While I agree with your sentiments. Unix and Linux runs fine on RISC architectures, such as Power, MIPS, Arm, and SPARC. Examples are yellow dog Linux, Solaris, AIX, IRIX, Mac OS X in the early 2000s, Android, iOS. All are Unix.
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.
Intel Expecting Apple to Transition to Custom ARM-Based Chips Starting in 2020
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The idea is you target marZipan and your code turns out great for both iPad and Mac. Menus on Mac become something else on iPad, etc. Magic. If apple can get it working. Otherwise, yeah, it will be another size class to deal with in interface builder.
Are you saying that people want to run iOS apps (touch based GUI) on Macs? I thought Apple vehemently rejects mixing the two (hence no touch screens on MacBooks). Most forum members here tend to agree (and are against Microsoft efforts in this direction) and that's for apps developed for the same screen size. Using iOS apps (and iOS apps don't really scale well for different screen sizes) on Macs would make no sense whatsoever.
Yes, the machines are better but the world is dirty.
Also bad to discontinue Safari for Windows.
what are you basing this on? First, their market share hasn't changed all that dramatically since they switched to Intel. Second, I believe that iDevice popularity has led to more converts than the ability to run Windows.
Last edited:
Most iPhone users aren’t on this forum. And the vast majority have never used a Mac. But they might want to use a Mac if it behaved more like the device they already know and love.
What people need to understand is that selling macs only to people who already love macs is not going to be sustainable for apple. It won’t be worth their time so they will stop spending energy on it. The only hope for better macs is if more people buy it - and I mean a ton more. And the easiest way for apple to quadruple Mac sales is to target people who already love other apple products and want to stay in the ecosystem, and to extend the ecosystem further.
A good number of PC people switched from Windows. Only the purists went for Macs before. Now we are dirty.
No just the UI...
Services, Permissions, Background executions.... For example, would you like an app on desktop to be killed when you put it in background.
what are you basing this on? First, their market share hasn't changed all that dramatically since they switched to Intel. Second, I believe that iDevice popularity has led to more converts than the ability to run Windows.
Man, I hope you are right, but I can definitely see Apple going courageously down this road and pulling a Microsoft.
I truly hope that there is some sense left in Cupertino and they continue to build true computers instead of oversized iToys.
That can be largely transparent to the app and up to the OS. The app doesn’t have to be put in the “background” when it merely loses focus, for example. Whereas if all windows are hidden that can be treated as “background.” Permissions will also be something the OS/marzipan will have to swizzle. It;s all very doable within the 2 years apple is rumored to be taking to get it done.
You basically run around the same thing. We all love our Apple and Mac products, and we want to stay in the Apple ecosystem-but this change will cause exit of people that have historically spent thousands and thousands of dollars on a machine, for 1-4 that "might" buy one of these ARM machines. Quit the mass production and focus on JIT, thats how Apples are priced right?
Last edited:
Everyone knows the future of Mac is iPad Pro.
Those relative numbers are certainly facts. Apple sells, what, 5M macs a quarter and 100M iPhones? And 10M ipads? The number of iPhone owners that do not own macs has to be larger than the number of Mac users who use boot camp, just based on those numbers.
As long as office, creative cloud, apple’s own apps, and most Indy apps continue to be useable in more ore less the same form, people will move on with their lives and buy arm macs. Some people will not be able to run software they need, and they will go away. Many iPhone users will be tempted to buy in order to have desktops that can run all their apps.
And Mac will get better and better because apple won’t feel like it is wasting effort improving it; improvements to mac will largely be improvements to ipad and iPhone and vice versa.
I saw a car with a WinCE sticker at a car show many years ago. It was actually a turn off.
As well as for some German cars when I learned about it.
I only learned about Ford when they dumped it for QNX.
Last edited:
Absolutely. Everything depends on apple not screwing it up. If they screw it up, then Mac is doomed. The good news is they have made two successful transitions before, and they have been setting the stage for this next one for a very long time. Also, unlike the previous transitions, this time they do it from a position of strength. Apple is now an important ecosystem, with customers who demonstrably spend money on third party apps. Developers will come along for the ride.
No question that it is 'doable'. The question is: Why would you do it?
I don't want my current computing habits to change. I use my iPads to consume media and play a game. I sit down on a iMac or Macbook computer to get some work done. If they would become as limited in workflow as the iGadgets are, I would have to leave Apple and run some Desktop Linux. I would hate it, but no way around it.
That’s you. Let’s assume it’s EVERY mac user. So what? There are billions of people who don’t use macs. Perhaps apple prefers to see if it can get THEM to buy macs, even if that means every single existing mac user goes away (which wont happen).
And the easiest way to do that is to leverage something that apple knows people already love to buy.