dick applebaum

What is "reality" anyway... If we can learn how to fake that and "sincerity", we can rule the world!

SpamSandwich said:

Ka-BOOM!

Ka-Bingo!

roundaboutnow said:

dick applebaum said:

I've read the back and forth among respected members/veterans of the AI community.   I, also go way back with Apple: 1978.   I've watched Apple release, then deprecate too many things to count -- No Sure Shitlock!  

There are a lot of good cases presented, both for and against releasing a non-Intel Mac.  My gut tells me that Apple will release a non-Intel Mac (in addition to their Intel Macs) -- because it takes them in a direction (total control) they want to go.   Apple can walk, chew gum and juggle at the same time, so they're capable of it.

If they fail, they will have pissed away several 10s or hundreds of millions of dollars -- but, even that won't be a total loss.

As for the non-Intel chip, I don't think it will be an A chip...  There are several reasons:  1) They can produce a chip customized to what Macs do/need (and then some);  2) From a PR perspective it is important to release a non-Intel Mac with a serious commitment and raison d'être.

It seems to me that the natural path of evolution would be to grow iPadOS into the "Mac-like" user experience on a laptop form factor. This way, Apple could continue to evolve macOS on the existing platform, without losing software/VM compatibility, etc. Let Macs stay Macs. (Although I still think being prepared to have macOS run on other CPUs is a good idea).

IMO, that would defeat the purpose of introducing a non-Intel Mac as described above in my last paragraph.  Today, every current Mac can  NOT  run all the Mac software available because of hardware differences, processing power, upgrade ability, market position...  A non-Intel Mac, running macOS, competitively priced — would be an attractive entry machine (again, IMO).  

We live in an era of [computer] expendability — you don’t/can’t upgrade your phone [computer] — rather, you buy on time, then upgrade (replace it) every 1-2 years.  That’s how I see a non-Intel Mac being marketed.

I've read the back and forth among respected members/veterans of the AI community.   I, also go way back with Apple: 1978.   I've watched Apple release, then deprecate too many things to count -- No Sure Shitlock!  

There are a lot of good cases presented, both for and against releasing a non-Intel Mac.  My gut tells me that Apple will release a non-Intel Mac (in addition to their Intel Macs) -- because it takes them in a direction (total control) they want to go.   Apple can walk, chew gum and juggle at the same time, so they're capable of it.

If they fail, they will have pissed away several 10s or hundreds of millions of dollars -- but, even that won't be a total loss.

As for the non-Intel chip, I don't think it will be an A chip...  There are several reasons:  1) They can produce a chip customized to what Macs do/need (and then some);  2) From a PR perspective it is important to release a non-Intel Mac with a serious commitment and raison d'être.

Soli said:

dick applebaum said:

sflocal said:

It’s inevitable that Apple will throw Intel under the bus.  Intel just doesn’t have the chips to keep up in the industry anymore.  They’re like IBM.

that being said, there must be a big enough market for Windows running on Macs to keep companies like VMWare and Parallels busy developing their virtual machine packages.

I went to Macs because they could run Windows.  I don’t use it much but for certain development tools and software I use it’s imperative.  I would have to buy a Wintel PC if Apple goes this route.

I’m hoping Apple’s next chips for desktops are not ARM chips but their own home-grown x86-compatible version with Intel’s blessing.

That's certainly a possibility...  An earlier post mentioned that a barrier was the need co convert x86 CISC to RISC -- but Intel does just that at execution time thru a proprietary process.   As, I read it Apple, with Intels blessing (Apple $), could do either ARM or another Apple Chip running [native] x86.

They may be negotiating that and that may also be a real hold up (especially with the Qualcomm's claim's that Apple isn't pay their proper licensing fees), but I have to wonder why a low-end notebook needs to even have x86 support going forward? How many users of the 12" MacBook are using BootCamp, Parallels, or VMWare? Can these users not simply go to a MacBook Pro to get their dual-boot or virtualization needs met? I'm sure Apple knows. And why are ignoring Windows has been ARM-compatible for many years now which means that running Windows on a dual-boot or virtualized ARM-based Mac are not impossible.

As someone who has recently revisited running Windows on a Mac -- I think it is more than [on an ARM Mac] "can you do it?" -- rather "do you really want do it?".

Windows comes with a lot of downsides in addition to Viruses.   To sustain my woodworking hobby CNC, I need to flip among 3 different UIs:  Mac, Windows, Java.  They are all similar, but just enough different to frustrate finger memory... And I have no idea [or desire to learn] what to do when something goes wrong on Windows or Java -- just reboot.

I think there is more promise for companies (Microsoft, Adobe, AutoDesk, etc.) to port their apps to iOS and ipadOS to take advantage of the very large install base.