Not being able to run x64 is a BIG problem with Windows on ARM. And when it runs x86 apps, it tend to run them slowly.
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
Not being able to run x64 is a BIG problem with Windows on ARM. And when it runs x86 apps, it tend to run them slowly.
just in case you don'tknow... there was a period in the 90's, where Apple's isolation with no compatibility to windows, (amongst some other problems like extremely high prices that didn't match their value offerings, proprietary ports not easily adopted by the mainstream,) nearly saw apple bankrupt. Including a measly 1% total computer share.
what you're endorsing and claiming can't hurt Apple is a near repeat of exactly the behaviour that nearly doomed them in the past.
Apple at least has other industries such as phones now to fall back on should the Mac lineup tank like it did last time. But to claim that there's no risk here is foolish
at some point they have to care when people leave. it's not going to be one day they wake up and 100% of their customers left overnight cause of one move.
it's little moves, lose a few hundred here. lose a few thousand there. these death by a thousand cuts eventually erodes brand trust. this is something Apple needs to be careful off, that they don't alienate and drive away too many customers.
Last edited:
It's a pretty clear divide. The people who are happy about this are those that jumped into the Apple ecosystem with iPhones and iPads, and the people who are unhappy about this are those that used PowerPC Apples and lived the transition to Intel.
I am in the latter camp. I remember how OS X back in the PowerPC days was a third-party software dessert, and how amazing the change to Intel was when all of a sudden every FOSS Linux app was suddenly ported to OS X perfectly and overnight. Suddenly the community went from having one choice or no choices in certain app categories, to having dozens or choices. Dozens of chat apps, dozens of CD burning apps, more browsers, etc. It was amazing, and all due to being on the x86/64 architecture.
I do not want it to go back to how it was, nor do I want some half-assed ported apps from mobile OSes.
I am in the latter camp. I remember how OS X back in the PowerPC days was a third-party software dessert, and how amazing the change to Intel was when all of a sudden every FOSS Linux app was suddenly ported to OS X perfectly and overnight. Suddenly the community went from having one choice or no choices in certain app categories, to having dozens or choices. Dozens of chat apps, dozens of CD burning apps, more browsers, etc. It was amazing, and all due to being on the x86/64 architecture.
I do not want it to go back to how it was, nor do I want some half-assed ported apps from mobile OSes.
There is nothing to say that Apple won't implement discrete video with Arm based processing. Or even external 3rd party video cards. Using Metal as a controller with high end eVideo devices could allow any "AppleOS" via ThunderBolt/Lighting to do next level computing. Anyone who has used Xgrid will remember the power of arrays built with any Mac connected to the Server hosting the grid. Modular Multicast Core Controlled Nonlinear(Metal) Video Card Processing power at the user level; would open the door for so much more than "I'm mad my Mac doesn't have an Intel or PPC chip".
Apple ending use of Intel based processors also allows the possibility for other processors to be used, not just Custom Arm chips. Mac Pro with a AMD 32core Threadripper for instance? Upgradable uniform sockets on larger machines to reduce throwaway device culture. Just thoughts. Change sparks the wheels of innovation.
Apple ending use of Intel based processors also allows the possibility for other processors to be used, not just Custom Arm chips. Mac Pro with a AMD 32core Threadripper for instance? Upgradable uniform sockets on larger machines to reduce throwaway device culture. Just thoughts. Change sparks the wheels of innovation.
I think you mean patents, not copyrights. An x86 processor can be reverse engineered and built without violating any of Intel's patents, I'm sure. It just isn't cost effective to do so.
[doublepost=1550868210][/doublepost]The only developers Apple cares about are those who develop for its products: MacOS and iOS. Since iOS is ARM, it only makes sense to move the desktops to ARM in order to make development easier and faster for its iOS products. Apple is also taking steps to unify apps so a developer only needs to release one app that can run on either mobile or desktop. This will necessitate both platforms running on essentially the same processors.
This move makes complete sense for Apple, just not to those who use Macs to run Windows or develop for Windows platforms. Neither of which Apple cares about.
Considering that a lot of the software the enterprises need is Windows based, Mac losing x86/x64 compatibility would be unfortunate.
handle this in two parts, and mostly just playing counter to stir conversation:
1: will there not be compatibility problems with ARM based CPU's and Nvidia/AMD modern GPUs? I wonder what sort of compatibility would be required between the two. EGPU would likely be name of the game, but on that, Intel owns Thunderbolt and licenses it. While the licenses are free currently, Intel can outright tell Apple "stop" if they feel like apple is abusing the license. this would kill thunderbolt based eGPU tsandards. it likely would also mean that without Thunderbolt, Apple will either need to stick to USB-3.2 (not nearly as fast/ performant for eGPU purposes) or come up with their own proprietary standard... which was a massive problem for them when they did it last time.
And if they do go completely proprietary, it's possible that both Nvidia and AMD for GPU's just.. don't bother as Mac's are not a large portion of their businesses. This leaves Mac computeres pretty much exclusively using their own, in house built GPU. I'm not going to pass judgement on that yet, but that could become a compatibility nightmare for software developers.
2: AMD uses the same architecture for their CPU as Intel. Switching to AMD would not provide them their own in house CPU. AMD doesn't currently do any fabrication fo CPUs and just design them for the x86/x64 platform, which they share a cross license with Intel.
It absolutely was the right move at the time. I had been calling for it for years. IBM just couldn't deliver.
I was (and still am) typing on a phone and of course should have mentioned patents also. Luckily we are not drafting a legal document here. I was merely reacting to a post which suggested that Apple should run native x86 code on the new ARM processor (context matters).
Intel calls it copyright and patent infringements (po-TAH-to potato) and sues everybody who tries to make a chip with the x86 instruction set without their license. Very successful until now.
I doubt (as you stated also) that Apple will burn themselves (or are even interested) in making their ARM chip x86 compatible. (I suddenly have a Qualcomm déjà vu here!).
I doubt (as you stated also) that Apple will burn themselves (or are even interested) in making their ARM chip x86 compatible. (I suddenly have a Qualcomm déjà vu here!).
https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/intel-and-the-x86-architecture-a-legal-perspective
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...ly-threatens-microsoft-qualcomm-x86-emulation
I beg to differ. This is not 1990s. Majority of Mac users are either creatives (audio, photo, video) who can be sure that they will be supported by the software manufacturers (I would like to see eg. Adobe to run away from Apple once they will go fully ARM + there are many devs which create apps solely for Macs), and other majority are non-power users (such as my wife) who use Macs for browsing, media consumption, photo and documents creation/storage etc. The second group is not dependent on x86 software at all as standard macOS software provides them with all needed software.
If there are any special cases (virtual machine users and such) and they will see that the Macs are not suitable for them and move to Win/Linux, it will be only niche part which will not hurt the sales.
Wrong. People started buying macs in droves when Apple started delivering very thin, very long life Macs. In addition a lot of macs are now being sold because there is an iPhone developer gold rush going on. Those apps are developed on the mac. Running Windows on the Mac is niche at best.
One has to wonder if this is actually what Apple wants to happen. (My guess is: yes.)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/382260/segments-share-revenue-of-apple/
Macs are still ~10% of revenue annually, which is too much money to walk away from.
If Intel keeps slow-walking their Roadmap, I agree.
Talk about milking a product-line...
I did the same thing. I held on to my dying Mac for a long time waiting for half-decent hardware from Apple. Last year I finally gave up and built my own PC that runs Debian. It's absolutely fantastic.
Linux has come a long way over the years; I really see very little value in macOS. About the only real (user-facing) changes they've made to it over the years are more integration with their proprietary cloud services (photos, etc.).
1. Never say "Never". Apple's pretty damned handy with that ARM architecture...
2. I honestly think they won't transition COMPLETELY to ARM for the foreseeable future; but rather will reserve it for low-end Macs. The iMac Pro, Mac Pro and MacBook Pro will remain Intel probably for quite some time.
I don't think they're walking away from it. They're transitioning all their hardware to their own SoCs, it's more like a lateral move... People like me that need/want x86 architecture will leave, but people heavily invested in iOS or only interested in Safari, Mail and Pages will join/stay.
It should. A good part of that "crazy wait" is because Intel has been dragging their feet, making updating the rest of the product kind of "meh".
[doublepost=1550872953][/doublepost]
They wouldn't have, if IBM/Motorola had stayed serious about PPC advancement.
It seems like the issues are not with the T2 CHIP; but rather with the "BridgeOS" that it runs.Aaaand that T2 chip has had no issues at all. Imagine if the main CPU is the same
BIG Difference!
Wrong.
If you are wanting Windows Compatibility, MS already has a working (non-emulated, using an advanced JIT Compiler similar to the way Apple handled the 68k -> PPC transition) Windows 10 version for 64 bit ARM. So, that satisfies about 99% of the x86 code people want to run on their Macs.
Apple has been kicking-azz on Mac design for at least 2.5 years now. They have come out of their iOS-slumber and really started to reinvigorate the Mac! Seriously.
God willing and if the creek don't rise...
Apple is, and always has been, the hands-down leader in seamless Architecture-Switching.
This will be just as seamless.
[doublepost=1550874152][/doublepost]
"Ah now the fan boys are out of the way."...
The Haters can start their incessant whining and hand-wringing, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, Apple is trying to break the TYRANNY of the x86 world.
Ever think of that?
Quit with the Negative Waves...
I did not say the iPhone did not bring more people. I said Bootcamp brought many people
we shall see.
btw, as someone who did get online in the 90's, on various different forms (gopher, newsgroup),
you're very talking points are damn near repeats of things said back then... the problem is, those "everyday users"... ended up leaving.
any CEO worth his salt has to remember, in the consumer space. CONSUMERS ARE FICKLE. it sucks, but is true.
While you are right on the fact consumers wont' care what CPU their devices run. They may if they suddenly can't do things easily, like say, transfer files on USB because of port differences (Or being told to spend more money again, theres an upper threshold to people's spending tolerances).
I'm just playing armchair QB here. looking at past moves and their response and trying to guess the future here. Could be very wrong.
I'd love to test out an give a spin an ARM mac. I just think that if Apple is going this direction, they have some serious hurdles to overcome.
How about this, "Apple played nice....". I stand by my statement that an i7 is far easier chip to exploit for those that require it over an ARM. Yes-we can hope the Pro lines do keep their flexibility and my concern then becomes unwarranted.