mjtomlin

Kind of strange that they went with the "M" naming, since it's already being used for their Motion chips in iOS devices. I guessed it might be "X", because of that. But "M" for Mac makes sense. They've repurposed names before, iBook, MagSafe.

melgross said:

it just occurred to me what they said. I also said this on Arstechnica. It’s the four efficiency cores that are equal to the MacBook Air x86 chip, not the entire M1

Correct. In the article it's written a little out of context. Pretty sure they said the efficiency cores were as performant as the dual-core Air, while using 1/10th the power.

CNYMacUser said:

jcc said:

This article paints a too rosy picture of the transition. The fact of the matter is that moving away from x86 will end Mac’s “best of both worlds” status. That means no more running Windows software.

In over 20 years and Thousands of both Mac & Windows Users I have serviced, I have yet to meet ONE person who wants or needs to run Windows on a Mac. It's two separate Worlds plain and simple. Anyone who thinks otherwise is FUBAR.

Not to crap all over your experiences and perspective, but there has always been a need to run “virtual” alternative platforms. Emulation has been around a very long time. In the early to mid 90’s there we’re several programs that would emulate x86 hardware; two of the most popular were SoftPC and Virtual PC. They were on the slow side, but enable Mac users to run DOS or Windows, or Unix/Linux.

I expect to see these types hardware emulation programs to pop up again and more than likely run at relatively decent speeds.

bulk001 said:

I am assuming things won’t change from the way it works now on Intel Macs, but curious if anyone knows definitively if users will only be allowed to download software through the Apple App Store for Apple SI Macs (like iOS apps work) or if users will be able to download apps directly from vendor websites, external drives etc. 

The Mac is a development platform, restricting downloads only to the App Store would kill that. So, yes, users will be able to download and install software from sources outside the App Store. There will probably be a setting that needs to be turned on to allow it though, just as in the current macOS. This is what Graig Federighi has stated. The Mac is and has always been an open development platform and will remain so.

danvm said:

22july2013 said:

Funny, I consider brands 2, 3, 4, 5, and especially 13 to have negative brand value, mostly because of their approaches to security and privacy. I avoid those brands, and anything they do (as much as I can.)

I would consider those brand names to be as much of a turnoff as these: https://www.trademarknow.com/blog/the-7-most-unfortunate-brand-names-ever-trademarked <--

What's more funny is that brand #1 receives money from company #4 to make their search engine the default in company #1 browser.  So I suppose company #1 don't have the trust issues you have with company #4, considering they trust their customers to them.  

Company #2 is the largest cloud provider in the world, and even company #1 use their services.  And I haven't seen the security and privacy issues you mention.

Also company #3 is, maybe, the most trusted brand in enterprises and business.  So maybe they are not as bad as you think.  

#4 You don't have to have a Google account to use google.com and Apple's Safari has a lot a mechanisms in place to keep nefarious websites from tracking and hoarding personal data. The value of the search engine isn't in gathering user data, it's in gathering usage data.

#2 Amazon treats users' accounts and data much differently than they would a huge enterprise like Apple. Having said that, I agree, I haven't really seen privacy/security issues from Amazon.

#3 Let's not confuse "familiar" with "trusted". But again, they have come a long way from their days of monopoly abuse, raping corporate IT departments and suppressing competition.