I hope T1 and T2 chips are being researched for exploits with the same attention as intel chips. It’s a smaller market and there’s no certainty Apple’s chips are without bugs.
A smaller market?, really? You are aware that T chips ship in iPhone volumes?
I hope T1 and T2 chips are being researched for exploits with the same attention as intel chips. It’s a smaller market and there’s no certainty Apple’s chips are without bugs.
Yes.
It’s amusing to see all those shouting for Apple to ditch Intel just assuming that Apple’s chips will be magically flawless.
The best thing Apple can do is start dual-sourcing processor chips - and that means Intel and AMD.
ARM chips are in no way suited to general purpose computer applications at this point, and probably never will be. The ability to easily virtualize any common OS without having to emulate a processor is just too valuable to throw away on "Not Invented Here" stupidity.
Indeed but what they are suited to is platform work, I can see Apple expanding T series chips so they can get full of platform like they always had with Macs till Intel. Now they could push that further and further over time or one big leap and make a hybrid but if they take x86 out of the machines they stop being Macs.
Hybrid would make sense to me specially if it frees Apple up to dual-source the heavy application processor and it’s the only path that offers foreseeable improvement for any pain it requires.
Thanks for the article, I was wondering if the T2 solved the problem (I kind of assumed it would, but good to know for sure).
Now... I have to get the T2 back in operation for that purpose. I had to run BootCamp with an eGPU, and that didn't get along at all with FileVault (so I had to turn it back off). I think I'm done with BootCamp though, so I should be able to get by with Parallels now (and re-enable FileVault).
The best thing Apple can do is start dual-sourcing processor chips - and that means Intel and AMD.
ARM chips are in no way suited to general purpose computer applications at this point, and probably never will be. The ability to easily virtualize any common OS without having to emulate a processor is just too valuable to throw away on "Not Invented Here" stupidity.
It’s not stupidity, nor is it for the reasons you misguidedly believe. The fact is ARM is delivering more processing power for less energy and thermal cost. The end.
The best thing Apple can do is start dual-sourcing processor chips - and that means Intel and AMD.
ARM chips are in no way suited to general purpose computer applications at this point, and probably never will be. The ability to easily virtualize any common OS without having to emulate a processor is just too valuable to throw away on "Not Invented Here" stupidity.
Indeed but what they are suited to is platform work, I can see Apple expanding T series chips so they can get full of platform like they always had with Macs till Intel. Now they could push that further and further over time or one big leap and make a hybrid but if they take x86 out of the machines they stop being Macs.
Hybrid would make sense to me specially if it frees Apple up to dual-source the heavy application processor and it’s the only path that offers foreseeable improvement for any pain it requires.
Incorrect. Macs were still Macs before intel chips, even if you don’t remember it.
The best thing Apple can do is start dual-sourcing processor chips - and that means Intel and AMD.
ARM chips are in no way suited to general purpose computer applications at this point, and probably never will be. The ability to easily virtualize any common OS without having to emulate a processor is just too valuable to throw away on "Not Invented Here" stupidity.
Indeed but what they are suited to is platform work, I can see Apple expanding T series chips so they can get full of platform like they always had with Macs till Intel. Now they could push that further and further over time or one big leap and make a hybrid but if they take x86 out of the machines they stop being Macs.
Hybrid would make sense to me specially if it frees Apple up to dual-source the heavy application processor and it’s the only path that offers foreseeable improvement for any pain it requires.
Incorrect. Macs were still Macs before intel chips, even if you don’t remember it.
I remember it well still have a running G4 iMac 17inch. Indeed we have a 512k Mac in the office that still boots. Yes before you say I do understand ARM is a spiritual successor to the original Mac CPU's but that doesn't mean current ARM offers cuts it to service the Mac's brand Identity.
The G5 and before Mac's were still geared at a single core
heavy-duty application driving the demand for the machine. Indeed the
biggest criticism of OS9 was that it was too geared towards that and its
single threadedness was getting in the way. ARM has the other problem
all its advantages come from multi-actor workflows (which allows multiple cores to be effective).
The next tier of service yes they are good and this is what iPadOS could hammer if it wasn't hamstrung by iOS conventions. Maybe one day it will surpass Mac in service but that day isn't soon. Certainly not soon enough for business users to go along for the ride this time. The barriers to moving off Apple/Mac are much lower than PowerPC to Intel Transition. Apple has no stick this time why anyone things they'd overcook the carrot is beyond me.
Of the options available x86 is the only one with current and foreseeable offers to drive that money making heavy-duty application forward for customers. Without that Mac has no market and stops servicing its brand identity.
I'm prepared to be amazed by Apple knocking out a high single-core score ARM SOC and showing one of their own heavy laden Apps kicking along on that machine. If anyone has the talent and drive to do it Apple does. Then and only then will it the idea to be deserving of the Mac brand.
Still, if they can do that why not make better iPads and better keyboards to go with them, why confuse brands when Apple have built themselves on clear brand ID. Indeed they wouldn't in the past have been shy to kill the golden goose with the next thing, in this case, Mac killed by IPad unleased. That to me is why the idea should die.
Hybrid, on the other hand, gives Apple every advantage with very little pain as they already have all the pieces software and hardware to make it work. Plus it reduces security risk as a venerability in code may not be running in the right place during an attack.
The best thing Apple can do is start dual-sourcing processor chips - and that means Intel and AMD.
ARM chips are in no way suited to general purpose computer applications at this point, and probably never will be. The ability to easily virtualize any common OS without having to emulate a processor is just too valuable to throw away on "Not Invented Here" stupidity.
Indeed but what they are suited to is platform work, I can see Apple expanding T series chips so they can get full of platform like they always had with Macs till Intel. Now they could push that further and further over time or one big leap and make a hybrid but if they take x86 out of the machines they stop being Macs.
Hybrid would make sense to me specially if it frees Apple up to dual-source the heavy application processor and it’s the only path that offers foreseeable improvement for any pain it requires.
Incorrect. Macs were still Macs before intel chips, even if you don’t remember it.
I remember it well still have a running G4 iMac 17inch. Indeed we have a 512k Mac in the office that still boots. Yes before you say I do understand ARM is a spiritual successor to the original Mac CPU's but that doesn't mean current ARM offers cuts it to service the Mac's brand Identity.
The G5 and before Mac's were still geared at a single core
heavy-duty application driving the demand for the machine. Indeed the
biggest criticism of OS9 was that it was too geared towards that and its
single threadedness was getting in the way. ARM has the other problem
all its advantages come from multi-actor workflows (which allows multiple cores to be effective).
The next tier of service yes they are good and this is what iPadOS could hammer if it wasn't hamstrung by iOS conventions. Maybe one day it will surpass Mac in service but that day isn't soon. Certainly not soon enough for business users to go along for the ride this time. The barriers to moving off Apple/Mac are much lower than PowerPC to Intel Transition. Apple has no stick this time why anyone things they'd overcook the carrot is beyond me.
Of the options available x86 is the only one with current and foreseeable offers to drive that money making heavy-duty application forward for customers. Without that Mac has no market and stops servicing its brand identity.
I'm prepared to be amazed by Apple knocking out a high single-core score ARM SOC and showing one of their own heavy laden Apps kicking along on that machine. If anyone has the talent and drive to do it Apple does. Then and only then will it the idea to be deserving of the Mac brand.
Still, if they can do that why not make better iPads and better keyboards to go with them, why confuse brands when Apple have built themselves on clear brand ID. Indeed they wouldn't in the past have been shy to kill the golden goose with the next thing, in this case, Mac killed by IPad unleased. That to me is why the idea should die.
Hybrid, on the other hand, gives Apple every advantage with very little pain as they already have all the pieces software and hardware to make it work. Plus it reduces security risk as a venerability in code may not be running in the right place during an attack.
A13 is already outperforming Intel notebook offerings. I'll come back to this post in 5 years and we can discuss further.
You couldn't have squeezed the word 'recent' or 'newer' in there? Misleading headline is misleading.
More like, "New Intel chip flaw threatens encryption, but T2 Macs are safe" ? That would even save them a precious character.
mattinoz said: I'm prepared to be amazed by Apple knocking out a high single-core score ARM SOC and showing one of their own heavy laden Apps kicking along on that machine. If anyone has the talent and drive to do it Apple does. Then and only then will it the idea to be deserving of the Mac brand.
I think they could absolutely do it, my question is more one of will and resource allocation. If they've been struggling just to provide the Mac line with enough resources for new model updates and at least a bit of software quality (questionable), will they put even more resources into actually pushing desktop chip design? Maybe they could just stuff an A-series into a MacBook, but that won't cut it in the iMac(Pro)/mini/Mac Pro realm.
You couldn't have squeezed the word 'recent' or 'newer' in there? Misleading headline is misleading.
More like, "New Intel chip flaw threatens encryption, but T2 Macs are safe" ? That would even save them a precious character.
mattinoz said: I'm prepared to be amazed by Apple knocking out a high single-core score ARM SOC and showing one of their own heavy laden Apps kicking along on that machine. If anyone has the talent and drive to do it Apple does. Then and only then will it the idea to be deserving of the Mac brand.
I think they could absolutely do it, my question is more one of will and resource allocation. If they've been struggling just to provide the Mac line with enough resources for new model updates and at least a bit of software quality (questionable), will they put even more resources into actually pushing desktop chip design? Maybe they could just stuff an A-series into a MacBook, but that won't cut it in the iMac(Pro)/mini/Mac Pro realm.
Well they are doing something with their chip design R&D. It certainly wasn’t updating the CPU in the iPad Pro line. So for about 18 months Apple’s chip design team has been working on the A13, A14 and what else?
Comments
You are aware that T chips ship in iPhone volumes?
Now... I have to get the T2 back in operation for that purpose. I had to run BootCamp with an eGPU, and that didn't get along at all with FileVault (so I had to turn it back off). I think I'm done with BootCamp though, so I should be able to get by with Parallels now (and re-enable FileVault).
New Intel chip flaw threatens encryption, but Macs are safe
You couldn't have squeezed the word 'recent' or 'newer' in there? Misleading headline is misleading.
Don’t quit your day job, and get ready for ARM.
You read it wrong. New is referring to the flaw, not the chip.
I think they could absolutely do it, my question is more one of will and resource allocation. If they've been struggling just to provide the Mac line with enough resources for new model updates and at least a bit of software quality (questionable), will they put even more resources into actually pushing desktop chip design? Maybe they could just stuff an A-series into a MacBook, but that won't cut it in the iMac(Pro)/mini/Mac Pro realm.