What Happens If Apple Switches to Its Own ARM Chips for Macs? (cnn.com) 280
CNN reports that Apple could announce "a long-rumored switch" from Intel chips to its own ARM-based chips for Macs at its WWDC conference Monday -- citing a report from Bloomberg.
Then they consider the possible advantages: When that does happen, the major changes Mac users are likely to see include better battery life and sleeker devices. Apple's in-house chips have a smaller architecture and are more efficient because they are designed for smartphones, according to David McQueen, research director at ABI Research... "Moving to ARM-based chips can bring efficiencies and better battery life without sacrificing performance," McQueen said. "It may also help to cut out some size issues, possibly allowing Macs to be made thinner, while also negating the need for fans," he added.
McQueen says having the same chips running on iPhones, iPads and Macs would also make it easier to standardize the user experience across all three devices. "It will allow all Apple devices to work more seamlessly together," he said. "It should also make it much easier for developers to create apps that are capable of running across Apple devices." There's another big potential benefit to using the same chips for iPhones and Macs, particularly with the growth of 5G networks. "Although Apple has given no indication that it is looking to do so, this switch does also open the doors for Apple to launch MacBooks with cellular connectivity capabilities," Mardikar said.
For Apple, bringing processor production in-house will likely allow the company to offer better performance upgrades with each generation of devices because it will no longer be tied to Intel's upgrade cycle for new chips. "They also get to control their own product launch cadence," said Jitesh Ubrani, a research manager at IDC. "In the past, they had to really wait on Intel to launch new processors before they could refresh the Mac lineup."
Then they consider the possible advantages: When that does happen, the major changes Mac users are likely to see include better battery life and sleeker devices. Apple's in-house chips have a smaller architecture and are more efficient because they are designed for smartphones, according to David McQueen, research director at ABI Research... "Moving to ARM-based chips can bring efficiencies and better battery life without sacrificing performance," McQueen said. "It may also help to cut out some size issues, possibly allowing Macs to be made thinner, while also negating the need for fans," he added.
McQueen says having the same chips running on iPhones, iPads and Macs would also make it easier to standardize the user experience across all three devices. "It will allow all Apple devices to work more seamlessly together," he said. "It should also make it much easier for developers to create apps that are capable of running across Apple devices." There's another big potential benefit to using the same chips for iPhones and Macs, particularly with the growth of 5G networks. "Although Apple has given no indication that it is looking to do so, this switch does also open the doors for Apple to launch MacBooks with cellular connectivity capabilities," Mardikar said.
For Apple, bringing processor production in-house will likely allow the company to offer better performance upgrades with each generation of devices because it will no longer be tied to Intel's upgrade cycle for new chips. "They also get to control their own product launch cadence," said Jitesh Ubrani, a research manager at IDC. "In the past, they had to really wait on Intel to launch new processors before they could refresh the Mac lineup."
Huh? (Score:2)
There's nothing preventing Apple from releasing cellular MacBook hardware now with a bit of USB-attached silicon and some antennas. The fact that they haven't done it yet suggests they're not interested, which is a shame, because it would make tracking down stolen laptops a lot easier.
Ming-Chi Kuo bound to be right one year (Score:5, Insightful)
That's literately how every other ultrabook works.
There is a Simcard slot in 100% of Dell Latitude models, but the WWAN card is not present, however the antennas are.
The thing is, the investors have been pushing for this for over a decade, and it has never happened. Ming-Chi Kuo keeps saying it, and keeps being wrong. So unless he's actually seen ARM Mac's in China, I will wait and see.
As for if it's to Apple's benefit. It isn't. The only thing Apple gains by switching any device to ARM is longer battery life with better graphical performance, and that device already exists, it's called an iPad Pro. There does not need to be an ARM MacBook. We have already seen there is no appetite for ARM based laptops several times. See Surface RT.
It has no place on the desktop, and Apple has been scaling the performance down on their laptops which really makes you think that Intel is really just not giving a care and continuing to produce absolutely useless U and Y parts that can barely run Windows, let alone OSX. These things belong in nothing that has a computer screen.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a Simcard slot in 100% of Dell Latitude models, but the WWAN card is not present, however the antennas are.
That's because putting cellular connectivity on a laptop is kinda pointless, virtually everywhere where you're going to use a laptop there's WiFi, so why would anyone pay for a second cellular account and burn data on it? I've had laptops with WWAN connectivity built in and never used it because WiFi is already everywhere. Pretty sure the one I'm typing this on has it too but I haven't even bothered checking.
Re: (Score:3)
Many telecoms around the world don’t use per-GB costs, FYI. For example, in the last two European countries I’ve lived in, I paid by speed of connection. Adding additional devices (up to two) to my existing cell phone account cost me about 5 dollars per month per device.
Re:Ming-Chi Kuo bound to be right one year (Score:5, Insightful)
As for if it's to Apple's benefit. It isn't. The only thing Apple gains by switching any device to ARM is longer battery life with better graphical performance, and that device already exists, it's called an iPad Pro. There does not need to be an ARM MacBook. We have already seen there is no appetite for ARM based laptops several times. See Surface RT.
Except for the money. Apple is already investing heavily in CPU/GPU development for the iPhone/iPad. If they could use that to create an in-house chip instead of buying from Intel - who is not known for their low margins - they could pocket all that profit themselves. I agree that consumers don't want ARM or any CPU archtecture in particular, what they care about is applications so the key is vendors. WinRT had no commitment and no clear future, it was a niche product by Microsoft to plug a percieved gap in their lineup but there was no indication they'd migrate away from x86 meaning the business case for making an RT version of your software was terrible.
If Apple does this it'll be with the commitment to migrate at least their whole consumer line of Macs. If you are producing Mac software you can either be there or... not be around much longer. That's a pretty easy boardroom decision. That said, I expect it'll be everything /.ers would hate like locked bootloader, store only apps. But Apple got the financial muscle to make it into a compelling offer for most people anyway. Cue the people saying it'll be totally useless for them, I'm sure that's true I'm just not sure it'll be in numbers that Apple cares about. They've found that professionals run a pretty tight ship of cost/benefit if they want to stay in business while consumers pay based on disposable income. The most profit is in selling bling to people who can afford bling.
Re:Ming-Chi Kuo bound to be right one year (Score:4, Informative)
Apple is selling ~90 million iPhones & iPads/year and ~12 million Mac devices (primarily laptops). Use of dedicated classic PC devices is down sharply across all manufacturers and OS'. Once the cutting edge of personal computing the PC is now a small tail dragging being a very large dog.
Re: Ming-Chi Kuo bound to be right one year (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ming-Chi Kuo bound to be right one year (Score:5, Insightful)
That's literately how every other ultrabook works.
There is a Simcard slot in 100% of Dell Latitude models, but the WWAN card is not present, however the antennas are.
The thing is, the investors have been pushing for this for over a decade, and it has never happened. Ming-Chi Kuo keeps saying it, and keeps being wrong. So unless he's actually seen ARM Mac's in China, I will wait and see.
As for if it's to Apple's benefit. It isn't. The only thing Apple gains by switching any device to ARM is longer battery life with better graphical performance, and that device already exists, it's called an iPad Pro. There does not need to be an ARM MacBook. We have already seen there is no appetite for ARM based laptops several times. See Surface RT.
It has no place on the desktop, and Apple has been scaling the performance down on their laptops which really makes you think that Intel is really just not giving a care and continuing to produce absolutely useless U and Y parts that can barely run Windows, let alone OSX. These things belong in nothing that has a computer screen.
When it comes to performance, it would be asymmetrical.
Apple's A13 chip from last year in an iPhone configuration was already at level with the best desktops [anandtech.com] in some benchmarks. Of course, this will be more powerful in a desktop/laptop configuration, the chip will be new and improved (A14?) and one can add acceleration for specific tasks, like ML - which you have less of in normal CPUs - some Xeons do [arstechnica.com], but I don't think normal CPUs do.
That said, I expect running an actual full desktop OS with processes, and multitasking etc will bog the ARM CPUs down - it has been tuned for less complex scenarios for a long time. Comparing to Windows RT makes little sense, unless Apple starts making a "MacOS lite" rather than migrating there. The RT had much less performance, and was always seen as a little side gig which noone cared about. If Apple actually migrates, the situation will be completely different.
Personally, I hope they don't migrate - for the simple reasons that a lot of existing applications won't make it, there will be even less games if the architecture and library infrastructure changes/disappears (note: I'm talking of high quality desktop games here - not mobile games), and running Parallels/VMware with Windows for those times I need that at work will be a thing of the past. But I'm sure they could offer pretty good performance - I'd expect much better in some cases where special hardware can help, slightly worse in general.
Re: (Score:3)
Be careful how you interpret those benchmarks. A lot of the ones where the Ax processor does well, are ones where it has dedicated hardware to perform a certain function and the desktop processor does not.. Because the Ax is too slow to do the function in software, they had to implement it in hardware to make it usable. Whereas the desktop processor was fast enough to do it in software,
Re: (Score:2)
They're just toys now. Overpriced at that.
I prefer the term "Fashion accessories".
This is all about Apple's profit margin, nothing more. Not one of the "arguments" presented in the summary makes any sense.
Intel chips expensive, ARM chips cheap. Cost savings will not be passed down to the users.
Re: Huh? (Score:3)
This is all about Apple's profit margin, nothing more. Not one of the "arguments" presented in the summary makes any sense.
Intel chips expensive, ARM chips cheap. Cost savings will not be passed down to the users.
Thereâ(TM)s more to it than the cost of the silicon.
R&D Cost of using someone elseâ(TM)s (Intelâ(TM)s) CPUs: Zero. R&D Cost of planning, designing, prototyping, qualifying and manufacturing a CPU: Far more than Zero.
But I still believe that, due to the userous prices charged by Intel for their CPUs, this will result in some savings passed down to the consumer.
Not a whole lot, that's what, silly editors. (Score:5, Informative)
Apple switching to ARM just means that Apple will have an easier time preventing Hackintosh installations (because inexpensive laptops would then not be suitable hardware platforms; Chromebook hardware probably wont be powerful or spacious enough, and normal laptops will be x86 flavor), Apple's products will cease being able to dual-boot with a useful OS (yes, my prejudice is showing concerning osx. Maybe you could still dualboot a linux, but only if apple does not lock down its boot loader, which if it switches to ARM ISA, it would have more options to do just that.)
Aside from that, not a whole lot. Apple will ensure that the applications it curates all look and act the same from the end-user perspective, and their almost comical devotion to 1 angstrom thick devices will inch closer to reality.
That's about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
]and their almost comical devotion to 1 angstrom thick devices will inch closer to reality.
That's about it.
Bit of an exaggeration don't ya think?
Re:Not a whole lot, that's what, silly editors. (Score:5, Funny)
I am just waiting for the iphone that is thin enough to use in a knife fight, honestly.
Re: (Score:3)
I am just waiting for the iphone that is thin enough to use in a knife fight, honestly.
Two words : Motorola Razor.
Re: (Score:2)
I am just waiting for the iphone that is thin enough to use in a knife fight, honestly.
Two words : Motorola Razor.
Now thats a knife but can you use it?
might be quicker to print your own Iron-man suit https://3dprinting.com/news/ad... [3dprinting.com]
Re: Not a whole lot, that's what, silly editors. (Score:2)
I suggest wearing an armour made of Nokia 3310s too, at least to protect the important bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That sir is precisely why you must purchase the (optional) apple endorsed and provided case ( to "protect" your investment ) and avoid situations where your phone gets lost. (in a deck of card)
Re: (Score:2)
]and their almost comical devotion to 1 angstrom thick devices will inch closer to reality.
That's about it.
Bit of an exaggeration don't ya think?
It certainly is. A system that thin would only allow for a single layer of atoms, but to build a practical computer, you need to be able to route signals in at least two dimensions. You would need to make it at least *two* angstroms thick to accomplish that.
Re: (Score:2)
I *DID* say it was a comical devotion, did I not? ;)
(waits patiently for slashdot to think enough time has passed before clicking reply, because damn, we just can't have people making fast replies now can we?)
Re: (Score:2)
Single sided PCBs are a pain too:)
Re: (Score:2)
Bit of an exaggeration
2^32 bits of an exaggeration
Re:Not a whole lot, that's what, silly editors. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple don't care about Hackintoshes. They're not real Macs, they don't get any support and anyone trying to get real work done on one is crazy. Apple are never going to go after a hobbyist building their own Hack, it's not impacting their sales and the publicity would look pretty bad.
The continued operation of web sites such as https://www.tonymacx86.com/ [tonymacx86.com] with step-by-step guides, boot loaders, drivers and forums is proof of this.
Apple will bear down with the entirety of their legal might however on anyone selling Hackintoshes as a commercial operation. The mere handful companies who have been stupid enough to try and have a go have all been absolutely crushed.
Re:Not a whole lot, that's what, silly editors. (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite right, but that won't be the real reason for locking down the bootloader, should they go that route.
The real reason would be "iOS integration", and their slavish desires to prevent end users from daring to break their device out of the walled garden. They can completely control the behavior of OSX, and versions of OSX designed to co-exist with an iOS deployment (such as say, with a dockable iPhone and Macbook hybrid) could guarantee that the OSX side cannot tamper with the iOS side to enable such shenannigans-- but would ONLY work if the boot loader was ALSO locked, so that a 3rd party OS could not run (which could then tamper with the iOS data unsupervised.)
They would of course, call this "Security" (and it would be, in more ways than one-- but the real thing they would be seeking to secure is their reputation and place as the gatekeeper for the iOS application ecosystem, for that sweet sweet licensing 30% scrape of cream off the top.), and ignore any demands from industry apostle groups, like EFF.
Re:Not a whole lot, that's what, silly editors. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing in the current hardware architecture that would stop Apple from locking down macOS like iOS. If they wanted to, they could do it. Just look at macOS Catalina - the entire OS and bundled apps are running on a read-only volume that can not be mounted read/write, even in Single User Mode.
Running on x86 vs running on ARM has no affect on this, it's an OS-level decision...
Re: (Score:2)
Again, being able to boot a 3rd party OS would enable a user to circumvent that level of restriction, and perform unsanctioned modifications.
Thus, need for locked loader.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll still likely have Target Disk Mode in any new Mac they make, so that is largely irrelevant.
https://support.apple.com/en-a... [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Again, that is an OSX OS level feature, and if you can guarantee that a 3rd party OS cannot be booted, you can assure that the iOS partition is never mounted, even when attached in such a fashion.
In fact, you could assure that the iOS partition is never exposed in any capacity except possibly through an encrypted iTunes level "Restore" capacity as well.
This is not an argument for negating a want from apple for locked loader.
Re: (Score:2)
Target Disk Mode is a hardware-level feature, it works irrespective of the OS that's on the machine. In fact, you can boot up a Mac with a completely erased drive and install a new OS onto it via Target Disk Mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. So is a locked boot loader. It's a hardware level thing.
As stated, that does not need to present the iOS side in any capacity, other than *perhaps* as an iTunes encrypted restoration channel with crypto enforcement.
The security hole, is allowing a 3rd party OS to run, pull data out of the TPM to get the device's unique keys, and then write on the protected storage without being sanctioned by apple-- To which, the only plausible fix, is to lock the loader in order to prevent that OS from being run.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, that is an OSX OS level feature, [...]
No, it's not.
...and if you can guarantee that a 3rd party OS cannot be booted...
They could already do that if they wanted.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions regarding what Apple wants from a computer platform that you don't seem to know much about.
Re:Not a whole lot, that's what, silly editors. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am going to be as polite as possible, given this barb you are trying to stick me with.
1). The intention with moving to ARM was overtly stated that it would facilitate a more consolidated codebase, between iOS and OSX, since both would essentially be the same hardware platform.
2) This leads to obvious synergy to be exploited by further blurring the line between the products, and "Innovating" (in quotes, because obvious evolution is not innovation) to a multipurpose device capable of being either on-demand. (Such as a dockable iPhone that can become a MacBook just by inserting it into an appropriate dock)
which then leads to:
3) iOS is where Apple makes a killing by controlling the app store, and getting that 30% "off the top" royalty, and is why they rigidly enforce appstore's use on their platform. Once you have a device that is either OSX or iOS on-demand, the former suddenly inherits the latter's need for hard lockdown. Where PREVIOUSLY (eg, where we are right now) the OSX ecosystem had no reason to be secured in this fashion, it now suddenly does, and those features get removed going forward.
As for the barb itself that you just leveled--
Targeted Disk, is a combination of technologies.
1) a hardware level presentation of the volume as an external media device.
2) OSX recognition of this external media device, by the operating system and installer software running on a different system that the target gets connected to.
The first is hardware level, the second is OSX OS feature level.
Jumping the shark like you did, and presuming I am some kind of idiot, is off the mark and wrong.
Thank you, and good day sir.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...between iOS and OSX...
OS X stopped being OS X in 2016. It's called macOS since macOS Sierra.
2) This leads to obvious synergy to be exploited...
Once you have a device that is either OSX or iOS on-demand, the former suddenly inherits the latter's need for hard lockdown...
Again, you're making assumptions.
Targeted Disk, is a combination of technologies.
Target Disk Mode, not "Targeted Disk".
1) a hardware level presentation of the volume as an external media device.
Correct...
2) OSX recognition of this external media device...
...and wrong. Target Disk Mode doesn't depend on macOS for anything. When you boot a Mac in Target Disk Mode the operating system in that Mac isn't running. The computer is behaving as an external hard drive, at the hardware level. I can boot my MacBook Pro in Target Disk Mode, plug it to another machine, and format the MBP's disk and use it as a swap partit
Re: (Score:3)
Learn to read sir.
The second bullet has nothing to do with the software running on target. As you rightly point out-- there can be no software there at all.
It has to do with the software running on the host you plug that target into, to affect that target. In most cases, this is going to be MacOS, and it will be the OS installer app. (which are both going to be using OS level features to do that detection and determination.)
The hardware level portion can easily just ignore the first #foo number of sectors
Re:Not a whole lot, that's what, silly editors. (Score:4, Insightful)
...It has to do with the software running on the host you plug that target into,...
...which is why this point is completely irrelevant to your point, as user PhunkySchtuff already told you.
The hardware level portion can easily just ignore the first #foo number of sectors on the physical volume, and present a new logical LBA 0 starting point. In other words, it can completely fail to allow access to the iOS portion of the device.
Sure, they could implement a logical start sector in order to protect that hypothetical iOS partition that you just pulled out of your ass. You don't know yet whether the hardware is going to implement logical sector addressing, or whether there's going to be an iOS partition on newer Macs, or whether the hardware is going to forbid you to touch that partition... Yet here you are presenting those hypothetical scenarios and criticizing Apple for what they COULD do if your predictions happen to become true.
Have a nice day. (and no, I don't really care where you used to work. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.)
Appeal to authority isn't a logical fallacy when the person referenced happens to be an authority in the matter being discussed. I don't claim by any means to be an authority in anything Apple-related, but the fact remains that I do have extensive experience with both the hardware and the software, and that I've been using Macs daily both at home and at work for the last 12+ years, while you can't name the operating system Macs run.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears we can add Dunning-Kruger and confirmation bias to your list of e
Re:Not a whole lot, that's what, silly editors. (Score:5, Informative)
Just look at macOS Catalina - the entire OS and bundled apps are running on a read-only volume that can not be mounted read/write, even in Single User Mode.
BS. Apple uses System Integrity Protection to make sure that the root volume can't be modified by regular programs. But you can switch it off, remount root rw and modify whatever you want: cyberax@CybMac:/System$ sudo mount -uw / /System/haha /System/haha
cyberax@CybMac:/System$ sudo touch
cyberax@CybMac:/System$ ls
Applications DriverKit Library Volumes haha iOSSupport cyberax@CybMac:/System$ sudo rm
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Just look at macOS Catalina - the entire OS and bundled apps are running on a read-only volume that can not be mounted read/write, even in Single User Mode.
Isn't this a good protection against accidents or intentional damages (e.g. ransomware) ?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, not only is the system protected by System Integrity Protection (SIP aka rootless) which means that there are files and folders that even root can not touch, but the entire OS is read-only and can't (under normal operation) be written to at all. This is the core OS, the Apple-supplied apps like Safari, Mail etc and the preferences used by many core system services. Updating the OS is considerably more complex, but that's Apple's problem, not the end user's problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you could still dualboot a linux, but only if apple does not lock down its boot loader, which if it switches to ARM ISA, it would have more options to do just that.
I'm not saying that's not a valid concern... but if locking out other operating systems is a specific goal of theirs, they already had all the option they needed to do just that with Secure Boot on their current lineup. You can still boot whatever you like on them if you want to. In fact historically they've basically never shown any interest in actively blocking other operating systems from being run on their computers, in spite of people complaining about Apple "locking down" their hardware. There have be
Re: Not a whole lot, that's what, silly editors. (Score:2)
They would need to make macos not run like shit on crappier hw though.
This rumor has always sunk due to that before. I mean ms can release an arm running x86 emulating tablet just like that but heres the thing they didnt give a rats ass if people buying it would hate it just like with windows rt...
Step Backwards (Score:2)
It's possible Apple might make
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple seems to have been paving the way for a move to ARM but hobbling the performance of x86 CPUs in some of its laptops. They limit the CPUs to 10W sustained load and when stressed they reach 100C within seconds. Linus Tech Tips tried improving the cooling but it seems that even if you stop them overheating Apple has limited the amount of power they can use.
So for low end machines switching to ARM probably won't hurt performance much, if at all, at least once apps get re-compiled for ARM so they don't nee
Re: (Score:2)
Other manufacturers manage to make their laptops just as thin and light, even more so sometimes, and with better performance. Dell's XPS line, for example, which also has much smaller screen borders.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't call it hobbled, it is just product design to try to make a more pleasant gadget. Because it does bug people, like surface pro whatever with the overheating and fan noise. Maybe not everyone, but it does bug people. Whatever specs people want, they'll never ask to have more heat and noise.
I didn't think people would ever ask for a keyboard with no travel, too, but that didn't stop Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the cool kids.
User experience != hardware (Score:5, Informative)
Changing the CPU architecture from x86 to ARM won't change the user experience. That's all software, all of which runs just as well regardless of the underlying CPU hardware. It's been a long, long time since we did anything involving the UI using assembly language, it's all high-level languages which are pretty much independent of the CPU architecture. Ditto for cellular connectivity, that's also independent of the CPU as the hardware connections are through buses outside of the CPU. The only possible way a switch to ARM might affect cellular connectivity is by having chips that already incorporate the cellular chipset into the main CPU chip available for immediate use. No, any switch to ARM is going to be invisible to users aside from improvements in battery life and size due to a simpler architecture having a lower power demand and generating less heat. The big impact will be on the companies that make software for the Mac who will have to recompile their software for ARM rather than x86 (which shouldn't be a major problem if they've designed their software anywhere near sanely).
Re: (Score:3)
its software and the third party are going to be screaming... that means users lost
no boot camp
let me repeat no running windows excel on your mac... yeah sure excel mac edition loads some times but basically forget it
no random custom windows app - NONE
no way to work around the exceptions - NONE
your dead
in the water
Re: (Score:3)
... if I'm using a Mac, why would I be running Windows software? I can see running Mac versions of the same products, but if I wanted to run Windows software why wouldn't I just run Windows?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what boot Camp lets you do--- and that feature would go away completely if Apple switches to ARM.
which was the point, no?
Dual Boot Gamers (Score:2)
Changing the CPU architecture from x86 to ARM won't change the user experience.
It will if those users dual boot into Windows to play games (or run apps) that don't exist on Macs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well the only downside is that you cannot run x86 vms anymore with a decent performance. There might be a vm again for x86 software one way or the other, but it will be slow.
How much of an issue that will be is questionable. I think people most affected will be people needing ie11 or the old by now dead edge for whatever reason to run some custom software.
Or people who used Macs to run Windows!
Re: (Score:2)
Changing the CPU architecture from x86 to ARM won't change the user experience. That's all software, all of which runs just as well regardless of the underlying CPU hardware.
It really depends how you mean this. User experience can be hardware architecture as well. If Apple manages to produce a performant ARM chip (as in comparable speed to latest x86 offerings) that is cool enough to NOT require fans, that IS going to make a difference. For example, I hate working with hot laptops: one laptop I own is a Matebook X Pro 2018 model with an i7 processor and I run Throttlestop and down-clot it to i5 levels just because it is too noisy and hot for me in its normal configuration.
Also,
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends how you mean this. User experience can be hardware architecture as well. If Apple manages to produce a performant ARM chip (as in comparable speed to latest x86 offerings) that is cool enough to NOT require fans, that IS going to make a difference. For example, I hate working with hot laptops
FWIW I'm typing this on a 4-thread Intel chip with a 6W (ie. six Watts) TDP.
iPhone desktop (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:iPhone desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
What's going on is computer hardware performance is increasing faster than user requirements. It used to be that to run a decent graphical app, you needed a workstation-class computer. In the late 1980s/early 1990s, desktop PCs got fast enough to handle what were formerly workstation loads. In the 2000s, laptops became fast enough, and end users began switching from desktops to laptops for their everyday computing. And in the 2010s, mobile devices became fast enough to handle most people's everyday computing, leading to some giving up their laptops (or in Apple's case, planning to switch their laptops to mobile SoCs).
But if you need the extra oomph, a desktop or workstation-class computer is still where it's at. If it weren't, animation studios would be using laptops or mobile devices for their render farms.
Re:iPhone desktop (Score:5, Informative)
If anything, the performance gap between mobile and desktop is growing, not shrinking. Reduction in power consumption has allowed massive increases to desktop CPU capability (which were temperature-constrained, not power-constrained), like AMD's 64-core Threadripper 3990X.
I came here to say much the same. My team have started tooling up on 16 core 3950s (no threadrippers yet) and those things are FAST.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, software developers are doing their best so you don't have to worry about your expensive hardware being underemployed.
The whole telemetry isn't there because Microsoft wants your data. It's so you feel your machine really has to work to browse Facebook, lest you feel you wasted your money...
What should happen? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple fans will laud it as the next important, courageous step towards a bigger and brighter future and everyone else will shrug and go "meh".
Like every time Apple does, well, anything.
Better security (Score:5, Informative)
Currently with Intel, you're getting a full blown extra CPU running Minix: the Intel Management Engine. Which is designed to prevent disabling. Whether you want it or not, an Intel CPU comes with the Intel ME. Only after it was published by Dmitry Skylarov, Intel confirmed that they can switch it off for governments. Us common rabble should just submit to whatever Intel thinks is right for us.
But I feel things have changed and Apple realizes people can't trust governmental agencies. I bet that new Apple hardware with an ARM CPU will be better security-wise, just because of bullshit like the Intel ME.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Better security (Score:4, Informative)
Just what do you think the Secure Enclave Processor in an Apple-engineered ARM CPU is? A full blown CPU running SEPOS? You don't say! [blackhat.com]
Tell me all about how Intel's version is "bullshit" but Apple's version is roses. This will be good.
Disruptive workflow for docker devs. (Score:2, Interesting)
If they move their Pro line-up to ARM, a lot of current developers will be in "trouble" (*), due to docker being the "de facto" deployment tool these days. It will disrupt the workflow.
I doubt they'll announce ARM for Pros though? The "consumer" devices make more sense.
(*) They won't of course be in trouble until they switch to the new hardware and at that point they'll have to see if going with Apple hardware is the right thing to do. A Dell XPS becomes quite attractive alternative.
Not a lot, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
I expect Apple to use such a change as an excuse to make the Mac more iPhone-like. This probably means locked down and apps purchased only through Apple Store.
Re: (Score:3)
ARM or Apple-ARM (Score:2)
Seems out of character that they would release a chip that strictly follows ARM .. I think at minimum they would add their own extensions, if not now .. soon. At max, it'll be a whole new incompatible instruction set architecture. Why wouldn't they ditch both ARM and Intel? They have absolutely nothing to gain from being ARM compatible. They have a CPU architecture team. What do they need ARM for?
What Happens If Apple Switches to Its Own ARM Chip (Score:2)
They won't be 'armless.
Re: (Score:2)
But they’ll likely still charge an arm and a leg.
Developers would be allowed to use Linux. (Score:2)
When this happens I'm actually going to find an equivalent of JAMF for Linux machines and our developers are going to be happy when most of them get to switch to Linux. (If I gave them the option probably half our developers would swap today.)
Make my day and point me at something I don't know about
Not much, really (Score:2)
Remember that Apple wisely uses a real, portable OS kernel as basis (xBSD, if I remember correctly), not the slapped-together mess that Windows is these days. Single-thread performance may be a bit lower, but that is essentially it.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a fan of the streamlining happening to OS X. It bothers me that as Apple removes features from an OS I once praised, it's only gotten buggier. But having said that, I don't trust MS any more than Apple. They've both proven to be anti-competitive assholes when on top. S
Re: (Score:2)
I use both platforms. MS has no problems supporting what might as well be an endless amount of hardware configurations.
Well, for variable levels of "supporting".
Apple on the other hand has problems with just a handful of configs as they've neglected the desktop market.
That is one thing that really does not make sense form the tech-side.
I'm not a fan of the streamlining happening to OS X. It bothers me that as Apple removes features from an OS I once praised, it's only gotten buggier. But having said that, I don't trust MS any more than Apple. They've both proven to be anti-competitive assholes when on top. So here's to healthy competition and options like Linux.
Indeed. Neither of the two deserves any trust. They are not in there for their users. They are in there for profits and anything they can do without jeopardizing those profits, they will do without a second thought.
This reminds me HPâ(TM)s PA-RISC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about all those SOC's that their iDevices use? Aren't they using an Apple designed chip? TSMC are the people who make them. Obviously Apple and TSMC work closely together but Apple supply the designs. The have been doing that for the best part of a decade.
They know the risks. If anyone can make it work, it is Old Fruity. HP never really tried to get others to use PA-Risc. The same went for DEC-Alpha. All very niche. How many SOC's do TSMC make for Apple each year? Millions and millions.
The customer suffers is what (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any x86 software will run like shit under emulation
So who cares? Using Xcode, it takes five minutes to recompile x86 code as ARM code.
I course it would (Score:2)
Of course it would, it also means every application on your MacDoodle is going to look like a cellphone app, mouse be damned. Just like every "adaptive" website has huge ginourmouse buttons for your huge ginourmouse mouse cursor. Phones and tables might not kill the desktop PC but they sure make it feel like you are browsing the internet on your phone even when you are on a PC.
68k - PowerPC 6xx - PPC Gx - Intel - Windows! (Score:2)
I've since migrated to Windows for 99% of my work. It was a headache, but it was well worth the effort. It's a rock solid experience with no shortage of hardware to choose from, and at a fr
Is it really that important anymore (Score:2)
You will lose x86 vm performance sure... but how much of that do you still eeed.
IE still is there but mostly used by companies who do not use a mac or provide one anyway. The rest is on chrome now. So testing your webfrontends definitely is not a blocker anymore and you still also can revert to a remote vm.
As for the rest of the software, mostly a compile switch where the necessary low level optimizations have been done a while ago.
The rest now is up to apple how far they can drive the performance. The ARM
In 1990 Apple bought a 43% stake in ARM (Score:4, Interesting)
ARM may have disappeared without Apple's investment in 1990 - when they decided the ARM6 would be the best processor for the Apple Newton. The video interviews with Steve Furber on YouTube (made by Charbax and Computerphile) - on the history of ARM are well worth watching.
Not ARM (Score:2)
Technically, it will not be an "ARM chip", it will be a P.A.Semi [wikipedia.org]-derived chip merely running the AArch64 ISA.
The idea when Apple had acquired it had been for switching from IBM's PowerPC-chips to P.A.Semi's chips running the PowerPC ISA, but the chips had still not been competitive with Intel's back then. They were still not considered good enough for the iPhone whenit was released -- which is why it got ARM chips initially, and thus the ARM ISA. Apparently they improved. And now they are supposedly good en
Re: (Score:2)
I'm expecting to hear of some architectural improvements once Apple announces the desktop chip
I don't know if you ever heard about them, but the chips in an iPhone or iPad are not the old ARM chips that everyone else uses. They have hugely higher performance _now_ than everyone else's chips. I've compiled and run benchmarks where an iPhone XR with two fast cores beat my newish iMac with four Intel cores. With all cores running at full speed. The iPhone slowed down after a while, probably due to heat, but was _still_ faster.
They become even more niche (Score:2)
Apple keeps trying to better-deal themselves.
In the mean time, they just drive themselves further and further from the mainstream.
It's nonsense like comparing apples and pears IMHO (Score:2)
RISC chips like ARM proved to be more energy savvy than CISC ones like Intel's and AMD's just because they tend to be simpler with fewer transistors. ... in general it takes more CPU cycles by a RISC CPU to do the same task as a CISC one for the same reason.
But
And modern CISC CPUs can do almost all instruction in just one cycle too with very larger L1/L2/L3 caches.
So the overall performance evaluation requires a precise "execution profile" to be
That said, as long as you don't compile a lot of code or do any
NOTHING (Score:2)
The Apple desktops and laptops are actually irrelevant as far as the market shares and the CPU orders are concerned.
Don't need thinner (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
ARM hasn't gone through some kind of evolutionary power up in capabilities or anything.
Seems they forgot the reasons they moved away from them in the first place.
Oh well, I'm not an apple user, so it doesn't bother me.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems you are unaware that their computers (as opposed to phones) have never run on ARM before. They moved from POWER architecture to Intel, not ARM.
Re:Slow (Score:5, Informative)
RISC lost, and they lost years ago. It isn't even worth having the debate anymore.
Not really. Let me explain. I had a discussion with an Intel microprocessor designer many years ago on the topic of RISC versus x86 architecture comparing the benefits and drawbacks of each. I was writing a course on x86 assembly language coding for IBM at the time and he was my subject matter expert.
In a nutshell his argument was that the discussion was moot as under the hood x86 is mostly RISC anyway with specific hardware to handle instructions that require special handling, and the compilers do most of the work to make the RISC in silicon invisible to the programmer. He said Intel had been simplifying the native instruction set for years but maintaining everything needed to maintain code compatibility.
So, the physical reality is that RISC never went away, that nothing is as clear as it might appear, and that unless you are familiar with the microarchitecture you can't really know what's going on down there on the semiconductor level.
Re: (Score:3)
Security ought to be a primary driver, but users (the ones here anyway) seem to care more about games.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, this is all about Apple's profit margin.
Not one of the "arguments" presented in the summary makes any sense if you analyze them.
Intel chips expensive, ARM chips cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure, an optimized ARM will be slower. RISC lost, and they lost years ago. It isn't even worth having the debate anymore.
You are sure, and you are wrong. Happens quite a lot. Apple's ARM chips actually outperform Intel chips. For 90% of iPhone users, their iPhone is their most powerful computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I get the sense that Apple will charge an arm and a leg for this invention?
I don't know. Maybe consult a psychiatrist.