I buy Apple computers because of the quality of build. I am typing this on a 2011 MacBook air and have had zero trouble with it. I do run Boot Camp most of the time with Windows as the other OS. That being said I would be highly disappointed in not being able to run windows and would probably move away from Apple computers. My windows partition got hit with some bad malware and I have been running on the Mac side for about 5 months and I struggle with things I used to be able to do in Windows that I can't do with the MAC OS.
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 Plans to Ditch Intel and Use Custom Mac Chips Starting in 2020
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I buy Apple computers because of the quality of build. I am typing this on a 2011 MacBook air and have had zero trouble with it. I do run Boot Camp most of the time with Windows as the other OS. That being said I would be highly disappointed in not being able to run windows and would probably move away from Apple computers. My windows partition got hit with some bad malware and I have been running on the Mac side for about 5 months and I struggle with things I used to be able to do in Windows that I can't do with the MAC OS.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. Parallels is a must-have for me because I have to run Windows-only software for work. If new CPUs from Apple destroy our ability to run Windows VMs with decent performance, I’ll have to, unfortunately, bid the Mac adieu.
LOL! You are not very old unless you remember the Motorola 680x0 chips in Macs.
I don't see how that makes much sense, business-wise.
The Mac is a stagnating business (like all desktop and laptop computers). Custom made processors won't persuade anyone to switch back from phones and tablets to a somewhat legacy class of devices. So being dependent on Intel is just fine from this perspective.
For their mobile devices on the other hand, it made all the sense in the world.
Also designing a really fast and still efficient processor is hard. There were once a lot of CPU makers around, but pretty much everyone else apart from Intel and AMD have given up creating mass market computer processors. Because it didn't make sense, business-wise.
There are a few initiatives for ARM server CPUs, but so far they have been mostly remained promises. What is on the market is not convincing and disappointing, and it's uncertain if it will change.
Sure, Apple can do it, but it will cost them a lot of money.
Also, Windows won't run anymore or only with a lot of drawbacks. There are plans for an ARM Windows with x86 emulation, but that's going to be a huge pain. Lots of things won't work, new drivers for everything will still be necessary, and it's pretty unclear if there is even a market for it. Microsoft have already failed in their first try (Windows RT) because no one needed it. Games will still need an x86 Windows because the emulation will be too slow, so those won't definitely run on an ARM Windows. Microsoft isn't Apple, they couldn't pull this off even if they tried really hard.
And of course, all the Mac software has to make the transition, too...this will probably be the easiest part. And it's still annoying for customers and might drive some away instead of attracting new ones.
So in short, it would be a highly risky move with totally uncertain outcomes and little benefits even it everything works well. And for what? The future lies elsewhere.
The Mac is a stagnating business (like all desktop and laptop computers). Custom made processors won't persuade anyone to switch back from phones and tablets to a somewhat legacy class of devices. So being dependent on Intel is just fine from this perspective.
For their mobile devices on the other hand, it made all the sense in the world.
Also designing a really fast and still efficient processor is hard. There were once a lot of CPU makers around, but pretty much everyone else apart from Intel and AMD have given up creating mass market computer processors. Because it didn't make sense, business-wise.
There are a few initiatives for ARM server CPUs, but so far they have been mostly remained promises. What is on the market is not convincing and disappointing, and it's uncertain if it will change.
Sure, Apple can do it, but it will cost them a lot of money.
Also, Windows won't run anymore or only with a lot of drawbacks. There are plans for an ARM Windows with x86 emulation, but that's going to be a huge pain. Lots of things won't work, new drivers for everything will still be necessary, and it's pretty unclear if there is even a market for it. Microsoft have already failed in their first try (Windows RT) because no one needed it. Games will still need an x86 Windows because the emulation will be too slow, so those won't definitely run on an ARM Windows. Microsoft isn't Apple, they couldn't pull this off even if they tried really hard.
And of course, all the Mac software has to make the transition, too...this will probably be the easiest part. And it's still annoying for customers and might drive some away instead of attracting new ones.
So in short, it would be a highly risky move with totally uncertain outcomes and little benefits even it everything works well. And for what? The future lies elsewhere.
A lot of people complaining about this also think Apple should introduce a touchscreen/convertible Mac or make iOS a “real” OS. This could be how they do this. Apple can’t make a Surface-like device or a convertible today because Mac OS and iOS operate on different CPU platforms. This could solve that issue.
Apple lets computer hardware languish. I take it to be a symptom of Apple's lack of focus and care, but Apple might argue it's an issue with their chip supplier. Fine. If controlling their own chipmaking process would help them keep the computer product lines current, I say go for it. It's a roll of dice, but I think it'd be worth a shot.
When the 2013 Mac Pro came out, I considering buying one to replace an old classic Mac Pro (which, by the way, is still humming along). I ultimately ended up getting a maxed-out iMac instead, which has been a great computer but which has no real expandability beyond RAM and external storage. Fine. But it's embarrassing as hell that Apple would still sell me that 2013 Mac Pro if I were foolhardy enough to go into their store and ask for it. Apple should also be deeply humiliated that the newest Mac mini is a 2014 model. 2013 and 2014 computers, being sold as new at full price in Apple stores, in 2018. Unbelievable. I would love if Apple could do something to get off their asses with these products, and if designing their own custom silicon is the ticket, then they should go for it. But I kind of doubt that the reasons for lack of updates extend anywhere the walls of Apple itself.
I have to run certain apps in Windows. I hope whatever plans they might have for their chip lines, they aren't abandoning those of us who need native or near-native speed in Windows apps.
When the 2013 Mac Pro came out, I considering buying one to replace an old classic Mac Pro (which, by the way, is still humming along). I ultimately ended up getting a maxed-out iMac instead, which has been a great computer but which has no real expandability beyond RAM and external storage. Fine. But it's embarrassing as hell that Apple would still sell me that 2013 Mac Pro if I were foolhardy enough to go into their store and ask for it. Apple should also be deeply humiliated that the newest Mac mini is a 2014 model. 2013 and 2014 computers, being sold as new at full price in Apple stores, in 2018. Unbelievable. I would love if Apple could do something to get off their asses with these products, and if designing their own custom silicon is the ticket, then they should go for it. But I kind of doubt that the reasons for lack of updates extend anywhere the walls of Apple itself.
I have to run certain apps in Windows. I hope whatever plans they might have for their chip lines, they aren't abandoning those of us who need native or near-native speed in Windows apps.
And before that (circa 1994), there was their successful transition from the popular 680x0 ISA (same chip as used by Atari, Commodore Amiga, Sun, HP, et.al.), to the uncommon PowerPC (only used by IBM).
Get your prediction meters ready:
Geekbench metrics:
2018; A11 = 4200 single core / 10500 multi core
2018; A11X (prediction) = 5100 single core / 16000 multi core
2019; A12 (prediction) = 5300 single core / 24000 multi core
2019; A12X (prediction) = 5800 single core / 31000 multi core
2020; A13 (prediction) = 6300 single core / 35000 multi core
2020; A13X (prediction) = 6500 single core / 45000 multi core
Geekbench metrics:
2018; A11 = 4200 single core / 10500 multi core
2018; A11X (prediction) = 5100 single core / 16000 multi core
2019; A12 (prediction) = 5300 single core / 24000 multi core
2019; A12X (prediction) = 5800 single core / 31000 multi core
2020; A13 (prediction) = 6300 single core / 35000 multi core
2020; A13X (prediction) = 6500 single core / 45000 multi core
Part of the reason I switched to OSX back in 2007 from Windows was because of the ability to dual boot for gaming. I would hate if they abandoned that flexibility in Mac OS. Either figure out a way to draw in more game developers (at which point I don't care what CPU you put in it), or at least keep the option open to dual boot and game in Windows. This would not push me back into the PC world by any means, and I would appreciate Apple's (likely) better performance; however, it makes me a little nervous nonetheless.
No way Apple's little chips will ever beat a 16 Core Xenon from Intel.
Unless they plan to ditch all the Pro Macs and just turn Macs into consumer toys running iOS apps.
Also - Windows Virtual Machines and BootCamp - a huge plus in enterprise - will be lost.
Not sure it can happen.
Unless they plan to ditch all the Pro Macs and just turn Macs into consumer toys running iOS apps.
Also - Windows Virtual Machines and BootCamp - a huge plus in enterprise - will be lost.
Not sure it can happen.
Sure, in principal you can run any software on any hardware that is turing complete or whatever. That doesn't mean it's something your or other people want to put any energy into. Sure, there are some people who love to waste away their time to get Windows 3.1 running on their microwave, but most normal people are not willing to spend two weeks to compile some software, which is pretty much what is going to happen when Apple switches architectures. Even after many years you will have software that is somewhat supported, software that only runs after lots of painful debugging and software that will probably never run. And I can guarantee that the two latter cases will be the most abundant ones.
Sure, but plenty of people use telnet and ftp to support old hardware like printers, switches, firewalls, and old unix boxes that have no support for SFTP or SSH, but are sufficiently cordoned off to be otherwise safe and useful. It's certainly mostly easily replaceable, but come on. It's not like ripping those out of the base OS X install saved countless dev hours in Apple HQ.
It's the real Apple mantra. "Apple Giveth, Apple Taketh Away". I've lost count of functionality and features removed for no other reason than, "because".
Last edited:
Perhaps you might have grown out of playing 'real' games by then? I do a lot of different stuff on my computers now than I did 5 years ago?
Actually, Android and iOS together have a larger total market share of consumer computing devices. And Linux has a larger share of data center servers.
It's not about performance. It's about performance per watt. ARM tumps Intel every which way in that regard. When MS was testing Windows on ARM, their beta testers thought that the battery meter was broken because it never went down - that's how much better ARM is for battery life.
Personally, and professionally, I'm more worried about how non-app-store apps will fare. Developers like to use macs for their unix underpinnings, that's going to be a huge headache for a lot of people -- far more than the PPC -> x86 transition was.
That will be the final nail in the coffin of Apple as a computer for professionals and power users. They have done the best to kick us out since the death of the Xserve, and pro-tools (when they were good). I use an apple because it is/was a Swiss army knife that could run anything. The last ten years have been amazing with boot camp and virtualisation. They move to some Fisher Price architecture and remove power user features, this Apple experiment is over for me.