3 ms·

I think the right choice would be for Apple to stick with Intel for the Mac Pro. Its a vanity project focused on a tiny market that wants full expandability and

I think the right choice would be for Apple to stick with Intel for the Mac Pro. Its a vanity project focused on a tiny market that wants full expandability and compatibility. I thought apple learned their lesson with the Trash Can Mac Pro.

giobox 4y ago
You think Apple should bear the cost and support burdens of maintaining compatibility for two CPU architectures across their OSes, app stores and in house applications for the benefit of a few thousand Mac Pro sales? There is simply no way this strategy makes sense at Apple's size, I'd argue, especially for a "vanity project focused on a tiny market" as you correctly put it. Just as with 68k and PPC before it, MacOS will eventually drop x86 CPU support and it will be fine - the process of migrating the entire computer line is already almost complete.
- goodSteveramos 4y ago
  Yes. I think they should bear the cost of continuing to develop new intel mac pros if thats what it takes to serve that market.
- Rapzid 4y ago
  > You think Apple should bear the cost and support burdens of maintaining compatibility for two CPU architectures across their OSes, app stores and in house applications for the benefit of a few thousand Mac Pro sales? They sorta already do this via Rosetta.. But more to your point, yes they need to treat this like a leak in a damn and plug it even if it takes seemingly disproportionate resources.
  - giobox 4y ago
    > They sorta already do this via Rosetta.. Across Apple, to continue making x86 machines alongside ARM, is going to need a lot more than just the Rosetta software layer. Rosetta doesn't help hardware design, R&D expenditures for this tiny handful of x86 machines OP is proposing Apple keep in the lineup. Those R&D expenses for just x86 development work are much harder to justify when its just the Mac Pro that benefits, not the entire computer line, too.
orangecat 4y ago
There might have been a case for staying with Intel/AMD on all Mac desktops, on the grounds that power efficiency is less important and the latest x86 chips beat M1/M2 in absolute performance. But keeping Intel in only one model used by a tiny fraction of users isn't at all feasible. You'd get the opposite of compatibility because Mac development would focus almost entirely on arm64, with Intel as an afterthought or not supported at all.

giobox 4y ago

You think Apple should bear the cost and support burdens of maintaining compatibility for two CPU architectures across their OSes, app stores and in house applications for the benefit of a few thousand Mac Pro sales? There is simply no way this strategy makes sense at Apple's size, I'd argue, especially for a "vanity project focused on a tiny market" as you correctly put it. Just as with 68k and PPC before it, MacOS will eventually drop x86 CPU support and it will be fine - the process of migrating the entire computer line is already almost complete.

goodSteveramos 4y ago
Yes. I think they should bear the cost of continuing to develop new intel mac pros if thats what it takes to serve that market.
Rapzid 4y ago
> You think Apple should bear the cost and support burdens of maintaining compatibility for two CPU architectures across their OSes, app stores and in house applications for the benefit of a few thousand Mac Pro sales? They sorta already do this via Rosetta.. But more to your point, yes they need to treat this like a leak in a damn and plug it even if it takes seemingly disproportionate resources.
- giobox 4y ago
  > They sorta already do this via Rosetta.. Across Apple, to continue making x86 machines alongside ARM, is going to need a lot more than just the Rosetta software layer. Rosetta doesn't help hardware design, R&D expenditures for this tiny handful of x86 machines OP is proposing Apple keep in the lineup. Those R&D expenses for just x86 development work are much harder to justify when its just the Mac Pro that benefits, not the entire computer line, too.

orangecat 4y ago

There might have been a case for staying with Intel/AMD on all Mac desktops, on the grounds that power efficiency is less important and the latest x86 chips beat M1/M2 in absolute performance. But keeping Intel in only one model used by a tiny fraction of users isn't at all feasible. You'd get the opposite of compatibility because Mac development would focus almost entirely on arm64, with Intel as an afterthought or not supported at all.