61–70 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the more interesting possibility is that one may have to jailbreak a Macbook Pro to run your own apps and/or OS.
Basically already a thing with SIP.
I wonder what docker looks like on iARM. I assume some level of x86 emulation provided by OSX that VirtualBox will run on top
Docker on ARM Linux doesnt use x86 emulation, I'm not sure why Docker on ARM macOS would. edit: I am aware not all Docker containers run on aarch64. But that has been changing already, and presumably would accelerate if Apple goes all in on ARM.
macOS is not linux, so it will need some form of emulation/virtualization to run "Docker on ARM macOS"
I wonder what docker looks like on iARM. I assume some level of x86 emulation provided by OSX that VirtualBox will run on top
Docker on ARM Linux doesnt use x86 emulation, I'm not sure why Docker on ARM macOS would. edit: I am aware not all Docker containers run on aarch64. But that has been changing already, and presumably would accelerate if Apple goes all in on ARM.
What is the advantage (for Apple) of the ARM CPU over the Intels? Is it power? Instructions-per-watt? Or just the ability to control one's destiny?
Performance per watt is the biggest advantage, Apple will get fast laptops with extremely long battery life. Cost per performance is a very close second, ARM CPUs are a fraction of the cost of Intel CPUs. It’s also speculated that with active cooling ARM will enable high performance Macs at a lower price point. It’s very unclear how well they will be able to match AMD and Intel at the highest performance levels.
Often when Apple shifts the rest of the industry follows within 5 years (touch screen smart phones, ultrabooks, high DPI displays). Although Apple has done architecture shifts before with no impact to the rest of the industry (68k -> PPC -> Intel), I wonder if this will be different. I read in another thread that volume is what propelled x86s popularity. Intel’s difficulty with 10nm has created an opening for other f…
They already do, but they aren't as popular or as capable for two reasons:
The first is that only Apple can take advantage of any speed or power management improvements that a switch to a different CPU might provide, and that's because software development for Windows is very much not slaved to the App Store in terms of application development. That wasn't through lack of trying by Microsoft in the early 2010s (Metro/UWP and the disaster that was Windows 8/8.1), but as a consequence of that failure Windows applications aren't developed with a mobile-first paradigm or cross-platform support, so their ability to be managed by the OS is more limited.
The second (which is also an implication of the first) is that the only time ARM can actually outperform x86 designs is when a single-digit-watt power envelope is required. In Apple's case, it's required because they refuse to implement a proper thermal management solution in their laptops, and as such using processors that can reach 4 GHz for about 5 seconds until they hit 100C and have to aggressively throttle back are a waste (and their fans spin up to 100%, and excessively heat up the keyboard and the base of the laptop).
By going to a processor type that will ultimately be significantly slower but much more consistent in terms of performance, it's possible to both use alternate cooling solutions (like fully passive cooling) and provide a much more consistent user experience. And provided that the GPU is any better than Iris IGP, and that video encoding is otherwise accelerated (i.e. Quick Sync), professional (non-developer) users will still notice an upgrade.
And sure, while developers will lose in terms of raw performance, Apple knows that developers that go out of their way to use their products are more than willing to make compromises and concessions to use their ecosystem. On the other hand, those who are concerned about performance don't (and never) buy Macbooks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Performance per watt is the biggest advantage, Apple will get fast laptops with extremely long battery life. Cost per performance is a very close second, ARM CPUs are a fraction of the cost of Intel CPUs. It’s also speculated that with active cooling ARM will enable high performance Macs at a lower price point. It’s very unclear how well they will be able to match AMD and Intel at the highest performance levels.
Perhaps a combined SoC with both ARM and x86-64 cores, with independent switching like Apple already has for GPU integrated/discrete graphics switching. I think this would be a convenient middle way through this compatibility challenge. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202043
I suppose now that Edge is cross platform there's less need to spin up a windows VM to test in IE/Old Edge. I do worry about software that is highly tuned with hand-rolled assembly (looking at you various video/photo/audio processing apps) and if this is going to be another transition that is mostly seamless, but with enough edge cases to leave people slightly bloodied.
I suppose now that Edge is cross platform there's less need to spin up a windows VM to test in IE/Old Edge. I do worry about software that is highly tuned with hand-rolled assembly (looking at you various video/photo/audio processing apps) and if this is going to be another transition that is mostly seamless, but with enough edge cases to leave people slightly bloodied.
I would think that most video, and photo processing apps are using the GPU rather than custom assembly on the CPU since you have hundreds of cores on a GPU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has target margin levels, they may increase slightly but most of the savings will go to customers. Apple understands that most customers can’t justify the higher cost of Macs despite the additional value, they will for sure attempt to use ARM CPUs to grow Mac market share.
Apple has ~$100B cash in the bank. If they wanted to increase market share by lowering prices, they could.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has target margin levels, they may increase slightly but most of the savings will go to customers. Apple understands that most customers can’t justify the higher cost of Macs despite the additional value, they will for sure attempt to use ARM CPUs to grow Mac market share.
How does that work with the ARM iPhones being as expensive as the Intel Macs?