Apple wants to move Macs away from Intel chips - report

1246712

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 221

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sranger View Post


    If the MAC loses the ability to run Virtual Microsoft OS and I will no longer own one.....


     


    Sorry, but the reality is that the vast majority of Business still use Windows Software and will for the for seeable future....


     


    This would kill MAC sales in my opinion...



    for me too- as I look around the lab - i see 11 MBPro - including rwo retina, - a couple running win 7 bootcamp, but all needing vmware / parallels for some programs - it would end the apple system here - unless of course the new processor could run intel code at native speed

  • Reply 62 of 221
    ltmpltmp Posts: 204member
    As many others have said, I can't see Apple moving away from x86. Windows and legacy are too important right now.

    I do wonder though, if perhaps Apple has been working on custom chips on the x86 platform.

    Getting rid of excess features and streamlining for OS X might make this a compelling idea.

    I have no idea if such a thing is likely or plausible, but I kind of hope it happens.
  • Reply 63 of 221


    I seriously doubt that Apple would take the cheap route and go AMD.  They will either stick with Intel CPUs or they'll develop their own like the A series.

     

  • Reply 64 of 221
    jr_bjr_b Posts: 64member
    Big mistake.
  • Reply 65 of 221

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ulfoaf View Post



    Keeping Macs compatible with Windows should not be the major design point. The expense of running Windows on a Mac is nearly equivalent to running two computers if you truly pay for the software - the software for Windows is the major cost. You might as well just have two machines.

    It would really be nice to have someone seriously challenge the Intel architecture. Intel does not push themselves very hard to produce a better personal computing device. I am not say they do nothing. Yes, there is the "tower of babel" issue on communications and file compatibility. Right now MS Word and Excel are standards, but pretty lousy standards.


    i didn't buy retina MPP just so I could carry around another windows machine - maybe the Virtualization people are in the minority - but a long long time ago -i decided to try out mac (bought a couple of iMacs) with the knowledge that if they didnt work out - I would just put windows on them.... now apart from this business buying a lot of macs, iPhones, and almost 40 iPads, that decision has helped friends etc go apple.


    Well apple will do whatever - but they should consider the virtualization people too

  • Reply 66 of 221

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rob53 View Post



    I understand the desire to have Windows capability but I'm not so sure that would keep Apple from abandoning intel chips (which ones are we talking about, only the CPU or everything?). 


     


    I don't believe switching to AMD would break any compatibility with Windows so long as the chips were X86/X64 compatible.  Mac sales took off once you could run Windows on them.  Whether Apple still needs that compatibility is debatable, but I believe it is something Apple will think about long and hard about.  The fact that the rumor is they're moving to AMD and not their own chips is possibly evidence that they still see that Windows compatibility as important for the short term.


     


    Microsoft is releasing an ARM version of Windows for the first time, now Apple is considering AMD processors.  For me the real news is the industry is starting to drift away from Intel.  


     


  • Reply 67 of 221
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AJMonline View Post


    [...] The abiility to "Fall back" to Windows is a major selling point to businesses and a lot of consumers.  Even if they never do it, just knowing that they can allows them to take the leap.



     


    The Mac Pro towers in our graphics department have Windows on them for running Autodesk apps.  It's more convenient than having to set up additional workstations.

  • Reply 68 of 221
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ulfoaf View Post



    Keeping Macs compatible with Windows should not be the major design point. The expense of running Windows on a Mac is nearly equivalent to running two computers if you truly pay for the software - the software for Windows is the major cost. You might as well just have two machines.


     


    That's true if you're talking about a generic Windows consumer box, but not if you're talking about workstation performance machines.  The cost of running Windows on a Mac is not in the thousands of dollars.


     


    There is also the issue of working space. Separate machines means either tying up two seating positions instead of one or dealing with KVM headaches.

  • Reply 69 of 221
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Right_said_fred View Post




    Well apple will do whatever - but they should consider the virtualization people too



    I'm no virtualization expert but if Windows is running in a VM what is stopping the VM from being compatible with whatever new architecture Apple might introduce? The VM is not running on bare metal. The people who want to boot directly into Windows are the ones who will face incompatibilities. The VM people will just have to wait for an update to the software. Not knowing how VM software actually works, I'm guessing that perhaps there might be an advantage to running on x86 instruction set but as along as the CPU has enough power to emulate then I can see it not being a huge issue.

  • Reply 70 of 221
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,692member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by willgonz View Post



    This would be a huge mistake as Mac Sales have gone up since the switch to Intel.


     


    Mac sales have gone up since I put a new roof on my house, too. Do you think if I change my roof again sales will be affected? I mean, it happened last time.

  • Reply 71 of 221
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    Again, I'll take a wait and see attitude though I like Intel's future plans so I see myself shifting away from Apple down the line if this is true.
  • Reply 72 of 221

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by v5v View Post


     


    That's true if you're talking about a generic Windows consumer box, but not if you're talking about workstation performance machines.  The cost of running Windows on a Mac is not in the thousands of dollars.


     


    There is also the issue of working space. Separate machines means either tying up two seating positions instead of one or dealing with KVM headaches.



    Workstation performance machines?  what are those?  What % of the market buys those?  Radiologists?  Physicists? Stock Traders? Developers?


    Is a 15" MacProRD a Workstation class machine?


     


    If you look at Mac Minis, and iMacs, they fall out of that definition...  Even MacBookPros fall out due to lack of connectivity and screen support (I'm assuming a peripheral bus).   


     


    if just the Mac Pro, At this point, Apple I think has NOT spoken volumes... either they don't care, or Intel is killing them with missed deadlines or chip costs or both.


     


     


    a vast (I would gather 80%) of PCs don't require anything more than Office/Web and 1 corporate app (if 20% of the world are doctors, traders and programmers on all their desktops, I would be quite surprised).  The better model is a VDI for that one app, and in 5 years most desktops can be Windows free (other than corporate standard).   I'm sure apple sees this trend.

  • Reply 73 of 221

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mvigod View Post


     ..Steve Jobs brought Intel back and that was a bold and smart move...



    Back?  I thought Macs started with Motorola chips.  What am I missing?

  • Reply 74 of 221
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by willgonz View Post



    This would be a huge mistake as Mac Sales have gone up since the switch to Intel.


     


    Mac sales have gone up since I put a new roof on my house, too. Do you think if I change my roof again sales will be affected? I mean, it happened last time.



    Well, when / if Apple replaces Intel I say you should replace your roof at the same time just to make sure.

  • Reply 75 of 221


    You must be living on another planet. About 99 percent of all businesses use Windows.


    Therefore by extension if you own a MAC computer and want to work from home and connect to your company'sWindows only world the only way to do that on a MAC is to use Parallels or Boot Camp.

  • Reply 76 of 221


    Originally Posted by Arthur123 View Post

    You must be living on another planet. About 99 percent of all businesses use Windows.


     


    No.







    Therefore by extension if you own a MAC computer and want to work from home and connect to your company'sWindows only world the only way to do that on a MAC is to use Parallels or Boot Camp.




     


    Mac. And no, that's completely wrong.

  • Reply 77 of 221
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Mac Pro (Early 2013) will be run on two A6 chips. Clocked at a whopping 1.4GHz and utilizing a full 2GB of RAM, they'll be the powerhouse that no one wanted. But thin!


     



     


    Funny, but not unprecedented.  Apple sacrificed cost-effective storage just to make the RMBP thinner.


     


     


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Joking aside, I do like that Apple's getting into chip design themselves. Years ago, I imagined that doing that would be the final step in truly optimizing a hardware-software ecosystem.


     



     


    I'm less excited by that notion than I might once have been.  Apple's recent attempts at re-inventing the wheel haven't been exactly smooth so I'm afraid of a product that can't have its "growing pains" patched with software.  (Speaking of that, has anyone else found that iMessage is not doing a very good job of staying in sync between Mac and iPhone?)


     


    Besides, I imagine there's gotta be a big difference between designing a chip capable of running a telephone-level computer and one that can replace a Xeon.  That doesn't mean they CAN'T, but might mean not YET.  Then again, they didn't let lack of readiness stop them from releasing Maps, so who knows? :)

  • Reply 78 of 221
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    mvigod wrote: »
    wow! This would be a horrific move for Apple.  The PowerPC was one of the biggest blunders Apple ever made.  Intel leads in chip design and performance but more importantly they have the best manufacturing capability.  You can't sell computers if you cannot get chips made.  The PowerPC era which many here may not remember was riddled with lack of R&D and huge supply constraints. Apple was held hostage by this.

    I think the problem was having chip design partners that had their own fabs. Apple might not have had the clout or money then to buy out those designs and shop them out to other fabs. Now they should have the ability to design their own chips and shop it to anyone with adequate facilities. They still would have to pay patent and licensing fees to whatever subcomponents they use, but it could give them a fair amount of freedom.

    I won't say this is likely, but there is some plausibility there. I recall that Apple did buy a PPC company that designed its own CPUs from scratch, and they're having a customized design of their own made for them.
  • Reply 79 of 221
    dshandshan Posts: 53member
    The problem is that switching to AMD buys Apple little, a smaller less advanced chip designer for their Macs (though there might be potential for some models of Macs to use AMD chips, e.g. Future models of the Air), and switching away from x86 altogether loses them the Windows compatibility that has helped them convince many to switch from Windows and thus boosted Mac sales considerably.

    The most likely non-x86 choice is ARM of course and while that is great for portable devices it's not competitive performance-wise for desktop or laptop computers (particularly running x86 binaries as it would have to do until ARM-native Mac apps appeared). Forcing Mac users into a *third* architecture switch would be risky and would seem to offer them no performance or technology advantages (though it might well have economic advantages for Apple) over the current x86 world, so why do it?
  • Reply 80 of 221

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Arthur123 View Post


    You must be living on another planet. About 99 percent of all businesses use Windows.


    Therefore by extension if you own a MAC computer and want to work from home and connect to your company'sWindows only world the only way to do that on a MAC is to use Parallels or Boot Camp.



    What you're really saying is, 99% of corp disk is a NTFS disk, and 99% of network authentication and access management is AD managed (likely not true).  


     


    From my seat (desktop config management),  almost all have or are  moving to Web App development in house.   Microsoft itself said that in 10 years it won't release a Windows compiled version of Office, and will be actively selling Office365.com to all businesses, either as a hosted solution or an inhouse served web solution.


     


    Again, if you're a developer, or a physician or a rocket scientist, you can leave the room.  Most people in the corporation need a place to send email, plink spreadsheets, and build powerpoint, and run the corporate timesheet, and the 1 or 2 apps that their business does.  VDI is actually a better solution for most of the VDI (more secure, easier to provision and scale).


     


    Oracle, SAP and most of your enterprise vendors are saying the same thing.  The reason: Mobile apps and Cloud.  they need to get a app/HTML5 solution that is not Windows based, lest their competitors beat them to the game.


     


    If Apple can build a midrange desktop computer for $400 that is better than Lenovo or Dell, and is tightly integrated with iOS apps (like can just run them), then I think they would be in first mover space back into the enterprise, again, by a consumer (BYODesktop) movement driving the need.

Sign In or Register to comment.