6 ms·

Doesn't a lot of software depend on Intel's architecture? I think macs are stuck, for better or for worse.

• hyperpallium 10y ago
  They've changed before (from PowerPC).
  • mikecsh 10y ago
    And before that from Motorola 68k
  • innocenat 10y ago
    Changing to Intel are kinda easy, because applications (think Photoshop, etc) already has optimized code for x86 (think SSE/AVX and such, which are hand-coded). While undoubtedly many also has NEON nowadays, I still think it is on different scale.
    • gaius 10y ago
      Photoshop's not a good example, it was emulated PPC for ages...
    • acdha 10y ago
      One other factor is the degree to which hand-optimized code in general has been going away: Apple heavily encouraged people to use system frameworks like CoreImage, CoreVideo, etc. both to ease the transition and to take advantage of their significant optimizations, and that appears to have been followed by many developers. Adobe presumably still has a whopping case of Not-Invented-Here but I'd be surprised if a significant number of apps couldn't be ported with very modest changes.
• grecy 10y ago
  Undoubtedly the same was said many, many times about them being stuck on POWER, but they didn't seem to think so.
• danieldk 10y ago
  They did it before in the PowerPC to Intel change. Migration was helped by: - Fat binaries (Mach-O binaries can support multiple platforms). - A PowerPC emulator for applications that are not ported. I think they are even better positioned for an architecture change than during PowerPC -> Intel. They now have the app store where they can impose certain requirements (like supporting two architectures). And they now have their own compiler backend, which opens the possibility of supporting architecture-independent IR (along the lines of bitcode).
  • ianai 10y ago
    Not to mention it's been a long time since Intel really stopped the show with a CPU release. That was not the case way back when Apple switched to Intel. Granted I remember the RISC vs CISC wars with nostalgia.
  • mtgx 10y ago
    And Apple could transition even easier now thanks to it controlling most Mac apps through the Mac Store. All Apple needs to do is announce they're going to enforce ARM support in the Mac Store a year or two before doing it, and that's it. Also, isn't Apple already encouraging the use of some intermediary bitcode for iOS (and macOS?) apps? Wouldn't that already made apps architecture-agnostic?
    • RossBencina 10y ago
      > thanks to it controlling most Mac apps through the Mac Store Serious question: Do you have any evidence to support that claim? I could well be in the minority, but I don't publish through the Mac app store and I don't know anyone else who publishes exclusively through the Mac app store (except Apple).
      • izacus 10y ago
        Well you'll have to if Apple decides that ARM MacBooks will only be able to install apps from the Mac app store - they already have a precedent in iOS and precedent of pushing developers to do things their way.
• glasz 10y ago
  apple has arm-based macs in their lab. but word on the street is they won't happen any time soon.
• ralfd 10y ago
  How about Apple differentiating between Macbooks (ARM) and beefier MacBook Pro (Intel/AMD)?
  • martin_bech 10y ago
    If Apple chip design keeps improving at the same pace, than the Macbook(ARM) would become faster than the MacBook Pro (Intel) very soon.
• rimantas 10y ago
  When announcing switch to Intel Apple revealed that they had OS X builds running on Intel CPU's from the very first version of OS X.
  • wsc981 10y ago
    The history of Mac OS X on Intel (the Marklar project) is very interesting. Most of the work was done by a single dev (ex-director who demoted himself to engineer) who wanted to spend more time with his family. So he worked from home. https://www.engadget.com/2012/06/10/how-marklar-os-x-on-intel-owes-its-start-to-a-one-year-old-boy/ https://www.engadget.com/2012/06/10/how-marklar-os-x-on-inte...
• Brakenshire 10y ago
  As the article says, bear in mind that a lot of those applications are now on iOS. They seem to think a shift to ARM might also mean a shift to iOS, with the iPad Pro acting as the bridge device to encourage software makers to provide compatibility (which seems to be working). One possibility might be Apple segmenting its laptop range, with the MacBook being shipped with iOS, and the MBP with OSX. They say in the article that the entire PC market shipped fewer units than the iPhone alone, one quarter last year. There's certainly a risk that the consumer end of the laptop/desktop market gets dragged in behind as an 'additional device' for the mobile operating systems, bringing with it its walled gardens and concept of 'devices as utilities' rather than generic computing platforms. I suspect as strange as it might seem to us a lot of people would jump on a laptop with the managed qualities of a utility device, especially if it meant they could get a Macbook for $150 less.
  • _ph_ 10y ago
    The one think keeping me so far from buying an iPad Pro and probably will cause me to buy a macbook next is the software limitations of iOS which prevent it from being a generic computer. So if Apple moves to ARM, it probably would be rather some more macOS style operation system. But that switch would be not really difficult as iOS and macOS largely share the same codebase.
    • rarepostinlurkr 10y ago
      AppKit and UIKit are hardly shared code.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
• DeepYogurt 10y ago
  iirc the libraries apple exposed after the ppc to intel switch were arch independent or at least arch shim-able.