As I understand it, the Intel x86 CISC code is translated by a proprietary execution time process into RISC code, which is then executed. I would seem that the resulting RISC code could readily be emulated (or executed directly) on an ARM chip. This would appear to put Intel in a position to take advantage of ARM Architecture if it suited them -- possibly for a large customer such as Apple.
However, there is a strong likelihood that Intel will never do this.
I do like the idea of a "new" separate non-Mac product line is somewhere between a Mac and an iPad -- that runs legacy Mac and iPad software (Laughs to self -- 2.5 year old legacy iPad apps). Google seems to think there is a market for a ChromeBook with only web apps -- IMO, there would be a bigger market for devices like this.
I also like the idea of putting off compilation and linking of code as long as possible -- ideally to when it is being installed on a device.
The "new" product line would open up many opportunities to tailor both the hardware and the software to the jobs at hand -- a custom user appliance...
For example, I want to run FCP X on a large touch tablet (like a drafting table) and have the ability to tilt it up as an easel for pressure sensitive pen/brush painting. This appliance likely would do these jobs acceptably -- without need for an external kb or mouse (Onscreen kb when necessary).
A programmer might have a similar setup with the tablet in vertical position for storyboarding, but writing code with an external kb and mouse.
Either of these use cases could be taken mobile with a smaller tablet or laptop, then ultimately presented to a large screen through something Mirrored AirPlay.
It's up to the licensee to decide. The Cortex-A57 core scales "beyond 16 cores".
AMD has announced intends to put crazy amounts of these cores in systems glued together with interconnect they purchased from SeaMicro.
AMD's Opteron branded ARM based processors will be available in 2014.
AMD, Nvidia, APM and others have been working on high performance 64-bit ARM processors for computationally intensive systems.
There is the possibility that Apple could be first to market.
WWDC2013 will be interesting. Perhaps they will start with the Mac Pro?
Well Tim Cook did say Apple has something very exciting next year for the Pro market, WWDC would be my best guess as to when they will introduce it. Makes sense.
@jwsmiths Your points are valid. But at this point it is just a recompile (simple view) for an app. If you have an app in the Mac App Store I could see Apple saying that by this date you better have binaries (leading to larger file sizes I assume) that support both 86 and Arm or your app gets pulled. If you see MS Office make it to the MAS, watch out in a few years. I would bet Apple is betting they know best.
As I understand it, the Intel x86 CISC code is translated by a proprietary execution time process into RISC code, which is then executed. I would seem that the resulting RISC code could readily be emulated (or executed directly) on an ARM chip. This would appear to put Intel in a position to take advantage of ARM Architecture if it suited them -- possibly for a large customer such as Apple.
That sort of tranlation is done internally in hardware on Intels processors. To do that on an ARM chip would burn much of the power savings they garner from being a RISC chip in the first place.
However, there is a strong likelihood that Intel will never do this.
Hard to tell. I really believe Intel could come on hard times if they don't get their act together. They had this beautiful chance to turn ATOM into a strong competitor to ARMS RISC based machines and blew it. I mean really AMD does better on older processes with BRAZOS.
I do like the idea of a "new" separate non-Mac product line is somewhere between a Mac and an iPad -- that runs legacy Mac and iPad software (Laughs to self -- 2.5 year old legacy iPad apps). Google seems to think there is a market for a ChromeBook with only web apps -- IMO, there would be a bigger market for devices like this.
I believe the market is there, especially if Apple can drip a couple hundred off the retail price of an AIR like laptop and deliver similar performance. Mind you these would not be machines to compete with the current Macs and the established user base, but rather machines that would serve the same sort of people that find iPads useful.
I also like the idea of putting off compilation and linking of code as long as possible -- ideally to when it is being installed on a device.
Compiling at installation time does have a certain appeal, especially with the rapid advancement of computing hardware. Take iPad for example, initial reports are pretty good but I would imagine none of the apps tested so far have been specifically compiled for that architecture. Another round of software updates would likely eek out a bit more in the way of performance on iPad 4.
The "new" product line would open up many opportunities to tailor both the hardware and the software to the jobs at hand -- a custom user appliance...
As long as the OS is open enough that we don't suffer from some of the iOS "problems". I had to quote "problems" there because I like my iPad and iOS the way it is now, but on a laptop or desktop I really need the access and programming freedom that only a more open OS can provide.
For example, I want to run FCP X on a large touch tablet (like a drafting table) and have the ability to tilt it up as an easel for pressure sensitive pen/brush painting. This appliance likely would do these jobs acceptably -- without need for an external kb or mouse (Onscreen kb when necessary).
Honestly I don't see this happening. That is some apps just don't translate well into Touch apps. There of course is lots of variability here.
A programmer might have a similar setup with the tablet in vertical position for storyboarding, but writing code with an external kb and mouse.
Programming is one use that I think highlights the futility of a Touch transition. Programmers amongst other professionals need a different approach. Voice input for one but more so a different higher level abstraction of software is needed. Maybe a sixth or seventh generation approach to apps that combines with Touch is possible but i've seen nothing yet.
Either of these use cases could be taken mobile with a smaller tablet or laptop, then ultimately presented to a large screen through something Mirrored AirPlay.
I long for the day when a persons interaction with a computer is at a higher level than we have today. Siri is one step forward and two back, that sort of intelligence needs to be part of the OS sitting right in your machine. Maybe Apple is working on that!
You are right about one thing and a feature I think Apple is missing big time, tablets need to interact far better with desktop machines. Or maybe I should say primary computers.
It's up to the licensee to decide. The Cortex-A57 core scales "beyond 16 cores".
Just imagine an iPad with just four of these cores! To go a step further imagine these cores built on a sub 20nm process capable of running at 4GHz at todays power levels. couple that with 4GB or more of RAM in an iPad. Sweet dreams!
AMD has announced intends to put crazy amounts of these cores in systems glued together with interconnect they purchased from SeaMicro.
AMD's Opteron branded ARM based processors will be available in 2014.
This is absolutely huge! Think about it folks AMD is basically saying i86 is dead. Admittedly they need a way to counter Intels multi core agenda but for server duties cores mean more than anything else.
AMD, Nvidia, APM and others have been working on high performance 64-bit ARM processors for computationally intensive systems.
You forgot to put Apple in there! Seriously Apple probably has more engineers working on 64bit ARM solutions than anybody. 64 bit hardware gives tablets the ability to grow for the foreseeable future. Beyond that the recent management shake up puts a very capable leader in charge of semiconductor development. Apple obviously has a strategy here that hasn't been completely revealed yet.
There is the possibility that Apple could be first to market.
I wouldn't be surprised one bit.
WWDC2013 will be interesting. Perhaps they will start with the Mac Pro?
er no I don't think that would happen at all. Remember the whole point of the Mac Pro is to service the Pro market. They can't afford to do anything other than to concentrate on i86 performance until the ARM market is more fully established.
I don't know about desktops but I can definitely see it coming on laptops. Or another way you can look at it is that Pro machines (Mac Pro, 27" iMac, MB Pro) may remain X86-based and consumer line (iOS devices, MB Air, 21" iMac) could go ARM-based.
I don't expect it to work out like this at all if it means the necessity to compile different versions of an application. That would most likely drive developers away. A long term transition could happen, but it would still be dependent on ARM's long term performance. Apple may have existing R&D in this area, but some of you see it as too much of a foregone conclusion. I'd wait to see how things develop. An interesting point would be that if ARM is significantly cheaper, you could see a portion of those costs allocated elsewhere, even if they do opt to use a portion of it to increase margins. I'd expect things like the higher resolution displays (I hate Apple's term) to become a normal feature within the lineup. It could enable them to go more aggressive on their $999 notebook while retaining margins. A 64GB ssd in 2012 really is a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
The "new" product line would open up many opportunities to tailor both the hardware and the software to the jobs at hand -- a custom user appliance...
For example, I want to run FCP X on a large touch tablet (like a drafting table) and have the ability to tilt it up as an easel for pressure sensitive pen/brush painting. This appliance likely would do these jobs acceptably -- without need for an external kb or mouse (Onscreen kb when necessary).
A programmer might have a similar setup with the tablet in vertical position for storyboarding, but writing code with an external kb and mouse.
Either of these use cases could be taken mobile with a smaller tablet or laptop, then ultimately presented to a large screen through something Mirrored AirPlay.
I'd like to see more things like the cintiq Wacom has pretty much owned that market for many years. Their drivers used to be great. Now they seem to encounter frequent driver bugs, and every damn hardware generation has seen a major design flaw. I've only avoided the cintiq line due to complaints of bad pixels and 15 working day warranty service times + shipping. I use a large intuos instead. Even in those, the 3s had a cord pinch issue and used cheap cables. The 4s had terrible soldering on the usb cables and were prone to failure along with surface wear issues. The 5s no longer have user replaceable surface sheets. I typically go through one a year. In the past it was just peel one off and put the next one on. If Apple came out with something similar, I'd buy it on the first set of stable drivers. They're not 100% consistent, but it's much easier to get repair/warranty service than with wacom. One of the nice things with the workflow you describe is that it feels far more natural. Your hand movement corresponds precisely with the cursor path if it's set up well. It alleviates a lot of the annoying issues with large LCD displays paired with significantly smaller graphics tablets sitting in front of them. It would also potentially attract a much more mainstream audience.
The problem with making ARM based "Macintoshes" is that unless it can utilize a translation technology like "Rosetta" people won't be able to run their old software and the user experience won't be pleasant. Maybe I could see an ARM based MacBook Air (maybe even with touch screen to bridge the iPad experience) but an ARM based iMac that couldn't run Office, most games, Aperture, Photoshop, etc. would not likely make many customers happy. Maybe a laptop and a Mac mini-like HTPC that was ARM based would be a good way to start?
Using Rosetta on the much faster Intel over the aging PPC worked well but I question that is even possible for emulating x86_64 architecture on ARM, regardless if it's 64-bit or not. I'd be very surprised at this point to hear about any such transition.
Perhaps once Mac App Store apps become overwhelmingly common for the most used apps on Mac OS X will that even make sense as they then could have Xcode compile Universal fat binaries for ARM_64, but a lot will have to change before now and 2014.
I'm using OS X 10.5.8 and already Flash isn't being updated for it, neither is iTunes. Apple and other software manufacturers are willing to leave old programs behind. Apple needs to just take the best technology and run with it.
I must keep my Leopard OS because a particular program I run wasn't updated beyond Leopard. Thus my 2008 Mac Book will be with me for a long time. For other things I'll use newer machines.
I'm certain that Android will take advantage of these new 64 bit systems. Legacy software can be run on old machines. Let the new machines employ more engineers to create the necessary programs to run on the new platforms.
Apple learned that if you lower the price of the OS more people will buy it. If only they would apply that to their hardware.
If Apple keeps up their current pace, I guess we'll be seeing this in the iPad 7 or iPad 8.
iPad 3, iPad 4 = 2012
iPad 5, IPad 6 = 2013
iPad 7, iPad 8 = 2014
Why do you think Apple plans to release 2 generations of iPad each year?
Remember, this year the iPad 3 came out as a Retina version of iPad 2, probably due to not having the A6 ready to mass production. So, it means Apple hasn't made 2 processor-generations per year. They used the CPU of last year with more GPU power for the screen.
Do you expect another, higher screen resolution in 2013 and 2014?
I don't expect it to work out like this at all if it means the necessity to compile different versions of an application. That would most likely drive developers away. A long term transition could happen, but it would still be dependent on ARM's long term performance. Apple may have existing R&D in this area, but some of you see it as too much of a foregone conclusion. I'd wait to see how things develop. An interesting point would be that if ARM is significantly cheaper, you could see a portion of those costs allocated elsewhere, even if they do opt to use a portion of it to increase margins. I'd expect things like the higher resolution displays (I hate Apple's term) to become a normal feature within the lineup. It could enable them to go more aggressive on their $999 notebook while retaining margins. A 64GB ssd in 2012 really is a joke.
I'd like to see more things like the cintiq Wacom has pretty much owned that market for many years. Their drivers used to be great. Now they seem to encounter frequent driver bugs, and every damn hardware generation has seen a major design flaw. I've only avoided the cintiq line due to complaints of bad pixels and 15 working day warranty service times + shipping. I use a large intuos instead. Even in those, the 3s had a cord pinch issue and used cheap cables. The 4s had terrible soldering on the usb cables and were prone to failure along with surface wear issues. The 5s no longer have user replaceable surface sheets. I typically go through one a year. In the past it was just peel one off and put the next one on. If Apple came out with something similar, I'd buy it on the first set of stable drivers. They're not 100% consistent, but it's much easier to get repair/warranty service than with wacom. One of the nice things with the workflow you describe is that it feels far more natural. Your hand movement corresponds precisely with the cursor path if it's set up well. It alleviates a lot of the annoying issues with large LCD displays paired with significantly smaller graphics tablets sitting in front of them. It would also potentially attract a much more mainstream audience.
"I don't expect it to work out like this at all if it means the necessity to compile different versions of an application. That would most likely drive developers away."
On Windows 8, if a developer developers a Metro / Windows 8 UI app, not only will that app work on Windows 8 tablets, desktops, laptops, but that app will work just the same, regardless if the device has an ARM or x86 processor. No changes needed. The WinRT run-time layer takes care of all the plumbing. Easy for developers. If MS can do it for their Metro apps, Apple can do it for their iOS / Mac App store apps.
Unless they want to put in several of these on a desktop, it won't feature on one for at least in another 3 years time. Maybe they could test it on Apple TV first, you know... that's basically a good testbed considering how it is being used. Processing/decoding, serving and portable. Maybe then we could get proper game apps there.
"I don't expect it to work out like this at all if it means the necessity to compile different versions of an application. That would most likely drive developers away."
On Windows 8, if a developer developers a Metro / Windows 8 UI app, not only will that app work on Windows 8 tablets, desktops, laptops, but that app will work just the same, regardless if the device has an ARM or x86 processor. No changes needed. The WinRT run-time layer takes care of all the plumbing. Easy for developers. If MS can do it for their Metro apps, Apple can do it for their iOS / Mac App store apps.
They could do that, but they'd rather not.
Apple believes that app should be optimised for the platform they're running on (tablet or desktop). MS knows that to gain traction they must make life as easy for the developer as possible, even if it means compromising the end user experience.
Why do you think Apple plans to release 2 generations of iPad each year?
Remember, this year the iPad 3 came out as a Retina version of iPad 2, probably due to not having the A6 ready to mass production. So, it means Apple hasn't made 2 processor-generations per year. They used the CPU of last year with more GPU power for the screen.
Do you expect another, higher screen resolution in 2013 and 2014?
I don't think that Apple is going to release iPads twice yearly from now on. I see the iPad 4 release as a one time occurence.
My comment was mostly meant as a joke, and also to mock those people who do believe that Apple will be releasing new iPad models every 6 months or so.
I've read plenty of comments from people saying stuff like "oh, i'm not gonna get the iPad Mini, because it's not retina, i'll just wait until march." These people will be waiting an awful long time, IMO, because there will be no new iPad Mini in 5 months, IMO.
The Cortex-A57 will be the most advanced high-performance applications processor, while the Cortex-A53 has the distinction of being the world's smallest 64-bit processor, and ARM's most power-efficient application processor.
This is just bad writing. Otherwise, it's just full of crap.
Apple believes that app should be optimised for the platform they're running on (tablet or desktop). MS knows that to gain traction they must make life as easy for the developer as possible, even if it means compromising the end user experience.
It's not without precedent. Apple embraced the fat/universal binaries during the 68K to PPC transition as well as the PPC to x86 transition.
The problem with making ARM based "Macintoshes" is that unless it can utilize a translation technology like "Rosetta" people won't be able to run their old software and the user experience won't be pleasant. Maybe I could see an ARM based MacBook Air (maybe even with touch screen to bridge the iPad experience) but an ARM based iMac that couldn't run Office, most games, Aperture, Photoshop, etc. would not likely make many customers happy. Maybe a laptop and a Mac mini-like HTPC that was ARM based would be a good way to start?
Transitioning OS X and its apps to ARM will be simple from a technology standpoint. Apple already transitioned Macs from 68k to PowerPC to Intel using "fat binaries" containing executable code for both the 68k and PowerPC chips. Same thing during the transition from PowerPC to Intel. The Universal Binary format contained PowerPC and Intel executables. For the Intel to ARM transition, developers will just need to click the "Universal binary" button in Xcode build settings and Xcode will do the rest. Trivial.
The only problem, as you mention, will be certain 3rd party software suites. The Adobes and Microsofts of the world will drag their feet, like they did during the PowerPC to Intel transition and the OS 9 to OS X transition. It took Adobe 10 years to migrate their bloatware from OS 9 to OS X. No doubt because of their corporate software architecture philosophy: they design down to the lowest common denominator between all the platforms they support, build the biggest possible generic cross-platform "core" layer in their apps, then do as little work as possible to port their apps to individual platforms like OS X. This results in ugly, clunky, inefficient software that doesn't look good or run well on any platform.
So, now that Apple has $100+ billion in the bank, maybe it's time to solve the 3rd party app developer foot-dragging problem once and for all. Apple could acquire Pixelmator and beef it up to replace Photoshop, for example. Or maybe just beef up Aperture instead. And Apple could eventually update iWork to completely replace Office for Mac. Shouldn't take more than 2 years or so. The 64-bit quad-core ARMv8-based SoCs should be coming on line by about 2014, so there's plenty of time to work on replacements for all that legacy 3rd party bloatware. heir Intel CPUs.
Or maybe Apple could keep one or two Pro Macs around running x86 chips. Just for the few pros who either refuse to update their 3rd party apps or for the few pros who require 3rd party apps whose developers refuse to update them for ARM. The Pro models will be the Macs that still have fans for blowing all that hot air away from their Intel chips. Easy to spot.
So, now that Apple has $100+ billion in the bank, maybe it's time to solve the 3rd party app developer foot-dragging problem once and for all. Apple could acquire Pixelmator and beef it up to replace Photoshop, for example. Or maybe just beef up Aperture instead. And Apple could eventually update iWork to completely replace Office for Mac. Shouldn't take more than 2 years or so. The 64-bit quad-core ARMv8-based SoCs should be coming on line by about 2014, so there's plenty of time to work on replacements for all that legacy 3rd party bloatware. heir Intel CPUs.
I don't see them going after things like photoshop or after effects at all in their real markets. Apple would shoot for the mass market end. Photoshop and After Effects feel like mass market software, but if you look at the people who actually pay for their licenses (and not at student pricing), it looks a lot different. I don't see Apple including CMYK support or decent vector tools or anything of that sort in an image editor/paint program. These might seem like things that are no longer necessary, but cumulatively that can make certain markets difficult. They could probably release a very powerful $99 application if they wanted to, and pick up a lot of customers where Adobe products are priced outside of their comfort zone. As for dragging their feet, maybe in the first OSX. CS2 was mid-life at the time intel machines started to trickle out. I'm not that surprised that they waited. They were still one of the companies who actually produced universal binaries. A lot of developers just dumped PowerPC with the first release that included Intel support. You should try to be a little more objective here. Sometimes Adobe is extremely annoying, but a lot of FUD interpretation is added to what they're actually doing.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
How many CPU cores does it have? Or is that just up to the licensee to decide?
It's up to the licensee to decide. The Cortex-A57 core scales "beyond 16 cores".
AMD has announced intends to put crazy amounts of these cores in systems glued together with interconnect they purchased from SeaMicro.
AMD's Opteron branded ARM based processors will be available in 2014.
AMD, Nvidia, APM and others have been working on high performance 64-bit ARM processors for computationally intensive systems.
There is the possibility that Apple could be first to market.
WWDC2013 will be interesting. Perhaps they will start with the Mac Pro?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
As I understand it, the Intel x86 CISC code is translated by a proprietary execution time process into RISC code, which is then executed. I would seem that the resulting RISC code could readily be emulated (or executed directly) on an ARM chip. This would appear to put Intel in a position to take advantage of ARM Architecture if it suited them -- possibly for a large customer such as Apple.
However, there is a strong likelihood that Intel will never do this.
I do like the idea of a "new" separate non-Mac product line is somewhere between a Mac and an iPad -- that runs legacy Mac and iPad software (Laughs to self -- 2.5 year old legacy iPad apps). Google seems to think there is a market for a ChromeBook with only web apps -- IMO, there would be a bigger market for devices like this.
I also like the idea of putting off compilation and linking of code as long as possible -- ideally to when it is being installed on a device.
The "new" product line would open up many opportunities to tailor both the hardware and the software to the jobs at hand -- a custom user appliance...
For example, I want to run FCP X on a large touch tablet (like a drafting table) and have the ability to tilt it up as an easel for pressure sensitive pen/brush painting. This appliance likely would do these jobs acceptably -- without need for an external kb or mouse (Onscreen kb when necessary).
A programmer might have a similar setup with the tablet in vertical position for storyboarding, but writing code with an external kb and mouse.
Either of these use cases could be taken mobile with a smaller tablet or laptop, then ultimately presented to a large screen through something Mirrored AirPlay.
So what you want is an iPad Pro?
Yep!
Quote:
Originally Posted by retroneo
It's up to the licensee to decide. The Cortex-A57 core scales "beyond 16 cores".
AMD has announced intends to put crazy amounts of these cores in systems glued together with interconnect they purchased from SeaMicro.
AMD's Opteron branded ARM based processors will be available in 2014.
AMD, Nvidia, APM and others have been working on high performance 64-bit ARM processors for computationally intensive systems.
There is the possibility that Apple could be first to market.
WWDC2013 will be interesting. Perhaps they will start with the Mac Pro?
Well Tim Cook did say Apple has something very exciting next year for the Pro market, WWDC would be my best guess as to when they will introduce it. Makes sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
As I understand it, the Intel x86 CISC code is translated by a proprietary execution time process into RISC code, which is then executed. I would seem that the resulting RISC code could readily be emulated (or executed directly) on an ARM chip. This would appear to put Intel in a position to take advantage of ARM Architecture if it suited them -- possibly for a large customer such as Apple.
That sort of tranlation is done internally in hardware on Intels processors. To do that on an ARM chip would burn much of the power savings they garner from being a RISC chip in the first place.
However, there is a strong likelihood that Intel will never do this.
Hard to tell. I really believe Intel could come on hard times if they don't get their act together. They had this beautiful chance to turn ATOM into a strong competitor to ARMS RISC based machines and blew it. I mean really AMD does better on older processes with BRAZOS.
I do like the idea of a "new" separate non-Mac product line is somewhere between a Mac and an iPad -- that runs legacy Mac and iPad software (Laughs to self -- 2.5 year old legacy iPad apps). Google seems to think there is a market for a ChromeBook with only web apps -- IMO, there would be a bigger market for devices like this.
I believe the market is there, especially if Apple can drip a couple hundred off the retail price of an AIR like laptop and deliver similar performance. Mind you these would not be machines to compete with the current Macs and the established user base, but rather machines that would serve the same sort of people that find iPads useful.
I also like the idea of putting off compilation and linking of code as long as possible -- ideally to when it is being installed on a device.
Compiling at installation time does have a certain appeal, especially with the rapid advancement of computing hardware. Take iPad for example, initial reports are pretty good but I would imagine none of the apps tested so far have been specifically compiled for that architecture. Another round of software updates would likely eek out a bit more in the way of performance on iPad 4.
The "new" product line would open up many opportunities to tailor both the hardware and the software to the jobs at hand -- a custom user appliance...
As long as the OS is open enough that we don't suffer from some of the iOS "problems". I had to quote "problems" there because I like my iPad and iOS the way it is now, but on a laptop or desktop I really need the access and programming freedom that only a more open OS can provide.
For example, I want to run FCP X on a large touch tablet (like a drafting table) and have the ability to tilt it up as an easel for pressure sensitive pen/brush painting. This appliance likely would do these jobs acceptably -- without need for an external kb or mouse (Onscreen kb when necessary).
Honestly I don't see this happening. That is some apps just don't translate well into Touch apps. There of course is lots of variability here.
A programmer might have a similar setup with the tablet in vertical position for storyboarding, but writing code with an external kb and mouse.
Programming is one use that I think highlights the futility of a Touch transition. Programmers amongst other professionals need a different approach. Voice input for one but more so a different higher level abstraction of software is needed. Maybe a sixth or seventh generation approach to apps that combines with Touch is possible but i've seen nothing yet.
Either of these use cases could be taken mobile with a smaller tablet or laptop, then ultimately presented to a large screen through something Mirrored AirPlay.
I long for the day when a persons interaction with a computer is at a higher level than we have today. Siri is one step forward and two back, that sort of intelligence needs to be part of the OS sitting right in your machine. Maybe Apple is working on that!
You are right about one thing and a feature I think Apple is missing big time, tablets need to interact far better with desktop machines. Or maybe I should say primary computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by retroneo
It's up to the licensee to decide. The Cortex-A57 core scales "beyond 16 cores".
Just imagine an iPad with just four of these cores! To go a step further imagine these cores built on a sub 20nm process capable of running at 4GHz at todays power levels. couple that with 4GB or more of RAM in an iPad. Sweet dreams!
AMD has announced intends to put crazy amounts of these cores in systems glued together with interconnect they purchased from SeaMicro.
AMD's Opteron branded ARM based processors will be available in 2014.
This is absolutely huge! Think about it folks AMD is basically saying i86 is dead. Admittedly they need a way to counter Intels multi core agenda but for server duties cores mean more than anything else.
AMD, Nvidia, APM and others have been working on high performance 64-bit ARM processors for computationally intensive systems.
You forgot to put Apple in there! Seriously Apple probably has more engineers working on 64bit ARM solutions than anybody. 64 bit hardware gives tablets the ability to grow for the foreseeable future. Beyond that the recent management shake up puts a very capable leader in charge of semiconductor development. Apple obviously has a strategy here that hasn't been completely revealed yet.
There is the possibility that Apple could be first to market.
I wouldn't be surprised one bit.
WWDC2013 will be interesting. Perhaps they will start with the Mac Pro?
er no I don't think that would happen at all. Remember the whole point of the Mac Pro is to service the Pro market. They can't afford to do anything other than to concentrate on i86 performance until the ARM market is more fully established.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji
I don't know about desktops but I can definitely see it coming on laptops. Or another way you can look at it is that Pro machines (Mac Pro, 27" iMac, MB Pro) may remain X86-based and consumer line (iOS devices, MB Air, 21" iMac) could go ARM-based.
I don't expect it to work out like this at all if it means the necessity to compile different versions of an application. That would most likely drive developers away. A long term transition could happen, but it would still be dependent on ARM's long term performance. Apple may have existing R&D in this area, but some of you see it as too much of a foregone conclusion. I'd wait to see how things develop. An interesting point would be that if ARM is significantly cheaper, you could see a portion of those costs allocated elsewhere, even if they do opt to use a portion of it to increase margins. I'd expect things like the higher resolution displays (I hate Apple's term) to become a normal feature within the lineup. It could enable them to go more aggressive on their $999 notebook while retaining margins. A 64GB ssd in 2012 really is a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
The "new" product line would open up many opportunities to tailor both the hardware and the software to the jobs at hand -- a custom user appliance...
For example, I want to run FCP X on a large touch tablet (like a drafting table) and have the ability to tilt it up as an easel for pressure sensitive pen/brush painting. This appliance likely would do these jobs acceptably -- without need for an external kb or mouse (Onscreen kb when necessary).
A programmer might have a similar setup with the tablet in vertical position for storyboarding, but writing code with an external kb and mouse.
Either of these use cases could be taken mobile with a smaller tablet or laptop, then ultimately presented to a large screen through something Mirrored AirPlay.
I'd like to see more things like the cintiq Wacom has pretty much owned that market for many years. Their drivers used to be great. Now they seem to encounter frequent driver bugs, and every damn hardware generation has seen a major design flaw. I've only avoided the cintiq line due to complaints of bad pixels and 15 working day warranty service times + shipping. I use a large intuos instead. Even in those, the 3s had a cord pinch issue and used cheap cables. The 4s had terrible soldering on the usb cables and were prone to failure along with surface wear issues. The 5s no longer have user replaceable surface sheets. I typically go through one a year. In the past it was just peel one off and put the next one on. If Apple came out with something similar, I'd buy it on the first set of stable drivers. They're not 100% consistent, but it's much easier to get repair/warranty service than with wacom. One of the nice things with the workflow you describe is that it feels far more natural. Your hand movement corresponds precisely with the cursor path if it's set up well. It alleviates a lot of the annoying issues with large LCD displays paired with significantly smaller graphics tablets sitting in front of them. It would also potentially attract a much more mainstream audience.
Using Rosetta on the much faster Intel over the aging PPC worked well but I question that is even possible for emulating x86_64 architecture on ARM, regardless if it's 64-bit or not. I'd be very surprised at this point to hear about any such transition.
Perhaps once Mac App Store apps become overwhelmingly common for the most used apps on Mac OS X will that even make sense as they then could have Xcode compile Universal fat binaries for ARM_64, but a lot will have to change before now and 2014.
I'm using OS X 10.5.8 and already Flash isn't being updated for it, neither is iTunes. Apple and other software manufacturers are willing to leave old programs behind. Apple needs to just take the best technology and run with it.
I must keep my Leopard OS because a particular program I run wasn't updated beyond Leopard. Thus my 2008 Mac Book will be with me for a long time. For other things I'll use newer machines.
I'm certain that Android will take advantage of these new 64 bit systems. Legacy software can be run on old machines. Let the new machines employ more engineers to create the necessary programs to run on the new platforms.
Apple learned that if you lower the price of the OS more people will buy it. If only they would apply that to their hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
If Apple keeps up their current pace, I guess we'll be seeing this in the iPad 7 or iPad 8.
iPad 3, iPad 4 = 2012
iPad 5, IPad 6 = 2013
iPad 7, iPad 8 = 2014
Why do you think Apple plans to release 2 generations of iPad each year?
Remember, this year the iPad 3 came out as a Retina version of iPad 2, probably due to not having the A6 ready to mass production. So, it means Apple hasn't made 2 processor-generations per year. They used the CPU of last year with more GPU power for the screen.
Do you expect another, higher screen resolution in 2013 and 2014?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I don't expect it to work out like this at all if it means the necessity to compile different versions of an application. That would most likely drive developers away. A long term transition could happen, but it would still be dependent on ARM's long term performance. Apple may have existing R&D in this area, but some of you see it as too much of a foregone conclusion. I'd wait to see how things develop. An interesting point would be that if ARM is significantly cheaper, you could see a portion of those costs allocated elsewhere, even if they do opt to use a portion of it to increase margins. I'd expect things like the higher resolution displays (I hate Apple's term) to become a normal feature within the lineup. It could enable them to go more aggressive on their $999 notebook while retaining margins. A 64GB ssd in 2012 really is a joke.
I'd like to see more things like the cintiq Wacom has pretty much owned that market for many years. Their drivers used to be great. Now they seem to encounter frequent driver bugs, and every damn hardware generation has seen a major design flaw. I've only avoided the cintiq line due to complaints of bad pixels and 15 working day warranty service times + shipping. I use a large intuos instead. Even in those, the 3s had a cord pinch issue and used cheap cables. The 4s had terrible soldering on the usb cables and were prone to failure along with surface wear issues. The 5s no longer have user replaceable surface sheets. I typically go through one a year. In the past it was just peel one off and put the next one on. If Apple came out with something similar, I'd buy it on the first set of stable drivers. They're not 100% consistent, but it's much easier to get repair/warranty service than with wacom. One of the nice things with the workflow you describe is that it feels far more natural. Your hand movement corresponds precisely with the cursor path if it's set up well. It alleviates a lot of the annoying issues with large LCD displays paired with significantly smaller graphics tablets sitting in front of them. It would also potentially attract a much more mainstream audience.
"I don't expect it to work out like this at all if it means the necessity to compile different versions of an application. That would most likely drive developers away."
On Windows 8, if a developer developers a Metro / Windows 8 UI app, not only will that app work on Windows 8 tablets, desktops, laptops, but that app will work just the same, regardless if the device has an ARM or x86 processor. No changes needed. The WinRT run-time layer takes care of all the plumbing. Easy for developers. If MS can do it for their Metro apps, Apple can do it for their iOS / Mac App store apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji
"I don't expect it to work out like this at all if it means the necessity to compile different versions of an application. That would most likely drive developers away."
On Windows 8, if a developer developers a Metro / Windows 8 UI app, not only will that app work on Windows 8 tablets, desktops, laptops, but that app will work just the same, regardless if the device has an ARM or x86 processor. No changes needed. The WinRT run-time layer takes care of all the plumbing. Easy for developers. If MS can do it for their Metro apps, Apple can do it for their iOS / Mac App store apps.
They could do that, but they'd rather not.
Apple believes that app should be optimised for the platform they're running on (tablet or desktop). MS knows that to gain traction they must make life as easy for the developer as possible, even if it means compromising the end user experience.
I don't think that Apple is going to release iPads twice yearly from now on. I see the iPad 4 release as a one time occurence.
My comment was mostly meant as a joke, and also to mock those people who do believe that Apple will be releasing new iPad models every 6 months or so.
I've read plenty of comments from people saying stuff like "oh, i'm not gonna get the iPad Mini, because it's not retina, i'll just wait until march." These people will be waiting an awful long time, IMO, because there will be no new iPad Mini in 5 months, IMO.
Quote:
The Cortex-A57 will be the most advanced high-performance applications processor, while the Cortex-A53 has the distinction of being the world's smallest 64-bit processor, and ARM's most power-efficient application processor.
This is just bad writing. Otherwise, it's just full of crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
They could do that, but they'd rather not.
Apple believes that app should be optimised for the platform they're running on (tablet or desktop). MS knows that to gain traction they must make life as easy for the developer as possible, even if it means compromising the end user experience.
It's not without precedent. Apple embraced the fat/universal binaries during the 68K to PPC transition as well as the PPC to x86 transition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwsmiths
The problem with making ARM based "Macintoshes" is that unless it can utilize a translation technology like "Rosetta" people won't be able to run their old software and the user experience won't be pleasant. Maybe I could see an ARM based MacBook Air (maybe even with touch screen to bridge the iPad experience) but an ARM based iMac that couldn't run Office, most games, Aperture, Photoshop, etc. would not likely make many customers happy. Maybe a laptop and a Mac mini-like HTPC that was ARM based would be a good way to start?
Transitioning OS X and its apps to ARM will be simple from a technology standpoint. Apple already transitioned Macs from 68k to PowerPC to Intel using "fat binaries" containing executable code for both the 68k and PowerPC chips. Same thing during the transition from PowerPC to Intel. The Universal Binary format contained PowerPC and Intel executables. For the Intel to ARM transition, developers will just need to click the "Universal binary" button in Xcode build settings and Xcode will do the rest. Trivial.
The only problem, as you mention, will be certain 3rd party software suites. The Adobes and Microsofts of the world will drag their feet, like they did during the PowerPC to Intel transition and the OS 9 to OS X transition. It took Adobe 10 years to migrate their bloatware from OS 9 to OS X. No doubt because of their corporate software architecture philosophy: they design down to the lowest common denominator between all the platforms they support, build the biggest possible generic cross-platform "core" layer in their apps, then do as little work as possible to port their apps to individual platforms like OS X. This results in ugly, clunky, inefficient software that doesn't look good or run well on any platform.
So, now that Apple has $100+ billion in the bank, maybe it's time to solve the 3rd party app developer foot-dragging problem once and for all. Apple could acquire Pixelmator and beef it up to replace Photoshop, for example. Or maybe just beef up Aperture instead. And Apple could eventually update iWork to completely replace Office for Mac. Shouldn't take more than 2 years or so. The 64-bit quad-core ARMv8-based SoCs should be coming on line by about 2014, so there's plenty of time to work on replacements for all that legacy 3rd party bloatware. heir Intel CPUs.
Or maybe Apple could keep one or two Pro Macs around running x86 chips. Just for the few pros who either refuse to update their 3rd party apps or for the few pros who require 3rd party apps whose developers refuse to update them for ARM. The Pro models will be the Macs that still have fans for blowing all that hot air away from their Intel chips. Easy to spot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
So, now that Apple has $100+ billion in the bank, maybe it's time to solve the 3rd party app developer foot-dragging problem once and for all. Apple could acquire Pixelmator and beef it up to replace Photoshop, for example. Or maybe just beef up Aperture instead. And Apple could eventually update iWork to completely replace Office for Mac. Shouldn't take more than 2 years or so. The 64-bit quad-core ARMv8-based SoCs should be coming on line by about 2014, so there's plenty of time to work on replacements for all that legacy 3rd party bloatware. heir Intel CPUs.
I don't see them going after things like photoshop or after effects at all in their real markets. Apple would shoot for the mass market end. Photoshop and After Effects feel like mass market software, but if you look at the people who actually pay for their licenses (and not at student pricing), it looks a lot different. I don't see Apple including CMYK support or decent vector tools or anything of that sort in an image editor/paint program. These might seem like things that are no longer necessary, but cumulatively that can make certain markets difficult. They could probably release a very powerful $99 application if they wanted to, and pick up a lot of customers where Adobe products are priced outside of their comfort zone. As for dragging their feet, maybe in the first OSX. CS2 was mid-life at the time intel machines started to trickle out. I'm not that surprised that they waited. They were still one of the companies who actually produced universal binaries. A lot of developers just dumped PowerPC with the first release that included Intel support. You should try to be a little more objective here. Sometimes Adobe is extremely annoying, but a lot of FUD interpretation is added to what they're actually doing.
These could make great low-wattage servers. A few companies are already competing in this space.