3 ms·
It’s true that Apple has done two moves to different chips with success, but both times it was to a more capable and probably powerful processor. When moving to
by funkaster 6y ago
It’s true that Apple has done two moves to different chips with success, but both times it was to a more capable and probably powerful processor. When moving to PPC they allowed to run 68k apps/code without too much penalty. When moving to x86, there was Rosetta[0], that made the entire existing library /almost/ work seamlessly. moving to ARM... this might not necessarily be true. Sure, you have Catalina but iOS apps on macOS says nothing about all existing apps for macOS. I have no idea of the amount of already existing apps and what would be the amount of work needed to move them to ARM. Very likely Apple did the math and it will be easier/there will be incentives for devs to move to that platform. They do have experience though.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
- empthought 6y agoThe G5 and Core Duo were not that far apart, performance-wise. Certainly nothing like 68k vs PPC. Rosetta worked because most software isn’t CPU-bound; software that is got native versions very quickly.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- GeekyBear 6y agoYou can go back and look at PBS's Computer Chronicles from the mid 90's to see how much of a performance win the 68K to PowerPC transition was. They mention in the introduction that a pre-press shop went from hours to run their bread and butter workflow to about 20 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0dkf1iFOY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0dkf1iFOY The Intel transition wasn't really a win on performance, but it was a total win for laptops from a power draw and waste heat perspective.
- funkaster 6y agoWell, there you go. They just announced Rosetta 2 :)