Yes, but it was in the news recently that none of the software developed for win x86 would be compatible with the ARM version of windows 8.
Without a recompile, sure - but I would hope that Microsoft would have a universal binary strategy in mind like Apple did for 68K/PowerPC/Intel
Granted, they won't be able to have the luxury of a Rosetta emulation to emulate Intel on ARM since ARM is typically not as beefy as the Intel stuff, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing anyway - look how long it took for people to finally abandon PowerPC code; Apple dropping Rosetta in Lion and people are still pitching a fit
Microsoft has no history of developing an operating system on something other than Intel.
Er, Windows NT 4 was on PowerPC (similar but not the same as Apple's PowerPC, more close to IBM's POWER Unix boxes) and there is a current Itanium version of Windows so Microsoft has a demonstrated history of supporting multiple hardware architectures.
It's not as clean, nice or polished as Apple's approach - but really is that a surprise at this point?
EDIT: And MIPS. They also supported MIPS. I forgot about that! I think Tivo is the last box shipping with a MIPS core.... good times.... Architectures supported in NT 4...
Those fat binaries aren't that big in comparison to the rest of the app. Keeping the non-needed binaries from the system code could save a little space, but the comparatively few apps people are likely to load from the MAS tell me that Apple wouldn't even bother.
I dunno - Windows 7 has some cool background processes that keep their consolidated code store cleaned out - I could see Apple doing something similar if we get back to multi-architecture reality. Every bit counts with these SSDs!
A version of Windows 8 will run on ARM processors. We know no details. It could be as seamless as Mac OSX with PowerPC/Intel, or it could fee like a totally different OS. Until at least a beta shows saying that "Windows 8 is going to run on ARM" is kind of meaningless at this point.
Did Apple learn from the PowerPC fiasco? We need x86 compatibility with the 97% of the world, and that means Intel chips inside Macs!
The world is a much different place today, and Windows compatibility is far less an issue as it was then. Just look at the influx of new applications with iOS and the Mac App store - it's just the tip of the iceberg.
While bootcamp is nice, I sure as heck didn't base my purchasing decisions solely on it's existence, and I doubt there are many who will.
Probably fewer than those who go on about the lack of Matte displays
I can see Apple coming out with a notebook similar to a Chrome notebook from Google that runs iOS and has a keyboard and trackpad and is based around iCloud. I think this would fill a nitch market between the Mac and iPad...
I cannot see the majority of the Mac models moving away from Intel chips. If I ( and many other Mac users) could not run Virtual x86 PC's I would have drop Apple computer products from any consideration period....!!!!
An emulator will NEVER be fast enough in my lifetime to even attempt to use in a work environment....
I can also see a hybrid MacBook Air that has both and ARM in the iPad like detachable screen and an Intel processor in a docking station that you plug an iPad like device into. When you are traveling it can act like an iPad to conserve battery and still give you access to the web, emails, iOS apps, etc.... Then you can dock it and turn on the Intel processor to do some real work.....
You're joking right? Apple isn't a processor company
No, they aren't - that's why they licensed the design from ARM - who is a world-class processor company
What Apple excels at is integration. With the ability to license a reference design and create a chip that meets their exact specifications they can optimize for functionality and capabilities (be they size, power or heck even price) that competitors can't match.
Hmm... What would be very interesting is if Apple becomes the first licensee for Intel much like they license from ARM so they can produce their own custom X86 chips. That would be highly desirable for Apple, allowing them to optimize for their needs while making it impossible for a competitor to follow them by just slapping together the same commodity parts.
MIPS, which they eventually acquired. Not sure who owns them now...
Quote:
Motorola's RISC was the merchant 88000.
Apple had an A/UX box that was a cube server that ran those. The 88000's were cool chips, but Motorola stalled out on them.
Quote:
A book was written about Data General's development of its 88000-based AViiON midrange.
A government agency I worked for in the late 80's had scads of them. Cheaper than SUN, faster than anything else and very easy to maintain. Very futuristic white cabinets too
Quote:
IBM had invented RISC. The Power PC was a one-chip implementation of its POWER architecture.
Yup, Power was originally four chips if memory serves...
Quote:
Intel processors run in 32-bit mode or 64-bit mode.
And are a nightmare of registers and state changes. If it wasn't for their design group in Israel that came up with NetBurst AMD would have cleaned their clock. The original Pentium 4's were a disaster - hot and slow. A great combination!
That Intel has managed to keep the gawd-awful x86 architecture alive and competitive for as long as they have is the real marvel.
Quote:
Without question, the ability to run Windows natively on a Mac has brought some new customers to the platform. However, Windows is now on the decline. The Intel processor is just not that important to Windows because Windows is not that important.
Apples success directly correlates with them switching to Intel.
Apple's success directly correlates with them releasing the iPod and then iPhone and now iPad and the halo effect from those devices.
Yup, Windows compatibility was icing on the cake, but I doubt if Apple had stayed PowerPC that their growth would have been that different. It just doesn't matter to most people.
And no, those of us posting in forums discussing "inside baseball" topics like this are not the definition of "most people"
I'd love to see a new Mac that has BTO for AMD Bulldozer/APU options.
If it's faster, runs cooler and cheaper then maybe. Then again I'm sure Apple gets some pretty good concessions from Intel for staying Intel-only, even though they refuse to advertise for Intel like most manufacturers.
1. The only thing at risk is the Mac Pro, since its form of PCI-E is somewhat architecture dependent. Thunderbolt is not.
2. Apple is NOT dropping x86 architecture.
3. When the hardware is known, x86 can be emulated faster than an actual x86 processor. The hardware emulation is the most complex part.
4. Apple wants control over its destiny. They will not allow themselves to be handcuffed to Intel, regardless of what they do.
5. Intel's UltraBook initiative was precisely the wrong thing to do if they want to keep Apple as a customer. Apple can't be scared into line. However, they can be scared into ensuring they have alternatives.
Better that Apple buy AMD and innovate the X86 architecture than to move to a wholly new platform.
Yes, besides, if AMD had half of Intel's cash they would have 100% better performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
Apple needs to remember. Though the profits are low for the likes of Dell/HP/Lenovo, etc, the intel/windows machines outsell Macs by a wide margin. When Apple has a good quarter selling 5M macs, the Windows world will still sell 95M.
Dell/Hp/Lenovo (idea___/essential lines)/acer/some of toshiba/other small random manufactures sell for little.
Lenovo cost a lot if you want a real Lenovo (think line)
Yeha I guess it?s a coincidence that Apple was basically dead before they switched over to Intel. Switching to Intel was a HUGE step for apple. ...
It is probably a bigger coincidence that you have no idea what you are talking about. You may have been born yesterday, but many of us have been around just a bit longer. Apple switched to Intel in 2006. This was ten (10) years after Steve Jobs's return to Apple. The product manifestation of Apple's comeback began with the the original iMac in 1999, some seven (7) years prior to the Intel transition. The OS manifestation of Apple's comeback was the release of MacOS X 10.0 in 2001, some five (5) years prior to the Intel transition.
Apple's was already doing quite well when it initiated the Intel transition. Without question, it has done even better since then. After Apple walked away, IBM begged it to return. Had Apple been in the bad shape that you claim, then IBM would have said "Good riddance to bad trash."
Since Apple adopted Intel, Apple introduced the iPhone (2007) and the iPad (2010). Perhaps, you have heard of them? Neither of these devices use Intel processors, but they are the products that put rocket boosters under Apple's fortunes.
To the extent that Intel is responsible for Apple's current success, I would argue that it was not Intel's processors, but Intel's connection technology that played a huge role. Specifically, Intel's USB technology in the original iMac. Apple was the first OEM that abandoned its older connection technology in favor of USB and Ethernet.
The iMac not only revitalized the Mac, but it also saved USB. This pretty blue computer began a march by Apple to the largest capitalized company in America.
Transitions take awhile. Remember it will also support x86_32 and x86_64 which has plenty of apps -AND- MS will offer an app store for Win8. You can't make a cartel without breaking a few heads? or something like that.
At least not with and anything resembling reasonable performance.
He did say 'some of the Macs'. It would make sense for Apple to keep some Intel based Macs but the vast majority of users don't want Windows. Having said that I'd hope VMWare could come up with a VM for the new CPU for at the very least OS X itself as it has now on Intel (if not iOS in a VM ... might be fun - kind of like the iOS SDK).
The extra control, tight integration and heck, profits, make this a no brainer for at least some Macs or 'other' Apple product yet to be revealed IMHO.
Yeah but that will introduce fragmentation. I don't expect all the software for Intel-based Macs will be available for A4-based Macs, not initially anyway, and some of it not at all. In addition, I don't really see the gain - will it not make such computers, basically, an iPads with keyboards?
I think Apple will rather release such thing - an iPad in Air form, and target it against netbooks - especially Google's Chrome OS based netbooks... but Pros', I'm expecting to see them on Intel hardware for quite some time.
Comments
Yes, but it was in the news recently that none of the software developed for win x86 would be compatible with the ARM version of windows 8.
Without a recompile, sure - but I would hope that Microsoft would have a universal binary strategy in mind like Apple did for 68K/PowerPC/Intel
Granted, they won't be able to have the luxury of a Rosetta emulation to emulate Intel on ARM since ARM is typically not as beefy as the Intel stuff, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing anyway - look how long it took for people to finally abandon PowerPC code; Apple dropping Rosetta in Lion and people are still pitching a fit
Microsoft has no history of developing an operating system on something other than Intel.
Er, Windows NT 4 was on PowerPC (similar but not the same as Apple's PowerPC, more close to IBM's POWER Unix boxes) and there is a current Itanium version of Windows so Microsoft has a demonstrated history of supporting multiple hardware architectures.
It's not as clean, nice or polished as Apple's approach - but really is that a surprise at this point?
EDIT: And MIPS. They also supported MIPS. I forgot about that! I think Tivo is the last box shipping with a MIPS core.... good times.... Architectures supported in NT 4...
Those fat binaries aren't that big in comparison to the rest of the app. Keeping the non-needed binaries from the system code could save a little space, but the comparatively few apps people are likely to load from the MAS tell me that Apple wouldn't even bother.
I dunno - Windows 7 has some cool background processes that keep their consolidated code store cleaned out - I could see Apple doing something similar if we get back to multi-architecture reality. Every bit counts with these SSDs!
Windows 8 is going to run on ARM processors...
A version of Windows 8 will run on ARM processors. We know no details. It could be as seamless as Mac OSX with PowerPC/Intel, or it could fee like a totally different OS. Until at least a beta shows saying that "Windows 8 is going to run on ARM" is kind of meaningless at this point.
Did Apple learn from the PowerPC fiasco? We need x86 compatibility with the 97% of the world, and that means Intel chips inside Macs!
The world is a much different place today, and Windows compatibility is far less an issue as it was then. Just look at the influx of new applications with iOS and the Mac App store - it's just the tip of the iceberg.
While bootcamp is nice, I sure as heck didn't base my purchasing decisions solely on it's existence, and I doubt there are many who will.
Probably fewer than those who go on about the lack of Matte displays
I cannot see the majority of the Mac models moving away from Intel chips. If I ( and many other Mac users) could not run Virtual x86 PC's I would have drop Apple computer products from any consideration period....!!!!
An emulator will NEVER be fast enough in my lifetime to even attempt to use in a work environment....
I can also see a hybrid MacBook Air that has both and ARM in the iPad like detachable screen and an Intel processor in a docking station that you plug an iPad like device into. When you are traveling it can act like an iPad to conserve battery and still give you access to the web, emails, iOS apps, etc.... Then you can dock it and turn on the Intel processor to do some real work.....
This would actually be a be pretty cool.....
You're joking right? Apple isn't a processor company
No, they aren't - that's why they licensed the design from ARM - who is a world-class processor company
What Apple excels at is integration. With the ability to license a reference design and create a chip that meets their exact specifications they can optimize for functionality and capabilities (be they size, power or heck even price) that competitors can't match.
Hmm... What would be very interesting is if Apple becomes the first licensee for Intel much like they license from ARM so they can produce their own custom X86 chips. That would be highly desirable for Apple, allowing them to optimize for their needs while making it impossible for a competitor to follow them by just slapping together the same commodity parts.
This could be fun...
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...years_end.html
It makes sense for people who have iPad or iPhone and want a "netbook" type of laptop running an Apple OS, in this case maybe both OSX and iOS.
Silicon Graphics had its own.
MIPS, which they eventually acquired. Not sure who owns them now...
Motorola's RISC was the merchant 88000.
Apple had an A/UX box that was a cube server that ran those. The 88000's were cool chips, but Motorola stalled out on them.
A book was written about Data General's development of its 88000-based AViiON midrange.
A government agency I worked for in the late 80's had scads of them. Cheaper than SUN, faster than anything else and very easy to maintain. Very futuristic white cabinets too
IBM had invented RISC. The Power PC was a one-chip implementation of its POWER architecture.
Yup, Power was originally four chips if memory serves...
Intel processors run in 32-bit mode or 64-bit mode.
And are a nightmare of registers and state changes. If it wasn't for their design group in Israel that came up with NetBurst AMD would have cleaned their clock. The original Pentium 4's were a disaster - hot and slow. A great combination!
That Intel has managed to keep the gawd-awful x86 architecture alive and competitive for as long as they have is the real marvel.
Without question, the ability to run Windows natively on a Mac has brought some new customers to the platform. However, Windows is now on the decline. The Intel processor is just not that important to Windows because Windows is not that important.
Exactly. Excellent post - I rather enjoyed it!
Apples success directly correlates with them switching to Intel.
Apple's success directly correlates with them releasing the iPod and then iPhone and now iPad and the halo effect from those devices.
Yup, Windows compatibility was icing on the cake, but I doubt if Apple had stayed PowerPC that their growth would have been that different. It just doesn't matter to most people.
And no, those of us posting in forums discussing "inside baseball" topics like this are not the definition of "most people"
I'd love to see a new Mac that has BTO for AMD Bulldozer/APU options.
If it's faster, runs cooler and cheaper then maybe. Then again I'm sure Apple gets some pretty good concessions from Intel for staying Intel-only, even though they refuse to advertise for Intel like most manufacturers.
I wouldn't hold my breath
Good joke
made in america, that is a strange concept
2. Apple is NOT dropping x86 architecture.
3. When the hardware is known, x86 can be emulated faster than an actual x86 processor. The hardware emulation is the most complex part.
4. Apple wants control over its destiny. They will not allow themselves to be handcuffed to Intel, regardless of what they do.
5. Intel's UltraBook initiative was precisely the wrong thing to do if they want to keep Apple as a customer. Apple can't be scared into line. However, they can be scared into ensuring they have alternatives.
Better that Apple buy AMD and innovate the X86 architecture than to move to a wholly new platform.
Yes, besides, if AMD had half of Intel's cash they would have 100% better performance.
Apple needs to remember. Though the profits are low for the likes of Dell/HP/Lenovo, etc, the intel/windows machines outsell Macs by a wide margin. When Apple has a good quarter selling 5M macs, the Windows world will still sell 95M.
Dell/Hp/Lenovo (idea___/essential lines)/acer/some of toshiba/other small random manufactures sell for little.
Lenovo cost a lot if you want a real Lenovo (think line)
Did Apple learn from the PowerPC fiasco? We need x86 compatibility with the 97% of the world, and that means Intel chips inside Macs!
No, it doesn't.
There's still AMD. Granted, there would be some heat/performance tradeoffs, but Apple could have x86 compatibility without using Intel chips.
Isn't Windows 8 supposedly being designed to run on ARM processors? If so maybe bootcamp and virtualization software could endure.
Those legacy apps would be i86 only.
Yeha I guess it?s a coincidence that Apple was basically dead before they switched over to Intel. Switching to Intel was a HUGE step for apple. ...
It is probably a bigger coincidence that you have no idea what you are talking about. You may have been born yesterday, but many of us have been around just a bit longer. Apple switched to Intel in 2006. This was ten (10) years after Steve Jobs's return to Apple. The product manifestation of Apple's comeback began with the the original iMac in 1999, some seven (7) years prior to the Intel transition. The OS manifestation of Apple's comeback was the release of MacOS X 10.0 in 2001, some five (5) years prior to the Intel transition.
Apple's was already doing quite well when it initiated the Intel transition. Without question, it has done even better since then. After Apple walked away, IBM begged it to return. Had Apple been in the bad shape that you claim, then IBM would have said "Good riddance to bad trash."
Since Apple adopted Intel, Apple introduced the iPhone (2007) and the iPad (2010). Perhaps, you have heard of them? Neither of these devices use Intel processors, but they are the products that put rocket boosters under Apple's fortunes.
To the extent that Intel is responsible for Apple's current success, I would argue that it was not Intel's processors, but Intel's connection technology that played a huge role. Specifically, Intel's USB technology in the original iMac. Apple was the first OEM that abandoned its older connection technology in favor of USB and Ethernet.
The iMac not only revitalized the Mac, but it also saved USB. This pretty blue computer began a march by Apple to the largest capitalized company in America.
Transitions take awhile. Remember it will also support x86_32 and x86_64 which has plenty of apps -AND- MS will offer an app store for Win8. You can't make a cartel without breaking a few heads? or something like that.
At least not with and anything resembling reasonable performance.
No more BootCamp ?
Windows 8 will run on ARM...
He did say 'some of the Macs'. It would make sense for Apple to keep some Intel based Macs but the vast majority of users don't want Windows. Having said that I'd hope VMWare could come up with a VM for the new CPU for at the very least OS X itself as it has now on Intel (if not iOS in a VM ... might be fun - kind of like the iOS SDK).
The extra control, tight integration and heck, profits, make this a no brainer for at least some Macs or 'other' Apple product yet to be revealed IMHO.
Yeah but that will introduce fragmentation. I don't expect all the software for Intel-based Macs will be available for A4-based Macs, not initially anyway, and some of it not at all. In addition, I don't really see the gain - will it not make such computers, basically, an iPads with keyboards?
I think Apple will rather release such thing - an iPad in Air form, and target it against netbooks - especially Google's Chrome OS based netbooks... but Pros', I'm expecting to see them on Intel hardware for quite some time.