I think the cross-platform compatibility between OSX and iOS indicates that abandoning x86 need not be as draconian as abandoning PPC.
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
We're talking years away potentially. We'd be on OS X 10.11 or OS XI before this takes a hold.
This is off topic but I couldn't let it go. We just moved to Boston from Iowa. Needless to say navigating roads is a bit more complex. I have been taken to the wrong place four times now. Restaurants that had been on the same location for decades and that show up on the map at a completely wrong address. It's also unable to find places often times (I am forced to find them on google, copy te address, and paste it into maps).
So no, it hasn't been fixed. It's really, REALLY bad. And this is Boston we are talking about. Not some ace in the middle of rural Kentucky.
I agree that some people like to just hop on the "lets complain" bandwagon, but that is not the case here. Maps is currently God awful.
I work at Intercourse Blue Machine ( HINT HINT ), and I have yet to see a single tablet either, Ive seen some full blown tablet PCs and convertibles over the years, but not one iPad, or any other tablet, we are thinking about the surface pro, and we've had our share of fruit phones ( berrys and Apples, but mostly dumb phones and berrys ), but no tablets really. They're to limited.
Also.
The fastest ARM chips in existence can barely touch a decade old Pentium 4 without HT, I doubt intel is worried on the performance front.
Last edited:
except, apple is also a software company. i am sure they can program a mass amount of cores to good use in an operating system. my question is what cpu architecture is better for this mass-core/multi-core computing? is it ARM or INTEL? i know intel chips are more powerful today. but what if ARM in a couple yrs has a system where one can add cores willy-nilly to a laptop and the laptop becomes a multi-core beast as easy as one plugs in an external hdd or add a RAM today?
except, apple is also a software company. i am sure they can program a mass amount of cores to good use in an operating system. my question is what cpu architecture is better for this mass-core/multi-core computing? is it ARM or INTEL? i know intel chips are more powerful today. but what if ARM in a couple yrs has a system where one can add cores willy-nilly to a laptop and the laptop becomes a multi-core beast as easy as one plugs in an external hdd or add a RAM today?
Agreed, not a single one of my clients has "moved to" tablets. A few have an employee here and there that uses one when they're on the go for easy access to email and internet, but when you're at your desk doing actual work, it's all PC's with a handful of mac's
except, apple is also a software company. i am sure they can program a mass amount of cores to good use in an operating system. my question is what cpu architecture is better for this mass-core/multi-core computing? is it ARM or INTEL? i know intel chips are more powerful today. but what if ARM in a couple yrs has a system where one can add cores willy-nilly to a laptop and the laptop becomes a multi-core beast as easy as one plugs in an external hdd or add a RAM today?
except, apple is also a software company. i am sure they can program a mass amount of cores to good use in an operating system. my question is what cpu architecture is better for this mass-core/multi-core computing? is it ARM or INTEL? i know intel chips are more powerful today. but what if ARM in a couple yrs has a system where one can add cores willy-nilly to a laptop and the laptop becomes a multi-core beast as easy as one plugs in an external hdd or say add RAM to their computer?
except, apple is also a software company. i am sure they can program a mass amount of cores to good use in an operating system. my question is what cpu architecture is better for this mass-core/multi-core computing? is it ARM or INTEL? i know intel chips are more powerful today. but what if ARM in a couple yrs has a system where one can add cores willy-nilly to a laptop and the laptop becomes a multi-core beast as easy as one plugs in an external hdd or say add RAM to their computer?
The whole reason I gave a Mac a shot in the first place was the fact that I could install Windows on it and use all my PC programs, regardless of whether Mac OS was any good or not.
The whole reason I gave a Mac a shot in the first place was the fact that I could install Windows on it and use all my PC programs, regardless of whether Mac OS was any good or not.
Yeah guess what, Intel is the best Chip maker in the world, they've already proven they can match ARM chips in power consumption, now the next step is to rape them in performance, which haswell will do.
You guys don't get it. It's not an individual employee who will decide about that. If the IT department of your company made an app and they think the employee will be more productive using a tablet. That's the time they will issue it to employees.
And, are you even aware that the best ARM has to offer is slower than a Pentium 4 from a decade ago?
And, are you even aware that the best ARM has to offer is slower than a Pentium 4 from a decade ago?
Actually, that could be good! x86 architecture has so much flaws and unnecessary legacy stuff...
except, apple is also a software company. i am sure they can program a mass amount of cores to good use in an operating system. my question is what cpu architecture is better for this mass-core/multi-core computing? is it ARM or INTEL? i know intel chips are more powerful today. but what if ARM in a couple yrs has a system where one can add cores willy-nilly to a laptop and the laptop becomes a multi-core beast as easy as one plugs in an external hdd or say add RAM to their computer?
You guys don't get it. It's not an individual employee who will decide about that. If the IT department of your company made an app and they think the employee will be more productive using a tablet. That's the time they will issue it to employees.
You guys don't get it. It's not an individual employee who will decide about that. If the IT department of your company made an app and they think the employee will be more productive using a tablet. That's the time they will issue it to employees.
I wondered about this when I was reading Steve Jobs biography and he was quoted as saying this:
At the high-performance end, Intel is the best. They build the fastest chip, if you dont care about power and cost. But they build just the processor on one chip, so it takes a lot of other parts. Our A4 has the processor and the graphics, mobile operating system, and memory control all in the chip. We tried to help Intel, but they dont listen much. Weve been telling them for years that their graphics suck. Every quarter we schedule a meeting with me and our top three guys and Paul Otellini. At the beginning, we were doing wonderful things together. They wanted this big joint project to do chips for future iPhones. There were two reasons we didnt go with them. One was that they are just really slow. Theyre like a steamship, not very flexible. Were used to going pretty fast. Second is that we just didnt want to teach them everything, which they could go and sell to our competitors.
Excerpt From: Isaacson, Walter. Steve Jobs. Simon & Schuster, 2011. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBookstore: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/steve-jobs/id431617578?mt=11
At the high-performance end, Intel is the best. They build the fastest chip, if you dont care about power and cost. But they build just the processor on one chip, so it takes a lot of other parts. Our A4 has the processor and the graphics, mobile operating system, and memory control all in the chip. We tried to help Intel, but they dont listen much. Weve been telling them for years that their graphics suck. Every quarter we schedule a meeting with me and our top three guys and Paul Otellini. At the beginning, we were doing wonderful things together. They wanted this big joint project to do chips for future iPhones. There were two reasons we didnt go with them. One was that they are just really slow. Theyre like a steamship, not very flexible. Were used to going pretty fast. Second is that we just didnt want to teach them everything, which they could go and sell to our competitors.
Excerpt From: Isaacson, Walter. Steve Jobs. Simon & Schuster, 2011. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBookstore: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/steve-jobs/id431617578?mt=11
except, apple is also a software company. i am sure they can program a mass amount of cores to good use in an operating system. my question is what cpu architecture is better for this mass-core/multi-core computing? is it ARM or INTEL? i know intel chips are more powerful today. but what if ARM in a couple yrs has a system where one can add cores willy-nilly to a laptop and the laptop becomes a multi-core beast as easy as one plugs in an external hdd or say add RAM to their computer?
Actually, that could be good! x86 architecture has so much flaws and unnecessary legacy stuff...