The difference is that PowerPC and then Intel processors were performing far better than what else was available. There is no indication that ARM processors are set to out perform what Intel can offer. This whole thread is based on a bit of news written by someone who is known to make things up and get emotional in his reporting, the day after ARM dropped nearly 8% due to news of Intel's next technological step.
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 to Move from Intel to ARM Processors in Future Laptops?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
The difference is that PowerPC and then Intel processors were performing far better than what else was available. There is no indication that ARM processors are set to out perform what Intel can offer. This whole thread is based on a bit of news written by someone who is known to make things up and get emotional in his reporting, the day after ARM dropped nearly 8% due to news of Intel's next technological step.
Yes, but applications written for Windows for Intel would need to be recompiled to run on Windows for ARM. I doubt very seriously that by 2013 ARM chips would be in a position to seriously challenge x64 chips. Look at the 3D announcement. Intel is just so far ahead of everyone else in the CPU space right now it's almost laughable. Atom is one notable exception (and perhaps the one opening for ARM), but 3D will change that, and in the desktop space it isn't even close. People have come to expect notebooks to perform like desktops, so I suspect Intel is safe for a while.
That said, I'm sure Apple would like to have more bargaining position so they might be preparing a version of OS X for it, much the same way they started work on OS X for x86 soon after they released the first version for PowerPC.
OS X on ARM
How long did it take Intel to go from dual 1ghz to where we are now? That's what the iPad has today. In 2 - 3 years i think ARM could evolve into something that looks like a core 2 duo or better. Apple seems to be aggressively pursuing the ARM path by acquiring two ARM design companies and betting the farm (iPhone, iPod, whatever they put them in next) on low power, custom processors. Only time will tell.
How long did it take Intel to go from dual 1ghz to where we are now? That's what the iPad has today. In 2 - 3 years i think ARM could evolve into something that looks like a core 2 duo or better. Apple seems to be aggressively pursuing the ARM path by acquiring two ARM design companies and betting the farm (iPhone, iPod, whatever they put them in next) on low power, custom processors. Only time will tell.
You sure? I don't know Bu I really would like to know it the change is inevitable the question is when...
That's exactly what I think.
Apple has done this before they must have learned a lot from it and I bet they have prepared things better for the next time it was needed because it will be needed sooner or later.
This seems like a pretty bald assertion. Aside from being unsupported and not really making sense ... well, no I'll just stop there. It's unsupported and doesn't make sense. Perhaps Page 2 for this Arn?
never again
Never again. While the 68K to PPC transition was elegant and transparent, the transition to Intel (while arguably necessary) was clumsy and for many users, costly. And now with the loss of Rosetta in Lion, it is end of the line for my Macs, and I have always jumped to the latest Mac OS for over 25 years.
Apple can't be trusted to maintain any amount of backwards compatibility for very long. The abandonment of PPC compatibility is nothing short of pathetic and disgusting. If they go to ARM, expect the same crappy treatment for your Intel binaries. After all, who can't afford to buy a brand new copy of Photoshop every few years so that Apple can save a few dollars on maintaining an emulation layer? I cry buckets for them. I buy Apple products to run MY apps; they don't pay me. I won't follow the Mac to another round of forced obsolescence when none of the obsolescence was ever necessary! If you don't vote with your pocketbook, expect to be treated like crap by a company.
I am actually really glad my new Macs can all run Windows 7, because once Apple starts requiring Lion just to sync my iOS devices in iTunes, my Macs will switch to Windows 7 as media hubs.
Never again. While the 68K to PPC transition was elegant and transparent, the transition to Intel (while arguably necessary) was clumsy and for many users, costly. And now with the loss of Rosetta in Lion, it is end of the line for my Macs, and I have always jumped to the latest Mac OS for over 25 years.
Apple can't be trusted to maintain any amount of backwards compatibility for very long. The abandonment of PPC compatibility is nothing short of pathetic and disgusting. If they go to ARM, expect the same crappy treatment for your Intel binaries. After all, who can't afford to buy a brand new copy of Photoshop every few years so that Apple can save a few dollars on maintaining an emulation layer? I cry buckets for them. I buy Apple products to run MY apps; they don't pay me. I won't follow the Mac to another round of forced obsolescence when none of the obsolescence was ever necessary! If you don't vote with your pocketbook, expect to be treated like crap by a company.
I am actually really glad my new Macs can all run Windows 7, because once Apple starts requiring Lion just to sync my iOS devices in iTunes, my Macs will switch to Windows 7 as media hubs.
I agree with you there but windows is also suspected to be testing on Arm... Windows will also change or at least run on Arm in the future...
Even if your machine runs the same (or better)?
You are comparing a CPU architecture to a CPU. The architecture is not something that the average end user (unless they are programming very low level) has to worry about.
I doubt that will ever happen but if it does ppl will "jailbreak it" just like iOS...
What is Intel's future?
They can't die shrink forever. They already applied every trick in the book and invested millions of man years to keep a 40 year old instruction architecture alive. If the future is something like massively multicore chips then Intel will be at a serious disadvantage.
They can't die shrink forever. They already applied every trick in the book and invested millions of man years to keep a 40 year old instruction architecture alive. If the future is something like massively multicore chips then Intel will be at a serious disadvantage.
I think this would demonstrate an all but abandonment of the professional market if this were to go through.
The average Mac user who uses nothing but iLife apps and Safari wouldn't see a bit of difference, as Apple would simply rebuild the programs and continue on at their own pace. Similar to the Intel switch.
But anyone who uses their Mac for functions beyond the Apple walled garden would have to deal with the compatibility and performance issues that followed.
The average Mac user who uses nothing but iLife apps and Safari wouldn't see a bit of difference, as Apple would simply rebuild the programs and continue on at their own pace. Similar to the Intel switch.
But anyone who uses their Mac for functions beyond the Apple walled garden would have to deal with the compatibility and performance issues that followed.
This story broke 5 minutes ago and I'm already over it... Who cares if Apple wants to use something they think is new and revolutionary? Your opinion isn't going to stop them. While you're over here thinking "I can't do bootcamp with ARM" Apple is thinking "Bootcamp will be obsolite when we get done here"
Nice one. On another note Win 8 is supposed to support ARM. But who knows what Uncle Steve and company have up their sleeves. Who else can tie up world component supplies and still sell products faster than they can be manufactured ? I am looking forward to what tomorrow brings...
This rumour if true, is depressing and threatens further fragmentation of computing into two distinct camps: Consumers and creators.
Potentially, this signals a return to the bad old days of the mid to late 90's where you needed to spend huge sums of money on a bespoke machine if you wanted to do video editing or 3D graphics. Creatives in those industries will always need the most horsepower they can get, along with the most powerful GPU's. Sure, you can edit video on a fairly low spec machine (or even your phone) these days but if you're seriously into these industries, you need the Ghz and multiple cores to avoid spending too much time drumming your fingers on the desk while waiting for rendering. Power consumption doesn't really make the list of requirements in most cases.....Creatives need their "Trucks"
If Apple don't keep up with what Wintel has to offer, they'll simply lose more and more of the high end creative market....There's already plenty of folks migrated to Premiere from FCP. Likewise if Bootcamp goes, so will a whole raft of switchers who may still prefer OS X but who need access to Windows.
Potentially, this signals a return to the bad old days of the mid to late 90's where you needed to spend huge sums of money on a bespoke machine if you wanted to do video editing or 3D graphics. Creatives in those industries will always need the most horsepower they can get, along with the most powerful GPU's. Sure, you can edit video on a fairly low spec machine (or even your phone) these days but if you're seriously into these industries, you need the Ghz and multiple cores to avoid spending too much time drumming your fingers on the desk while waiting for rendering. Power consumption doesn't really make the list of requirements in most cases.....Creatives need their "Trucks"
If Apple don't keep up with what Wintel has to offer, they'll simply lose more and more of the high end creative market....There's already plenty of folks migrated to Premiere from FCP. Likewise if Bootcamp goes, so will a whole raft of switchers who may still prefer OS X but who need access to Windows.
What about Thunderbolt? Apple seems to be putting a lot of effort into it? Would it work with an ARM chip? Would Intel license it?
SemiAccurate is crowing that the ARM transition is a "done deal," but it strikes me as not quite so logical. The PowerPC switch was necessary, and seamless since the PowerPC was so adept at emulation (much more so than x86 at the time). The Intel shift was logical since it expanded compatibility (with Boot Camp), and it put Apple on par with other manufacturers in terms of cost structure and manufacturing. However, it was a far clunkier transition (loss of Classic, and nagging issues with Rosetta, which apparently is dropped entirely in Lion), partly because the x86/x64 chips still don't handle emulation particularly well (though better than before).
Switching to ARM would mean the loss of Boot Camp, except perhaps for Windows for ARM (which is as yet untested in the market). Perhaps Apple's stats say it isn't an issue (i.e. people really don't use Boot Camp much). Certainly Apple is less afraid than Microsoft to break compatibility and perhaps they figure that since the iOS crowd is their main source of new customers, an ARM architecture is a logical extension. However, Apple appears to have a good relationship with Intel (they got Thunderbolt and the Z68 chipset before anyone else), and this would obviously harm it (unless Intel has plans to get back into the ARM business).
SemiAccurate is crowing that the ARM transition is a "done deal," but it strikes me as not quite so logical. The PowerPC switch was necessary, and seamless since the PowerPC was so adept at emulation (much more so than x86 at the time). The Intel shift was logical since it expanded compatibility (with Boot Camp), and it put Apple on par with other manufacturers in terms of cost structure and manufacturing. However, it was a far clunkier transition (loss of Classic, and nagging issues with Rosetta, which apparently is dropped entirely in Lion), partly because the x86/x64 chips still don't handle emulation particularly well (though better than before).
Switching to ARM would mean the loss of Boot Camp, except perhaps for Windows for ARM (which is as yet untested in the market). Perhaps Apple's stats say it isn't an issue (i.e. people really don't use Boot Camp much). Certainly Apple is less afraid than Microsoft to break compatibility and perhaps they figure that since the iOS crowd is their main source of new customers, an ARM architecture is a logical extension. However, Apple appears to have a good relationship with Intel (they got Thunderbolt and the Z68 chipset before anyone else), and this would obviously harm it (unless Intel has plans to get back into the ARM business).
Myth
Actually, this is a myth. If you are talking PERFORMANCE, you must talk about Desktops and servers because that is where hardware shows its worth, and PPC crushed Intel across the board. Still does actually.
However, PPC sucked in the mobile space (and still does), and laptops were more valuable to Apple than desktops/servers. The companies creating PPC chips didn't care about mobile and it showed.
From a business perspective, it was a smart move (though in my opinion as a user who buys software, a f&**#ing botched transition compared to the one from 68K). But PPC and the POWER architecture outside of mobile positively crushes everything else, part of why all 3 of the latest gen game consoles are using PPC variants.
Reason why this ARM rumor, while the stuff of purest idiocy, can be given credence is for the same reason: compared to ARM, Intel sucks for mobile. And Apple is far more invested in the mobile space now then they were when they dissed PowerPC. Just because it would be horrid for users doesn't mean Apple isn't thinking about it. Switchers are far more valuable than you guys. Tough Rucks.
Actually, this is a myth. If you are talking PERFORMANCE, you must talk about Desktops and servers because that is where hardware shows its worth, and PPC crushed Intel across the board. Still does actually.
However, PPC sucked in the mobile space (and still does), and laptops were more valuable to Apple than desktops/servers. The companies creating PPC chips didn't care about mobile and it showed.
From a business perspective, it was a smart move (though in my opinion as a user who buys software, a f&**#ing botched transition compared to the one from 68K). But PPC and the POWER architecture outside of mobile positively crushes everything else, part of why all 3 of the latest gen game consoles are using PPC variants.
Reason why this ARM rumor, while the stuff of purest idiocy, can be given credence is for the same reason: compared to ARM, Intel sucks for mobile. And Apple is far more invested in the mobile space now then they were when they dissed PowerPC. Just because it would be horrid for users doesn't mean Apple isn't thinking about it. Switchers are far more valuable than you guys. Tough Rucks.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Don't forget that Apple also rather elegantly handled a 68k to PowerPC transition. Actually, I thought the PowerPC to Intel transition was even smoother.
FAT Binaries were similar to what we now call Universal Applications.
Apple could easily pull off a move to ARM. I'm more worried about how Microsoft will handle x86 apps on the ARM version of Windows 8. I'm assuming that there will be no emulation layer and that apps will need to be ARM native. In addition to architecture differences, I expect the following...
- Windows 8 Basic ARM32
- Windows 8 Basic ARM32 Upgrade
- Windows 8 Basic ARM64
- Windows 8 Basic ARM64 Upgrade
- Windows 8 Home Premium ARM32
- Windows 8 Home Premium ARM32 Upgrade
- Windows 8 Home Premium ARM64
- Win ... well, you get the idea
Don't forget that Apple also rather elegantly handled a 68k to PowerPC transition. Actually, I thought the PowerPC to Intel transition was even smoother.
FAT Binaries were similar to what we now call Universal Applications.
Apple could easily pull off a move to ARM. I'm more worried about how Microsoft will handle x86 apps on the ARM version of Windows 8. I'm assuming that there will be no emulation layer and that apps will need to be ARM native. In addition to architecture differences, I expect the following...
- Windows 8 Basic ARM32
- Windows 8 Basic ARM32 Upgrade
- Windows 8 Basic ARM64
- Windows 8 Basic ARM64 Upgrade
- Windows 8 Home Premium ARM32
- Windows 8 Home Premium ARM32 Upgrade
- Windows 8 Home Premium ARM64
- Win ... well, you get the idea
- Status