Totally agreed.. I have a 2019 27" iMac and had a 2018 11" iPad Pro. I was really happy with the iPad Pro performance, and sold it in anticipation of buying an ARM MacBook (Air/Pro/etc). Will probably end up selling the iMac as well.
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.
Should I Buy an Intel Mac Today or Wait to Buy an Arm-Based Mac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Totally agreed.. I have a 2019 27" iMac and had a 2018 11" iPad Pro. I was really happy with the iPad Pro performance, and sold it in anticipation of buying an ARM MacBook (Air/Pro/etc). Will probably end up selling the iMac as well.
This is my take.
I have owned 2 MacPros and a combination of a couple of MacBook Pros and Airs.
Currently I own or have in my house MacBook Air, 13" MacBook Pro, 15" MacBook Pro, MacPro (old one) and a 2013 MacPro.
If I can't run a native version of a Linux VM, I can't buy the machine.
I have software that runs on Linux and there is little possibility these companies will ever port to ARM unless ARM gets widely accepted in the chip development market when companies like Mentor Graphics, Synopsys and Cadence are king.
I'll hang on to what I have or I'll have to buy before the switch. That will be my last Mac.
Also for some reason people think Apple will drop their prices when they switch.
They are not going to pass any savings to us. Get real. Higher margins for shareholders.
Really wish the first one is an entry level model (iBook) instead of a high end (Powerbook / MBP)
I recently took delivery of a Mac Pro (ordered before WWDC but delivered after) and while I could have cancelled the order, I didn't:
I did consider cancelling it but then common sense took over: I needed a new desktop machine as my old one was on its last legs and as I use it to earn my living, it will pay for itself over the next 3 years (during which time MacOS will be fully supported on it). Also, as I need to run Windows VMs, Intel chips are more useful to me for the next few years than Arm would be
The big difference will probably be that instead of selling it after that time, I'll re-purpose it as a Linux or Windows machine (I don't expect the resale value to be anywhere near where it would have been).
My view is if you use your computers to earn a living and you need a new one, then the obvious answer is get one now.
If you don't and can wait, then it makes more sense to wait and see what happens later in the year
I did consider cancelling it but then common sense took over: I needed a new desktop machine as my old one was on its last legs and as I use it to earn my living, it will pay for itself over the next 3 years (during which time MacOS will be fully supported on it). Also, as I need to run Windows VMs, Intel chips are more useful to me for the next few years than Arm would be
The big difference will probably be that instead of selling it after that time, I'll re-purpose it as a Linux or Windows machine (I don't expect the resale value to be anywhere near where it would have been).
My view is if you use your computers to earn a living and you need a new one, then the obvious answer is get one now.
If you don't and can wait, then it makes more sense to wait and see what happens later in the year
They already did.
This article is wrong about Windows ARM license. There's no special license for Windows 10 arm64 version, just like there's no special license for Windows 10 x86 version or x64 version.
arm64 is equals to x86/x64 versions. It does not need a special license. You can activate your Windows 10 on a arm64 machine using same key you brought for Pro or Home editions.
Performance and features wise Apple ARM Macs will be at par or better than equivelent Intel based Macs. Otherwise Apple would not have taken this historical step.
I could be wrong, but, I can't imagine Apple silicon replacing a 28 core Xeon for the new Mac Pro or the full blown 27" iMac Pro....but who knows. I have read that very high end graphics/video apps work better in the CISC world as opposed to the RISC world. am I wrong ?
I just bought a i5/8/512 MBA 9,1. I love it, I was ready to buy a new Mac the second the KB didn't suck. I will be fine with this machine until ARM is ready.
A common refrain in this thread is that "first gen. Apple products suck". But looking back at their releases over the last decade, does the history of these product support that belief? Sure, Butterfly Keyboards were a miss. But:
- Apple Watch Gen 1 (2015) was great! Was Gen 2 better? Sure, but it was an incremental improvement vs. a redesign.
- Same with Apple Pencil (2015)
- Same with Airpods (2016)
- Magic Trackpad (2010), amazing product! I still use mine today. Was Trackpad 2 five years later better? Absolutely! That's how product cycles work...
- Magic Mouse (2009)
- iPad (2009)
- You basically have to go back to the OG Apple TV (2007) to find a true first gen. flop outside of the Butterfly Keyboard.
- Sure, the OG iPhone (2007) was 2G, and didn't have an app store, but gained that with software in 2008.
The most applicable product to look at is the first generation of Intel Macbooks. The first gen. Intel Macbook (not pro) was my very first Mac, and I had no problems with it in 2006. "Supporting Windows" was the feature that got me to switch, but I (personally) realized I didn't need Windows and 99% of what I needed was available in the Mac ecosystem.
I'm not saying that this transition may not have its problems, but it feels a little unfair to call all first gen. Apple products skippable... Especially when it's not as if these Macs are true "first gen." products. Apple has been making desktops since 1979, and laptops since 1989/1991...
Tons of software only runs on windows. Not just games, but business applications (e.g. Visio, Excel - full featured, and custom-in house apps), as well as CAD and 3D software like AutoCad and Solidworks
They will support Windows ARM anyway.
Just like how they start to support Intel CPU back in 90s.
You take Intel support as a grant but I didn't. Pro software was usually Power/Alpha/SPARC exclusive until very end of 90s.
I’m waiting.
Want to see first hand how quick and how good my apps would be migrated to the new architecture.
I’m always one other laptop away of running Windows.
And for the upcoming few next years, I can always build myself a Hackintosh if I somehow need to run anything on an Intel Mac.
Want to see first hand how quick and how good my apps would be migrated to the new architecture.
I’m always one other laptop away of running Windows.
And for the upcoming few next years, I can always build myself a Hackintosh if I somehow need to run anything on an Intel Mac.
None of that software currently runs on Windows ARM - it's all Wintel only. The mac wasn't a big enough platform for them to bother porting when they didn't have a CPU shift to worry about...no way in hell they're going to port now.
They've never suggested they were abandoning Parallels, just bootcamp. Parallels can emulate an environment, I'm sure they'll cook something up. The virtualization world is alive and kicking, I can't imagine them just tossing in the towel.
The questions are...how badly do you need a new machine and how long do you plan on keeping it? If you upgrade every few years, buy an Intel Mac today. If you keep your machine for more than three or four years and you can hang on for another year with your current machine, I'd let the dust settle.
My concern isn't how long Apple will support Intel, but how many future major OS releases Intel owners can expect to receive. "Support" does not equal new OS versions. I had planned to upgrade my MacBook Pro, but now plan to hold off and see how things play out over the coming year. I usually buy the top of the line model and keep it, so I'm still using a 2013 MBP.
The fact that my 7 year old Mac still meets my needs, more or less, and will receive the Big Sur upgrade is pretty amazing. Will someone who buys an Intel Mac today receive the latest major OS release 7 years from now? I'm doubtful.
My concern isn't how long Apple will support Intel, but how many future major OS releases Intel owners can expect to receive. "Support" does not equal new OS versions. I had planned to upgrade my MacBook Pro, but now plan to hold off and see how things play out over the coming year. I usually buy the top of the line model and keep it, so I'm still using a 2013 MBP.
The fact that my 7 year old Mac still meets my needs, more or less, and will receive the Big Sur upgrade is pretty amazing. Will someone who buys an Intel Mac today receive the latest major OS release 7 years from now? I'm doubtful.
Why would a company that went out of business a decade ago port their software to ARM?
Their decision to port it to Mac or not is not related to CPU arch.
CPU shift is nothing to worry about when you running the same OS. So they will port it to ARM windows and your problem is gone.
Just try port a single window demo app from Windows x64 to Mac x64 and check how much effort you need to do even they have same CPU.
And just change target in VS2019 to see how easy it is to run your demo app on Windows arm64.
Most people do not know that porting a software cross OS is much harder than cross CPU.
[automerge]1594325804[/automerge]
Same question: why would a company that went out of business a decade age port their software to x86? (question asked in 1999)
They don't. And people find replacement for their software. Vendor earns money and you get better support moving on.
LOL. No, they don't. People who rely on these software packages don't upgrade their hardware if it doesn't support their applications. And they sure as heck don't change software packages.
And it was always windows software. I have applications still running in wine that were built for Win3.1
Hardware-wise, the Apple-Silicon Macs will have better performance and battery life than their Intel-based counterpart out of the gate. I mean - if they don't, why release them and expect people to buy them?
But the key to realizing all that performance is to have software native to the platform. All Apple software will be native at launch and run very well. Additionally, iPhone and iPad apps should run fine. (Touchscreens anyone?)
So, if you rely mostly on Apple software and iPhone/iPad apps, it's probably safe to get an Apple Silicon Mac at launch.
But if you also use some software on the Mac that doesn't come from Apple, you're relying on how rapidly developers port their apps over to Apple Silicon. Rosetta 2 will allow you to run those apps in the meantime but note that you'll take a performance hit (how much - TBD) and you might not see any benefit over the same app running on Intel (where it is native.)
If you rely upon or use a lot of these third-party apps, you may want to hold on to what you have, or buy the last, best Intel-based Mac, and jump over to Apple Silicon when you see your favorite apps ported over. If you use only a few of these apps and/or Rosetta emulation performance is acceptable, then Apple Silicon could still be acceptable.
But, if you use or rely upon non-Mac software (Windows under Bootcamp or Parallels/VMWare, etc, or Linux), you know the answer - you have your machine or buy an Intel-based Mac now. (Don't expect or anticipate Microsoft to port Windows over, because you will also have to see if Windows developers port their software over to ARM Windows as well, as emulation performance will stink.)
In short - make your decision on your software needs, not hardware.
But the key to realizing all that performance is to have software native to the platform. All Apple software will be native at launch and run very well. Additionally, iPhone and iPad apps should run fine. (Touchscreens anyone?)
So, if you rely mostly on Apple software and iPhone/iPad apps, it's probably safe to get an Apple Silicon Mac at launch.
But if you also use some software on the Mac that doesn't come from Apple, you're relying on how rapidly developers port their apps over to Apple Silicon. Rosetta 2 will allow you to run those apps in the meantime but note that you'll take a performance hit (how much - TBD) and you might not see any benefit over the same app running on Intel (where it is native.)
If you rely upon or use a lot of these third-party apps, you may want to hold on to what you have, or buy the last, best Intel-based Mac, and jump over to Apple Silicon when you see your favorite apps ported over. If you use only a few of these apps and/or Rosetta emulation performance is acceptable, then Apple Silicon could still be acceptable.
But, if you use or rely upon non-Mac software (Windows under Bootcamp or Parallels/VMWare, etc, or Linux), you know the answer - you have your machine or buy an Intel-based Mac now. (Don't expect or anticipate Microsoft to port Windows over, because you will also have to see if Windows developers port their software over to ARM Windows as well, as emulation performance will stink.)
In short - make your decision on your software needs, not hardware.
We are talking about using Windows arm in VM. And it does emulation for old x86 software so your 3.1 for workgroup app should still works.
And the change of internet make software support much more important than software itself. If a software lose its support then it's already dead.
That's why those one time purchase (usually priced millions of dollars per license) pro software company went out of business.
People asking for support and they do not have that flexibility to change their software.
If their software are perfect and everybody likes them then why they went out of business?
That machine was a dream! However, I did have the screen changed a couple of times due to the coating on the screen being inconsistent. I agree with the rest of your comment about jumping in. I’ve sold my 2017 in waiting as I have a 2015 Air from work; but it’s really on the limit of my use. I’m struggling not pulling the trigger on a Mini to tie me over!!
Parallels and Fusion virtualize environments - they don't emulate them. Both just expose the underlying CPU to the guest OS. So yes, I expect both to work for ARM based OS guests, but getting them to emulate x86/64 would basically mean implementing Rosetta themselves (since apple explicitly says that Rosetta won't work for hypervisors).
My biggest concern is software compatibility. I run a slew of non-Apple products on my iMac and want to continue to do so on Day 1 the ARM iMac comes out. I don't want to wait 3-9 months for my app creators to have to recompile code and/or fix bugs. Some of my apps are: MS Office, Firefox, Chrome, BOINC (I refuse to buy a machine that cannot run BOINC), a bunch of freeware/shareware utilities, and other items. Obviously software vendors work with chip manufacturers to make sure their software runs on Launch Day, but it's not always achieved.
If Apple promises 100% Intel compatibility without vendors having to recompile code, terrific. If not, I'll buy ARM when my apps have been updated to run on ARM.
My only other concern is Apple's broad claims of ARM running spectacularly faster. I would likely have to wait until some benchmarks come out (after release) to see if it's worth upgrading from my late 2017 iMac or wait until the 2nd release of the ARM iMac in 2021 or 2022. It sounds far away for the 2nd release but it's not that bad.
I wonder if I have to supply my own power cord.
If Apple promises 100% Intel compatibility without vendors having to recompile code, terrific. If not, I'll buy ARM when my apps have been updated to run on ARM.
My only other concern is Apple's broad claims of ARM running spectacularly faster. I would likely have to wait until some benchmarks come out (after release) to see if it's worth upgrading from my late 2017 iMac or wait until the 2nd release of the ARM iMac in 2021 or 2022. It sounds far away for the 2nd release but it's not that bad.
I wonder if I have to supply my own power cord.