I think the key word here is "future" - a lot can happen in 5 years. It was only about 6 years ago that Apple was still using PPC. I think Apple AND all of its competitors are likely exploring ARM-based PCs right now. Well, we know Microsoft are!
What custom chips were they using?
----------
I don't really give a @#$%. I'm sticking with my Mac Pro anyway, and it has an Intel CPU. I couldn't care less if desktop CPUs stagnated forever.
Isn't Microsoft currently selling a Windows tablet that comes as either ARM or 486?
Well, we know Microsoft are!
there are many professional's Photo/video/3d who need powerful CPU's not mobile devices ... Anyway its your choice..
i am not totally against this idea. isn't ARM a RISC cpu? and aresn't RISC cpu's better? i swear tha my g4 powerpc powerbook from 10 yrs ago crashed less than the 3 intel macs i've owned since. and this powerbook still runs today. albeit, the battery no longer holds a charge. and when it did, it did run out after an hour or less of heavy use. those g4 chips weren't as power-efficient as the new intel chips. but, i swear they (g4 powerbooks) seemed more stable.
You mean like how Linux is developed for :
- x86
- MIPS
- SPARC
- PPC
- Alpha
- ARM
- IA64
- tons of others I'm not thinking...
There is nothing surprising about Apple having a portable codebase if a bunch of open source hippies can do it.
But ARM ? ARM ? What's the value there ? Performance per watt is no better than Intel. The reason ARM processors are so energy efficient today is because they lack the sheer number crunching capabilities of x86 chips. Intel proved with Medfield that x86 is as power efficient as ARM, if they also sacrifice number crunching. There's even an Android phone that runs on a Medfield SoC!
And take note Apple, this is where I jump ship.
What about a 32-core ARM processors in a Macbook Air? Same performance per watt, big redundancy... you can turn on-off as many CPUs you need on a certain time. If you need doing something faster, you can basically split a task into various parallel threads. Also, you can place two separated 16-core ARMs in the case for better heat dissipation or other design constraints.
In other words, looks like ARM is a new RISC-like approach. If you need speed, you can basically do a lot of simpler stuff in parallel to reach your performance requirements.
I'm not a computer engineer but moving to ARM doesn't look a so bad idea as much people are saying.
What about a 32-core ARM processors in a Macbook Air? Same performance per watt, big redundancy... you can turn on-off as many CPUs you need on a certain time. If you need doing something faster, you can basically split a task into various parallel threads. Also, you can place two separated 16-core ARMs in the case for better heat dissipation or other design constraints.
In other words, looks like ARM is a new RISC-like approach. If you need speed, you can basically do a lot of simpler stuff in parallel to reach your performance requirements.
I'm not a computer engineer but moving to ARM doesn't look a so bad idea as much people are saying.
Yes. The upcoming Cortex A57/A53 can be linked in up to 16 cores. If this is the case we're going to have to see if Apple can take many core support in OS X beyond Grand Central Dispatch.
Perhaps there's going to be a better way of routing threads across so many cores.
Long live 68k! None of this new fangled PowerPC rubbish!
Perhaps, but perhaps not. I don't trust Apple to innovate at this point in time -- they're entirely focused on visual design.
The problem is that this switch doesn't make sense really. Unlike the Intel change, which was prompted by PowerPC development failures (thanks to Moto/IBM), switching to ARM confers no real benefits aside from power consumption and a greater control over chip die and architecture. It's not like the ARM chips are going to outperform any regular Intel chips (Atom aside) -- Intel is currently king. Intel will likely stay king as well, and with next gen chips around the corner, what then? Would it really be prudent to switch to ARM considering all the pain that comes with it?
Also, if we start getting into a segregated OS bit like MS... oh man. Anything that's gimped is destined for failure (like Windows RT...).
If you need doing something faster, you can basically split a task into various parallel threads.
I wonder why a HFS+ replacement is taking so long.
Didn't people say the same about the last PowerPC Macs?If this is true, I guess my 2012 mbp will be my last Mac...
Yes, ARM is RISC-y. But so is Intel, essentially, because internally the instructions aren't handled as CISC -- they are decoded as internal RISC-y micro-ops. So the RISC vs CISC debate is tired and irrelevant in the desktop arena. Let's leave that debate for the 80's and 90's. There is nothing inherently more stable about the G4's vs Intel either. In my own (also anecdotal) experience I've seen the reverse about Apple's PowerPC vs Intel Macs.