Change where there are clear befits are good, but justifying loosing compatibility with programs which are not being updated any more on change for the sake of change is crazy.
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
Change where there are clear befits are good, but justifying loosing compatibility with programs which are not being updated any more on change for the sake of change is crazy.
And how did you come to that conclusion that your current Mac software is lost? I don't understand where are you getting this.
Yes this. The Mac was doing well in the PPC Jobs days, but really took off with the Intel switch.
Some of you have chosen to forget the PPC days and how few apps there were.
Oh it wasn't a fun time. Sure there were some applications, but nothing like today.
Clearly you don't do any cross development. If I was developing on a Mac and did not have a Windows machine nearby, I can either A) run VM or B) bootcamp.
See what I did there? I didn't need to have a Windows machine nearby to get my job done.
The current Macbook line with x86 is practical for a developer.
That is just so wrong, it's sad people believe it.
Most *trivial* apps by "devs" who went to coding bootcamps just require a simple recompile and slight tinkering. They're written using high level APIs and are very abstract and inefficient to begin with but in a simple app it doesn't matter if you burn a little extra cpu power in the name of simplicity.
More complex apps and most apps by people who actually understand computers use a lot of lower level coding to boost performance and efficiency. There is a lot of code tied very closely to the hardware. At once place I worked, I wrote an embedded web browser, and there was a lot of in-line assembly in the render-engine. Let's see you recompile that for a different CPU. Something like photoshop will have a lot of CPU-specific optimizations.
Why do you think porting games to mac even on the same CPU is so time consuming and challenging? It's not a simple recompile and tinker.
Because I can guarantee that it won't all be getting a rewrite for Arm.
That's fair, I am not expecting those people to change their minds. It's a business, Apple needs to do what they feel is best for them in the long run. As many others have stated, if Apple moves in this direction, some people will leave the platform. It is what it is, there are plenty of others that will embrace the change.
My general understanding of programming is fairly basic, but my thoughts would be for programs to be easily ported that they wouldn't be very efficient because the high level code would have a heap of junk underneath it to translate it for a new architecture, meaning that it wouldn't be overly optimised.
I will say that porting gcc libraries to mac in PPC architecture was more arduous than x86.
Yes because people are so blind in their Apple devotion, that moves that benefit only people that use their Macs as giant iPhones will be seen as 'progress'.
Plenty of my software is no longer in development. How are they going to magically work?
Oh i remember just fine, i also remember that devs that cried wld were left behind and everything was turned out fine.You can't be serious with this statement.
The reason Mac took off was because of their switch to Intel processors. Developers had less of a battle to port their apps. Lazy? You clearly have never ported anything beyond a simple "Hello" app.
Some of you have chosen to forget the PPC days and how few apps there were.
I mean no offence, but I think you have a very narrow mind when it comes to what a computer is. It might seem a simple task today, but think about all the technology behind browsing the web and streaming a video.
I firmly believe these devices are computers. Not as powerful as desktops, sure, but still general purpose computers.
P.S. Technically speaking, even a calculator is a computer. Heck, even the remote control of my TV is.
So CPU architecture change should worry you the least, because with next OS X version your apps will break on its own.
I notice you don't seem to see any benefits for the consumer either since you haven't managed to suggest any.
Cheaper for Apple is not a benefit for the consumer. Giving Apple "control" over the CPU schedule is not a benefit because it's just to help Apple hide how many generations behind the rest of the world they are.
And turning the computer into a "what's a computer" iPad is not a benefit. I want a computer, if I wanted an iPad, I'd buy an iPad.
I don't think anyone would suggest the PPC to Intel move was flawless. It however had good reasoning and benefits for Mac users that this one doesn't.
I lost plenty good software in that transition as well, but gained enough for it not to matter.
[doublepost=1522854726][/doublepost]
Well no actually, a lot of this software has survived many MacOS updates.
Okay? I can only speak for myself and I see the value. If you don't agree or don't like it, that's fine.
An iPad for all intents and purposes is a computer.
[doublepost=1522854862][/doublepost]
Not forever.
Obviously not. Again, I'd be sad to loose it due to an improvement made to MacOS, but would probably welcome the improvement. If moving to ARM was an improvement, I'd see it the same way. But breaking app compatibility for the sake of change isn't an improvement.
And what is that value?
[doublepost=1522855124][/doublepost]
Because plenty of us work in environments where the standard for computing is what is used. Macs remain a minority.
And Apple is apparently delivering this later this year anyway without an architecture change. Although that could be just one way.
The value for me? I hope Apple can bring some of the benefits I see of using an iPad to the Mac. Performance, stability, security, privacy, apps/app choices, battery life, flexibility, core technologies, etc.