Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MLM

macrumors member
Original poster
Mar 23, 2006
42
17
Denmark
And just like that, Apple removed the Macbook Intel option, forcing millions of professionals to reconsider the Mac.

What a cluster****.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Axelle838

ebika

macrumors 6502a
Nov 17, 2008
840
791
Chicago
I don't doubt it. I'm in that situation where I don't know if I buy another MBP, or just get a nice linux device where I don't have to figure out all the limitations with running docker images, dealing with multi-image containers, and whatever edge cases they have with Rosetta 2 translation. That would apply to the hundreds of software engineers at my job too. Obviously it's going to vary with other software engineers that by and large use Macs (with .Net folks clearly not in this pool) because each tech stack is going to have specific needs. It just throws a wildcard into using MBPs as a professional tool, and shrinks that pretty, walled garden significantly.
 

dacama

macrumors newbie
Feb 26, 2018
5
11
why would you want to upgrade to intel?
It's less about upgrading to Intel or more about wanting an ecosystem that can do both MacOS and Windows programming. Having the ability as a developer to utilize one platform for both ( and really 3 if you include Linux) different operating systems is less achievable now with the Apple Silicon.
 

JamesTheMac

Cancelled
Mar 10, 2019
61
65
It's less about upgrading to Intel or more about wanting an ecosystem that can do both MacOS and Windows programming. Having the ability as a developer to utilize one platform for both ( and really 3 if you include Linux) different operating systems is less achievable now with the Apple Silicon.
Exactly.
It’s still very useful to have one machine that developers can use for MacOS, Windows, and Linux.
and of course users that have to still run Windows only software occasionally/as well.
 

Xenomorph

macrumors 65816
Aug 6, 2008
1,400
842
St. Louis
For me, my old Intel Mac only needed "Intel" because I would sometimes boot to Windows to run some stuff. If Microsoft makes their Windows 11 ARM ISO public, it's possible that a VM running Windows will take care of all of my needs.

For Mac "professionals", the ARM Macs run all the same Intel apps that Catalina and Big Sur runs, so what's the issue with giving up the Intel CPUs?
 

hasanahmad

macrumors 65816
May 20, 2009
1,429
1,573
It's less about upgrading to Intel or more about wanting an ecosystem that can do both MacOS and Windows programming. Having the ability as a developer to utilize one platform for both ( and really 3 if you include Linux) different operating systems is less achievable now with the Apple Silicon.
You can use parallels now . Regardless windows 11 doesn’t support boot camp either so future is parallels
 

JamesTheMac

Cancelled
Mar 10, 2019
61
65
Parallels won't run i86/64 versions of Windows or Linux. So the new machines are not as versatile to the users that need access to those OS's for programming, or to run specific applications that are not available on any version of MacOS.

It's a pit of a pain, but not the cluster **** the OP claimed.

I'll continue having intel based Macs to run alongside my Apple Silicon device for the foreseeable future, but when the intel Mac needs replacing, I'll just get another high end intel device to run the i86 stuff, and Apple Silicon would have diverged so far from i86 performance, there will be no sadness in using high performance AS as my main OS.

But to those that say there is no point in intel Macs anymore, I'd say that there is a use case for them at the moment. - For those of us that still have to regularly work on i86 Windows and MacOS, and need the convenience of the one machine for travelling for example.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.