Would there be any benefits for Microsoft to have Windows running on M1 Macs? It's not as though Apple's Mac market share percentage is very high. Wouldn't Microsoft be undermining its own OEM partners if they did have an official build of Windows for Apple Silicon?
Well, does any one here have access to an OEM pc running windows on arm? If so, Please make a recovery media and try to install it on the M1 macs. My guess it, MS will, or start working on a UNIVERSAL installer.
The current version won’t work. It looks for the one SoC that Qualcomm makes that it’s certified to run on. If it doesn’t find that, it won’t run.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Yeh! That's why they created BootCamp!
.... Oh wait! Never mind.....
Apple needed Windows to run well on their machines back then. It’s questionable as to how important that is to Apple’s future today. With Bootcamp, I recall Apple working with Microsoft. But Federighi stating that it was up to Microsoft, reads as though Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn’t care either way. While there are still those for whom Windows is important on. Macs, that percentage has dropped substantially.
I think Apple may have surrendered trying to compete Macs against Windows and may have simply ceded the market to them. Not only has WIndows become increasingly stable and user friendly but Apple simply can't compete price wise with mainstream Windows machines.
Instead, they are perhaps shifting the Mac over to be yet another variation of iOS. Or, more specifically, an extension of the iOS family -- more functional and powerful, but still an iOS variation.
I’m not so sure about that. Things have changed, particularly shortly after Apple came out with the iPad. Computer sales began to drop, and have dropped considerably since then. Coincidence? Maybe partly. But Apple wouldn’t have spent so much money on developing this chip family, and so much on Xcode to work with it, as well as converting all of their software over, to just somehow extend iOS. It would have been a lot easier to just continue making the iPad more Mac-like, and slowly phase the Mac out.
that’s was the philosophy Jobs stated before he came back, and was asked what he would do if he were running Apple again. He said that he would milk the Mac for all it was worth and them move on to the next big thing. That’s close to a quote.
the iPhone and iPad are the next big things, but Apple hasn’t given up on the Mac. It’s too central to who they are.
I have been saying, for years now, that we would see tiers at Apple. Small lower end machines like the iPhone, then the iPad, and then the Mac, each higher tier running a larger, more sophisticated version of the same software. By going back to the older concept of universal binaries, Apple is sort of doing that. But you. Go to the store and it knows which device you have, and can download and install the version you need.
but the Mac will still have more professional software from Apple that allows it to be used as a server, for example. It’s unlikely iPads will be able to get versions of that. So while on the Desktop, they seem to be getting closer, internally, despite the new chips, which do have functionality that iOS versions don’t, and aren’t likely to get, the purpose is still bifurcated.
I don't disagree with any of that.
But, I think I expressed my thoughts rather poorly. By an 'extension of the iOS family' I was thinking of a complimentary component of the integrated product line. For instance, how the Apple Watch compliments and supports the iPhone and the iPad does similar. It is multiple form factors, each independent but working together and complimenting each other so that, once you enter into that family, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
So far the Mac line has been on the periphery of that family. I see it merging much closer into it and I see that strengthening the Mac line rather than weakening it.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Sure, but I was explaining why the question is worth asking. After OS support, the next concern for the usable lifespan of these machines is SSD wear, which gives them a practical limit of probably 30 years for the models with soldered flash (iMac Pro and Mac Pro have replaceable flash carts, so there is no longer a practical limit). Any limit beyond that is a choice, not something intrinsic to the system, and it's worth asking for the specifics of the choices Apple has made.
And so are you saying that an SSD with a 30 year lifespan is a problem?
To an extent, yes. I would like to see more models with replaceable flash. Keep the controller in the SoC, but stick the flash chips themselves on little cards that can be replaced as they fail. Barring that, I would like the ability to shrink the SSD's claimed capacity as its spare blocks are used (Intel's SSD controllers let you adjust a maximumLBA setting which lets a 400 GB drive claim to be, say, 300 GB and the rest of the space becomes backup wear leveling space). All Intel Macs can have external storage added, which is less convenient, but which allows them to remain functional long past even the internal SSD's failure.
We know about the choices involved in the ~30 year SSD lifespan. The internal, integrated SSD gets better performance, has better security, and has a pretty long likely lifespan. People can make an informed decision about that.
Sonos' "recycle mode" was rightly panned. It bricked otherwise-functional devices. What Apple seems to be doing here is less bad, but is still placing an artificial limit on the lifespan of a device which is not intrinsic to any decision made as part of building the device itself. It is instead based on the whims of the vendor. They might decide that four OS versions is enough, so all the M1 Macs are no longer supported in macOS 15. When the system no longer gets OS updates, it isn't bricked, but it becomes less safe to use online over time.
We do not yet know about the choices made in the software lifespan. We don't have any idea how many OS versions Apple will support, nor do we know whether we will be allowed to maintain the boxes on our own after Apple cuts off their support. These are questions worth asking, and it isn't possible to make an informed decision without the answers. It's only possible to trust a vendor who has in the past been extremely aggressive about cutting off support for older hardware.
I think there's another reason for that other than failure of the SSD: Failure of the unit. If the unit fails the SSD can be removed and either moved to a different machine or the data recovered. With soldered in chips, if the unit fails, you better pray you have a backup.
Ever since, when working as an accountant in the 70's and my IT department lost a year's worth of precious data, I've realized that there is only one part of system that cannot be replaced: It's most valuable asset -- data.
But, that may be one of the advantages to going to Apple Silicon: they may decide to backup Macs the same as they backup iPhones. That would be nice.
Mechanical parts are subject to wear, so the MBP and Mini will eventually need new fans. The only things which can really fail mechanically on the MacBook Air, though, are the hinges, display cable, and keys. I had an eMate 300 for a while with its hinge clutch issues (the springs would work their way free and tear up the display cable), but I don’t think I’ve heard of hinge failures since. Keys can obviously fail, but are possible to replace, and external keyboards exist. The display assembly is basically a sealed unit and you can get a spare.
Unfortunately, the “get a spare” equivalent for the SSD is the whole logic board. Different secure element, so you can’t restore any cryptographic keys it held for you. Different board UUID, and some vendors tie their software licenses to the board ID. Replacing the board means buying a whole new license for that software (yes, there is something worse than FlexLM!). Not thrilled about that situation, but it is at least possible to deal with.
But the original iPad came out on 2010-04-03, and the last software update it ever got was released on 2012-05-07. That’s only 25 months of OS support.
The original iPhone came out 2007-06-29 and the last software update it got was on 2010-02-02. About 31 months.
The original Apple Watch came out some time in 2015-04. The last update for it was released 2018-07-09. That’s a max of 40 months of OS updates.
None of these figures are great. That iPad support lifespan is downright pathetic. And once they no longer get updates, they become less safe to use, because they no longer get fixes for security issues.
If Apple doesn’t want to give me fixes for security issues, I want to know I can fix them myself. I had an original iPad, and the early support death combined with the inability to ever update it myself soured me on the whole concept.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Sure, but I was explaining why the question is worth asking. After OS support, the next concern for the usable lifespan of these machines is SSD wear, which gives them a practical limit of probably 30 years for the models with soldered flash (iMac Pro and Mac Pro have replaceable flash carts, so there is no longer a practical limit). Any limit beyond that is a choice, not something intrinsic to the system, and it's worth asking for the specifics of the choices Apple has made.
And so are you saying that an SSD with a 30 year lifespan is a problem?
To an extent, yes. I would like to see more models with replaceable flash. Keep the controller in the SoC, but stick the flash chips themselves on little cards that can be replaced as they fail. Barring that, I would like the ability to shrink the SSD's claimed capacity as its spare blocks are used (Intel's SSD controllers let you adjust a maximumLBA setting which lets a 400 GB drive claim to be, say, 300 GB and the rest of the space becomes backup wear leveling space). All Intel Macs can have external storage added, which is less convenient, but which allows them to remain functional long past even the internal SSD's failure.
We know about the choices involved in the ~30 year SSD lifespan. The internal, integrated SSD gets better performance, has better security, and has a pretty long likely lifespan. People can make an informed decision about that.
Sonos' "recycle mode" was rightly panned. It bricked otherwise-functional devices. What Apple seems to be doing here is less bad, but is still placing an artificial limit on the lifespan of a device which is not intrinsic to any decision made as part of building the device itself. It is instead based on the whims of the vendor. They might decide that four OS versions is enough, so all the M1 Macs are no longer supported in macOS 15. When the system no longer gets OS updates, it isn't bricked, but it becomes less safe to use online over time.
We do not yet know about the choices made in the software lifespan. We don't have any idea how many OS versions Apple will support, nor do we know whether we will be allowed to maintain the boxes on our own after Apple cuts off their support. These are questions worth asking, and it isn't possible to make an informed decision without the answers. It's only possible to trust a vendor who has in the past been extremely aggressive about cutting off support for older hardware.
I think there's another reason for that other than failure of the SSD: Failure of the unit. If the unit fails the SSD can be removed and either moved to a different machine or the data recovered. With soldered in chips, if the unit fails, you better pray you have a backup.
Ever since, when working as an accountant in the 70's and my IT department lost a year's worth of precious data, I've realized that there is only one part of system that cannot be replaced: It's most valuable asset -- data.
But, that may be one of the advantages to going to Apple Silicon: they may decide to backup Macs the same as they backup iPhones. That would be nice.
Mechanical parts are subject to wear, so the MBP and Mini will eventually need new fans. The only things which can really fail mechanically on the MacBook Air, though, are the hinges, display cable, and keys. I had an eMate 300 for a while with its hinge clutch issues (the springs would work their way free and tear up the display cable), but I don’t think I’ve heard of hinge failures since. Keys can obviously fail, but are possible to replace, and external keyboards exist. The display assembly is basically a sealed unit and you can get a spare.
Unfortunately, the “get a spare” equivalent for the SSD is the whole logic board. Different secure element, so you can’t restore any cryptographic keys it held for you. Different board UUID, and some vendors tie their software licenses to the board ID. Replacing the board means buying a whole new license for that software (yes, there is something worse than FlexLM!). Not thrilled about that situation, but it is at least possible to deal with.
But the original iPad came out on 2010-04-03, and the last software update it ever got was released on 2012-05-07. That’s only 25 months of OS support.
The original iPhone came out 2007-06-29 and the last software update it got was on 2010-02-02. About 31 months.
The original Apple Watch came out some time in 2015-04. The last update for it was released 2018-07-09. That’s a max of 40 months of OS updates.
None of these figures are great. That iPad support lifespan is downright pathetic. And once they no longer get updates, they become less safe to use, because they no longer get fixes for security issues.
If Apple doesn’t want to give me fixes for security issues, I want to know I can fix them myself. I had an original iPad, and the early support death combined with the inability to ever update it myself soured me on the whole concept.
It's not only mechanical parts that fail.
Also, Macs are not water resistant like iPhones. Neither do they bounce very well.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Sure, but I was explaining why the question is worth asking. After OS support, the next concern for the usable lifespan of these machines is SSD wear, which gives them a practical limit of probably 30 years for the models with soldered flash (iMac Pro and Mac Pro have replaceable flash carts, so there is no longer a practical limit). Any limit beyond that is a choice, not something intrinsic to the system, and it's worth asking for the specifics of the choices Apple has made.
And so are you saying that an SSD with a 30 year lifespan is a problem?
To an extent, yes. I would like to see more models with replaceable flash. Keep the controller in the SoC, but stick the flash chips themselves on little cards that can be replaced as they fail. Barring that, I would like the ability to shrink the SSD's claimed capacity as its spare blocks are used (Intel's SSD controllers let you adjust a maximumLBA setting which lets a 400 GB drive claim to be, say, 300 GB and the rest of the space becomes backup wear leveling space). All Intel Macs can have external storage added, which is less convenient, but which allows them to remain functional long past even the internal SSD's failure.
We know about the choices involved in the ~30 year SSD lifespan. The internal, integrated SSD gets better performance, has better security, and has a pretty long likely lifespan. People can make an informed decision about that.
Sonos' "recycle mode" was rightly panned. It bricked otherwise-functional devices. What Apple seems to be doing here is less bad, but is still placing an artificial limit on the lifespan of a device which is not intrinsic to any decision made as part of building the device itself. It is instead based on the whims of the vendor. They might decide that four OS versions is enough, so all the M1 Macs are no longer supported in macOS 15. When the system no longer gets OS updates, it isn't bricked, but it becomes less safe to use online over time.
We do not yet know about the choices made in the software lifespan. We don't have any idea how many OS versions Apple will support, nor do we know whether we will be allowed to maintain the boxes on our own after Apple cuts off their support. These are questions worth asking, and it isn't possible to make an informed decision without the answers. It's only possible to trust a vendor who has in the past been extremely aggressive about cutting off support for older hardware.
I think there's another reason for that other than failure of the SSD: Failure of the unit. If the unit fails the SSD can be removed and either moved to a different machine or the data recovered. With soldered in chips, if the unit fails, you better pray you have a backup.
Ever since, when working as an accountant in the 70's and my IT department lost a year's worth of precious data, I've realized that there is only one part of system that cannot be replaced: It's most valuable asset -- data.
But, that may be one of the advantages to going to Apple Silicon: they may decide to backup Macs the same as they backup iPhones. That would be nice.
Mechanical parts are subject to wear, so the MBP and Mini will eventually need new fans. The only things which can really fail mechanically on the MacBook Air, though, are the hinges, display cable, and keys. I had an eMate 300 for a while with its hinge clutch issues (the springs would work their way free and tear up the display cable), but I don’t think I’ve heard of hinge failures since. Keys can obviously fail, but are possible to replace, and external keyboards exist. The display assembly is basically a sealed unit and you can get a spare.
Unfortunately, the “get a spare” equivalent for the SSD is the whole logic board. Different secure element, so you can’t restore any cryptographic keys it held for you. Different board UUID, and some vendors tie their software licenses to the board ID. Replacing the board means buying a whole new license for that software (yes, there is something worse than FlexLM!). Not thrilled about that situation, but it is at least possible to deal with.
But the original iPad came out on 2010-04-03, and the last software update it ever got was released on 2012-05-07. That’s only 25 months of OS support.
The original iPhone came out 2007-06-29 and the last software update it got was on 2010-02-02. About 31 months.
The original Apple Watch came out some time in 2015-04. The last update for it was released 2018-07-09. That’s a max of 40 months of OS updates.
None of these figures are great. That iPad support lifespan is downright pathetic. And once they no longer get updates, they become less safe to use, because they no longer get fixes for security issues.
If Apple doesn’t want to give me fixes for security issues, I want to know I can fix them myself. I had an original iPad, and the early support death combined with the inability to ever update it myself soured me on the whole concept.
It's not only mechanical parts that fail.
Also, Macs are not water resistant like iPhones. Neither do they bounce very well.
Sure, but those are lifespan limitations due to the user, not limitations due to the vendor or normal wear. I have never dropped any of my Macs, nor have I ever spilled anything on any of them. Those concerns don't limit my devices' lifespans. Apple's decision on OS support lifetime does. That's why we need specifics on the decisions which have been made. Otherwise, I can only assume the worst which is that Apple will support the M1 machines for three years (still longer than the first iPhone or first iPad!), then they won't get any further updates. I'm not interested in buying a Mac which only lasts three years. Letting me install another OS on it mitigates that issue. Apple no longer needs to provide updates for machines they aren't interested in, but I can take responsibility for that myself.
If you don't see the difference between lifespan limitations due to the user, limitations due to hardware wear and tear, and limitations due to the vendor just saying "We don't care anymore", I don't know what to tell you.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Sure, but I was explaining why the question is worth asking. After OS support, the next concern for the usable lifespan of these machines is SSD wear, which gives them a practical limit of probably 30 years for the models with soldered flash (iMac Pro and Mac Pro have replaceable flash carts, so there is no longer a practical limit). Any limit beyond that is a choice, not something intrinsic to the system, and it's worth asking for the specifics of the choices Apple has made.
And so are you saying that an SSD with a 30 year lifespan is a problem?
To an extent, yes. I would like to see more models with replaceable flash. Keep the controller in the SoC, but stick the flash chips themselves on little cards that can be replaced as they fail. Barring that, I would like the ability to shrink the SSD's claimed capacity as its spare blocks are used (Intel's SSD controllers let you adjust a maximumLBA setting which lets a 400 GB drive claim to be, say, 300 GB and the rest of the space becomes backup wear leveling space). All Intel Macs can have external storage added, which is less convenient, but which allows them to remain functional long past even the internal SSD's failure.
We know about the choices involved in the ~30 year SSD lifespan. The internal, integrated SSD gets better performance, has better security, and has a pretty long likely lifespan. People can make an informed decision about that.
Sonos' "recycle mode" was rightly panned. It bricked otherwise-functional devices. What Apple seems to be doing here is less bad, but is still placing an artificial limit on the lifespan of a device which is not intrinsic to any decision made as part of building the device itself. It is instead based on the whims of the vendor. They might decide that four OS versions is enough, so all the M1 Macs are no longer supported in macOS 15. When the system no longer gets OS updates, it isn't bricked, but it becomes less safe to use online over time.
We do not yet know about the choices made in the software lifespan. We don't have any idea how many OS versions Apple will support, nor do we know whether we will be allowed to maintain the boxes on our own after Apple cuts off their support. These are questions worth asking, and it isn't possible to make an informed decision without the answers. It's only possible to trust a vendor who has in the past been extremely aggressive about cutting off support for older hardware.
I think there's another reason for that other than failure of the SSD: Failure of the unit. If the unit fails the SSD can be removed and either moved to a different machine or the data recovered. With soldered in chips, if the unit fails, you better pray you have a backup.
Ever since, when working as an accountant in the 70's and my IT department lost a year's worth of precious data, I've realized that there is only one part of system that cannot be replaced: It's most valuable asset -- data.
But, that may be one of the advantages to going to Apple Silicon: they may decide to backup Macs the same as they backup iPhones. That would be nice.
Mechanical parts are subject to wear, so the MBP and Mini will eventually need new fans. The only things which can really fail mechanically on the MacBook Air, though, are the hinges, display cable, and keys. I had an eMate 300 for a while with its hinge clutch issues (the springs would work their way free and tear up the display cable), but I don’t think I’ve heard of hinge failures since. Keys can obviously fail, but are possible to replace, and external keyboards exist. The display assembly is basically a sealed unit and you can get a spare.
Unfortunately, the “get a spare” equivalent for the SSD is the whole logic board. Different secure element, so you can’t restore any cryptographic keys it held for you. Different board UUID, and some vendors tie their software licenses to the board ID. Replacing the board means buying a whole new license for that software (yes, there is something worse than FlexLM!). Not thrilled about that situation, but it is at least possible to deal with.
But the original iPad came out on 2010-04-03, and the last software update it ever got was released on 2012-05-07. That’s only 25 months of OS support.
The original iPhone came out 2007-06-29 and the last software update it got was on 2010-02-02. About 31 months.
The original Apple Watch came out some time in 2015-04. The last update for it was released 2018-07-09. That’s a max of 40 months of OS updates.
None of these figures are great. That iPad support lifespan is downright pathetic. And once they no longer get updates, they become less safe to use, because they no longer get fixes for security issues.
If Apple doesn’t want to give me fixes for security issues, I want to know I can fix them myself. I had an original iPad, and the early support death combined with the inability to ever update it myself soured me on the whole concept.
It's not only mechanical parts that fail.
Also, Macs are not water resistant like iPhones. Neither do they bounce very well.
Sure, but those are lifespan limitations due to the user, not limitations due to the vendor or normal wear. I have never dropped any of my Macs, nor have I ever spilled anything on any of them. Those concerns don't limit my devices' lifespans. Apple's decision on OS support lifetime does. That's why we need specifics on the decisions which have been made. Otherwise, I can only assume the worst which is that Apple will support the M1 machines for three years (still longer than the first iPhone or first iPad!), then they won't get any further updates. I'm not interested in buying a Mac which only lasts three years. Letting me install another OS on it mitigates that issue. Apple no longer needs to provide updates for machines they aren't interested in, but I can take responsibility for that myself.
If you don't see the difference between lifespan limitations due to the user, limitations due to hardware wear and tear, and limitations due to the vendor just saying "We don't care anymore", I don't know what to tell you.
Both user problems and vendor problems limit lifespan. And, when you're the victim, it doesn't much matter which -- they both suck.
But I was responding to responding to comments about non-removable SSDs. When a system crashes (like my MacBook Air did -- one day it just stopped powering on) a non-removeable SSD means your data is no longer accessible. Apple always warns to keep a backup -- but few invest the money and time to do so.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Yeh! That's why they created BootCamp!
.... Oh wait! Never mind.....
Apple needed Windows to run well on their machines back then. It’s questionable as to how important that is to Apple’s future today. With Bootcamp, I recall Apple working with Microsoft. But Federighi stating that it was up to Microsoft, reads as though Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn’t care either way. While there are still those for whom Windows is important on. Macs, that percentage has dropped substantially.
I think Apple may have surrendered trying to compete Macs against Windows and may have simply ceded the market to them. Not only has WIndows become increasingly stable and user friendly but Apple simply can't compete price wise with mainstream Windows machines.
Instead, they are perhaps shifting the Mac over to be yet another variation of iOS. Or, more specifically, an extension of the iOS family -- more functional and powerful, but still an iOS variation.
I’m not so sure about that. Things have changed, particularly shortly after Apple came out with the iPad. Computer sales began to drop, and have dropped considerably since then. Coincidence? Maybe partly. But Apple wouldn’t have spent so much money on developing this chip family, and so much on Xcode to work with it, as well as converting all of their software over, to just somehow extend iOS. It would have been a lot easier to just continue making the iPad more Mac-like, and slowly phase the Mac out.
that’s was the philosophy Jobs stated before he came back, and was asked what he would do if he were running Apple again. He said that he would milk the Mac for all it was worth and them move on to the next big thing. That’s close to a quote.
the iPhone and iPad are the next big things, but Apple hasn’t given up on the Mac. It’s too central to who they are.
I have been saying, for years now, that we would see tiers at Apple. Small lower end machines like the iPhone, then the iPad, and then the Mac, each higher tier running a larger, more sophisticated version of the same software. By going back to the older concept of universal binaries, Apple is sort of doing that. But you. Go to the store and it knows which device you have, and can download and install the version you need.
but the Mac will still have more professional software from Apple that allows it to be used as a server, for example. It’s unlikely iPads will be able to get versions of that. So while on the Desktop, they seem to be getting closer, internally, despite the new chips, which do have functionality that iOS versions don’t, and aren’t likely to get, the purpose is still bifurcated.
I don't disagree with any of that.
But, I think I expressed my thoughts rather poorly. By an 'extension of the iOS family' I was thinking of a complimentary component of the integrated product line. For instance, how the Apple Watch compliments and supports the iPhone and the iPad does similar. It is multiple form factors, each independent but working together and complimenting each other so that, once you enter into that family, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
So far the Mac line has been on the periphery of that family. I see it merging much closer into it and I see that strengthening the Mac line rather than weakening it.
Well, that’s different, and I agree with that. It’s near to what I’m saying. The Watch complements the Mac as well. I don’t have to type Apple passwords on my Mac when I have my watch on. I can do that by double pressing the switch on the watch. At first, it was freaky, but now I’m used to it.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Sure, but I was explaining why the question is worth asking. After OS support, the next concern for the usable lifespan of these machines is SSD wear, which gives them a practical limit of probably 30 years for the models with soldered flash (iMac Pro and Mac Pro have replaceable flash carts, so there is no longer a practical limit). Any limit beyond that is a choice, not something intrinsic to the system, and it's worth asking for the specifics of the choices Apple has made.
And so are you saying that an SSD with a 30 year lifespan is a problem?
To an extent, yes. I would like to see more models with replaceable flash. Keep the controller in the SoC, but stick the flash chips themselves on little cards that can be replaced as they fail. Barring that, I would like the ability to shrink the SSD's claimed capacity as its spare blocks are used (Intel's SSD controllers let you adjust a maximumLBA setting which lets a 400 GB drive claim to be, say, 300 GB and the rest of the space becomes backup wear leveling space). All Intel Macs can have external storage added, which is less convenient, but which allows them to remain functional long past even the internal SSD's failure.
We know about the choices involved in the ~30 year SSD lifespan. The internal, integrated SSD gets better performance, has better security, and has a pretty long likely lifespan. People can make an informed decision about that.
Sonos' "recycle mode" was rightly panned. It bricked otherwise-functional devices. What Apple seems to be doing here is less bad, but is still placing an artificial limit on the lifespan of a device which is not intrinsic to any decision made as part of building the device itself. It is instead based on the whims of the vendor. They might decide that four OS versions is enough, so all the M1 Macs are no longer supported in macOS 15. When the system no longer gets OS updates, it isn't bricked, but it becomes less safe to use online over time.
We do not yet know about the choices made in the software lifespan. We don't have any idea how many OS versions Apple will support, nor do we know whether we will be allowed to maintain the boxes on our own after Apple cuts off their support. These are questions worth asking, and it isn't possible to make an informed decision without the answers. It's only possible to trust a vendor who has in the past been extremely aggressive about cutting off support for older hardware.
I think there's another reason for that other than failure of the SSD: Failure of the unit. If the unit fails the SSD can be removed and either moved to a different machine or the data recovered. With soldered in chips, if the unit fails, you better pray you have a backup.
Ever since, when working as an accountant in the 70's and my IT department lost a year's worth of precious data, I've realized that there is only one part of system that cannot be replaced: It's most valuable asset -- data.
But, that may be one of the advantages to going to Apple Silicon: they may decide to backup Macs the same as they backup iPhones. That would be nice.
Mechanical parts are subject to wear, so the MBP and Mini will eventually need new fans. The only things which can really fail mechanically on the MacBook Air, though, are the hinges, display cable, and keys. I had an eMate 300 for a while with its hinge clutch issues (the springs would work their way free and tear up the display cable), but I don’t think I’ve heard of hinge failures since. Keys can obviously fail, but are possible to replace, and external keyboards exist. The display assembly is basically a sealed unit and you can get a spare.
Unfortunately, the “get a spare” equivalent for the SSD is the whole logic board. Different secure element, so you can’t restore any cryptographic keys it held for you. Different board UUID, and some vendors tie their software licenses to the board ID. Replacing the board means buying a whole new license for that software (yes, there is something worse than FlexLM!). Not thrilled about that situation, but it is at least possible to deal with.
But the original iPad came out on 2010-04-03, and the last software update it ever got was released on 2012-05-07. That’s only 25 months of OS support.
The original iPhone came out 2007-06-29 and the last software update it got was on 2010-02-02. About 31 months.
The original Apple Watch came out some time in 2015-04. The last update for it was released 2018-07-09. That’s a max of 40 months of OS updates.
None of these figures are great. That iPad support lifespan is downright pathetic. And once they no longer get updates, they become less safe to use, because they no longer get fixes for security issues.
If Apple doesn’t want to give me fixes for security issues, I want to know I can fix them myself. I had an original iPad, and the early support death combined with the inability to ever update it myself soured me on the whole concept.
The fans on the new Mini and Macbook Pro are the same fans as on the old machines. But, they’re being run at far slower speeds, and turn on much less often. They also get less hot. As rotating component lifetimes are rated according to rotational speed as well as rotation on times and ambient and operating temperatures, the fans on these units are likely to last the lifetimes of the products, other than for a factory defect, which can happen to any component.
your replacement nightmare shouldn’t be a problem as long as it’s Apple or an authorized repair company doing the replacement. That software problem is generally relegated to the Windows platform, with Windows not recognizing a new mobo or CPU chip. You then need to contact Microsoft about that which will result in a new passcode number given to you.
one reason I rarely buy the first generation of a product (though I did buy the first iPad with 3G, and now, the first Macbook Pro) is because first generation products often have severe performance and capacity problems when compared to the second gen that they can’t get support for more than a couple years or so (better than the average Android device though!).
this is to be expected. First gen buyers of any new platform are always going to get shorted when compared to later gen products. You shouldn’t be surprised at that.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Sure, but I was explaining why the question is worth asking. After OS support, the next concern for the usable lifespan of these machines is SSD wear, which gives them a practical limit of probably 30 years for the models with soldered flash (iMac Pro and Mac Pro have replaceable flash carts, so there is no longer a practical limit). Any limit beyond that is a choice, not something intrinsic to the system, and it's worth asking for the specifics of the choices Apple has made.
And so are you saying that an SSD with a 30 year lifespan is a problem?
To an extent, yes. I would like to see more models with replaceable flash. Keep the controller in the SoC, but stick the flash chips themselves on little cards that can be replaced as they fail. Barring that, I would like the ability to shrink the SSD's claimed capacity as its spare blocks are used (Intel's SSD controllers let you adjust a maximumLBA setting which lets a 400 GB drive claim to be, say, 300 GB and the rest of the space becomes backup wear leveling space). All Intel Macs can have external storage added, which is less convenient, but which allows them to remain functional long past even the internal SSD's failure.
We know about the choices involved in the ~30 year SSD lifespan. The internal, integrated SSD gets better performance, has better security, and has a pretty long likely lifespan. People can make an informed decision about that.
Sonos' "recycle mode" was rightly panned. It bricked otherwise-functional devices. What Apple seems to be doing here is less bad, but is still placing an artificial limit on the lifespan of a device which is not intrinsic to any decision made as part of building the device itself. It is instead based on the whims of the vendor. They might decide that four OS versions is enough, so all the M1 Macs are no longer supported in macOS 15. When the system no longer gets OS updates, it isn't bricked, but it becomes less safe to use online over time.
We do not yet know about the choices made in the software lifespan. We don't have any idea how many OS versions Apple will support, nor do we know whether we will be allowed to maintain the boxes on our own after Apple cuts off their support. These are questions worth asking, and it isn't possible to make an informed decision without the answers. It's only possible to trust a vendor who has in the past been extremely aggressive about cutting off support for older hardware.
I think there's another reason for that other than failure of the SSD: Failure of the unit. If the unit fails the SSD can be removed and either moved to a different machine or the data recovered. With soldered in chips, if the unit fails, you better pray you have a backup.
Ever since, when working as an accountant in the 70's and my IT department lost a year's worth of precious data, I've realized that there is only one part of system that cannot be replaced: It's most valuable asset -- data.
But, that may be one of the advantages to going to Apple Silicon: they may decide to backup Macs the same as they backup iPhones. That would be nice.
Mechanical parts are subject to wear, so the MBP and Mini will eventually need new fans. The only things which can really fail mechanically on the MacBook Air, though, are the hinges, display cable, and keys. I had an eMate 300 for a while with its hinge clutch issues (the springs would work their way free and tear up the display cable), but I don’t think I’ve heard of hinge failures since. Keys can obviously fail, but are possible to replace, and external keyboards exist. The display assembly is basically a sealed unit and you can get a spare.
Unfortunately, the “get a spare” equivalent for the SSD is the whole logic board. Different secure element, so you can’t restore any cryptographic keys it held for you. Different board UUID, and some vendors tie their software licenses to the board ID. Replacing the board means buying a whole new license for that software (yes, there is something worse than FlexLM!). Not thrilled about that situation, but it is at least possible to deal with.
But the original iPad came out on 2010-04-03, and the last software update it ever got was released on 2012-05-07. That’s only 25 months of OS support.
The original iPhone came out 2007-06-29 and the last software update it got was on 2010-02-02. About 31 months.
The original Apple Watch came out some time in 2015-04. The last update for it was released 2018-07-09. That’s a max of 40 months of OS updates.
None of these figures are great. That iPad support lifespan is downright pathetic. And once they no longer get updates, they become less safe to use, because they no longer get fixes for security issues.
If Apple doesn’t want to give me fixes for security issues, I want to know I can fix them myself. I had an original iPad, and the early support death combined with the inability to ever update it myself soured me on the whole concept.
It's not only mechanical parts that fail.
Also, Macs are not water resistant like iPhones. Neither do they bounce very well.
Sure, but those are lifespan limitations due to the user, not limitations due to the vendor or normal wear. I have never dropped any of my Macs, nor have I ever spilled anything on any of them. Those concerns don't limit my devices' lifespans. Apple's decision on OS support lifetime does. That's why we need specifics on the decisions which have been made. Otherwise, I can only assume the worst which is that Apple will support the M1 machines for three years (still longer than the first iPhone or first iPad!), then they won't get any further updates. I'm not interested in buying a Mac which only lasts three years. Letting me install another OS on it mitigates that issue. Apple no longer needs to provide updates for machines they aren't interested in, but I can take responsibility for that myself.
If you don't see the difference between lifespan limitations due to the user, limitations due to hardware wear and tear, and limitations due to the vendor just saying "We don't care anymore", I don't know what to tell you.
Apple rarely says they don’t care anymore. I know you don’t mean that they would actually say that, but we know what you’re saying. Generally, Apple drops support because a device can’t support the latest technologies that Apple is standardizing on. That makes sense. One reason Windows has so many problems is because Microsoft rarely drops support for obsolete software and hardware technologies. ARM and Intel have the same problems. They have more of a problem than Microsoft though, because Microsoft can, when it want to, just drop support. But AMD and Intel are stuck with a hardware decision that they can’t just abandon, and so need to continue to squeeze out performance in a less ideal way.
if Apple drops OS upgrades after three years, the product is still very usable for at least two, and even three years afterwards. Most all software will still work, including upgrades, because vendors know that people keep machines after official support has ended. It’s not an all in or all out situation as you’re trying to make it out to be.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Yeh! That's why they created BootCamp!
.... Oh wait! Never mind.....
Apple needed Windows to run well on their machines back then. It’s questionable as to how important that is to Apple’s future today. With Bootcamp, I recall Apple working with Microsoft. But Federighi stating that it was up to Microsoft, reads as though Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn’t care either way. While there are still those for whom Windows is important on. Macs, that percentage has dropped substantially.
I think Apple may have surrendered trying to compete Macs against Windows and may have simply ceded the market to them. Not only has WIndows become increasingly stable and user friendly but Apple simply can't compete price wise with mainstream Windows machines.
Instead, they are perhaps shifting the Mac over to be yet another variation of iOS. Or, more specifically, an extension of the iOS family -- more functional and powerful, but still an iOS variation.
I’m not so sure about that. Things have changed, particularly shortly after Apple came out with the iPad. Computer sales began to drop, and have dropped considerably since then. Coincidence? Maybe partly. But Apple wouldn’t have spent so much money on developing this chip family, and so much on Xcode to work with it, as well as converting all of their software over, to just somehow extend iOS. It would have been a lot easier to just continue making the iPad more Mac-like, and slowly phase the Mac out.
that’s was the philosophy Jobs stated before he came back, and was asked what he would do if he were running Apple again. He said that he would milk the Mac for all it was worth and them move on to the next big thing. That’s close to a quote.
the iPhone and iPad are the next big things, but Apple hasn’t given up on the Mac. It’s too central to who they are.
I have been saying, for years now, that we would see tiers at Apple. Small lower end machines like the iPhone, then the iPad, and then the Mac, each higher tier running a larger, more sophisticated version of the same software. By going back to the older concept of universal binaries, Apple is sort of doing that. But you. Go to the store and it knows which device you have, and can download and install the version you need.
but the Mac will still have more professional software from Apple that allows it to be used as a server, for example. It’s unlikely iPads will be able to get versions of that. So while on the Desktop, they seem to be getting closer, internally, despite the new chips, which do have functionality that iOS versions don’t, and aren’t likely to get, the purpose is still bifurcated.
I don't disagree with any of that.
But, I think I expressed my thoughts rather poorly. By an 'extension of the iOS family' I was thinking of a complimentary component of the integrated product line. For instance, how the Apple Watch compliments and supports the iPhone and the iPad does similar. It is multiple form factors, each independent but working together and complimenting each other so that, once you enter into that family, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
So far the Mac line has been on the periphery of that family. I see it merging much closer into it and I see that strengthening the Mac line rather than weakening it.
Well, that’s different, and I agree with that. It’s near to what I’m saying. The Watch complements the Mac as well. I don’t have to type Apple passwords on my Mac when I have my watch on. I can do that by double pressing the switch on the watch. At first, it was freaky, but now I’m used to it.
Yeh I found the watch unlocking my MacBook to be a magical moment everytime! (At least until my MacBook died. Now the magic is gone...)
Comments
Unfortunately, the “get a spare” equivalent for the SSD is the whole logic board. Different secure element, so you can’t restore any cryptographic keys it held for you. Different board UUID, and some vendors tie their software licenses to the board ID. Replacing the board means buying a whole new license for that software (yes, there is something worse than FlexLM!). Not thrilled about that situation, but it is at least possible to deal with.
But the original iPad came out on 2010-04-03, and the last software update it ever got was released on 2012-05-07. That’s only 25 months of OS support.
The original iPhone came out 2007-06-29 and the last software update it got was on 2010-02-02. About 31 months.
The original Apple Watch came out some time in 2015-04. The last update for it was released 2018-07-09. That’s a max of 40 months of OS updates.
None of these figures are great. That iPad support lifespan is downright pathetic. And once they no longer get updates, they become less safe to use, because they no longer get fixes for security issues.
If Apple doesn’t want to give me fixes for security issues, I want to know I can fix them myself. I had an original iPad, and the early support death combined with the inability to ever update it myself soured me on the whole concept.
If you don't see the difference between lifespan limitations due to the user, limitations due to hardware wear and tear, and limitations due to the vendor just saying "We don't care anymore", I don't know what to tell you.
The fans on the new Mini and Macbook Pro are the same fans as on the old machines. But, they’re being run at far slower speeds, and turn on much less often. They also get less hot. As rotating component lifetimes are rated according to rotational speed as well as rotation on times and ambient and operating temperatures, the fans on these units are likely to last the lifetimes of the products, other than for a factory defect, which can happen to any component.
your replacement nightmare shouldn’t be a problem as long as it’s Apple or an authorized repair company doing the replacement. That software problem is generally relegated to the Windows platform, with Windows not recognizing a new mobo or CPU chip. You then need to contact Microsoft about that which will result in a new passcode number given to you.
one reason I rarely buy the first generation of a product (though I did buy the first iPad with 3G, and now, the first Macbook Pro) is because first generation products often have severe performance and capacity problems when compared to the second gen that they can’t get support for more than a couple years or so (better than the average Android device though!).
this is to be expected. First gen buyers of any new platform are always going to get shorted when compared to later gen products. You shouldn’t be surprised at that.
Apple rarely says they don’t care anymore. I know you don’t mean that they would actually say that, but we know what you’re saying. Generally, Apple drops support because a device can’t support the latest technologies that Apple is standardizing on. That makes sense. One reason Windows has so many problems is because Microsoft rarely drops support for obsolete software and hardware technologies. ARM and Intel have the same problems. They have more of a problem than Microsoft though, because Microsoft can, when it want to, just drop support. But AMD and Intel are stuck with a hardware decision that they can’t just abandon, and so need to continue to squeeze out performance in a less ideal way.
if Apple drops OS upgrades after three years, the product is still very usable for at least two, and even three years afterwards. Most all software will still work, including upgrades, because vendors know that people keep machines after official support has ended. It’s not an all in or all out situation as you’re trying to make it out to be.
Yeh I found the watch unlocking my MacBook to be a magical moment everytime! (At least until my MacBook died. Now the magic is gone...)