Switching to ARM means you will give up many apps now built for x86 based mac, it takes some courage and time to adjust, but I still would like to see it, giving that it provides better battery life. At least in lower-end macbook replacing Intel-m.
Mike - 7 years ago
There's no benefit to going to ARM unless you want a Mac to run as slow as one from 2011 and can't run a VM like Parallels. Oh, and not to mention games. If I get this right, going to ARM would allow Apple to run on its own timeline of 2011 verses Intels 2016 timeline.
Simon - 7 years ago
Well, this news is ironic, since I switched to MacOS from RISCOS in 2004. Until then I'd being using various machines from a UK company Acorn (and later successors). These machines were powered by RISC processors initially designed in-house and then by the spin out company. In 1996, the parent company folded to allow access to spin-out company shares and RISCOS gradually died. The spin-out company? A little British company, you'll never have heard of them - shares at 32p in 1996 - "ARM Limited". Yep, that's right, the designers of Apple's A-series processors. Now we look like going ARM limited in Macs?
Until 2004 I was running a RISC PC, powered by one of ARM Limited's early processors. Very, very fast and unbelievably energy efficient - don't be nervous of embracing the different approach; Just look at the speed and battery life on your iPad or iPhone.
Steve - 7 years ago
I'd be very surprised if Apple didn't have a Mac OS build that ran on it's A-series chip. Intel's m-series chips (or whatever Intel wants to call them) still outperform Apple's A-series, but the performance margin is quickly shrinking.
I imagine we'll soon see ARM based MacBooks with enough power for everyday computing whereas Intel's chips will be used in Apple's Pro line.
Switching to ARM means you will give up many apps now built for x86 based mac, it takes some courage and time to adjust, but I still would like to see it, giving that it provides better battery life. At least in lower-end macbook replacing Intel-m.
There's no benefit to going to ARM unless you want a Mac to run as slow as one from 2011 and can't run a VM like Parallels. Oh, and not to mention games. If I get this right, going to ARM would allow Apple to run on its own timeline of 2011 verses Intels 2016 timeline.
Well, this news is ironic, since I switched to MacOS from RISCOS in 2004. Until then I'd being using various machines from a UK company Acorn (and later successors). These machines were powered by RISC processors initially designed in-house and then by the spin out company. In 1996, the parent company folded to allow access to spin-out company shares and RISCOS gradually died. The spin-out company? A little British company, you'll never have heard of them - shares at 32p in 1996 - "ARM Limited". Yep, that's right, the designers of Apple's A-series processors. Now we look like going ARM limited in Macs?
Until 2004 I was running a RISC PC, powered by one of ARM Limited's early processors. Very, very fast and unbelievably energy efficient - don't be nervous of embracing the different approach; Just look at the speed and battery life on your iPad or iPhone.
I'd be very surprised if Apple didn't have a Mac OS build that ran on it's A-series chip. Intel's m-series chips (or whatever Intel wants to call them) still outperform Apple's A-series, but the performance margin is quickly shrinking.
I imagine we'll soon see ARM based MacBooks with enough power for everyday computing whereas Intel's chips will be used in Apple's Pro line.