This would make playing games on iMac more difficult than it already is. And for what?
Little Appstore games are fun for a few minutes, but real huge game productions would never make it to the Mac if it were like that.
Not going to happen.
The main reason why games on the mac have been slow coming is the number of users of OS X vs. Windows, but they are starting to do more and it's better if they wrote the games natively rather than just porting them over.
With iPads, etc., there's a much bigger game market, even though they might not be the big names, they are starting to do it here and there. the IPad 4 has a game console class A6X chip in it. But these developers have to get their act together and just create them.
Either way, as I've said to engineering friends of mine, OS X is a portable OS, so they can put it on any processor they want to at any time. WIndows is written only for X86 processors and if they want to put it on another processor family, M$ has to do a complete re-write, hence Windows RT. I seriously don't care which brand of processor they use. I care about speed, battery life when applicable, cost, ease of getting apps (re-write vs recompile), and future roadmap.
Apple might come out with maybe some low cost laptops kind of similar to what Microsoft is doing with Surface RT, and Google doing with their Chromebooks, since those are ARM based. I mean, what if Apple came out with a product that could run all ARM based OS's, apps, and it was faster than everyone else's, about the same price or a little more with more hardware features or better screen, etc.?
So, it is conceivable to come out with a MacBookAir running on ARM processors and selling something similar for a lot less.
ARM based Macs will come but Intel based Macs will remain.
While hiring AMD veteran Jim Mergard adds more CPU design expertise at Apple, it does not necessary mean they will drop Intel. Hec, they may license the basic x86 design from Intel or AMD and make their own desktop CPUs.
Time will tell.
The only way ARM Macs exist is in the form of a hybrid AMD/ARM configuration.
Apple had versions of Mac OS X running on Intel machines for nearly 7 years before the Switch to Intel got announced. Remember NextStep originally ran on Intel hardware and needed to be recompiled for PCC.
With that in mind, I am sure that Apple continues to keep it's options open by compiling for different hardware.
Also, remember that Mac OS X has a multi-run architecture build into it. That is what allowed PCC and Intel apps to be shipped in the same package.
Apple had versions of Mac OS X running on Intel machines for nearly 7 years before the Switch to Intel got announced. Remember NextStep originally ran on Intel hardware and needed to be recompiled for PCC.
With that in mind, I am sure that Apple continues to keep it's options open by compiling for different hardware.
Also, remember that Mac OS X has a multi-run architecture build into it. That is what allowed PCC and Intel apps to be shipped in the same package.
I don't have any doubt that Apple is CAPABLE of releasing OS X on ARM. I just doubt very much that they will ever do so. The downsides are immense and there's little upside.
It will be very interesting to see what Intel has in the pipeline with Haswell next year and Rockwell the following year. This could impact how things work with the ARM chips.
I have faith in Apple but I'll be paying close attention.
For 2016, I'm envisioning an ARM-based 15" MacBook Air with 32 GB RAM and 1TB SSD, Retina display, and powered by a fuel cell battery, but no more than 5mm thin and less than 450 grams.
Oh yeah, with a fully-Multi-Touch all-glass keyboard/trackpad with haptic feedback. That's all-I can wait .
This is a good point, but it begs the question: What IS Lightning, then? A "fully Apple" implementation of Thunderbolt tech with a different connector?
Intel owned the technology, not the connector. I can't find enough information on it. Does it use the same protocols or something? Is bandwidth similar? Right now the comparison seems very broad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You do realize that if Apple gets rid of Intel it has to get rid of Thunderbolt(Light Peak), right? I simply don't see this happening anytime soon.
Somehow I don't see this as a huge sticking point. The biggest area of concern would be maintaining some kind of compliance for thunderbolt peripherals that have been sold. While Apple can be fickle on ports, they usually don't immediately cut off expensive add-on devices. If this was the only major hurdle, I wouldn't see it as a big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That would be due to exclusivity on Apple's part. It's directly integrated into Haswell, so we'll see what happens when that's launched.
If Intel has any sense and actually wants their own port to be adopted, they'll only make boards that include it.
It does need some kind of backing. When did they ever have an exclusivity agreement? My understanding was that it simplied debuted on Macs. Even the mini displayport license is royalty free, although it has exclusions.
I believe in it however apple would at least haft to times four, its current processors giving it 20 years or more, leaving apple years to decide weather or not to use it, giving it a 50/50 chance.
This would make playing games on iMac more difficult than it already is. And for what?
Little Appstore games are fun for a few minutes, but real huge game productions would never make it to the Mac if it were like that.
Not going to happen.
Yep complete BS. The primary reason ARM chips run at slow clocks is to manage power usage. Foundries where demonstrating 2GHZ Cortex A9 cores at least two years ago. There are many reasons why you wouldn't want to ship such fast cores though. Even Apple has run their processors slower than the maximum clock rates the chips are capable of. iPhone always has had the clock set relatively low to conserve battery power.
Look at it this way, Apple easily doubled iPad 4s performance over iPad 3. They did that with a modest clock rate increase, but does anybody really believe that A6X tops out a 1.3GHz? In the right platform I wouldn't be surprised to find it running at 2+ GHz.
Do you really think Apple would partner up on Thunderbolt and not demand the right to implement it anywhere they wanted? I really don't see this as a problem for Apple as it would have been rather foolish not to cover them selves in this regard. Even then TB is a special purpose interface that frankly wouldn't be missed on a laptop.
We could have a show of hands here with a count of people that use TB for anything other than a video monitor connection on their laptops. I just don't see TB as anymore of a long term play in Apple hardware than an optical drive.
That is irrational, people are talking about ARM powered Macs here not iOS devices. On the other hand if Apple locked the machines down like they do iOS devices then yes it would suck. In this case though we are talking about Macs as we know them today, differing only in the processor.
Intel no more can block Apple from using Thunderbolt with different processors than they can keep Apple from using ARM for the iPhone.
Learn more about the technology before proclaiming a collaboration between Intel, Apple and later dozens of OEMs pushing this to be a replacement serial i/o standard.
I think this is just a sensationalist article with little to no content. Firstly, an a general note, basically nothing is really 'inevitable' and that's especially true for the tech-world. More specifically, none of the alleged advantages of a passage to ARM is real. Different devices work very well together, as today iPad, iPhone etc. with the Mac; the underlying processor architecture is irrelevant in this respect. Different architectures also don't mean more work, it's just a job for the compiler. Furthermore, Intel processors are vastly more powerful that ARM ones and that gap isn't likely to go away. Thus, it would be foolish for Apple to switch away from Intel in other machines than, let's say, MBAirs or similar products. The share of processors doesn't matter either, developping and maintaining a high-end chip line is more costly than licensing from Intel. So, Wu's arguments are none or, actually, downright false. Expect to see more ARM device but I'd venture to 'predict' that Intel chips won't be replaced in a very long time. At any rate such a step would be never 'inevitable' as it doesn't grant any advantages and there's no real pressure to do so. Talking about pressure: That may be the real reason for Apple's talk about replacing processors: Making Intel design more energy-efficient chips and better graphic units.
P.S. Not to mention that fact that a great attraction of Intel-Macs is the ability to natively run Windows and other OS' - it's a true allround machine. Apple wouldn't (I hope) needlessly axe that advantage (and there is no need at all).
While I can see this being logical for some products at some point this is basically a bunch of malarkey...
The thing is Apple is still reaping the benefits of software development and third party hardware compatibility from the wider world by using Intel processors in their desktops and laptops. Even though Apple has built a large development community around the iOS and the ARM platform it's all very platform/task specific. More to the point there's really no reason for Apple to switch anything as they believe we are transitioning into the "Post PC Era." Essentially the iPad/iPhone/iPod, in and of themselves, are adequate "computers" for 90% of what most people need. MacBooks/iMacs are thin enough and light enough now to maintain their form factors for the next ten years...you can't make them much thinner. Screen sizes of over 9" are critically important for a lot of people, yet hand holding a display over 10"-12" is unwieldy over long periods of time. If one can meet their footprint destination (which Apple has) and maintain the highest level of compatibility for third party development needs (which Apple has) there's no legitimate reason to change.
If on the other hand MS transitions Windows (not an XBox variant) to ARM a significant amount of third party hardware/software development would shift that way and it would make more sense.
While I can see this being logical for some products at some point this is basically a bunch of malarkey...
The thing is Apple is still reaping the benefits of software development and third party hardware compatibility from the wider world by using Intel processors in their desktops and laptops. Even though Apple has built a large development community around the iOS and the ARM platform it's all very platform/task specific. More to the point there's really no reason for Apple to switch anything as they believe we are transitioning into the "Post PC Era." Essentially the iPad/iPhone/iPod, in and of themselves, are adequate "computers" for 90% of what most people need. MacBooks/iMacs are thin enough and light enough now to maintain their form factors for the next ten years...you can't make them much thinner. Screen sizes of over 9" are critically important for a lot of people, yet hand holding a display over 10"-12" is unwieldy over long periods of time. If one can meet their footprint destination (which Apple has) and maintain the highest level of compatibility for third party development needs (which Apple has) there's no legitimate reason to change.
If on the other hand MS transitions Windows (not an XBox variant) to ARM a significant amount of third party hardware/software development would shift that way and it would make more sense.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMeToby
Ok, here is a theory: Intel/ARM-hybrid-Macs
Let me explain:
No, there is too much... Let me sum up:
Grand Central.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX
This would make playing games on iMac more difficult than it already is. And for what?
Little Appstore games are fun for a few minutes, but real huge game productions would never make it to the Mac if it were like that.
Not going to happen.
The main reason why games on the mac have been slow coming is the number of users of OS X vs. Windows, but they are starting to do more and it's better if they wrote the games natively rather than just porting them over.
With iPads, etc., there's a much bigger game market, even though they might not be the big names, they are starting to do it here and there. the IPad 4 has a game console class A6X chip in it. But these developers have to get their act together and just create them.
Either way, as I've said to engineering friends of mine, OS X is a portable OS, so they can put it on any processor they want to at any time. WIndows is written only for X86 processors and if they want to put it on another processor family, M$ has to do a complete re-write, hence Windows RT. I seriously don't care which brand of processor they use. I care about speed, battery life when applicable, cost, ease of getting apps (re-write vs recompile), and future roadmap.
Apple might come out with maybe some low cost laptops kind of similar to what Microsoft is doing with Surface RT, and Google doing with their Chromebooks, since those are ARM based. I mean, what if Apple came out with a product that could run all ARM based OS's, apps, and it was faster than everyone else's, about the same price or a little more with more hardware features or better screen, etc.?
So, it is conceivable to come out with a MacBookAir running on ARM processors and selling something similar for a lot less.
EIther way, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
ARM based Macs will come but Intel based Macs will remain.
While hiring AMD veteran Jim Mergard adds more CPU design expertise at Apple, it does not necessary mean they will drop Intel. Hec, they may license the basic x86 design from Intel or AMD and make their own desktop CPUs.
Time will tell.
The only way ARM Macs exist is in the form of a hybrid AMD/ARM configuration.
With that in mind, I am sure that Apple continues to keep it's options open by compiling for different hardware.
Also, remember that Mac OS X has a multi-run architecture build into it. That is what allowed PCC and Intel apps to be shipped in the same package.
I don't have any doubt that Apple is CAPABLE of releasing OS X on ARM. I just doubt very much that they will ever do so. The downsides are immense and there's little upside.
I have faith in Apple but I'll be paying close attention.
For 2016, I'm envisioning an ARM-based 15" MacBook Air with 32 GB RAM and 1TB SSD, Retina display, and powered by a fuel cell battery, but no more than 5mm thin and less than 450 grams.
Oh yeah, with a fully-Multi-Touch all-glass keyboard/trackpad with haptic feedback. That's all-I can wait
I am totally against this.
I dont care if its twice as fast and uses half as much power. I am worried about the chipline stagnating like the PPC line.
Intel is not standing still. They will always be innovating and moving forward. Lets not lose our compatiability with the rest of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
This is a good point, but it begs the question: What IS Lightning, then? A "fully Apple" implementation of Thunderbolt tech with a different connector?
Intel owned the technology, not the connector. I can't find enough information on it. Does it use the same protocols or something? Is bandwidth similar? Right now the comparison seems very broad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You do realize that if Apple gets rid of Intel it has to get rid of Thunderbolt(Light Peak), right? I simply don't see this happening anytime soon.
Somehow I don't see this as a huge sticking point. The biggest area of concern would be maintaining some kind of compliance for thunderbolt peripherals that have been sold. While Apple can be fickle on ports, they usually don't immediately cut off expensive add-on devices. If this was the only major hurdle, I wouldn't see it as a big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That would be due to exclusivity on Apple's part. It's directly integrated into Haswell, so we'll see what happens when that's launched.
If Intel has any sense and actually wants their own port to be adopted, they'll only make boards that include it.
It does need some kind of backing. When did they ever have an exclusivity agreement? My understanding was that it simplied debuted on Macs. Even the mini displayport license is royalty free, although it has exclusions.
Look at it this way, Apple easily doubled iPad 4s performance over iPad 3. They did that with a modest clock rate increase, but does anybody really believe that A6X tops out a 1.3GHz? In the right platform I wouldn't be surprised to find it running at 2+ GHz.
We could have a show of hands here with a count of people that use TB for anything other than a video monitor connection on their laptops. I just don't see TB as anymore of a long term play in Apple hardware than an optical drive.
Intel no more can block Apple from using Thunderbolt with different processors than they can keep Apple from using ARM for the iPhone.
Learn more about the technology before proclaiming a collaboration between Intel, Apple and later dozens of OEMs pushing this to be a replacement serial i/o standard.
P.S. Not to mention that fact that a great attraction of Intel-Macs is the ability to natively run Windows and other OS' - it's a true allround machine. Apple wouldn't (I hope) needlessly axe that advantage (and there is no need at all).
Quote:
Originally Posted by samirsshah
'Inevitable' is the CORRECT word.
Poppycock! It is it not inevitable at all. It may not even be likely. And, as the headline states, it isn't happening anytime [sic] soon.
This despite it being probable they already have full OS X running on ARM in the lab right now.
The thing is Apple is still reaping the benefits of software development and third party hardware compatibility from the wider world by using Intel processors in their desktops and laptops. Even though Apple has built a large development community around the iOS and the ARM platform it's all very platform/task specific. More to the point there's really no reason for Apple to switch anything as they believe we are transitioning into the "Post PC Era." Essentially the iPad/iPhone/iPod, in and of themselves, are adequate "computers" for 90% of what most people need. MacBooks/iMacs are thin enough and light enough now to maintain their form factors for the next ten years...you can't make them much thinner. Screen sizes of over 9" are critically important for a lot of people, yet hand holding a display over 10"-12" is unwieldy over long periods of time. If one can meet their footprint destination (which Apple has) and maintain the highest level of compatibility for third party development needs (which Apple has) there's no legitimate reason to change.
If on the other hand MS transitions Windows (not an XBox variant) to ARM a significant amount of third party hardware/software development would shift that way and it would make more sense.
The thing is Apple is still reaping the benefits of software development and third party hardware compatibility from the wider world by using Intel processors in their desktops and laptops. Even though Apple has built a large development community around the iOS and the ARM platform it's all very platform/task specific. More to the point there's really no reason for Apple to switch anything as they believe we are transitioning into the "Post PC Era." Essentially the iPad/iPhone/iPod, in and of themselves, are adequate "computers" for 90% of what most people need. MacBooks/iMacs are thin enough and light enough now to maintain their form factors for the next ten years...you can't make them much thinner. Screen sizes of over 9" are critically important for a lot of people, yet hand holding a display over 10"-12" is unwieldy over long periods of time. If one can meet their footprint destination (which Apple has) and maintain the highest level of compatibility for third party development needs (which Apple has) there's no legitimate reason to change.
If on the other hand MS transitions Windows (not an XBox variant) to ARM a significant amount of third party hardware/software development would shift that way and it would make more sense.