I think this is inevitable and reasonable within the next few years. The A5 could probably already make a decent ultra compact laptop.
This.
And the fact that Apple/NeXT has ported this OS from 68K to Intel (92), SPARC, PA-RISC, back to PowerPC, and then to Intel again, as well as built iOS/ARM as a subset of the current OSX offering.
No one buys mac for it's emulation power... they buy it for the ability to run Mac apps. iOS is proving that it's the APPS that sell devices... and if you have some 200Million iOS users, wouldn't it be nice to have a way for those app developers and users to work with a more 'universal' binary?
With MS porting to ARM, Apple's timing makes sense, in a performance/price curve. If high end ARM chips are demanded by 300Million devices a year... the price per chipset drops... at best putting pressure on Intel/AMD to improve it's pricing/delivery, and at worst, driving the inevitable bottom up migration from phones to pads to laptops to desktops to servers to mainframes.
So with this lead time, Apple is likely just firing a shot over the bow of Intel: 'Want the 3rd largest 'pc' maker to continue using Intel chips.... Make them to our specs, at our price, and at our timeline... or run the risk of losing our business in 2 years [and remember, this is like commodities... the pricing/capacity has to be planned out 2 years in advance.... the timing of this makes total sense]'.
What is the connection between running Windows or OS X on ARM and virtualization?
Virtualization requires the same processor architecture. So an x86 version of Windows could be virtualized on an x86 version of OS X or an ARM version of WIndows could be virtualized on an ARM version of OSX. An x86 version of Windows can not be run on an ARM version of OS X though.
There is also emulation. That would allow an x86 version of Windows to run on an ARM version of OS X, but that is really slow.
You can also recompile your executables on the fly for a new architecture like with Apple's Rosetta software. That technique may not carry over to virtualization so well without heavy support from Microsoft however.
What is the connection between running Windows or OS X on ARM and virtualization?
If there already exists Windows OS code in native ARM binary format, then it should be a lot easier to virtualize. Otherwise you would need to create a whole virtual x86 emulator - a much larger task.
First you make an article on Apple switching from Samsung to Intel to create chips, then you make an article on Apple switching away from Intel on chips. I'm so amazed by how hard you try to generate clicks by trying to dip both (baseless) sides.
so...from what i understand atom (newer ones) is 2-3 times after than A5.
they are saying that ARM CPU's will be able ot make the jump from 30-40% of Atom to over I-core or Phenom (and bulldozer i believe) performance?!?? in 3 years... because they want more people to make ARM CPU's for their products, which are in super high demand VS supply.
i guess if you want 0 professional users, or higher end business users (that 5-10+ applications at once) i don't see this happening... at least not to MBP
i could imagine a weaker white MB with cheaper price-- and a merged iOS/OSX to allow it to run seemingly "fast" on a ARM CPU... otherwise i think it is BS
Atom performs poorly compared to other Intel processors on performance and poorly compared to ARM on power consumption. There is a reason Apple doesn't use it.
The ARM processors can scale horizontally. If it makes sense it will happen, otherwise it will likely only be used on the ultra portables since that is where it already performs well versus the competition.
Virtualization requires the same processor architecture. So an x86 version of Windows could be virtualized on an x86 version of OS X or an ARM version of WIndows could be virtualized on an ARM version of OSX. An x86 version of Windows can not be run on an ARM version of OS X though
Yap, I know, but Windows is not the only virtualized SO on Vmware, and I bet that even Windows XP is more used than 7
Maybe Apple has a long term plan to do this. I, however, don't see it happening anytime soon. Further, Jobs is good friends with Intel's CEO Paul Otellini. I suspect Apple would be open to using Intel as a Foundry.
ARM chip can work in a Macbook Air, in about 3-4 years. But for iMac, Mac Mini and Macbook Pro, there just isn't enough processing power to justify it.
The only way I can see a unified chip line up happening, is if Intel finally get their act together and design an x86 that can compete in the mobile arena.
Running Windows on ARM is only part of the equation. You have to have the programs compiled so they will run on ARM. That was the problem back in the days of NT running on multiple chips. The hardware and OS was there but not any of the Apps. Emulation was a poor substitute.
First you make an article on Apple switching from Samsung to Intel to create chips, then you make an article on Apple switching away from Intel on chips. I'm so amazed by how hard you try to generate clicks by trying to dip both (baseless) sides.
They're just reporting on rumours. You call it dipping both sides for most clicks, everyone-else would call it being non-partisan.
1) this could be crossed wires, I firmly believe Apple's next iOS device is a desktop, which is being mid-read as a tv and now as a mac. It will look a bit like an iMac, but way thinner and way cheaper. Perhaps the rumor source is confused.
2) consider the power consumption and footprint of an A5, why couldn't Apple put dual or even quad A6/A7 processors in a full blown Mac desktop or laptop. It not as if NeXTstep isn't portable, iOS is a stripped version of OSX.
And as a final step in point 2, why is it difficult to believe that Apple might be doing a large scale custom design of the A series. ARM chips originated on the desktop in the Acorn Archimedes and were evolved in partnership with Apple for the Newton. Scale em back up. Cluster them. GCD, OpenCL and OpenGL could handle it.
Consider Rosetta, Apple has a history of providing transitional abstraction and re-compile tools to help the likes of VMWare or whatever still run on new architecture.
Yeah, this sounds like a pretty ridiculous rumor. The ARM chips are for mobile devices and are nowhere near as powerful as the Xeon chips in a Mac Pro or the i7 chips in the iMac. I don't see Apple transitioning their desktops to an ARM chip. I even doubt Apple would put this in their laptops, especially their high-end Macbook Pro.
As well, as many have said, you lose the option of Bootcamp (dual booting MacOS X & Windows). I'm not even sure how this would impact graphics cards?
That said, cv_starkman may be on the trail of something with point #1. Maybe this is a rumor about a new Apple device being misinterpreted.
1) this could be crossed wires, I firmly believe Apple's next iOS device is a desktop, which is being mid-read as a tv and now as a mac. It will look a bit like an iMac, but way thinner and way cheaper. Perhaps the rumor source is confused.
2) consider the power consumption and footprint of an A5, why couldn't Apple put dual or even quad A6/A7 processors in a full blown Mac desktop or laptop. It not as if NeXTstep isn't portable, iOS is a stripped version of OSX.
And as a final step in point 2, why is it difficult to believe that Apple might be doing a large scale custom design of the A series. ARM chips originated on the desktop in the Acorn Archimedes and were evolved in partnership with Apple for the Newton. Scale em back up. Cluster them. GCD, OpenCL and OpenGL could handle it.
Consider Rosetta, Apple has a history of providing transitional abstraction and re-compile tools to help the likes of VMWare or whatever still run on new architecture.
I thought about Mac OS Aqua being installed on iOS (read: OS X for ARM) that would be what the Motorola Atrix tried to be, except actually functional, but that seems like a lot of crossed wires I that is the case.
With benchmark tests finding the iPad2 roughly to equal the performance of the Powerbook G4, it's already more than half way there. Future laptops... will probably be iPad Pro's.
Also, Apple is famous for not looking back, but instead looking forward. I'm sure they have great insight in the ARM vs x86 roadmaps, and their in house expertise too, for years to come.
Comments
I don't see why if Windows 8 runs on ARM.
I think this is inevitable and reasonable within the next few years. The A5 could probably already make a decent ultra compact laptop.
This.
And the fact that Apple/NeXT has ported this OS from 68K to Intel (92), SPARC, PA-RISC, back to PowerPC, and then to Intel again, as well as built iOS/ARM as a subset of the current OSX offering.
No one buys mac for it's emulation power... they buy it for the ability to run Mac apps. iOS is proving that it's the APPS that sell devices... and if you have some 200Million iOS users, wouldn't it be nice to have a way for those app developers and users to work with a more 'universal' binary?
With MS porting to ARM, Apple's timing makes sense, in a performance/price curve. If high end ARM chips are demanded by 300Million devices a year... the price per chipset drops... at best putting pressure on Intel/AMD to improve it's pricing/delivery, and at worst, driving the inevitable bottom up migration from phones to pads to laptops to desktops to servers to mainframes.
So with this lead time, Apple is likely just firing a shot over the bow of Intel: 'Want the 3rd largest 'pc' maker to continue using Intel chips.... Make them to our specs, at our price, and at our timeline... or run the risk of losing our business in 2 years [and remember, this is like commodities... the pricing/capacity has to be planned out 2 years in advance.... the timing of this makes total sense]'.
so...from what i understand atom (newer ones) is 2-3 times after than A5. ...
... which is not true and basically just marketing talk from intel.
What is the connection between running Windows or OS X on ARM and virtualization?
Virtualization requires the same processor architecture. So an x86 version of Windows could be virtualized on an x86 version of OS X or an ARM version of WIndows could be virtualized on an ARM version of OSX. An x86 version of Windows can not be run on an ARM version of OS X though.
There is also emulation. That would allow an x86 version of Windows to run on an ARM version of OS X, but that is really slow.
You can also recompile your executables on the fly for a new architecture like with Apple's Rosetta software. That technique may not carry over to virtualization so well without heavy support from Microsoft however.
What is the connection between running Windows or OS X on ARM and virtualization?
If there already exists Windows OS code in native ARM binary format, then it should be a lot easier to virtualize. Otherwise you would need to create a whole virtual x86 emulator - a much larger task.
so...from what i understand atom (newer ones) is 2-3 times after than A5.
they are saying that ARM CPU's will be able ot make the jump from 30-40% of Atom to over I-core or Phenom (and bulldozer i believe) performance?!?? in 3 years... because they want more people to make ARM CPU's for their products, which are in super high demand VS supply.
i guess if you want 0 professional users, or higher end business users (that 5-10+ applications at once) i don't see this happening... at least not to MBP
i could imagine a weaker white MB with cheaper price-- and a merged iOS/OSX to allow it to run seemingly "fast" on a ARM CPU... otherwise i think it is BS
Atom performs poorly compared to other Intel processors on performance and poorly compared to ARM on power consumption. There is a reason Apple doesn't use it.
The ARM processors can scale horizontally. If it makes sense it will happen, otherwise it will likely only be used on the ultra portables since that is where it already performs well versus the competition.
Virtualization requires the same processor architecture. So an x86 version of Windows could be virtualized on an x86 version of OS X or an ARM version of WIndows could be virtualized on an ARM version of OSX. An x86 version of Windows can not be run on an ARM version of OS X though
Yap, I know, but Windows is not the only virtualized SO on Vmware, and I bet that even Windows XP is more used than 7
So it's BS.
The only way I can see a unified chip line up happening, is if Intel finally get their act together and design an x86 that can compete in the mobile arena.
Pretty sure this would kill products like VMWare, which IMHO has encouraged a ton of sales for Mac.
VMWare runs pretty well on the iPad...
First you make an article on Apple switching from Samsung to Intel to create chips, then you make an article on Apple switching away from Intel on chips. I'm so amazed by how hard you try to generate clicks by trying to dip both (baseless) sides.
They're just reporting on rumours. You call it dipping both sides for most clicks, everyone-else would call it being non-partisan.
1) this could be crossed wires, I firmly believe Apple's next iOS device is a desktop, which is being mid-read as a tv and now as a mac. It will look a bit like an iMac, but way thinner and way cheaper. Perhaps the rumor source is confused.
2) consider the power consumption and footprint of an A5, why couldn't Apple put dual or even quad A6/A7 processors in a full blown Mac desktop or laptop. It not as if NeXTstep isn't portable, iOS is a stripped version of OSX.
And as a final step in point 2, why is it difficult to believe that Apple might be doing a large scale custom design of the A series. ARM chips originated on the desktop in the Acorn Archimedes and were evolved in partnership with Apple for the Newton. Scale em back up. Cluster them. GCD, OpenCL and OpenGL could handle it.
Consider Rosetta, Apple has a history of providing transitional abstraction and re-compile tools to help the likes of VMWare or whatever still run on new architecture.
As well, as many have said, you lose the option of Bootcamp (dual booting MacOS X & Windows). I'm not even sure how this would impact graphics cards?
That said, cv_starkman may be on the trail of something with point #1. Maybe this is a rumor about a new Apple device being misinterpreted.
Two points for the thread...
1) this could be crossed wires, I firmly believe Apple's next iOS device is a desktop, which is being mid-read as a tv and now as a mac. It will look a bit like an iMac, but way thinner and way cheaper. Perhaps the rumor source is confused.
2) consider the power consumption and footprint of an A5, why couldn't Apple put dual or even quad A6/A7 processors in a full blown Mac desktop or laptop. It not as if NeXTstep isn't portable, iOS is a stripped version of OSX.
And as a final step in point 2, why is it difficult to believe that Apple might be doing a large scale custom design of the A series. ARM chips originated on the desktop in the Acorn Archimedes and were evolved in partnership with Apple for the Newton. Scale em back up. Cluster them. GCD, OpenCL and OpenGL could handle it.
Consider Rosetta, Apple has a history of providing transitional abstraction and re-compile tools to help the likes of VMWare or whatever still run on new architecture.
I thought about Mac OS Aqua being installed on iOS (read: OS X for ARM) that would be what the Motorola Atrix tried to be, except actually functional, but that seems like a lot of crossed wires I that is the case.
Also, Apple is famous for not looking back, but instead looking forward. I'm sure they have great insight in the ARM vs x86 roadmaps, and their in house expertise too, for years to come.
VMWare runs pretty well on the iPad...
Ein? iPad doesn't do any virtualization