One of the biggest is that everyone doing development is doing it with Xcode. Not having to worry about who is using what methods in a pletora of IDE’s has to remove a lot of the headaches.
1 year, actually. Jan 2006 to Dec 2006.
I think Bootcamp is there because it was easy. There’s little difference between an Intel Mac motherboard and any generic PC vendor’s Intel motherboard as Intel defines what the components are and how they should work. Provide drivers and, BAM Bootcamp.
ARM based systems have no overarching motherboard level support. Apple could design a motherboard in such a way that it runs macOS wonderfully, but is so foreign that you couldn’t expect that ARM apps for Windows would run on ARMac. Now, it COULD be that Apple and Microsoft are working together behind the scenes to design an ARM reference platform so that a Bootcamp would be just as easy as before. BUT, my thinking is, if Apple’s willing to break with Intel and Intel designed motherboards, they’re going to focus on “What would make the best macOS system”.
Large developers have been using Xcode for a long time already and were not affected. These same developers, having already prepared for Catalina are extremely well prepared for a 64 bit ONLY CPU now. Just recompile and tweak.
Not actually. It would be the same as expecting that an Android phone could be dual booted with iOS. Intel as the CPU also requires an Intel motherboard. So, any Intel based OS can pretty much run on any Intel system. ARM’s only involved at the CPU level, customers build the motherboards that meet their individual specifications.
This part is pretty interesting.
We expect that Apple's new products in 12-18 months will adopt processors made by 5nm process, including the new 2H20 5G iPhone, new 2H20 iPad equipped with mini LED, and new 1H21 Mac equipped with the own-design processor.
Apple has a processor that they design, so I think this does point to Apple’s ARM designed processor.
Since most people just click “OK” when setting up a new computer, Apple would have some system metrics from a swath of systems that report certain anonymized analytic data. They likey have a good idea out of the millions of Macs sold, how many has EVER been Bootcamp’d. They’d also have an idea from how many times the Bootcamp drivers have been downloaded from their site.
That short period was likely related to Minimum Viable Product. They shipped an MVP that did all the things an Intel Mac should be able to do, and they continued to work on additional features. Since the MB’s of Intel systems are broadly identical, they just needed to prepare the drivers and ship them. The same won’t be true of ARM systems.
The MacBook competitive? The same MacBook that has a tiny sliver of the entire laptop category? I think any idea of real “competitiveness” flew the coop when the iPad started outselling every laptop maker combined.
The iPad lacks a lot of those “broad capabilities” and still outsells.The first generation Intel-based Macintoshes were released in January 2006, the Xserve servers were available in December 2006. One year. They didn’t release an Intel only OS until 2009, but the transition to Intel was quicker than they initially reported, which was to begin by June 2006, and finish by the end of 2007.
I think it won’t be as easy as Intel Hackintoshes.
Adobe’s already producing production ready and shipping ARM code. I think, due to Apple getting everyone using Xcode and making huge advances with the compiler (plus cutting off all the Carbon stuff they were using as a crutch) will put Adobe in an excellent position.
If they want to run current Mac apps, they can keep their current Mac system. But woe be unto the person who needs legacy app support who sells their Intel system before buying a new ARMac.
Last edited:
