Why the ARM transition will suck, and why it won't.

[darkmatter343]

Rather than look at this as a transition, look at it is an investment opportunity, because the final Intel Macs will hold their value extremely well.

What leads you to believe Intel Mac's will retain their value very well... almost seems it'd be the complete opposite since support will be dropped sooner then later. Who wants an Intel Mac in 1-2 years from now.

When the 5600m was recently released, I was tempted to pick up a 16" with it, but now I'm on the fence. That's a ton of $$$ to drop, especially on an architecture in which Apple is kicking out the door. But my thinking is what you suggested in buying a top end Intel Mac and keeping it for as long as possible. I'm just not sure I'm with you that Intel Mac's will retain value... seems it would be the opposite.

 

[pshufd]

What leads you to believe Intel Mac's will retain their value very well... almost seems it'd be the complete opposite since support will be dropped sooner then later. Who wants an Intel Mac in 1-2 years from now.

When the 5600m was recently released, I was tempted to pick up a 16" with it, but now I'm on the fence. That's a ton of $$$ to drop, especially on an architecture in which Apple is kicking out the door. But my thinking is what you suggested in buying a top end Intel Mac and keeping it for as long as possible. I'm just not sure I'm with you that Intel Mac's will retain value... seems it would be the opposite.

You give me the right price and I'll want one. I'm typing on 2008 hardware - it gets the job done. I'm typically 2-4 years behind on operating system releases too.

 

[Tech198]

What leads you to believe Intel Mac's will retain their value very well... almost seems it'd be the complete opposite since support will be dropped sooner then later. Who wants an Intel Mac in 1-2 years from now.

When the 5600m was recently released, I was tempted to pick up a 16" with it, but now I'm on the fence. That's a ton of $$$ to drop, especially on an architecture in which Apple is kicking out the door. But my thinking is what you suggested in buying a top end Intel Mac and keeping it for as long as possible. I'm just not sure I'm with you that Intel Mac's will retain value... seems it would be the opposite.

I guess just like going from PowerPC to Intel, many took some time, then Rosetta went away, and those developers who didn't move yet were left in the dark, or go those the time to re-do their code.. (some could, wile others probably said it was to daunting, so we better start from scratch), plus the native code is always better i guess, then converted,a s it would run faster/better. Call it out on that if you must

The same with anything. For as long as Intel apps exist, there will always be money made from buying intel Mac's (until all intel apps disappears..)

The transition "how quickly" should be about the same.

 

[iamMacPerson]

ARM is RISC, not CISC. One of the acronyms for ARM is Advanced RISC Machine.

Modern CISC processors are actually RISC processors with a decoding layer on top. So CISC machines are, at their core, RISC machines. I worked on Alpha chips in the 80s and the 90s and those were RISC architectures and nobody would call those machine unsuited for complicated tasks. They were often called mainframes.

Why do you think that the ISA determines the capability for parallel computing? We had multprocessor systems even back in the 80s and 90s that were RISC-based. We even had clusters. Mobile chips use a low-power process. High-power chips use a high-power process. Apple will have to use a high-power process if they want to achieve high-performance - I think that they can achieve better efficiency than Intel because Intel has bungled their transition to smaller geometries for the past almost-decade. They had a two process-node lead and squandered it.

Windows 10 on ARM is an implementation failure. You can do a good job or a bad job. Microsoft just did a bad job.

Where did you get your CS degree from? You sound like you don't know what you are talking about.

Lets not forget, again, that Apple has switched from CISC to RISC, back to CISC and now is going back to RISC. On top of all that, MUCH of the code base is shared between macOS and iOS meaning Apple has great amounts of experience working with ARM on the existing code base. macOS is, inherently, multi-platform. Remembering back to NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, it was available on 68k, x86, PA-RISC and SPARC. Then finally it was ported to PowerPC and became Mac OS X.

RISC is amazing for it's simplicity and Apple and macOS are going to be just fine, my only real worry is going to be the apps and if these new machines are *really* going to be faster.

What leads you to believe Intel Mac's will retain their value very well... almost seems it'd be the complete opposite since support will be dropped sooner then later. Who wants an Intel Mac in 1-2 years from now.

When the 5600m was recently released, I was tempted to pick up a 16" with it, but now I'm on the fence. That's a ton of $$$ to drop, especially on an architecture in which Apple is kicking out the door. But my thinking is what you suggested in buying a top end Intel Mac and keeping it for as long as possible. I'm just not sure I'm with you that Intel Mac's will retain value... seems it would be the opposite.

I agree. Intel Macs are going to go the way of PowerPC machines IF the difference in performance (speed or power consumption) is really as staggering at Apple is leading everyone to believe. Apple is going to have a lot to prove though, namely around Final Cut, in order to convince me to more over.

 

[jerwin]

The trouble with this transition is that it is premised on the belief that the A12z is competitive with a midrange intel cpu, and with intel graphics-- and that it is somehow on a steeper growth curve than x86-64 chips (including AMD's Ryzen)

All those fears could be allayed if Apple brought out a 32 core monster, and showed games that rivaled the PS5.

It didn't do that. I don't know if it will ever do that.

 

[pshufd]

Lets not forget, again, that Apple has switched from CISC to RISC, back to CISC and now is going back to RISC. On top of all that, MUCH of the code base is shared between macOS and iOS meaning Apple has great amounts of experience working with ARM on the existing code base. macOS is, inherently, multi-platform. Remembering back to NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, it was available on 68k, x86, PA-RISC and SPARC. Then finally it was ported to PowerPC and became Mac OS X.

RISC is amazing for it's simplicity and Apple and macOS are going to be just fine, my only real worry is going to be the apps and if these new machines are *really* going to be faster.

I agree. Intel Macs are going to go the way of PowerPC machines IF the difference in performance (speed or power consumption) is really as staggering at Apple is leading everyone to believe. Apple is going to have a lot to prove though, namely around Final Cut, in order to convince me to more over.

I don't think that much of the code base is shared between iOS and macOS. There's a lot of shared functionality but that doesn't mean the same code base. Everything is inherently multiplatform these days. That's the big difference between now and the PowerPC transition. That and compiler/translation/emulation has greatly matured.

I think that Apple has the chip chops. Their processors routinely outperform Qualcomm's and we'll see if they do the same against AMD and Intel in the real world. Apple has a ton of cash and they can buy chip talent - whether it's a whole company, a few key employees, or licensing technology. They, in cash on hand, $96 billion. AMD's market cap is two-thirds of that.

The major difference with Intel Macs not losing their value - Windows doesn't run on PowerPC. I think that Windows NT had a PowerPC variant in the 1990s.

 

[Tech198]

Can Apple develop it's own VT (Virtualization Technology) ? That way virtualization products could just switch.. or does Intel have a patent on VT?

(i.e its not like reverse engineering like the PC's BIOS)

 

[pshufd]

The trouble with this transition is that it is promised on the belief that the A12z is competitive with a midrange intel cpu, and with intel graphics-- and that it is somehow on a steeper growth curve than x86-64 chips (including AMD's Ryzen)

All those fears could be allayed if Apple brought out a 32 core monster, and showed games that rivaled the PS5.

It didn't do that. I don't know if it will ever do that.

The important part of the announcement is to get developers to start porting.
[automerge]1592968999[/automerge]

Can Apple develop it's own VT tech ? That way virtualization products could just need to switch.. or does Intel have a patent on VT?

(i.e its not like reverse engineering like the PC's BIOS)

Virtualization involves running a different operating system as a guest on a host that uses the same architecture. When you're talking about a different architecture, you're talking translation or emulation. I have seen this work with the same operating system on two different architectures. I have not seen this done with different operating systems on different architectures.

 

[iamMacPerson]

I don't think that much of the code base is shared between iOS and macOS. There's a lot of shared functionality but that doesn't mean the same code base. Everything is inherently multiplatform these days. That's the big difference between now and the PowerPC transition. That and compiler/translation/emulation has greatly matured.

I think that Apple has the chip chops. Their processors routinely outperform Qualcomm's and we'll see if they do the same against AMD and Intel in the real world. Apple has a ton of cash and they can buy chip talent - whether it's a whole company, a few key employees, or licensing technology. They, in cash on hand, $96 billion. AMD's market cap is two-thirds of that.

The major difference with Intel Macs not losing their value - Windows doesn't run on PowerPC. I think that Windows NT had a PowerPC variant in the 1990s.

Good point on Windows. I didn't think how big of a selling point that would be for many. While they may not sink like a rock, I don't think they're going to remain high value items forever. As far as the code bases, agree to disagree. I think there is a lot that is shared between them, especially the kernel, I think the version for iOS is just watered down a bit. The fact that the Mac Mini Dev Kit is shipping with the same processor currently in the iPad Pro is very interesting. I hope at least one person breaks NDA and we get some shots and performance benchmarks.

 

[macduke]

The main thing I'm worried about is support for Vagrant/Docker/VirtualBox. Although any more it seems just as easy to spin up a staging server to connect to, and less resource intensive on my local machine. Just makes it harder to work if I don't have internet, which is hardly ever.

I'd be surprised if the Intel Macs hold their value as well. They'll be looked at as the slow, burning hot devices that they are. Furthermore, Apple dropped support for PPC pretty quickly. I know in the video they said they were going to keep supporting it, but for how long really?

I don't think the backwards compatibility will be as big of an issue this time. Normal people don't plug a ton of crap into their computers any more, and a lot of the work is done in cloud-based apps anyway. Most typical users probably won't even notice they changed anything except that their new MacBook Air is flying and gets 18 hours of battery life in an enclosure that is thinner and lighter, lol.

My first ARM Mac will probably be a MacBook Pro, maybe the smaller one, haven't decided yet. Would be cool if they did a 14" version. But I'll still have my early 2019 5K iMac to fall back on, which is fairly beefy with an i9-9900K, 64GB DDR4, and Pro Vega 48 8GB. I think ARM will arrive on the laptops first, but there are those rumors about a weird 24" iMac. I think the biggest benefit of ARM out of the gate will be on laptops where the cooling is limited and the power efficiency is most important, so I think that would be a good bridge device for me. If I could get 70% of my work done on it right away, that would be completely fine. I'm just tired of being stuck at home in a basement on my iMac every day working. Would be nice to sit out on the deck or something. Get some fresh air.

 

[tranceking26]

yes, I own 37 Macs,

Bloody Nora! That's a lotta Macs!!

Well said though. I agree on buying a good spec Intel machine while you can.

I'm sticking with my 2015 MBP for as long as possible.

 

[Idec50]

First, let me get this out of the way: Intel has not been able to deliver 5nm chips. Taiwan Semi has.

• 5nm means much better performance-per-watt.
• 5nm runs much cooler.
• 5nm means no more throttling due to heat like what happens today in a MacBook Pro, where heat is the limiting factor.
• Apple could elect to support CHERI in their ARM implementation—a super-secure new processor architecture

All that said... this transition is going to be a royal pain in the butt for all users (except for brand new ones).

I have lived through all the major transitions: 16 to 32 bit. Motorola CISC to PowerPC RISC. MacOS 9 to MacOS X. PowerPC to Intel. 32-bit to 64-bit.

So let me tell you what this transition really means for many you:

• many x86 binaries won't run natively, which means
• goodbye to any Intel-platform-based VMs running with native performance (in WWDC 2020 Platforms State of the Union, Apple demo'd Parallels running an ARM version of Linux)
• goodbye to locally running the same binaries in Docker that run on the server (Apple says Docker is not initially supported but they're "working with Docker over the coming months"—but I can't see how it could possibly work reliably with binaries that were precompiled for Intel servers)
• goodbye to older peripheral hardware—like audio interfaces, for instance—these will stop working because it won't be worth it (or possible) for the devs to rewrite the drivers
• goodbye to older software plug-ins, like all your current VST and AU3 plugins, Photoshop plugins, etc.—especially 32-bit ones (currently those can still be made to work on Catalina using compatibility wrappers, but I'll be shocked if that works on ARM Macs)
• goodbye to BootCamp
• goodbye to WINE games
• goodbye to the few mainstream PC game ports we get nowadays... it will be a long time (possibly forever) before enough of these ARM macs are out there for it to be worth it for PC game makers to bother with native Mac versions, so we'll be forever doomed to the same horrible third-world garbage games as the dreadful Apple Arcade (sorry, speaking as a gamer, it SUCKS—none of these games come remotely close to taking advantage of devices like iPhone 11 Pro Max or iPad Pro 3rd/4th gen.)
• reliability and performance of Intel apps running under Rosetta 2 will NOT be a guarantee—expect crashy, spotty performance
• just like Rosetta 1, Rosetta 2 compatibility will get phased out sooner than many would like—after the end of the two-year "transition period", so by 10.18 or 10.19, which will be here much sooner than you'd like, forcing many users to have to rebuy thousands of dollars in software or not update

I've kept hoping after each of these transitions that it would finally have been the last one.

Each has laid waste to my software library and created a graveyard of unusable scanners, silent audio interfaces, unplayable games, and dead plugins that litter my closets and leech heavy metals into local landfills. All these items WOULD still be usable if Apple wasn't addicted to making users rebuy everything they own once or twice per decade.

So here is my advice:

Buy a really nice Intel Mac this year or next, and keep it forever.

Rather than look at this as a transition, look at it is an investment opportunity, because the final Intel Macs will hold their value extremely well.

Look at this as an opportunity to create a final version of what the Mac once was, which you can always keep as a treasure of a forgotten era. You'll now have a way to always and forever run your prior software and still use your old hardware.

I've been following this tenet the entire time. Yes, I own 37 Macs, stored across four rooms of my house on various desks. No, my significant other is not fond of this.

I can still run World Builder on my SE/30, and I can still run 10.6 and Windows 98 through Windows 8 VMs on my Mac Pro 2009.

I can still use my SCSI Nikon film scanner on my Beige G3 desktop. I can still run A-10 Attack on my 9600.

What I do with my IIfx and Quadra 950, however, is classified. Literally.

Just some advice.

Wooweee. Had me until 37 Macs. This is a joke right?

Regardless, do we think Apple is planning to lock down all installed software to a Mac App Store so they can charge their whopping 30%?

 

[Bustycat]

• just like Rosetta 1, Rosetta 2 compatibility will get phased out sooner than many would like—after the end of the two-year "transition period", so by 10.18 or 10.19, which will be here much sooner than you'd like, forcing many users to have to rebuy thousands of dollars in software or not update

Sorry but we will never see 10.18 and 10.19.

 

[the8thark]

Regardless, do we think Apple is planning to lock down all installed software to a Mac App Store so they can charge their whopping 30%?

Can we all assume you don't like Steam, the Windows app store, the Nintendo eShop, PS store etc etc also for also taking a 30% cut.

 

[RobbieTT]

My guess is that this transition is going to be easier and simpler than the transitions of the past.

Just using the last example of PowerPC to Intel you had the complications of Apple moving from a CPU architecture it didn't control but designed around it, to another CPU architecture it didn't control and then designing around that instead. In both cases Apple was doing these moves with zero commercial experience or history of using either CPU before the transitions and with little or likely no influence in the CPU design itself. Hard miles indeed.

Apple now has the task of moving from a problematic Intel design that it has to repeatedly react to, to designing its own CPU to work with its own co-processors, its own architecture and its own operating system. It is doing so with years of A-series CPU design expertise under its belt and with an existing parallel family of tablet computers running alongside with similar architectures.

Apple now controls everything and is no longer reliant on ICDs, NDAs and technical exchanges with Intel to make stuff work. It can now apply fixes, enhancement and technical advances in its own silicon rather than in software alone. Oh and Apple is doing this change at a time and place of its choosing. We should expect Apple to be ready and be at a performance level that overcomes any remaining inertia from the external critics.

 

[pshufd]

My guess is that this transition is going to be easier and simpler than the transitions of the past.

Just using the last example of PowerPC to Intel you had the complications of Apple moving from a CPU architecture it didn't control but designed around it, to another CPU architecture it didn't control and then designing around that instead. In both cases Apple was doing these moves with zero commercial experience or history of using either CPU before the transitions and with little or likely no influence in the CPU design itself. Hard miles indeed.

Apple now has the task of moving from a problematic Intel design that it has to repeatedly react to, to designing its own CPU to work with its own co-processors, its own architecture and its own operating system. It is doing so with years of A-series CPU design expertise under its belt and with an existing parallel family of tablet computers running alongside with similar architectures.

Apple now controls everything and is no longer reliant on ICDs, NDAs and technical exchanges with Intel to make stuff work. It can now apply fixes, enhancement and technical advances in its own silicon rather than in software alone. Oh and Apple is doing this change at a time and place of its choosing. We should expect Apple to be ready and be at a performance level that overcomes any remaining inertia from the external critics.

One other aspect: if they have problems, they can always push the schedule out. That wasn't really an option with PPC as Intel was making better and better chips while PPC wasn't.

 

[arch1t3cton]

Can you be specific by what you consider “support”? I think we’ll be getting new OS compatibility (with features dropped of course for hardware that simply can’t do it) for at least 5 more years.

I expect the transition to be complete before the end of 2021. After that don't expect any meaningful support for intel macs from Apple or big third party developers. Maybe we'll get one more macos update after big sur, but it will probably be a bug fest just like OSX 10.5 Leopard was for the PPC.

It's going to be a rough ride.

 

[ssgbryan]

Wooweee. Had me until 37 Macs. This is a joke right?

Regardless, do we think Apple is planning to lock down all installed software to a Mac App Store so they can charge their whopping 30%?

That is the primary driver imo - Timmy has never given a crap about performance - he is a bean counter.

 

[UnbreakableAlex]

I think apple needs to release the arm Mac with a bang and a real USP and user benefit.

If they’ll solder the ram on the iMac, I’m out and switching to pc after 15 years on Mac.

They need at least a 32“ iMac with 5-6k display an 120hz motion or else I would wait with buying until it’s in. PC already have 144hz displays since years.

I’m also hoping Blender, Affinity, capture one & Pixelmator will quickly make a shift towards ARM. Don’t care about adobe. Every mentioned software will probably have to be bought again. I’d also need a new colorimeter, which would cost 150-400€. A new Wacom too. It will be a very expensive switch.

I started with the first intel MacBook and now I’m at the 27” late 2013 iMac and it’s still good for most tasks. There really needs to be more then just standard spec benefits to switch soon to an arm Mac. Let’s hope that not all of the apple sheep’s are instantaneously switching and giving apple the wrong signals.

 

[Homy]

Good news for future Macs: The fastest supercomputer uses Arm chips

The same processor family that powers phones and likely the next generation of Apple computers is at the heart of the world's fastest machine.

www.cnet.com

 

[pshufd]

I think apple needs to release the arm Mac with a bang and a real USP and user benefit.

If they’ll solder the ram on the iMac, I’m out and switching to pc after 15 years on Mac.

They need at least a 32“ iMac with 5-6k display an 120hz motion or else I would wait with buying until it’s in. PC already have 144hz displays since years.

I’m also hoping Blender, Affinity, capture one & Pixelmator will quickly make a shift towards ARM. Don’t care about adobe. Every mentioned software will probably have to be bought again. I’d also need a new colorimeter, which would cost 150-400€. A new Wacom too. It will be a very expensive switch.

I started with the first intel MacBook and now I’m at the 27” late 2013 iMac and it’s still good for most tasks. There really needs to be more then just standard spec benefits to switch soon to an arm Mac. Let’s hope that not all of the apple sheep’s are instantaneously switching and giving apple the wrong signals.

I'm running macOS for work and Windows for personal now. I had been going back and forth for a few months on what I wanted to do. The main issue I have is that all of Apple's Macs, except for the Mac Pro, have thermal issues. They have the problem with user-upgrades as well but the thermals are a factor for me as I like to use hardware for a long time.

Maybe ARM fixes their thermal problems. I'd rather have a thicker or bigger device than one with loud fans running.

I have the feeling that Windows 10 is now more efficient than macOS as well. Microsoft may very well be tailoring the operating system for your specific processor generation. Windows 10 runs better on old hardware than macOS. That's partly because Apple wants to give you an incentive to upgrade hardware while Microsoft doesn't seem to care if you're running ancient hardware or new hardware.

 

[Idec50]

Can we all assume you don't like Steam, the Windows app store, the Nintendo eShop, PS store etc etc also for also taking a 30% cut.

When you help design and sell B2B software that costs well over anything sold on those markets, and such a cut would bankrupt your company - yeah I guess so.

 

[johnhackworth]

I'm pretty conflicted about the move to ARM Macs. I see the positives - but the direction of travel for the Mac worries me - more of a compute appliance at the expense of flexibility and control.

I recently bought a Windows laptop (Lenovo X1 Extreme Gen2). Yes, Windows 10 is still way behind MacOS in usability however, with the updated Windows Subsystem for Linux it is a great developer's platform. I also question Apple's commitment to the Mac as a generalised compute platform. Apple didn't really treat photographers seriously in the long term with Aperture - whereas for Adobe, for all its faults, has imaging as its raison d'être.

It feels to me like Apple's heart is no longer really in the Mac. Microsoft is probably more committed to Windows as a platform than Apple is to Mac OS - and will developers really create first class Mac OS apps when iOS apps "just work"? For varying values of "just work" obv.

My dilemma right now is whether to replace my eight year old iMac with a beefy Intel Mini with upgraded NIC or wait and see what the ARM Macs look like and then either buy one or switch to Windows for my non-iOS/iPad OS needs - and I've been a Mac user since 1987.

 

[pshufd]

I'm pretty conflicted about the move to ARM Macs. I see the positives - but the direction of travel for the Mac worries me - more of a compute appliance at the expense of flexibility and control.

I recently bought a Windows laptop (Lenovo X1 Extreme Gen2). Yes, Windows 10 is still way behind MacOS in usability however, with the updated Windows Subsystem for Linux it is a great developer's platform. I also question Apple's commitment to the Mac as a generalised compute platform. Apple didn't really treat photographers seriously in the long term with Aperture - whereas for Adobe, for all its faults, has imaging as its raison d'être.

It feels to me like Apple's heart is no longer really in the Mac. Microsoft is probably more committed to Windows as a platform than Apple is to Mac OS - and will developers really create first class Mac OS apps when iOS apps "just work"? For varying values of "just work" obv.

My dilemma right now is whether to replace my eight year old iMac with a beefy Intel Mini with upgraded NIC or wait and see what the ARM Macs look like and then either buy one or switch to Windows for my non-iOS/iPad OS needs - and I've been a Mac user since 1987.

I'll have to try that out. It's been something that I've been meaning to do. I've been running experiments between macOS and Windows and my decision is to run both. But it would be nice to have Unix on the Windows system.

 

[johnhackworth]

I'll have to try that out. It's been something that I've been meaning to do. I've been running experiments between macOS and Windows and my decision is to run both. But it would be nice to have Unix on the Windows system.

Yeah, with the updated WSL it's running a full Linux system in a really lightweight VM - in fact it's not even obvious that it's a VM at all - really seamless.