Snow Leopard shipped rock solid and stable. The OS has been castrated at the UI level and dumbed down since then.
Still think that assuming it will be an ARM chipset is a bit premature. They could be doing an Apple version of x86 just like the A series are Apple’s version of ARM. There are any number of reasons to do it. Security, power management and performance tuning for the OS come to mind.
But, here's the thing: ARM is mainstream. Every iPhone, every iPad, every Samsung, nearly every smartphone has an ARM chip in it. Xcode is already set up to be the transition tool that developers need, so the friction will be extremely low.
Mmm... Does Xcode run on any current ARM devices? Could it? Should it?
Not publicly, but possibly within Apple. Yes. Yes, when ARM-based Macs arrive.
Typical consumers should not and will not care nor understand what you are even writing about here. They will just buy a Mac and use it.
People who are concerned have vested interests in things continuing the same way.
Things are not that simple if you are a software engineer. Transition from PPC to Intel wasn't as smooth as some like to believe. PPC was big endian and Intel is little endian. If you had C/C++ or ObjC code that did low level bit twiddling and assumed byte order, you could not just recompile the code for new CPU arch. You had to re-write the some code in architecture portable way. People use and compile code from decades ago (I know I do), and having to re-comple everything again to get my tooling right is non-trivial task (that is if I can even find source repos for some of the things I use).
There is also issue of virtualization. These days pretty much all software deployed to production is virtualized, even things like Node.js (JavaScript source code), and if you cannot install say Docker on your machine and test software as it will run in production (production is usually Linux on x86_64), then Mac becomes unviable software development option.
Considering that today majority of code committed on github.com is from Macs, this would impact quite a few people.
Another issue is performance. High end Apple chips (which are by the way using 5 W TDP) are getting close to low power Intel CPUs, but currently there are no Apple CPUs that can compete with desktop Core i7 or i9 or Xeons. Not that Apple could not make one, but as it is now you will not get much faster CPU to emulate a slower one. It will be slower CPU emulating a faster one. Intel code on arm64 will run much slower, leading to poorer performance and use experience during transition.
I just wanted to quote this one more time for a lucid, clear explanation of the issues surrounding this purported transition.
I am an attorney at a large national firm, and we recently rolled out new MacBook Pros for hundreds of attorneys. Our IT was able to accomplish this due to the excellent virtualization capabilities built into the current Intel x64 architecture. My work computer now allows me to run osX for personal and daily activities, and to run a hyper secure virtualized environment (Windows-based) for work.
I have always visualized the iOS-based operating systems to be for "casual use." I own 5 apple TVs, a ton of iPads and iPhones, an Apple Watch, etc. These work great on ARM-based architecture and they excel as such: they are quick and efficient for media consumption and basic daily use.
The Mac line, to me, has always stood for more hardcore, versatile, professional-level work. Plus, I like that I can run bootcamp and run some decedent computer games, etc., natively on Windows.
I'm no newb. I understand that Apple's A-architecture can evolve and become more powerful. But I still can't figure out, other than for Apple's own profitability and platform control, what possible benefits Apple would reap from switching its Mac line over to slower ARM chips? It's unlikely (although not impossible) that the A-chips will catch up to Intel or even AMD's peak performance envelopes in the next decade. So why are we doing this?
Anyway, nobody even knows if it will happen. I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm also becoming more and more pessimistic. The last couple years of Apple's products have, at least to me, indicated a transition away from serious users and the needs of serious users.
But, here's the thing: ARM is mainstream. Every iPhone, every iPad, every Samsung, nearly every smartphone has an ARM chip in it. Xcode is already set up to be the transition tool that developers need, so the friction will be extremely low.
Mmm... Does Xcode run on any current ARM devices? Could it? Should it?
I don’t know if it currently runs on ARM (it’s highly probable that Apple did that already), but it’s just a program as any other, so translating it is just a push on the Xcode button, no biggie. Why shouldn’t it be?
First concern is the ability to run virtual Linux and Windows OS's under the new hardware. This is key to having only a souped up Macbook Pro to support multiple platforms and clients
That!!! The loss of the ability to run Parallels or Virtual Box could be a dealbreaker for some, especially in the enterprise setting . . . but also for many home users
Virtual box already runs on ARM and Parallels can be recompiled with Xcode.
Yup. My thoughts have always been that they would, even though Apple has denied it. With their new project, allowing iOS software to run in macOS, using a mouse, I believe we can see the beginning of the end of the total differentiation between the two.
as I’ve mused here a number of times whenever this topic is discussed, I believe that at some point Apple will have the “UOS” - I.e., the Universal Operating System. That would entail Apple calibrating what an app is when it’s downloaded to a particular device. So for the Apple Watch, we would get a version that would use what that UI and SoC is capable of. Ditto for the iPhone’s and iPads. The same thing or Macs. All would be file compatible. Essentially, the app would be the same inside, just allowing the capabilities of the hardware.
with Unix being what all of Apple’s OSs are tied together with, this should be easier than it has been for Microsoft. If Apple could work this out so that the capabilities they already have, which is to look at your hardware and download just what is needed there, then this isn’t such a great leap. It would be painless for users, and not too bad for developers.
I think the question is: will this enhance the performance of future Macs (from Mini if they update it, to MBP, to iMac, to Mac Pro) or is it being done for financial gain?
If it will enhance the performance of the OS on these platforms then Apple would be doing the correct thing in switching. If it is being done for financial gain then Apple would be wrong in doing it (at least for it's users, not talking about investors).
With all that Apple has done, they won't leave older systems "swinging in the wind" and force them to all switch over to the new architecture right away. There will be a transition phase of quite a few years before anyone is inconvenienced by the switch over.
But, here's the thing: ARM is mainstream. Every iPhone, every iPad, every Samsung, nearly every smartphone has an ARM chip in it. Xcode is already set up to be the transition tool that developers need, so the friction will be extremely low.
Mmm... Does Xcode run on any current ARM devices? Could it? Should it?
A better question is if it runs on anything non-Mac, as it once ran on PPC. It will run on ARM if Apple makes the Mac shift to it.
Snow Leopard shipped rock solid and stable. The OS has been castrated at the UI level and dumbed down since then.
Still think that assuming it will be an ARM chipset is a bit premature. They could be doing an Apple version of x86 just like the A series are Apple’s version of ARM. There are any number of reasons to do it. Security, power management and performance tuning for the OS come to mind.
Snow Leopard absolutely did nothing of the sort. It was stable at 10.6.8, and crappy before 10.6.5. There is this mythical (X=X-1) was better phenomenon going on, with a lot of dismissal of when the favorite wasn't so great.
The idea that old, Intel Macs would keep working, offered as a reason to not be concerned about a shift from Intel chips seems shortsighted to me. It only delays the day when Macs will no longer be viable for those of us with a need for Intel compatibility.
I *have to* run Linux and Windows VMs and *want to* use a Mac; it's not the other way around for me and the loss of the ability to do the former would mean my very reluctant move away from Macs. Being able to run Docker containers on my Mac has further underscored my need for Intel compatibility. This is an upsetting thought to me, as I love using macOS as my desktop OS. Nearly every network and software engineer that I know who is a Mac user is in the same boat as I am.
It may well be that this will come to pass, or it may be that it's just a rumour. Perhaps (and this is my hope) Apple will use its own CPUs for low-end systems and Intel CPUs in Pro machines. In any case, I think it's a mistake to underestimate the loss to the Apple community of what I think will be an enormous number of developers. Being dismissive of people's concerns is a little heartless.
I bet it won't cause an enormous loss of developers, the same that the last two shifts didn't, nor any other move that promised to be the death of developers like Xcode was heralded to be. And, like I said, the mini and the MacBook are likely the first, as the A-series processor doesn't have any super-heavy lifters at present.
I'm also pretty sure that you realize that you are not typical of the Mac using public. You are an outlier. That's not a bad thing, mind you, but also not a giant market segment for the company.
While it seems to be that people are ignoring what I’ve been saying about this in threads over the years, it isn’t necessary for there to be any incompatibility between x86 software and an A series SoC, if Apple does what I’ve said they could. That’s to add the dozen, or so, instructions which have been shown to cause 80% of the slowdown when emulating one chip family on another. As far as I know, all of these instructions are open for anyone to use, individually. If Apple added them to their SoC, and had an automatic switch to those instructions when x86 software called for them, then no sloppy software virtualization would be required, as everything would work as usual. As Apple’s SoC speeded up over the next couple of years, x86 software would run faster. I saw that with my Quadra 950 after Apple released the PPC 601 card for the processor slot.
for all we know, they’re working on that now. In fact, no one knows what at least 35% of the area on the SoC does. Apple doesn’t talk about more than a few areas. They could be experimenting with that now. Maybe we’ll see a “B” series of SoCs that will do this. Who knows? Otherwise, people thinking that Apple will do what Microsoft is doing is wrong, by my thinking. Microsoft requires a code rewrite for software to work on their universal system. Wouldn’t it be better if NO rewrite was required? You bet!
Awaiting the first anti-trust/monopoly lawsuit that Apple has yet to experience. Once Apple owns all the hardware and all the software running on their products, continuing their closed "ecosystem", the legal woes and end-of-product nightmare will begin. What a bad idea... I'm definitely not going down this path of self-destruction, been there, done that. Pity some businesses don't learn from history and are therefore doomed to repeat mistakes. More temporary profit for Apple, less choices for consumers.
Clearly you have no idea what “monopoly” means. They can’t have a monopoly when macOS only has 6-7% market share.
Its like youre claiming Burger King had a “monopoly” on what they serve in their own restaurant, ignoring that you can eat elsewhere with competitors.
But, here's the thing: ARM is mainstream. Every iPhone, every iPad, every Samsung, nearly every smartphone has an ARM chip in it. Xcode is already set up to be the transition tool that developers need, so the friction will be extremely low.
Mmm... Does Xcode run on any current ARM devices? Could it? Should it?
I don’t know if it currently runs on ARM (it’s highly probable that Apple did that already), but it’s just a program as any other, so translating it is just a push on the Xcode button, no biggie. Why shouldn’t it be?
We have a 12" and 10" iPad Pros with kb cases... I'd like to be able to run Xcode on these.
First concern is the ability to run virtual Linux and Windows OS's under the new hardware. This is key to having only a souped up Macbook Pro to support multiple platforms and clients
That!!! The loss of the ability to run Parallels or Virtual Box could be a dealbreaker for some, especially in the enterprise setting . . . but also for many home users
You won’t lose the ability to run Parallels or Virtual Box, they will adapt. Maybe as emulators or under some other form of virtualization. Parallels or Virtual Box are not the first of their kind, before them Virtual PC did the job in the PowerPC era, especially for many home users.
Awaiting the first anti-trust/monopoly lawsuit that Apple has yet to experience. Once Apple owns all the hardware and all the software running on their products, continuing their closed "ecosystem", the legal woes and end-of-product nightmare will begin. What a bad idea... I'm definitely not going down this path of self-destruction, been there, done that. Pity some businesses don't learn from history and are therefore doomed to repeat mistakes. More temporary profit for Apple, less choices for consumers.
Maybe Apple is working on it, but they're not just going to move to it without a solid plan for everything. I think people are worrying a little too much.
The Rosetta solution for the intel switch was kinda brutal. In a lot of cases, you had to repurchase all your software again and buy new peripherals for the drivers. It took a few years for software to catch up - some never did. Like Keynote for example, version 9 had a lot of features that were lost in the re-write and never came back. I think it was what killed off Quark as well.
It was a very disruptive workflow in general. The problem with keeping Pro macs on Intel is that they will get less and less resources and support- to the point where it just makes sense to switch to windows. Like a lot of printing and design houses did with the Intel switch.
The big question is the Adobe factor.
Quark killed Quark. Due to their hubris they refused to update and Adobe ate their lunch. I missed it for about 5 seconds, but honestly it was outdated across the board.
The idea that old, Intel Macs would keep working, offered as a reason to not be concerned about a shift from Intel chips seems shortsighted to me. It only delays the day when Macs will no longer be viable for those of us with a need for Intel compatibility.
I *have to* run Linux and Windows VMs and *want to* use a Mac; it's not the other way around for me and the loss of the ability to do the former would mean my very reluctant move away from Macs. Being able to run Docker containers on my Mac has further underscored my need for Intel compatibility. This is an upsetting thought to me, as I love using macOS as my desktop OS. Nearly every network and software engineer that I know who is a Mac user is in the same boat as I am.
It may well be that this will come to pass, or it may be that it's just a rumour. Perhaps (and this is my hope) Apple will use its own CPUs for low-end systems and Intel CPUs in Pro machines. In any case, I think it's a mistake to underestimate the loss to the Apple community of what I think will be an enormous number of developers. Being dismissive of people's concerns is a little heartless.
I bet it won't cause an enormous loss of developers, the same that the last two shifts didn't, nor any other move that promised to be the death of developers like Xcode was heralded to be. And, like I said, the mini and the MacBook are likely the first, as the A-series processor doesn't have any super-heavy lifters at present.
I'm also pretty sure that you realize that you are not typical of the Mac using public. You are an outlier. That's not a bad thing, mind you, but also not a giant market segment for the company.
While it seems to be that people are ignoring what I’ve been saying about this in threads over the years, it isn’t necessary for there to be any incompatibility between x86 software and an A series SoC, if Apple does what I’ve said they could. That’s to add the dozen, or so, instructions which have been shown to cause 80% of the slowdown when emulating one chip family on another. As far as I know, all of these instructions are open for anyone to use, individually. If Apple added them to their SoC, and had an automatic switch to those instructions when x86 software called for them, then no sloppy software virtualization would be required, as everything would work as usual. As Apple’s SoC speeded up over the next couple of years, x86 software would run faster. I saw that with my Quadra 950 after Apple released the PPC 601 card for the processor slot.
for all we know, they’re working on that now. In fact, no one knows what at least 35% of the area on the SoC does. Apple doesn’t talk about more than a few areas. They could be experimenting with that now. Maybe we’ll see a “B” series of SoCs that will do this. Who knows? Otherwise, people thinking that Apple will do what Microsoft is doing is wrong, by my thinking. Microsoft requires a code rewrite for software to work on their universal system. Wouldn’t it be better if NO rewrite was required? You bet!
Note that ‘sloppy software virtualization’ is required for instructions not added to the core. It’s also possible to translate the code ahead of time once and run this translated program at full speed.
Comments
Still think that assuming it will be an ARM chipset is a bit premature. They could be doing an Apple version of x86 just like the A series are Apple’s version of ARM. There are any number of reasons to do it. Security, power management and performance tuning for the OS come to mind.
Not publicly, but possibly within Apple. Yes. Yes, when ARM-based Macs arrive.
I am an attorney at a large national firm, and we recently rolled out new MacBook Pros for hundreds of attorneys. Our IT was able to accomplish this due to the excellent virtualization capabilities built into the current Intel x64 architecture. My work computer now allows me to run osX for personal and daily activities, and to run a hyper secure virtualized environment (Windows-based) for work.
I have always visualized the iOS-based operating systems to be for "casual use." I own 5 apple TVs, a ton of iPads and iPhones, an Apple Watch, etc. These work great on ARM-based architecture and they excel as such: they are quick and efficient for media consumption and basic daily use.
The Mac line, to me, has always stood for more hardcore, versatile, professional-level work. Plus, I like that I can run bootcamp and run some decedent computer games, etc., natively on Windows.
I'm no newb. I understand that Apple's A-architecture can evolve and become more powerful. But I still can't figure out, other than for Apple's own profitability and platform control, what possible benefits Apple would reap from switching its Mac line over to slower ARM chips? It's unlikely (although not impossible) that the A-chips will catch up to Intel or even AMD's peak performance envelopes in the next decade. So why are we doing this?
Why shouldn’t it be?
as I’ve mused here a number of times whenever this topic is discussed, I believe that at some point Apple will have the “UOS” - I.e., the Universal Operating System. That would entail Apple calibrating what an app is when it’s downloaded to a particular device. So for the Apple Watch, we would get a version that would use what that UI and SoC is capable of. Ditto for the iPhone’s and iPads. The same thing or Macs. All would be file compatible. Essentially, the app would be the same inside, just allowing the capabilities of the hardware.
with Unix being what all of Apple’s OSs are tied together with, this should be easier than it has been for Microsoft. If Apple could work this out so that the capabilities they already have, which is to look at your hardware and download just what is needed there, then this isn’t such a great leap. It would be painless for users, and not too bad for developers.
If it will enhance the performance of the OS on these platforms then Apple would be doing the correct thing in switching. If it is being done for financial gain then Apple would be wrong in doing it (at least for it's users, not talking about investors).
With all that Apple has done, they won't leave older systems "swinging in the wind" and force them to all switch over to the new architecture right away. There will be a transition phase of quite a few years before anyone is inconvenienced by the switch over.
for all we know, they’re working on that now. In fact, no one knows what at least 35% of the area on the SoC does. Apple doesn’t talk about more than a few areas. They could be experimenting with that now. Maybe we’ll see a “B” series of SoCs that will do this. Who knows? Otherwise, people thinking that Apple will do what Microsoft is doing is wrong, by my thinking. Microsoft requires a code rewrite for software to work on their universal system. Wouldn’t it be better if NO rewrite was required? You bet!
- an ARM CPU and an Intel CPU
- multiple ARM CPUs
- multiple ARM CPUs and an Intel CPU
Maybe it need not be all or nothing?Its like youre claiming Burger King had a “monopoly” on what they serve in their own restaurant, ignoring that you can eat elsewhere with competitors.
Nope.
It’s also possible to translate the code ahead of time once and run this translated program at full speed.