Um okay. With macs, you have to buy a premade one, you can't build one yourself. I mean you can but then it's a hackintosh. If you hand build a PC, you must pay for Windows (or steal it), I assure you it costs money.
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 Expected to Announce Arm-Based Mac Plans at WWDC, Transition Away From Intel to Begin in 2021
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Windows 10 is free. I know, I have it.The unregistered version is free to use for anyone that downloads it, however you get a watermark on your desktop, some customization options aren’t available and you give up support from Microsoft. So, when anyone “pays” for Windows, they’re paying for a certain level of technical support, not the OS.
[automerge]1591998848[/automerge]
I didn’t mention anything about Mathematica in my post, I’m assuming this was for someone else?
Technically according to the license agreement you accept when you install windows you’re not allowed to use it until it is registered/activated. So not really free if you are trying to be legal & honest.
Section 5 I believe:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm
Buying a Mac to run Windows? Something does not add up here
That's its actual name, by the designers. It is the technical name as well. That you ask such questions is quite telling
x86-64 or x64 or anything else is either generic marketing for normies or Intel vernacular.
Now you can claim you are a hamster or a CPU architect, but don't expect anyone to believe that drivel. On the internet, you can be whatever you want, but stuff your appeals from authority.
[automerge]1592064000[/automerge]
Why don't you embarrass yourself and present this patent, connected to cmaier on Macrumors?
[automerge]1592064483[/automerge]
I think Apple is very happy with having AMD as a general GPU source and ok with Intel as a CPU source for what it is worth, but I think the Apple execs don't see a future in the Macintosh.
There's no growth in the Macintosh, it's forever at 10%-ish marketshare and its online store isn't a success, its profit margins are modest. If you have an MBA, you know the Mac is dead-weight, because that's how that logic works.
The Macintosh is dragging down Apple share price and value. Instead of a company with 100% iOS, online store and digital subscription model, you have a company with 90% of that, and 10% of a mediocre profit margin product that isn't growing and doesn't have an online profit model.
That's why I think Apple will keep their relationship with Intel and AMD as it is, as long as there is a Macintosh. Apple has excellent deals with both companies, and breaking away from Intel to AMD in CPUs is probably not worth it.
I don't know if the MBAs will manage to convince the board of directors to phase out the Macintosh line or merge it into iOS, long term, but it wouldn't be the first courageous decision made by the Cook administration.
Last edited:
Nobody calls it amd64 anymore. And we designers didn’t call it that either. AMD64 was a marketing name, not the technical name. We designers called it K8. (Or sometimes “sledgehammer” or sometimes “new k8.”) And I even know the story of how the ”hammer” names came to be, because I was the one who suggested to fred Weber that we each take a sledgehammer to the wall that had to come down in the new building we moved into off Lawrence expressway after being moved from the NexGen headquarters in Milpitas.
I’m was also one of the 13 or so people at La Papillon on saratoga avenue after most of the team quit, and Fred gathered us for a meal and to see if we would agree to his last-ditch effort to keep the group intact and to restart K8 using a brand new instruction set.
And when we agreed, but had no architect, I was the one assigned to draft the 64-bit extensions to the x86 integer ALU operations, and the one who owned the floating point and integer units (later the integer and register file/renaming units). I was also one of the few people in charge of “global” design, including power rails, clock methodology, global floorplanning and pin assignment, etc.
So don’t tell me what you think a designer would call it. You aren’t even right.
Yes, they do. Good grief. Anyway, I'm not arguing with a made up personality on the internet.
By the way, I'm Jim Keller. Perhaps you've heard of me.
If you were Jim Keller than you’d know who I am.
BTW, I’ve repeatedly posted on here links to more than a dozen papers on CPUs that I’ve written, including for JSSC. I’ve been on here for well over a decade, and I was heavily cited in the press for correctly predicting the bulldozer fiasco in detailed explanations in these forums. If I’m conning people, it’s been a very long con. But lots of people here know who I am, so the fact that you don’t doesn’t really bother me. The fact that you think designers would refer to their work by the marketing name instead of the internal code names is, after all, cute.
(By the way, the first 64-bit chip was SH, the second was CH (clawhammer), K6’s had names like chomper and littlefoot, athlon was k7, hypertransport was never known as that by us designers - we called it lightning data transport, or LDT, our favorite place to get food was Tia Juana’s, even though AMD served us free food every night at 6pm, the best two circuit designers were Bill and Steve, Cheryl and I were in charge of methodology and EDA, the name of the software that managed the design process was abe for K7 and ace for K8, we used RCS to manage repositories for K6 and CVS for K8, the name of the SDK I wrote to perform static circuit feature identification was waterloo, and the classes started with BS_, which stands for “Belgium sucks” because I was insulted by the belgian CAD manager in our first meeting, the circuit classification tool i wrote was called agincourt, for similar reasons, ... feel free to use any of this information to improve the quality of your future attacks on people so that you don’t wrongly claim the designers called things by their marketing names)
Apple provided software support for the the G5 for 4 years after they announced that they would transition to Intel. I was not upset about the transition at all, even having purchased a PowerMac G5 6 months before the announcement.
I expect that my BF will sell his Mac Pro and iMac Pro as soon as we can replace them with new ARM based equivalents. The iMac Pro is over 2.5 years old, and will have long since paid for itself. He is already pretty close to having paid for the Mac Pro, based on the work he would not have been able to do without it, so even if we get nothing for either of them (unlikely), they will have been worth the price.
They have a great reason for the switch, even if you do not like it. This transition will get them into a place where they are fully in control of their own destiny for CPUs. Up until now, they have been dependent on others and have been screwed repeatedly. Before the iPhone, they could never sell enough chips to matter. Now, they have a silicon team that is years ahead of the competition. Intel has stagnated, and AMD's record is not great (they tend to do well for a bit and then fall behind).
By designing their own chips, they can optimize their systems to work best for what they need, not for some general market requirements.
Looking at the graphic performance of the iPhone/iPad, it seems pretty likely that even those systems that have integrated graphics, will blow away the best intel options.
The biggest difference between this transition and the previous one, is that there is no major OS architectural shift required to take advantage of it. Developers were still supporting Carbon apps and those required significant work to port to Apple's Cocoa/Obj-C frameworks and tools. This transition will be much easier for developers. No endian issues, no language issues, everything will already be 64-bit.
I expect to see some interesting announcements from Unreal and from some of the other graphics companies when this gets announced.
I am and I don't know any cmaier on Macrumors. Sorry.
Fascinating, you can google the papers I, Jim Keller, have written.
Indeed, it is well worth our time as big-time CPU designers to hang out on Macrumors forums, all day, for a decade.
Someone mislead or lied on the internet? What. That's unpossible.
The papers i cited have ”cmaier” in the list of authors, dude. Again, whatever.
(Ps: i am no longer a CPU designer. I retired in 2007)
Interesting. What we have to believe is one of two things:
1) 13 years ago, someone decided to create an account using the name of a recently retired AMD chip architect in order to one day be able to pull rank on you.
2) Someone who uses a pseudonym on here is actually Jim Keller, but cannot really provide any details that are not public information.
Wonder which one of these two to believe.
That's not my argument - I'm not disagreeing with you there. What I am saying is that OSes do cost money. MS specifically. Yes it may come on prebuilt computers but you are paying for the OS in that price. Furthermore, handbuilt computers and servers require an OS, if you want MS you will pay. I am a sysadmin in a windows environment and I can assure you OSes cost $ - especially Server OSes and Windows Pro. You want to go from (what you are calling free) Windows home to Windows Pro? That will be $99 TYVM. Your statement that all OSes are free, get over it and move on is not correct. I do think that if Apple offered MacOS licences that could be installed on any system, people would be happy to pay a price for that - not a stupid price but let's say $79 or so. I would happily pay that to run MacOS on a custom built machine.
There'll always be those guys who, when running out of arguments in a discussion or being proven wrong, resort to personal insults instead of just accepting they were wrong and move on.
The last time Apple tried that gambit it was a disaster, and the current market dynamics are much worse for that sort of business model than they were in the mid-1990s.
Why would Apple, for the mere $79 you suggested, take on the hassle of dealing with all the countless hardware configurations out there?
Just want to make sure I understand you:
You would be willing to pay Apple $79 to develop a version that would support generic hardware. You are not even willing to pay what Microsoft charges for a product of which they sell millions of copies. Is that really your position? Seriously?
For the sake of argument, let us say that if Apple decided to develop the version of the software you want. Let us further say they were able to sell it to every hobbiest looking to run an unsupported OS on unsupported hardware. How big do you think that market is? Let us say it is bigger than anyone could imagine, is that 25,000 copies? 50,000? Even at $100 a copy, that is only $5,000,000. Why would they have any interest in that? It is absurd.
You missed the entire point of my post. Completely. I never said I was unwilling to pay for an OS, quite the contrary. My point about apple selling MacOS to homegrown computer users wasn't that it is good for their bottom line, rather that I would be willing to PAY for the OS.
[automerge]1592076994[/automerge]
Again, I'm not saying they would or should, my sole point was that people would be willing to pay for an OS. That is all.
From what I see on pirate-bay, i tend to doubt that the second point (to the extent you mean “more than a few people”)
Yes, you said you would be willing to pay something like $79 (not sure what you mean by "not a stupid price" as it would be a very stupid price for Apple). I will clarify what I think CMaier was saying since I think you missed it:
No one (or not enough people) would be willing to pay the price needed to make it a viable product. Miami built a train system that was so expensive and had so few riders that for (at least the first 10 years, I stopped checking after that), it would have been cheaper for them to provide chauffeur driven limos for all the passengers.
If Apple wanted to lose the amount of money you are suggesting, it would be easier to just give you a Mac Pro for the same $79. It would probably save them money.
mbp has a bad heat sink, comparing to other laptops, such as xps, thinkpad p1
PowerMac/PowerBook = PowerPC-based Macs
iMac/Mac Pro/MacBook = Intel-based Macs
??? = ARM-based Macs
I am sure Apple will call their ARM-based Macs something else. Just look at the trends I listed above. Each new architecture had a different name. I think the same will hold with the ARM-based Macs set to be released next year.
[automerge]1592169384[/automerge]
That's true. When was the last time Apple announced the clock speed of their AXX-based ARM CPUs on their iOS devices? In their keynotes, they only use comparable stats, like 2x faster, etc. The same might be true when they announced the ARM-based Mac next year and it will be up to reviewers and the press to verify the clockspeed.
Last edited:
In 1998, Apple released the first iMac, powered by a 750. In '02, the "moose hoof" iMac ran on a 7450. In '04, the iMac put all its hardware behind the screen, balanced on a slender, elegant foot and powered by a 970fx. The first Intel-powered iMac appeared in '06, looking very much like its immediate PPC predecessor but with "G5" dropped from the name.
And the PowerBook name goes all the way back to the early '90s – I had one that ran on a 68030.
In fact it will be much faster than current Intel MacBook.
A13@2.6Ghz is about 90% single core performance of a 9900K @ 5Ghz. That's insane single core performance for a laptop. Only AMD 4800H can reach that level of performance in laptop form factor and it's burning 20W per core for that single core boost.
An future A14 SoC for laptop will only be faster than that.
AMD is already producing 2x power efficiency against Intel. Apple is just doing the same against AMD for another 2x.