Very good way of looking at it. (The thunderbolt thing that is)
I really do think that MS will push an ARM version of windows because they want it to run on tablets that don't cost 1k+
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
Very good way of looking at it. (The thunderbolt thing that is)
I really do think that MS will push an ARM version of windows because they want it to run on tablets that don't cost 1k+
To be fair to Intel, they have kept the architecture alive for 40 years because the market demanded it. Their path to 64-bit was supposed to be Itanium. AMD had other plans, and so now Intel is stuck with an architecture that they license half of from a traditional rival.
3D is a big deal, and it gives Intel a way forward. They can get back into the ARM market if their efforts at Atom prove unsuccessful.
Does directX run in the .net runtime?
EDIT:
That could be an issue, being that gaming is the one thing that windows does well.
It's true that Apple likes to keeps things simple and use the same, but maybe just put it in one model for testing... a MB or one of the MBA...
Might I direct some of you naysayers to an archived thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/128198/
When the Intel switch was a rumor, everyone was calling shenanigans..
I'm not saying this rumor is true, but I am saying "never say never". They are Apple, they will make it work no matter what processor they go with.
That's brilliant! Thanks for the laugh. I saw tons of people posting "This will make me give up Apple after x years as a loyal customer! I'm never buying a Mac again if they go Intel," so I clicked on their profiles and... yes, they all have multiple Intel Macs.
There is a managed DirectX API for .NET
Of course, I would imagine most games are programmed to the metal.
Yes, you've got a good point. I was too glib to say the transition to imply the transition to intel went without a hitch -- obviously it was a pain the neck for you. (But going to intel *was* necessary -- where would you be if Apple was still trying to sell G5-based Macs?)
Apple has been willing to leave some behind in order to move forward aggesively. It's hard to argue with the success of their strategy. They sell more and more macs every quarter and improve their market share every quarter. Moving forward has gotten them more than enough new customers to make up for the ones like you that they leave behind. It's sad but true I think.
Yes I didn't remember the TB part... But even if this happens it will take at least 4 or 5 years maybe TB will be slightly different...
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
I'm guessing they'd skip ARM32, but I get your point. From early indications, Win8 ARM won't run Win8 Intel binaries. x86/x64 is a painful architecture to try to emulate. PowerPC could handle it, but ARM chips are built for minimum power consumption rather than maximum emulation ability. Win8 for ARM seems more like a hedge to me than anything else. Microsoft is giving tablets one last shot with Win8, but by then Apple and Android may own the space and Microsoft will give up on it. Microsoft has never been successful at pushing Windows beyond the Intel architecture (NT was an early failed attempt, followed by WinCE/WinMo) and I'm skeptical Win8 will be any more successful.
Apple could handle the transition well, and ARM might make it easier to merge iOS apps with OS X apps. But it would mean a performance hit.
Windows IS x86 only
I wish people would stop acting like Windows actually runs on anything other than x86. The truth is that no matter how many times Microsoft ported Windows to Itanium, PowerPC, MIPS etc --- no one used it. How many binaries are out for Windows that run on something other than x86 chips? Go ahead, I can wait -- it won't take you long to tally them all.
Expect to see Windows on ARM on the next episode of Fringe along with telekinesis and ESP and other concepts that are a far better fit for fiction. It ain't real til it's real, and Microsoft has no track record of being successful in jumping architectures in the marketplace. ALMOST NO ONE uses Windows on anything other than x86 -- it is an intellectual curiosity, nothing else.
I wish people would stop acting like Windows actually runs on anything other than x86. The truth is that no matter how many times Microsoft ported Windows to Itanium, PowerPC, MIPS etc --- no one used it. How many binaries are out for Windows that run on something other than x86 chips? Go ahead, I can wait -- it won't take you long to tally them all.
Expect to see Windows on ARM on the next episode of Fringe along with telekinesis and ESP and other concepts that are a far better fit for fiction. It ain't real til it's real, and Microsoft has no track record of being successful in jumping architectures in the marketplace. ALMOST NO ONE uses Windows on anything other than x86 -- it is an intellectual curiosity, nothing else.
Might I direct some of you naysayers to an archived thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/128198/
When the Intel switch was a rumor, everyone was calling shenanigans..
I'm not saying this rumor is true, but I am saying "never say never". They are Apple, they will make it work no matter what processor they go with.
Lovin' the trip down memory lane, I especially liked the thread post showing how much Wall St. loved the news of Intel Mac movements by raising the share price $1.99 to $39.53! https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24178&stc=1&d=1116869326
6 years on and how I wish I had bought some......
Folks scream and shout on forums, Apple does what it likes anyway and world domination continues regardless.
ARM CPUs for a company that makes 50% of its revenue out of portable devices? Not stupid or incredible at all.
Perhaps Apple sees this as the only way to bring all their Laptop's down do Macbook Air styling with Macbook Pro power.
Intel is chipping away at lower power and heat, but if ARM is going to reach performance parity (or something reasonably close) in two years, it makes sense to start coding for that eventuality now. Intel may never reach that level of power/heat savings with the x86 architecture.
I could certainly imagine future iMacs that are only a few mm's thick with SSD drives (think a 27" iPad). In this scenario, there's no reason that they couldn't use multiple CPU's to make up for any lack of performance, although single thread performance might suffer a bit.
I think if Window's supports it, Mac users won't have to worry about the switchers, as you can still support the same configuration you have now. Purchase that software on the Mac app store and receive a free upgrade to ARM software when you buy the new Mac's.
Lot's of possibilities here, looking forward to the next generation!
Intel is chipping away at lower power and heat, but if ARM is going to reach performance parity (or something reasonably close) in two years, it makes sense to start coding for that eventuality now. Intel may never reach that level of power/heat savings with the x86 architecture.
I could certainly imagine future iMacs that are only a few mm's thick with SSD drives (think a 27" iPad). In this scenario, there's no reason that they couldn't use multiple CPU's to make up for any lack of performance, although single thread performance might suffer a bit.
I think if Window's supports it, Mac users won't have to worry about the switchers, as you can still support the same configuration you have now. Purchase that software on the Mac app store and receive a free upgrade to ARM software when you buy the new Mac's.
Lot's of possibilities here, looking forward to the next generation!
More likely than not, a leak of Mac OS X (already) running on ARM was twisted into this rumor. I highly doubt they will switch architectures again. Are they planning ahead for a just-in-case scenario? OS X's double-life beginnings prove that answer...
What might be cool, if technically feasible, is if they had an ARM co-processor on the box, either for speed boost or native iOS layer. Whatever.
What might be cool, if technically feasible, is if they had an ARM co-processor on the box, either for speed boost or native iOS layer. Whatever.
Some of you guys need sleep. Over 30 messages between 12:20 and 12:30? really?
Anyway, If I were Apple, I would put the ARM direc-ally into the MacBook Air. Leave Intel for the Pro. Imagine the massive battery life boost the Air would get as a result. Over 14 hours unplugged. It would become the machine it was destined to be - not a replacement for a Pro, but a mobile beast.
Want Windows to Go? Buy a Pro.
Don't care? Buy an Air.
Magical.
Anyway, If I were Apple, I would put the ARM direc-ally into the MacBook Air. Leave Intel for the Pro. Imagine the massive battery life boost the Air would get as a result. Over 14 hours unplugged. It would become the machine it was destined to be - not a replacement for a Pro, but a mobile beast.
Want Windows to Go? Buy a Pro.
Don't care? Buy an Air.
Magical.
While we cannot know for sure yet whether this will happen at all or not. I think the people that are being so quick to dismiss it, may not be seeing why it indeed might.
The timeline suggests a possible date at least two years away from now. That would probably give enough time to begin transitioning the software to allow this to happen.
Already smartphones, laptops, and tablet devices are doing what used to be seen as work only for desktop machines.
We can now do such things (albeit simply) as video editing, and music production on our phones/tablets. Such leaps forward in technology were simply not possible only a few short years ago.
With devices that offer both enough processing power for so many tasks as well giving portability, means that sales of desktop devices will continue to decline and possibly remain only for work purposes that require that much more more grunt.
Personally speaking, only yesterday I nearly pulled the trigger on a new top of the line iMac, but I really do not actually have a need any more for that much power in that design form....... (might tomorrow though).
The ability to have devices that will do whatever we want, whenever and wherever, is not set to go away. There may be cannibalization between devices such as macbook airs vs iPads vs iPhones but the 'age of the desktop' will be over unless they can provide enough of an alternative function eg replacing the living room TV/stereo/DVD player role.
Apple has always been able to see where the future is going, and headed us all safely there.
ARM replacing Intel could give problems, but with the continued convergence of all our devices, I can also see why they would want a unified architecture underpinning the change this would bring.
The timeline suggests a possible date at least two years away from now. That would probably give enough time to begin transitioning the software to allow this to happen.
Already smartphones, laptops, and tablet devices are doing what used to be seen as work only for desktop machines.
We can now do such things (albeit simply) as video editing, and music production on our phones/tablets. Such leaps forward in technology were simply not possible only a few short years ago.
With devices that offer both enough processing power for so many tasks as well giving portability, means that sales of desktop devices will continue to decline and possibly remain only for work purposes that require that much more more grunt.
Personally speaking, only yesterday I nearly pulled the trigger on a new top of the line iMac, but I really do not actually have a need any more for that much power in that design form....... (might tomorrow though
).The ability to have devices that will do whatever we want, whenever and wherever, is not set to go away. There may be cannibalization between devices such as macbook airs vs iPads vs iPhones but the 'age of the desktop' will be over unless they can provide enough of an alternative function eg replacing the living room TV/stereo/DVD player role.
Apple has always been able to see where the future is going, and headed us all safely there.
ARM replacing Intel could give problems, but with the continued convergence of all our devices, I can also see why they would want a unified architecture underpinning the change this would bring.
but, but, but i don't want to stray away from good chips to some crappy ones...
if anything, apple should learn that intel > whatever mistakes they've made in the past when choosing their processors.
if anything, apple should learn that intel > whatever mistakes they've made in the past when choosing their processors.
I imagine it would be more likely that they ship laptops with both an ARM and X86 processors similarly to how they have both integrated and dedicated graphics cards and switch between them depending on need.
If they can manage to seemlessly switch between two processor architechures without restarting.
It could significantly increase battery life when doing light tasks like surfing the web and writing using the ARM processor, and when you open Final Cut it fires up the X86.
If they can manage to seemlessly switch between two processor architechures without restarting.
It could significantly increase battery life when doing light tasks like surfing the web and writing using the ARM processor, and when you open Final Cut it fires up the X86.
PPC did not emulated x86 very well at all. It was still dog ass slow.
I think it would be a very bad idea to for Apple to go ARM. Look how it worked out last time they tired to go against the main CPU architecture out there. The computer lagged behind intel, CPU advances were slower and falling farther and farther behind x86. Mind you RISC cpu have advantages over CISC and I see us one day going back to RISC but not anytime soon.
This post should have been entitled: "MacRumors wants to increase page views today in a push to increase ad revenue. We will do this by saying something absurd and shocking, and letting everyone argue about it. Sorry, but you guys did this to yourselves with your AdBlock plugins."
Adobe would literally terminate their OS X division.
Adobe would literally terminate their OS X division.
No I'm talking about cost/performance for the products Apple were making and I should have been clearer. IBM could not deliver and were no longer a suitable provider of processor technology for Apple.
I'm more on intel returning to the arm market but not for laptops/desktops. For iDevices since things with sammy are going haywire. And remember semiaccurate is much against apple.
I said this months ago:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/11698985/
Although I think SemiAccurate is being a little premature here. They probably just heard about Apple having an prototype OS X running on ARM as a contingency. I think it would be weird if they didn't.
Around 2013 is, I think, when nVidea is planning on having Project Denver complete. Apple's going to wait and see. Like I said before, it has the potential too give them platform/performance differentiation from the PC (especially with Intel strong-arming everyone into their graphics), it consolidates all their software development to ARMs, and if Denver really takes off, they could easily afford to buy up nVidea with cash to supplement their current ARM hardware team.
Laser focus and in-house development are the ingredients of Apple's success, and you can bet Apple sees this as one future possibility.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/11698985/
Although I think SemiAccurate is being a little premature here. They probably just heard about Apple having an prototype OS X running on ARM as a contingency. I think it would be weird if they didn't.
Around 2013 is, I think, when nVidea is planning on having Project Denver complete. Apple's going to wait and see. Like I said before, it has the potential too give them platform/performance differentiation from the PC (especially with Intel strong-arming everyone into their graphics), it consolidates all their software development to ARMs, and if Denver really takes off, they could easily afford to buy up nVidea with cash to supplement their current ARM hardware team.
Laser focus and in-house development are the ingredients of Apple's success, and you can bet Apple sees this as one future possibility.
That's what I thought.
I've been thinking, an "AirPad" would be great - like an iPad with a smart cover, but the smart cover is actually a keyboard and trackpad and the unit has an x86 and an ARM processor for fast switching been iOS and Mac OS.
I imagine eventually Mac OS and iOS could be the same operating system, so I guess there has to be a change of architecture somewhere.
Apple and Intel have a great working relationship right now. I do not buy this.
Apple is a company that is willing to push out products with new technology in large quantities. Intel has been giving Apple access to new chips and other technology early and sharing development. Look at thunderbolt for instance. I think these tow companies really benefit from each other.
At the most I could see Apple adding a line of laptops with ARN in small quantity for people who could use these chips. Perhaps some scientific applications. In this manner, it wouldn't be an issue if software developers caught up. Users of the new laptop may run a few pieces of software specially written for the new laptop and then port the results over to another computer for other work. Over time the software developers would catch up and Apple could increase production and give people a choice between the two chips. Perhaps Intel would improve chip designs in response. I just don't see the full disruption occurring again. It was necessary for the PowerPC to Intel transition. It is not necessary now.
Apple is a company that is willing to push out products with new technology in large quantities. Intel has been giving Apple access to new chips and other technology early and sharing development. Look at thunderbolt for instance. I think these tow companies really benefit from each other.
At the most I could see Apple adding a line of laptops with ARN in small quantity for people who could use these chips. Perhaps some scientific applications. In this manner, it wouldn't be an issue if software developers caught up. Users of the new laptop may run a few pieces of software specially written for the new laptop and then port the results over to another computer for other work. Over time the software developers would catch up and Apple could increase production and give people a choice between the two chips. Perhaps Intel would improve chip designs in response. I just don't see the full disruption occurring again. It was necessary for the PowerPC to Intel transition. It is not necessary now.
- Status