You have it backwards. The purpose of ARM is to accelerate Mac adoption and market share.
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 With Apple-Designed Arm Processor Coming in First Half of 2021
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You have it backwards. The purpose of ARM is to accelerate Mac adoption and market share.
You're believing their advertising. If you actually ran the numbers, it took them about two generations for hardware assisted virtualization to get a performance boost. Even today, you need features like SLAT to gain over software, which by the way, is supported since ARMv7.
You have a weird obsession with virtualization, not realizing that ARM already implemented this in every smartphone today for security and DRM purposes. And again, one of the iPhones, in the 4 era I believe, ran under a hypervisor to fix a security issue.
I agree that this problem is overstated by some - but it can be understated as well.
Apple added 64 bit app support in OS X Leopard in 2007 - so there will be 64-bit apps out there that are 10+ years old. Even where "porting" then would be as simple as checking the ARM box on XCode and hitting "build" that assumes that the developer is still in business and willing to support 10 year-old apps.
Of course, if you have the source code that's potentially different.
...and, ultimately, only the developers involved can tell you if there are any x86 dependencies in (say) MS Office or Pro Tools, or the myriad of Logic Pro plug-ins and - if there are - how much re-writing would be needed. (However, if there's too many, that does sound like carelessness, and getting software using standard frameworks is a Good Thing anyway...)
To be fair, if you are running a 10-year-old app, it's just as likely that it will stop working in 2020's MacOS Port of Oakland for reasons other than ARM. Apple has been on a tear shedding old SDKs, requiring new entitlements, etc., and backward compatibility has never been a huge Mac OS hallmark.
Intel can sue at any moment, they just choose to stay put so far.
See cases here
Intel issues stern warning against x86 on ARM
Updated: Microsoft and Qualcomm chastened by four decades of product cyclesFor nearly forty years, Intel has enjoyed a PC market dominated by its x86 intellectual property and has enjoyed near unanimous enforcement as it chooses. When competitors like Microsoft and Snapdragon begin to show plans...
Intel Settles With NVIDIA: More Money, Fewer Problems, No x86
Intel Threatens Microsoft And Qualcomm Over x86 Emulation
Intel recently made an unprecedented public challenge to Microsoft and Qualcomm that basically told the latter two companies: if you ship an x86 instruction set architecture (ISA) emulator, we’re coming after you. But does Intel actually have a case? Let's take a deeper look.
www.forbes.com
Intel Quietly Threatens Microsoft, Qualcomm Over x86 Emulation - ExtremeTech
Intel isn't taking news of Qualcomm and Microsoft's intent to emulate x86 lying down. The CPU manufacturer has made it clear that it intends to take legal action to stop unauthorized emulation practices.
www.extremetech.com
Exactly, it will be ridiculous to completely dump x86 for the Pro Series.
You have literally no clue what you're talking about. I literally run a macOS Sierra VM on Catalina, with 32bit apps in it.
You have no clue what I use a computer for, but somehow you think that an architecture translation layer inside a virtual machine is "good enough". Whatever you're smoking, I'd cut back.
If they did, history says it will be supported for a very short time - which doesn't solve the issue for anyone who needs/wants to run x86 software on an ongoing basis.
.... What "advertising"?
I literally use it every day for my job. I'm not sure how using a technology feature is a 'weird obsession'?
I wasn't particularly aware of the ARM hardware support no - but that's kind of pointless, because as I said: running an ARM virtual machine with hardware acceleration doesn't really help at all, if what you want to do is run an x86 VM, does it?
Actually, most laptops and desktops likely already have more ARM processors in them than x86.
Rosetta started with Mac OS X Tiger 10.4
And was removed in Mac OS X Lion 10.7.
That's not a very short time. And during snow leopard I hardly use any PPC app anymore.
You already using a VM to run your apps. If the app developer still supporting the app they will definitely want get out of that situation as software need customer to get them money. Catalina is already pushing them to move forward. And you do not have to throw away your current computer. You can keep it during the transitioning time just like how everyone keep using their G4 in 2007.
That's *apple's* main purpose. To sell more machines, because the machines will be better, they can make them in more form factors, and they will be more compatible with iOS.
[automerge]1582651968[/automerge]
Hell, there are typically ARM processors in the power bricks on these things.
Fascinating. Provided this is true, and happens on time, and we get a 10.16 later this fall as in line with past years, then 10.16 will be the first macOS version since 10.4 to go through a processor transition.
Again, you're missing the point - I have to assume deliberately.
At the time of Apple's transition to Intel, there was essentially no commonly used software that ran on PPC other than that which targeted Mac OS.
In the ~3 versions/5 years of macOS supporting Rosetta, it was reasonable to expect Mac app developers to rebuild their apps for Intel - there was certainly no expectation of new, ongoing development of PPC-only apps that would not be available for Intel at all.
In this scenario, that is not the case at all. Unless you're expecting the majority of the computing industry to drop x86 by the time Apple decides to drop a hypothetical "Rosetta 2.0"?
I think this is an excellent move on Apple's part. Going to Intel was a necessary evil back in 2005 and was a good decision at the time. If they want to really nail this launch, they need to bring back the Powerbook name. That marketing aspect alone would secure the transition back to an Apple-controlled architecture.
LOL. If every single person who even remembered that powerbooks were a thing were to buy the new machine, it would still be small potatoes for apple.
Intel and the hypervisor companies. Test showed that the original VT-x led to more overhead and lower performance than software-based virtualization, simply put it made it worse. It was found that it is not sufficient to merely trap privileged instructions, but you have to include the whole IO (VT-d) and memory (SLAT) architecture in it.
It's a perfect example x86's legacy tax. ARM was built with exception levels and people use it, thus they form a good base for virtualization. x86 has privilege rings, but for legacy reasons, DOS and Windows ignored most of it and AMD64 deleted what remained, so when virtualization became a thing they had to go back in and hack in more levels.
Last edited:
Oh, this answer wasn’t about “openness”. The OP was being told that Intel does things no other processor can do, and my answer was that any processor can do anything as long as you provide it the right instructions. The OP’s question was just at the CPU level, not what happens when a vendor tries to lock it down (and, with jailbreaking, even locking down doesn’t stay locked down forever).
I use one macOS VM, to run one macOS only App, specifically because the newer versions of this app don't support the self-hosted mode they supported formerly, because said app developer said "**** you" to those of us who bought a license to run it self-hosted.
My point about that wasn't that it's a huge use-case, it was that you have literally no ****ing idea what you're talking about claiming that an x86 VM can't help alleviate the 32bit issue for "legacy" Mac apps.
Somehow, you've still missed the point completely. 99% of my use for x86 VMs is not "legacy" software. I use a metric **** ton of VMs to run simulations of production x86 Linux environments, locally. This is not a rare thing for developers using Macs, and while some would get by with an ARM Linux VM, plenty wouldn't be able to.
"just keep using your old computer" isn't really a viable solution if Apple drops all x86 support.
It's true. I just drove through Santa Clara and saw a bunch of Intel lawyers hiding in a tree, waiting to pounce on any emulator makers who have the misfortune to pass under them on route 101 this morning.
You mean, the one released a decade and a half ago? And iteratively improved since then?
Totally agree with you. Bootcamp is part of Apple computers since 2005 (or so). Cannot be thrown in garbage. Its essential for many users out there.
Apple has millions of paying registered developers. As well as those developers being a huge fraction of their market share in laptops, it's also the big reason for their multi-billion dollar success in iOS devices and services. And developers need to install their code (or open source code) to debug it and test it.
So Apple can't lock down macOS.
[automerge]1582654322[/automerge]
Many does not equal a highly profitable fraction of Apple's laptop sales. Maybe a few percent, which they can make up for in revenue by pushing a few more in-app-purchase things.