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.
Craig Federighi and Greg Joswiak Discuss Apple Silicon Transition, Lack of Boot Camp Support, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not sure if you missed the memo, but if you virtualize Windows ARM, Windows will take care of x86 emulation. No need to expose Rosetta APIs to Parallels.
In addition, letting Windows emulate x86 is much more efficient than let Parallels emulate.
I do not think a Intel Mac can run same instruction of your deploy target. Xeon almost always have more instructions and thus need special package anyway.
You build on something, then test on target remote machine. Nobody test in local VM for that. You should have farm/cloud for staging and testing.
And what if you deploy target becomes arm server?
You mean from the beginning of your use of computers or from the 1984?
Why do you believe there will be less software for the Mac? Companies that really support the platform will move over, companies that do not were already on their way out the door, and it would only be a matter of time before some other change made their applications not work. I already have many business applications that have a Windows version and an iPadOS version, but no Mac version, that indicates to me that there may be some losses and some gains.
What applications do you use that are Windows only (or more generally, what kind of “pro” are you)? This new hardware is likely to do very well for certain classes of professionals (Audio/Motion Graphics/Still/Video creatives) whose applications will take advantage of the Neural Engine for their AI processing, and not work well for others. However, those users were already leaving as Apple was unable to build products that were differentiated enough to make it worth being on the platform.
This change may accelerate that split, or it may make their machine more interesting and more competitive and may invigorate support.
No, that is your opinion. They have about 15% of desktop/laptop market, and a much larger share if one includes business users of iPads. If these machines are more compelling, their share will increase, if they are not, it will not. One thing that should be clear quickly, is how many people really use Windows applications on Macs. If that number is not vanishingly small, it might be a larger group than those existing ARM Windows users, and might just get some companies to port their Windows x64 code to Windows ARM (it also might not, that remains to be seen).
If you do not trust their software, and have a substantial number of Windows only applications you need, then it should not matter if they stayed on Intel hardware, you should switch to the platform that works better for you.
What native applications “appeared on the scene” with the Intel transition? Why? Most likely new native applications were ported because their market share increased. If this transition produces better machines, they will again have a market share boost which will bring more developers and applications.
Hard to share the monitor and keyboard if they’re part of a MacBook Pro, though.
I used to use synergy (an app) for that purpose. Use the mac keyboard/mouse and two monitors (one for each computer).
The OP was suggesting that Apple should make and sell their processors to the general market. My thinking is that regardless of how fast they may be, there’s no other company that would purchase a non-x86 chip that is only special in that it runs iOS/macOS very well. Considering that no one else makes iOS/macOS devices but Apple, I don’t see who would even be interested in buying them
Dell? Microsoft?
And what would be in it for Apple? They don’t fab the things, so they don’t need to do that to justify the cost of a new fab line. And doing so would eliminate any ability to differentiate vs. the competition. Plus there’s a lot of stuff on these chips specific to MacOS - these aren’t general purpose chips that make sense for other operating systems (the cpu cores are fine, but a lot of the other logic on the SoC is surely not general-purpose).The OP was suggesting that Apple should make and sell their processors to the general market. My thinking is that regardless of how fast they may be, there’s no other company that would purchase a non-x86 chip that is only special in that it runs iOS/macOS very well. Considering that no one else makes iOS/macOS devices but Apple, I don’t see who would even be interested in buying them
Tell that to my 6-core Mac Pro from 2010 that has been upgraded with RX 5700 XT graphics.
If I boot into Windows I can play Apex Legends with ”maxed out” settings on a 1920 x 1200 display and I never get below 60 frames per second. It averages at about 110 frames per second. I know that's not a Mac many people has, but I think it is great being able to start up into Windows when I want to play the games not available for MacOS. Not too keen on having two computers, but if I want to keep playing games that's only available on Windows and still have MacOS as my main OS that seems to be the only way if I replace my computer in a year or two. Maybe will be able to boot Windows 10 for ARM on my Mac with Apple silicon, but that of course doesn't mean all the x86 Windows games will run.
I wonder how things will be in – say five years from now – when it comes to all this. 🤔
There is a contradiction in your statement. When you say "most of them are browser based these days" you are saying that the software is actually developed for the server side. How many servers right now are x86 based? 99%? One can argue all day long that it's possible to develop cross-platform etc. It is possible but nobody likes to do it. If you develop for x86 based servers, you want to use x86 based computer to do it.
The OP was suggesting that Apple should make and sell their processors to the general market. My thinking is that regardless of how fast they may be, there’s no other company that would purchase a non-x86 chip that is only special in that it runs iOS/macOS very well. Considering that no one else makes iOS/macOS devices but Apple, I don’t see who would even be interested in buying them
Sorry, I must have missed that. But if they were to sell their chips to others (not that they ever will, because we all know they won't) you would expect they'd also provide the tools necessary to make good use of them. But they'd likely also mark them up so high that no company could reasonably use them while still turning a profit. So you're right in that no OEM would buy Apple's chips from them.
Tell that to my 6-core Mac Pro from 2010 that has been upgraded with RX 5700 XT graphics.
If I boot into Windows I can play Apex Legends with ”maxed out” settings on a 1920 x 1200 display and I never get below 60 frames per second. It averages at about 110 frames per second. I know that's not a Mac many people has, but I think it is great being able to start up into Windows when I want to play the games not available for MacOS. Not too keen on having two computers, but if I want to keep playing games that's only available on Windows and still have MacOS as my main OS that seems to be the only way if I replace my computer in a year or two. Maybe will be able to boot Windows 10 for ARM on my Mac with Apple silicon, but that of course doesn't mean all the x86 Windows games will run.
I wonder how things will be in – say five years from now – when it comes to all this. 🤔
As impressive as that is, your Mac would still likey get curbstomped by a similarly priced Windows machine, even running hardware of the time. I'm not saying you can't game on Macs, just that it's really not what they were made for.
Good point. Still most web based applications involve server side development (there are very little if any purely client side based apps). One can do full stack development on a Windows/Linux or MacOS based (x86) computer right now. ARM-based Macs probably won't be suitable for this for a long time. That's not a problem for consumers (e-mail, calendar, browser) but it's a big issue for software developers as evidenced by many posts here and elsewhere.
Not really, the only native application you have on the server side is the web server and maybe an SQL database. There is literally nothing which requires x86 or where x86 could be helpful. Could be an ARM web server and the web developer would not care the least bit.
Thats the charming thing about web development, your are literally 100% architecture neutral.
PS: Unless you want to write an apache clone - and call this web developement
Parallels is a truly buggy experience at the moment, I’m pulling the plug on my subscription and going back to boot camp. I’d be interested to see how Apples own virtualisation will work, seems to be limited to linux at present.
The right arrow key skips ahead 10s a pop, or the "1" key skips to the 10% mark of the vid. I usually just keep pressing right arrow until it's in the real stuff, then left arrow once to get the the start of it.
It was just putting all of the sponsors in one chunk at the beginning rather than interrupt the interview later. Would you rather stopping in the interview for a message from a sponsor?
[automerge]1593132235[/automerge]
Why do you think you need to rebuy software? You might have to pay for a new version if the publisher charges for updates but it should not be a new license.
[automerge]1593132340[/automerge]
They did show Adobe Photoshop already running on Apple Silicon
Last edited:
Except they aren’t deprecating the Mac APIs. All the older Objective-C and Appkit still still works and will continue to work. There are just more options now.
You are correct, they are probably a $1.6 trillion or $1.7 trillion company. Most Mac users do not run Windows in any form (Bootcamp or virtualization). These machines are likely to be much better Macintoshes. Like the iPhone SE, they are likely to have some systems that are cheaper than what they currently have but at the same specs, and some around the same price but with better specs. This should boost sales and market share.
Before they were dependent on the same processor as everyone else. Now they will have SoCs that are purpose-built and run much better for most of their users.
No, they are unlikely to lose much software at all that is used by the vast majority of their customers. On the other hand, they will gain all the iOS and iPadOS apps that had no macOS version (a pretty large number).
First, you are part of a tiny minority. Second, they still have the ability to run all kinds of operating systems and software, and arguably more than before. They will be able to run Windows 10 ARM, most flavors of Linux, FreeBSD, etc., but now they gain iOS and iPadOS apps to that group.
From what I have been able to tell, Microsoft sold tens of thousands of ARM based machines. Not enough to make it worth porting for most users. Apple will sell more ARM-based Macs in the first month, than Microsoft have sold ARM based systems total. If there is a real market for Mac users who run Windows, this might make it worthwhile for companies to port to Windows on ARM. If there is not, then it did not matter.
Don't you think users may get confused that Bootcamp would be going away by the topic ?
"Lack of Bootcamp support"
Specifically mentioning Bootcamp partitions and booting from virtualization VM products like Parallels and VMWare was really not needed as they go hand in hand.. i.e If Virtualization is not supported then using Bootcamp partition isn't either in VM.
Perhaps it was mentioned more as users may not have known? Kinda strange how anyone could come to that conclusion.
"Lack of Bootcamp support"
Specifically mentioning Bootcamp partitions and booting from virtualization VM products like Parallels and VMWare was really not needed as they go hand in hand.. i.e If Virtualization is not supported then using Bootcamp partition isn't either in VM.
Perhaps it was mentioned more as users may not have known? Kinda strange how anyone could come to that conclusion.
Pretty sure how much someone has isn't relevant to how much they are worth.I'm pretty sure Gruber's not hurting for money.
Sorry to hear that your 8 year old Adobe software that was not updated to support Catalina almost a year ago, still will not work on Apple’s new hardware. Nor will your 16 year old copy of Unreal, nor your old scanners or printers. Given that you are running software that is so old, and is not going to be updated ever, you do not need a new machine. You can continue to run it on whatever you have been running it, and if you wanted to buy modern hardware, you can access it over the network.
I am curious, when did you buy your most recent Macintosh?