Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by gothamm, Feb 28, 2010.
like what they have done with the ipad.
Not like the iPad, no
I don't like crappy x86 processors. New gen Macs have a bad taste.
Only if they had a competitive advantage relative to Intel's offerings. Nothing like the iPad would suffice.
Well I bought a PowerBook but Apple didn't make the processor. Personally, I'd like to stay away from Apple making processors.
I don't think Apple would put a processor into their computers they make if they don't do something special and they were really good. I'm sure it's far off, but if they keep investing into processors they could develop something that would actually be quite an asset in their computers. Either way.. a processor switch in their Macs would be years away.
Nope, unfortunately I need to use Windows for work sometimes.
I can see Apple slotting their own chips into their intel machines in order to make OSX somehow dependent on it, and thus cut out Hackintoshes. But to lose the "also runs windows" proposition would hit their sales figures too hard I imagine.
x86 is the dominant architecture, even in servers.
And you can probably blame the Intel Itanium for that since it was so full of promises that nice projects like SPARC, RISC etc failed to compete with its hype and got abandoned.
ARM could end up providing such a custom chip for Apple (as they probably do with the ipad) but they are doing greatly in the mobile device CPU department and I don't know why they would sacrifice so much money and time to get into the desktop/laptop CPU market, especially seeing AMD's last couple of years.
For one, I am happy Apple made the switch. Before everything seemed too proprietary. The switch coincided with making parts like HDD and RAM user upgradeable and the mac platform more "open" in general.
Apple sells much more computers now, and for most consumers this is a great thing.
I answered no, because right now the ability to easily/natively run Windows is very useful to me. I also have considerable faith in Intel's ability to deliver ever-faster CPUs and wouldn't want Apple to get stuck the way they were with the stagnant G4 and G5.
Wirelessly posted (iPod Touch 2G 8GB: Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)
Unless it's an 8 core beastly beast, no.
i hope not, not yet atleast.
as thatd be alot of architecture to get support for...i mean itd be interesting to have seamless application front if you could run apps form the iphone/ipad line up under it if there was a way to run iphone os under osx would be interesting.
but alot of pro apps, idk seems like a huge headache right now..but maybe theyre looking into it with these new ipads?
Many new Mac converts switch because Windows in there in the worst case scenario. With a Mac that doesn't run on an x86 processor, that would no longer be the case. I think Apple possibly would lose marketshare. If I can't run OS X and Windows on one machine without emulation, I wouldn't buy a Mac.
Intel makes CPUs, Apple makes aluminium boxes.
Might as well expect a boat hull manufacturer to make an IC engine better than Ferrari.
It honestly all depends.
Its not going to happen. Ever. End of thread.
they already went through that w/PPC...remember their minuscule market share? apple who?
Finally, a decent thread here in the MBP section.
My answer is no. Because I would fear too much Incompatibility with certain Windows Applications etc.
I made the switch to Apple for every computer in my household once I could dual boot and/or virtualize Windows on my Macs. While I spend 80% of my time in OSX for my everyday tasks, there is still that time I need full speed and compatibility in Windows. And I dont want to own 2 seperate machines.
So Apple is a clear winner with Intel x86 chips, and the ability to boot both OSX and Windows on the same machine is a gaurentee that will get my money from now on.
So no. No Intel Chips, No go. Same goes for AMD however. I dont want current AMD chips, even though they are 100% compatabile with Intel Chips. But if AMD gets off their ass and takes charge again like they did in 1999-2005 before the Core/Core 2... I would not mind a AMD chip.
Unless they buy AMD with that $40 billion they have laying around, no. But I strongly doubt that would happen. That would be a very interesting move, but it seems very un-Apple to take on someone else's business, especially when that revenue comes from supplying competitors.
But is this really a serious question? There was a reason Apple stopped doing this less than 5 years ago. Those circumstances that prompted the decision would have to reverse. They have not. In fact, if anything it's more true. x86 is the only real general purpose architecture game in town. Everything else is either specialized, not performant or embedded/mobile. Apple is doing the right thing by investing in that space, but there is no way that an ARM-based CPU is close to being able to run FCP.
Everyone is assuming the Apple-made CPU would be a separate chip architecture, but Apple could make an "Intel-clone" chip that is (almost) 100% compatiblem just like AMD already does in teh Windoze world. I can't see any good reason why they'd bother though, other than to drop Intel and any associated problems with chip supply.
I would have to see the specs. but I went with no.
And waste a whole lot of money in development, and Intel licences.
Yes. Could you imagine the battery life on a MBP using an ARM processor?!
Could you imagine the performance? No, you cant because there wouldnt be any performance.
Not to mention licensing x86-64 from AMD. Even if Apple somehow acquired the right to develop x86 processors it would mean 4+ years of development only to constantly play catch up with Intel, go ask AMD how profitable that is.