Should I Buy an Intel Mac Today or Wait to Buy an Arm-Based Mac?

[4jasontv]

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?

Because not all essential software is popular. Sometimes you need other people to have discontinued software working because it's in your best interest.

Because they had 100,000 potential customers and they all purchased it. And just because you could rip them off doesn't mean you should DayOne them.

 

[MallardDuck]

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.

They won't port it to Windows ARM because that's an even smaller target market than MacOS. It's never as simple as changing a compile target, especially for high-end complex applications like SolidWorks, or deeply optimized ones like modern games.

 

[reallynotnick]

2019 iPad Pro? There is a 2018 model with an A12X and a 2020 model with an A12Z

 

[ChrisBos]

I just replaced my 2015 rMBP 13 with the 2020 10th gen/4 Thunderbolt port model, and couldn't be happier.

I've now got a brand new, super powerful machine that handles everything I throw at it and can easily get me through the next 4-5 years, while avoiding the expected ARM transition headaches. Even if it misses out on some eventual features and capabilities, and/or comparatively more powerful ARM machines hit the market, this one can still do everything I need it to right here right now and I don't expect it would lose capabilities.

And when all is said and done, I'll either grab a well-established ARM MBP and flip this last generation device on the inevitable used Intel Mac market, or just grab an ARM iMac and keep this as a floater until it dies.

That all said, IMO, it's really just down to personal preference and needs. I did wait out all of the refreshes and announcements to get a lay of the land, and decided this was the best path for me personally.

 

[JayKay514]

The answer to the question here is: It depends.

If you need a basic computer to get stuff done with mainstream apps or the included apps, or run mostly web-based applications for work, etc, then your choice of processor doesn't really matter, as both ARM and Intel will handle those without breaking a sweat.

If you work in a field that relies on native applications, like CAD, 3D animation, audio-visual production, print production / graphic design - it will likely work OK via Rosetta but you won't have the fastest performance until all the applications are recompiled and optimized to take advantage of the platform. If that's OK and you want to be on the cutting edge, I would say take the risk.

If you really depend on your computer for revenue and speed / throughput is crucial, stay on Intel until the transition is complete. They'll be supported at least for 5-7 years at which point you'd be able to amortize the cost of replacement.

 

[TheralSadurns]

Judging by the PPC to Intel transition... I'd wait, unless I needed a new Mac NOW or NEEDED Windows.

Why?
Intel Macs were released half way through the Mac OS X Tiger (10.4) life-cycle. So when Tiger came out, only PPC Macs existed (to the public). When the first Intel Macs were released... they shipped with Tiger! Apple said the same thing "Great PPC Macs still in the pipeline... will support for YEARS!!!".
Then 10.5 Leopard dropped... aaaaaaaand it was the last OS to run on PPC. 10.6 Snow Leopard, already Intel Mac exclusive. If they repeated that... then in 3-4 years from now you'd get the last update. Sure... you'll still receive security updates... but that's about it.
Plus no native iOS/iPad OS Apps on your Mac. And no longer the chance to run the latest OS.

If you tend to upgrade your machine every 2-3 years... this won't matter like at all. But for the folks keeping their Macs for like 5-7 years or even longer... I'd wait.

 

[theotherphil]

I wish the editors at MacRumors would get it right. It's "ARM" not "Arm". The case matters.

The only time that it's been used as "Arm" was for "Arm Holdings", the company name, but the technology itself is still "ARM" because it's an acronym "Advanced RISC Machines".... A-R-M.

Let's get it right, or correct me if I'm missing something obvious?

Editing should matter because you are sending out this info to readers who then repeat what you write. So the correct way to write things starts with you.

You may have missed something....go have a look at Arm’s website.

 

[MikeZTM]

They won't port it to Windows ARM because that's an even smaller target market than MacOS. It's never as simple as changing a compile target, especially for high-end complex applications like SolidWorks, or deeply optimized ones like modern games.

Modern game runs on top of game engine. And changing CPU is just a checkbox away for them.
Most 3A use a engine that ether support Switch or Mobile so they all have this checkbox for many years.

Windows on ARM is not a small target if macOS could only run that version of Windows in VM.
If they do not /could not port their software to macOS then windows on arm is a good middle ground as it is super easy to do a cross compile and some QA work.

And as I said software did not started to support Intel magically back in 90s.
They have to support Intel because Intel is winning the end-user's choice for a computer.

ARM is just following Intel's old route.

 

[justperry]

I wish the editors at MacRumors would get it right. It's "ARM" not "Arm". The case matters.

The only time that it's been used as "Arm" was for "Arm Holdings", the company name, but the technology itself is still "ARM" because it's an acronym "Advanced RISC Machines".... A-R-M.

Let's get it right, or correct me if I'm missing something obvious?

Editing should matter because you are sending out this info to readers who then repeat what you write. So the correct way to write things starts with you.

Check out Arm's website, they use Arm and arm, on the homepage there's a picture right there in view with the name arm, all references in text says "Arm"

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Let's not forget the PPC transition was supposed to start June 2006 and finish at the end of 2007. Apple ended up starting earlier and finishing August 2006.

If the transition proceeds smoothly I can't imagine Intel macs being sold after 2021

macOS and x86 hardware were far less complex than they are today; and NeXTSTEP/Openstep was already native Intel before PowerPC.

In short, it took nearly four years to port and finish OS X from NeXTSTEP which went from Intel to PowerPC. The first fully usable version of OS X was 10.2 and that debuted in Aug 2002. That's an entire five plus year transition.

 

[ginuz]

I was about to buy some new machines for my studio.... I was waiting for the new iMac and I was planning to buy a Mac Pro. As my old Mac Pro is still performing good, and it's from 2013, I was looking forward a new machine for the next 7-8 years plus some faster changing iMacs... but now??? I feel it would be a waste of money buying a 15k machine that in two years will be out of production and with a shorter software's life. iMacs could be fine, they won't last 5 years as I need performance. But the Mac Pros stand fierce the time passing. So I am stucked... I will be waiting for the ARM Pros to come out. I imagine they will be the very last ones.

 

[garylapointe]

A common refrain in this thread is that "first gen. Apple products suck".

No, many people feel it's good to stay away from ANY first-gen products when you can,
especially with major redesigns. Some people feel that way about cars, TVs, anything.

Not that they ALWAYS suck.

It also lets you find out things like they messed up the keyboard by not rushing into it.

There is often a nice performance boost in the next refresh of a device (or better battery efficiency). They figured out some solutions and did the upgrade. Some are issues they didn't even know they were going to have and could correct them.

 

[MallardDuck]

Judging by the PPC to Intel transition... I'd wait, unless I needed a new Mac NOW or NEEDED Windows.

Why?
Intel Macs were released half way through the Mac OS X Tiger (10.4) life-cycle. So when Tiger came out, only PPC Macs existed (to the public). When the first Intel Macs were released... they shipped with Tiger! Apple said the same thing "Great PPC Macs still in the pipeline... will support for YEARS!!!".
Then 10.5 Leopard dropped... aaaaaaaand it was the last OS to run on PPC. 10.6 Snow Leopard, already Intel Mac exclusive. If they repeated that... then in 3-4 years from now you'd get the last update. Sure... you'll still receive security updates... but that's about it.
Plus no native iOS/iPad OS Apps on your Mac. And no longer the chance to run the latest OS.

If you tend to upgrade your machine every 2-3 years... this won't matter like at all. But for the folks keeping their Macs for like 5-7 years or even longer... I'd wait.

Remember though, that back then, OS releases were every 2-3 years. So it was still 5 years.
[automerge]1594328551[/automerge]

Modern game runs on top of game engine. And changing CPU is just a checkbox away for them.
Most 3A use a engine that ether support Switch or Mobile so they all have this checkbox for many years.

Windows on ARM is not a small target if macOS could only run that version of Windows in VM.
If they do not /could not port their software to macOS then windows on arm is a good middle ground as it is super easy to do a cross compile and some QA work.

And as I said software did not started to support Intel magically back in 90s.
They have to support Intel because Intel is winning the end-user's choice for a computer.

ARM is just following Intel's old route.

Assuming that the game engines run on Windows ARM, and assuming that the applications *only* use API calls, and don't use lower level access that's tightly bound to the CPU architecture. Like it or not, it's a WinTel world. The reason that mac came back from the grave was that the port to Intel allowed running windows on OSX, and allowed for much easier ports than a complete rearchitecture/rebuild of the code. Now that's being reversed.

 

[Gudi]

How Much Faster Will ‌Apple Silicon‌ Macs Be?

At least four times faster than my dual-core MBP.

 

[garylapointe]

• 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)

I had S0 and an S1 watch (thank you AppleCare!) and it was night and day between the two, the S1 had that extra boost that just got it over the tipping point of the previous model being too slow.

Incremental improvements are good. I wouldn't expect a redesign for the next model, if it was a big redesign, it's basically a new generation...

• You basically have to go back to the OG Apple TV (2007) to find a true first gen. flop outside of the Butterfly Keyboard.

The original AppleTV with a hard drive was awesome, I got the 40GB model and took it back the next day for the 160GB. I wish they'd come back out with an AppleTV 4k Pro that had a TB hard drive. It'll auto-download the next few shows of the series you're watching and keep the first 10 minutes of the last dozen movies you've purchased so they'll super quickstart (and make it easier to skip credits). Mark your kid's favorites and we'll keep them downloaded for you!

Have a 10Mbps connection and want to stream 4k movies? No problem, tell us the next few movies you want to watch and we'll download them in advance.

• Sure, the OG iPhone (2007) was 2G, and didn't have an app store, but gained that with software in 2008.

It didn't even have cut and paste! And no subsidies the first year, totally worth waiting for a new gen. (I think I waited for the 3Gs).

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...

Switching to a whole new architecture with different processors is definitely the first generation of that type.

Your first-generation MacBook wasn't problematic for you, but was it better than the last of the previous generation? (that's what current customers want to know and expect)

When Apple switched to the PowerPC chips, I started a new job (that hadn't existed), so I needed a new computer, the high-end PPC I got was early generation and was slower than my couple of year old lower end model that I had previously. Someone who just got a Mac for the first time wouldn't know that, but it doesn't change the fact that that's the way it was. (It was such a memory hog too!)

The new OS (for the new processor) got better over time, more apps got rewritten to take advantage of it. But had I waited a year, I'd have gotten the next speed boost, the OS was more rewritten (not as emulated) and more apps written to take advantage of the new architecture.

 

[Gudi]

Like it or not, it's a WinTel world.

Like it or not, it’s an AndriOS world running on ARM. WinTel lost all relevance in 2007.

 

[theotherphil]

Assuming that the game engines run on Windows ARM, and assuming that the applications *only* use API calls, and don't use lower level access that's tightly bound to the CPU architecture. Like it or not, it's a WinTel world. The reason that mac came back from the grave was that the port to Intel allowed running windows on OSX, and allowed for much easier ports than a complete rearchitecture/rebuild of the code. Now that's being reversed.

That‘s a lot of assumptions. Here’s what we know....Apple have specifically stated that they are producing a family of CPU’s that will have “incredible” performance. I highly doubt that they will be releasing anything less.

In the SOU video, Apple stated that what they are most excited about is their custom GPU’s and the new levels of performance. In the dev documentation, they specifically state ”don’t assume a dGPU will be faster”.

The migration to ARM mac’s doesn’t just effect the mac market, but adds incentive to also allow for the entire iOS line....an instant 1Bn+ devices that devs can support with literally a flick of a switch in Xcode. This is a whole lot bigger than just the Mac.

 

[garylapointe]

Judging by the PPC to Intel transition... I'd wait, unless I needed a new Mac NOW or NEEDED Windows.

Were you around for the transition to PPC? That seemed painful to me (and I had a higher-end machine), I think the apps and parts of the OS were emulated, and everything was a memory hog.

I can't remember the time of when I got the new Intel Mac though, I don't remember how new they still were at the time. I think I'd gotten one of the last PowerBook G4's so I might not have gotten an Intel until a few iterations later.

 

[Manzzle]

You can use Parallels to run Windows with the Apple Silicon.

Parallels confirmed this and even in the Apple keynote they showed Parallels running. So that should mean that there is hope that you can still run your windows computer the same way you run parallels now instead of boot camp.

Application and Desktop Delivery | Parallels RAS

Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) is a complete application delivery and VDI solution empowering the creation of digital workspaces! Read more.

www.parallels.com

 

[JamesTheo]

So by Cooked's quality standards, a 'no issues' MB with a functional keyboard and only 3 usable ports will be available by 2024 at probably $600 more than a current equivalent.

 

[Seoras]

Apple will likely start at the low end, the place where ARM shines with its low power needs, on laptops.
This won't be a 1 year transition, it'll be over multiple years working their way from the bottom to the top.
Mac Pro will be the last to see an ARM processor, certainly not the first.
With last years move to support only 64bit Intel paving the way for easier and cleaner dual processor support in MacOS.

 

[Nugget]

I wish the editors at MacRumors would get it right. It's "ARM" not "Arm".

You are incorrect:
* https://www.arm.com/company/policies/trademarks/arm-trademark-list/arm-trademark
* https://www.arm.com/company/policies/trademarks/guidelines-trademarks

 

[jlocker]

The Mac mini kit and OS 11 is like the car you are experimenting and building in your back yard. You are not going to be racing in a formula one race. You might take it out for a Sunday drive. It is going to take years before Apple obtains the processing power to match Intel or AMD for processor performance. So If you need a MacBook Air in 6 months to a year you should be good. But if you think that they are going to have the performance ready to compete with a high end MacBook Pro, iMac Pro or Mac Pro, you are going to be waiting for years. And Intel and AMD are going to be improving their processors along the way. Don't expect a hot rod roadster, think more like a chevy sedan, until Apple works through the growing pains of chip development.

 

[MikeZTM]

Remember though, that back then, OS releases were every 2-3 years. So it was still 5 years.
[automerge]1594328551[/automerge]


Assuming that the game engines run on Windows ARM, and assuming that the applications *only* use API calls, and don't use lower level access that's tightly bound to the CPU architecture. Like it or not, it's a WinTel world. The reason that mac came back from the grave was that the port to Intel allowed running windows on OSX, and allowed for much easier ports than a complete rearchitecture/rebuild of the code. Now that's being reversed.

Nobody use CPU bound code in games. People have works to do and they code the game not play with the code.

Like it or not, Wintel is the second large userbase today--Android ARM is the largest.

 

[djgamble]

TBH your article provided more concerns than benefits. TL;DR...

Benefits:
- They'll use less power because they are mobile phone CPUs that aren't as capable (yet).

Challenges:
- T2 style lockdown will take over everything, so there will be absolutely no way to repair these things or recover data.

(2005: Should I buy a new 64 bit dual core/quad core PowerMac G5 or wait to get an 32 bit Intel Mac?)
Remembering the sting from Apple abandoning us with OS X after making the right decision. Well at least they are still running as servers, got our monies worth.

Yeah Apple's always harsh like that. What I do these days (family + mortgage so less capacity to buy lotsa $$$ Apple gear) is hold then buy either 2nd hand or refurbished stuff.

It NEVER pays to get cutting edge Apple stuff... NEVER because they're just as likely to 'obsolete' it with the next revision and be like 'heh heh... yeah about that model... we're not gonna build new systems/drivers for it anymore'. This is okay if you didn't just pay top dollar for it.