22july2013

Rayz2016 said:

22july2013 said:

JinTech said:

Apple_Bar said:

Apple said new intel macs later this year. So likely they will update the Macbook Pro 16 with 10th-gen intel processor like they did with iMac 27 2020.

Where did Apple specifically say they were releasing new Macs with Intel?

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/22/intel-says-it-support-apple-across-two-year-transition-period-to-apple-silicon <--
"In fact, we have some new Intel based Macs in the pipeline that we're really excited about," [Tim Cook] continued.

It's unclear whether Tim Cook was talking about multiple Mac models or a single model, but it sounds more like multiple models. My guess is that the iMac Pro and Mac Pro are the Intel models that Cook was talking about, although it's also possible that they will be offered simultaneously with M-chip alternatives. It's also possible that there could be hybrid machines, for example, an existing or future Intel Mac Pro could have an Mx-chip "Mac-on-a-PCI-card." (The Mx-chip on this might be a variation without a video core because the Mac Pro has its own video. This sounds too complicated to me, but it remains a possibility.)

I’m not so sure. 

That comment was made round about June by the looks of. Since then, we had this:

https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/218919/windows-on-apple-silicon-is-up-to-microsoft-says-craig-federighi/p1

When asked about future Intel Macs, Greg Joswiak shrugged it off.

"When we said we would support Intel systems for years to come, that was talking about the operating system." Apple had commented that future Intel hardware was coming, but Joswiak said "We still had Intel systems that were in the pipeline" when it was said, "That very next month, we introduced an Intel-based iMac."

Sounds to me like they’re done with Intel Macs. 

That's a very good argument. Yet I'm not entirely convinced. If I had to bet even money, I'd put it on another Intel Mac.

darthw said:

That’s ‘in’ not ‘8n’, sorry. 

There is a "cogwheel" you can press after you write a post, that lets you click on an EDIT link which lets you edit your post and then click on SAVE. Sounds like you are unaware; I'm just trying to help.

melgross said:

...an updated Mac Pro. I didn’t buy one last year, because I wanted the new PCIe 4 bus, which is now becoming common enough for Apple to move to. 

In an Apple Silicon Mac a PCIe bus may not do everything that we might want. For example, a PCIe video card may not work since MacOS Big Sur may not support any video cards even including Metal-based AMD video cards.

I agree that Apple will probably support PCIe v4 in an Apple Silicon Mac with expansion ports, but if it's not for video cards, maybe Apple should just re-think the whole purpose of the expansion card idea entirely. Could Thunderbolt be enough? How about Thunderbolt 4 which is due any day now from Intel (and probably from Apple too, since Apple now supports Thunderbolt without any Intel chips)? What type of cards do people want to install in a Mac that can't be done through a Thunderbolt port in some other way? Thunderbolt 4 is 26% faster than even a 16-lane PCIe v4 connector, and it's almost as fast as 16-lane PCEe v5 which won't be out for a couple of years. Why would anyone want a slow connection like a 16-lane PCIe v4 when Thunderbolt 4 is so much faster? I'll answer that - because you don't have to buy a Thunderbolt cable. So to save $50 people want to settle for a lower bus speed?

This is food for thought; I'm not sure Apple will do what I'm suggesting. I expect the usual claims from people here questioning my sanity. 

JinTech said:

Apple_Bar said:

Apple said new intel macs later this year. So likely they will update the Macbook Pro 16 with 10th-gen intel processor like they did with iMac 27 2020.

Where did Apple specifically say they were releasing new Macs with Intel?

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/22/intel-says-it-support-apple-across-two-year-transition-period-to-apple-silicon <--
"In fact, we have some new Intel based Macs in the pipeline that we're really excited about," [Tim Cook] continued.

It's unclear whether Tim Cook was talking about multiple Mac models or a single model, but it sounds more like multiple models. My guess is that the iMac Pro and Mac Pro are the Intel models that Cook was talking about, although it's also possible that they will be offered simultaneously with M-chip alternatives. It's also possible that there could be hybrid machines, for example, an existing or future Intel Mac Pro could have an Mx-chip "Mac-on-a-PCI-card." (The Mx-chip on this might be a variation without a video core because the Mac Pro has its own video. This sounds too complicated to me, but it remains a possibility.)

flydog said:

razorpit said:

Only problem is the company will pull all the people that made the same bad governmental decisions in CA to TX. Eventually Texas will eventually end up ruined like Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, etc.

Texas is a shithole, and no one wants to live there, which is precisely why housing is so cheap. When it becomes more like California it will be because people want to live there and drive up prices, not because of "bad governmental decisions."  

When Trump used those opening words about a third world country, the Dems called him a racist. Et tu?

And on the face of it these words don't make sense. People are leaving California because of the high taxes. And the taxes are high mostly because of California's trillion dollar pension obligations. As a result, California will have to raise taxes higher, resulting in a vicious circle and potentially the inability for California to pay its debts. Whereas Texas will get more young workers who pay taxes resulting in a better economy and tax base for them. The economy and population of Texas is growing, so it's hard to believe the claim above that "Texas will be ruined."

The good news is that California isn't the worst state for funding its pensions. It's only the sixth worst. I didn't mention bankruptcy because it's not at all clear that California will go bankrupt, and also because bankruptcy isn't a legal option. Federal Bankruptcy Code prohibits US States from declaring bankruptcy, although the Bankruptcy Code could be modified. However the US Supreme Court supersedes even Congressional Law, and in 1977 the Supreme Court said, "a state cannot refuse to meet its legitimate financial obligations simply because it would prefer to spend the money to promote the public good rather than the private welfare of its creditors." It would be difficult understanding how a State Bankruptcy would be overseen... would someone in the US Government manage the State's budget, laws and taxes? The US Supreme Court says States are Sovereign and cannot be run by a Federal agent. I would think that if a US State modified its constitution to allow a Federal Takeover, that would permit the Feds to run the State.

I'm not an American so I have no stake in this debate. But I do relish all constitutional crises because they tend to find solutions that answer difficult questions.