Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Could this be the new chipset?
- Thread starter thinkdesign
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh great, and soon we'll see iPads with macbook pro capabilities with half the size and few times the battery life. Its weird in the sense that CPU makers are in to making GPUs and GPU makers are trying to make some form of processor. The only thing to worry about now is, by when exactly?
iOS = Mac OS X = Darwin. Simple as that.
The only difference is the GUI, and as iOS code differs from Mac OS X code, you need to port either the code, or the NS-API.
As usual, this is a minor deal, like making Snow Leopard run on PPC. It's all marketing
- or in this case, the lack of an ARM product which would benefit from Mac OS X instead of running iOS.
The only difference is the GUI, and as iOS code differs from Mac OS X code, you need to port either the code, or the NS-API.
As usual, this is a minor deal, like making Snow Leopard run on PPC. It's all marketing
- or in this case, the lack of an ARM product which would benefit from Mac OS X instead of running iOS.AMD and their wise choice to buy ATI will pay off, and Intel with their crappy graphics and their decision to ban nVidia's IGPs from Core-i systems will loose market share. Other than that, nothing to worry about.Perdification said:
iOS = Mac OS X = Darwin. Simple as that.
The only difference is the GUI, and as iOS code differs from Mac OS X code, you need to port either the code, or the NS-API.
As usual, this is a minor deal, like making Snow Leopard run on PPC. It's all marketing
AMD and their wise choice to buy ATI will pay off, and Intel with their crappy graphics and their decision to ban nVidia's IGPs from Core-i systems will loose market share. Other than that, nothing to worry about.
Did you just say
uh...
Yes, I did. Ask Linux, ask *BSD (well, except Apples implementation of BSD, which would be Darwin).Did you just say
UNIX is designed with portability in mind - have a look at iOS, it's ARM. The codebase for PPC is still laying around in Cupertino, from Leopard. It just need to be updated (which I highly believe is already done, like keeping a secret x86 port of OS X all the time).
There is nothing that stops Snow Leopard from running on PPC, except Apple's policies to spend 0 hours to work on it, as they want to sell Intel-based Macs. Apple just took out the PPC code in the XNU and thinned down the Mach-O binaries to x86 and x86_64, and told us "Mac OS X is Intel-only now". It's no technical issue - at all.
No OSX on ARM just yet and problems with new intel MBA
ARM has much more power per watt than x86 and has recently announced 12 core and 2.5 ghz capability. This makes a hot netbook running iOS straightforward and low risk, and therefore attractive to Apple. Putting OSX on ARM is not that hard but does involve commercial risk. So it won't be let out anytime soon.
MBA users don't want a netbook - but a new X86 version faces the Intel/Nvidia difficulties and heat management issues. Both can be solved by a customised low voltage AMD/ATI x86 chipset. Most likely candidate for the emerging Apple/AMD friendship to work on, but could take time.
ARM has much more power per watt than x86 and has recently announced 12 core and 2.5 ghz capability. This makes a hot netbook running iOS straightforward and low risk, and therefore attractive to Apple. Putting OSX on ARM is not that hard but does involve commercial risk. So it won't be let out anytime soon.
MBA users don't want a netbook - but a new X86 version faces the Intel/Nvidia difficulties and heat management issues. Both can be solved by a customised low voltage AMD/ATI x86 chipset. Most likely candidate for the emerging Apple/AMD friendship to work on, but could take time.
I agree that Apple can probably make OS X run on ARM overnight (because they probably have a port laying somewhere already), but what about all other software? Operating system is just a part of the equation and jumping architectures isn't that easy. Everyone has to rewrite their stuff too.
That said, if ARM had some uber-awesome x86 emulation mode then who knows?
Gosh, if it could emulate x86 then intel procs would be doomed. Once it has high enough frequencies it'd replace processors.
Remember Transmeta?
Remember the Intel transition? Quote Apple: "As easy as checking a checkbox". They showed some Wolfram Alpha software, which was ported in 2 hours - mostly being differences between XCode-versions whose you had to deal on PPC as well, and rarely some assembler functions.
Remember Transmeta?
Yes absolutely - Transmeta developed low power VLIW replication of the x86 instruction set, without infringing Intel IP. But Intel apparently copied Transmeta's IP to produce their own lower power cpu's, undermining Transmeta's business case. Intel eventually agreed to a settlement of $150 million upfront and $20 million per year for five years to Transmeta in addition to dropping its counter-claims against Transmeta. But by then the damage was terminal and Transmeta or its successor company folded in 2009. Interestingly nVidia put some money into Transmeta, which may be one reason why Intel has such a downer on nVidia.
Intel never offered a good performance per watt ratio. If they ever claimed that was the reason for the switch, it was a lie. Intel's CPUs are real power-burners, they're no more power-efficient than the G5 and probably worse. Intel's roasting-hot CPUs are the reason that laptops can't sit on users' laps anymore.
ARM CPUs have been available for years and have always offered far more performance per watt than anything Intel ever offered. The Intel Atom may come close, but Mac OS X does not support the Atom.
(edit) oh, and as for AMD: as I've pointed out for years, Intel will never let Apple use an AMD CPU. Never.
And how would Intel stop them??? (Could Apple coerce Intel into giving them some some Sandy Bridge parts for the new MBA before anyone else gets them?)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 8.12; MSIEMobile6.0) Sprint T7380)
The news of Apple getting some big touch screen panels to experiment with, is being interpreted as meaning that "a Mac O/S in a iOS skin" to control it when the touch screen is in use, may not just be a patent that will be lying fallow. Of course it isn't guaranteed that they'll make such a desktop product (as patent shows) either.
A thought: If they're ready to physically experiment with these touch screens... does that mean that they already have the 2 operating systems sufficiently grafted together? (AS IN, THE 11.6" air coming out this month ? could have some version of this?) OR do they need the sample big touch screens to complete the code-writing FOR that O/S combining?
The news of Apple getting some big touch screen panels to experiment with, is being interpreted as meaning that "a Mac O/S in a iOS skin" to control it when the touch screen is in use, may not just be a patent that will be lying fallow. Of course it isn't guaranteed that they'll make such a desktop product (as patent shows) either.
A thought: If they're ready to physically experiment with these touch screens... does that mean that they already have the 2 operating systems sufficiently grafted together? (AS IN, THE 11.6" air coming out this month ? could have some version of this?) OR do they need the sample big touch screens to complete the code-writing FOR that O/S combining?
Oh and there have been reports of AMD people going to Apple in buses not too long ago...
That rumor has been around for decades. There was a single rumor back in April which means nothing. AMD = ATI nowadays so even if someone from AMD was at Apple's, there is no way of knowing was it about CPUs or GPUs.
AMD would be downgrade in terms of CPU performance
AMD wouldn't be a downgrade, I think it would be comparable to what we have now since the specs of current Apple products aren't that great to start with.
MBPs use the best CPUs that are available. The best offering from AMD is 2.8GHz dual or 2GHz quad, both without Turbo or HT. Then add that Intel is faster in clock for clock performance due better micro-architecture. i7-620M runs circles around any mobile AMD.
AMD is only good for budget PCs, it can't fight against Intel in higher-end market.