I agree. I thank Intel is planning to move away from x86. I think ARM is the best way to do it.
Long term reliability, heat and power usage.
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
I agree. I thank Intel is planning to move away from x86. I think ARM is the best way to do it.
Long term reliability, heat and power usage.
last time i checked it is called MACRUMORS, not MACRELEASES or MACNEWS... why would you be surprised a rumor is on the front page of a site that focus on RUMORS?
Yes, new guy, and the point is that vapid, unsubstantiated rumors such as this one used to be relegated to Page 2.
I've got to stop you right there.
You can't factor out mobile.
Apple knew that. If they thought desktops were more important than mobile they probably would have stuck with PPC (and you can imagine the impact that would have on their business).
Intel and ARM
Intel sold off it's ARM business to Marvell.
Intel is pushing Atom for mobile.
If any of you think that Intel is moving to ARM; I know what's in Area 51.
Intel sold off it's ARM business to Marvell.
Intel is pushing Atom for mobile.
If any of you think that Intel is moving to ARM; I know what's in Area 51.
LOLOLOL....
iOS and the App Store for EVERYBODY!
Those Internet Provider Data Caps now being implemented are timely...
In case you have missed the last 10 years.... desktop OS's suck on tablets. Why do you think no windows tablet ever took off? It doesn't translate well to a touch experience. If you think Apple is going to put OSX on a tablet you are fooling yourself... they didn't put iOS on the iPad for no reason
I sure haven't. I even remember Win XP Tablet Edition. Windows tablets never took off because they were big, heavy, underpowered, OS not optimized for touch, and expensive. Win8 is supposedly being designed from the ground up to work on tablets. I also never said OSX but OS* (Whatever they decide to call the mixture of OSX/iOS). I don't see MS keeping Win Mobile around after 8 comes out. It just looks like Apple is following suit. Change with the times or get left behind. I don't see Apple dropping "truck" cpus in the near future like the article says, but I do see some laptops/Mac Mini getting ARM processors, and all of their devices running the same 'hybird' OS. I see big name PC makers (such as Dell, Asus, Toshiba, ect) doing the same thing with some of their stuff on the Windows platform.
Apple CPU transitions
You are mixing different OSes. MacOS never went from 6502 to 68K. Apple // line used 6502, Macs never did. And those OSes have nothing in common.
This is what Apple really did:
Classic MacOS: 68K (MacOS 1.0-8.x) ---> PowerPC (MacOS 7.x - 9.x) --> END
MacOS X is really a completely different OS -- NextStep/OpenStep derivative. It doesn't even run the same apps natively.
The OS was on Intel already when it was still called OpenStep. Secretly, Intel builds were kept in sync with PowerPC builds all along:
Fork 1: 68K (NextStep)-->Intel (OpenStep)--> PowerPC (MacOS X 1.0-10.5)---> END
Fork 2: 68K (NextStep)-->Intel (OpenStep)--> Intel (MacOS X 10.x-10.5; code synced with Fork 1) --> Intel (MacOS X 10.6 and beyond; diverged after Fork 1 was sunset)
MacOS X really in its history only made 3 transitions, but in a different order than believed. However, the current MacOS X fork only made 2 transitions, since the PowerPC fork has been sunset.
iOS is really a third Fork:
Fork 3: 68K (NextStep)-->Intel (OpenStep)--> Intel (MacOS X 10.x) --> ARM (iOS 1.0 - 4.x)
Like the Mac OS X PPC fork, iOS also made 3 historical CPU transitions if you trace it back to its root OS, Nextstep, which you should.
(Inclusion of Rhapsody in this mix just adds noise. The above only lists real products.)
You are mixing different OSes. MacOS never went from 6502 to 68K. Apple // line used 6502, Macs never did. And those OSes have nothing in common.
This is what Apple really did:
Classic MacOS: 68K (MacOS 1.0-8.x) ---> PowerPC (MacOS 7.x - 9.x) --> END
MacOS X is really a completely different OS -- NextStep/OpenStep derivative. It doesn't even run the same apps natively.
The OS was on Intel already when it was still called OpenStep. Secretly, Intel builds were kept in sync with PowerPC builds all along:
Fork 1: 68K (NextStep)-->Intel (OpenStep)--> PowerPC (MacOS X 1.0-10.5)---> END
Fork 2: 68K (NextStep)-->Intel (OpenStep)--> Intel (MacOS X 10.x-10.5; code synced with Fork 1) --> Intel (MacOS X 10.6 and beyond; diverged after Fork 1 was sunset)
MacOS X really in its history only made 3 transitions, but in a different order than believed. However, the current MacOS X fork only made 2 transitions, since the PowerPC fork has been sunset.
iOS is really a third Fork:
Fork 3: 68K (NextStep)-->Intel (OpenStep)--> Intel (MacOS X 10.x) --> ARM (iOS 1.0 - 4.x)
Like the Mac OS X PPC fork, iOS also made 3 historical CPU transitions if you trace it back to its root OS, Nextstep, which you should.
(Inclusion of Rhapsody in this mix just adds noise. The above only lists real products.)
i've been around for longer than most people on the boards now a days... granted not as long as you but who determines it's an unsubstantiated rumor? You?
So if apple does end up putting ARM in the laptops, where should the news story have gone?
It's just a story, don't like it skip over it....
They need something to replace x86. Those x86 cores are huge. If you want to pack enough cache to replace a big chunk of ram on the chip, you need to get the space from somewhere. If you want to pack in more cores, you need to make the cores smaller. Yes, x86 does speculative execution, I can see ARM doing cross core speculitive execution where one core exits the loop, the other does not.
ARM has the potential to complete more instructions per clock, it has the potential to do so at a faster clock speed, and it can do so using less power.
Intel needs to get away from the giant city sized cores that need their own nuclear power plant to keep running and run hotter than a blue giant star. Picture Intel's fantastic fab capabilities making legacy free stripped down chips that run fast enough to violate causality.
umm no, if the OS is designed for touch, it needs touch input, if it's designed for a keyboard and mouse, it's not going to be suited for touch....
Apple has already said they aren't going to put touch on desktops, it doesn't make sense to reach up and start touching the screen, and i can assure they've done far more research and market analysis than any of us...
Features may be shared amongst the two, they may even move to the same type of processors for easier compatibility, and may share some features, but imagine iOS on your mac... terrible idea.
sure as hell can
******Out of context experience here*****
Original claim was made about the chips and performance. PPC was and is better price performer than Intel. That is why PPC is still thriving (all 3 game consoles). Better bang for the buck.
Someone made a statement that mobile wasn't the decider when it sure as hell was --- he or she said it was solely price/performance. Well that is just wrong. Well of course it was mobile; Apple made way too much money in Laptops to ignore that PPC sucked at mobile.
In sum, it is not price/performance across the board, but price/performance **for mobile** (and ONLY for mobile). Apple made a business decision based on their cash cow. If they cared as much about desktops, they wouldn't have made that decision.
******Out of context experience here*****
Original claim was made about the chips and performance. PPC was and is better price performer than Intel. That is why PPC is still thriving (all 3 game consoles). Better bang for the buck.
Someone made a statement that mobile wasn't the decider when it sure as hell was --- he or she said it was solely price/performance. Well that is just wrong. Well of course it was mobile; Apple made way too much money in Laptops to ignore that PPC sucked at mobile.
In sum, it is not price/performance across the board, but price/performance **for mobile** (and ONLY for mobile). Apple made a business decision based on their cash cow. If they cared as much about desktops, they wouldn't have made that decision.
Nevermind... Has nothing to do with iOS or touch on desktops... Its an OS that hasn't been released yet. The future. Like Win8.
has windows 8 been confirmed to run on touch and via keyboard/mouse? (I honestly don't know as i don't really follow windows anymore)
Just because they may share graphical elements, doesn't mean it will run on either surface.
Use any SDK emulator for webOS, iOS, Android, WP7, on your desktop and try using it in any type of productive way. It doesn't work because a keyboard/mouse can't replace the finger on a touchscreen device, and a finger can't replace the kb/m on a device designed for the desktop.
x86 chips makes the Mac a PC competitor. ARM will take them back to the obscure world of the fanatic.
ARM could make Macs better by eliminating the Intel tech-blocking of chip competitors (like nVidia and AMD). Apple could pick and chose the tech they wanted to use. However, losing the safety net of x86 apps running natively will send macs right back across the bridge they crossed when they went to Intel.
I worked for Apple for 2 years. I was at the tail-end of the Power PC era. I never owned a Mac before or while I was working for them. When OSX came out I said, "This is great...if only it was running off of decent hardware". A few years later (I had left the company) and the Intel macs were introduced. I bought my first Mac and haven't looked back.
I give this a 50/50 chance of happening. I don't think its a good idea, but Apple has their own ideas.
ARM could make Macs better by eliminating the Intel tech-blocking of chip competitors (like nVidia and AMD). Apple could pick and chose the tech they wanted to use. However, losing the safety net of x86 apps running natively will send macs right back across the bridge they crossed when they went to Intel.
I worked for Apple for 2 years. I was at the tail-end of the Power PC era. I never owned a Mac before or while I was working for them. When OSX came out I said, "This is great...if only it was running off of decent hardware". A few years later (I had left the company) and the Intel macs were introduced. I bought my first Mac and haven't looked back.
I give this a 50/50 chance of happening. I don't think its a good idea, but Apple has their own ideas.
tell that to all of the people doing heavy photoshop work, 3d renders, creating movies, professional photographers, etc.
If ARM was "good enough" surely they would all dump their $3000+ macs in favor of $500 iPads
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)
I dont think this will happen. A lot of people i know switched to macs only because they can dual boot windows now. It would be a big mistake for Apple to throw that away
I dont think this will happen. A lot of people i know switched to macs only because they can dual boot windows now. It would be a big mistake for Apple to throw that away
Moving to ARM would be insane
Apple's death spiral was reversed when Steve Jobs had the insight to start making MACs "PC Compatible" by using Intel CPUs. It brought a comfort level to corporate users.
I am a embedded designer and have substantial hardware and software experience with the ARM products. I like them, but they simply can't compete with high-end Intel CPUs for general computing power. And talk about 'future' high core count devices that might come to pass or not is just that -- talk.
Personally I can't believe this story is anything more than a leak intended to feel out a concept. And I think the concept is fatally flawed in the short term (less than 10 years). This is probably just Apple making sure they have all bases covered just in case iOS takes over the entire computing world 10 years from now.
By the way, Every MAC I own (four of them) has Windows and OS X on it. The only devices that don't are my iPad and iPhone. While I believe that content viewers (iPad and iPhone) devices can rely on iOS, I seriously doubt that content producing PCs can live with a crippled OS. So ARM based laptops are NOT in my future for the next 10 years at least.
Apple's death spiral was reversed when Steve Jobs had the insight to start making MACs "PC Compatible" by using Intel CPUs. It brought a comfort level to corporate users.
I am a embedded designer and have substantial hardware and software experience with the ARM products. I like them, but they simply can't compete with high-end Intel CPUs for general computing power. And talk about 'future' high core count devices that might come to pass or not is just that -- talk.
Personally I can't believe this story is anything more than a leak intended to feel out a concept. And I think the concept is fatally flawed in the short term (less than 10 years). This is probably just Apple making sure they have all bases covered just in case iOS takes over the entire computing world 10 years from now.
By the way, Every MAC I own (four of them) has Windows and OS X on it. The only devices that don't are my iPad and iPhone. While I believe that content viewers (iPad and iPhone) devices can rely on iOS, I seriously doubt that content producing PCs can live with a crippled OS. So ARM based laptops are NOT in my future for the next 10 years at least.
tell that to all of the people doing heavy photoshop work, 3d renders, creating movies, professional photographers, etc.
If ARM was "good enough" surely they would all dump their $3000+ macs in favor of $500 iPads
Apple doesn't need those maybe < 1% of freaks. Just compare how much money they made with servers and MacPro and how much they make with products that people actually want (iPhone, iPad). Also all those freaks cost a lot when it comes to support etc.
- Status