Core 2 due a minimum requirement for Lion !??!

Discussion in 'macOS' started by bo-waleed, Feb 28, 2011.

  1. bo-waleed macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    #1
    does that mean osx 10.8 or 10.9 will need i3,i5,i7 processors ?

    i already have late 2008 MBP.

    i am planning to get imac (when it refresh) and it will probebly have the sandy bridge processor.


    how much years my MBP and the imac will last based of osx ? (i.e do you think osx 10.9 will work on the MBP or do you think os xi will work on the imac ?)
     
  2. seb-opp macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Location:
    London/Norwich
    #2
    Core 2 Duo is the minimum requirement because they are the earliest 64-bit intel processors on the mac. The earlier Core Duo processors were 32-bit, so it appears Lion will be 64-bit only.

    I wouldn't worry about Core iX being the minimum requirement for the next few releases of OS X, because the advances they have over Core 2 are minor, only offering higher speeds rather than a major change like the transition from 32 to 64 bit.
     
  3. Winni macrumors 68030

    Winni

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Germany.
    #3
    There is a simple reason why Apple requires a Core 2 Duo CPU for Lion: They are killing the support for 32-Bit architectures. Lion will still run 32-Bit Intel applications, but the OS itself is going to be a pure 64-Bit OS, and accordingly there won't be a 32-Bit kernel in it (Snow Leopard still has both options).

    The Core 2 Duo processor was the first 64-Bit Intel CPU that they have used in their systems, the Core Solo and Core Duo were only 32-Bit CPUs. They are now facing the same fate as the PowerPC architecture.

    Will the successors of Lion require faster 64-Bit CPUs than the Core 2 Duo? Personally, I doubt it. But since this is Apple we're talking about: Who knows?

    Will there even be an OS X 10.8 or OS XI? To be honest, I doubt that, too. Steve Jobs once said that OS X would be the software foundation "for the next one and a half decades". By the time OS X Lion has received the first couple of updates, those fifteen years will almost be over.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they introduced a new software platform after Lion. Something that will still be able to run OS X applications in a sandbox, but otherwise will be more like iOS and with a ton of "cloud" features -- or rather: Cloud dependencies. From what we can observe, I think it's rather obvious that Apple will turn its platforms into rather dumb clients for their own "cloud" services (where iTunes, the AppStores and MobileMe were just the beginning).

    But well, we'll find out soon enough.
     
  4. Cabbit macrumors 68020

    Cabbit

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Location:
    Scotland
    #4
    10.8 mite need PPC or ARM for all we know. Computers may suddenly pick up pace very quickly soon for all we know, right know progression is rather steady.
     
  5. emiljan macrumors 6502

    emiljan

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Location:
    Michigan
    #5
    Apple already has a ARM operating system, iOS. I doubt that would change in the near future. Maybe for OS XI they will follow Microsoft's route and make a ARM version.
     
  6. Consultant macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #6
    Historically, Apple typically keep about 5 year support for Mac hardware.

    Use that to determine.
     
  7. bo-waleed thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    #7
    Does the Arm need a processor that does not exist now?


    What about 124bit os ? Does this exist ?
     
  8. bo-waleed thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    #8
    So you think the new imac with SB processor will last only 5 years ?
     
  9. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #9
    It'll last as long as you want to use it if it doesn't develop problems. There are still people using G3 and G4 computers on a regular basis. Just because the computer can't run the newest operating system doesn't mean that you can't continue to use it.
     
  10. bo-waleed thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    #10
    Yeah I know but I am afraid iabout installing future apps that require an osx that I don't have it
     
  11. voyagerd macrumors 65816

    voyagerd

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2002
    Location:
    Rancho Cordova, CA
    #11
    The iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, and Apple TV use ARM processors.

    Sandy Bridge actually includes Advanced Vector Extensions, allowing it to handle 256-bit instructions.
     
  12. bo-waleed thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    #12
    so if apple make ARM OS XI i need an ARM processor ? and the new SB processors will not work.
     
  13. voyagerd macrumors 65816

    voyagerd

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2002
    Location:
    Rancho Cordova, CA
    #13
    If… that happens, no Intel processors would work… and only iPhone and iPad applications would work.
     
  14. bo-waleed thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    #14
    Microsoft ?

    is the next windows update need ARM processor ?
     
  15. Thomas Harte, Mar 2, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2011

    Thomas Harte macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    #15
    It doesn't require one, but Windows 8 (and Office) are to be provided for ARM. Versions of the ARM architecture have always been popular in small devices, including smart phones for more than a decade, the original Apple Newton and the Nintendo portables since the Gameboy Advance but those 'small' devices are now big enough that it makes sense to try to sell full-fat Windows and Office to device manufacturers.

    Windows NT is a little like NextStep in that it shipped for multiple processor lines during the 90s, when it wasn't clear where the market was going, and has only specialised since. So that part won't necessarily be as hard as you might think. Office has a Mac port so you'd hope the core stuff was architecture independent, but the reason VBA macros were missing in Excel 2008 was apparently that they were unable to get them to work within Office:Mac for the Intel port.

    Anyway, I'm with those citing an ongoing lack of innovation from any vendor as evidence that the desktop OS market has become stagnant and is likely to remain so for a while. I hope the trend for cleaning things up, shrinking them and optimising them as per Snow Leopard and Windows 7 continues, but only if £25 remains the price.

    Re: the main topic; the Core 2 Duos do have an important architectural difference from the Core Duos before them but Apple have used insignificant differences to draw a line in the past, such as the requirement for a FireWire port to run 10.4. OS releases tend to work on any hardware less than five or so years old, so you can expect to get six or seven years out of a Mac before it becomes ineligible for the latest OS (ie, the release after the final supported one) and then, inevitably, for the latest software.

    EDIT: as to the future, for a few years, Apple have been transitioning their compiler suite from GCC to Clang/LLVM. LLVM stands for 'Low Level Virtual Machine' — which takes the output of the bit of a compiler that understands C, C++, Objective-C or whatever and converts and optimises it into an instruction stream for a virtual machine. In the normal suite there's currently a compiler step that then converts the results into Intel or PowerPC code. I believe Apple would be more likely to remove the final step and do that at run time, in a broadly similar way to .NET, Java (including on Android), etc, should they plan to offer a single OS across multiple architectures in the future. With the modern ways of arranging these things, such an approach can actually provide benefits beyond architecture independence, allowing a program to be tuned for the specific processor it's running on.

    That's all speculation, of course, and quite possibly won't happen. No published materials or rumours currently suggest it.
     
  16. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #16
    i kind of agree with this outlook. i feel that (provided apple can pull it off) they will aim to change to their own custom chip. however currently they dont have the complete capacity to design them from scratch...
     

Share This Page