Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Maybe. Out of order compared to in order is faster on the same ISA and given the same number of pipes, registers, etc. Given that x86 instructions generally carry a much bigger payload than ARM instructions, unless you have some specific data I wouldn't reach that conclusion.
Yes you're right. I was a bit over-enthusiastic about Cortex A9's potential against CULV Core 2 Duos.

At least in theoretical performance, Cortex A9 is rated at 2.5 DMIPS/MHz per core (http://www.arm.com/pdfs/ARMCortexA-9Processors.pdf), Atom gets about 2.4 DMIPS/MHz per core (http://www.ocworkbench.com/2008/gigabyte/M912/g4.htm) , while Cortex A8 is rated at 2.0 DMIPS/Mhz per core (http://www.arm.com/pdfs/Cortex-A8_data_brief_FINAL_2_.pdf). So Cortex A9 and Atom have the potential to perform similarly at the same clock speed, but of course real world results will no doubt be quite different than the limited conditions that Dhrystone tests.
 
Yes you're right. I was a bit over-enthusiastic about Cortex A9's potential against CULV Core 2 Duos.

At least in theoretical performance, Cortex A9 is rated at 2.5 DMIPS/MHz per core (http://www.arm.com/pdfs/ARMCortexA-9Processors.pdf), Atom gets about 2.4 DMIPS/MHz per core (http://www.ocworkbench.com/2008/gigabyte/M912/g4.htm) , while Cortex A8 is rated at 2.0 DMIPS/Mhz per core (http://www.arm.com/pdfs/Cortex-A8_data_brief_FINAL_2_.pdf). So Cortex A9 and Atom have the potential to perform similarly at the same clock speed, but of course real world results will no doubt be quite different than the limited conditions that Dhrystone tests.

Yep. Take into account on-chip memory controllers, caches, and the fact that compilers are still far more optimized to x86 than on ARM, and I don't think it would be very close except for benchmark code.
 
IF they are building a SoC for the iPhone then on a Mac it could run all the I/O including multitouch input driver for the track pad, wifi, bluetooth, cellnetwork data, ...

Well I didn't necessarily mean the entire SoC will make its way into the Mac, I meant only certain specialized cores. Both the iPhone and Macs share the same core OS, some of those processes could be offloaded to custom processing units. Those processing units can be built-in into an ARM SoC or made into its own custom chip which could be included on a Mac motherboard.

What any of these specialized cores would do, I have no idea, but given Apple's recent work in compiler and process distribution technologies in OS X, the sky is the limit. And you have to believe that Apple will try to further differentiate all of its products (hardware) from other vendors.
 
I think it switches to the linux mode immediately. There is a seamless transfer when browsing the web on Win7 docked, to Linux as a tablet. So it was actually the linux OS browser looking at the same page when it was removed.
I read it on Gizmodo (I think) that describes all other apps have that 2-second delay in the switch from Win7 laptop to linux tablet.

Now take that one step further...
Apple would be using two variations of the same OS the screen could run iPhone OS but with a souped up version of Grand central and xGrid so that if it was in range it could push x86 specific code to the co-processor in the base.

So the screen/slate half is running iPhone+ OS on a nVidia Tegra.
The Lower half a xGrid node on a lower power intel cpu/gpu combo that is dispatched jobs by grand central and sends back results which in some cases maybe the app window. Although it would have to be a pretty high bandwidth wireless connection between the two.

When on the base the apps that are in the know run their normal Cocoa Nibs then switch nibs to the cocoa touch nib that suits orientation if you take it off the base. Although I'd want to do able to dock either Landscape or portrait. Developers would be required not to have x86 specific functions accessible from the cocoa touch nibs so the user isn't hitting brick walls.

I can't see it being cheap though.
So still room for a 7inch pure slate version that maybe can still use your Desktop for it xGrid node when in range.
 
Total waste of money if I can't run OS X.

I assume you mean Mac OS X? Because the iPhone, iPod touch, AppleTV, and Macs all currently run OS X, so there's no reason why the tablet wouldn't.

And it would really only be a "total waste of money" if you actually paid for the device and it didn't do what you thought it would.

And I hate to be the one to disappoint you, but it is definitely not going to run Mac OS X. Apple already stated that they are building ARM based systems for their mobile products, which was given as the main reason for the P.A. Semi acquisition.

Sticking a "desktop" interface into a tablet form factor is the reason they haven't been successful to date. It doesn't offer anything new that a laptop can't do.
 
This thread is hilarious. 90% of the replies are from the clueless. :rolleyes:

Didn't we learn 5 years ago that "GHz" doesn't mean anything. OS X is not platform dependent, Apple have had OS X, and its direct derivatives, running on ARM since the 1990's. Could get Windows 2000 that runs on ARM.

Apple have been working with ARM since the 1980's when they helped Acorn Computers to develop the platform further. They have always had a huge interest.
 
No way Apple is building a fab. That costs billions of dollars, and there are plenty of contract fabs (TSMC, Charter, Global Foundries, UMC, IBM) that are a much better solution.

I'm not so sure. They've had a hell of a time keeping secrets these days with all the vendors they need to use. Bringing manufacturing inhouse would make perfect sense for them. As for the billions of dollars, Apple's got close to $30 billion in CASH in the bank last I looked. Setting up their own fab would be chump change.
 
Intel should move to 11 nm now and offer Apple an amazing Atom chip with a competitive TDP that runs Mac OS X. That would be the real killer device.
 
I think the problem isn't the OS... I think the nagging issue here is going to be Flash or a Flash alternative. Flash, as it exists today, on that reference Atom design, in Windows, is capable of running full-screen flash video, but it does so at marginal levels.

Flash itself is marginally relevant in terms of the overall web experience, but once the issue of streaming video comes up, I think it's a different story, as Hulu, Netflix, Unbox, and the in-house websites of the major US broadcast and cable networks all use Flash as their content delivery mechanism.

I would consider full screen video to be a fairly important component of the pitch, so I'll be curious to see what Apple has in mind. I'm hoping the answer is, "Sorry, you can't use all the providers that offer high-quality, free or inexpensive TV/movie video over the internet, but you can use our $3.99 rental system."

You're forgetting the fact that Flash will be gone soon. Once HTML 5.0 hits, everything will be embedded in a <video> using h.264.
 
Intel should move to 11 nm now and offer Apple an amazing Atom chip with a competitive TDP that runs Mac OS X. That would be the real killer device.

Running Mac OS X isn't the main challenge. It would even be the simplest solution, that's why it's unlikely :) The real issue is about ergonomics. You can flock a full sized OS to a small screen like XP Tablet PC and netbooks have done for years but it's not the ideal user experience. If Apple wants to win this, they have to come up with a different innovative user interface and better usability than the competition.
 
I think the problem isn't the OS... I think the nagging issue here is going to be Flash or a Flash alternative. Flash, as it exists today, on that reference Atom design, in Windows, is capable of running full-screen flash video, but it does so at marginal levels.

That's not so much a problem with the Atom as a problem with the Intel integrated graphics which don't support hardware H.264. If Apple add H.264 decode into their tablet then potentially they can get better full screen Flash video than the Atom netbooks.

Of course that all depends on Apple being OK with Flash on their tablet and Adobe adding hardware support for it. IIRC they've only added H.264 hardware support in Windows.

Flash itself is marginally relevant in terms of the overall web experience, but once the issue of streaming video comes up, I think it's a different story, as Hulu, Netflix, Unbox, and the in-house websites of the major US broadcast and cable networks all use Flash as their content delivery mechanism.

True although here in the UK, the BBC is using H.264 now on some of their native iPlayer clients such as the Nintendo Wii iPlayer. The native Wii version is pretty good compared to the old web based Flash version.

I would consider full screen video to be a fairly important component of the pitch, so I'll be curious to see what Apple has in mind. I'm hoping the answer is, "Sorry, you can't use all the providers that offer high-quality, free or inexpensive TV/movie video over the internet, but you can use our $3.99 rental system."

You're hoping for that? Surely you mean you're NOT hoping it's Apple's usual closed iTunes service.
 
You're forgetting the fact that Flash will be gone soon. Once HTML 5.0 hits, everything will be embedded in a <video> using h.264.

Much as I'd love to see that since it would open up content delivery, it needs...

IE to support <video> AND h.264
Firefox to support h.264

or Apple to support OGG Theora

Then it needs the browser manufacturers to fix the autoplay/autobuffer issues in their initial implementations.

And even then there's issues with rights management to solve that means some websites will still prefer Flash.

Flash won't be going away soon for video delivery.
 
What's the point of the tablet then? Bespoke apps?

Run apps that are better designed than desktop apps for that task!

If you've never used a tablet before it's a normal reaction to want a desktop OS to run on it with touch features. Then you'll realise the average Windows apps aren't designed for a touchscreen environment and/or a small screen.
You need coherence.
 
No ARM Mac OS X?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghdTqnYnFyg 4:42 minutes -

"Mac OS X has been leading a secret double life for the past 5 years"

What were the Apple rules on OS X?

"We've had teams doing the Just in Case scenario. Our designs for Mac OS X must be processor independent."

Why did they want the Intel transition? They wanted the best products for the consumers. "As we look ahead, we can envision some amazing products... Just as important as performance is power consumption. The way we look at it is power per watt. FOr 1 W of power, how much performance do you get?.....This tells us what we have to do"

Intel vs ARM?

The slate makes the reason for Apple dragging its feet on the ATV a lot clearer - they can't use the Slates interface/update first without demoing/announcing/releasing the Slate. Once that's done, i'd imagine we'll see a lot more activity.

If someone can forward a link to the simple reasons why Apple can't get OS X Core/Slate/ whathaveyou on ARM? Not like they didn't hide away Intel...


Don't hear anyone chirping up about how Apple was reportedly *THIS* close to going with PA Semi over Intel a while back - PA Semi were bummed - it was like what they did with IBM. THen Apple snagged PA Semi - the talent and more.

I'd imagine that whilst it'll be rough round the edges, the rumors were around a while back that 2010 meant dualcore ARM on iPhones/iOther
 
Although we should not be fooled by the "Mhz Myth". I am hoping for smarter processor designs. If it happens to be clocked faster than Atom, to boot, I have nothing to be unhappy about. Well, the lack of x86 might be a problem but I will reserve the right to comment on that until we hear more than rumors.

I guess many would love to have full Mac OS X on the tablet instead of a slightly more real-estate consuming iPhone based OS X (me included).


Frankly I don't want either. What I want (and what I'm reasonably sure Apple will deliver) is an OS tailored to the tablet form factor. Something that takes advantage of the screen size, works perfectly with finger control and offers the usual high quality Apple applications.

Not saying that's enough to get me to buy (that's a whole other argument) but there's a reason that Windows-based tablets haven't taken off, and that's largely the fault of trying to cram an OS designed for large screens and keyboard/mouse combinations into tablet hardware. If a tablet is going to work it needs to be a consumer-level device and frankly I'd argue that Apple is so far ahead in that area it's not even funny. Of course the geeks will scream blue murder but that seems to be standard practice these days.
 
Frankly I don't want either. What I want (and what I'm reasonably sure Apple will deliver) is an OS tailored to the tablet form factor. Something that takes advantage of the screen size, works perfectly with finger control and offers the usual high quality Apple applications.

Not saying that's enough to get me to buy (that's a whole other argument) but there's a reason that Windows-based tablets haven't taken off, and that's largely the fault of trying to cram an OS designed for large screens and keyboard/mouse combinations into tablet hardware. If a tablet is going to work it needs to be a consumer-level device and frankly I'd argue that Apple is so far ahead in that area it's not even funny. Of course the geeks will scream blue murder but that seems to be standard practice these days.

That presumes that you'll only ever use a tablet in tablet form and never with an attached (via bluetooth even) keyboard or mouse.

If you can't run Mac OSX apps on it (because it's ARM based, not Intel) then maybe that's a valid presumption but a large screen iPod Touch would be a little disappointing personally speaking, especially if it's locked down to AppStore apps only. I'm looking for an Apple version of the OQO, not another iPod.
 
The Cortex A9 can run up to 2GHz and eat nearly 10x less battery than an X86.

OS X projects are designed to be processor-independant to facilitate porting to another architecture when it's relevant.
If there is one notebook Apple wants to be extremely power efficient, it is the MacBook Air, so sign me up for a dual-processor, dual-core, 2GHz Cortex 9 model. Who needs super-fast processors when you have an OS that is focused on using what you have more efficiently?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.