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 Testing ARM Based Mac Prototypes with Large Magic Trackpad?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is what would make sense to me: they might use this strategy to ship a low cost MacBook Air...perhaps the 12" Retina model. But, they will keep the current lineup with the Intel chips. There will still be the many customers who need the Intel Macs, but then also the customers who need only a base model, low cost MacBook that will suit their needs just fine. We shall see.
A PC is still a PC no matter what type of processor it uses. If everybody used Linux desktops running on PPC architecture, that would hae nothing to do with intel but still be a very traditional PC-era scenario.
Post-PC is having the desktop/laptop diminished to a niché market. That is far from happening as of yet and things don't look like they're going that way.
People won't write novels on a tablet, design Boeing aircraft on a smartphone or design GTA 6 on an MP3 player. "Traditional" computers will be relevant for some time I do believe.
How would an ARM processor stack up to a Quad-Core i7 when doing something like compressing 1080p video or 4K video?
I seriously doubt any ARM processor has the power to handle serious workloads comparable to a top-end intel desktop processor, yet.
But seriously, does anybody know anything about the real brute power that an ARM processor can dish out with serious processor intensive tasks like video compression or 3D rendering, etc?
I seriously doubt any ARM processor has the power to handle serious workloads comparable to a top-end intel desktop processor, yet.
But seriously, does anybody know anything about the real brute power that an ARM processor can dish out with serious processor intensive tasks like video compression or 3D rendering, etc?
When Mac goes to ARM, I quit. I'll run Linux. That is the entire reason I bought a Mac is because of the Intel chis allowed me to run other OSes inside a VM.
If that ability goes away I'll run Mac OS inside a VM on an Intel computer.
If that ability goes away I'll run Mac OS inside a VM on an Intel computer.
Why wouldn't it be the 'best solution' assuming Apple licences a GPU core from a big name and couple it with their own ARM64 core? adopt the standardised platform that AMD is promoting then combine it with a high performance dedicated GPU from nVidia or AMD? Lots of possibilities - heck, for many years there were ARM based CPU's shipping in computers and laptops from Acorn so it is possible and given the fact that Samsung manufacturing process is almost as advanced as Intel I could see Apple keep up with Intel especially when one considers that since ARM64 doesn't have all the baggage of CISC it should be relatively easy.
Apple wouldn't need 32 cores, 4/8 of them with dubble frequency could easily match any mobile CPU they use today stil the question of GPU to use license nv, amd gpu or stay with he same as the other A Processors.
Well you couldn't run Windows but Linux wouldn't be much of an issue. As long you don't use proprietary SW.
No, May be they need to have some x86 Mac Pro but if all Apple SW gets Ported on ARM OS X and with all the Mac App Store App getting to ned aquiring ARM binaries there would soon bee much more APP than Ms has in it stores today even on Launchday. At least Adobe for example should have portable code to be able to compile it. and on the way if they need to get rid of failures in the code they would need to fix it in a short time periode.
You sound so high-strung it's quite funny. Obviously Apple won't convert the entire product line to ARM. The world still needs trucks for heavy lifting.
Netbooks were bad but gave birth to the Ultraportables which are the top dogs in contemporary mobile computing.
ARM is continually evolving and the performance will eventually be comparable to a low-end i3 or even i5 in the future whilst offering way more battery life and less heat. And also allows the construction of lighter enclosures.
The rest of you 'REAL' laptop users can keep buying your pros or switch to windows like you're all threatening.
Intel was behind PPC and AMD at one point but they improved. To think ARM won't is very short-sighted/narrow-minded.
Last edited:
Not again...
They were on PowerPc and then switched to Intel because PowerPc was moving ahead too slowly.
And then they went "mainstream" with Intel, with a supported CPU which received updates regularly, along with everybody else.
In "mobile" they can do what they want since they have such a high market share and sell in volumes. But Apple didn't start its mobile adventure with a custom made CPU/GPU. They first went "mainstream" there as well.
So, if Apple uses ARM for their Mac line. What happens? They will:
a) have to move the entire Mac line to ARM (from the Air to the Pro) or
b) have OSX run on two different architectures simultaneously. Which is a complete mess.
If Apple moves to their own CPU (sort of like the A series) then they will have to constantly upgrade and develop an entire CPU/GPU system just for their Mac line, which doesn't sell enough to support such an investment.
So all in all.
No. Just no.
It doesn't make any sense now to switch from Intel to ARM (in my opinion) because ARM is pushing slowly into "computer" territory and doesn't offer a wide enough array of CPUs (to my knowledge) to cover the Mac line from "Mini" to "Pro".
They were on PowerPc and then switched to Intel because PowerPc was moving ahead too slowly.
And then they went "mainstream" with Intel, with a supported CPU which received updates regularly, along with everybody else.
In "mobile" they can do what they want since they have such a high market share and sell in volumes. But Apple didn't start its mobile adventure with a custom made CPU/GPU. They first went "mainstream" there as well.
So, if Apple uses ARM for their Mac line. What happens? They will:
a) have to move the entire Mac line to ARM (from the Air to the Pro) or
b) have OSX run on two different architectures simultaneously. Which is a complete mess.
If Apple moves to their own CPU (sort of like the A series) then they will have to constantly upgrade and develop an entire CPU/GPU system just for their Mac line, which doesn't sell enough to support such an investment.
So all in all.
No. Just no.
It doesn't make any sense now to switch from Intel to ARM (in my opinion) because ARM is pushing slowly into "computer" territory and doesn't offer a wide enough array of CPUs (to my knowledge) to cover the Mac line from "Mini" to "Pro".
To a certain extent yes. However you are assuming that Apple can't increase single core performance to address the current A7's performance. Remember the current cores only run at 1.3GHz or so. If they can double clock rate (very possible) then you come close to Intel performance.
Yep! However a personal computer these days seldom runs just one process so cores are extremely valuable.
I don't know about the specifics here but in general programs like these are highly threaded. Spell checkers, download or even uploads, can run as threads and thus leverage cores.
Well what a MBA user cares most about varies but let's take the common apps, EMail and Safari. Both of these are highly threaded or make use of supporting processes so they are advantaged by having more cores.
I'm not trying to say core performance doesn't count. It does, but what I'm saying is that ARM can be good enough. Provided with enough cores the normal users would get very good behavior. That combined with the fact that we don't know how fast Apples cores can run means we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions about performance.
If Apple kept Intel and Arm machines at the same time, it would confuse the heck out of consumers.
I'd be ticked off if my Macbook gets cut out of future updates because they move to intel. Already annoyed many by the same thing happening to PPC machines.
I'd be ticked off if my Macbook gets cut out of future updates because they move to intel. Already annoyed many by the same thing happening to PPC machines.
Last edited:
I think this is the only scenario that works if they do adopt ARM in a laptop-like device; ARM is fine and dandy for playing mini games and browsing (as per the iPad and iPhone have shown), but for professionals it doesn't cut it - the apps are lacking, the horsepower isn't there either compared to X86 chips.
Apple has been pushing Intel to developing more power efficient designs. What better way than to research ARM and create rumors.
Agreed. Intel runs great, until people stop developing for it and/or the difference in compute power is extremely lesser then ARM in the future, we should stick with it. I'm about 75% Mac, 25% Windows, but if Apple moves to ARM, that percentage will change greatly.
If you can't imagine it working, it can't be done
So many on this site are crying and lamenting that they won't be able to run Windows on a Arm based Mac. What they really mean is that they fear that they won't be able to run their Windows based apps on a new platform because they can't imagine it working if there isn't a processor and OS identical to what they have now.
There are possibilities of a stripped down OS that runs all Windows apps if people can imagine it and make it. Don't limit the world because of your own limited imagination.
So many on this site are crying and lamenting that they won't be able to run Windows on a Arm based Mac. What they really mean is that they fear that they won't be able to run their Windows based apps on a new platform because they can't imagine it working if there isn't a processor and OS identical to what they have now.
There are possibilities of a stripped down OS that runs all Windows apps if people can imagine it and make it. Don't limit the world because of your own limited imagination.
You are stuck in the past.
You need to rethink this because it isn't the 80's anymore.
If only you had a rational argument here. Look towards the future not towards the last to imagine how it will be done not how it has been done.
You need to rethink this because it isn't the 80's anymore.
You don't need chipsets in a modern computer design. The fact is Intel is lagging significantly here with things like Atom requiring chipsets, it is actually a big joke in the industry.
Well we could debate that but what you mis is that ARM wouldn't need a chip set in this application.
It is fairly stupid to think that chipset support is important here.
You do realize that each process shrink more or less doubles the area available for transistors and thus on chip functionality can increase significantly with each process shrink. Combine this with the small ARM cores and you have plenty of room on die. The term for what is being engineered here is "System on Chip" or SoC. You don't need Multiple PCI - Express lanes because they won't be used externally if at all. You will need things like more USB ports but you seem to have forgotten that you have a lot of chip area to add all of this functionality.
If only you had a rational argument here. Look towards the future not towards the last to imagine how it will be done not how it has been done.
Am I missing something with the following scenario?
According to the people who actually know about ARM and x86 similiarities, software developers are supposed to have it easy. The software developer just does a recompile by a press of a button. I will log in to OSX App Store and download previously purchased recompiled software. For no additional cost obviously, because it was easy and the software is just essentially the same than it was anyways.
That's for OSX. To run iOS apps, the hardware really should support touch. The touchpad/mouse are not how iOS apps are built to be used. Have you used Windows 8 Metro with a mouse? Not elegant, and many iOS apps are more refined. But let's assume Apple would go for it and I would have a new ARM Mac with touch capabilities, Wouldn't that be great. I can download the iOS version from the iOS app store, again for free. But then, as a user, I have to decide every time whether I use the cribbled iOS version with touch or the full OSX version without touch. And if I buy a new software, I have to decide or pay for both, or the developer has to offer both with the same price. No money saved compared to current situation.
Or then the software developer makes a compeletely new version of their app with a new UI for this hybrid, but it costs first for him and then to me, the customer. And the developer still has to keep and develop previous iOS and OSX versions for those who don't go for the hybrid.
What am I missing here? The user experience must be simpler than this.
According to the people who actually know about ARM and x86 similiarities, software developers are supposed to have it easy. The software developer just does a recompile by a press of a button. I will log in to OSX App Store and download previously purchased recompiled software. For no additional cost obviously, because it was easy and the software is just essentially the same than it was anyways.
That's for OSX. To run iOS apps, the hardware really should support touch. The touchpad/mouse are not how iOS apps are built to be used. Have you used Windows 8 Metro with a mouse? Not elegant, and many iOS apps are more refined. But let's assume Apple would go for it and I would have a new ARM Mac with touch capabilities, Wouldn't that be great. I can download the iOS version from the iOS app store, again for free. But then, as a user, I have to decide every time whether I use the cribbled iOS version with touch or the full OSX version without touch. And if I buy a new software, I have to decide or pay for both, or the developer has to offer both with the same price. No money saved compared to current situation.
Or then the software developer makes a compeletely new version of their app with a new UI for this hybrid, but it costs first for him and then to me, the customer. And the developer still has to keep and develop previous iOS and OSX versions for those who don't go for the hybrid.
What am I missing here? The user experience must be simpler than this.
That's not as true anymore as it used to be.
1. apps are more parallelized than previously (modern APIs make it a lot easier to do correctly than in the past)
2. modern ARM CPUs haven't been standing still and are now fast enough for the single core tasks that remain. E.g., Gmail works great on my iPad with A7 processor. Office runs OK on Surface RT devices which use ARM processors and would run better on an A7 much less on whatever CPU an ARM-based laptop would use. (Not to mention Office for iPad which runs great on an A7 according to the reviews I've seen.)
I do doubt that even if Apple does this, that they would put 16 cores into an ARM-based machine. I just don't think there are 16-cores of stuff -- 16 parallel threads of execution -- to run except in relatively rare circumstances. More like 6 or 8 cores... maybe even 4.
What is "desktop class work"? I suspect you what you are generalizing to here is classic "high powered, multi window" app work. However, desktop itself is more a location and/or form factor adjective. The computer that is on a desktop does work for a user.
In the latter case, iOS can fit the bill. Just like increasingly growing number of folks can use what is actually a laptop sitting on a desktop to do "desktop" work now versus 10 years ago.
iOS restrictions of "one app window at a time" and one app at a time are more so driven by hardware restrictions: not too much computation load to drain battery and limited screen size. If ARM improvements get to point can run two apps at same time at same power load as old implementation could run just one and crank up the average screen size and .... ta-da there is a lot less need for iOS to hold onto the original restrictions. Apple has incrementally added more mutlitasking to iOS over time. In part, that was easy because it always was there and far more just an easing of restricted access to resources that were already being managed.
Given the uptick in adoption of Chromebooks/Chromeboxes and the continued movement of average WinPC selling price down ...... it would be a very good move.
One of the growing segments is folks who need a computer that just does a limited set of stuff. Their workloads are limited. Hence price, not particularly performance, is the primary factor. If this workload is covered by iOS apps (e.g., email , browsing , video chat , streaming , etc. ) there isn't much the OS X variants would differentiate on.
When netbooks were 'hot' Apple countered with the iPad. Both were aimed at limited app workloads.
There were doubters about whether there was a real market for iPads because they couldn't do "desktop class" workloads. An iOS laptop form factor is likely in similar situation.
Who says they are reducing Mac prices? OS X isn't free. The price of OS X is just bundled with the hardware. Nobody is just buying hardware ( there are no offerings of OS-less hardware from Apple). People buy computer systems from Apple, not just hardware. They are buying hardware + software.
How long can bundling pay? If Macs get back on a growth path and keep their ~30% profit margins, then for a long time. The current fees rolling in pay to keep the lights on and developers paid. Where the "free" runs into a brick wall is when the growth curve goes significantly negative ( not flat or minor single digit negative blips). It can be run close to a Ponzi scheme or a bit more conservatively by taking some money out of the initial payment and setting it aside to offset "back porting" work to older hardware.
Apple cuts off older hardware over time so don't have to set aside huge amounts for long term "back porting" expenses. 5-6 years downstream the hardware will typically be cut off from upgrades.
The Mac market has grown large enough that the OS X expenses are amortized over tens of millions of Macs.
There is little to no reason for Apple to merge their updates into the BSD open source mainline. For a relased product there is more, but for some lab project ..... Apple isn't going to push the bug count down to release quality levels. Apple can fold bug fixes in the general BSD tree into their own private source code repository.
Don't need a bucketload of drivers to get prototypes up and running on a small fixed set of hardware. And frankly, for iOS there won't be a bucketload of 3rd party hardware to hook too in a "desktop"/"laptop" context.
I think they'll always be relevant for the reasons you stated. People always claim that tablets will gain more and more performance until they can do what today's laptops can do. That's true, but the argument forgets that laptops will progress just as quickly and can always be more powerful due to the larger case, which means bigger battery and better cooling ability.
I remember the same argument being used to claim that desktops would disappear with the advent of laptops. It simply is not the case.
Then there are keyboards. Anyone doing serious typing or programming needs a physical keyboard. Yes, you can get physical keyboards for tablets, but they're junk for real typing. They have to be because they have to be small and portable, in keeping with the idea of a tablet. You won't be lugging an IBM Model M around to connect to your tablet, but you could easily connect it to your desktop. Laptops still have better keyboards than tablets due to space requirements, though laptop keyboard quality has gone down the drain in the last 8 years or so IMO as everyone tries to make them thinner.
Could Apple handle a processor switch without Steve Jobs to charm developers?
I've stood up for Tim Cook & Co in these forums, but I feel uneasy about the current team's ability to spur all their devs on to recompile/alter their apps for ARM.
I've stood up for Tim Cook & Co in these forums, but I feel uneasy about the current team's ability to spur all their devs on to recompile/alter their apps for ARM.
IF Apple were to move to ARM for their "real" computers, they would (as I mentioned earlier) lose me not just as a computer customer, but perhaps also as an iDevice user as well.
One big reason I prefer to buy iPhone and iPad is due to how easily I can sync all my devices and how (generally) well the Apple ecosystem works for me.
If I were to move to a Windows computer I believe I would be more likely to look at Android/other alternatives.