Apple was cautious when it shifted to Intel, and an ARM Mac migration will be no different...

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 32
    Mike Wuerthelemike wuerthele Posts: 7,186administrator
    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."
    edited June 2020
    canukstormwatto_cobra
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 32
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,713member
    cpsro said:
    loquitur said:
    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.
    They couldn’t boot macOS, because that would be illegal, so I don’t know how you would think that. No major company would take on that liability cost.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 32
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,470member
    netrox said:
    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

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/15841/intel-discloses-lakefield-cpus-specifications-64-execution-units-up-to-30-ghz-7-w
    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.
    netroxjony0watto_cobra
     2Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 24 of 32
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,578member
    netrox said:
    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

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/15841/intel-discloses-lakefield-cpus-specifications-64-execution-units-up-to-30-ghz-7-w

    Thanks, didn't know but from what the press says, it seems inelegant but if it can produce competitive results, great! 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 32
    aderutteraderutter Posts: 640member
    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.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 32
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 832member
    cpsro said:
    loquitur said:
    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...
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 32
    jharnerjharner Posts: 4member
    Xed said:
    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!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 32
    anomeanome Posts: 1,545member
    nicholfd said:
    cpsro said:
    loquitur said:
    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!
    edited June 2020
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 32
    jdb8167jdb8167 Posts: 627member
    anome said:
    nicholfd said:
    cpsro said:
    loquitur said:
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 32
    jony0jony0 Posts: 380member
    Rumours Rumours. Let's see :

    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.

    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 32
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,797member
    nicholfd said:
    cpsro said:
    loquitur said:
    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...
    I think he / she is referring to what was then known as MacOS 9.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 32
    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.
    B 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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.