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.
Mac Update Cycle Faces Uncertainty as Intel Abandons Tick-Tock Strategy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Any app uploaded to any of Apple's app stores within the last year (or was it a few years ago now?) was uploaded in an intermediate format, from which Apple can compile it to any final architecture that they want.
So the transaction should be completely seamless for any app updated on the app store since then.
Any app which is still being compiled for OS X but not put on the app store will have a new compiler target added in Xcode (I think everything is compiled through the Xcode tools these days... pretty sure even things like JetBrain's AppCoda rely on Xcode's command line tools to do the actual compilation.)
I would bet that most apps not distributed through the app store actually rely on Python, Ruby, a JVM, or some other interpreter though. Those would have a seamless transition - just need the interpreter to be recompiled with the new target. All the major interpreters already work on ARM and are still actively maintained, so no trouble there.
Apple could offer an emulator like they did with Rosetta for transitioning from PPC to Intel. But I don't think that's even necessary this time around.
Hmmm... I'm realizing right now that the iMac might be the first and only new Intel Mac that I ever buy (the MBA and MacMini each came from family members who weren't using them anymore.)
ARM's potential power isn't the main issue, if it ever matches or outperforms x86 - losing the ability to run Windows or Linux apps without emulation however would be a huge loss.
The problem is that at the time the core 2 duo was released, it blew away most G4/G5 cpus so it had spare processing power to emulate the powerpc cpus at almost native speed (not all operations, but most). OTOH you have an inferior ARM chip trying to emulate a much more powerful cpu. For me, I edit 4K video and 36MP DSLR RAW files on the road and the last thing I need is a slower computer. The rMBP has needed skylake cpu's and 16nm GPU's since yesterday... (at least for what I use my laptop for - IT'S NOT FACEBOOK!)
Exactly.
Not to say that the iPad hardware is slow these days, it's pretty amazing for what it is. But it simply is not general purpose.
Exactly. For most people, CPU power in any computer on sale is PLENTY.
ARM is powerful enough for a computer, in fact it started out in a computer, the Acorn Archimedes.
The fact is, it doesn't run the software intel does. That may not be important to some people, but the ability to run Windows, either via bootcamp, VMware or whatever IS important to a large percentage of Mac users. Even if we do not make use of it on a regular basis, it's a second option for software that goes away as soon as you switch to ARM.
Additionally, ARM has nothing to compete with Xeon at the top end.
edit:
the Archimedes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Archimedes
I had an A4000 back in the day briefly.
Wow, lots of comments on this topic.
As we get into the physical limitations, it makes sense that progress will slow down a bit, but that also Intel would milk its cycles as much as possible.
Other have stated, that raw computational power isn't the top demand these days (big servers can have a lot of parallel processing in place if needed), but the balance on power consumption and all the other features is more important.
ARM is not going to be in this desktop business any time soon, and I think Apple learned a lesson about is computers being on the same CPU architecture as "mainstream" systems.
We don't want that whole RISC/CISC fiasco again.
As we get into the physical limitations, it makes sense that progress will slow down a bit, but that also Intel would milk its cycles as much as possible.
Other have stated, that raw computational power isn't the top demand these days (big servers can have a lot of parallel processing in place if needed), but the balance on power consumption and all the other features is more important.
ARM is not going to be in this desktop business any time soon, and I think Apple learned a lesson about is computers being on the same CPU architecture as "mainstream" systems.
We don't want that whole RISC/CISC fiasco again.
No it isn't a starter - we have been down this road before. Small segments my ass. How many years did the transition from PowerPC to Intel take - Here's a hint, it wasn't 1 or 2 years - It took from 6 to 7 years to make the transition.
The question would be Would you purchase the next Apple computer if you had to repurchase every single piece of software you own? Would you purchase the next Apple computer if every new piece of software was a version 1.0?
How many software houses would rewrite their software for ARM? Some of us were around for the transition from the PowerPC to Intel switch. It would not only be dreadfully expensive, it would also be very risky.
It would be easier to move to a PC than to move to an ARM mac.
IIRC, Broadwell-EP promises 22 cores (44 threads) per chip-- which is amazing, if your applications can actually take advantage of this.
TSMC is free to drop their margins to entice Apple as well. I expect the margin difference to remain. Intel's presence in the Mac might be a motivator for you, but I think it would be a mistake to presume you're representative of the general Mac buying public.
The 28w CPU's suitable for the 13" MBP were released in February and VAIO were the first to use them in their new ultrabooks. The 15W CPU's suitable for the MBA were released last September/October!
Apple's bitcode, though currently only used for iOS/tvOS/watchOS could be used with Mac OS as well, allowing properly written code to be deployed across different CPUs. The final compilation of the code into the appropriate machine architecture would be done in the App Store. It seems to me that Apple is heading towards architecture independent app development, and ARM based Macs become easier to imagine as a result.
I was the same, I used to run Parallels a large amount of time for various softwares, however now I have found alternatives and a couple I run in WINE. Last time I ran Parallels was 6-8 months ago.
I also did not say the whole product line, but a line of MacBook Airs for people who need a bit more than an iPad, but not a full Mac. Though with the sped/graphics improvements that Apple has been making, they will not be any sower in another generation or two, but the battery life will be much better.
I always thought the tick-tock strategy was too ambitious. It was a classic business-type idea, against the advise of the engineering realities. While it may have started out well, later Intel shot themselves in the foot by setting the expectation in consumers that they should expect a major leap forward in CPU technology every 2 years, followed by the inevitable disappointment.
No doubt that a larrrge majority of people only need ultra-basic computing needs. I agree with you there. Heck, my brother doesn't even have a computer, he just uses his phone for everything. However there are a whole lot of people out there that need functionality greater than what iOS provides, even if they aren't MacRumor forum lurkers like us
Interestingly, I know a couple of people that bought iPads and now never use them. They went back to their laptops full time.Now where is your paycheck
One day!
[doublepost=1460492186][/doublepost]
How is it? That laptop looks killer. Almost bought one for my father, matter of fact.
I never thought I would say this given my last experiences with Windows (XP until Vista then I switch to Mac), but this laptop is AWESOME. Premium build, Windows 10 is stable (haven't seen a blue screen or system hang up yet) and familiar due to my XP days.
I'm coming from a 2012 iMac and wanted more portability; and since the iMac was just laptop parts anyway...
Feels fast with i7 Skylake, 512GB M.2 SSD, 16GB DDR5 faster RAM, and a killer GPU (however, I'm still playing Diablo 3/Starcraft 2 trilogy, lol). All for $1,928 at the Microsoft Store w 2-year Microsoft Laptop Care. The comparable rMBP with Applecare would cost me $2,848! Sorry Apple, I can't justify the $928 premium on a 2015 machine with a 2013 CPU and slower internals.
Since the new 21.5" iMacs no longer come with dedicated GPU's and rMBP hasn't been updated in close to a year, I had to move to the Dell. Since this is Dell's bread and butter, I'll know they'll keep up with the latest tech (even if I only buy every 3-4 years). The reviews aren't lying when they said this is the laptop to beat.
I'll stick with Apple for iPhones/iPads since that's all they seem to care about these days. But the Samsung Note 5/Galaxy S7 is really nice...
This might be Intel's plan for the CPU portion of their processors, but I think you can be assured they will still release updates mid cycle of these, that may include improvements to other chips like those with built in GPU's, memory controller, etc.. Also, these changes might just make Apple less behind on products they only update every couple years anyways. I only update my desktops about every 7 years, and my laptops usually around 5 or so. These changes are not a big deal.
While I find ARM Mac's an interesting concept, I'm not sure Apple is wanting to spend heavy R&D to improve markets that re often seen as shrinking (desktop/laptop) I see ARM replacing a low end Mac Mini or a low end MacBook but not the Mac Pro or MacBook Pro. just my thoughts though. But if they split the line up like that it could create product confusion with customers. Not to mention most mac users I know either use boot camp or parallals or Fusion to run Windows and/or Linux, legacy Mac OS versions, etc...
While I find ARM Mac's an interesting concept, I'm not sure Apple is wanting to spend heavy R&D to improve markets that re often seen as shrinking (desktop/laptop) I see ARM replacing a low end Mac Mini or a low end MacBook but not the Mac Pro or MacBook Pro. just my thoughts though. But if they split the line up like that it could create product confusion with customers. Not to mention most mac users I know either use boot camp or parallals or Fusion to run Windows and/or Linux, legacy Mac OS versions, etc...
Apple isn't going to stand by and allow this for long. They had always wanted to control as much of the computer as possible. The main reason for going with PowerPC over Intel years ago was they could control the processor cycle and not be "just another Intel machine". They switched to Intel because PowerPC stagnated and could not keep up with Intel advances. We are seeing now that Intel is not able to keep up with the type of mobility and power efficiency (and power) that Apple requires. So I do believe they will do it again. This time, they will move to their own chips and completely control the platform outside of manufacturing.
The A9X is faster than my Macbook Pro Retina 13" (Late 2013). Sure that's a 2.5 year old machine. But the fact is that it's still a decent machine. If Apple keeps on trajectory with performance enhancements and can squeeze another 50% into A10X, then I don't see an issue moving to that as a platform for OS X, especially with the insane graphics performance its already showing. The iPad Pro is a beast in a box that is NOT being used to its potential. I think the plan is Apple has some upcoming software (always Apple's strong point) that will take things to the next level. Perhaps the ability to compile iOS apps to a Mac running on an A10X processor.
The A9X is faster than my Macbook Pro Retina 13" (Late 2013). Sure that's a 2.5 year old machine. But the fact is that it's still a decent machine. If Apple keeps on trajectory with performance enhancements and can squeeze another 50% into A10X, then I don't see an issue moving to that as a platform for OS X, especially with the insane graphics performance its already showing. The iPad Pro is a beast in a box that is NOT being used to its potential. I think the plan is Apple has some upcoming software (always Apple's strong point) that will take things to the next level. Perhaps the ability to compile iOS apps to a Mac running on an A10X processor.
When you see a Mac story on the FP but it's just a technology brief
It's a slow day, not enough Watch news.
Thanks, good info to know and it does seem like they are doing what's possible to become agnostic so if the need arises, it's more of a when question than how.
[doublepost=1460496771][/doublepost]
If Apple makes the "switch" a simple recompile via Xcode, it would be even easier than when the development tool of choice was CodeWarrior. Apple may have been dying but there were a LOT of applications for Motorola processors. It wasn't as easy a decision as you make it sound.
Maybe for how fast it 'turns on', but I have the iPP 12.9 and a 2013 rMBP 13, no way in heck does the iPP keep up in power user apps. Besides, the iOS Lightroom is seriously gimped compared to the OSX version.
If you look for some of the old Keynotes, that's exactly how it worked. For all those developers who had used Xcode for their development, there was a button in the interface for PowerPC or Intel or both. A big deal was made of the fact that application developers were able to get a working version almost immediately and then just spend time tweaking some of the areas that didn't turn out as efficient as they would like.