Apple Silicon Macs are needed for consumers and pro users alike

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 82
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,787moderator
    jdb8167 said:
    Another solution is to use one of Intel's PC stick hardware devices or a solution from another company. This could be used in conjunction with VM software to provide a local PC that runs as a window in the macOS environment. This seems to be a pretty doable software project integrated into one of the existing VM applications. I don't know how fast the PCs on thumb drive size devices are but again, for most purposes besides gaming, it would probably be adequate. Windows DirectX gaming is the one use that ARM Macs are not going to be able to support. But I just can't imagine that the number of people buying Macs for Windows gaming is very high. You get much better bang for your dollar by just going out and buying an actual Windows PC.

    I think in a year or so, all this will shake out and people will have a much better idea of what to buy to meet their needs. I'm guessing that Apple has already thought a lot of this through and made the determination that the market will solve most of the problems.
    That's a good cheap option at $155, including Windows 10 Pro installed:

    https://www.amazon.com/Fanless-Desktop-Computer-Pre-Installed-Bluetooth/dp/B0834KPKNB

    That can be setup by plugging into a TV or monitor HDMI and it can be setup with remote desktop. It would be nice to have an option that plugged into a USB C port and the video showed on a Mac's internal display in a window with optional fullscreen.

    The Atom chips are around 1/5th of a normal Mac speed but VMs tend to be configured with 1 or 2 cores. This would cover all those Windows utility apps, accounting software, Windows-specific networking tools, browser compatibility testing. Not suitable for higher-end 3D like some CAD software, 3D rendering or gaming but the higher-end stuff is always a smaller percentage of the users and even some higher-end PCs can be bought under $1000.
  • Reply 42 of 82
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,285member
    melgross said:

    pslice said:
    Is Apple going to offer an AppleCare extension to bridge Intel users to the Apple Silicon? My AppleCare expired on 6/15. I had hoped Apple would announce new iMacs. Right now I feel naked without AppleCare coverage.

    No manufacturer cares about an owner of such an old machine. It’s time to think about buying a new one. If you can’t afford one, buy a newer model that’s used or refurbished.
    I think even in the state of California a new car or product must have replacement parts for repairs available for at least 3 years after purchase.
    We’re talking about 8 years.
    killroyspheric
  • Reply 43 of 82
    killroykillroy Posts: 214member
    swineone said:
    lkrupp said:

    So do expect some complaints, and also expect some bargain Intel-based Mac Pro machines to turn up on eBay. However, it's not that anyone need ditch their current Intel Mac, nor should anyone should put off buying one if they need it now.



    Something I've never understood about some users. Your current machine is running perfectly fine, it's fast and it does what you want it to very well. Now something new and different comes along and somehow, someway , the machine you are using becomes an obsolete piece of crap not worth keeping. And you blame Apple for bringing out a new technology before you are damn good and ready for it. You rage at Apple for making your perfectly fine machine 'useless'. 
    When you invest a substantial amount of money in some pro gear, you hardly do so with the expectation to use it for a couple of years and then discard it. In fact you sell it for a good fraction of what you paid for it. That's part of the economic calculation of buying a piece of pro gear.

    Now suddenly your pro gear uses a fundamentally incompatible architecture, which will be supported for "some (unstated amount of) years". There's no guarantee developers will continue performing software maintenance for the Intel port, or even Apple itself, for that matter. Now your expensive pro gear may not last as long as you initially planned, and by the time you sell it, it will probably be worthless. I mean really, if you paid upwards of $10,000 on a Mac Pro recently (quite easy with CPU, RAM, storage and GPU upgrades), who's going to pay more than, say, $3,000 or $4,000 for it in three years, knowing the fate of Intel hardware?

    Compare that to other pro gear. I work with electronics design, where you can get upgrades for decades-old test equipment from the likes of Keysight, Fluke or Tektronix. An HP 3458A DMM, the gold standard in high-precision metrology, is a design from 1989 (IIRC) which holds its value quite well, and is still sold today with minimal, user-facing changes only. The lens mounts for DSLR cameras are the same for decades, you can use a good lens from the previous century on a current Canon or Nikon camera. I know computer technology is faster paced than this, but still, the timeframes in the pro market are quite different from the consumer market.

    If Apple really cared about its pro users, they should have stated Mac Pros will be supported by macOS and pro apps for, at the very least, 5 years, and for them to keep a modicum of resale value, 10 years. They could go even further by requiring fat Intel/ARM builds in the Mac App Store for a similar amount of time, but macOS and pro app support for 5-10 years is the bare minimum.
    Pro apps like Avid And Adobe don't use the Apps store. But It's good to see Adobe a App running in the WWDC demo on Arm.
    edited June 2020
  • Reply 44 of 82
    normmnormm Posts: 653member
    sflocal said:
    Windows is a requirement for me.  There’s no way around it and Apple makes the best Windows machine around for my use case.   I use VMware and it was the primary reason I jumped to Apple way back when.

    It’s exciting stuff for sure.  I was planning on buying a new iMac this year, but now I’m going to pause on that to see what’s coming and how the market reacts to it.
    I assume Windows 10 for ARM will be available to run on this under VMware virtualization.  Windows for ARM runs x86 programs under emulation (with native speed for system calls), so whether you'll be happy depends on how fast you need x86 only programs to run.
    edited July 2020 David H Dennis
  • Reply 45 of 82
    rklarkla Posts: 9member
    swineone said:
    lkrupp said:

    So do expect some complaints, and also expect some bargain Intel-based Mac Pro machines to turn up on eBay. However, it's not that anyone need ditch their current Intel Mac, nor should anyone should put off buying one if they need it now.



    Something I've never understood about some users. Your current machine is running perfectly fine, it's fast and it does what you want it to very well. Now something new and different comes along and somehow, someway , the machine you are using becomes an obsolete piece of crap not worth keeping. And you blame Apple for bringing out a new technology before you are damn good and ready for it. You rage at Apple for making your perfectly fine machine 'useless'. 
    When you invest a substantial amount of money in some pro gear, you hardly do so with the expectation to use it for a couple of years and then discard it. In fact you sell it for a good fraction of what you paid for it. That's part of the economic calculation of buying a piece of pro gear.

    Now suddenly your pro gear uses a fundamentally incompatible architecture, which will be supported for "some (unstated amount of) years". There's no guarantee developers will continue performing software maintenance for the Intel port, or even Apple itself, for that matter. Now your expensive pro gear may not last as long as you initially planned, and by the time you sell it, it will probably be worthless. I mean really, if you paid upwards of $10,000 on a Mac Pro recently (quite easy with CPU, RAM, storage and GPU upgrades), who's going to pay more than, say, $3,000 or $4,000 for it in three years, knowing the fate of Intel hardware?

    Compare that to other pro gear. I work with electronics design, where you can get upgrades for decades-old test equipment from the likes of Keysight, Fluke or Tektronix. An HP 3458A DMM, the gold standard in high-precision metrology, is a design from 1989 (IIRC) which holds its value quite well, and is still sold today with minimal, user-facing changes only. The lens mounts for DSLR cameras are the same for decades, you can use a good lens from the previous century on a current Canon or Nikon camera. I know computer technology is faster paced than this, but still, the timeframes in the pro market are quite different from the consumer market.

    If Apple really cared about its pro users, they should have stated Mac Pros will be supported by macOS and pro apps for, at the very least, 5 years, and for them to keep a modicum of resale value, 10 years. They could go even further by requiring fat Intel/ARM builds in the Mac App Store for a similar amount of time, but macOS and pro app support for 5-10 years is the bare minimum.
    With all due respect you are not a professional if you are using the same machine 10 years down the road. 5 years would be the outset and even at that point you are starting to think of the next machine. Also you are probably not selling the machine you are using it as a backup or limited task machine. Again if you are not a prosumer but a professional, then you make a living off your computer. Five years from now that $10,000 computer cost you $2000 a year. That is not much if you are making a profession off of it and that assumes you get zero value or $ from it 5 years from now. 

    You cant compare obscure electronics and camera lenses with the professional computer market. You admitted that computers are faster paced, great. You cant just tack a "...but..." on your argument and to make it hold up. The industries are not the same, period. No correlation, don't try to make one out of thin air. 

    No computer from 10 years ago is worth anything meaningful. 

    Many want faster, & cheaper for our gear to last forever, but what we all should really want is the curve of tech to be so step that your gear is obsolete in 2 years b/c the new gear is so much better and then you just price that in to the work that you do. If you could do your job in 4 hours instead of 8 b/c your machine was 10 time as fast, would you pay another $10k in 2 years? If you are a professional, the answer is gladly. 
    Rayz2016pizzaboxmacStrangeDaysCuJoYYCargonaut
  • Reply 46 of 82
    Here's the ting...things change. Technology changes. Sometimes what you invest in goes out of use faster than at other times. I remember visiting editors in the mid 90's in LA. They had transitioned across 20 devices and technologies in their careers and many of the older people were burnt out in transitioning to all digital blah-blah-blah - whatever was happening right then. BUT the business moved on and so these folks often had basements full of formerly $30,000 gear that was basically useless and they were all trying to learn Final Cut. Using a device as a professional there's no way you count of the value of your hardware for 10 or 15 years. I've used my mac as my main source of income for nearly 20 years now and I upgrade every 3-5 years. And the old ones are sold cheaply to friends or given to a child or traded in for a few bucks. 

    Things change. It can suck, but you can't escape it. Be willing to move forward and stop complaining. 
    tmayargonaut
  • Reply 47 of 82
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,608member
    melgross said:
    swineone said:
    "This works with any Intel Mac app" [quoted from the article, regarding Rosetta 2]

    Are you sure? Does that include Parallels running x86-64 Windows? It's quite telling that they mentioned Rosetta and virtualization, yet made no mention of this, which could alleviate concerns on many pro users' minds (myself included).
    I doubt they meant that. But as Apple has said, only 2% of Macs coming in for service had Windows installed in Bootcamp. How many are using Parallels or other virtualization software with Windows, I don’t know, but it’s not a lot. I have it too, but I haven’t run Windows for more than a year. I still do Run Linux occasionally though. So likely, from what I hear, that’s more important.

    i doubt I’d too many pro users use Windows on their Mac these days. It’s mostly used by gamers.
    I use Windows in a VM on my Mac regularly, for electronics engineering apps similar to @swineone ;. Probably once every few days.

    As I frequently say about the people making excuses for Apple dropping something because "it only affects n% of people," if you drop enough stuff eventually at a regular enough pace as Apple is want to do, everyone will be negatively impacted by something Apple has dropped at some point.
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 48 of 82
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,508member
    jdb8167 said:
    nht said:
    swineone said:
    rob53 said:
    melgross said:
    swineone said:
    "This works with any Intel Mac app" [quoted from the article, regarding Rosetta 2]

    Are you sure? Does that include Parallels running x86-64 Windows? It's quite telling that they mentioned Rosetta and virtualization, yet made no mention of this, which could alleviate concerns on many pro users' minds (myself included).
    I doubt they meant that. But as Apple has said, only 2% of Macs coming in for service had Windows installed in Bootcamp. How many are using Parallels or other virtualization software with Windows, I don’t know, but it’s not a lot. I have it too, but I haven’t run Windows for more than a year. I still do Run Linux occasionally though. So likely, from what I hear, that’s more important.

    i doubt I’d too many pro users use Windows on their Mac these days. It’s mostly used by gamers.
    I went back through the Keynote and at the 1:40:11 mark, Docker (docker.com) was shown running Linux. At the 1:41:58 mark Parallels was shown running Debian. Craig said all macOS Big Sur demoes were run on an AS Mac so I assume it's either the AS Mac mini or another development AS Mac. Parallels has made some big changes in ver 15 but I run VMWare Fusion so haven't looked at Parallels for a long time. Anyway, at this point in the keynote they were talking about Rosetta 2 so I assume they simply installed Parallels ver 15 and it converted it to run on Apple Silicon. They didn't show Windows running but that's really Parallels and Dockers responsibility to provide the hardware interface between Windows and the host platform. It appears this is working but as everyone (else) wants to know, will it run Windows. We'll have to wait for the first developer to try it on the developer kit.

    One other thing. I checked the serial number of the AS Mac mini in the keynote and it says "We’re sorry, but this serial number isn’t valid. Please check your information and try again." I don't remember if this was simply a faked screen shot or if Craig did an About this Mac and it showed up. Apple could also be blocking certain serial numbers.
    While I hope you’re right, they were quite explicit to mention the game as an Intel binary. They never did the same for Parallels. So it’s possible that it’s a Parallels ARM port. Evidently Linux runs on ARM as well, and I assume Docker also does, so either wouldn’t be a roadblock.

    Overall they were quite vague with the wording during the keynote, so it’s a coin toss as to whether it was running Linux on ARM or Linux on Intel.
    docker runs Linux inside and while multi arch support now exists it depends heavily on qemu to develop for arm on Intel.  I can’t recall if they cross compile or compile in qemu since I didn’t pay much attention to that part of DockerCon last year.

    Presumably you would need the inverse for developing in docker on AS Macs...technology that Apple could pay to mature but is still cumbersome and generally leads to poorer performance.   

    Given that you are mostly OS agnostic when using docker that means transitioning from MacOS to Linux on cheaper intel hardware becomes more attractive if the dev environment  is degraded.  I see more and more folks opting for Linux and using a Windows VM for email and other enterprise tools in their computer refresh.  I’d say that most of these are former MacOS users since the Windows folks are more set in their ways.

    As a useless manager type I use MS office too much to want to do that.  For the first time in 20 years I’m looking at Windows as the alternative for work (my refresh notice just came in).  I’ll still get to keep my 2017 MBP so I’ll have my mac fix and I still have a 2013 Mac Pro as well.
    For office type applications, why wouldn't you just switch to a cloud provider of Windows x86 Office? I would guess most people can get along just fine with the macOS version of Office but if an application or feature is not available on the macOS version, it certainly would be on a cloud instance. This seems like a solvable problem unlike the previously noted engineering applications needed for doing CAD. Those would probably be problematic with the lag introduced by a cloud connection.

    As for Docker, I hope that Apple is flexible in doling out their Developer Transition Kits. I really want a head start on understanding the consequences of this transition on my ability to develop enterprise software. I've applied for the DTK program so we'll see but since I don't have any macOS, iOS or iPadOS applications, Apple may reject my application. I can certainly wait until Apple releases actual commercial hardware but that would mean starting at square one with whatever machine(s) they release first. I would much rather have already done the research by then. Apple has said that they've already gotten Docker and openJava updated but that is only part of the equation. DevOps can be complicated with lots of interdependent requirements. I don't think most enterprise developers are going to be happy with any system that uses qemu for production work.
    My work has switched to office 365, and the dominance of iPhones as the phone of choice over Samsung or Pixel ( and network integration)  means that theoretically macs have more of a chance of becoming allowed with the  new architecture. But as it currently is, iOS devices have no access to the MS servers, macs have no access, and while you can go through SharePoint has some quirks on my iPad that mean it is not a full windows machine replacement, even for my fairly basic needs. A bit of this is work security settings, but bottom line it is never as straight forward as just buying a wintel device and macs are not supported.
  • Reply 49 of 82
    swineone said:
    melgross said:
    swineone said:
    "This works with any Intel Mac app" [quoted from the article, regarding Rosetta 2]

    Are you sure? Does that include Parallels running x86-64 Windows? It's quite telling that they mentioned Rosetta and virtualization, yet made no mention of this, which could alleviate concerns on many pro users' minds (myself included).
    I doubt they meant that. But as Apple has said, only 2% of Macs coming in for service had Windows installed in Bootcamp. How many are using Parallels or other virtualization software with Windows, I don’t know, but it’s not a lot. I have it too, but I haven’t run Windows for more than a year. I still do Run Linux occasionally though. So likely, from what I hear, that’s more important.

    i doubt I’d too many pro users use Windows on their Mac these days. It’s mostly used by gamers.
    I have zero games on my Windows installation under Parallels. I do have EDA software (electronics simulation, schematic capture, PCB routing, FPGAs, etc.), test & measurement software to interface with electronics T&M gear, MCAD software, software development apps (Visual Studio, the real one not the toy Code version, plus various embedded software tools), etc.

    Another group of people will have in-house apps that are Windows only.

    Maybe in your line of work pro users don't need Windows software. It doesn't mean no one else does.

    Transition will take several ears and you will be able to buy Intel macs for years yet. Other thing is that even Windows are now on ARM just they need push as trend will be into ARM. As MS will push even developers can be pushed to brink ARM version of their apps so they may build new working on more platforms as well. Or there will be Parallels for ARM with Windows for ARM. Can not foretell but it is not impossible.
  • Reply 50 of 82
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,997member
    I didn't read through every post today, but I didn't see anyone mention that Microsoft might introduce a version of Windows that runs on Apple Silicon. On this point, Microsoft recently said "We have nothing to announce at this time." That sounds like a non-denial denial.

    I'm not sure if such a product will allow (a) Windows to run as an app on Apple Silicon, or (b) Windows to run in a VM on Apple Silicon; or (c) Windows to be an alternate boot OS on Apple Silicon.

    Hopefully (a).

    Now the big question is, will Windows for Apple Silicon include an emulator for apps compiled for Windows for Intel? Or will Windows apps have to be recompiled for Windows for Apple Silicon?

  • Reply 51 of 82
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,978member
    The vagueness of Apple's official support of Windows is why bought my new iMac a few weeks ago.  I depend on x86 Windows for certain software and do not want to have to be in that position (again) to troubleshoot crucial programs, some of them almost 20 years old from a vendor that refuses to update anything on it - which infuriates me.


    pscooter63prismatics
  • Reply 52 of 82
    swineone said:
    If Apple really cared about its pro users, they should have stated Mac Pros will be supported by macOS and pro apps for, at the very least, 5 years, and for them to keep a modicum of resale value, 10 years. They could go even further by requiring fat Intel/ARM builds in the Mac App Store for a similar amount of time, but macOS and pro app support for 5-10 years is the bare minimum.
    A three second search yielded this. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624

    Search. Read. Learn. It's pretty easy.
  • Reply 53 of 82

    altivec88 said:
     Other than saying, we will support your intel purchases for "years" which technically means 2 or more.
    Wrong. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624

    And for the record, double spaces after a period are so passé … unless you're using an actual typewriter.
    roundaboutnowRayz2016
  • Reply 54 of 82
    rkla said:
    swineone said:
    lkrupp said:

    So do expect some complaints, and also expect some bargain Intel-based Mac Pro machines to turn up on eBay. However, it's not that anyone need ditch their current Intel Mac, nor should anyone should put off buying one if they need it now.



    Something I've never understood about some users. Your current machine is running perfectly fine, it's fast and it does what you want it to very well. Now something new and different comes along and somehow, someway , the machine you are using becomes an obsolete piece of crap not worth keeping. And you blame Apple for bringing out a new technology before you are damn good and ready for it. You rage at Apple for making your perfectly fine machine 'useless'. 
    When you invest a substantial amount of money in some pro gear, you hardly do so with the expectation to use it for a couple of years and then discard it. In fact you sell it for a good fraction of what you paid for it. That's part of the economic calculation of buying a piece of pro gear.

    Now suddenly your pro gear uses a fundamentally incompatible architecture, which will be supported for "some (unstated amount of) years". There's no guarantee developers will continue performing software maintenance for the Intel port, or even Apple itself, for that matter. Now your expensive pro gear may not last as long as you initially planned, and by the time you sell it, it will probably be worthless. I mean really, if you paid upwards of $10,000 on a Mac Pro recently (quite easy with CPU, RAM, storage and GPU upgrades), who's going to pay more than, say, $3,000 or $4,000 for it in three years, knowing the fate of Intel hardware?

    Compare that to other pro gear. I work with electronics design, where you can get upgrades for decades-old test equipment from the likes of Keysight, Fluke or Tektronix. An HP 3458A DMM, the gold standard in high-precision metrology, is a design from 1989 (IIRC) which holds its value quite well, and is still sold today with minimal, user-facing changes only. The lens mounts for DSLR cameras are the same for decades, you can use a good lens from the previous century on a current Canon or Nikon camera. I know computer technology is faster paced than this, but still, the timeframes in the pro market are quite different from the consumer market.

    If Apple really cared about its pro users, they should have stated Mac Pros will be supported by macOS and pro apps for, at the very least, 5 years, and for them to keep a modicum of resale value, 10 years. They could go even further by requiring fat Intel/ARM builds in the Mac App Store for a similar amount of time, but macOS and pro app support for 5-10 years is the bare minimum.
    With all due respect you are not a professional if you are using the same machine 10 years down the road. 5 years would be the outset and even at that point you are starting to think of the next machine. Also you are probably not selling the machine you are using it as a backup or limited task machine. Again if you are not a prosumer but a professional, then you make a living off your computer. Five years from now that $10,000 computer cost you $2000 a year. That is not much if you are making a profession off of it and that assumes you get zero value or $ from it 5 years from now. 

    You cant compare obscure electronics and camera lenses with the professional computer market. You admitted that computers are faster paced, great. You cant just tack a "...but..." on your argument and to make it hold up. The industries are not the same, period. No correlation, don't try to make one out of thin air. 

    No computer from 10 years ago is worth anything meaningful. 

    Many want faster, & cheaper for our gear to last forever, but what we all should really want is the curve of tech to be so step that your gear is obsolete in 2 years b/c the new gear is so much better and then you just price that in to the work that you do. If you could do your job in 4 hours instead of 8 b/c your machine was 10 time as fast, would you pay another $10k in 2 years? If you are a professional, the answer is gladly. 
    Agreed, anybody on here whining about 10-year support is just a kid in their basement. Here in enterprise I know for a fact pros don't use their machines that long. In enterprise we replace every few years, and at home I can double that (I have both a MBP and an iMac, I've been alternating between which is my newer tool).
    CuJoYYC
  • Reply 55 of 82
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,313member
    rkla said:
    swineone said:
    lkrupp said:

    So do expect some complaints, and also expect some bargain Intel-based Mac Pro machines to turn up on eBay. However, it's not that anyone need ditch their current Intel Mac, nor should anyone should put off buying one if they need it now.



    Something I've never understood about some users. Your current machine is running perfectly fine, it's fast and it does what you want it to very well. Now something new and different comes along and somehow, someway , the machine you are using becomes an obsolete piece of crap not worth keeping. And you blame Apple for bringing out a new technology before you are damn good and ready for it. You rage at Apple for making your perfectly fine machine 'useless'. 
    When you invest a substantial amount of money in some pro gear, you hardly do so with the expectation to use it for a couple of years and then discard it. In fact you sell it for a good fraction of what you paid for it. That's part of the economic calculation of buying a piece of pro gear.

    Now suddenly your pro gear uses a fundamentally incompatible architecture, which will be supported for "some (unstated amount of) years". There's no guarantee developers will continue performing software maintenance for the Intel port, or even Apple itself, for that matter. Now your expensive pro gear may not last as long as you initially planned, and by the time you sell it, it will probably be worthless. I mean really, if you paid upwards of $10,000 on a Mac Pro recently (quite easy with CPU, RAM, storage and GPU upgrades), who's going to pay more than, say, $3,000 or $4,000 for it in three years, knowing the fate of Intel hardware?

    Compare that to other pro gear. I work with electronics design, where you can get upgrades for decades-old test equipment from the likes of Keysight, Fluke or Tektronix. An HP 3458A DMM, the gold standard in high-precision metrology, is a design from 1989 (IIRC) which holds its value quite well, and is still sold today with minimal, user-facing changes only. The lens mounts for DSLR cameras are the same for decades, you can use a good lens from the previous century on a current Canon or Nikon camera. I know computer technology is faster paced than this, but still, the timeframes in the pro market are quite different from the consumer market.

    If Apple really cared about its pro users, they should have stated Mac Pros will be supported by macOS and pro apps for, at the very least, 5 years, and for them to keep a modicum of resale value, 10 years. They could go even further by requiring fat Intel/ARM builds in the Mac App Store for a similar amount of time, but macOS and pro app support for 5-10 years is the bare minimum.
    With all due respect you are not a professional if you are using the same machine 10 years down the road. 5 years would be the outset and even at that point you are starting to think of the next machine. Also you are probably not selling the machine you are using it as a backup or limited task machine. Again if you are not a prosumer but a professional, then you make a living off your computer. Five years from now that $10,000 computer cost you $2000 a year. That is not much if you are making a profession off of it and that assumes you get zero value or $ from it 5 years from now. 

    You cant compare obscure electronics and camera lenses with the professional computer market. You admitted that computers are faster paced, great. You cant just tack a "...but..." on your argument and to make it hold up. The industries are not the same, period. No correlation, don't try to make one out of thin air. 

    No computer from 10 years ago is worth anything meaningful. 

    Many want faster, & cheaper for our gear to last forever, but what we all should really want is the curve of tech to be so step that your gear is obsolete in 2 years b/c the new gear is so much better and then you just price that in to the work that you do. If you could do your job in 4 hours instead of 8 b/c your machine was 10 time as fast, would you pay another $10k in 2 years? If you are a professional, the answer is gladly. 
    Agreed, anybody on here whining about 10-year support is just a kid in their basement. Here in enterprise I know for a fact pros don't use their machines that long. In enterprise we replace every few years, and at home I can double that (I have both a MBP and an iMac, I've been alternating between which is my newer tool).
    Have to agree about the corporate/enterprise machine replacement. Every machine I get has a refresh date on on that is three (3) years after the purchase date. That's usually the date when the machine gets replaced even if you don't ask for a new machine. In reality, heavy users like SW devs would generally ask for a replacement in fewer than three years and in the vast majority of cases (and every instance that I've ever seen) they'd get a new machine before the refresh date and the "old" machine was reissued to another employee or added to the travel pool. 

    However, I must also add that computers purchased for business use are depreciated over a fairly short period of time so the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of the computer is not fully absorbed by the business owner. For home and personal computers that are not used for business there is no depreciation.

    All that said, I have a very narrow perspective about the cost of business tools. Unless you're buying gene sequencers, MRIs, and huge ticket items for say a hospital, the cost of capital expenditures like computers and software in an enterprise is typically dwarfed by orders of magnitude by the cost of human capital. When your total compensation for a developer or designer is $200-$300 per hour (on up) then you'd better be primarily focused on worker efficiency and productivity when it comes to cost containment. If your most valuable assets, your people, are being held back even to a small degree because they don't have the tools they really need because you're too cheap to keep their tools up-to-date, you're saving pennies and burning dollars.
    GG1thttmay
  • Reply 56 of 82
    I do have one fear: I have a very particular use case, where I work with some high performance computing codes, mostly written in FORTRAN, that are heavily dependent on optimization from Intel compilers, like ifort, and libraries like Intel MKL.

    I just hope Apple’s Accelerate framework is brought up to par for the next release, as I’m heavily invested on Apple ecosystem, and I’d really like to replace my Mac with another one, when the time comes.
    prismatics
  • Reply 57 of 82
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,746member
    melgross said:
    swineone said:
    "This works with any Intel Mac app" [quoted from the article, regarding Rosetta 2]

    Are you sure? Does that include Parallels running x86-64 Windows? It's quite telling that they mentioned Rosetta and virtualization, yet made no mention of this, which could alleviate concerns on many pro users' minds (myself included).
    I doubt they meant that. But as Apple has said, only 2% of Macs coming in for service had Windows installed in Bootcamp. How many are using Parallels or other virtualization software with Windows, I don’t know, but it’s not a lot. I have it too, but I haven’t run Windows for more than a year. I still do Run Linux occasionally though. So likely, from what I hear, that’s more important.

    i doubt I’d too many pro users use Windows on their Mac these days. It’s mostly used by gamers.
    I've ported a Linux app to the Mac. If I could do that, I'm sure Apple could do it in software almost infinitely better. Thoughts?
  • Reply 58 of 82
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,508member
    CuJoYYC said:

    altivec88 said:
     Other than saying, we will support your intel purchases for "years" which technically means 2 or more.
    Wrong. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624

    And for the record, double spaces after a period are so passé … unless you're using an actual typewriter.
    I don’t know about altivec88, although that pseudonym is a big tip, but I myself grew up with typewriters, and it just looks right to have a double space after a full stop.  And I ain’t gonna stop.  So there!  
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 59 of 82
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,492member
    melgross said:
    swineone said:
    "This works with any Intel Mac app" [quoted from the article, regarding Rosetta 2]

    Are you sure? Does that include Parallels running x86-64 Windows? It's quite telling that they mentioned Rosetta and virtualization, yet made no mention of this, which could alleviate concerns on many pro users' minds (myself included).
    I doubt they meant that. But as Apple has said, only 2% of Macs coming in for service had Windows installed in Bootcamp. How many are using Parallels or other virtualization software with Windows, I don’t know, but it’s not a lot. I have it too, but I haven’t run Windows for more than a year. I still do Run Linux occasionally though. So likely, from what I hear, that’s more important.

    i doubt I’d too many pro users use Windows on their Mac these days. It’s mostly used by gamers.
    Not to mention any Mac user who is also a 'gamer' that is half serious would probably buy a dedicated PC.  I consider myself a semi-gamer as I love high-quality 4K simulations with what is termed free-roam ability such as Red Dead Redemption II, GTA V, and the new and ultimate free-roam 'game' Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 and I have a dedicated PC for those.  That said I made a clone of my gaming PC's C drive on an external SSD and booted my 27" 5K iMac i9 into this.  The games all run fine and at 4K and even 5K in some cases after the simple addition of the correct Windows drivers for the iMac (thanks to Boot Camp Utilities ability to download these). My point being the latest Macs are very capable of running seriously PC games under Windows 10 and you don't even need a Boot Camp partition.  Virtualization cannot be used for most games of course.
    edited November 2020 docno42elijahg
  • Reply 60 of 82
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,492member
    entropys said:
    CuJoYYC said:

    altivec88 said:
     Other than saying, we will support your intel purchases for "years" which technically means 2 or more.
    Wrong. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624

    And for the record, double spaces after a period are so passé … unless you're using an actual typewriter.
    I don’t know about altivec88, although that pseudonym is a big tip, but I myself grew up with typewriters, and it just looks right to have a double space after a full stop.  And I ain’t gonna stop.  So there!  
    .. and anyone who writes such a great reflexive pronoun as in "I myself' damn well should use double spacing!  ;)
    edited November 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.