Sure would be nice to get an iPad Mini Pro with Pencil support and new internals... oh well
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.
Gurman: Cheaper iPad to Debut Next Week, Sub-$1,000 MacBook Likely Not Ready Yet
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would be very interesting but I have a feeling they are developing a processor specifically for the Mac.
Why? The Air already has TB2, and that required an extra port.
With TB3, it would be the same USB-C port, and no extra chips would be needed since it would be built into the chipset.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I didn't say a word about it being impossible. My comments have been about desirability, not possibility. I'll go one better, I think it's 100% possible if Apple wanted to do it. I fully suspect there is ALREADY macOS running on an A-series platform in Apple labs somewhere... just as there was OS X running on Intel well before Apple decided to actually switch to Intel.
But then we're just wishing away capability we have now for seemingly nothing (for us consumers).
AND, Windows on ARM generally means lots of "broken" Windows software (too). So implying that an A-Series MacBook could keep Windows via bootcamp by leaning on Windows on ARM emulation is really, really stretching it IMO. The POINT of Bootcamp is broad Windows-compatibilty in the very same computer we want to take along with us when working with clients or for Windows-dominant employers. If we have to doubt whether or not some Windows-driven need will work well in Windows for ARM emulation on a A-Series Mac, are we going to just hope it will or fall back to certainty and opt to take a Windows laptop instead... or an older Mac where we know for sure?
We can go hypothetical if you like. But history is history. Apple DID control the CPU before and Intel got out so far ahead of ongoing PowerPC development that Apple (felt it) HAD(?) to switch to Intel. Apple can readily go back again to owning control of it's CPU in this A-Series Mac hypothetical. Do we then have faith that Apple will keep up with Intel or would we worry that Apple would let Intel get out ahead again?
Apple can do wondrous things. They've brought us HUGE innovations like iPhone, iPad and even
TV. But they've also rolled out huge innovations like Siri and then seemed to lose interest, letting Siri competitors be born upwards of years later, catch up and run ahead of Siri.Do we want to hope an A-Series Mac would be "as good" and then keep pace with Intel-based Macs? Do we have that much faith that Apple would care enough to insure that? Or would some of us make that transition only to have Apple feeling it needs to switch back again 5 or 10 more years down the road because they didn't or couldn't keep up?
The PowerPC-to-Intel transition minimized the pain by Apple buying Rosetta so that Intel could "fake" PowerPC for a few years. Best I know, there is no Rosetta this time. Apple software would probably roll out just fine but non-Apple software may not even get to start being converted until after the big public reveal.
And even there: the vast bulk of Macs would still be Intel. So do the major devs opt to re-develop their software for an A-series Mac or just hope that Apple opts not to take all new Macs that way?
Last edited:
I am 100% okay with random people commenting on my posts, they just don't need to come off like a jerk about it. There's a difference.
I didn't say a word about it being impossible. My comments have been about desirability, not possibility. I'll go one better, I think it's 100% possible if Apple wanted to do it. I fully suspect there is ALREADY macOS running on an A-series platform in Apple labs somewhere... just as there was OS X running on Intel well before Apple decided to actually switch to Intel.
But then we're just wishing away capability we have now for seemingly nothing (for us consumers).
AND, Windows on ARM generally means lots of "broken" Windows software (too). So implying that an A-Series MacBook could keep Windows via bootcamp by leaning on Windows on ARM emulation is really, really stretching it IMO. The POINT of Bootcamp is broad Windows-compatibilty in the very same computer we want to take along with us when working with clients or for Windows-dominant employers. If we have to doubt whether or not some Windows-driven need will work well in Windows for ARM emulation on a A-Series Mac, are we going to just hope it will or fall back to certainty and opt to take a Windows laptop instead... or an older Mac where we know for sure?
We can go hypothetical if you like. But history is history. Apple DID control the CPU before and Intel got out so far ahead of ongoing PowerPC development that Apple (felt it) HAD(?) to switch to Intel. Apple can readily go back again to owning control of it's CPU in this A-Series Mac hypothetical. Do we then have faith that Apple will keep up with Intel or would we worry that Apple would let Intel get out ahead again?
Apple can do wondrous things. They've brought us HUGE innovations like iPhone, iPad and even
Do we want to hope an A-Series Mac would be "as good" and then keep pace with Intel-based Macs? Do we have that much faith that Apple would care enough to insure that? Or would some of us make that transition only to have Apple feeling it needs to switch back again 5 or 10 more years down the road because they didn't or couldn't keep up?
The PowerPC-to-Intel transition minimized the pain by Apple buying Rosetta so that Intel could "fake" PowerPC for a few years. Best I know, there is no Rosetta this time. Apple software would probably roll out just fine but non-Apple software may not even get to start being converted until after the big public reveal.
And even there: the vast bulk of Macs would still be Intel. So do the major devs opt to re-develop their software for an A-series Mac or just hope that Apple opts not to take all new Macs that way?
That G5 just ran too hot for a laptop in the labs, so I think that was the final straw for Apple, plus Intels road map compared to
Power PC.
I do think we will see Macs transition to an Apple architecture in the future. How they would so this will be interesting.
I use a 15" MBP. And I, like many others, use all the ports on it.
I went through four of the 2016/17 15" MBPs; every single one had the keyboard fail due to heat. So I am now using a 2014 15".
Try using a port-less MBP in the real world and get back to us.
That is why the MacBook Pros exist. If you want the speed you have to pay for it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I understand why Apple made the transition. The point of bringing it up was to point out that Apple once had control of it's CPUs and Intel got out ahead of it so far that Apple felt compelled to switch. The specific reason why is not so important as the idea that Apple having control of it's CPU doesn't automatically mean they would keep their CPU up to snuff vs. entities like Intel. So wishing Apple would adopt A-Series Macs may be wishing for a somewhat repeat of history.
Those of us that went through that transition may not remember it as too painful because Rosetta mostly smoothed over the potential pain. But- best I know- there is no Rosetta 2 laying around out there somewhere to smooth over this hypothetical transition. IMO, had there been no Rosetta, our memories of the transition would not be nearly so mild... and, if so, even the hint of going through another CPU transition would be more toward the terrifying instead of easily tossed around like the biggest issue here is simply Apple slugging in a different CPU.
In this scenario, there would be a new A-Series Mac laptop rolled out joining all the rest of the Macs all based in Intel. Do the non-Apple devs start aggressively transitioning their software to support this one Mac or do they opt to wait and see how well it sells since that will probably drive whether Apple would opt to take the rest of the Mac lines that way too? Do consumers that don't automatically buy anything Apple chooses to roll out jump on this or wait and see if key software is adapted to run on it too? If Apple doesn't see fairly quick, fairly huge profits from it, do they lose interest?
What made it go smoothly last time is that the consequence of "wait & see" did not apply (thanks to Rosetta). Macs were clearly falling behind and Intel advantages were piling up. Lots of us were waiting (pent up) demand for the PowerPC G5 laptop. Rosetta made it possible for Apple to fully embrace Intel in all Macs (not just one) and not break lots of third party software, nor put consumers in a "wait & see" mode. This time, it appears to be different. And Apple knows that.
Last edited:
All this nonsense with theories about Apple switching to Ax processors.
We see this every time MacBook is mentioned.
We see this every time MacBook is mentioned.
The only hardware I believe that will be updated during this event, will be the iPad and Apple Pencil. I highly doubt a MacBook would be a promise of this keynote. And any other subtleties like the AirPower, might be silently updated once the Apple Store goes live again.
Apple went to Intel because the AIM alliance was failing. IBM was only interested in server CPUs, and Motorola (now Freescale/NXP) was only interested in embedded CPUs. Apple needed something in between.
So, yes, Apple did lose control.
[doublepost=1521824324][/doublepost]
This does not follow. Running Windows virtualized on a Mac is barely fast enough. Emulating Windows for Intel on an Apple ARM CPU, however, would be atrociously slow and would require me to get a secondary computer. At which point I'm not sure why I would even bother with another Mac.
Eh?
Even if it were possible to virtualize Windows on ARM on macOS on ARM (this is highly hypothetical, as unlike on x86, there aren't standardized interfaces to do this, and Qualcomm and Apple have little motivation to work together on those), it wouldn't be useful for the typical Windows virtualization use case: software development.
I do hope that Apple doesn't think the MacBook is a good working base for its "cheap" laptop.
The processor is expensive and underpowered just for the sake of ultra thickness. Use regular laptop processor and use a fan.
Cheap laptops are all round (cheap) computers, they aren't a special use boutique computer, so please use at least a 13" screen. Students and budget users don't need a postage stamp with a keyboard. 15" would be great but that would be just too good.
If they want templates take the current MBP 13 as inspiration.
The processor is expensive and underpowered just for the sake of ultra thickness. Use regular laptop processor and use a fan.
Cheap laptops are all round (cheap) computers, they aren't a special use boutique computer, so please use at least a 13" screen. Students and budget users don't need a postage stamp with a keyboard. 15" would be great but that would be just too good.
If they want templates take the current MBP 13 as inspiration.
But 1) Apple didn't have full control of the AIM alliance, and 2) 2010s' Apple and Intel are very different. Apple has gotten much bigger and gained a lot of knowledge on CPU engineering, and Intel's relevance outside high-end desktop and servers is shrinking.
Uh, why would you need to emulate Windows on Intel on an ARM MacBook? Did you even read what I said?
Microsoft now has Windows on ARM. If they continue with this and it's successful, then it should be easy to get Windows on ARM running on a MacBook with ARM.
Eh that’s a C- meme right there. They only said courage like once. Find some new memes to improve score.
Anywho, can we all stop pretending that Apple is doing their roadmap to please them personally. I for one would love to get a light 13” MacBook for work/school. I do bash, python, Android dev, websites, and now iOS and for programmers a light fast laptop will prolly be perfect. A programmer (that scripts) shouldn’t need heavy duty processing (if you do just SSH to your server to run them). My biggest Android app is 650 megs as a project (not the apps actual size) and I see that the limiting factor is RAM and fast storage. Also, iCloud Drive works great and i have GIT for bigger projects (where iCloud Drive doesn’t work so great) so I don’t need ports. If the Apple can give me that I’ll but one.
And I feel like programmers/students is a bigger market than professional video/photo people (esp since a desktop is prolly the better solution).
If Apple ain’t doing it for you then move on. Simple. I would.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, perhaps just myself here, I hope that Apple does not go A-series for Mac CPUs. But for those of you who covet it, I hope they will build one for you.
Personally, I get ENORMOUS utility out of my Intel-based Macs being able to run Windows when I have to run Windows and having mature functionality macOS software refined and able to run well on a long-established platform. It's so nice to NOT have to wonder if taking my Mac laptop on a business trip will yield an iffy proposition of being able to run some Windows software or connect to some Windows-only system/network. I know it will. It "just works."
Sure, I wish all clients would go Mac but I operate in a real world where Windows rules and my Mac preference is still very much fringe at best. Rather than pressing clients to change to make all of their stuff work with my choice of computer, it "just works" for me to be able to adapt to work with theirs. And, as such, the existing Mac lineup offers the TREMENDOUS advantage over all other choices of being able to natively run macOS AND Windows in a single computer. Toss ONE laptop in a bag and have full capabilities in either platform.
Rosetta certainly minimized the transitional pain last time. I don't know of any Rosetta 2 to do the same if such a change is coming again.
Personally, I get ENORMOUS utility out of my Intel-based Macs being able to run Windows when I have to run Windows and having mature functionality macOS software refined and able to run well on a long-established platform. It's so nice to NOT have to wonder if taking my Mac laptop on a business trip will yield an iffy proposition of being able to run some Windows software or connect to some Windows-only system/network. I know it will. It "just works."
Sure, I wish all clients would go Mac but I operate in a real world where Windows rules and my Mac preference is still very much fringe at best. Rather than pressing clients to change to make all of their stuff work with my choice of computer, it "just works" for me to be able to adapt to work with theirs. And, as such, the existing Mac lineup offers the TREMENDOUS advantage over all other choices of being able to natively run macOS AND Windows in a single computer. Toss ONE laptop in a bag and have full capabilities in either platform.
Rosetta certainly minimized the transitional pain last time. I don't know of any Rosetta 2 to do the same if such a change is coming again.
Last edited:
Because there are very few ARM apps for Windows, especially in the markets I care about.
Yes. It also did half a decade ago; they called it Windows RT then. The main difference now is that they have, guess what, an x86 emulator.
That's great, but it doesn't help me one bit.
Even if I wanted to recompile our stuff for ARM, and even ignoring that most third-party components wouldn't be available, Microsoft doesn't even offer that as a path. WinForms, WPF, etc. aren't available on ARM.
Apple didn’t control the G5. It was IBM’s chip.
There is a cheaper Y series CPU, but it's a Pentium and significantly slower.
Yes, but the markets you care about probably would not be targeted by that cheaper MacBook initially. An ARM MacBook would initially be targeted at groups like primary school education, where Windows on Mac is completely irrelevant.
Maybe not virtualized, but with bootcamp.
BTW, I never claimed Apple would drop Intel and only support ARM. But a lot of the Mac user base could get by just fine with an ARM powered MacBook.
Dual-boot? That's a horrible value proposition. At that point, I might as well either get a Windows desktop + MacBook, or just go all-Windows with, say, a Surface Laptop.
(edit)
Also, just like ARM virtualization of Apple A* vs. Qualcomm Snapdragon isn't really a thing right now, dual-boot would be equally hard. There is no spec for Apple to make a CPU/chipset/etc. drivers for that would be compatible with Windows on ARM. There isn't even much of a boot manager in Apple's ARM implementation.
Yes, but you still haven't made a case on why you think this would lead to a better product. What does Apple A* offer that Atom, Core-Y, or Core-U can't?
Last edited: