I'll probably keep the M1 for at least a few generations. I'm a light user (mostly browsing, office, light gaming) so I really don't need any extra performance right now. I might consider an upgrade if gaming performance gets significantly better.
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.
What do you plan to do when the M2 (or whatever the next M chip is) launches?
- Thread starter trailmonkey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’ll go, ohhhh that’s coooool. Then continue using my M1 until it’s no good to me.
Curious if it can’t be both:single massive SoC for iMac and “render farm” chips under the hood for MacPros (upgradable solution?).
Also do you think pushing CPU performance will decrease the GPU processing tendency in 3D software?
Agree, but sometimes I get the feeling this may happen on purpose: others try it, see reaction and adoption, then make it better and spin it as the greatest new thing...
I don't have a date on the calendar. When I wanted to update this round was last year, but I waited because I knew the M1 was being worked on.
I will not get the next version, but will likely get the Gen 3. It depends on timing from apple. If in 3-4 years they are still on Gen 2 but with much higher results, I'm likely to switch.
Like others have said, I'm a sucker for a design change. If there is a dramatic form factor change to the MBA, I will sell my M1 and get the M2. If it's not dramatically different, I won't. I've owned an MBA before and they are built to last. So I'd like to get 2 or 3 years out of the M1 Air before I start drooling over my next new shiny.
Usually, I keep my macbook pros, at least for 5 years, possibly about 8.
So, I want to purchase something that can be long lasting, for sure.
I am looking forward for a 16' model, but I am not sure if I should go for the 1st generation with apple silicon, though as a technology is magnificent.
So, I want to purchase something that can be long lasting, for sure.
I am looking forward for a 16' model, but I am not sure if I should go for the 1st generation with apple silicon, though as a technology is magnificent.
I'm no specialist but as i see it, a GPU is a dedicated chip and the M1 is a collection of dedicated chips. There will be less of a distinction between a processor and a GPU. GPU's are already being used to run bitcoin software an IA, any App can use whatever combination that works the best for the task.
I’m hoping we see cues from the phone, 2-3mm bezels, OLED/mLED, rounded corners, 1080p webcam. Maybe a premium SS model (lol?).
It's not always Integrated Graphics. For the Macs that got left out of Big Sur (the 2013 iMacs at minimum), it was as minor as a WiFi driver. It's always if Apple can't get or create an updated driver or firmware for something that fits in with something they're doing in the new OS under the hood. For Mojave's requirements, Metal was a huge requirement, so it mandated that you have a Mac that ran with a GPU that supported Metal. For Catalina's requirements, Apple merely wanted to stop supporting 2010/12 Mac Pro towers with aftermarket GPUs (as that was already compromising the user experience [albeit in really minor ways]).
I agree that Windows 10 for ARM64 running in a VM on Apple Silicon Macs is an inevitability, because the ball, in that particular game, is in Microsoft's court. Microsoft just needs to license the OS accordingly. It will otherwise boot and run using Apple's Hypervisor framework and eventual Apple Silicon releases of VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop that will leverage it. We've seen proof of it already.
What I'm not 100% sure of is direct booting of Windows on an Apple Silicon Mac. For that to happen, Microsoft would still need to license the OS accordingly. However, on top of that, BOTH COMPANIES would need to collaborate such that:
- Windows 10 for ARM64 was modified specifically for Apple Silicon Macs with a bootloader compatible with iBoot (Neither Apple nor Microsoft never needed to modify the Windows bootloader as Apple had always been using UEFI, give or take CSM; at worst, they needed to slipstream the Windows image with T2 Mac specific drivers so that the SSD could be recognized by both the Windows installer and installation, but even that wasn't modifying the Windows bootloader at all)
- Drivers for Apple Silicon hardware were produced for Windows 10 for ARM64 (admittedly, some party, be it Microsoft, Apple, VMware, or Parallels, needs to create drivers to function effectively in the hypervisor as well)
- The OS would need to be distributed as being specific for Apple Silicon models given the above changes as the standard ISO file for Windows 10 for ARM64 would likely not function as-is in a Boot Camp scenario
I'd say that it's far more likely for Apple to collaborate extensively with Microsoft and to have the end product be a mere matter of downloading "Windows 10" from the Mac App Store (exclusively on Apple Silicon Macs) and the end result would be a custom installer (complete with a custom version of Windows 10 for ARM64 specifically for Apple Silicon) that, at the end of the day, does everything that the Boot Camp Assistant would do on a T2-based Intel Mac, albeit with M1 specific customizations to allow an Apple Silicon Mac to natively boot Windows 10 for ARM64.
It's not like Apple hasn't distributed OSes on the Mac App Store before. If they worked in tight collaboration with Microsoft (to the point where they co-developed the installer, drivers for Apple Silicon SoCs, and bootloader), Apple would have no logical reason to allow dual-booting in this fashion. It would make far more sense than shipping a Universal Binary ("2") version of the Boot Camp Assistant, only to have it not fully launch on Apple Silicon Macs.
I think it's way more complicated than that.
Apple is telling developers of macOS software, "Hey, we're transitioning from x86-64 to ARM64. Our hardware is not going to add the latter to our lineup; the latter is going to outright replace the former in our lineup. You should prepare your apps to work on both architectures to ensure platform compatibility continuity."
By comparison, Microsoft is telling developers of Windows software, "Hey, x86-64 (or x64 as they call it) is still our primary platform for everything. Those that still need (32-bit) x86 can still get it as it is still being developed for alongside x86-64, which, again, is still our primary platform for everything. We also have ARM64, which will give you some interesting new form factor options and abilities not really feasible with x86-64. We are not forcing you to make this transition as there is no transition to make. This is merely another option you have."
The key difference is that Apple is basically numbering the days left of Intel Mac support (let alone production) and dictating to developers what their options are (move with us, or eventually be left behind). Microsoft isn't forcing developers to deviate from developing for 32-bit x86, let alone 64-bit x86.
The kicker here is that there's a catch 22: Windows 10 for ARM64 would have incredible performance if it had native applications. Microsoft isn't forcing developers to code for ARM64. Therefore Windows 10 for ARM64 doesn't have incredible performance (beyond stock functions). Therefore developers aren't incentivized to build for ARM64. And this goes on and on and on.
The problem with Windows RT is that it focused exclusively on Metro, which was a lousy interface (Microsoft would've preferred that you ignore the Desktop GUI as that wasn't even the point of Windows RT to begin with and they basically removed functionality to do anything on it that wasn't the 32-bit ARM version of Office 2013 for Windows or stock Windows apps and features). Windows 10 for ARM64's failing is that Microsoft isn't dangling an enticing enough carrot for established developers to care about ARM64 binary versions of their software. They have no fat binary system a la Apple's Universal Binary 2 (let alone, the PowerPC to Intel original) and their translator to run 32-bit x86 software is way slow, with the 64-bit x86 translator still in the oven. I don't know about you, but I'm not optimistic about performance with the 64-bit version of that.
Beyond that, there's the problem that the SQ1 and SQ2 are not the M1. They're still Qualcomm and still less deviant from ARM's designs than Apple's are as Apple used what they wanted from ARM and then heavily customized the rest to meet their specific needs. Intel wasn't optimized for macOS in the way that Apple Silicon is optimized for all of Apple's individual OSes. The SQ1 and SQ2 may have been designed by Microsoft, but it's still Qualcomm's tool chest and therefore isn't specifically optimized for Windows. Until there is that kind of optimization (like what Apple has on all of is chips across all of its devices), Microsoft isn't going to sell anyone on switching to ARM. Nor will they sell anyone on ARM-powered Surface devices. That's the mistake that Microsoft is making. Apple Silicon will definitely help with Windows developer adoption on the ARM platform (both by it running either natively or virtualized on Apple Silicon and by providing a large audience of users that want this version of Windows 10 to be more than a fun proof of concept because the x86 version of Windows 10 is no longer a viable option). But that will only correct things so much, at best.
I read that fusion drives were a major sticking point for the 2013 iMacs that excluded them from Big Sur. They stuck a cheap bandaid on top of a 5400RPM HD, which turned out to be a questionable idea.
you can hope future lineup will be 12, 14, 16. but probably in 2022.
Have you tried using an iPad as a 2nd screen on a Mac (side car?) and an Apple pencil on the iPad?
Same here. The M1 I bought for a few things related to my job, but in seven months I’ll be retired and the iPhone/iPadPro combo will be enough.
seems excessive these days for both phones and computers.
Myself, my main machines are a 2008 mbp and a 2015 mbp that I use both daily and a iPhone 8. While the 2008 is starting to show its age, the fact it can STILL unofficially run the latest os is incredible.
I upgrade the office every year with all new tools. It makes financial sense to do so for my business, and treat the hardware as ‘hired’. it allows the office to remain fresh, up to speed and have the best tools available [PC or Mac].
Everyday I would be crying on a 2008 MBP, but what ever suits your needs is what I say. For personal use computers can last much longer, but we are using them 10 hours a day for at least 5 days a week. When you work out the hourly charge it is nothing [say $5000 per computer @ 2300 hours a year = $2 an hour with 50% resale recouped = $1 an hour / $50 a week]. So after tax we are looking at $30 a week for a highly productive computer. Peanuts].
Plus I love new tech
We have the same thoughts about our business. Computers, desks, chairs, software, etc. are all tools for being productive and making money. Use the best tools.I upgrade the office every year with all new tools. It makes financial sense to do so for my business, and treat the hardware as ‘hired’. it allows the office to remain fresh, up to speed and have the best tools available [PC or Mac].
Everyday I would be crying on a 2008 MBP, but what ever suits your needs is what I say. For personal use computers can last much longer, but we are using them 10 hours a day for at least 5 days a week. When you work out the hourly charge it is nothing [say $5000 per computer @ 2300 hours a year = $2 an hour with 50% resale recouped = $1 an hour / $50 a week]. So after tax we are looking at $30 a week for a highly productive computer. Peanuts].
Plus I love new tech
It amazes me how the vast majority dont think this way thought.
It is like productivity is irrelevant.
For example my partner has been WFH since March [still doing it]. All she got from the office was a mouse to WFH....WTF! No monitor, computer or anything and has had to work on Remote Desktop on a personal 2016 base 13” MBP, together with a monitor I bought for her.
Her office do not prioritise technology at all and use very poor systems in their software too. They lose a fortune through acting reactionary rather than with pro-action.
Suffice to say we will be on M Mac desktops and 14” M laptops as soon as they are available. Have a M1 MBP for testing, but isn’t there yet for our work [apps not stable etc].
That’s what I’m currently doing, actually with Astropad which has better software support, and I find it workable but annoying. Props to Astropad, though, their products are really well done. And thanks for the suggestion!
Probably nothing for the couple of years. I have MBA 8|8|500, dismissed rMBP 15.
My dream machine would be exactly MBA M1 guts (passive cooling) with 15-16” display at 3 pounds of weight, maybe in 16 GB | 1 TB config.
13” is small for working with 2 documents, solved by sidecar ipad Air 3rd gen, but 15”+ display would be preferrable.
I do not want to have external display in my living room and this is the only płace for work at home, and I often do some second job. Minimalism comes at some costs 🙂
My dream machine would be exactly MBA M1 guts (passive cooling) with 15-16” display at 3 pounds of weight, maybe in 16 GB | 1 TB config.
13” is small for working with 2 documents, solved by sidecar ipad Air 3rd gen, but 15”+ display would be preferrable.
I do not want to have external display in my living room and this is the only płace for work at home, and I often do some second job. Minimalism comes at some costs 🙂
Last edited:
It depends. If it does something I want or need and the price is not crazy, I will probably trade my M1 in for it. Otherwise I'll keep the M1 and wait for the M3.
If it's a buttload faster than my i9 2020 16" MBP I'll consider it especially if it can do gaming well. Although, I'd be very interested in getting rid of that damn Touch Bar and getting my function keys back.
Last edited: