That's not what you wrote. Your requirements, as stated, were "a sub-$700 Mac (or Mac-like "PC") that gets email, internet access, some basic word processing, spreadsheet, and other basic apps."
iPad fulfills all of those criteria.
Of course the Mac isn't going away. It will continue to be there for the heavy lifting, and it will continue to be powered for the heavy lifting. There is no reason to switch hardware platforms at this time. Intel is doing great.
You say it's not what I wrote and then re-quote my exact words where I clearly state "(Mac or Mac-like "PC")." That right there should have clued you in and you should have come with a clear understanding that I did not mean an iPad (or iPad-like tablet) device. To reiterate, I mean a notebook or desktop using a desktop-grade OS, hence my carefully worded comments on the subject.
What can't it run? I bought one and zero trouble running anything within the scope of its target market. Even Xcode, which is outside of its market, ran fine.
I have no idea what this means. Are you saying that the built-in OS X apps wouldn't run well? Are you saying that Mac App Store apps wouldn't run well? What measure do you use to come to that conclusion? I tested one for two weeks as a my sole machine and it was brilliant.
Why can't it run office apps? Why would this sort of budget Mac require MS to have Office for Mac in their Mac App Store with an ARM port ready to go or it will kill this device? What percentage of users looking for a budget mac require MS Office over another office suite solution?
1) No, the iPad does not run desktop OS.
2) BTW, all your forced reasons as to why budget Mac would fail were all shattered when you used the iPad as proof of anything since the iPad is, by your standard, anemic, and did have MS Office until recently.
3) Whether Apple goes that route is an entirely different story, but you're being foolish to think that ARM is incapable of ever running a desktop OS sufficiently.
You must have pretty low standards if you think the Macbook runs photoshop "well". Sure, I suppose if you are an amature, and have small files that you do simple editing on. But try multiple 100MB files that you are comping, and come back here and tell me how well it runs. Or do some real movie editing with FCPX, or some real CAD. Try the latest games too. Please, we've already read the reviews. We know better.
Of course, not running Office would be a killer. One major market for this would be students. Like it or not, Office is still the requirement there. As for business people, a market to which this is aimed, Office is a requirement. You don't have to like that, but it is. There is still the home version of Office that many millions of Mac users have, and will continue to have.
And, no, the ipad doesn't run OS X, which is the entire point, which you missed. Your requirement was, in your own words, when you were pretty much agreeing with my saying that this ARM Mac wouldn't run much OS X software:
"...that gets email, internet access, some basic word processing, spreadsheet, and other basic apps."
Your'e talking about how it needs to be "Mac-like". But that just you, and maybe a couple of others here. That doesn't make it real, or true, just YOUR desire, not mine, or most other's.
"Ever capable"? Did you actually understand what I posted?
You say it's not what I wrote and then re-quote my exact words where I clearly state "(Mac or Mac-like "PC")." That right there should have clued you in and you should have come with a clear understanding that I did not mean an iPad (or iPad-like tablet) device. To reiterate, I mean a notebook or desktop using a desktop-grade OS, hence my carefully worded comments on the subject.
But you're not making a good case for it. There's no reason for it to be "Mac-like" if it doesn't NEED Mac software. So we go back to the iPad, which is what I'm typing on now, and which is what I do almost all of my internet work on. I use it for e-mail, eBay, Amazon, and basic database tasks. I use it for many other things as well. If you really need a keyboard, many are available too.
There is absolutely no reason why OS X is needed for any of this. You're just being stubborn about it as though OS X is something magical, which it's not. In fact, I definitely do not want OS X on an underpowered machine. I think that most people would agree.
You haven't presented one good reason why OS X would be needed on ARM, not one. Just that you want it to be.
But you're not making a good case for it. There's no reason for it to be "Mac-like" if it doesn't NEED Mac software. So we go back to the iPad, which is what I'm typing on now, and which is what I do almost all of my internet work on. I use it for e-mail, eBay, Amazon, and basic database tasks. I use it for many other things as well. If you really need a keyboard, many are available too.
There is absolutely no reason why OS X is needed for any of this. You're just being stubborn about it as though OS X is something magical, which it's not. In fact, I definitely do not want OS X on an underpowered machine. I think that most people would agree.
You haven't presented one good reason why OS X would be needed on ARM, not one. Just that you want it to be.
1) There is EVERY reason why one would want Mac OS X on a desktop or notebook computer, and not iOS.
2) I have presented multiple reasons why Apple might want to have control of the CPU and GPU, get out of being dependent on Intel for everything and on their schedule, and, most importantly, save hundreds per chip which would allow them to offer a Mac at much lower prices while still maintaining their profit per device (better than maintaining profit margins compared to more pricey Macs) so they can grow their traditional "PC" segment even faster whole dominating an area they have not been had access to due to High cost of entry due to Intel's high cost for a given performance.
3) You really don't think ARM is capable or matching or surpassing the 12" MacBook's performance? I do.
4) It would also allow for features we can't even imagine because we're stuck with this idea that a desktop system can't use a bespoke chip made my OS maker because, why? Because MS never did it? What about all the negative talk about Apple buying PA Semi? Do you not think the Cupertono "toy" maker did a great job there? I do, and ARM is doing a great job with even better reference designs each year.
1) There is EVERY reason why one would want Mac OS X on a desktop or notebook computer, and not iOS.
There is NO reason, however, why one would want that to run on ARM processors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
2) I have presented multiple reasons why Apple might want to have control of the CPU and GPU, get out of being dependent on Intel for everything and on their schedule, and, most importantly, save hundreds per chip which would allow them to offer a Mac at much lower prices while still maintaining their profit per device (better than maintaining profit margins compared to more pricey Macs) so they can grow their traditional "PC" segment even faster whole dominating an area they have not been had access to due to High cost of entry due to Intel's high cost for a given performance.
You're discounting offhand the work involved with developing and maintaining yet another software platform. For all of their software, with feature-parity (tough enough with just iOS and OS X). Oh, except the "pro" stuff, of course. Or are you arguing in favour of a switch entirely away from Intel? If so, what happens to the high end?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
3) You really don't think ARM is capable or matching or surpassing the 12" MacBook's performance? I do.
I don't think ARM is capable of matching or surpassing whatever the 12" MacBook's performance will be by the time you seem to think this should happen. Let alone the iMac's or Mac Pro's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
4) It would also allow for features we can't even imagine because we're stuck with this idea that a desktop system can't use a bespoke chip made my OS maker because, why? Because MS never did it? What about all the negative talk about Apple buying PA Semi? Do you not think the Cupertono "toy" maker did a great job there? I do, and ARM is doing a great job with even better reference designs each year.
1) There is EVERY reason why one would want Mac OS X on a desktop or notebook computer, and not iOS.
2) I have presented multiple reasons why Apple might want to have control of the CPU and GPU, get out of being dependent on Intel for everything and on their schedule, and, most importantly, save hundreds per chip which would allow them to offer a Mac at much lower prices while still maintaining their profit per device (better than maintaining profit margins compared to more pricey Macs) so they can grow their traditional "PC" segment even faster whole dominating an area they have not been had access to due to High cost of entry due to Intel's high cost for a given performance.
3) You really don't think ARM is capable or matching or surpassing the 12" MacBook's performance? I do.
4) It would also allow for features we can't even imagine because we're stuck with this idea that a desktop system can't use a bespoke chip made my OS maker because, why? Because MS never did it? What about all the negative talk about Apple buying PA Semi? Do you not think the Cupertono "toy" maker did a great job there? I do, and ARM is doing a great job with even better reference designs each year.
You're saying things without any evidence of them being true. If, as you said, an ARM Macbook would just need those basic functions of software that you spoke of, then OS X clearly isn't needed. I don't understand why you think it is.
You're saying things without any evidence of them being true. If, as you said, an ARM Macbook would just need those basic functions of software that you spoke of, then OS X clearly isn't needed. I don't understand why you think it is.
:???:
That makes no sense. How do you use a desktop or notebook without an OS? Magic?!
That makes no sense. How do you use a desktop or notebook without an OS? Magic?!
He's saying (again, as was I) that you don't need a desktop or a notebook to do the things you list as basic required functions. They all work just fine on ARM processors — RUNNING iOS.
He's saying (again, as was I) that you don't need a desktop or a notebook to do the things you list as basic required functions. They all work just fine on ARM processors — RUNNING iOS.
I said running things on a desktop and notebook and you're saying that no one needs to use a desktop or notebook? Fucking brilliant¡ I guess Apple should just shut down their Mac segment because you don't see a need for Macs¡
I said running things on a desktop and notebook and you're saying that no one needs to use a desktop or notebook? Fucking brilliant¡ I guess Apple should just shut down their Mac segment because you don't see a need for Macs¡
I don't see a need for Macs TO DO THE SPECIFIC LIST OF THINGS YOU MENTIONED.
For a lot of other things, Macs are absolutely required. Those are also things I do not want to have to run on ARM CPUs.
Look, we're obviously not understanding what you are trying to say. To us, what you're saying is absolutely crystal clear, and it makes no sense whatsoever.
Maybe you can try to explain better why you think Macs should switch to ARM, and in what form (maybe try to answer my post above, where I responded to each of your four points individually as best I could).
I don't see a need for Macs TO DO THE SPECIFIC LIST OF THINGS YOU MENTIONED.
For a lot of other things, Macs are absolutely required. Those are also things I do not want to have to run on ARM CPUs.
1) The specific list of things are things that people do with a desktop and notebook.
2) The problem is, people like you and Melgross have no ability to perceive of anything outside some neat little make-believe world you've constructed for yourselves. You've convinced yourselves that ARM is only for mobile and the Intel is only for traditional PCs simply because of some "tradition" you've mistakenly applied to technology, even in the face of all the evidence that says it's not just possible but feasible (which isn't to say it's the most advantageous avenue for Apple, that's a different situation altogether).
1) The specific list of things are things that people do with a desktop and notebook.
2) The problem is, people like you and Melgross have no ability to perceive of anything outside some neat little make-believe world you've constructed for yourselves. You've convinced yourselves that ARM is only for mobile and the Intel is only for traditional PCs simply because of some "tradition" you've mistakenly applied to technology, even in the face of all the evidence that says it's not just possible but feasible (which isn't to say it's the most advantageous avenue for Apple, that's a different situation altogether).
Not at all. I'm quite aware that my cellphone is MUCH faster than the computer I used for audio production just a decade ago.
The point is that my current computer is SO MUCH FASTER than my cellphone. What is the point of diversifying into ANOTHER hardware/software platform?
Let's have a look (again):
A Mac running ARM would be distinct from iOS by needing to run a completely different OS due to touch vs. pointer interface.
It would also have to be completely distinct from current OS X for running on completely different hardware.
So, either a replacement - in which case, what happens to the high end? ARM is nowhere near the heavy-lifting Intel stuff in performance. So this is out of the question.
Or, an additional, distinct line of hardware, unable to run regular Mac software due to the emulation overhead. To what possible advantage would Apple do this? How could it possibly be worth the effort for Apple?
I've written all this above, in effect, but you haven't responded at all.
I am, but you're not. You're making ridiculous arguments because of some childish preconception that doesn't allow you to recall any of the evidence you say you haven't seen despite the improbability that you 1) haven't heard of Google taking some marketshare on the low-end with Chrome OS/Chromebooks, 2) not seeing x86/x86_64 CPU performance exceed the typical user's needs, 3) not seeing OSes get more efficient, not see an increased move to more web-connected content, 4) not knowing there is something called the Mac App Store, 5) being clueless about Apple's move from Moto to IBM to Intel, 6) not knowing iOS came from Mac OS X, 7) and being completely unaware of the data performance of Apple's A8X in the iPad Air 2 from a nearly a year ago or how it stacks up to Intel's chips used in current low-end Macs.
As I wrote several posts up, and just above your last one there, I am absolutely aware of all of those things. In fact, I've thought them over and through, which is why I presented some very clear questions to you that you've so far completely ignored.
I was there for the PPC transition, btw, and I was there for the Intel transition. Emulation is a total bitch.
If you're not gonna read anything I write, we might as well call it off.
One last chance, friend:
A Mac running ARM would be distinct from iOS by needing to run a completely different OS due to touch vs. pointer interface.
It would also have to be completely distinct from current OS X for running on completely different hardware.
So, either a replacement - in which case, what happens to the high end? ARM is nowhere near the heavy-lifting Intel stuff in performance. So this is out of the question.
Or, an additional, distinct line of hardware, unable to run regular Mac software due to the emulation overhead. To what possible advantage would Apple do this? How could it possibly be worth the effort for Apple?
Clearly I have, otherwise the specific comments of yours in which I've quoted would not have replies that directly relate to them (like this one).
...friend:
Passive-aggressiveness doesn't look good on anyone.
A Mac running ARM would be distinct from iOS by needing to run a completely different OS due to touch vs. pointer interface.
It would also have to be completely distinct from current OS X for running on completely different hardware.
So, either a replacement - in which case, what happens to the high end? ARM is nowhere near the heavy-lifting Intel stuff in performance. So this is out of the question.
Or, an additional, distinct line of hardware, unable to run regular Mac software due to the emulation overhead. To what possible advantage would Apple do this? How could it possibly be worth the effort for Apple?
All of that was answered. In fact, you and/or Melgross directly responded to my comments after I spelled it out in what I thought was clearly written text but clearly that's the case since you've repeated your emulation and high-end [HW] comments again.
Comments
You say it's not what I wrote and then re-quote my exact words where I clearly state "(Mac or Mac-like "PC")." That right there should have clued you in and you should have come with a clear understanding that I did not mean an iPad (or iPad-like tablet) device. To reiterate, I mean a notebook or desktop using a desktop-grade OS, hence my carefully worded comments on the subject.
You must have pretty low standards if you think the Macbook runs photoshop "well". Sure, I suppose if you are an amature, and have small files that you do simple editing on. But try multiple 100MB files that you are comping, and come back here and tell me how well it runs. Or do some real movie editing with FCPX, or some real CAD. Try the latest games too. Please, we've already read the reviews. We know better.
Of course, not running Office would be a killer. One major market for this would be students. Like it or not, Office is still the requirement there. As for business people, a market to which this is aimed, Office is a requirement. You don't have to like that, but it is. There is still the home version of Office that many millions of Mac users have, and will continue to have.
And, no, the ipad doesn't run OS X, which is the entire point, which you missed. Your requirement was, in your own words, when you were pretty much agreeing with my saying that this ARM Mac wouldn't run much OS X software:
"...that gets email, internet access, some basic word processing, spreadsheet, and other basic apps."
Your'e talking about how it needs to be "Mac-like". But that just you, and maybe a couple of others here. That doesn't make it real, or true, just YOUR desire, not mine, or most other's.
"Ever capable"? Did you actually understand what I posted?
But you're not making a good case for it. There's no reason for it to be "Mac-like" if it doesn't NEED Mac software. So we go back to the iPad, which is what I'm typing on now, and which is what I do almost all of my internet work on. I use it for e-mail, eBay, Amazon, and basic database tasks. I use it for many other things as well. If you really need a keyboard, many are available too.
There is absolutely no reason why OS X is needed for any of this. You're just being stubborn about it as though OS X is something magical, which it's not. In fact, I definitely do not want OS X on an underpowered machine. I think that most people would agree.
You haven't presented one good reason why OS X would be needed on ARM, not one. Just that you want it to be.
1) There is EVERY reason why one would want Mac OS X on a desktop or notebook computer, and not iOS.
2) I have presented multiple reasons why Apple might want to have control of the CPU and GPU, get out of being dependent on Intel for everything and on their schedule, and, most importantly, save hundreds per chip which would allow them to offer a Mac at much lower prices while still maintaining their profit per device (better than maintaining profit margins compared to more pricey Macs) so they can grow their traditional "PC" segment even faster whole dominating an area they have not been had access to due to High cost of entry due to Intel's high cost for a given performance.
3) You really don't think ARM is capable or matching or surpassing the 12" MacBook's performance? I do.
4) It would also allow for features we can't even imagine because we're stuck with this idea that a desktop system can't use a bespoke chip made my OS maker because, why? Because MS never did it? What about all the negative talk about Apple buying PA Semi? Do you not think the Cupertono "toy" maker did a great job there? I do, and ARM is doing a great job with even better reference designs each year.
1) There is EVERY reason why one would want Mac OS X on a desktop or notebook computer, and not iOS.
There is NO reason, however, why one would want that to run on ARM processors.
2) I have presented multiple reasons why Apple might want to have control of the CPU and GPU, get out of being dependent on Intel for everything and on their schedule, and, most importantly, save hundreds per chip which would allow them to offer a Mac at much lower prices while still maintaining their profit per device (better than maintaining profit margins compared to more pricey Macs) so they can grow their traditional "PC" segment even faster whole dominating an area they have not been had access to due to High cost of entry due to Intel's high cost for a given performance.
3) You really don't think ARM is capable or matching or surpassing the 12" MacBook's performance? I do.
I don't think ARM is capable of matching or surpassing whatever the 12" MacBook's performance will be by the time you seem to think this should happen. Let alone the iMac's or Mac Pro's.
4) It would also allow for features we can't even imagine because we're stuck with this idea that a desktop system can't use a bespoke chip made my OS maker because, why? Because MS never did it? What about all the negative talk about Apple buying PA Semi? Do you not think the Cupertono "toy" maker did a great job there? I do, and ARM is doing a great job with even better reference designs each year.
So is intel.
You're saying things without any evidence of them being true. If, as you said, an ARM Macbook would just need those basic functions of software that you spoke of, then OS X clearly isn't needed. I don't understand why you think it is.
:???:
That makes no sense. How do you use a desktop or notebook without an OS? Magic?!
That makes no sense. How do you use a desktop or notebook without an OS? Magic?!
He's saying (again, as was I) that you don't need a desktop or a notebook to do the things you list as basic required functions. They all work just fine on ARM processors — RUNNING iOS.
I said running things on a desktop and notebook and you're saying that no one needs to use a desktop or notebook? Fucking brilliant¡ I guess Apple should just shut down their Mac segment because you don't see a need for Macs¡
I don't see a need for Macs TO DO THE SPECIFIC LIST OF THINGS YOU MENTIONED.
For a lot of other things, Macs are absolutely required. Those are also things I do not want to have to run on ARM CPUs.
Look, we're obviously not understanding what you are trying to say. To us, what you're saying is absolutely crystal clear, and it makes no sense whatsoever.
Maybe you can try to explain better why you think Macs should switch to ARM, and in what form (maybe try to answer my post above, where I responded to each of your four points individually as best I could).
That's clear, especially when you're been bombarded with info about raw performance.
Is this the point where I just give you the finger and put you on ignore, or are you interested in actual discussion?
1) The specific list of things are things that people do with a desktop and notebook.
2) The problem is, people like you and Melgross have no ability to perceive of anything outside some neat little make-believe world you've constructed for yourselves. You've convinced yourselves that ARM is only for mobile and the Intel is only for traditional PCs simply because of some "tradition" you've mistakenly applied to technology, even in the face of all the evidence that says it's not just possible but feasible (which isn't to say it's the most advantageous avenue for Apple, that's a different situation altogether).
Not at all. I'm quite aware that my cellphone is MUCH faster than the computer I used for audio production just a decade ago.
The point is that my current computer is SO MUCH FASTER than my cellphone. What is the point of diversifying into ANOTHER hardware/software platform?
Let's have a look (again):
A Mac running ARM would be distinct from iOS by needing to run a completely different OS due to touch vs. pointer interface.
It would also have to be completely distinct from current OS X for running on completely different hardware.
So, either a replacement - in which case, what happens to the high end? ARM is nowhere near the heavy-lifting Intel stuff in performance. So this is out of the question.
Or, an additional, distinct line of hardware, unable to run regular Mac software due to the emulation overhead. To what possible advantage would Apple do this? How could it possibly be worth the effort for Apple?
I've written all this above, in effect, but you haven't responded at all.
I am, but you're not. You're making ridiculous arguments because of some childish preconception that doesn't allow you to recall any of the evidence you say you haven't seen despite the improbability that you 1) haven't heard of Google taking some marketshare on the low-end with Chrome OS/Chromebooks, 2) not seeing x86/x86_64 CPU performance exceed the typical user's needs, 3) not seeing OSes get more efficient, not see an increased move to more web-connected content, 4) not knowing there is something called the Mac App Store, 5) being clueless about Apple's move from Moto to IBM to Intel, 6) not knowing iOS came from Mac OS X, 7) and being completely unaware of the data performance of Apple's A8X in the iPad Air 2 from a nearly a year ago or how it stacks up to Intel's chips used in current low-end Macs.
I was there for the PPC transition, btw, and I was there for the Intel transition. Emulation is a total bitch.
Weird that you assume this will be a requirement.
If you're not gonna read anything I write, we might as well call it off.
One last chance, friend:
A Mac running ARM would be distinct from iOS by needing to run a completely different OS due to touch vs. pointer interface.
It would also have to be completely distinct from current OS X for running on completely different hardware.
So, either a replacement - in which case, what happens to the high end? ARM is nowhere near the heavy-lifting Intel stuff in performance. So this is out of the question.
Or, an additional, distinct line of hardware, unable to run regular Mac software due to the emulation overhead. To what possible advantage would Apple do this? How could it possibly be worth the effort for Apple?
Clearly I have, otherwise the specific comments of yours in which I've quoted would not have replies that directly relate to them (like this one).
Passive-aggressiveness doesn't look good on anyone.
All of that was answered. In fact, you and/or Melgross directly responded to my comments after I spelled it out in what I thought was clearly written text but clearly that's the case since you've repeated your emulation and high-end [HW] comments again.