I thought about it guys and I still stand that Apple will make the switch for entire lineup if ever. Cook is wise enough to wait as long as possible for the transition to be as short as possible. Like seriously, think about it. Why would they put all the effort and force developers to submit universal binaries for a single Mac and have a unknown date for the transion to end? I'm betting Apple will make the move when they are absolutely ready.
Well, if only the new Macs would run iOS apps, in addition to those that they already run . That would be great for me. I would not have to have touch screen as I prefer to point & click on my Mac. I like the iPhone & iPad apps, but prefer the full fledged type of computer that a new update might bring. No amount of finger pointing and selecting will in my opinion ever be better than what I can do on my Keyboard, with trackpad & Mouse.
I don't care how Apple does it, as long as they do it well. I will still pay a premium price and continue to buy the products as long as they improve each time. When they go backwards, I will consider leaving.
If you are interested in this article, you might well also be interested in a little story about ARM which appears in the book: "All about your Computer" by Kenneth A Spencer.
This little story (only a tiny part of the book I might add) describes how the ARM processor originally came into being in the very early 1980s, simply because Intel missed a trick with Acorn (ARM was originally an acronym for Acorn RISC Machine) when they needed a follow-up computer for their BBC Micro. You can get the book at http://www.lulu.com/kaspencer
To the notion that this would make it a Surface Pro. Really? The Surface Pro 3 is available with an intel i7. It's a performer. Weak point: wretched keyboard.
To the notion that an ARM based system would be a lightweight: The cost of ARM processors (Ax if you prefer) is cheap. The dies are tiny. You could put 32 Ax processors in a laptop, have low power consumption (most of the time when they are halted waiting to be woken), and low cost.
To the notion that there would be a high end pro line with intel and a general population line with Ax, is downright wrong. Supporting two OS variants where one is fine is not a good business or technical decision. Cheaper to throw cores in a machine. The OS presently can handle (if memory serves) at least 63 cores. Probably 256. And could be modified to handle 65000 or more if need be. Or any huge number. I digress.
The bummer here would be that I couldn't run Windows (under Fusion) which I still need to do at home and at work.
The other, real bummer, is the risk that Apple decide to iOS the Mac and put up the walled garden. I'd seriously think of barfing back to Windows in that case. Forget Linux.
ARM processors are very inexpensive compared to Intel x86 chips. Apple sells obscene numbers of them. And Apple is so profitable, they can afford to finance the development of newer and better ones for far longer than Intel can with x86. Apple has shown no inclination to move the iPhone and iPad to x86.
That's a bad sign for Intel chips going forward. Apple is going to move to ARM and PowerVR graphics for their entire line. Mac Pros and MacBooks are going to converge onto ARM and not the other way around. It may take some time, but it will happen. Intel cannot hope to entice Apple by giving away their mobile CPUs and the development of ARM has moved so fast that the A series is now a credible threat to the Core series.
There is no way Intel can lower their prices such that any Windows or Android device will be able to compete over the long term. The game is over for Intel. It's now just a matter of time.
When Apple begins the process, I should be able to pick up a Mac Pro for a decent price that should run Parallels for a while. The world will move off of x86 due to costs. Windows won't matter and Intel won't be able to afford the R&D to keep up with ARM.
Convergence will happen, but it will be on ARM, and not x86.
"The base model of Ford's newest mega-popular F-150 pickup features an aluminum body to cut down on weight and a 2.7-liter V6 engine, changes designed to increase gas mileage at the expense of performance"
First the base model F-150 is a 3.5 V6, not the 2.7L, which they've always had a small V6 as the base model.
Now, the 2.7L you're talking about Ford switching to to increase gas mileage AT THE EXPENSE OF PERFORMANCE packs 325 hp and 375 lb-ft of torque. Compare that to the 2010 F150 4.6 V8 that only had 292 hp and 320 lb-ft of torque. There's no "expense of performance." Don't try to draw an analogy to something you know nothing about.
Comments
It's really just a longer compile.
Like this?
Well, if only the new Macs would run iOS apps, in addition to those that they already run . That would be great for me. I would not have to have touch screen as I prefer to point & click on my Mac. I like the iPhone & iPad apps, but prefer the full fledged type of computer that a new update might bring. No amount of finger pointing and selecting will in my opinion ever be better than what I can do on my Keyboard, with trackpad & Mouse.
I don't care how Apple does it, as long as they do it well. I will still pay a premium price and continue to buy the products as long as they improve each time. When they go backwards, I will consider leaving.
Can you rephrase in English?
This little story (only a tiny part of the book I might add) describes how the ARM processor originally came into being in the very early 1980s, simply because Intel missed a trick with Acorn (ARM was originally an acronym for Acorn RISC Machine) when they needed a follow-up computer for their BBC Micro. You can get the book at http://www.lulu.com/kaspencer
Good luck!
To the notion that an ARM based system would be a lightweight: The cost of ARM processors (Ax if you prefer) is cheap. The dies are tiny. You could put 32 Ax processors in a laptop, have low power consumption (most of the time when they are halted waiting to be woken), and low cost.
To the notion that there would be a high end pro line with intel and a general population line with Ax, is downright wrong. Supporting two OS variants where one is fine is not a good business or technical decision. Cheaper to throw cores in a machine. The OS presently can handle (if memory serves) at least 63 cores. Probably 256. And could be modified to handle 65000 or more if need be. Or any huge number. I digress.
The bummer here would be that I couldn't run Windows (under Fusion) which I still need to do at home and at work.
The other, real bummer, is the risk that Apple decide to iOS the Mac and put up the walled garden. I'd seriously think of barfing back to Windows in that case. Forget Linux.
That's a bad sign for Intel chips going forward. Apple is going to move to ARM and PowerVR graphics for their entire line. Mac Pros and MacBooks are going to converge onto ARM and not the other way around. It may take some time, but it will happen. Intel cannot hope to entice Apple by giving away their mobile CPUs and the development of ARM has moved so fast that the A series is now a credible threat to the Core series.
There is no way Intel can lower their prices such that any Windows or Android device will be able to compete over the long term. The game is over for Intel. It's now just a matter of time.
When Apple begins the process, I should be able to pick up a Mac Pro for a decent price that should run Parallels for a while. The world will move off of x86 due to costs. Windows won't matter and Intel won't be able to afford the R&D to keep up with ARM.
Convergence will happen, but it will be on ARM, and not x86.
First the base model F-150 is a 3.5 V6, not the 2.7L, which they've always had a small V6 as the base model.
Now, the 2.7L you're talking about Ford switching to to increase gas mileage AT THE EXPENSE OF PERFORMANCE packs 325 hp and 375 lb-ft of torque. Compare that to the 2010 F150 4.6 V8 that only had 292 hp and 320 lb-ft of torque. There's no "expense of performance." Don't try to draw an analogy to something you know nothing about.