Welcome to MacTalk Australia

the largest Australian community for Apple discussions and topics

Join the discussions, Register Now!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldmacs View Post
    Thats just stupid. Nobody really wants to run Windows on an iPad because its primarily a consumption device. It is a touch screen consumption device, that would not have enough power to run it anyway (Disregarding the fact that iPads are ARM and therefore can not run proper windows).

    Yep shoehorn TOUCH screen apps onto the Mac. Great idea. Lets do EXACTLY what Microsoft has done and failed at. Windows 8 has tablet apps on the desktop and its hated. iOS Apps are not made with a cursor in mind. If iOS apps could run on the Mac, we'd then get the opposite. Mac apps that could run on iOS deice, and shoehorning cursor based apps onto the iPad is also a VERY poor idea.

    Why the hell would anyone want to make the Mac into a stripped down iPad. Everything that has been argued for the ARM Mac, is basically a iPad with a keyboard.
    thanks for proving my point

    firstly Apple has a habit of doing things that Microsoft tries to do but better aka touch tablet, and then making it work.

    no one would want to run a native iPad app however the developer wouls love to do a bit of fine tuning to make the app run better for a non touch devise...

    Don't brush things off without considering possible avenues rather than just taking what they currently have and concluding the argument - Apple doesn't tac things together, they consider how it could work. Consider the transition to run iPhone apps on iPad, when they first began it was just a zoom feature. I imagine you "could" run iPhone/iPad apps how are developers would soon convert them to suit.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldmacs View Post
    Intel has far better options in the pipeline. If Intel is having issues in reducing power consumption and they are the PREMIER/LEADER microprocessor designer and manufacturer, Apple is not going to have much more luck in doing so.
    the title premier/leader means squat when there's a new processor involved that we haven't seen yet - even if you put it in caps.

    apple doesn't spend billions of research on ARM & purchasing companies/employees to have them just on iPhones & ipads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldmacs View Post
    The PPC to Intel transition actually had a significant benefit to users and Apple. So many people switched to the Mac due to the intel chip. IF ARM was the dominant desktop and laptop architecture I'd say go ahead. However its not. An ARM Mac would be a complete joke. Sealed Macs, that last 2-3 years would be terrible.

    Lets not forget that Intel is working on even lower powered processors for its computers. Right now the Macbook Air lasts longer on a charge than the ARM powered iPad is meant to.

    Anyone who thinks that Apple would pass savings from using the ARM onto to the user is crazy. They have HUGE margins on the iOS devices that they design the chips for. Plus Apple would need significant funding to develop more powerful ARM chips. Not only that but when you make more powerful ARM chips you start to loose the low power advantage.

    A change for the sake of Apple's supply chain would be absolutely a nightmare for users and there is so little point. The negatives far outweigh the positives. if you want a locked down device, with ARM that is cheaper you've got it. THE IPAD.
    Intel has better options in the pipeline because they announce them whereas Apple does not.

    intel have to to keep folks like Apple happy. You don't however know Apple's future chip pipeline.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    NE Vic
    Posts
    2,395

    Default

    There's a pretty convincing article on AppleInsider that lays out the significant downsides to Apple in moving Macs to ARM.

    It seems to me that the big advantages of ARM are ultra low power consumption, which is critical for phones and tablets, and the ability for Apple to make them exactly as they want them, which gives Apple a hard-to-copy advantage. Intel's chips offer low enough power consumption for Macs and Apple owns the high end of the PC market anyway, so I don't see the payoff for Apple in moving to ARM. Not at the moment anyway. It may well change, but I think Apple would have to be selling a lot more Macs to get the economies of scale advantage that they get with ARM on their phones and tablets.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ruegen View Post
    the title premier/leader means squat when there's a new processor involved that we haven't seen yet - even if you put it in caps.

    apple doesn't spend billions of research on ARM & purchasing companies/employees to have them just on iPhones & ipads.



    Intel has better options in the pipeline because they announce them whereas Apple does not.

    intel have to to keep folks like Apple happy. You don't however know Apple's future chip pipeline.

    I'm sorry but Apple does not have a chip that is better than Broadwell or Skylake. They do not have the expertise that intel has. There is a big difference between designing chips for iOS devices and for desktops and laptops. If Apple really were planning a move to ARM they'd be poaching chip engineers, and we'd know about it. Apple insider and Maceumours is always in the know when Apple's advertising or poaching employees.

    I also highly doubt that "love to do a bit of fine tuning to make the app run better for a non touch device". There is no 'Fine tuning', it would require complete interface redesigns. Given how annoyed developers are that they're supporting 3.5, 4, 4.7, 5.5, 7.9 and 9.7 inch screens (Which is reflected in how long it took to get 4 inch app redesigns and now 4.7/5.5 inch redesigns, I don't think developers would take to devoping for a multitude of screen sizes on the Mac plus a complete redesign of the interface. The Mac has a much smaller user base than iOS devices, so there just isn't the attraction.

    I'm not brushing anything off. The only advantages are in house development(which may be more expensive than buying from intel anyway) and battery life, which Intel is improving on massively with Skylake and Broadwell (also some are suggesting that the better battery life would not carry over to Macs, which would need far greater processing power than iOS devices).

    I fully appreciate the point of ARM for iOS devices, but the Mac is a totally different device.
    Plus, IIci, IIsi, LC, LCII, LC III, CC, LC475, LC630, Centris650, 6100, 8100, 5260, 7220, 7600. PB: 100, 150, 160, 165, 540, 190, 5300, 1400. Lombard, iMacG3, iBookG3, iBookG4, PBG4, eMac, iMac G4, PMG4, MiniG4, iMacG5

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    1,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ruegen View Post
    A terrifying aspect for you maybe but not Apple if they have an option up their sleeve. We've as Mac users have always held a dogma to change - from PowerPC chips to Intel for example or the switch to OSX. Always something to complain about.



    Therein lies the issue - of course it isn't a terrifying prospect for Apple if it's a more profitable option, but as consumers we should be looking at what solutions work for us, not what nets Apple the most profit or control. I don't know about you, but I can't think of anyone that would welcome the possibility of a closed application distribution platform and a signed bootloader restricting your machine to the exact Mac OS version that Apple wants you to run. I can think of several large education clients that would immediately cancel multi-million dollar orders for Macs if Apple mandated the use of the absolute latest OS (which doesn't always tend to be the most reliable, as we have seen multiple times in the past) and dictated communication with their servers to sign the install when it comes time to re-image them.

    Of course we don't know that an ARM based Mac would have such a feature, but I can't see Apple stripping out a "security feature" in their existing A-series processor architecture for this application alone.

    We're also talking about another transitional period wherein software would have to run in translation, with the notable difference in that the current pace of microprocessor technology suggests that ARM hardware has a long way to go before it can sufficiently cope with the overheads of translating x86/64 instructions over to ARM. Nor do we have another Transitive on the sidelines with an Intel-to-ARM translator to produce the next Rosetta. The only solution would be to allow the Mac to access the existing library of iOS software to bolster the available applications during the transition period, and considering a lot of that software isn't built to multi-window multitask, I can't see it being an elegant solution.


    Other than some potential battery life gains, I don't see a compelling reason to switch to ARM that benefits the consumer. The PowerPC to Intel transition was absolutely necessary. Development of the desktop PowerPC architecture had slowed to a crawl, the power consumption was far too excessive for portable use, reliability was suffering in the Power Mac G5 and performance was severely lacking compared to Intel's new Core microarchitecture. In contrast, the current Intel processor line is being actively and aggressively developed to further improve performance while reducing power consumption and heat output, and I don't believe anyone is doubting Intel's ability to fabricate a processor to meet reliability and performance standards. The Mac is as popular now as ever, something the PowerPC based systems couldn't achieve, so it isn't like an architecture change is needed to renew a dwindling interest in the platform either.

    Adopting ARM as the primary architecture does offer its benefits, but these only serve to benefit Apple through greater vertical integration and control of the platform. In some cases these come at the expense of the consumer's needs, be it a reduction in processing power between high-end systems to versatility with the hardware and software, like the ability to boot multiple operating systems as needed. Not to mention it's almost guaranteed that we wouldn't see any cost savings from a processor switch, it would simply boost Apple's profit margin per machine.

    Some are under the impression that resistance to ARM is a resistance to change, which couldn't be further from the truth. Remember that change doesn't necessarily equal progress - it is possible to move sideways and backwards, not just forwards when it comes to technology.


    That said, what happens to the Mac itself doesn't concern me. After a three year stint as an Apple service technician and someone still feeling the effects of numerous common hardware defects (mainly inadequate cooling and premature GPU failure due to board packaging) and restrictive practices (now that iOS 8 is the only version available for the iPhone 4S), I have no desire to spend another cent on Apple gear, regardless of the processor architecture they use.

    What does concern me is the precedent Apple would set for other hardware manufacturers. That said I can't see other vendors shying away from the Intel/AMD platforms any time soon since it still makes a lot of sense for the majority of hardware vendors that don't have interests in ARM manufacturing or supply like Apple does. Not to mention that Intel doesn't seem like a company that would let their third party vendors dwindle without a fight, and I'm sure they could be very competitive.
    Last edited by iMic; 17th January 2015 at 03:51 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •