The absence of Bootcamp is preventing me from switching to M1 or M2... Will there ever be a solution?

[Gudi]

Windows is dominant in their market though, desktops and laptops, and by a good margin.

And IBM never lost its lead on mainframes. PCs were toys for nerds and then "one on every desk and in every home" and then they were gone. The next generation never even learned how to operate a filesystem.

Big Blue supports Windows quite well, both in hardware and software.

30 years ago IBM sold its PC business to Lenovo. Whom will Microsoft sell their Windows business?

It doesn't mean that to me since they dropped it so quickly.

Android didn't need to buy its own hardware business to become a relevant OS. They simply succeeded where Windows Phone failed. And after it failed, Microsoft got desperate and bought Nokia as if that could help.

And how much do I have to say I don't care if they're relevant in the mobile space? I really don't care, but I do care about the desktops and laptops, and especially what we run on them. Mobiles will *never* take over all jobs in businesses, they're just too limited and can't run the software we need.

And I'm sure there once were IBM fanboys, which said I really don't care if they're relevant in the personal computer space. But I do care about mainframes and what we run on them. PCs will *never* take over all jobs in businesses, they're just too limited and can't run the software we need.

The software that runs on these machines is everything, like it or not...

“People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware” − Alan Kay

Steve Jobs always found the right quote to highlight his viewpoints.

 

[Colstan]

Nor do us Windows users want it to. There is no incentive for it.

I have to agree with @bobcomer on this. It's easy to forget that x86 is a niche ISA, but an extremely profitable niche. x86 has become synonymous with traditional PCs, and that's not going to change anytime soon. Arm Windows is a solution looking for a problem. If there are any benefits to be had in terms of efficiency and removing some of the legacy cruft from x86, those benefits are easily wiped away by having full x86 compatibility.

With macOS, Apple controls the entire widget, there are legitimate benefits to Apple Silicon beyond the instruction set. Rosetta 2 is highly optimized, whereas Microsoft's WOA translation/emulation efforts are substandard in comparison. It was an easy prospect for Apple, because all of their devices run on their own Arm designs already, and Apple customers have no alternative if they want to continue to run macOS. We've been through the whole debate over the transition ad infinitum, that ship sailed long ago, so there's no point in rehashing it. The only thing left is waiting on the Apple Silicon Mac Pro to put the nail in the coffin.

Arm desktops may also make sense for certain Linux distros, a market segment that is already balkanized, so nobody is going to blink at a few new variants. The Asahi Linux project for Apple Silicon is coming along nicely, which looks like it will make for a quality Linux desktop for Mac users. The Asahi team have made remarkable progress in a short amount of time.

Arm Windows is completely different. The traditional PC market isn't one that moves quickly or appreciates sudden change. We've seen this rodeo before, with Windows NT supporting PowerPC, Alpha, MIPS, and x86. The DEC Alpha was superior to Intel in almost every way, FX!32 emulation for x86 programs was fast, but it gained absolutely no traction, despite Windows NT on Alpha hanging on for years. In the PC space, the best technology rarely wins, the most compatible always does.

WOA needs a compelling feature that will show capabilities well beyond what x86 currently offers, and that "killer feature" has yet to materialize. Microsoft is the embodiment of a participation trophy, and most Windows users are fine with that, even encourage it. Businesses don't want their applications to break because of some weird edge case that's specific to x86. Price conscious consumers pick up the cheapest thing they can find on a Best Buy shelf during Black Friday. PC Gamers don't care about efficiency, they just want raw power, and battery life doesn't matter when their anime-themed computer case is plugged directly into the wall.

On top of that, trying to get the dozens of major PC manufacturers to consider anything other than x86 is like trying to herd scorpions. Recently, I took a look into building a custom gaming PC, and the process hasn't changed much in the last 30 years. Gaming PCs have gotten louder, hotter, brighter, bigger, but are fundamentally unchanged in the past three decades. Gamers may not be a majority of PC owners, but they are definitely influential, particularly when friends and family ask for advice. In that respect, they'll always say to go with x86.

On top of that, we all know how ruthless Intel can be about defending its turf. Intel did everything it could to stop AMD from gaining traction when they first became a threat. "Intel Inside" was and still is a potent marketing campaign. The difference between now and then is that Intel and AMD both have a mutual interest in seeing Arm defeated before it can gain a foothold in the PC space. Both companies have considerable resources, mindshare, and incentive to make sure that Arm PCs never become anything more than a curious novelty.

Concerning Microsoft itself, I've got the impression that they are hedging their bets, just in case Arm becomes something of importance for PCs, even if those purposes aren't entirely clear right now. Having an Arm alternative with Windows is also useful when dealing with the x86 chip vendors. "Nice architecture you've got there, Intel, wouldn't it be a shame if anything ever happened to it?".

So, for macOS and a small subset of Linux users, sure, Arm makes all the sense in the world. Yes, I realize that there are some folks who want the return of Boot Camp and a switch to Ryzen with the Mac, but that's not happening, we all know it, Apple has directly told us as much.

For Windows PCs, there's simply no compelling reason to move away from x86. If I were to build a custom PC today, I wouldn't be caught dead with an Arm design, but it wouldn't matter, because I would be dead.

The software that runs on these machines is everything, like it or not...

Exactly. Bob is correct, software compatibility is what matters, and without the ruthless ability to slash and burn legacy applications, Windows on x86 will always be king. Apple can institutionally get away with it, Microsoft's culture and business model depends upon compatibility. For example, a corporation that relies upon compatibility with proprietary accounting programs written in the 1980s (where many of those programmers are retired or dead) may not be sexy to forum nerds who want the latest and greatest fancy technology, but it's everything in maintaining the x86 Windows hegemony.

 

[leman]

Actually, they were. It's just that Apple Silicon Macs can do that better than Intel Macs. Same thing with back in the late 2000s when Intel Macs were better for photo and video work than PowerPC Macs were.

What I mean is that Intel Macs were often worse for those tasks than contemporary PCs with similar hardware configurations. Creative software often ran better on Windows, with better optimizations, and better support. Now things are different because Apple offers compelling hardware with attractive capabilities, while also having much improved their frameworks and features like colorspaces etc.

 

[bobcomer]

30 years ago IBM sold its PC business to Lenovo. Whom will Microsoft sell their Windows business?

Who knows, as long as it runs the software I need to run, the maker really doesn't matter all that much to me. It's still their biggest moneymaker, so I doubt it'll be anytime soon. If it disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, I'd still run the same stuff -- it's just far too costly to replace the software.

Android didn't need to buy its own hardware business to become a relevant OS. They simply succeeded where Windows Phone failed. And after it failed, Microsoft got desperate and bought Nokia as if that could help.

As did Windows, they succeeded where CPM, Commodore OS, Unix, and a whole plethora of other flashes in the pan, without their own hardware.

You haven't seen Microsoft desperate yet, not even close. They bought a LOT of other companies.

And I'm sure there once were IBM fanboys, which said I really don't care if they're relevant in the personal computer space.

There were! In the PC space they had OS/2, a better OS than Windows at the time, real multitasking rather than Windows 3.1 cooperative crap. As a fresh COSC graduate, it was *the* OS for the desktop.

But I do care about mainframes and what we run on them. PCs will *never* take over all jobs in businesses, they're just too limited and can't run the software we need.

Yep, and that's still the case actually. PC's are woefully small and such limited bandwidth and I/O.

“People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware” − Alan Kay

I'm not impressed with that statement at all. Once the hardware becomes a commodity, who cares who makes it as long as it's compatible. The software is the only thing that I care about. Sure, one might be able to optimize specific hardware and the OS for a specific job, but I much prefer general purpose hardware. It's cheaper and more predictable whether you can get it or not.

 

[mi7chy]

x64 nearly owns the whole stack from supercomputers, servers, desktops, laptops, handhelds and come May 11th could also capture the mobile market. Developers will embrace it especially in a belt tightening economy since it makes targeting software releases for multiple platforms based on a common ISA easy. Just look at how Resident Evil 4 Remake and soon to be Diablo IV simultaneously released to PS5, PS4, Xbox One X, Xbox One S and x64 at the same time. Imagine tablet and phone being on the same release schedule. ARM will become even less relevant except for the ultra low cost Raspberry Pi and equivalent SBCs and microcontrollers.

 

[bobcomer]

Arm Windows is completely different. The traditional PC market isn't one that moves quickly or appreciates sudden change. We've seen this rodeo before, with Windows NT supporting PowerPC, Alpha, MIPS, and x86. The DEC Alpha was superior to Intel in almost every way, FX!32 emulation for x86 programs was fast, but it gained absolutely no traction, despite Windows NT on Alpha hanging on for years. In the PC space, the best technology rarely wins, the most compatible always does.

WOA needs a compelling feature that will show capabilities well beyond what x86 currently offers, and that "killer feature" has yet to materialize. Microsoft is the embodiment of a participation trophy, and most Windows users are fine with that, even encourage it. Businesses don't want their applications to break because of some weird edge case that's specific to x86. Price conscious consumers pick up the cheapest thing they can find on a Best Buy shelf during Black Friday. PC Gamers don't care about efficiency, they just want raw power, and battery life doesn't matter when their anime-themed computer case is plugged directly into the wall.

Well said!

 

[Pet3rK]

x64 nearly owns the whole stack from supercomputers, servers, desktops, laptops, handhelds and come May 11th could also capture the mobile market. Developers will embrace it especially in a belt tightening economy since it makes targeting software releases for multiple platforms based on a common ISA easy. Just look at how Resident Evil 4 Remake and soon to be Diablo IV simultaneously released to PS5, PS4, Xbox One X, Xbox One S and x64 at the same time. Imagine tablet and phone being on the same release schedule. ARM will become even less relevant except for the ultra low cost Raspberry Pi and equivalent SBCs and microcontrollers.

Lmao. Mobile will still be ARM. They can't compete with the iPhones and Androids. Seriously, the "mobile" you are are trying to promote in a separate thread is just pathetic. It's not even a mobile phone.

Wow, they release in normal freaking way. That spells doom to ARM. /s

ARM is actually becoming relevant and it isn't stopping. And also, Pi isn't the ultra low cost microcomputer.

I do question what is "handheld". Because if it's tablet, then it's majority iPads and low cost Android tablets.

After I graduate, I am going to try and convince my school to make a server out of AS Mac Minis in the future for scientific data processing(the software run exclusively on Linux and Mac and AS Macs native). Even the base model is enough and it's cheap too. With the economy, I have been watching my electric bill especially in the summer heat.

 

[Gudi]

Exactly. Bob is correct, software compatibility is what matters, and without the ruthless ability to slash and burn legacy applications, Windows on x86 will always be king. Apple can institutionally get away with it, Microsoft's culture and business model depends upon compatibility.

Inflexibility is not a virtue. How many corporations relied on IBM mainframes, until they threw them all away and switched over to PCs?

You haven't seen Microsoft desperate yet, not even close. They bought a LOT of other companies.

Like Nokia ($7bn), like Skype ($8.5bn). They buy market leaders in hope it gives them some leverage to exploit and run them into the ground. In contrast Apple bought FingerWorks (Delaware) in 2005. It's Multitouch technology is in every Apple product, even on top of the Magic Mouse, which never fails to distinguish palm rest from intentional finger gestures. Multitouch made the iPhone and the iPhone made Apple the largest technology company that ever was. What did Apple do with all this money, buy Microsoft? No! They went into chipmaking and are so far ahead of everything Microsoft has to offer that it's not even a competition anymore.

I'm not impressed with that statement at all. Once the hardware becomes a commodity, who cares who makes it as long as it's compatible.

That was the Microsoft way and it made Bill Gates the richest man on earth for a while, but it didn't last. Software is even more a commodity than hardware, because you can make unlimited copies for free. Google can afford to give away Android, Chrome and ChromeOS for free. Apple users get Pages, Numbers and Keynote for free. Software is way way more a commodity than hardware.

Apple returned to profitability during the second coming of Steve Jobs by ending the licensing of Mac OS 9 to OEMs, who could legally build Mac-compatible clones. The hardware is the part of a computer which exists in the physical realm. Somebody has to ship the silicon atoms to you in a delivery van. That's the point of payment you can't avoid and that's where you charge for the whole package hardware and software combined.

And we know that's true, because Microsoft ended its strategy as a pure software company and tried to get into the hardware business as well. Now all the OEMs, who once made them rich are their direct competitors and the customers feel no trust and loyalty to Microsoft hardware at all.

The software is the only thing that I care about.

A great sentence to be graved into a tombstone.

Sure, one might be able to optimize specific hardware and the OS for a specific job, but I much prefer general purpose hardware.

So you prefer CPUs over GPUs? And if GPUs then only general purpose ones and not those with specific hardware acceleration for H.264 and HEVC? You see, if you support every codec in the world, you will never be efficient and you will never run on a smartphone. That's why I prefer general purpose software like AirPrint over installing another bloated driver for every printer.

By cutting off support for any old ****, you become more efficient, which is always better. And that brings us back to the threat title. If you've got to choose between an M-series Mac or one which can play your old 32-bit games via Bootcamp into x86 Windows, which one do you take?

 

[bobcomer]

Software is even more a commodity than hardware, because you can make unlimited copies for free.

Not for corporate software, not even close. I wish it were, my job would be a lot easier, but a lot is customized at the least (mean we pay a LOT of money to get the source for a commercial product, and customize it for our business segment -- a single user license is in the thousands, think how much a source license is), or internally written.

Inflexibility is not a virtue. How many corporations relied on IBM mainframes, until they threw them all away and switched over to PCs?

Some, who knows, they still have mainframes btw -- you don't think bank corporations use a bunch of PC's do you, lol!! I've mostly only worked on midrange shops (think big servers with high thruput), not mainframes, and they're still there too. Banks are just what I know the most about, but any large organization still has mainframes. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they're not there.

And we know that's true, because Microsoft ended its strategy as a pure software company and tried to get into the hardware business as well. Now all the OEMs, who once made them rich are their direct competitors and the customers feel no trust and loyalty to Microsoft hardware at all.

LOL, that's just too much and ignores just what Microsoft's main business is. Their hardware has never been a major part of it and never was intended as such.

A great sentence to be graved into a tombstone.

Well, it is what I have gotten paid for for 45 years or so. Yes, I buy hardware, but only to run the software I know it needs to run.

So you prefer CPUs over GPUs?

For the work I do now, of course, we don't need GPU's at all for it and most PC's we buy only have iGPU's, and our midrange doesn't have anything even like a video card, much less a GPU. Thruput is important, but it's all multiuser database stuff.

And if GPUs then only general purpose ones and not those with specific hardware acceleration for H.264 and HEVC? You see, if you support every codec in the world, you will never be efficient and you will never run on a smartphone. That's why I prefer general purpose software like AirPrint over installing another bloated driver for every printer.

There's just no way what we need is going to run on phone sized stuff, it's heavy data entry, and the screen is WAY to small and you wouldn't want to key it in on a touch screen!! Mobiles will be fast enough, I have no doubt of that, but the form factor just doesn't work for this kind of work. Even a table would be burdensome. And btw, PC's have already been moving to something like airprint and no driver other than OS is needed as printers become more capable. We still have to have software to generate what we print though! It's not all excel and word!!!!

By cutting off support for any old ****, you become more efficient, which is always better.

That's just it, we *don't* become more efficient -- we spend a heck of a lot more money to do the same thing, and money is what makes corporations work. We don't do something if there's no ROI.

And that brings us back to the threat title. If you've got to choose between an M-series Mac or one which can play your old 32-bit games via Bootcamp into x86 Windows, which one do you take?

That's easy, for work I wouldn't buy a Mac at all, but for home, I use my intel iMac 99% of the time while my Mac Studio Max just sits there serving my iMessages to my android phone. I do play with emulation of other CPU's with it when I'm really bored though. I'll probably trade it in on something eventually. And I don't even play games that often and I have a XBox console for that.

 

[Gudi]

Some, who knows, they still have mainframes btw -- you don't think bank corporations use a bunch of PC's do you, lol.

Financial institution spend billions on their own custom solutions, which fall in neither category. Corporations often use SAP or Oracle which run on top of Windows, which technically makes them PCs in a client server configuration feeding into a database. Neither the client nor the server is a mainframe. A mainframe is one giant computer solving one giant equation on its own. Maybe a weather forecast supercomputer can be defined as a modern mainframe.

LOL, that's just too much and ignores just what Microsoft's main business is. Their hardware has never been a major part of it and never was intended as such.

Which is just another business failure. Microsoft's modus operandi has always been copying the competition and beating them on faster growth and market domination. Windows is a copy of Macintosh OS, Bing is a copy of Google Search, Explorer/Edge is a copy of Netscape, MediaPlayer is a copy of QuickTime, Xbox is a copy of Playstation, Zune is a copy of iPod and so on and on. Of course the Surface tablets are copies of the iPad. Microsoft's hardware business never was successful, but the intend was to kill the iPad and not let Apple dominate another form factor after they already failed to compete with iPhone. Hell, they even opened Microsoft retail stores to copy the success of the Apple Store. Most of Microsoft's copying ventures are woefully unsuccessful. But their corporate culture is just not one of developing their own ideas.

There's just no way what we need is going to run on phone sized stuff, it's heavy data entry, and the screen is WAY to small and you wouldn't want to key it in on a touch screen!! Mobiles will be fast enough, I have no doubt of that, but the form factor just doesn't work for this kind of work.

Meanwhile tablets and physical keyboards exist.

And btw, PC's have already been moving to something like airprint and no driver other than OS is needed as printers become more capable.

Of course Microsoft also copies single features from iOS and macOS as well as entire products.

We still have to have software to generate what we print though! It's not all excel and word!!!!

No, we don't. OS X always had native Postscript and PDF support. You can just drag the file on your printer icon or open it in Preview. Likewise the Print-Dialog of every native OS X app can generate the output as a PDF file.

That's just it, we *don't* become more efficient -- we spend a heck of a lot more money to do the same thing, and money is what makes corporations work.

Corporations are quick to learn that their employees and customers no longer care to learn about file management, multitasking and the desktop metaphor. If it doesn't work as easy as an iPhone app, it's broken and will be ignored.

We don't do something if there's no ROI.

Don't you think, the most profitable tech company in history knows something about return on investment? What is the possible benefit of making your own chips and transitioning your OS to them. 🤔

Apple’s move to M1 chips will save $2.5B this year, estimates IBM exec

 

[bobcomer]

Corporations often use SAP or Oracle which run on top of Windows,

And on top of mainframes.

A mainframe is one giant computer solving one giant equation on its own.

No, that's not what a Mainframe is, or was. While the shape can vary quite a bit, think of a really big multi-database server with many concurrent users on many concurrent devices (printers, displays, check readers...) in many locations.

What you describe is a supercomputer and only a supercomputer -- mainframes are the opposite of that. They solve a bunch of stuff for many many users.

Meanwhile tablets and physical keyboards exist.

Yep, but might as well use a laptop or desktop -- that's a MUCH better experience for working. Sure, a tablet makes sense for some things, but not for office workers that interact with the computer all day. And as for phones, they're good for communication, just like the form factor was designed for.

Of course Microsoft also copies single features from iOS and macOS as well as entire products.

This actually more from the printer manufacturers side and it uses and internet protocol, not like Airprint. Microsoft might have encouraged it, but I don't think it came from them. (IPP) And then there's PS and PDF capable printers.

No, we don't. OS X always had native Postscript and PDF support. You can just drag the file on your printer icon or open it in Preview. Likewise the Print-Dialog of every native OS X app can generate the output as a PDF file.

LOL, you have to generate and format that data with something, it's not all just printing, that's what I'm talking about.

Corporations are quick to learn that their employees and customers no longer care to learn about file management, multitasking and the desktop metaphor. If it doesn't work as easy as an iPhone app, it's broken and will be ignored.

I give up. You just seem to have no concept of how much complex applications are needed to keep a business going in this day and age. You want to think and iPhone can do it wall, well it can't. It can do a part of it, but that's it, businesses don't run on phones, especially medium to big businesses. We have to keep track of so much ****, environmental impact, tax reporting, inventory in multiple locations, shipping, quality control, yields, margins, payroll, search for employees, accounting, reporting to corporate masters, plus much more, and we aren't even a big business.

Don't you think, the most profitable tech company in history knows something about return on investment? What is the possible benefit of making your own chips and transitioning your OS to them. 🤔

Their ROI is the only thing they care about, not their customers.

 

[Gudi]

No, that's not what a Mainframe is, or was. While the shape can vary quite a bit, think of a really big multi-database server with many concurrent users on many concurrent devices (printers, displays, check readers...) in many locations.

That's not what mainframes were in the 1960s and 1970s when IBM dominated the entire computer market and the idea that PCs could become a competition seemed ridiculous. The modern mainframe market is dwarfed by the size of the PC market and PCs are dwarfed by the size of the smartphone market. Because computer makers need to maximize their ROI too, the bulk of investments goes into technologies that are applicable for smartphones. Tablets, laptops, desktops, mainframes are all down the value chain and only receive the leftovers of smartphone innovation. So you don't actually "prefer" stock hardware, it's all you can get. Financial institutions either use standard hardware from the PC market or custom built single solutions for billions of dollars.

What you describe is a supercomputer and only a supercomputer -- mainframes are the opposite of that. They solve a bunch of stuff for many many users.

And you describe a server, not a mainframe.

Yep, but might as well use a laptop or desktop -- that's a MUCH better experience for working.

Right, but laptops are going to adopt ARM-based architectures, because they are more energy-efficient and to avoid Intel's monopoly prices. MacBook and iPad are already running on the same M1 chip. They are both mobile computers with a different user interface.

Sure, a tablet makes sense for some things, but not for office workers that interact with the computer all day. And as for phones, they're good for communication, just like the form factor was designed for.

You need to take into account, that the next generation won't grow up with PCs. All their expectations how computers should work comes from using smartphones. This will have consequences for traditional office work and might spell doom for Microsoft Office as well.

This actually more from the printer manufacturers side and it uses and internet protocol, not like Airprint. Microsoft might have encouraged it, but I don't think it came from them.

Printer manufacturers have no interest in common standards, which make it easier to switch to their competition. On the contrary, they want their own printing software to automatically order replacement ink online on a subscription base. A uniform printing standard was enforced by OS makers. And it all started with iOS, because on a tiny smartphone you couldn't install custom drivers for every periphery device you might want to use. Apple simply forced printer makers to either AirPrint or no print.

I give up. You just seem to have no concept of how much complex applications are needed to keep a business going in this day and age. You want to think and iPhone can do it wall, well it can't. It can do a part of it, but that's it, businesses don't run on phones, especially medium to big businesses.

Of course it can't. And so you couldn't run a big business on a Macintosh. And yet the PC quickly overtook mainframes. It all started as a computer cheap and small for individuals to use at home and then it conquered the business world. Can't you see that the same is going to happen with smartphones and tablets?

We have to keep track of so much ****, environmental impact, tax reporting, inventory in multiple locations, shipping, quality control, yields, margins, payroll, search for employees, accounting, reporting to corporate masters, plus much more, and we aren't even a big business.

Running a PC used to be a burden. You had to set jumpers and IRQs, boot up, modify your autoexec.bat, manage your own memory, start a program and wait till it had loaded, defrag the hard drive from time to time, save your own files and backup them yourself, burn them on CD. Yuck! 🤮

But then Steve Jobs came along and said, it should just work when I open the lid of my laptop and go to sleep when I close it. And suddenly people who bought Macs had some time to do actual work. iPhone and iPad were such a success with the general public, because iOS had a much more reasonable learning curve.

Don't you think the same can be true for any kind of work? If the government wants its taxes, they better make it super easy to report them. And so the list goes on. If it can't be done on an iPad, is it even worth to be doing it? After experiencing home office many employees don't see a point in going to work anymore. If Zoom conferencing was enough during the pandemic, why isn't it now? Increasing ROI means cutting a lot of unnecessary stuff that only seemed inevitable previously. And stop paying Intel for what a phone chip can do!

 

[bobcomer]

That's not what mainframes were in the 1960s and 1970s when IBM dominated the entire computer market and the idea that PCs could become a competition seemed ridiculous.

I worked for the State of Wyoming and we had an IBM 370/155, and that's exactly what it was in the middle 70's, and the line of mainframes went back from that doing the same thing. The first computers, as large as mainframes, but single purpose, usually military, are further back than the 60's. The 370 was equipped with 3 hi speed line printers, a laser printer that was down more than it was up, 8 tape drives locally, many disk drives, and liquid cooling, believe it or not. There were terminals in every state office and printers and remote tape drives all over the place. I worked there while I finished up high school. Mostly handling print, but some system operator stuff. We had a tape library and librarian too. (reel to reel 9 track, and paper tape too, and cards...)

PC's weren't thought of yet, of course. I didn't get to play with one until the late 70's for work, though my high school in California had a couple 8008's, and a room full of DEC equipment. (PDP8e's and a's, plus teletype and card readers -- the a's had floppy drives, the e had a disk)

The modern mainframe market is dwarfed by the size of the PC market and PCs are dwarfed by the size of the smartphone market.

Size wise, of course, things do evolve eventually, and the idea of personal computing is very alluring to us geeks to begin with, and the general populace later.

Because computer makers need to maximize their ROI too, the bulk of investments goes into technologies that are applicable for smartphones. Tablets, laptops, desktops, mainframes are all down the value chain and only receive the leftovers of smartphone innovation. So you don't actually "prefer" stock hardware, it's all you can get. Financial institutions either use standard hardware from the PC market or custom built single solutions for billions of dollars.

I think you underestimate just what tech goes in to what, the bigger iron isn't hand-me downs or all custome built, they're very distinct hardware that has evolved over the years. Modern IBM mainframe CPU's can trace back to the 60's with the IBM 360 and it's nothing like your dinky ARM CPUS. Midrange stated out a proprietary CPU design, but moved to what became of the PowerPC line. A lot bigger and more capable now. The only similarity of the Power series to ARM CPU's is they are both RISC. I don't now the innards on mainframe CPU's, but both mainframes and midrange are designed for thruput mainly.

The current IBM mainframe is the z16, and it, of course, has close ties to cloud computing, but still has high transaction processing loads of what came before. The Processor is called a Telum processor, and the z16 can have up to 32 CPU's and each CPU has 8 cores. And up to 40TB of RAM. COBOL is still alive. It's actually fascinating and I just googled it...

And you describe a server, not a mainframe.

There is a lot of overlap, of course, since some of the workloads are pretty similar, but no, I described a mainframe.

Right, but laptops are going to adopt ARM-based architectures, because they are more energy-efficient and to avoid Intel's monopoly prices. MacBook and iPad are already running on the same M1 chip. They are both mobile computers with a different user interface.

Not if it can't run x86/64 code well for us corporate types. If they ever make an ARM based machine that did run x86/64 code fast and transparently, that'd be fine by me, remember, software is everything and if I can run what I need on it, what do I care about the underlying hardware. If that takes specialised cores in an ARM machine, or an emulation layer that is well optimized and the CPU fast enough, as I said, fine by me. I'm not tied to Intel or AMD. I just bought a new laptop this week for one of our managers, it's, surprise, a Windows machine with an AMD processor and there never was any question about looking for an ARM laptop. It will sit on the managers desk 95% of the time and be plugged in the whole time, so battery life will never be an issue.

You need to take into account, that the next generation won't grow up with PCs. All their expectations how computers should work comes from using smartphones. This will have consequences for traditional office work and might spell doom for Microsoft Office as well.

LOL, Business will still need to be able to do the same things, and the yunguns will learn what they need to learn to get a job. After all, I didn't grow up with PC's either, we had just calculators and paper spreadsheets back then, and I learned.

Printer manufacturers have no interest in common standards, which make it easier to switch to their competition. On the contrary, they want their own printing software to automatically order replacement ink online on a subscription base. A uniform printing standard was enforced by OS makers. And it all started with iOS, because on a tiny smartphone you couldn't install custom drivers for every periphery device you might want to use. Apple simply forced printer makers to either AirPrint or no print.

Uh, no. Before iOS, there was various network protocols to print, LPR/LPD being the oldest I know of. You still need a driver, unlike IPP and Windows Printers, but everyone had it and it goes back a LONG way. Modern printers still have LPR/LPD, SMB printing, and others...

Of course it can't. And so you couldn't run a big business on a Macintosh. And yet the PC quickly overtook mainframes. It all started as a computer cheap and small for individuals to use at home and then it conquered the business world. Can't you see that the same is going to happen with smartphones and tablets?

Nope, I don't see that, first off, mainframes are still around, and tablets and phone's form factor is the biggest limiter, they just can't be used for certain things, no matter how much you want them to. The CPU will be fast enough, but the I/O wont ever work for the job. Now if you can plug your phone into dock to make it have better I/O, cool, and if it runs what I need it to run, cool, I'll buy it for the job. But in any case, nothing will happen quickly in this business...

Running a PC used to be a burden. You had to set jumpers and IRQs, boot up, modify your autoexec.bat, manage your own memory, start a program and wait till it had loaded, defrag the hard drive from time to time, save your own files and backup them yourself, burn them on CD. Yuck! 🤮

It hasn't been that way for a very log time.

Don't you think the same can be true for any kind of work?

Nope.

 

[Gudi]

LOL, Business will still need to be able to do the same things, and the yunguns will learn what they need to learn to get a job. After all, I didn't grow up with PC's either, we had just calculators and paper spreadsheets back then, and I learned.

Because you had no alternative. There simply wasn't anything better or easier than the PC with a GUI and an OS built around the desktop metaphor. The next generation will expect every screen to be a touchscreen.

Nope, I don't see that, first off, mainframes are still around, and tablets and phone's form factor is the biggest limiter, they just can't be used for certain things, no matter how much you want them to.

And horse and carriage are also still around and you can't feed hay to a car. What is this nonsense argument? Only because balloons are still around, aircrafts can't take over transportation?

The CPU will be fast enough, but the I/O wont ever work for the job. Now if you can plug your phone into dock to make it have better I/O, cool, and if it runs what I need it to run, cool, I'll buy it for the job. But in any case, nothing will happen quickly in this business...

Except for the businesses which will quickly adapt and build themselves around smartphone and tablet usage. So far the smartphone has replaced: calculators, alarm clocks, dictaphones, calendars, cameras, camcorders, satnav, walkman, gameboy, bookstores, newspapers, banking. Half the stuff we owned as kids has been reduced to an app. Even dating is an app now! Why would businesses be immune to change? Especially the traditional PC market is about to collapse and shrink to a fraction of its former size. Office work will never be the same again.

 

[bobcomer]

And horse and carriage are also still around and you can't feed hay to a car. What is this nonsense argument? Only because balloons are still around, aircrafts can't take over transportation?

No, that's not what I'm saying -- it's the dominant form of desktop computing, period, not that's it's just still around...

Because you had no alternative.

Calculators and paper spreadsheets worked too, computers did it quicker, but I didn't have to learn them, I could have done something else. (The first time I saw a computer in Jr. High, I knew that was what I was going to do with my life, and it's been true this whole time. That sounds like too much focus to me, but I am what i am.

Except for the businesses which will quickly adapt and build themselves around smartphone and tablet usage.

I doubt that, the form factor just isn't conducive to the things a business has to do these days. If anything the desktops will merge with the mobiles, but not anytime soon.

Why would businesses be immune to change?

That's easy, they aren't -- *but* we still have things we need to do and software that does it well -- and *no* budget to rewrite that software for something more modern and no ROI on doing it as it'll still do the same thing. As things change, and they will, we can write new software to fit that change, but the business has to change first, and that's even more money. It's a slow process and it takes a reason to happen in other words, and just because you think an iPhone / iPad can do it all, that isn't a reason.

I'll tell you what, you give me budget of a few million dollars, I'll have everything rewritten for the business I work for, but absent that, it just isn't going to happen for a long time.

 

[Gudi]

I doubt that, the form factor just isn't conducive to the things a business has to do these days.

So there's a market opportunity to improve. Let's see what the verdict on Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro for iPad is! Still toys or finally professional productive software?

If anything the desktops will merge with the mobiles, but not anytime soon.

Like transitioning to ARM silicon and adopting a touchscreen, so that desktop and mobile apps can run side-by-side.

I'll tell you what, you give me budget of a few million dollars, I'll have everything rewritten for the business I work for, but absent that, it just isn't going to happen for a long time.

I'll double the zero dollar your business invests and let this underinvestment be my agent of change. Here's the question: if macOS merges with iOS and iOS continues to exist on its own on billions of smartphones, who then won the platform wars?

 

[bobcomer]

So there's a market opportunity to improve. Let's see what the verdict on Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro for iPad is! Still toys or finally professional productive software?

We'll see. Those aren't in what I need to run, but I agree, it'll be interesting to see who uses it. My guess would be weekend people, as the screens are too small for a "pro" to use, but that's just a guess, those Pro's know a lot more of what they need than I do!

Like transitioning to ARM silicon and adopting a touchscreen, so that desktop and mobile apps can run side-by-side.

For me, no to both, transition to ARM isn't inevitable by any means. As for touch, also no, you'll plug into a dock for keyboard, mice, and monitors, and your mobile will then be a desktop until you unplug it.

I'll double the zero dollar your business invests

Oh, we spend a heck of a lot more than 0. Not millions in IT, but a lot. There's licensing fees, my salary, any third party development, Salary for a person modernizing our mill PLC network, hardware purchases, machine maintenance contracts. And contrary to us not doing *all* new development, I modernize what I can when I can. IT is expensive even without rewriting everything.

Here's the question: if macOS merges with iOS and iOS continues to exist on its own on billions of smartphones, who then won the platform wars?

What wars? They're still different business segments. It wouldn't make MacOS more acceptable to my business needs any more than what Windows already does. I don't really care if x86/64 compatible becomes a minority or not -- remember, to me -- software is everything...

You get your ARM silicon to run all I need, I'll use it, but don't count intel out, they've got the lead in performance in the PC form factor, they may just surprise you, and the market, in efficiency side of things eventually.

 

[Gudi]

For me, no to both, transition to ARM isn't inevitable by any means. As for touch, also no, you'll plug into a dock for keyboard, mice, and monitors, and your mobile will then be a desktop until you unplug it.

So what is your idea of merging desktops with mobiles?

 

[bobcomer]

So what is your idea of merging desktops with mobiles?

Exactly what I said in the paragraph you quoted, you'll use your mobile as a mobile and as a desktop. The jobs it does in both modes is different. I say plug in, but it could be wireless. (bluetooth has too much of a latency though, we need something better.)

 

[Gudi]

you'll use your mobile as a mobile and as a desktop.

This nonsense already exists for years and nobody finds it any useful.

Samsung DeX "Desktop Experience"

 

[bobcomer]

This nonsense already exists for years and nobody finds it any useful.

Samsung DeX "Desktop Experience"

Yep, it has, but there hasn't been a fast and capable enough mobile processor that could run x86/64 Windows applications yet. (not really even close yet)

 

[Gudi]

Yep, it has, but there hasn't been a fast and capable enough mobile processor that could run x86/64 Windows applications yet. (not really even close yet)

Why would there? The desktop experience has nothing to do with x86 and smartphones will never use anything other than ARM. So we're back to square one, Microsoft's inability to make Windows on ARM a thriving ecosystem.

 

[MacsRgr8]

I've given up hope. Half Life 2 is my favorite game of all time and the only way I can play it is in emulation in Crossover (which isn't a great experience) or my teenager's gaming PC which would require me to hang out in his disgusting bedroom.

You could get a 2nd hand intel-based iMac and use Boot Camp. Surely you can get one cheap and run Windows 10 on it?

 

[bobcomer]

Why would there?

You want it to take over the market, it's going to have to be able to do it all.

The desktop experience has nothing to do with x86 and smartphones will never use anything other than ARM.

You actually don't know that. ARM is not the be all and end all of processors. Same for the current intel CPU architecture. Something will come along that's better. I'm thinking it'll be more compatible with both, or it will be fast enough to emulate whatever CPU. It wont be soon though.

There's already a good example of a computer that is pretty much processor agnostic. The architecture went from a 48 bit CISC to a 65 bit RISC (extra address line over 64 bit) We've had many different processors on that type of machine and the worst the user executables have to had done wit them is be run through a translator a single time. It's the IBM i, and it does this trick by having a software layer running underneath the OS, kind of like a hypervisor, that has all the hardware duties and such, and it exposes API's to the OS for it to do its stuff. (it can actually have more than one type of OS running at a time.) It's quite ingenious. That is the way everything should work once it's all fast enough.

 

[Gudi]

You want it to take over the market, it's going to have to be able to do it all.

There is no market for the desktop "experience". Only for an established desktop ecosystem with all apps. And you don’t win the mobile market by switching to a less efficient silicon architecture. The market is macOS on Apple Silicon and nothing else.