Why does this obsession the media has with this “switch from Intel to ARM” persist? Having the Intel processor is key to keeping and getting converts from Windows. If my Mac couldn’t also run Windows stuff, I wouldn’t buy it. (I started buying Macs when they moved to Intel to begin with). Maybe they will add it as a secondary processor, but I doubt they are going to outright replace Intel cpus. It makes no sense. And I wish these stories speculating about it would cease.
Well, given that both William and I are Mac users dating back to the '80s and have gone through two architecture shifts, there's a larger perspective you may not be seeing.
I understand that running Windows on Mac is your use case, but that is not even remotely a universal one -- and this is addressed in the piece. In regards to "add it as a secondary processor," Apple has already done this for the last four years with the T1 and T2 processors.
And, it's not like your old gear is going to burst into flames, or Apple will renovate the entire product line top to bottom immediately. Windows compatibility will still be around on the "Pro"-level hardware for a while.
That's an assumption. Apple transitioned their entire Mac lineup from PPC to Intel inside of two years. There isn't any reason to think this time would be different. If Apple is going to switch, then they need to go all-in and switch. None of this half-a***sing it with some Macs remaining x86 and other Macs on ARM.
Two years is hardly immediate.
From another post of mine in this thread: "I'm guessing a bit longer than the 14-month timetable this time. Based on what we've heard, seems like it'll be closer to 18 months to two years for the entire lineup."
We need the courage to abandon x86 for good. The x86 is still plagued with backward compatibility legacy and technical issues while ARM has more possibilities. The BIG.little is a fine example - x86 cannot have cores that are of different speeds while ARM can. We need to change the technology where we can enable cores to support low speed for low priority tasks and high speed cores for demanding apps. It's called heterogeneous computing and that's how our computing should be.
There is simply no economic benefit from having more cores of the same speed. Most applications don't need all cores at full speed. The OS and apps would benefit the most if each app is given low speed cores and apps given high speed cores when performance is demanded.
Why would you want cores that have to be all of the same speed when you can easily have each low speed core to be dedicated for processing a certain task at a much lower clock speed? For example, if you build a core that is dedicated to processing a frame of a video and you decide that you only need say 500 Mhz per frame, it would be so much more economical to have 30 500Mhz cores along with a couple of 4GHz cores for tasks that require more complex calculations than to force all cores to have the same speed which actually degrade performance overall and not cost effective at all.
False. Intel just released their next generation Lakefield processor that is based on a BIG.little design
It's a hybrid of Sunny Cove and Atom cores on the same die, to get Big.little.
Pretty fucked up configuration that Intel has to work with, and while it will be delivered in early July, it isn't going to be groundbreaking, and that's what Intel needs.
Me, I'd expect Apple and Qualcomm to have significant advantages of ARM architecture at 5nm and 3nm over what Intel will deliver over the next couple of years.
We need the courage to abandon x86 for good. The x86 is still plagued with backward compatibility legacy and technical issues while ARM has more possibilities. The BIG.little is a fine example - x86 cannot have cores that are of different speeds while ARM can. We need to change the technology where we can enable cores to support low speed for low priority tasks and high speed cores for demanding apps. It's called heterogeneous computing and that's how our computing should be.
There is simply no economic benefit from having more cores of the same speed. Most applications don't need all cores at full speed. The OS and apps would benefit the most if each app is given low speed cores and apps given high speed cores when performance is demanded.
Why would you want cores that have to be all of the same speed when you can easily have each low speed core to be dedicated for processing a certain task at a much lower clock speed? For example, if you build a core that is dedicated to processing a frame of a video and you decide that you only need say 500 Mhz per frame, it would be so much more economical to have 30 500Mhz cores along with a couple of 4GHz cores for tasks that require more complex calculations than to force all cores to have the same speed which actually degrade performance overall and not cost effective at all.
False. Intel just released their next generation Lakefield processor that is based on a BIG.little design
Earlier this year I was a tad annoyed that the new iPad Pro effectively had the same processor as the previous 2018 iPad Pro. The one that is “so fast most PC laptops can’t keep up”.
However, this now implies to me that Apple have a laptop Mac using a newer ARM processor (the one in the recent regulatory findings?) that is even faster given it is newer than the A12Z. So will this new laptop ARM Mac be revealed at WWDC?
The sooner Macs move away from Intel the better, they are so slow at advancing compared to Apple. i predict Macs far surpassing PC performance in a few years time.
Why does this obsession the media has with this “switch from Intel to ARM” persist? Having the Intel processor is key to keeping and getting converts from Windows. If my Mac couldn’t also run Windows stuff, I wouldn’t buy it. (I started buying Macs when they moved to Intel to begin with). Maybe they will add it as a secondary processor, but I doubt they are going to outright replace Intel cpus. It makes no sense. And I wish these stories speculating about it would cease.
And I wish people would stop speculating that without Windows (which runs great on ARM already) the Mac wouldn't have any sales. This inevitable move will grow the Mac user base to its highest levels yet.
As a developer the issue for many is whether or not the ARM Mac will run UNIX-based software and more generally open source software. Also, will it support Docker and Singularity containers. Without these types of support, the Mac will be dead in STEM disciplines, including data science. For example, R is used by millions and widely used in universities. Without R and Python and other scientific tools the Mac will be useless for many millions of users. If faculty stop using Macs, so will students!
To Apple non-coder outsiders, layering an OS atop other hardware always seems like sleight-of-hand, possibly because of Apple's infamous secrecy.
In the late '90s, IBM had prototype ThinkPads that could multi-boot Windows, OS/2 and MacOS.
Really? OS X (10.0) wasn't released until 2001...
They didn't say OS X, though. MacOS with that capitalisation was the branding used from about System 8 onwards.
Were the ThinkPads based on the PowerPC Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP)? One of the plans for PowerPC was to create a hardware platform that was OS independent, and supporting MacOS, Windows NT, AIX, Solaris, and Netware. It got shelved due to poor industry take up.
[EDIT] Dagnabbit. Mixed up my forum software again!
To Apple non-coder outsiders, layering an OS atop other hardware always seems like sleight-of-hand, possibly because of Apple's infamous secrecy.
In the late '90s, IBM had prototype ThinkPads that could multi-boot Windows, OS/2 and MacOS.
Really? OS X (10.0) wasn't released until 2001...
They didn't say OS X, though. MacOS with that capitalisation was the branding used from about System 8 onwards.
Were the ThinkPads based on the PowerPC Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP)? One of the plans for PowerPC was to create a hardware platform that was OS independent, and supporting MacOS, Windows NT, AIX, Solaris, and Netware. It got shelved due to poor industry take up.
[EDIT] Dagnabbit. Mixed up my forum software again!
That and Apple got cold feet and never implemented a CHRP design. If Apple had, the whole PowerPC cloning experiment might have gone completely differently. But Apple thought that without licensing the hardware platform and just selling the OS, they couldn’t make enough money to make it worthwhile. I know I was waiting to see what Apple came up with for their CHRP design. I was sad that it never happened.
iMac with 'iPad Pro design language' plus T2 chip could debut at WWDC
Apple transition to own ARM chips in Macs rumored to start at WWDC
Coincidence ? I am giddy just thinking about it but I am also well aware that both of these are just rumours. I can certainly imagine a new iMac with 'iPad Pro design language' actually looking like a slighty thicker iPad Pro on a tilt stand looking like the new Magic Keyboard, but hopefully without the integrated keyboard. The switch to ARM could enable that kind of frame or maybe this time they would put the computer in the base similar to a cross between a Mac mini and the 'gooseneck' G4. Whatever it is, I am soooo ready for a new iMac and let's hope they have the 27 inch first.
I want the brand designers at Apple and I want Tim Cook and
everybody else to hear my view on the nixing of Intel's processor chips.
This has got to be, without a doubt one of the most regressive and monetary selfish moves that Tim Cook ever did.
A)
By nixing the Intel processors, it means that Intel's proprietary
features, those tiny hardware building blocks that make Intel's
processors more safe, will be gone from Macs.
Intel will always perform better on next generation iterations, and
Apple's argument that their custom Intel chips have taken too much time
to be handed over to Apple is not relevant. The power of the processors
is relevant.
C) Intel is an American company, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSM) is an Taiwan.
Apple will be spending our American dollars and NOT putting our money
BACK into our economy. This is the result of Tim Cook's past behavior at
IBM. He is a selfish cash flow hoarder.
D)
Apple's last argument that they will do better at having their
TSM-based coded apps unified between iOS and MacOS is BASELESS. Apple
has the capacity to CREATE an emulated environment app for MacOS, which
could port an emulated TSM processor, if they needed to create cross
platform unification, that is the way to go. It would be far less costly
also.
Tim
Cook has ruined everything that I have learned to respect from the MacOS
architecture, ever since I left the PC systems when I was 19 years old.
I had been an extremely versed PC user from the age of seven years old,
to the age of 19 years old. I personally lived the computer-era from
START to FINISH, and I am convinced that Apple MacOS is superior to all
other computers. Yet ever year Tim Cook goes above and beyond to erase
the legacy of Steve Jobs. He is the most selfish money hoarded in any
company. I hate you with all my life, for ruining the best computer ever
designed. You do not need TSM processors for cross platform
unification, you are a persistent liar, and you could create an
emulated environment to accomplish that goal. You are going to ruin all
of our progress and you are going to annoy a lot of app developers.
Apple's market share is right near 20% and Apple, Tim Cook, you should
be doing your best to grow that base, not shrink it.
Comments
Pretty fucked up configuration that Intel has to work with, and while it will be delivered in early July, it isn't going to be groundbreaking, and that's what Intel needs.
Me, I'd expect Apple and Qualcomm to have significant advantages of ARM architecture at 5nm and 3nm over what Intel will deliver over the next couple of years.
Thanks, didn't know but from what the press says, it seems inelegant but if it can produce competitive results, great!
However, this now implies to me that Apple have a laptop Mac using a newer ARM processor (the one in the recent regulatory findings?) that is even faster given it is newer than the A12Z. So will this new laptop ARM Mac be revealed at WWDC?
The sooner Macs move away from Intel the better, they are so slow at advancing compared to Apple.
i predict Macs far surpassing PC performance in a few years time.
Were the ThinkPads based on the PowerPC Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP)? One of the plans for PowerPC was to create a hardware platform that was OS independent, and supporting MacOS, Windows NT, AIX, Solaris, and Netware. It got shelved due to poor industry take up.
[EDIT] Dagnabbit. Mixed up my forum software again!
iMac with 'iPad Pro design language' plus T2 chip could debut at WWDC
Apple transition to own ARM chips in Macs rumored to start at WWDC
Coincidence ?I am giddy just thinking about it but I am also well aware that both of these are just rumours.
I can certainly imagine a new iMac with 'iPad Pro design language' actually looking like a slighty thicker iPad Pro on a tilt stand looking like the new Magic Keyboard, but hopefully without the integrated keyboard. The switch to ARM could enable that kind of frame or maybe this time they would put the computer in the base similar to a cross between a Mac mini and the 'gooseneck' G4. Whatever it is, I am soooo ready for a new iMac and let's hope they have the 27 inch first.