Looks like Apple are using every trick they have from making IPads and Phones to leave as much processing time and heat dissipation for the real demanding work.
If Siri(A10) does do lights-out management then hopefully it can do lights out sync and data saving during expected power outages.
All-in-one (AIO) computers like iMac are a huge aggression to planet Earth. Computers may last for seven years or less, whereas displays may last for more than 20 years.
Please shut the fuck up with that nonsense. The number of consumer displays in use from 20 years ago is practically nil and we're not going to give up our notebooks, tablets smartphones, smartwatches, and everything else that comes with a built-in display because you have a problem with an already low-yield device, the iMac.
He posts this on purpose to get a raise out of us. I've just learned to ignore him.
It seems to me the real importance of this discovery is that the A10 chip will handle booting & security. That means FaceID is coming to the Mac at some point. Which isn’t a giant leap. But seeing references to the hardware required in code means we are closer than we may have thought.
All-in-one (AIO) computers like iMac are a huge aggression to planet Earth. Computers may last for seven years or less, whereas displays may last for more than 20 years.
go troll this bullshit somewhere else. Macs are extremely long-lived and highly recyclable, making them a more ecological choice than any crappy plastic Dell desktop.
nobody uses a display for TWENTY YEARS. there is something wrong with your brain.
3) A10 seems like overkill for the stated functionality, and with FaceTime mentioned I hope that this means the iMac Pro will also include Face ID.
I'm pretty sure that Face ID requires the A11/neural engine... so if the rumored co-processor is an a10, then no Face ID.
I'm not so sure about that?
A9 & A10 can do face feature detection using the Vision Framework are a reasonable speed. Given the computer is generally in a more physically secure location they could lower the test standards and make it more about registered user switching (yes please) than strict security. Still say require password or second factor after say 30min inactivity or if moved assuming Macbooks are also on the cards. Enough time to duck to loo or make coffee, but come back from meeting or lunch and you get prompted.
Hey Siri is just what the developer found - A8 could already do that, A10 is way overkill. Clearly there's a lot more here. I'm thinking background downloads, power nap, sleep, security, etc.
I think they'll move more to the ARM side over time and use it like a more split big.little, let the Xeon focus on the big tasks. The PS4 does this really well, such that you can play a game on the x86 cores while the ARM core is installing them.
The A10 fusion chip is cheap compared to the Intel chips. The iMac pro margin can easily handle it.
Apple could be working towards direct running of iOS apps on OS X for development or plain ol' operation. Your Mac could become your iPad or your phone... just another iOS device, while still being a Mac.
At the same time, Apple could be testing how well the ARM runs pro-style apps or OSX. If the A10 chip is handling the boot process, then the next step is booting to the OS of choice, be it OSX, Windows, or (dun dun dunnnn...) iOS.
Remember that Apple was running OSX on intel for FIVE YEARS before they ANNOUNCED the switch to Intel. We could have ARM-based Macs in that time or less from now.
It sounds nuts. N-V-T-S, nuts. But it is plausible.
Ok, but why would they treat OSX and iOS as separate OS's? iOS was derived from OSX. Most of the differences are related to the hardware form (and related i/o) that they run on. Running two OS's on one machine just isn't what Apple does. Two messy. They'll roll them back together -- or more likely just modify OSX as necessary...
The UI is the major difference. It’s like saying watchOS is the same as iOS because they both run on ARM. Architecture can change, as Apple has shown many times. There will never be a single install that will work for iPhones and Macs!
UI is the roadblock? Are you aware of where iOS came from?
The A10 fusion chip is cheap compared to the Intel chips. The iMac pro margin can easily handle it.
Apple could be working towards direct running of iOS apps on OS X for development or plain ol' operation. Your Mac could become your iPad or your phone... just another iOS device, while still being a Mac.
At the same time, Apple could be testing how well the ARM runs pro-style apps or OSX. If the A10 chip is handling the boot process, then the next step is booting to the OS of choice, be it OSX, Windows, or (dun dun dunnnn...) iOS.
Remember that Apple was running OSX on intel for FIVE YEARS before they ANNOUNCED the switch to Intel. We could have ARM-based Macs in that time or less from now.
It sounds nuts. N-V-T-S, nuts. But it is plausible.
Ok, but why would they treat OSX and iOS as separate OS's? iOS was derived from OSX. Most of the differences are related to the hardware form (and related i/o) that they run on. Running two OS's on one machine just isn't what Apple does. Two messy. They'll roll them back together -- or more likely just modify OSX as necessary...
Do you really have to ask this question? Seriously? Have you not been paying attention for the past 10 yrs?
Yes, I have. Where were you when they spun iOS off from MacOS?
If this is true (and I can see many, many reasons for them to implement a dedicated "secure" CPU / core as they already do for iOS devices), then I see no reason why HomeKit couldn't finally come to the Mac. If nothing else, it opens the possibility for Siri voice control, and possibly some dedicated 1st party HomeKit app like what exists in iOS today to set up more advanced rules. The benefits are numerous and, long term, I cannot see Apple limiting this to *only* the iMac Pro. There's already precedent for this today as Touch Bar-enabled Macs technically have a dedicated Ax processor running in tandem with the main Intel CPU.
Until now, there was pretty big concern about macOS, which is a much more open operating system compared to iOS, having any access to home automation, including critical home security devices like smart locks. By offloading this to a secure core, they get rid of that risk and can remove any chance for 3rd party access as well.
Good points. But there are limits to how far downstream these dual systems can economically go. But, I agree, the MBP w/ touchbar is already pretty high end.
All-in-one (AIO) computers like iMac are a huge aggression to planet Earth. Computers may last for seven years or less, whereas displays may last for more than 20 years.
Please shut the fuck up with that nonsense. The number of consumer displays in use from 20 years ago is practically nil and we're not going to give up our notebooks, tablets smartphones, smartwatches, and everything else that comes with a built-in display because you have a problem with an already low-yield device, the iMac.
He made a reasonable point. Why so touchy about it?
All-in-one (AIO) computers like iMac are a huge aggression to planet Earth. Computers may last for seven years or less, whereas displays may last for more than 20 years.
go troll this bullshit somewhere else. Macs are extremely long-lived and highly recyclable, making them a more ecological choice than any crappy plastic Dell desktop.
nobody uses a display for TWENTY YEARS. there is something wrong with your brain.
Damn! I better get rid of mine! Such a shame. It's works great and I love the picture quality on it. None of that posterized looking stuff like you get on the flat screens.
The A10 fusion chip is cheap compared to the Intel chips. The iMac pro margin can easily handle it.
Apple could be working towards direct running of iOS apps on OS X for development or plain ol' operation. Your Mac could become your iPad or your phone... just another iOS device, while still being a Mac.
At the same time, Apple could be testing how well the ARM runs pro-style apps or OSX. If the A10 chip is handling the boot process, then the next step is booting to the OS of choice, be it OSX, Windows, or (dun dun dunnnn...) iOS.
Remember that Apple was running OSX on intel for FIVE YEARS before they ANNOUNCED the switch to Intel. We could have ARM-based Macs in that time or less from now.
It sounds nuts. N-V-T-S, nuts. But it is plausible.
Ok, but why would they treat OSX and iOS as separate OS's? iOS was derived from OSX. Most of the differences are related to the hardware form (and related i/o) that they run on. Running two OS's on one machine just isn't what Apple does. Two messy. They'll roll them back together -- or more likely just modify OSX as necessary...
The UI is the major difference. It’s like saying watchOS is the same as iOS because they both run on ARM. Architecture can change, as Apple has shown many times. There will never be a single install that will work for iPhones and Macs!
UI is the roadblock? Are you aware of where iOS came from?
UI is always the roadblock. It's why the iPhone uses CocoaTouch the Mac uses Aqua. There's a reason why the iPad was never simply a plop-in of macOS with all those tiny little features that are best done with a mouse, not a fat finger. The same goes for watchOS, it's ARM and yet it's not the same UI as on your iPhone. To think that because bridgeOS comes from watchOS comes from iOS, and podOS comes from iOS, and tvOS comes from iOS, and iOS came from macOS that we should a single fucking installer that all devices use like we see with Mac updates makes no sense. The reason why the Mac can do this is because windowed OSes still use the same UI and differences in HW drivers take up a relatively low about of space.
All-in-one (AIO) computers like iMac are a huge aggression to planet Earth. Computers may last for seven years or less, whereas displays may last for more than 20 years.
Please shut the fuck up with that nonsense. The number of consumer displays in use from 20 years ago is practically nil and we're not going to give up our notebooks, tablets smartphones, smartwatches, and everything else that comes with a built-in display because you have a problem with an already low-yield device, the iMac.
He made a reasonable point. Why so touchy about it?
No he didn't. It's 2017 and you're saying that most of us want to use displays from 1997? Bullshit! And back in 1997 we were using displays from 1977? Double bullshit.
Think about what you're suggesting. Ignoring all the wonderful benefits like 1000 nits of brightness, 10-bit color/HDR, 178° viewing angles and other wonderful benefits of modern displays, just imagine the iPhone or MacBook Pro without a Retina IPS display. That's only going back 6 and 5 years, respectively. Are you honestly saying that you'd be fine with a 3.5" iPhone display from 2007 (only a decade) that you can bolt onto the latest iPhone that you buy without a display or a 20 year old PowerBook G3 display you can attach to a headless MacBook Pro? Do you really not see how stupid that sounds to expect that the hundreds of millions of devices Apple sells with built-in displays get sold without them so you can use old displays? It's fucking nuts!
The A10 fusion chip is cheap compared to the Intel chips. The iMac pro margin can easily handle it.
Apple could be working towards direct running of iOS apps on OS X for development or plain ol' operation. Your Mac could become your iPad or your phone... just another iOS device, while still being a Mac.
At the same time, Apple could be testing how well the ARM runs pro-style apps or OSX. If the A10 chip is handling the boot process, then the next step is booting to the OS of choice, be it OSX, Windows, or (dun dun dunnnn...) iOS.
Remember that Apple was running OSX on intel for FIVE YEARS before they ANNOUNCED the switch to Intel. We could have ARM-based Macs in that time or less from now.
It sounds nuts. N-V-T-S, nuts. But it is plausible.
Ok, but why would they treat OSX and iOS as separate OS's? iOS was derived from OSX. Most of the differences are related to the hardware form (and related i/o) that they run on. Running two OS's on one machine just isn't what Apple does. Two messy. They'll roll them back together -- or more likely just modify OSX as necessary...
Do you really have to ask this question? Seriously? Have you not been paying attention for the past 10 yrs?
Yes, I have. Where were you when they spun iOS off from MacOS?
I don't really need to say anymore...you've already made yourself look like a fool.
All-in-one (AIO) computers like iMac are a huge aggression to planet Earth. Computers may last for seven years or less, whereas displays may last for more than 20 years.
Please shut the fuck up with that nonsense. The number of consumer displays in use from 20 years ago is practically nil and we're not going to give up our notebooks, tablets smartphones, smartwatches, and everything else that comes with a built-in display because you have a problem with an already low-yield device, the iMac.
He made a reasonable point. Why so touchy about it?
No he didn't, all in ones are more environmentally efficient. Splitting it into multiple boxes means using more materials for original construct and is worse for the environment. Also, the connectors, display resolutions and video standards continuously evolve. The original iMac was released 19 years ago, it was a 15" CRT display. Who would use that as a monitor 20 years later.
That computer derived great value from the simplicity of not having to plug a bunch of parts together.
All-in-one (AIO) computers like iMac are a huge aggression to planet Earth. Computers may last for seven years or less, whereas displays may last for more than 20 years.
Oh yeah? Show me your 15-inch Studio Flat Panel LCD from 1997. Let's check its color accuracy.
Or maybe your blue and white CRT Studio Display, that consumes 21 times the power that a 28-inch 4K LCD does. What was that about "aggression to planet Earth?"
3) A10 seems like overkill for the stated functionality, and with FaceTime mentioned I hope that this means the iMac Pro will also include Face ID.
I'm pretty sure that Face ID requires the A11/neural engine... so if the rumored co-processor is an a10, then no Face ID.
Probably true but not necessarily. The cpu and GPU in the A10 might be capable of doing it, just not at a performance per watt level for a phone. In a computer that’s plugged into a wall, though, it’s no big deal to run the A10 at full speed for a longer period of time. They could also crank the clock higher
The A-processor can offload a lot of work off the main intel chip and can gather research information for Apple if they choose to go all ARM in the future.
Still waiting for on-device parsing..not having to rely on an internet connection. I’d be nice if I can use Siri without an Internet connection. Just to ask to start a timer shouldn’t need an internet connection.
I've thought of this when I had my iPod Touch offline half the time BUT where do you draw the line? Do you want it to only start timers? That would be fine but then people will complain it can't play their music or set reminders. How about basic functions from default apps? That would be okay but then people will complain it can't define words or look up wikipedia. Then it becomes a problem because it starts digging into your internal storage. Wikipedia alone takes about 4GB in compressed text.
I thought it would be cool if Siri had a dedicated SSD. Maybe a 16GB chip with possibly other functions but this would take up internal space and cost us more $$$.
All-in-one (AIO) computers like iMac are a huge aggression to planet Earth. Computers may last for seven years or less, whereas displays may last for more than 20 years.
Can you explain why my iMac has lasted 8 years?
macxpress said: I usually disable Siri on the Mac...its just too useless. I don't see where it really does much of anything.
I think it would be cool to see the A10 or A11 in the next MacBook and/or MacBook Pro along side the Intel CPU. It could run the OS doing basic things and then when power is really needed it kicks in the Intel CPU. That would quite a feat of engineering though. There's a lot of software engineering that needs to take place to make something like that work reliably.
Why would you want this? By that logic wouldn't it be better to just use one chip to do it all? Why would you want it to switch between chips depending on power? I think a better application would be what I suggested above. Assign certain functions to the A-chip to deal with exclusively (Siri, TouchID/FaceID, ApplePay and more we haven't thought of) and let Intel deal with the rest. Then slowly cross functions over to the A-processor as research for future ARM Macs.
The A10 fusion chip is cheap compared to the Intel chips. The iMac pro margin can easily handle it.
Apple could be working towards direct running of iOS apps on OS X for development or plain ol' operation. Your Mac could become your iPad or your phone... just another iOS device, while still being a Mac.
At the same time, Apple could be testing how well the ARM runs pro-style apps or OSX. If the A10 chip is handling the boot process, then the next step is booting to the OS of choice, be it OSX, Windows, or (dun dun dunnnn...) iOS.
Remember that Apple was running OSX on intel for FIVE YEARS before they ANNOUNCED the switch to Intel. We could have ARM-based Macs in that time or less from now.
It sounds nuts. N-V-T-S, nuts. But it is plausible.
Ok, but why would they treat OSX and iOS as separate OS's? iOS was derived from OSX. Most of the differences are related to the hardware form (and related i/o) that they run on. Running two OS's on one machine just isn't what Apple does. Two messy. They'll roll them back together -- or more likely just modify OSX as necessary...
The UI is the major difference. It’s like saying watchOS is the same as iOS because they both run on ARM. Architecture can change, as Apple has shown many times. There will never be a single install that will work for iPhones and Macs!
UI is the roadblock? Are you aware of where iOS came from?
UI is always the roadblock. It's why the iPhone uses CocoaTouch the Mac uses Aqua.
The main difference comes down to one class UIResponder on CocoaTouch instead of NSResponder on Mac (Nextstep). At the start UIResponder was all multi-touch events but slowly evolved to handle keyboard events and pencil as well. Apple have closed the gap between them every year so wouldn't be surprised if either could work on the other with no work at all. In many was UIResponder has overtaken and would be capable of replacing It's NS brother with a few restriction put in place.
Comments
I'm pretty sure that Face ID requires the A11/neural engine... so if the rumored co-processor is an a10, then no Face ID.
If Siri(A10) does do lights-out management then hopefully it can do lights out sync and data saving during expected power outages.
nobody uses a display for TWENTY YEARS. there is something wrong with your brain.
A9 & A10 can do face feature detection using the Vision Framework are a reasonable speed. Given the computer is generally in a more physically secure location they could lower the test standards and make it more about registered user switching (yes please) than strict security. Still say require password or second factor after say 30min inactivity or if moved assuming Macbooks are also on the cards. Enough time to duck to loo or make coffee, but come back from meeting or lunch and you get prompted.
I think they'll move more to the ARM side over time and use it like a more split big.little, let the Xeon focus on the big tasks. The PS4 does this really well, such that you can play a game on the x86 cores while the ARM core is installing them.
Are you aware of where iOS came from?
No he didn't. It's 2017 and you're saying that most of us want to use displays from 1997? Bullshit! And back in 1997 we were using displays from 1977? Double bullshit.
Think about what you're suggesting. Ignoring all the wonderful benefits like 1000 nits of brightness, 10-bit color/HDR, 178° viewing angles and other wonderful benefits of modern displays, just imagine the iPhone or MacBook Pro without a Retina IPS display. That's only going back 6 and 5 years, respectively. Are you honestly saying that you'd be fine with a 3.5" iPhone display from 2007 (only a decade) that you can bolt onto the latest iPhone that you buy without a display or a 20 year old PowerBook G3 display you can attach to a headless MacBook Pro? Do you really not see how stupid that sounds to expect that the hundreds of millions of devices Apple sells with built-in displays get sold without them so you can use old displays? It's fucking nuts!
That computer derived great value from the simplicity of not having to plug a bunch of parts together.
The A-processor can offload a lot of work off the main intel chip and can gather research information for Apple if they choose to go all ARM in the future.
I've thought of this when I had my iPod Touch offline half the time BUT where do you draw the line? Do you want it to only start timers? That would be fine but then people will complain it can't play their music or set reminders. How about basic functions from default apps? That would be okay but then people will complain it can't define words or look up wikipedia. Then it becomes a problem because it starts digging into your internal storage. Wikipedia alone takes about 4GB in compressed text.
I thought it would be cool if Siri had a dedicated SSD. Maybe a 16GB chip with possibly other functions but this would take up internal space and cost us more $$$.
Can you explain why my iMac has lasted 8 years?
Why would you want this? By that logic wouldn't it be better to just use one chip to do it all? Why would you want it to switch between chips depending on power?
I think a better application would be what I suggested above. Assign certain functions to the A-chip to deal with exclusively (Siri, TouchID/FaceID, ApplePay and more we haven't thought of) and let Intel deal with the rest. Then slowly cross functions over to the A-processor as research for future ARM Macs.