Mac Update Cycle Faces Uncertainty as Intel Abandons Tick-Tock Strategy

[Unregistered 4U]

Maybe it's already been written here, but OSX can't go to ARM overnight.

OS X Apps/programs are complied to run only on Intel processors. X86, on OSX. Basically no current OS X program will run on an ARM based computer.

Xcode already compiles for ARM and Intel. It's not a stretch to say that Apple could solve that problem with a setting in Xcode that allows you to recompile your code to ARM. A few compatibility checks later, upload that to the App Store, no emulation needed.
[doublepost=1460447583][/doublepost]

When all of their software stops working, they will notice.

"All of their software" for very many means Safari, with the addition of possibly Mail. There's already ARM versions for those. Maybe for some, it's iWork or the former iLife apps, which already have ARM versions (UI can be tweaked). Those apps they bought from the App Store? Apple could tell developers that everyone using Xcode has to recompile with the ARM trigger enabled before they release their next update.That covers a huge swath of the current user base. Some will be left out, but unfortunately it's likely to primarily be those who know what x86-64 means.

 

[any-key]

Color me ignorant if I'm wrong here, but will this not help get Macs back on a regular update cycle? Streamlined development process = less delays from Intel = less Mac delays?

In theory yes. But Apple doesn't seem to care about Intel's release cycle anymore for Mac. Every other vendor has decent Skylake offers. Look at HP / Razer (that Razer Blade Stealth..) and others. Apple is surely working on "amazing new watch bands" instead..

And if Apple decides to put out Skylake MB(P) in June without decent GPU offerings then its old dusty stuff at release date anyway.

 

[Peace]

Maybe it's already been written here, but OSX can't go to ARM overnight.

OS X Apps/programs are complied to run only on Intel processors. X86, on OSX. Basically no current OS X program will run on an ARM based computer. Unless, there is an emulator and that slows the system way down. iOS apps are tested on OS X macs through a simulator which emulates an iOS device, via Xcode.

Yup thats what they said when Macs used PPC.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

OS X made the move just fine from Power PC to Intel and this can be done again even easier. I'm not surprised if they already have a working OS X for ARM, but just not released yet.

That was suggestion #2 in my post, of 3. Move the Mac from Intel to ARM.
[doublepost=1460459908][/doublepost]

And watch apple's share of the computer market go back to 5%.

Those of us who remember those days have no interest into returning to them.

They weren't The good ol' days, they were the dark ages.

Why would that happen? Windows 10 can run on ARM, so it's not like Apple would be ditching any compatibility with them.

 

[Steve121178]

So many misinformed comments in this thread. The move by Intel is actually a good one.

Process>Architecture>Optimization

Therefore, if you refresh your computer every 3 years or so, it makes sense to be on the Optimization schedule, or 'Kaby Lake' as it's called in this generation. It's so late in the day to release Skylake based machines, Apple could easily have released redesigned MacBooks a few months ago but they chose not to, presumably to tie in with the new GPU's by NVIDIA/AMD in June. Even so, they could still have released an updated 13" MBP & Skylake based 12" MacBook as they won't have a dGPU.

Of course the golden rule still applies - buy a new computer as and when you need to.
[doublepost=1460461425][/doublepost]

That was suggestion #2 in my post, of 3. Move the Mac from Intel to ARM.

Whatever for? The day that happens, the day many of us ditch Apple. Intel are so under-appreciated, it's ridiculous.

 

[bice]

There is no such thing as a regular update cycle. This bizarre expectation is due to a technological blip occurring during the last 1% of human civilization. Before that technology didn't change much from year to year, or even from decade to decade. Before the age of steam engines, people purchased pretty much the same tools and household goods as did their grandparents. That is possibly what the future will be like as well. People will expect to use some models of future-Mac and future-iPhone for 20+ years, just like washing machines and guitars.
...

Pretty sure that will never happen. Even if technology stopped moving, Apple will develop the operating system in a way that forces the user base to purchase new hardware every 3 years or so.

 

[recoil80]

Xcode already compiles for ARM and Intel. It's not a stretch to say that Apple could solve that problem with a setting in Xcode that allows you to recompile your code to ARM. A few compatibility checks later, upload that to the App Store, no emulation needed.

Xcode introduced bitcode a few months ago.
Now you can submit to the app store an intermediate representation of your binary, not compiled for a specific architecture.
There can still be problems when changing cpu architecture, but bitcode is a big step forward to support multiple architecture from the same project

 

[NT1440]

Pretty sure that will never happen. Even if technology stopped moving, Apple will develop the operating system in a way that forces the user base to purchase new hardware every 3 years or so.

That's funny, I had a 2009 MBP until 2015, worked great until some coke got spilled on it.

 

[jerwin]

Before the age of steam engines, people purchased pretty much the same tools and household goods as did their grandparents. That is possibly what the future will be like as well. People will expect to use some models of future-Mac and future-iPhone for 20+ years, just like washing machines and guitars.

No way!. You're forgetting about the singularity!

 

[StarlightSun]

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple begins to work on creating its own processors for the Mac. It would further strengthen their closed-system designs

But really, it could be a good thing. They would bring out more Mac models faster. Good for us (choice), good for them (dollars). They'd have some experience, with their AX chips, at least.

 

[Gawjuz]

Not surprising really. Intel have been floundering for years with ever shrinking performance improvements. Much more excited about the SSD technology they are working on

 

[bjet767]

Xcode already compiles for ARM and Intel. It's not a stretch to say that Apple could solve that problem with a setting in Xcode that allows you to recompile your code to ARM. A few compatibility checks later, upload that to the App Store, no emulation needed.

That's not the point.

Unlike the old Motorola CPU days (don't forget Apple was dying) now there is a massive and deep base of programs in OS X Intel and to switch it to ARM is huge. They have the same problem switching iOS to Intel, too many changes.

Apple is happy with what they are doing and the unique differences between OS X and iOS will remain with us well into the future. What will change is OS X hardware will get touch screens and quite possibly detachable keyboards to operate more like a pad device. But that won't happen for at least three years or greater. It takes that long for the product cycle to develop new stuff

 

[bananas]

I think the real reason for seemingly slow Mac updates is that Apple is planning to do a huge redesign to all Macs and Thunderbolt Displays. They are waiting for Thunderbolt 3 and Intel GPUs to reach a level where they can redesign the whole Mac lineup with even slimmer laptops and more powerful desktops, all with Thunderbolt 3.

I'm not worried of Intel not releasing faster, more energy efficient processors. Not yet. We will see 10 nanometer process quite soon and then in couple of years there will be 7nm node available, but how long will it take to get 5 nm process.

 

[Ethosik]

For most users, there are no real performance gains in x86_64 left; at this point the game is squeezing the same performance using less energy.

Realistically speaking, there isn't a lot of day-to-day difference between my 2009 i7 iMac and my wife's 2015 i7 retina iMac. The same can be said among all the retina mac pros that we have around the office; the speed differentials are pretty marginal.

Then why are people so big on slamming Apple for not having the latest processors? I agree with you, I do not notice much difference even with video encoding from my 2010 machine and my 2016 machine.

I really do not see what all the fuss is about. Is Skylake 200% better? I was going to get it for my 2016 build, but there were A LOT of heat issues reported. The way people act around here Skylake must be a 200% performance boost.

 

[Stella]

Why would that happen? Windows 10 can run on ARM, so it's not like Apple would be ditching any compatibility with them.

Applications have to be built to run on ARM. People own existing applications for x86, they won't work... not all applications will be built to run on ARM.

There are still compatibility issues.

ARM+ Windows 10 is not a magic bullet.

 

[bjet767]

The ARM version of the Surface was a marketing disaster. Why would anyone give up the full featured and full program availability of the Intel based surface for the ARM based one? Only a few did while the majority spent more for the Intel.

 

[Ethosik]

I'm in the market for a new computer right now, and MacBook Pros are off my list because the CPUs are so out of date.

Currently, I have a 2010 MacBook Pro, it was released shortly after Intel's Arrandale microarchitecture. I purchased it shortly after it was released, and It's lasted me for nearly 6 years now (would probably last longer if the discrete GPU hadn't died).

If I bought one of the current MacBook Pros I would be starting out nearly 2 years in the hole (I'm looking for a 13" - if I went 15" it'd be nearly3 years in the hole).

If you upgrade your computer every 2 years it's not a big deal, but for those of us who like to hold on to our computers for a long time, we would very much like Apple to stay current with Intel.

That still does not mean a thing. I had a 2009 Macbook Pro and used to do video rendering on it all the time. My 2013 rMBP did not have any performance gains while rendering video.

I recently built a new PC. I do not notice any difference AT ALL between that and my 2010 Mac Pro. A two or three year old processor these days does not matter at all. A 6 or 7 year old processor these days makes LITTLE difference.

 

[manu chao]

Xcode already compiles for ARM and Intel. It's not a stretch to say that Apple could solve that problem with a setting in Xcode that allows you to recompile your code to ARM. A few compatibility checks later, upload that to the App Store, no emulation needed.

Is that how the transition from PowerPC to Intel worked? A few compatibility checks and everybody's apps had Intel versions?
[doublepost=1460467226][/doublepost]

The ARM version of the Surface was a marketing disaster. Why would anyone give up the full featured and full program availability of the Intel based surface for the ARM based one? Only a few did while the majority spent more for the Intel.

Because the grass is always greener on the other side. And because many people are so sure that they know how to solve a problem.
[doublepost=1460467552][/doublepost]

It's so late in the day to release Skylake based machines, Apple could easily have released redesigned MacBooks a few months ago but they chose not to, presumably to tie in with the new GPU's by NVIDIA/AMD in June. Even so, they could still have released an updated 13" MBP & Skylake based 12" MacBook as they won't have a dGPU.

No, they could not have. The CPUs going into the 13" MBP and the MBAs aren't available in Skylake versions yet (the one going into the MacBook One are though, as the ones going into the 15" MBP).
[doublepost=1460467671][/doublepost]

In theory yes. But Apple doesn't seem to care about Intel's release cycle anymore for Mac. Every other vendor has decent Skylake offers. Look at HP / Razer (that Razer Blade Stealth..) and others. Apple is surely working on "amazing new watch bands" instead..

And if Apple decides to put out Skylake MB(P) in June without decent GPU offerings then its old dusty stuff at release date anyway.

Apple also tends to release 13" and 15" MBPs together, in particular if there is a case redesign. Other manufacturers don't care about such clean release cycles and product lines.

 

[Tech198]

no one cares about "how" it's made... We just want it "Now" Ah... The life of the internet

 

[throAU]

The fact is most software is not even written to harness the power of these multi-core CPUs.

That's total BS, as anyone with a quad core or more and activity monitor can easily confirm. Run ableton, iMovie, handbrake, or any of a myriad of other applications.

Fact is, people do not run a single task, and a lot of the high processing power requirement software is easily threadable - rendering, audio, video, compression, encryption, etc.

 

[Razeus]

Let me know how that works for you as my last Dell XPS's hinges broke right after a year or so. Meanwhile, my 2012 rMBP hinges are just as good as new. I just can't get myself to spend $3000 on a so called '2015 rMBP' that has a 2013 CPU and a 2012 dGPU!

Stop buying the cheapest Dells. LOL.

With full warranty and 2 year backing from, I'm not at all worried. the Dell XPS is the best laptop in existence. My rMBP is 2nd as it seemingly chokes on 2016 RAW files. My XPS 15 sings.

 

[adib]

That's funny, I had a 2009 MBP until 2015, worked great until some coke got spilled on it.

Would be nice if Macbooks become coke and coffee resistant.

 

[smetvid]

Considering my 2012 iMac can still hold its own when comparing CPU performance I think processor advancements have been pretty stagnant for a long time now. Glad to see the industry finally admit this. Apple will have to go back to innovating their products in other ways like they did with the new Mac Pro.

Who knows maybe now AMD will catch up to Intel again.

 

[NT1440]

Would be nice if Macbooks become coke and coffee resistant.

But then we'd have forums blowing up at how sealed the MacBooks are. You can't win with these people....

 

[jerwin]

Also, we happen to do more with our laptops/desktops than just calculate SHA hashes all day.

That's the thing. The A9X isn't intended to calculate SHA1 hashes all day. The A9X is intended to wake up, calculate a SHA1 hash (used for SSL, iirc) really quickly, and then get back to what it does best-- napping. The result is a computer platform that's good for browsing facebook (without too much perceptible lag), for many hours on end.

This is not what you want in an iMac. This is not what you want in a Mac Pro. And it may not even be what you want in a Macbook Pro. If you look around, you'll probably find lots of critics deriding the retina MacBook as "the slow mac".

And suddenly, just because an iPad Pro turns out to beat 'the slow mac" on a methodologically suspect benchmark, people are ready to dump Intel? Why-- because ARM appears to be "catching up?"