are proposing?
  • Reply 54 of 154
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member
    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.

    There are lots of dissenting opinions on this site, and on this piece, and very few overall do I call out because somebody hasn't read a piece. It's pretty obvious when somebody gets pissed that we aren't taking for them, specifically, and has only read the headline, or just a paragraph or two and vents about it.
    You post shows edited 2:13.  I started writing before then...I don't know anymore what was in your original post but it seems longer than before.  Now I'm responding again because you changed the 2nd post I responded to.
    edited June 21
  • Reply 55 of 154
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,876administrator
    -edit, waiting on your new response.

    But, we are talking to enterprise, and they care about iOS development and general productivity and don't care (so far) about Windows compatibility.
    edited June 21
  • Reply 56 of 154
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member
    nht said:

    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
    Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

    And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

    The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

    Nope.

    But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
    Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

    In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
    And the demographics for Mac users are what?  Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?  

    Nah.

    I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros.  People send me a lot of stuff in 
    Visio to boot.  Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 57 of 154
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,876administrator
    nht said:
    nht said:

    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
    Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

    And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

    The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

    Nope.

    But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
    Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

    In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
    And the demographics for Mac users are what?  Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?  

    Nah.

    I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros.  People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot.  Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
    Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
    edited June 21
  • Reply 58 of 154
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member
    nht said:
    nht said:

    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
    Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

    And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

    The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

    Nope.

    But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
    Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

    In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
    And the demographics for Mac users are what?  Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?  

    Nah.

    I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros.  People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot.  Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
    Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
    And you have failed to show where that line is.  Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users?  Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
    edited June 21
  • Reply 59 of 154
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,450member
    jeremy c said:
    @damk, agreed. There are linux tools that a lot of us use in macOS that would require porting over to ARM from x86.
    Linux already runs on ARM.
  • Reply 60 of 154
    wallymwallym Posts: 14member
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article. As a developer, you need both Mac and Windows support, sure. However, there is no mandate that it be in one machine.

    FTA: "In all likelihood, Apple is going to move away from Intel to using ARM processors in the Mac. You can expect that it will start soon with the MacBook, and you can bet that it won't happen with the Mac Pro for many years, if at all."

    Don't conflate what you need and is essential to you, with what a larger market that Apple is paying more attention to, and has much, much larger buying power, needs or cares about. Not all use cases are the same.
    there are two people that have spoken up on this, myself and FredFref.  We have voiced a different viewpoint.  I live in a world where I need both Windows and Mac support.  If the number of us that need both is 35%, that is a number.  I do not think the number is that high, but it is easy enough to change it.  

    the last time Apple told its users to f*** off, it almost went bankrupt.  I'm about the marketplace.  I've stated my needs.  Fred has stated his.  He and I are in the same neighborhood.  Apple diehards might not want Windows support, but a segment of the marketplace is asking for it.

    And then there are my kids.  Sure, they want macs.  All they do is run windows on them.  I refuse to believe that they are the only ones out there.  

    Mess with the marketplace at your own peril.  Here is an interesting scenario financially.  I have a macbook pro to my right that cost something like $3,800 9 months ago or so.  The next time I update my mac, maybe I just buy the next mac mini and when I need access to it, I just connect to it remotely.  Now, I've spent $1,800-2k.  Am I the only person in the world where this scenario works?  

    Now, I get the idea of less power.  Less power at the expense of all of these x86 and x64 instructions?  I'm not sure if that is a great trade.  I wish that intel didn't screw up their last round of shrinkage from 14 to 10 nm.  I've been through 68k, powerpc, and now x86.  emulation is never anywhere near as good or as easy as anyone thinks.
Sign In or Register to comment.