UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
This is likely a waste of time. You’re here to be decisive and not actually have an understanding. But here goes anyway.
It is telling that Windows isn't capable of running VM's. Probably because it's not stable enough.
Just like Windows also doesn't have a real terminal/command line interface. If you're a sys admin you're either on Linux or Mac. Windows pales in comparison.
Heavy users are covered in creative fields and programming as well as system administration. But your constant distain of Apple and its users is duly noted.
But to directly talk about this: ‘A’ series processors have low power efficiency cores. Also processors only need to clock up and clock down when there is actual workload. Every AMD and Intel professor has been doing this at some level for a decade and a half.
So you let me know why any ARM chip is going to need to spin up to all of its cores to 4GHz in order to browse a website. Especially considering that things like decoding of video have specialized parts on die to do it and don’t require general processing. Which is one of the reasons why Apple Arm is so efficient in the first place.
Apple's ARM at 25-30w is going to accomplish what Intel at 60w isn't capable of. And if they do make a 60w+ chip, that will be reserved for the 16" Macbook Pro which already has an adequate cooling system to deal with any throttling (or obviously desktop). Apple ARM at 60w is going to wreck more or less anything that Intel has been doing for the past 5 years minimum.
Good. Hopefully people will make their case off of sound business decisions.Need is a strong word. Want is more accurate.
No it doesn’t. It doesn’t have FCPX or Logic which are both big draws. Not to mention the OS and the way it works itself. Why would I want telemetry. Why would I want forced updates? Why would I want to manage driver updates that can wreck my install and be forced to format? Also, hotkeys, spaces, stability, and the like will always be better on Mac. Windows can’t go one direction for more than a year.Windows has all the applications. Why would Windows consider using Mac applications?
That's a very limited reason to have Parallels or VMware. The big reason was to be able to code apps and test apps in other environments (even another instance of macOS running, *gasp*). It should still be very easy to spin up VM's for Android and iOS even after the change.There's a reason why no such thing as a Parallels like application is found on Windows to run Mac apps.
It is telling that Windows isn't capable of running VM's. Probably because it's not stable enough.
Just like Windows also doesn't have a real terminal/command line interface. If you're a sys admin you're either on Linux or Mac. Windows pales in comparison.
That’s a question for devs to ask themselves. They can make their own decisions. The response i gave was in regards to a question about getting software on the platform. My explanation was that it’s easy with existing software.Yes but, who will actually do it and deal with losing money to port their app and support in? Especially when the obvious answer is to get them to buy the newest version?
No. Most people are casuals that browse. And use YouTube and social media.Is that all Mac users need to use their computers for?
Heavy users are covered in creative fields and programming as well as system administration. But your constant distain of Apple and its users is duly noted.
That is correct. Good on the reading comprehension. Most people aren’t doing heavy work on their computers. And that’s across platforms. Most people don’t need a computer. A phone is enough.Those don't sound like productivity applications.
This is such an absurd response. The a12z is already doing this. A 5w chip is already competing with i5s.That's not how the law of thermal dynamics works. ARM is efficient but once you make it as fast as an Intel then the efficiency goes out the window. If Apple doesn't put a fan then you're running the CPU at 100C. Just look at what they do with their Intel laptops.
But to directly talk about this: ‘A’ series processors have low power efficiency cores. Also processors only need to clock up and clock down when there is actual workload. Every AMD and Intel professor has been doing this at some level for a decade and a half.
So you let me know why any ARM chip is going to need to spin up to all of its cores to 4GHz in order to browse a website. Especially considering that things like decoding of video have specialized parts on die to do it and don’t require general processing. Which is one of the reasons why Apple Arm is so efficient in the first place.
Apple's ARM at 25-30w is going to accomplish what Intel at 60w isn't capable of. And if they do make a 60w+ chip, that will be reserved for the 16" Macbook Pro which already has an adequate cooling system to deal with any throttling (or obviously desktop). Apple ARM at 60w is going to wreck more or less anything that Intel has been doing for the past 5 years minimum.
Cool story bro.I'm going to have a fun time explaining to people why they can run certain games on these ARM Macs because they made a mistake and bought an Apple product. Fun times are coming.
Last edited: