Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Considering Switch From Intel Chips in Future Macs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm only being sincere, and the security has to deal with the architecture the CPU runs on.
If Intel keep producing crap chips then Apple will have little option. Obviously Microsoft are all prepared to move Windows over to ARM if their Surface takes off as a Windows Laptop replacement.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it. Dont forget that the core of OS X is already ARM ready.
That said, ARM would have a VERY hard time running an x86 emulator like they did with Rosetta. I dont see it being possible to do that this time around, so it would kill off a big chunk of Apple's customerbase if they didn't get it right.
Also, dont forget that the ONLY reason we get the likes of Adobe, EA, Microsoft, etc developing for the mac now is because it shares the same architecture as Windows, and makes porting a very simple process.
It would take a joint move from both MS and Apple to make it work.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it. Dont forget that the core of OS X is already ARM ready.
That said, ARM would have a VERY hard time running an x86 emulator like they did with Rosetta. I dont see it being possible to do that this time around, so it would kill off a big chunk of Apple's customerbase if they didn't get it right.
Also, dont forget that the ONLY reason we get the likes of Adobe, EA, Microsoft, etc developing for the mac now is because it shares the same architecture as Windows, and makes porting a very simple process.
It would take a joint move from both MS and Apple to make it work.
No one here will likely ever see the benefits of a 64-bit ARM processor for years and years now, specially considering ARM is currently aimed at low power consumer devices.
Don't think that 64 bits is double the performance of 32 bits. It's not. 64-bit is only needed when you're running applications that require tons of ram, and pure number crunching capabilities. In other words, it's great for high end Photoshop work, 3D design, and servers, but it won't make browsing Facebook or doing your taxes online any quicker.
----------
No it doesn't. Where'd you get that idea?
We could still have a virtual Surface RT
Virtualization is not depending on x86, ie there is no reason at all why it would not work. Qemu that is an integral part of VirtualBox and others supports both CPU emulation and virtualization.
That would be a disaster, unless they can find some other way of running Windows in 100% compatibility mode (and I mean 100%), the beauty of the Intel-powered Macs is that you *can* run both Mac OS X and Windows, the best of both worlds
Photoshop has only been 64bit for about two years.
Of course it does, the OS doesn't determine the architecture the chip runs on. Intel has always ran on x86 and primarily Windows which have been the bane of security flaws, Apple had about 10 maybe 15 security flaws running OSX never a virus on RISC architecture, on x86 Apple's had over a hundred security flaws and multiple viruses and all the malware garbage that comes with it, because you continue to port the same flawed x86 code from Windows into OSX.
Yes, Apple knows it doesn't give a damn about anything but profits and that most people these days don't do much more than use a Web browser. In the end, they know exactly the same thing I do and others do too : selling general purpose computers with the power of Intel chips is just not what the masses need anymore, hasn't been for years.
Computing power has eclipsed the needs of the mass consumer market long ago. There is much more profit in offering iPads and iPhones than in selling Mac Pros.
And Apple will go there. Gaming, virtualization, software backwards compatibility, they will sacrifice it all, and it'll sell millions of units because frankly, most people don't need that stuff.
Apple will again abandon more of its older, installed user base in order to promote growth of its profits and margins.
We don't see the future ? Quite the contrary, we see it way too clearly. We know where this is headed.
----------
Windows 98 feature. Still works today, you can browse ZIP files in explorer as if they were folders.
Crap chips ? You mean chips that are way more power efficient than current ARM designs ?
(Power to watt people...).
Some CPU architectures support security features that others lack. eXecute Disabled or No eXecute is one such feature. It sets certain areas of memory to be non-executable code, thus the CPU will never process instructions that would be placed there as executable code.
This is a protection against buffer overflows, preventing execution of code loaded into a memory buffer that's supposed to only contain data.
Surprise, it's supported on x86 and Intel chips :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_bit
Yes, and it's better for it. People have been clamoring for 64bit Photoshop for years now.
You are seriously uninformed, and in dire need of education. CPU code is so incredibly low level, there is practically no way to directly interact with it without basically writing an OS that runs outside of Windows. And even if you went through all the trouble of doing so, what would you do? Set it up so it knocks its clock timings off and crashes the computer randomly?
Guys...I've made an unstable OS. I can now bother people incessantly, provided they go through the process of installing my buggy OS so I can bother them. I AM ARE GENIUS!
The reason Windows was so insecure during the XP days wasn't because of the x86 code base, rather that everyone was running as an administrator by default, which made it incredibly easy to execute programs through loopholes in the software without the end user having to acknowledge it. In fact, 100% of all viruses and malware are introduced to a system through holes in random pieces of software a malware author can take advantage of, which has nothing to do with x86 code whatsoever. That same security hole would be as vulnerable in ARM as it would be on x86.
People are under the impression that Intel can't produce an energy efficient chip. That the Quad core i7 beasts they produce with monstrous computing power are the most energy efficient designs Intel can come up with.
People are also under the impression that ARM is energy efficient, no matter what computing output it produces. That the instruction set somehow has some power efficiency built right in.
What those people fail to realise is that x86 itself does not draw power, nor does ARM save it. It's simply a language the processor talks. The computer power and the energy efficiency are just part of the design of the different chips, since those are made for different purpose. A efficient x86 SoC can be made, a powerhouse ARM chip that'll heat your basement and crunch PI in less than a nano-second can be made.
eventually the move to iOS lat a desktop level will happen and complete walled garden, annually made obsolete by software upgrade, disposable machines will be complete...and then they will wonder why all the buyers of macs except the die hard fanboys have gone back to PCs.
i was hoping that with Steve Jobs passing we would see a forward thinking apple, instead we seem to have an apple that is focused on the mantra "Smaller, Thinner, Less usable"
I see no need for the iMac to get thinner and lighter, i don't carry it about that often, and i don't want the breeze created by someone walking past to blow it off my desk, instead i would have liked to see an iMac, same thickness as the 2011 , but with a door at the bottom, next to the Ram door, for a 2.5" sata drive (Two doors preferably, one either side of the of ram door, for a drive either side, user replaceable and upgradable),
i was hoping that with Steve Jobs passing we would see a forward thinking apple, instead we seem to have an apple that is focused on the mantra "Smaller, Thinner, Less usable"
I see no need for the iMac to get thinner and lighter, i don't carry it about that often, and i don't want the breeze created by someone walking past to blow it off my desk, instead i would have liked to see an iMac, same thickness as the 2011 , but with a door at the bottom, next to the Ram door, for a 2.5" sata drive (Two doors preferably, one either side of the of ram door, for a drive either side, user replaceable and upgradable),
Windows 8 does not have an ARM version. People really need to learn the difference between Windows 8 and Windows RT. I've seen this come up so often it's amazing how much Microsoft has managed to confuse people about this.
Windows had better PPC support in the days than it does ARM support today. At least I could build full blown Win32 software for PPC on Windows NT.
What about bootcamp (which egged many people on moving to mac), professionals sector (which is increasingly neglected) ?
Intel continuously improves its cpu consumption, the firm offers a finer engraving at each generation (14nm is on the way), while their superiority in term of power over ARM architecture cannot be denied.
For example, here are some Geekbench results:
A6X: 1700
Mac Mini 2011 CPU : 8500
Mac Pro 2012 CPU: 25000
...
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
In addition, to compete with Intel and Samsung, Apple may have to produce his own CPUs, so is a purchase of TSMC possible?
Intel continuously improves its cpu consumption, the firm offers a finer engraving at each generation (14nm is on the way), while their superiority in term of power over ARM architecture cannot be denied.
For example, here are some Geekbench results:
A6X: 1700
Mac Mini 2011 CPU : 8500
Mac Pro 2012 CPU: 25000
...
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
In addition, to compete with Intel and Samsung, Apple may have to produce his own CPUs, so is a purchase of TSMC possible?
Agreed, it just makes me wonder what will happen if both Apple, and Microsoft make the push into consumer computing, and ditch support for everyone else.
The guy I'm replying to seems to be under the impression that x86 language is something like Java, as in they're environments you program in and have security holes that can be taken advantage of. You and I both know this isn't the case. No one is going to try to steal your credit card by messing with your ram timings, or by hacking the kernel of the OS itself. Even attempting to do so would be so incredibly difficult to do and so easily fixed after its discovered, it wouldn't be worth the time and effort required to attempt it.
Mostly, all it'd be good for is crashing your computer. And you'd be doing it by exploiting the OS, rather than the CPU itself.
Instead, they're going to try to find a way to get at your credit cards by gaining elevation rights through Flash or something, which can be done on ARM, x86, or PPC.
Actually, these days, it's much easier to simply use good old fashion social engineering. Plenty of fish in the sea. No need for complicated hacks and even understanding what the stack is, much less what buffer boundaries are.