JustSomeGuy1

melgross said:

It’s a nice, fairly long article. It be]rings up a number of things that are correct. But, I still believe moving to Apple’s ARM chips is more difficult that some people think.

firstly, no, the ‘a serir]es still has a long way to go before it can compete with AND and Intel at the higher levels, with no guarantee that it ever will. That’s all speculation. Are we going to see a 6 core chip? An 8 core chip? These will be needed to compete on the higher laptop level. 16GB RAM? 64GB RAM? Same thing.

convincing developers, particularly those with very large, high performance software to go native ARM? And, yes, that will be needed.

if Apple does begin this process, it will be a very difficult one.

seanismorris said:

[...]
I’m also looking forward to a ARM based MacBook, but performance might be a bigger headache than straight speed tests suggest.  Qualcomm and Microsoft have put considerable effort into their ARM offering, but performance has been terrible.  Apple has done a lot of tinkering to optimize ARM and iOS and performance is impressive, but it also isn’t designed to multitask (they do have clever workarounds).  A ARM processor in a MacBook is going need to excel at multitasking.  This might be a much bigger problem/challenge than Apple fans are thinking, it might be a fundamental limitation of ARM that throwing additional cores/memory at the problem doesn’t fix.  We’ll see...

StrangeDays said:

wizard69 said:

bvwj said:

Apple stuck with PCIe 3.0 because Intel can't support PCIe 4.0.  AMD is the only processor supporting PCIe 4.0.  The question is why Apple sticks with Intel.

I’m not sure if people realize how far AMD has come in the last 3 years.  

Funny, I've heard variations of that for the past 15 years. 

Gary-G said:

The FTC has signaled it is reviewing big tech. Apple lost at the level of the Supreme Court with respect to the App Store appeal. The release of a desktop promised as modular without modularity is a large mistake, and is tone deaf to the market. Conditions change, and organizations driven by engineers without a concern for market conditions leads to downstream challenges. Apple is running a big risk with the MacPro. They promised modularity and may be held to the market standard. Here is the standard of the FTC, on single firm conduct of anti-competitive practices, "It is unlawful for a company to monopolize or attempt to monopolize trade, meaning a firm with market power cannot act to maintain or acquire a dominant position by excluding competitors or preventing new entry. It is important to note that it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge “high prices,” or to try to achieve a monopoly position by aggressive methods. A company violates the law only if it tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods." The market standard for modular expansion in the storage space is not storage memory on a special controller, or a special pin connector that prohibits third party suppliers. As Apple decided to enter this space, after a very long exit from the modular desktop space, they are facing headwinds. The best advice is to meet the legal market standard, provide a device that the consumer desires, is willing to pay a reasonable premium for, and can update as per the advertising promise. Whether OS-X is superior to Windows 10 or Linux or Solaris is not the issue. The issue remains simple, if you advertise modular expansion, the legal terms of the modular hardware expansion are set externally by market practice, not by internal engineering.

deminsd said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

No answer about the performance? The quoted numbers are ridiculously low. Based on them, this should be a 1/5 star item and a hard pass from every possible potential buyer. That can't be right.

From what I've researched, RAID 0 does not add performance like you think it should.  Possibly on writes, but I don't even see that here.  RAID 1 is supposed to double read performance, but not RAID 0.  

Maybe what I read is wrong, so don't shoot me.