Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Apple Silicon Macs: M1 MacBook Pro, MacBook Air and Mac mini Now Available

Solomani

macrumors 601
Sep 25, 2012
4,010
8,252
Slapfish, North Carolina
This is why Apple products cost an arm and a leg. They are collecting all the arms. Eventually they will release an Arm-based mac... and finally, when they have enough, they will also release a Leg-based mac too. ;)

Seriously, though, I hope if there is a transition it's a very gradual one.

I'll wait for the arm-and-a-leg Mac. It will have double the cpu power!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Porco
Comment

Nugget

Contributor
Nov 24, 2002
2,024
1,152
Houston Texas USA
You clearly missed the point of the analogies. The point was that businesses tend toward sticking with old equipment and methods long past the time they should have been replaced or updated because it is the "least expensive" option

I did not miss the point at all. Your analogy is flawed because x86 is not an old technology. It's not "old equipment and methods" it's a thriving and viable platform that continues to enjoy robust development and improvement. If I was sticking with "old equipment" I would have no dilemma. My dilemma is because I need to buy new equipment and Apple no longer make suitable machines for our environment.
 
Comment

Maximara

macrumors 6502
Jun 16, 2008
421
173
I did not miss the point at all. Your analogy is flawed because x86 is not an old technology.

You're kidding right? The x86 has been around since 1978 ie 42 years. That is an eternity in the computer world.

It's not "old equipment and methods" it's a thriving and viable platform that continues to enjoy robust development and improvement.

Robust development and improvement? The first I agree with but improvement? Compared with what Apple did with ARM over the same period the x86'ss "improvement" has been a joke.

In Will the x86 architecture disappear in the future? Jon Sonntag said it best: "We don’t use steam engines any more, but they were used for over 100 years. Gasoline engines were about the same. I see the same evolution for computer chips. We don’t see big mainframes any more. Things change."

If I was sticking with "old equipment" I would have no dilemma. My dilemma is because I need to buy new equipment and Apple no longer make suitable machines for our environment.

This makes no sense as you liked my post that said:

Apple supported PowerPC code even with Intel macs from January 2006 to July 20, 2011 or to put it bluntly Apple did NOT stop support for Rosetta (ie PowerPC code) until 2011. 2009 was the end of the line for the hardware not the software. So Apple supported PowerPC code for nearly two years after it became clear that the PowerPC was effectively a road to nowhere.

If Apple does something similar then the last support for x86-x64 code will end sometime in 2026 more then enough time for recoding/recompiling to happen. And that is ignoring that unlike then there is the referb shop by Apple which sales Macs as old as three years. I have no idea if that will extend Rosetta 2's life or not.

===

Based what happened with the PowerPC to Intel transition we will be seeing new Intel Macs clear into 2023 not counting the referb which Apple sells which kicks the Intel Mac from Apple can down the road to 2026

This is all ignoring Apple's current pattern of supporting Macs as old as seven years ago with its new OS (Big Sur can run on some macs from 2013) which would kick Intel support down to 2030, 10 freaking years from now.

I am reminded of a commercial (forget the product) where a 18 year-old is offered an opportunity to invest in this computer two guys are building in their garage (an obvious reference to Jobs and Wozniak). He takes the money he could have invested shows off the piece of technology he used the money to buy proudly promoting it as "the future" - an 8-tack player.

Yes, it is way different from his likely inspiration, Ronald Wayne but the message was clear - there are those who see the future and those who play it safe aka "lowest risk path (and least expensive)" and Wayne stated it was the "best decision with the information available to me at the time" but that was when information was far more limited then it is now.
 
Last edited:
Comment

Nugget

Contributor
Nov 24, 2002
2,024
1,152
Houston Texas USA
You're kidding right? The x86 has been around since 1978 ie 42 years. That is an eternity in the computer world.

Sure, and Arm was introduced in 1985 ie 35 years ago. What's your point? Nobody today is running an 8086 CPU on their desk or in production. A 2020 64 core Threadripper processor is not a 42 year old architecture.

Robust development and improvement? The first I agree with but improvement? Compared with what Apple did with ARM over the same period the x86'ss "improvement" has been a joke.

Intel has been sucking wind lately (and Apple have lagged behind even that) so it's easy to understand how a macOS user might have a skewed perspective on the state of the art when it comes to x86/amd64 innovations. But AMD is putting out some seriously impressive silicon for workstations as well as servers. There is absolutely robust development and improvement taking place in that space.
 
Comment

Maximara

macrumors 6502
Jun 16, 2008
421
173
Sure, and Arm was introduced in 1985 ie 35 years ago. What's your point? Nobody today is running an 8086 CPU on their desk or in production. A 2020 64 core Threadripper processor is not a 42 year old architecture.

There were a lot of improvements to steam engines even as gasoline cars became a thing. Even today it is still viable but it is nowhere near was it was back in its heyday.

Intel has been sucking wind lately (and Apple have lagged behind even that) so it's easy to understand how a macOS user might have a skewed perspective on the state of the art when it comes to x86/amd64 innovations. But AMD is putting out some seriously impressive silicon for workstations as well as servers. There is absolutely robust development and improvement taking place in that space.

Apple lagged because they designed their Macs based on the CPUs Intel said would be bailable and when they weren't Apple had to shove whatever they could get into those designs so of course Mac performance was going to blow goats. Over on the ARM side of things Intel's mobile efforts were a total train wreck which is why ARM dominates be it Android, iPhone, or iPad.
 
Comment

Nugget

Contributor
Nov 24, 2002
2,024
1,152
Houston Texas USA
There were a lot of improvements to steam engines even as gasoline cars became a thing. Even today it is still viable but it is nowhere near was it was back in its heyday.

OK, so? Arm and amd64 are equivalent technologies. Which one are you thinking is the steam engine? Arm? Seems to me they're both gasoline engines. So I guess your point is not clear here.

Apple lagged because they designed their Macs based on the CPUs Intel said. . .

OK? it doesn't matter why. All I was saying is that a macOS user can be excused for not being familiar with the state of the art on the "intel" side of things. Someone whose focus is on Apple products might understandably have a limited perspective when it comes to what x86/amd64 offers today.
 
Comment

Maximara

macrumors 6502
Jun 16, 2008
421
173
OK? it doesn't matter why. All I was saying is that a macOS user can be excused for not being familiar with the state of the art on the "intel" side of things. Someone whose focus is on Apple products might understandably have a limited perspective when it comes to what x86/amd64 offers today.

Yes it does. Apple planned its Intel Mac designs based on what Intel was promising them, the one company that should "have been familiar with the state of the art on the "intel" side of things."

"A former Intel engineer reckons Apple decided to switch from Intel due to the unusually high number of bugs in the chip maker's Skylake CPUs that powered Macs released between 2015 and 2017. and later "The quality assurance in Skylake was abnormally bad."

How in the name of logic is Apple's fault for Intel FUBARing things that badly? You know that things are totally FUBARed if the company who's name defines a market SNAFUs things that badly.

Ep. 7: What is Intel’s x86 Future? and Is It Game Over for the x86 ISA and Intel? shows that x86 has problems. The later says interesting things:

"ARM is doing to x86 what PC did to everybody else in the 90s. By being an open platform with multiple chip makers you got fierce competition which will drive prices down and boost innovation."

"It has become a truthism that ARM chips are weak. Yet in the laptop space we saw that Apple’s iPad Pro when they came out beat most of their own intel based laptops on performance. That was insane as those ARM chips cost a fraction of the intel chips used in their laptops. Not to mention they where passively cooled."

"This process will begin to work in lockstep. As more people are seeing cost savings going with ARM cloud solutions, they are also going to want to have ARM laptops to develop on."

State of the art is not Intel as both they and AMD are trying to squeeze what they can out of the x86 and related architecture. Even AMD is touting ARM as the future for datacenters. Heck, NVIDIA bought ARM itself. You don't do that if you think the future is x86 forever and ever.

I noticed that you didn't touch on this point:

Based what happened with the PowerPC to Intel transition we will be seeing new Intel Macs clear into 2023 not counting the referb which Apple sells which kicks the Intel Mac from Apple can down the road to 2026

This is all ignoring Apple's current pattern of supporting Macs as old as seven years ago with its new OS (Big Sur can run on some macs from 2013) which would kick Intel support down to 2030, 10 freaking years from now.

I am reminded of a commercial (forget the product) where a 18 year-old is offered an opportunity to invest in this computer two guys are building in their garage (an obvious reference to Jobs and Wozniak). He takes the money he could have invested shows off the piece of technology he used the money to buy proudly promoting it as "the future" - an 8-tack player.

Yes, it is way different from his likely inspiration, Ronald Wayne but the message was clear - there are those who see the future and those who play it safe aka "lowest risk path (and least expensive)" and Wayne stated it was the "best decision with the information available to me at the time" but that was when information was far more limited then it is now.
 
Last edited:
Comment

Nugget

Contributor
Nov 24, 2002
2,024
1,152
Houston Texas USA
Yes it does. Apple planned its Intel Mac designs based on what Intel was promising them, the one company that should "have been familiar with the state of the art on the "intel" side of things."

Sure, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. That's why it doesn't matter.

I noticed that you didn't touch on this point

I didn't reply to that point because it wasn't a reply to me. It doesn't seem like you're reading my posts at all, in fact.

Cheers. Please don't respond to me again. We've done enough damage to this thread.
 
Last edited:
Comment

Meatwad

macrumors newbie
Sep 23, 2005
25
4
“Apple has demoed Rosetta 2 with apps and games and there's no difference between running an Intel app on an Intel machine and on an Apple Silicon machine. All of the features work and the software is just as quick.”

That’s a lie. It’s not just as quick.
 
Comment

Maximara

macrumors 6502
Jun 16, 2008
421
173
“Apple has demoed Rosetta 2 with apps and games and there's no difference between running an Intel app on an Intel machine and on an Apple Silicon machine. All of the features work and the software is just as quick.”

That’s a lie. It’s not just as quick.
To be accurate it is a half truth. The reason is due to heat throttling. While this is more of an issue with the laptop Mac it can still happen with the iMac. Apple Silicon doesn't heat throttle and so it is not only "as quick" as an Intel CPU under those conditions but actually quicker.
 
Comment

Unregistered 4U

macrumors 68000
Jul 22, 2002
1,911
1,194
A month later and the M1 is kicking Intel butt.
Soooooo, maybe benchmarking IS representative of actual performance deltas :) I mean, the benchmarks said it’d be impressive, and it is. In some cases even MORE impressive than the benchmarks indicated it would be. So, no benchmarks don’t tell the WHOLE story BUT generally speaking, they ARE telling a story worth listening to!
 
Comment

Maximara

macrumors 6502
Jun 16, 2008
421
173
Soooooo, maybe benchmarking IS representative of actual performance deltas :) I mean, the benchmarks said it’d be impressive, and it is. In some cases even MORE impressive than the benchmarks indicated it would be. So, no benchmarks don’t tell the WHOLE story BUT generally speaking, they ARE telling a story worth listening to!
You do know of actual programs tests in addition to the benchmarks like Real World Macbook Pro M1 Test! M1 Versus i9 Macbook Pro! that are out now, right?
 
Comment

Unregistered 4U

macrumors 68000
Jul 22, 2002
1,911
1,194
You do know of actual programs tests in addition to the benchmarks like Real World Macbook Pro M1 Test! M1 Versus i9 Macbook Pro! that are out now, right?
That’s the point I was making. When the benchmarks came out, folks said “benchmarks aren’t representative of anything”. However, in this case, it appears that those benchmarks defined exactly what kind of performance the following real world tests would show. I’m sure when Apple’s next CPU’s are released, it’ll be the same cycle, “No, these are just benchmarks, they’re not really that fast!” Followed by test after test showing... yeah, they’re really that fast. :)
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.