Rayz2016 said: I suspect you may be an outlier. Most people will take the easiest path: let BootCamp worry about partitions and installations, and the install the VM software and have it pick up the BootCamp installation.
I assure you, running a VM off of a virtual hard drive file is FAR easier and less dangerous than messing with Bootcamp, fiddly partition resizing, permanent loss of disk space associated with Boot camp, etc.
Installing Windows directly into a VM doesn't require me to boot out of macOS either. I can do it in the background while I'm using my Mac for other stuff.
Your argument is utterly nonsensical, especially if I am going to be using vm software. Bootcamp is nothing but an albatross that limits and restricts what you can do. The whole purpose of vm software would be to avoid having to mess with boot camp!
What moving to Intel was to getting Windows users switch platforms because of the Boot Camp/VM "safety net", the ability to run all your iPhone and iPad apps on a laptop or desktop will push even more Windows users to the Mac.
The importance of this cannot be overstated.
The importance of Windows compatibility *back then* could not be overstated. Today? It's important for a few (that happen to be vocal), but hardly a requirement. Otherwise Apple wouldn't have made this move.
It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of people complaining about lack of x86 Windows support in this thread have never ran Windows on a Mac even - it's just something to complain about because they don't have many other valid points to object to change with.
It does mention 8 core CPU, 4 big, 4 little, and 7 or 8 core GPUs on the tech spec pages of the various machines.
Clock speed is an imperfect measure even between x86 processors, let alone across architectures; Apple must have thought it was better to focus on benchmarks.
Apple is loathe to get into spec wars - they feel (and I rather agree) that the overall experience - the sum of ALL the parts working in harmony - is far more useful.
Synthetic benchmarks are interesting. What's useful is comparing how long tasks take on my current device vs. the new one. I don't get real work done with synthetic benchmarks, but the apps I use.
Xed said: I wager that it's more than just using thermostats to initiate a throttle, but coding that tells the chip where its thresholds are based on the device it's in.
Why would you overcomplicate things and potentially artificially limit performance like that? What if you are using your MacBook Air in a cold environment and there is greater thermal headroom?
Or conversely, what if you are using your MBA in a hotter environment and there is less thermal headroom? You'd risk damage.
No, the simplest solution is the obvious one - if the chip isn't hot, let it rip. If it starts to exceed the thermal limits, throttle it back. No need for other complicated schemes that might fail in ways you didn't anticipate. Keep it simple. Thermal management is mature tech and for CPUs the only metric that matters. Am I too hot or not. A chip is probably less likely to get too hot in a MBP with a fan, but again if the ambient temperature is way up there the fact that the CPU is in a MBP doesn't mean much if the chip is still overheating.
For performance purposes what chassis the CPU is in is what we called "extra information" in word math problems. Information that may be interesting, but is totally irrelevant to solving the problem. You just ignore it (or risk solving the problem wrong if you try to use it).
I think most folk install Windows on Bootcamp and the use Parallels to build one or more virtual machines with the BootCamp partition. So there are still not enough Windows VM users for Apple to tie themselves to Intel any longer than they have to.
Not a big deal, but I’ve never even considered using a BootCamp partition for VMs. I’ve always installed VMs within the native file system, either on the internal drive or an external drive, preferably an external SSD. This is especially useful if you’re doing any sort of client-server stuff and need to have the guest VMs running at the same time as the host.
With VMWare Fusion I can install VMs on an external SSD and run them on a Mac or Windows host, except for Mac VMs which are blocked from running on a Windows host for nontechnical reasons. But Windows and Linux VMs are not a problem at all.
I’ve been using VMWare for close to 20 years on Windows and since 2007 on Mac. It’s an essential capability and I cannot live without it. Because of this I have no problem keeping an Intel Mac or Windows box around just for this reason. Yeah, I’d prefer to have VMs running on my fastest platform but with sufficient memory even a 3-5 year old machine can handle VMs quite well.
I suspect you may be an outlier. Most people will take the easiest path: let BootCamp worry about partitions and installations, and the install the VM software and have it pick up the BootCamp installation.
If I needed to run Windows I would probably keep it running on a separate box and then remote into it. I imagine that will still work. (Which is probably what you’re doing.)
I thought Boot Camp was just a partitioning tool and boot manager that allows you to create a Windows partition on your Mac’s boot drive. This is an entirely different use case than what VMWare addresses, which is to install multiple VMs within the host machine’s file system, all of which run side by side with the host operating system. Utilities are provided to share file system folders, clipboard, and peripherals between the host OS and guest OSs. No rebooting required to switch between the machines.
Virtualization is extremely popular and in widespread use in software development, both at the client level for testing on multiple operating systems and operating system configurations and at the server level for automated build, integration, and testing operations. In fact, most of the devs I know, myself included, run their entire development system in a VM.
Xed said: I wager that it's more than just using thermostats to initiate a throttle, but coding that tells the chip where its thresholds are based on the device it's in.
Why would you overcomplicate things and potentially artificially limit performance like that? What if you are using your MacBook Air in a cold environment and there is greater thermal headroom?
Or conversely, what if you are using your MBA in a hotter environment and there is less thermal headroom? You'd risk damage.
No, the simplest solution is the obvious one - if the chip isn't hot, let it rip. If it starts to exceed the thermal limits, throttle it back. No need for other complicated schemes that might fail in ways you didn't anticipate. Keep it simple. Thermal management is mature tech and for CPUs the only metric that matters. Am I too hot or not. A chip is probably less likely to get too hot in a MBP with a fan, but again if the ambient temperature is way up there the fact that the CPU is in a MBP doesn't mean much if the chip is still overheating.
For performance purposes what chassis the CPU is in is what we called "extra information" in word math problems. Information that may be interesting, but is totally irrelevant to solving the problem. You just ignore it (or risk solving the problem wrong if you try to use it).
It looks like the Intel MacBook Air does more than just thermally throttle--it does a quick burst up to about 35 W but then drops back even if the temperature doesn't go above 100° C. One reason that they might do that is to limit high battery drain. You can quick burst a high drain on a Lithium Ion battery but prolonged use can limit the lifespan.
My question is how do you install and iPad app on these new Mac's?
The same way you do on an iPad - the app store.
Whether they mix everything into the Mac App store or introduce an iOS app store alongside the Mac App Store that remains to be seen.
I suspect the Mac app store will expand. Hopefully they will handle it better than the UI unification with the Music App and Apple Music vs. your personal library
The fact they didn't show off a new App Store was lame.
My question is how do you install and iPad app on these new Mac's?
The same way you do on an iPad - the app store.
Whether they mix everything into the Mac App store or introduce an iOS app store alongside the Mac App Store that remains to be seen.
I suspect the Mac app store will expand. Hopefully they will handle it better than the UI unification with the Music App and Apple Music vs. your personal library
The fact they didn't show off a new App Store was lame.
The Mac App Store in particular has been lame for a LONG time now
jdb8167 said: It looks like the Intel MacBook Air does more than just thermally throttle--it does a quick burst up to about 35 W but then drops back even if the temperature doesn't go above 100° C. One reason that they might do that is to limit high battery drain. You can quick burst a high drain on a Lithium Ion battery but prolonged use can limit the lifespan.
The M1 doesn't need to burst - that's what the efficiency cores are for
Comments
I assure you, running a VM off of a virtual hard drive file is FAR easier and less dangerous than messing with Bootcamp, fiddly partition resizing, permanent loss of disk space associated with Boot camp, etc.
Your argument is utterly nonsensical, especially if I am going to be using vm software. Bootcamp is nothing but an albatross that limits and restricts what you can do. The whole purpose of vm software would be to avoid having to mess with boot camp!
The importance of Windows compatibility *back then* could not be overstated. Today? It's important for a few (that happen to be vocal), but hardly a requirement. Otherwise Apple wouldn't have made this move.
It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of people complaining about lack of x86 Windows support in this thread have never ran Windows on a Mac even - it's just something to complain about because they don't have many other valid points to object to change with.
Apple is loathe to get into spec wars - they feel (and I rather agree) that the overall experience - the sum of ALL the parts working in harmony - is far more useful.
Synthetic benchmarks are interesting. What's useful is comparing how long tasks take on my current device vs. the new one. I don't get real work done with synthetic benchmarks, but the apps I use.
Or conversely, what if you are using your MBA in a hotter environment and there is less thermal headroom? You'd risk damage.
No, the simplest solution is the obvious one - if the chip isn't hot, let it rip. If it starts to exceed the thermal limits, throttle it back. No need for other complicated schemes that might fail in ways you didn't anticipate. Keep it simple. Thermal management is mature tech and for CPUs the only metric that matters. Am I too hot or not. A chip is probably less likely to get too hot in a MBP with a fan, but again if the ambient temperature is way up there the fact that the CPU is in a MBP doesn't mean much if the chip is still overheating.
For performance purposes what chassis the CPU is in is what we called "extra information" in word math problems. Information that may be interesting, but is totally irrelevant to solving the problem. You just ignore it (or risk solving the problem wrong if you try to use it).
The fact they didn't show off a new App Store was lame.
THIS.