Why it pays to wait.
A lot of 2016 MacBook Pro users - why did I buy this again?
And why buy the next one since the one after that will be even better.
Why it pays to wait.
A lot of 2016 MacBook Pro users - why did I buy this again?
This is awesome news, dual CPU machines with x86_64+ARM that sounds amazing! I can't wait for this to be true. I love power nap already, but I SOOooo.... want more out of it! NICE NICE NICE
MacOS doesn't have as large of a software ecosystem as, say, Windows so Apple can afford to risk switching CPU architecture away from x86-64 to ARM. Wouldn't be surprised if Apple follow Google Chromebook that's architecture agnostic and can run on x86-64 or ARM.
Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to buy Intel?
Sounds like a very smart approach.
Because some of us need a machine today to address business today. Next year is a new year and probably a new machine.Why it pays to wait.
A lot of 2016 MacBook Pro users - why did I buy this again?
If they really wanted to use a second lower power CP, it would probably make much more sense to use the second Intel processor (a lower power one). This way they would be able to run the same software on both.
I believe people are fooled by benchmarks nowadays. To be precise, different architectures are hardly comparable.
A CISC processor (x86) is much more powerful than a RISC processor(ARM).
Im not sure what this means for the future, but I as a data scientist for example will need a powerful system which is able to process a lot of big data in short time. Honestly I prefer macOS over other OS, but I also need to run smaller non-commercial cross-Platform tools and i don't see the developers rewriting their tools for an ARM processor.
True, of course, if I let run analyses on servers. If I'm working on my local pc (main tool R) I need a powerful CPU due to a very bad mutlicore parallel computing support of R (packages are almost useless to implement parallel computing due to the language itself R is written in).CISC isn't more powerful, it's just less efficient. You should google it. You're missing the point entirely. As "a data scientist" you should know that data processing at scale is done in parallel and in that scenario using numerous, less powerful, processors always outperforms faster single processors. The key metric today is performance per watt, since power usage limits how processor dense your design is and the total throughput of the machine.
Who is we?Intel x86 inside Mac is a must for true full compatibility with the rest of the world (read Windows). Switch Mac to ARM and we will switch to Windows. Sadly. A shame for all.
Intel x86 inside Mac is a must for true full compatibility with the rest of the world (read Windows). Switch Mac to ARM and we will switch to Windows. Sadly. A shame for all.
Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to buy Intel?
Good point, but what incentive would Intel have to license that to Apple, in turn assisting Apple in moving away from Intel processors?
Intel x86 inside Mac is a must for true full compatibility with the rest of the world (read Windows). Switch Mac to ARM and we will switch to Windows. Sadly. A shame for all.
Windows has been running on Macs with either 68k or PowerPC processors 20 years ago.That's pretty impressive.
I have been at places where having a MacBook was kind of a status symbol (and they _are_ nicer than mast Windows laptop), and if the company has a Microsoft site license, they can install Windows etc. for free. So anybody who _needed_ windows and had a little bit of say in the company would make sure they had a MacBook.I still don't understand why some people buy a Mac if they need to run Windows. And it makes no sense at all if your primary need is to run Windows. Just buy a Windows PC!
Apple said a while ago that the most powerful ARM processors in iOS devices are more powerful than the Intel processors in 90% of all laptops sold. So a MacBook with an ARM processor would actually be perfectly fine for many (but not all) Mac users.That is a harsh thing to say, ARM processors are powerful and power efficient. With the focus on Swift, and more native written applications, ARM may very well be a contender. It is a wait and see game, why let fear overcome you now as we are not even there yet.
Or you know, instead of devoting more resources to this project, they could just put a *GASP* normal-sized battery in their laptops (and make them slightly thicker) and use those resources to update the Mac Pro, Mini, etc...
Because some people prefer macOS, but also sometimes have to use software which is Windows-only.I still don't understand why some people buy a Mac if they need to run Windows.
Windows can already run on ARM CPU's in a preview version.
I still don't understand why some people buy a Mac if they need to run Windows. And it makes no sense at all if your primary need is to run Windows. Just buy a Windows PC!
I just think this is what Apple does and not the PC with a better OS that you wish they made.Or you know, instead of devoting more resources to this project, they could just put a *GASP* normal-sized battery in their laptops (and make them slightly thicker) and use those resources to update the Mac Pro, Mini, etc...