I am aware of the limitations of catalys
And yet you referred to it as Marzipan, and don't seem to understand that Catalyst is about making application level APIs iPadOS apps use, available on macOS, to facilitate easier porting of those apps.
Apple has been doing ARM/X86 compilation of iOS apps since the very first iOS SDK was available for Xcode - from the perspective of compiling existing macOS apps to ARM compatible binaries, I don't see how Catalyst has any baring, at all. If anything, it proves that there's no inherent "need" to use the same processor architecture to run iPad/Mac versions of the same app - the build toolchain already handles all the processor specific stuff anyway (i.e. running iOS/iPadOS apps in the X86 simulator, or building ARM binaries on the Mac and deploying to an iOS/iPadOS device).
The linked articles were ABOUT Apples eventual switch to ARM for Macs, that’s what many of the titles say
Let me rephrase this for you again. That article, is "republishing" a mish-mash of other articles: one from Axios, and one from Bloomberg. They don't even link to the Axios article, but by date it's
likely this one:
https://www.axios.com/apple-macbook-arm-chips-ea93c38a-d40a-4873-8de9-7727999c588c.html, which has one single line of "unique" input, and then reverts to rehashing other articles.
Their
one 'unique' input is this single line:
developers and Intel officials have privately told Axios they expect such a move as soon as next year
I mean, developers or "officials" can be anyone when theres no name attached to it, and there are clearly people who believe it will happen. But that's literally it - they have some opinions, and post them as a "source" - as they're not the first to break this "story" its entirely possible, and I'd suggest
likely that those people they're using as sources, are themselves influenced by existing "articles" about this same topic. Once enough people talk about the same thing, others start to believe it, regardless of how true it is.
The other Article/theory Axios referenced is from Bloomberg, who, like you, supposes some kind of "Mac/iPhone/iPad" "single app" benefit to Arm CPUs - Catalyst, and the apps that have been released using it, are evidence that CPU architecture is not a "blocker" in this space: the blocker is in making an App designed for an iPad screen/interactions/window model work on a Mac. No amount of CPU similarity will make Apps magically have logical menubar entries or resize behaviour or whatever other inconsistencies people are seeing in Catalyst apps.
That is what the ABOUT is for in the sentence
"About" is not the word I was commenting on.
and I also just stated “about Apples eventual switch to ARM for the macs” , just now, long after you misstated me, so it’s irrelivent anyway...
It's not irrelevant at all. I suggested that you are treating the collection of republished articles about this as fact, or "gospel", purely as my interpretation of your comments on the matter. You've then argued that I'm mischaracterising your views, and in the process, you've described this as-yet-completely-unconfirmed potential change as "eventual". So as I said, either you do believe it is eventual or you just keep mis-using that word. Arguing that you didn't say it until after, is what's irrelevant. I presented my interpretation of how you'd reacted to those articles, and your followup has just confirmed what I first guessed about your views.
taken sentences out of context and claimed I said something I didn’t....
Where?
i don’t know maybe it’s a reading comprehension issue.
Well I agree I certainly have trouble comprehending what you've written, because you use words that apparently you don't know the meaning of, which leads you to get upset when someone makes a comment on what you've said.
I notice you didn't clarify anything about calling me a troll. Was that deliberate, because you got it wrong, or because you had just wanted to insult me, or do you just not understand why a difference of opinion is different to trolling?