7 ms·

I buy iMacs for my personal use, as they spend the majority of the time running Windows 10 for gaming. Sure I could build/buy a dedicated gaming machine, but I

by jmpman 6y ago

I buy iMacs for my personal use, as they spend the majority of the time running Windows 10 for gaming. Sure I could build/buy a dedicated gaming machine, but I like the hardware (Great monitor, quiet, sleek, mostly trouble-free) and my iMac can play any game at 1080p. Without bootcamp support, I’m going to abandon the Mac hardware for personal, and then for business use. There’s no way an ARM processor is going to be able to emulate x86 to run windows and my steam library at anything close to usable performance.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
A theoretical possibility: Apple could make Bootcamp support Windows on ARM. I don't know that they'll do it, but they could and it would be interesting. The choice will also say something about how Apple views these ARM Macs: Are they iPhone-esque devices made exclusively for Apple software, or are they (relatively) open-ended computing platforms capable of booting alternate operating systems?
- toyg 6y ago
  Windows itself struggled to support ARM. Bootcamp alone is not going to cut it, at least for some time.
- pavlov 6y ago
  I don't think there is a standard BIOS for ARM like there is for x86, so multi-boot would probably require Microsoft to support Macs explicitly in Windows on ARM.
- auggierose 6y ago
  Just observing the pain of getting Linux to run on new Macs, the answer should be obvious. Not that I think this is a bad thing, there definitely is space for an operator like Apple and exactly what many people need.
- mrkstu 6y ago
  The problem is that Apple has moved to a home-grown stack for it graphics and deprecated OpenGL and moved wholly to Metal. There is no way Apple would create a Windows driver for that custom silicon- it has always relied on AMD or Nvidia for those drivers in the past, it has no in house code base or expertise to write the requisite code in Windows and none of the silicon has been optimized for it.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    This is an interesting point—but, are you expecting Apple to move entirely to in-house GPUs? On the laptops that currently have integrated graphics, sure, but I'd expect the higher-end Macbook Pros and iMacs to still have AMD cards inside. Perhaps that just becomes a prerequisite for Bootcamp—there's probably a lot of overlap between the types of people who want Bootcamp and the types of people who buy Macs with dedicated GPUs. (I do agree that they're more likely to just drop Bootcamp support.)
    - mrkstu 6y ago
      Potentially keeping AMD as a partner is graphics on the high end is a good point- i.e. iMac Pro/Mac Pro. But since its 99% likely that all the other Mac's will be SoC with no Windows driver support for any of the underlying silicon, I'd find it very surprising if Apple went to the trouble just for the high end. That said, I thing Intel Mac Pros will be a thing for a long while, even is a 256 core ARM variation came out, just to keep the pros happy until they can comfortably transition to the new stack. Apple has spent too much human capital recently on the pro team to make me think otherwise.
claudeganon 6y ago
Yeah, this has got me debating whether I need to bite the bullet and buy a high-spec 2019 model, despite their lingering, myriad problems. I have too much stuff to worry about in my day-to-day usage to gamble on whether Apple is going to stick the landing with this transition.
sjwright 6y ago
My prediction of Apple’s moves here are far less dire. These are just predictions mind you, but the point is Apple could do this without ruining the platform for enthusiasts. 1. They’re going to have some kind of breakthrough with x86 emulation where the Apple ARM CPU has a translator, or an accelerator, or a co-processor, or something that will make x86 run at decent speeds. 2. Apple will move to a long term two-CPU strategy with ARM on economy and low power SKUs, and Intel chips for the “Pro” SKUs. 3. As an alternative to 1 and 2, the direction might just be a killer next-gen iPad Pro and new iPadOS which substantially raises the bar for multitasking, trackpad, etc on that platform. I wouldn’t even dismiss the possibility of an “iPadBook” for want of a better name.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  > 2. Apple will move to a long term two-CPU strategy with ARM on economy and low power SKUs, and Intel chips for the “Pro” SKUs. How is this going to work for developers or Apple? For how many years will everyone need to test and ship universal binaries?
  - sjwright 6y ago
    I see no issue with developers shipping universal binaries indefinitely. I don’t see what the issue would be with that, for most devs it’s just part of the Xcode build process. I suppose it would double the compile time for release builds. Testing is a legitimate concern but I don’t think it’s as consequential as you imply. (For most developers.)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - stetrain 6y ago
    Every iOS app is currently tested in x86 on the Mac simulator and then ARM on the device. If you ship a Catalyst app that runs on iPad and Mac you are shipping and testing on x86 and ARM. Apple already splits binaries in the app store and only downloads what is needed for your device (including resources for different device resolutions), so the end user would likely not see an increase in app size.
pehtis 6y ago
I lived through both major Mac CPU transitions (68K-PPC and PPC->X86) and in both cases the assumption was that it was impossible for Apple to ship a usable emulator. In both cases Apple proved everyone wrong and in fact the emulator was a major contributing factor to a smooth transition. It simply takes a lot of time for all 3rd party software to be released for the new architecture. Given how they handled it in the past my guess is that Apple will release a very usable X64 emulator for the ARM and really brag about it at WWDC.

by jmpman 6y ago

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

A theoretical possibility: Apple could make Bootcamp support Windows on ARM. I don't know that they'll do it, but they could and it would be interesting. The choice will also say something about how Apple views these ARM Macs: Are they iPhone-esque devices made exclusively for Apple software, or are they (relatively) open-ended computing platforms capable of booting alternate operating systems?

toyg 6y ago
Windows itself struggled to support ARM. Bootcamp alone is not going to cut it, at least for some time.
pavlov 6y ago
I don't think there is a standard BIOS for ARM like there is for x86, so multi-boot would probably require Microsoft to support Macs explicitly in Windows on ARM.
auggierose 6y ago
Just observing the pain of getting Linux to run on new Macs, the answer should be obvious. Not that I think this is a bad thing, there definitely is space for an operator like Apple and exactly what many people need.
mrkstu 6y ago
The problem is that Apple has moved to a home-grown stack for it graphics and deprecated OpenGL and moved wholly to Metal. There is no way Apple would create a Windows driver for that custom silicon- it has always relied on AMD or Nvidia for those drivers in the past, it has no in house code base or expertise to write the requisite code in Windows and none of the silicon has been optimized for it.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  This is an interesting point—but, are you expecting Apple to move entirely to in-house GPUs? On the laptops that currently have integrated graphics, sure, but I'd expect the higher-end Macbook Pros and iMacs to still have AMD cards inside. Perhaps that just becomes a prerequisite for Bootcamp—there's probably a lot of overlap between the types of people who want Bootcamp and the types of people who buy Macs with dedicated GPUs. (I do agree that they're more likely to just drop Bootcamp support.)
  - mrkstu 6y ago
    Potentially keeping AMD as a partner is graphics on the high end is a good point- i.e. iMac Pro/Mac Pro. But since its 99% likely that all the other Mac's will be SoC with no Windows driver support for any of the underlying silicon, I'd find it very surprising if Apple went to the trouble just for the high end. That said, I thing Intel Mac Pros will be a thing for a long while, even is a 256 core ARM variation came out, just to keep the pros happy until they can comfortably transition to the new stack. Apple has spent too much human capital recently on the pro team to make me think otherwise.

claudeganon 6y ago

Yeah, this has got me debating whether I need to bite the bullet and buy a high-spec 2019 model, despite their lingering, myriad problems. I have too much stuff to worry about in my day-to-day usage to gamble on whether Apple is going to stick the landing with this transition.

sjwright 6y ago

My prediction of Apple’s moves here are far less dire. These are just predictions mind you, but the point is Apple could do this without ruining the platform for enthusiasts. 1. They’re going to have some kind of breakthrough with x86 emulation where the Apple ARM CPU has a translator, or an accelerator, or a co-processor, or something that will make x86 run at decent speeds. 2. Apple will move to a long term two-CPU strategy with ARM on economy and low power SKUs, and Intel chips for the “Pro” SKUs. 3. As an alternative to 1 and 2, the direction might just be a killer next-gen iPad Pro and new iPadOS which substantially raises the bar for multitasking, trackpad, etc on that platform. I wouldn’t even dismiss the possibility of an “iPadBook” for want of a better name.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> 2. Apple will move to a long term two-CPU strategy with ARM on economy and low power SKUs, and Intel chips for the “Pro” SKUs. How is this going to work for developers or Apple? For how many years will everyone need to test and ship universal binaries?
- sjwright 6y ago
  I see no issue with developers shipping universal binaries indefinitely. I don’t see what the issue would be with that, for most devs it’s just part of the Xcode build process. I suppose it would double the compile time for release builds. Testing is a legitimate concern but I don’t think it’s as consequential as you imply. (For most developers.)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- stetrain 6y ago
  Every iOS app is currently tested in x86 on the Mac simulator and then ARM on the device. If you ship a Catalyst app that runs on iPad and Mac you are shipping and testing on x86 and ARM. Apple already splits binaries in the app store and only downloads what is needed for your device (including resources for different device resolutions), so the end user would likely not see an increase in app size.

pehtis 6y ago

I lived through both major Mac CPU transitions (68K-PPC and PPC->X86) and in both cases the assumption was that it was impossible for Apple to ship a usable emulator. In both cases Apple proved everyone wrong and in fact the emulator was a major contributing factor to a smooth transition. It simply takes a lot of time for all 3rd party software to be released for the new architecture. Given how they handled it in the past my guess is that Apple will release a very usable X64 emulator for the ARM and really brag about it at WWDC.