bb-15 said: ...a major reason for the increase in Mac (Mac OS) sales was the transition to Intel processors. As stated by PCWorld / MacWorld in 2006 when Mac marketshare got back up to 5%.
“The growth is an excellent sign of the success of Apple’s transition to Intel based systems.”
Yes, but I'm not convinced that means that it was because Intel allowed for native Windows operation. I'm sure that was a factor, but the PowerPC architecture had not gone anywhere for years, and Macs were crippled by running that architecture. The move to Intel chips allowed Macs to become competitive again on speed with their Windows counterparts. I suspect that was the more important factor - it certainly was the one that was pushed at the time as the reason for the switch.
I keep wondering if it would make sense for a Mac (and macOS) to support configurations with:
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?
I think it does. Including an Intel CPU defeats the purpose (getting rid of Intel).
Why assume that Apple would be getting rid of Intel because they wanted to use an ARM-based Mac for, say, a new MacBook Air that was basically the 12" MacBook but running an Apple-designed chip? Do you really think there's an ARM-equivlenet that will work for the Mac Pro? I don't see the Pro-line being affected by this until such time as most people are instead bitching that Apple isn't moving fast enough to switch their high-end machines to to ARM.
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.
Emulation != Virtualization also Virtualization > Emulation
I ran VirtualPC on my G4 Mac Mini. It was okay for very casual tasks, but the performance in an emulator is never going to match virtualization.
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.
ARM is extremely mainstream in content consumption devices and almost nonexistent in content creation (developer content - Nobody develops on ARM).
You may be right, of course. For what it's worth, I'd totally buy an ARM based 12" rMB for travel. I have the original now and it's the best travel computer I've ever used.
My god get a grip there is little difference in a processor driving a content consumption devices as opposed to a content creation device. It is pretty amazing you even pulled this into the dicussion.
With ARM it is all about processor implementation. An ARM based processor capable of addressing 32GB of RAM will be able to do the same things an Intel based processor can do. The fact is ARM processors are designed to be very flexible in implementation so producing a high core count and RAM hungry machine is not a problem. Just look at the ARM based server processors coming on line.
Frankly it is baffling to me that people look at IOS or Android based devices and the question the ability to run XCode or similar demanding applications on ARM hardware. In both cases the socalled content consumption devices are running a Muktitasking OS in a way similar to an intel based desktop. The only real difference is the adressable RAM and some high performance features left out. Guys building an ARM chip with more address lines for more RAM is not a problem. Nor is it a problem to add larger caches and other performance enhancing techniques.
No one should be handwringing about ARM capability here.
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.
ARM is extremely mainstream in content consumption devices and almost nonexistent in content creation (developer content - Nobody develops on ARM).
You may be right, of course. For what it's worth, I'd totally buy an ARM based 12" rMB for travel. I have the original now and it's the best travel computer I've ever used.
My god get a grip there is little difference in a processor driving a content consumption devices as opposed to a content creation device. It is pretty amazing you even pulled this into the dicussion.
With ARM it is all about processor implementation. An ARM based processor capable of addressing 32GB of RAM will be able to do the same things an Intel based processor can do. The fact is ARM processors are designed to be very flexible in implementation so producing a high core count and RAM hungry machine is not a problem. Just look at the ARM based server processors coming on line.
Frankly it is baffling to me that people look at IOS or Android based devices and the question the ability to run XCode or similar demanding applications on ARM hardware. In both cases the socalled content consumption devices are running a Muktitasking OS in a way similar to an intel based desktop. The only real difference is the adressable RAM and some high performance features left out. Guys building an ARM chip with more address lines for more RAM is not a problem. Nor is it a problem to add larger caches and other performance enhancing techniques.
No one should be handwringing about ARM capability here.
It hasn't been reported that Macs would use A-series processors, just custom processors developed by Apple. They may be entirely new, far more powerful, processes from the A-series processors that power mobile devices, AppleTV and HomePod.
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.
Apple already has Swift running on the iPad. This isnt XCode of course but one coukd argue an even more demanding implementation.
What bothers me about this whole XCode thing is the apparent lack of understand of what a computer is or for that matter what an OS does. The ability to run XCode is more about RAM than CPU performance. I can say this due to trying to run XCode on a. 2GB machine for a couple of years.
Assuming there is truth in this rumor Apple wont be running these Macs on todays ARM chips so it is a given that some limitations wont be there. A 32 GB capable machine should be expected for example and i would expect that yhere will be atleast one higher power performance chip available. So you might see a 32 GB MacBook running the same chip that ends up in the iPad. Larger laptops would likely run a performance chip with as many as twelve cores. The actual numbber if cores implemented will depend upon how much space is reserved for energing tech.
In any event yes these machines will run XCode or maybe even XCodes replacement. I just find it silly that XCode has become part of this discussion.
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.
Emulation != Virtualization also Virtualization > Emulation
I ran VirtualPC on my G4 Mac Mini. It was okay for very casual tasks, but the performance in an emulator is never going to match virtualization.
“other” in relation to actual one (Intel) not in relation to “emulators”.
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.
ARM is extremely mainstream in content consumption devices and almost nonexistent in content creation (developer content - Nobody develops on ARM).
You may be right, of course. For what it's worth, I'd totally buy an ARM based 12" rMB for travel. I have the original now and it's the best travel computer I've ever used.
My god get a grip there is little difference in a processor driving a content consumption devices as opposed to a content creation device. It is pretty amazing you even pulled this into the dicussion.
Grip acquired! Some context about my comment might be helpful: I was responding to Mike's assertion that ARM based systems are mainstream devices, which was a response to my assertion that the move to ARM is Apple's first move away from mainstream devices. We were both discussing the context of developers potentially leaving the ecosystem should there be a move away from Intel. ARM based devices (probably?) outnumber Intel based devices and so are very much mainstream, but when we're talking about devices used by developers for development I don't think they are. That was my only point there.
I'm not saying that there is any reason whatsoever that ARM based Macs can't be great content creation machines and I'm not commenting on ARM based CPUs' abilities as general purpose CPUs. I'm only making the assertion, in a back and forth with Mike, that a move away from Intel might result in a lot of developers moving away from Apple, just as the move to Intel brought a lot of them along.
Anyway, I'm not wringing my hands, nor panicking. In this discussion, for the time being, I would prefer it if Apple would not move solely to devices incapable of running Intel VMs and containers. Two years from now I may change my mind, or I may have to change platforms. Neither situation will be much of a loss for you
wizard69 said: I just find it silly that XCode has become part of this discussion.
I don't mind it. I think there's an argument to be made that Apple will first keep Xcode to their higher-end machines because of cost/time/difficulty in converting the app as well as keeping developers on higher cost machines. I also think there's an argument to be made that because most developers already develop for ARM-based devices and that it would allow for more developers, especially in schools and less affluent countries with high tariffs for CE imports, that they'd have it ready it go at or near the launch of the first ARM-based Mac. I lean toward the latter, if you weren't sure.
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.
Apple already has Swift running on the iPad. This isnt XCode of course but one coukd argue an even more demanding implementation.
What bothers me about this whole XCode thing is the apparent lack of understand of what a computer is or for that matter what an OS does. The ability to run XCode is more about RAM than CPU performance. I can say this due to trying to run XCode on a. 2GB machine for a couple of years.
Assuming there is truth in this rumor Apple wont be running these Macs on todays ARM chips so it is a given that some limitations wont be there. A 32 GB capable machine should be expected for example and i would expect that yhere will be atleast one higher power performance chip available. So you might see a 32 GB MacBook running the same chip that ends up in the iPad. Larger laptops would likely run a performance chip with as many as twelve cores. The actual numbber if cores implemented will depend upon how much space is reserved for energing tech.
In any event yes these machines will run XCode or maybe even XCodes replacement. I just find it silly that XCode has become part of this discussion.
Well, I brought it up... for several reasons.
IMO, today's iPad, to run Xcode would mean Cursor/Mouse/Trackpad and external keyboard enhancements to iPad iOS
Swift Playgrounds on iPad is a pretty nice implementation -- but, IMO, Xcode would be better for more intermediate/advanced coding without the need to change devices
You could code for macOS, iOS, watchOS tvOS on the iPad
I suspect that Xcode is being rewritten (or has been) entirely in Swift to be faster and more efficient
Swift Playgrounds on the Mac allows you separate source code files and resource files from the main Playground -- the separate files are compiled once and don't enter into the REPL loop -- this should mitigate much of the RAM/performance issues you mentioned
I suspect porting Xcode to iOS isn't easy, 12” is very little screen estate for such a program.
There are MacBooks with the same size screen.
Running Xcode on a MacBook is only an option because it's running macOS, not because it's an ideal display size.
That’s true. But for convenience sake, running it on the iPad screen would be a good thing. More options are always better than fewer options.
I'm all for it, but would beed to be added to make this feasible? Mouse support would be simple enough. What other frameworks are missing to make Xcode on iOS a reality? Do you think Apple will do that or if they'll just keep with the relatively simplistic Playgrounds.
I wouldnt expect XCode to be xtremely popular on an iPad due to screen size. If Apple did developer tools on iPad i woukd expect a different app.
As for OS support limitstions in Ios may prevent a direct port of XCode anyways. Last i knew apps where prevented from spawning processes.
Playgrounds in my mind is anything but simplistic. It is a rather advanced App that fully leverges the power of iPad. When i think back to running older versions of XCode on a 2 GB machine, Playgrounds actually looks impressive.
In the end the thing that keeps IDEs off IPad is Apple and their policies.
I'm not a major fan of Apple, I am a Microsoft and Google boy through and through, but if Apple can pioneer the shift from x86 CISC based CPU's to ARM RISC based CPU's, I'm all for it because it would mean it's just a matter of time for Windows to start making the shift too.
They already have... There are a couple ARM based laptops on the market right now.
Who's panicking? I had already decided that Apple was making terrible decisions as far as it's computer hardware went and was already looking at the possibility of non-Apple hardware/OS solutions moving forward. I will soon be Apple free for the first time since 1982. Yes, I jumped from the Apple ][ series to Mac. Of course I waited almost 8 years after the introduction of the Mac for the hardware to improve and the software I needed to be available. Yes...I remained an Apple user during the PowerPC years. That was because I was heavily invested in software that I couldn't duplicate elsewhere, not because the sluggish processors and crappy computers kept me there...plus Windows was a pulsating ball of suck. I also transitioned to OS X and then Intel platforms because Apple under Jobs started making sense to me again. I already had a PocketPC phone when the iPhone came out so I wasn't completely dazzled and Jobs "walled garden" philosophy turned me into a dedicated Android user for my phone and pad. Going forward on my laptop and home system? Haven't made any hard decisions but this announcement eliminated Apple from ANY consideration as I don't want to relive the PowerPC days under yet another hapless CEO who is evoking in my mind the dismal days of the Scully/Amelio years. Apple learned that trying to keep up with dedicated processor manufacturers was a fool's gambit once, too bad they seem to think it's a good idea to try it again.
Comments
also
Virtualization > Emulation
I ran VirtualPC on my G4 Mac Mini. It was okay for very casual tasks, but the performance in an emulator is never going to match virtualization.
With ARM it is all about processor implementation. An ARM based processor capable of addressing 32GB of RAM will be able to do the same things an Intel based processor can do. The fact is ARM processors are designed to be very flexible in implementation so producing a high core count and RAM hungry machine is not a problem. Just look at the ARM based server processors coming on line.
Frankly it is baffling to me that people look at IOS or Android based devices and the question the ability to run XCode or similar demanding applications on ARM hardware. In both cases the socalled content consumption devices are running a Muktitasking OS in a way similar to an intel based desktop. The only real difference is the adressable RAM and some high performance features left out. Guys building an ARM chip with more address lines for more RAM is not a problem. Nor is it a problem to add larger caches and other performance enhancing techniques.
No one should be handwringing about ARM capability here.
Thank you for an excellent article!
This has been one of the best discussions on any AI forum in quite a while!
Hear, Hear!
What bothers me about this whole XCode thing is the apparent lack of understand of what a computer is or for that matter what an OS does. The ability to run XCode is more about RAM than CPU performance. I can say this due to trying to run XCode on a. 2GB machine for a couple of years.
Assuming there is truth in this rumor Apple wont be running these Macs on todays ARM chips so it is a given that some limitations wont be there. A 32 GB capable machine should be expected for example and i would expect that yhere will be atleast one higher power performance chip available. So you might see a 32 GB MacBook running the same chip that ends up in the iPad. Larger laptops would likely run a performance chip with as many as twelve cores. The actual numbber if cores implemented will depend upon how much space is reserved for energing tech.
In any event yes these machines will run XCode or maybe even XCodes replacement. I just find it silly that XCode has become part of this discussion.
I'm not saying that there is any reason whatsoever that ARM based Macs can't be great content creation machines and I'm not commenting on ARM based CPUs' abilities as general purpose CPUs. I'm only making the assertion, in a back and forth with Mike, that a move away from Intel might result in a lot of developers moving away from Apple, just as the move to Intel brought a lot of them along.
Anyway, I'm not wringing my hands, nor panicking. In this discussion, for the time being, I would prefer it if Apple would not move solely to devices incapable of running Intel VMs and containers. Two years from now I may change my mind, or I may have to change platforms. Neither situation will be much of a loss for you
As for OS support limitstions in Ios may prevent a direct port of XCode anyways. Last i knew apps where prevented from spawning processes.
Playgrounds in my mind is anything but simplistic. It is a rather advanced App that fully leverges the power of iPad. When i think back to running older versions of XCode on a 2 GB machine, Playgrounds actually looks impressive.
In the end the thing that keeps IDEs off IPad is Apple and their policies.