The easy answer is "in for a penny, in for a pound." In other words, if you are going to publish link bait articles, you might as well play it up for all that it is worth.
I still find this hard to swallow.
Apple had a hard enough time getting people to port stuff to the Mac when they were running the PPC architecture. Only a few were even bothering at that point (Blizzard being one). Everything else went through a 3rd party to be ported, and usually suffered as a result (Aspyr).
By running on the x86 architecture, they made porting software easier (to a point) and more became available. In addition to being able to dual-boot Windows, which allowed Mac users to BYOD to work in some cases.
Moving off the x86 chip would bring back the window of fragmentation (PPC to Intel) and could limit the amount of effort developers would put into writing or porting software to the new chip.
I know the iPhone/iPad use the A-Series, but you are not also trying to run full-blown desktop applications, games, etc.
So I still think this is one of his 'longshot' rumors, so he can claim to be the first to see it coming *IF* it ever does and is a genius. If it doesn't pan out, he is wrong again, and nothing will come of it.
I am not sure why it couldn't. PPC Macs ran virtualized Windows. You probably wouldn't be playing games but you could virtualize the CPU and have 9 or so cores running it for decent performance I would guess.
I fail to see how this is "link bait." It's a news story, and it's fairly covered as such, with zero sensationalism. I welcome criticism of our content and editorial policies, but a generic "link bait" complaint isn't contributing to the conversation here.
"Apple has developed an iMac desktop with four or eight 64-bit quad-core CPUs..." Can Grand Central (that's still the name of Apple's multi-processor management software isn't it?) actually allow applications to use this many cores without adjustments made to the application software?
The point of Grand Central Dispatch was to take the complexity of task (thread) scheduling out of the developer's hands. Developers can simply create a queue and submit tasks to it... the system then handles which processing units to send the tasks to. This happens at run-time, so, yes, software will automatically see the benefits of having more cores, but only if their apps were designed to be multi-threaded (use GCD) in the first place.
Just because it doesn't make sense for Apple to change the processor in the Mac Pro doesn't mean they won't do it in a laptop. While you can argue they will loose compatibility with software that runs on the Mac, they could gain compatibility with everything in the App Store for iPhone/iPad. Apps on the Mac App Store would likely need minor tweaks and a rebuild with a newer version of Xcode if Apple does as it has before to ensure a smooth transition. Apple would have more control and could set this device apart from its peers even more. Just because Microsoft failed at something doesn't mean Apple will repeat their failure. Apple has proven that they take a holistic approach to such transitions and have only gotten better with each occurrence.
ddawson100 wrote: »
I can understand that these chips are going to become more powerful. I can't see Apple adding an option for you to choose which line of CPU to include in your Mac. That really isn't a decision that would occur during a typical computer purchase. I think most people are comfortable selecting based on speed and price but add even a few other factors and this gets complicated quickly. If you're standing in the store or looking at the customization page at apple.com you're really not going to have the tools to assess whether to include an A-series or Intel chip.
dotcomcto wrote: »
I wonder how this would impact virtualization on the Mac? Aren't Parallels and VMWare Fusion predicated on the fact that the Mac has real Intel chips inside?
You really expect someone to know what your definition of "non-obvious" is?
Why don't you give us the list?
mdriftmeyer wrote: »
Horrible story and fantasy on prediction. Project Zen by AMD arrives at the precise exact time with performance of an SoC APU that would dwarf these chips, at half the cost of Intel.
The issue for me is that this is "news" about the analyst -- they just sent out a new research note -- but simply "speculation" about Apple. If your article was intended to be about the analyst, then "Breaking" (assumed short for "Breaking News") would be appropriate. If the article is about Apple, which to me it clearly is, then it should be labelled as "Speculation", not "Breaking News".
I'm sure a lot of what is taking so long for them to make this move has to do with compatibility.
Its one thing for OS X apps to have been recompiled. Its another to kill Windows compatibility. As much as I love OS X, Boot Camp is extremely important to me.