Apple to Announce its own Mac Processor

LaAaZ

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 19, 2016
Messages
129
If Apple could produce a great high performance laptop with long-lasting battery life for under $1,000 they could still sell their MacBook Pros at a premium price and gain a large portion of the laptop market.
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
11,843
If Apple could produce a great high performance laptop with long-lasting battery life for under $1,000 they could still sell their MacBook Pros at a premium price and gain a large portion of the laptop market.
The problem will be if they're moving everything over to ARM, how do the differentiate the MacBook Pro when everything is using the same processor or a slight variation of it so that they can continue to charge a premium for the Pro models.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,488
The problem will be if they're moving everything over to ARM, how do the differentiate the MacBook Pro when everything is using the same processor or a slight variation of it so that they can continue to charge a premium for the Pro models.
There will be different ARM SoC's for different products (this was announced by Johnny). Apple already does this now. The ARM chips used in phones, watches, and computers (the T2 chip) all are different.
First: The number of cores. Whatever their base model is could have fewer cores like say: 8 cores. And a more performance oriented laptop could have as an example: 16 cores.
Second: another differentiator is clock speed. A Macbook air type machine will have a much smaller body and therefore allow a much lower TDP. Meaning in short lower clock speed. A Macbook Pro with much better active cooling could allow for higher thermals meaning a higher clocked processor.
Third: It's still very likely that top models will continue to have discrete graphics whereas lower end consumer models will not. I'd expect lower end models to use the A series integrated graphics (which as shown are quite good) and higher end models (like say the Macbook Pro 16") will use discrete graphics in tandem with the integrated graphics, utilizing graphics switching like current models already do with both Intel IGP and discrete graphics.

In short, the obvious answer is that the differentiations which separate their higher end pro models and their lower end entry level models will still have the same differentiations they do now. This is ignoring things like higher RAM configurations, larger storage options, bigger or better displays and display types, etc.
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
11,843
There will be different ARM SoC's for different products (this was announced by Johnny). Apple already does this now. The ARM chips used in phones, watches, and computers (the T2 chip) all are different.
First: The number of cores. Whatever their base model is could have fewer cores like say: 8 cores. And a more performance oriented laptop could have as an example: 16 cores.
Second: another differentiator is clock speed. A Macbook air type machine will have a much smaller body and therefore allow a much lower TDP. Meaning in short lower clock speed. A Macbook Pro with much better active cooling could allow for higher thermals meaning a higher clocked processor.
Third: It's still very likely that top models will continue to have discrete graphics whereas lower end consumer models will not. I'd expect lower end models to use the A series integrated graphics (which as shown are quite good) and higher end models (like say the Macbook Pro 16") will use discrete graphics in tandem with the integrated graphics, utilizing graphics switching like current models already do with both Intel IGP and discrete graphics.

In short, the obvious answer is that the differentiations which separate their higher end pro models and their lower end entry level models will still have the same differentiations they do now. This is ignoring things like higher RAM configurations, larger storage options, bigger or better displays and display types, etc.
Even if they have a completely separate ARM processor for the MBP models, they need to replace the 4 different processors currently in use in the MBPr13 and 3 different ones in the MBPr16. So 7 ARM models for the Pro and 3 more for the processor options used in the Air and that doesn't include any processors for a Macbook type replacement. Apple prints money with their processor upgrade options for the MBP and Air lines, it'll be interesting to see if they can continue to do so by offering enough processor configurations to make people pay for upgrades.

They also haven't addressed the fact they're leaving all their Pro users who use Bootcamp/Fusion/Parallels for native x86 OS's and apps support in a bind and so far haven't given us a way forward other then maybe we can emulate some of it.
 

idiomatic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
132
If you bought a $50k Mac Pro you are fucked. Its orphaned. Again. All your apps are moving to ARM. Lucky if you even get security updates.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,662
The problem will be if they're moving everything over to ARM, how do the differentiate the MacBook Pro when everything is using the same processor or a slight variation of it so that they can continue to charge a premium for the Pro models.
Rumor is that the first new Mac ARM chip has 8 performance cores and 4 low power cores, so they can do some core binning and disabling.

MacBook Pro: 6-8 cores performance cores, 4 low power cores, and better cooling for higher clock speeds. Full cache. More GPU cores. Bigger SSD/RAM capacities. Bigger screen size, more ports.
MacBook. 2-4 performance cores, 2-4 low power cores, passive cooling for lower clock speeds. Partial cache. Less GPU cores.

You can do a lot of variations with even just one piece of silicon, and they will have more than one.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,488
Even if they have a completely separate ARM processor for the MBP models, they need to replace the 4 different processors currently in use in the MBPr13 and 3 different ones in the MBPr16. So 7 ARM models for the Pro and 3 more for the processor options used in the Air and that doesn't include any processors for a Macbook type replacement. Apple prints money with their processor upgrade options for the MBP and Air lines, it'll be interesting to see if they can continue to do so by offering enough processor configurations to make people pay for upgrades.
We'll have to wait and see. It's more than possible that some lines will become truncated. Apple also generally for a majority of its lifetime as a company has preferred fewer options rather than more. Some options in it's current lineup were superficial. When I bought my 2019 15" MBPt, there was an option for a 2.3 GHz 8-core i9 and a 2.4 GHz 8-core i9. It doesn't take a genius to see that both of those could be reduced into a single sku. There are plenty of other places that are similar.

They also haven't addressed the fact they're leaving all their Pro users who use Bootcamp/Fusion/Parallels for native x86 OS's and apps support in a bind and so far haven't given us a way forward other then maybe we can emulate some of it.
In terms of Bootcamp, it's dead. But as Apple has said themselves, there are very few programs that actually care about specific architectures of a CPU. Unless you're using some really specific feature sets like AVX, basically everything from x86 is translatable to ARM. Which is why Rosetta works and why the frameworks Apple has made can be run on both x86 and ARM (that and of course a healthy amount of planning and thinking ahead. Like everything being programmed in Xcode, Metal API, using universal binaries, etc). Several companies including VMware could continue to release virtualization software to run Windows on ARM Mac if they choose. We'll see if that's what they decide.

However, I will say that I think the people who are on about Bootcamps death will just simply find themselves buying a PC and stop sitting on the fence if they really need Windows. Or alternatively figure out a way to run everything then need to in macOS. After all, no one is virtualizing macOS in Windows or in Linux or complaining about that "lack of a feature". It was offered for convenience. Now it's not an option. Here is where the rubber will meet the road on what those requirements really are.

If you bought a $50k Mac Pro you are fucked. Its orphaned. Again. All your apps are moving to ARM. Lucky if you even get security updates.
Not true. Universal Binaries 2's whole purpose is to make it so everything is x86 and ARM compatible. I imagine the Mac Pro 2019 will have at least 8 years of life in it. In terms of this current year basically every Mac that was compatible with Catalina is able to be upgraded to Big Sur. Along with every single one of its benefits.
Additionally Apple has already announced there are Intel machines in the roadmap. I'm fairly certain there will be a new iMac Pro and perhaps even a regular iMac that are both released with Intel parts.

PPC continued to be relevant for at least 5 years after the Intel transition. PPC apps didn't even get depreciated until after Snow Leopard. But this is all to just throw shade. You likely own precisely zero Apple hardware.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,662
They also haven't addressed the fact they're leaving all their Pro users who use Bootcamp/Fusion/Parallels for native x86 OS's and apps support in a bind and so far haven't given us a way forward other then maybe we can emulate some of it.
They addressed it. They already have a version of Parallels ported over, and showed ARM Linux running in virtualization.

But just like OS virtualization on x86 Mac only ran x86 OS guests, virtualization on ARM Mac will only run ARM OS guests.

If you want to run MS Windows in Parallels, it will have to be Microsoft's ARM version, if/when Microsoft and/or Apple think it's good idea.
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
11,843
We'll have to wait and see. It's more than possible that some lines will become truncated. Apple also generally for a majority of its lifetime as a company has preferred fewer options rather than more. Some options in it's current lineup were superficial. When I bought my 2019 15" MBPt, there was an option for a 2.3 GHz 8-core i9 and a 2.4 GHz 8-core i9. It doesn't take a genius to see that both of those could be reduced into a single sku. There are plenty of other places that are similar.
Of course the options weren't needed, but they were given because it's basically free money for Apple every time someone pays extra for a cpu they're getting in quantity at almost the same price as the base one. If they don't do the same with ARM offerings, they're leaving money on the table.

They addressed it. They already have a version of Parallels ported over, and showed ARM Linux running in virtualization.

But just like OS virtualization on x86 Mac only ran x86 OS guests, virtualization on ARM Mac will only run ARM OS guests.

If you want to run MS Windows in Parallels, it will have to be Microsoft's ARM version, if/when Microsoft and/or Apple think it's good idea.
That's not addressing it, it's just completely abandoning it. The ARM version of Windows is basically useless unless you're ok with being sandboxed in with the apps available on the store for it. Unless something drastic changes in regards to it over the next two years, there's no way it makes any sense to use it. Apple has killed x86 on their hardware going forward, because of that, in 2 years when I replace my 16" MBPr, I'll be forced to go back to a Windows laptop, I can't do my job without it. Which really sucks because my entire home ecosystem is all Apple which is why I've been using macs for the past 10 years as my daily driver.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,662
That's not addressing it, it's just completely abandoning it. The ARM version of Windows is basically useless unless you're ok with being sandboxed in with the apps available on the store for it. Unless something drastic changes in regards to it over the next two years, there's no way it makes any sense to use it. Apple has killed x86 on their hardware going forward, because of that, in 2 years when I replace my 16" MBPr, I'll be forced to go back to a Windows laptop, I can't do my job without it. Which really sucks because my entire home ecosystem is all Apple which is why I've been using macs for the past 10 years as my daily driver.
Addressing it, doesn't mean giving you what you want. Especially when what you want isn't realistic. It simply means an answer to the question.

Do you really expect Apple to offer a better Windows on ARM solution than Microsoft themselves does?

Doing a decent job at non-native application emulation requires source code access to the OS, so first you can have the entire OS go native, so that all the API calls will be be native, and not emulated. Only Microsoft can do that. Not Apple.

So eventually getting virtual Windows on Apple SoCs, will depend (at minimum) on Microsoft delivering a suitable native ARM implementation.

This will be an issue for some people (it would be for me, because I like my legacy Windows games), but not for most people.

If Apple offered some budget models (cheaper than anything they have now) they will easily make up any sales losses from people that want/need to run Windows x86 software, that are leaving.
 

deruberhanyok

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
1,572
I don’t think Apple actually considers the “users who run alternate operating systems via virtualization or Boot camp” as a significant enough group to factor into product planning.

ubuntu has run on arm for years and will probably work just fine with these new macs though. If you want wintel , Apple is giving you 2 more years of x86 hardware before they stop, and plenty of advance notice about their plans. And the x86 hardware they release will probably be supported for a couple of major version releases after that, like they did with ppc.

far as differentiating the product lines go, they were already doing this with like iPad / iPad Pro, so I don’t see why it would be any different for laptops. Alternately it may allow them to simplify their product line and just have a single smaller MacBook (“Air” or just plain MacBook) and single larger MacBook (“pro”) instead of multiple options for each with different possible configurations. Some power users might not like that but it would just depend on how important those users are to Apple.
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
11,843
Addressing it, doesn't mean giving you what you want. Especially when what you want isn't realistic. It simply means an answer to the question.

Do you really expect Apple to offer a better Windows on ARM solution than Microsoft themselves does?

Doing a decent job at non-native application emulation requires source code access to the OS, so first you can have the entire OS go native, so that all the API calls will be be native, and not emulated. Only Microsoft can do that. Not Apple.

So eventually getting virtual Windows on Apple SoCs, will depend (at minimum) on Microsoft delivering a suitable native ARM implementation.
If addressing it is abandoning the functionality with no means of transitioned support going forward, then sure, they addressed it.

This will be an issue for some people (it would be for me, because I like my legacy Windows games), but not for most people.

If Apple offered some budget models (cheaper than anything they have now) they will easily make up any sales losses from people that want/need to run Windows x86 software, that are leaving.
I think you'd be surprised at the amount of Systems/Network Admin/Engineers and Developers that use Apple hardware but need x86 support. We'll certainly be buying a lot less of them in the future because of this.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,662
I think you'd be surprised at the amount of Systems/Network Admin/Engineers and Developers that use Apple hardware but need x86 support. We'll certainly be buying a lot less of them in the future because of this.
I do think there is a significant number of users that will be disappointed, with the loss.

But let's be clear. It isn't x86 support. Its Windows application support. Linux applications will be a compile away.

If Microsoft makes better inroads getting ARM Windows off the ground, it is something that might return in a couple of years as an option, but obviously that doesn't help in the interim.

For the interim, Mac users that really need Windows Applications on their Macs, can buy one of the last x86 machines, instead of new ARM machines, and they will still have years of support for their Intel Macs, and when that ends, then perhaps the Windows ARM landscape will be different.

As far as limiting the effect on Apple for those lost sales, it's two fold. Some users that need x86, will keep x86 Mac models from getting "Osborned" during the transition, and Apple could swamp any sales losses with new mainstream users if they offer a more budget oriented solution. An $800 ARM Macbook could significantly increase Mac market share, but that probably won't happen, but maybe a $900 one instead of the current $1000 would be enough to cover it.
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,533
If you bought a $50k Mac Pro you are fucked. Its orphaned. Again. All your apps are moving to ARM. Lucky if you even get security updates.
Not quite, Apple said, in the keynote, that they said they would continue to support their x86-64 systems into the future; assuming until they go EOL.
They are even still poised to sell new x86-64 models later this year.

This isn't 2006, and the METAL API and Rosetta 2 are game-changers of the likes we have never seen before for application compatibility, regardless of the CPU ISA on their systems.
Also, those workstations, even with extended support, only get around 3 years of warranty anyways, which is pretty average for any computer/PC in general.
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,533
but, but, I thought ARM was so efficient!

don't most of these supercomputers use GPUs and the like to achieve their perf numbers and not really CPUs?
Not to derail the thread, but there are other components in supercomputers outside of the CPUs - disk storage, system interconnects, sub-systems, etc. which are all included in that final efficiency score.
Being #9 in efficiency while being #1 in performance out of 500 supercomputers is an impressive feat.

No, Fugaku does not use GPGPUs for compute, only CPUs.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,662
This isn't 2006, and the METAL API and Rosetta 2 are game-changers of the likes we have never seen before for application compatibility, regardless of the CPU ISA on their systems.
Actually it looks very much like the 2005 playbook: Highlighting perf/watt of new architecture, 2 year transition announcement, Xcode, Rosetta, and Universal binaries covering the transition.

But that's a good thing, as PPC-Intel was a fairly smooth transition.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,533
Actually it looks very much like the 2005 playbook: Highlighting perf/watt of new architecture, 2 year transition announcement, Xcode, Rosetta, and Universal binaries covering the transition.

But that's a good thing, as PPC-Intel was a fairly smooth transition.
As long as support for their existing, and upcoming, x86-64 systems are supported until they go EOL, I see no issue with it.
I think most of what individuals in this thread are complaining about are either non-existent (again, this isn't 2006) or the issues have already been resolved.

The biggest one is not being able to run Windows (x86-64 version) on the new ARM-based Apple systems, and while frustrating for those who do use that functionality for both OSes in parallel/dual-boot, this is going to be a paradigm shift that has been written on the wall for the last few years, and x86-64's days, overall, are numbered.
I think ChadD's 5 year speculation on x86-64 ending is a bit optimistic, considering the next-gen consoles will be using AMD x86-64 CPUs into the future, and it will take the entire world market longer than 5 years to fully transition OS and software support (not every company is Apple with total control of their software and/or platforms), not even counting escaping Intel's vendor lock-in.

By 2030, though, x86-64 will, most likely, be at the end of its proverbial rope.
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,357
As long as support for their existing, and upcoming, x86-64 systems are supported until they go EOL, I see no issue with it.
I think most of what individuals in this thread are complaining about are either non-existent (again, this isn't 2006) or the issues have already been resolved.

The biggest one is not being able to run Windows (x86-64 version) on the new ARM-based Apple systems, and while frustrating for those who do use that functionality for both OSes in parallel/dual-boot, this is going to be a paradigm shift that has been written on the wall for the last few years, and x86-64's days, overall, are numbered.
I think ChadD's 5 year speculation on x86-64 ending is a bit optimistic, considering the next-gen consoles will be using AMD x86-64 CPUs into the future, and it will take the entire world market longer than 5 years to fully transition OS and software support (not every company is Apple with total control of their software and/or platforms), not even counting escaping Intel's vendor lock-in.

By 2030, though, x86-64 will, most likely, be at the end of its proverbial rope.
We did see something less drastic with PPC (since PPC never had massive marketshare in the first place), during the x360/PS3 era.

When the x360 launched, PPC was still a viable desktop/consumer ISA with support from multiple vendors and even new contenders (PA Semi) entering the ring. By the time the PS4/XboxOne launched, PPC was basically dead.

x86_64 (AMD64) won't suffer such a bad decline in the same timeframe, but we have seen one of the smaller (and storied) ISAs practically disappear from relevance in one generation.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
6,412
I don’t know about anyone else but considering what Apple has done in terms of performance with their iPhone chips in that small of a form factor and almost no cooling requirements I’m stoked to see what they come up with.

I mean imagine an ARM chip that requires the cooling resources provided by the Mac Pro. Everyone seems to think ARM is small SOC designs that are underpowered. Apple is going to attempt to have huge versions of these chips that need active cooling.

I don’t care if it fails terrible or succeeds, I just want to know how a large ARM design competes with x86 HEDT chips. If they even get close to the same performance that would be awesome just to see.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,662
The biggest one is not being able to run Windows (x86-64 version) on the new ARM-based Apple systems, and while frustrating for those who do use that functionality for both OSes in parallel/dual-boot, this is going to be a paradigm shift that has been written on the wall for the last few years, and x86-64's days, overall, are numbered.
I think ChadD's 5 year speculation on x86-64 ending is a bit optimistic, considering the next-gen consoles will be using AMD x86-64 CPUs into the future, and it will take the entire world market longer than 5 years to fully transition OS and software support (not every company is Apple with total control of their software and/or platforms), not even counting escaping Intel's vendor lock-in.
Yeah in post #295, I indicate why I think loss of x86 VMs is probably not that big of a deal. If you really need that you can buy a new x86 Mac this year and likely have support till 2025. By then there could/should be better Windows on ARM options.

As far as x86 going away. That depends on what Microsoft does. They have made a miserable effort with Windows on ARM.
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
11,843
Yeah in post #295, I indicate why I think loss of x86 VMs is probably not that big of a deal. If you really need that you can buy a new x86 Mac this year and likely have support till 2025. By then there could/should be better Windows on ARM options.
It is a huge deal for a lot of scenarios. We talked about it yesterday and as a company going forward it doesn't make any sense to continue buying Macs at this point because the ability to run x86 OSs has no long term support any longer. It's not just apps that we need support for, it's the entire ecosystem and for the time being it appears that Apple is closing its doors to anything else but their sandbox by moving to custom ARM processors.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,662
It is a huge deal for a lot of scenarios. We talked about it yesterday and as a company going forward it doesn't make any sense to continue buying Macs at this point because the ability to run x86 OSs has no long term support any longer. It's not just apps that we need support for, it's the entire ecosystem and for the time being it appears that Apple is closing its doors to anything else but their sandbox by moving to custom ARM processors.
If you need the entire Windows ecosystem, it really doesn't seem like it ever made sense to buy Macs.

But given Apple historical precedents, you would have support of new Intel Macs for about 5 years. Either Windows ARM will be in adequate place then, or it won't, but the "problem" is 5 years in the future not today.
 

Shoganai

Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
679
It is a huge deal for a lot of scenarios. We talked about it yesterday and as a company going forward it doesn't make any sense to continue buying Macs at this point because the ability to run x86 OSs has no long term support any longer. It's not just apps that we need support for, it's the entire ecosystem and for the time being it appears that Apple is closing its doors to anything else but their sandbox by moving to custom ARM processors.
Yep. I promised myself if this ever happened (the ARM switch) that I’d be done with them.
 

equinox654

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
323
I wouldn't be surprised if x86 stops receiving OS updates 3 years after arm launch. That's a hard pill to swallow with machines as expensive as Apple.
This isn't the 90's anymore. These machines will most likely run software adequately for 10 years.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,662
I wouldn't be surprised if x86 stops receiving OS updates 3 years after arm launch. That's a hard pill to swallow with machines as expensive as Apple.
This isn't the 90's anymore. These machines will most likely run software adequately for 10 years.
Given History, you will probably stop getting new OS version after 2-3 years, but the OS you do have will keep getting updates to that older OS for at least 5 years.

Right now, I wouldn't buy a new Intel Mac for personal use, because I would intend to use my computer longer than that.

But for business usage, they tend to have 3-5 year replacement cycles, so this would be adequate.
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
11,843
Given History, you will probably stop getting new OS version after 2-3 years, but the OS you do have will keep getting updates to that older OS for at least 5 years.
During the PPC years, Apple hadn't been patching OSs once the successor has released. There were no updates for Leopard once Snow Leopard shipped and Apple was still on the two year cycle then, since Mountain Lion they've gone to a 1 year which will probably speed the process of dropping Intel support. They only had a 2 OS overlap that included both PPC and Intel support.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,662
During the PPC years, Apple hadn't been patching OSs once the successor has released. There were no updates for Leopard once Snow Leopard shipped and Apple was still on the two year cycle then, since Mountain Lion they've gone to a 1 year which will probably speed the process of dropping Intel support. They only had a 2 OS overlap that included both PPC and Intel support.
The last PPC OS received patches into 2011. This is 5 years after the last PPC machine was sold.

There is no reason to expect less this time.
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
11,843
The last PPC OS received patches into 2011. This is 5 years after the last PPC machine was sold.

There is no reason to expect less this time.
Leopard's last update was August 12, 2009: https://support.apple.com/kb/dl865?locale=en_US

The last security patch for it was on May 14, 2012, it disabled versions of Adobe Flash and pointed you to download the latest version: https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1533?locale=en_US. So sure, they kept "supporting" it for 3 years after the last actual update...
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,662

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,533
So security patches up to 6 years after the last HW then. Totally fine.
Would have been not quite 4 years (G5 Quad released in October 2005) of support for the last PowerPC-based Macs, which still isn't bad.
At least for the 10.5.8 patch, that is.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,662

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,533
That might be the last full patch, but apparently security updates officially ended here (Sep 2011):
https://security.thejoshmeister.com/2011/09/apple-ends-security-updates-for-5-year.html
You're right, and that is well beyond the warranty for those systems.
I'm not trying to justify that this is ok for Apple to just abandon support for their existing, and upcoming, x86-64 systems, but if we look at any other company, they do the same thing with their own products.

Just because an individual has a Dell workstation from 2008, which can still run modern applications just fine, doesn't mean it should still be in use (assuming professional/business use here, not personal).
Support for such a system would have ended by 2013 or so, and considering meltdown/spectre/etc. would still potentially be an issue on old unsupported hardware, continuing to use such hardware in a professional setting would not be the best option; just because the OS will continue getting patches, doesn't mean the hardware will, and with MacOS, hardware and software support go hand-in-hand with patches.

So, if we are talking about a Mac from 2018, and it keeping support until 2023 (or later), I don't really see what the issue is.

It is a huge deal for a lot of scenarios. We talked about it yesterday and as a company going forward it doesn't make any sense to continue buying Macs at this point because the ability to run x86 OSs has no long term support any longer. It's not just apps that we need support for, it's the entire ecosystem and for the time being it appears that Apple is closing its doors to anything else but their sandbox by moving to custom ARM processors.
I find this interesting, since if your workplace just requires x86-64-based OS support for your applications, it almost sounds like either Windows or Linux is being used, and not MacOS, especially if you are all willing to drop Apple so quickly.
This begs the question - why not just purchase standard PCs under a different and/or lower-cost contract with Dell, HP, etc. rather than going with Apple?

The whole point of buying Apple systems is for the purpose of running MacOS and its supported software applications.
If Windows or Linux (or any other OS) is going to be used, why not go with standard PCs, all of which would be far more than capable of doing what you need them to do?

This sounds like less of an Apple issue in your workplace, and more of a management issue...
 
Last edited:

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
11,843
I find this interesting, since if your workplace just requires x86-64-based OS support for your applications, it almost sounds like either Windows or Linux is being used, and not MacOS, especially if you are all willing to drop Apple so quickly.
This begs the question - why not just purchase standard PCs under a different and/or lower-cost contract with Dell, HP, etc. rather than going with Apple?

The whole point of buying Apple systems is for the purpose of running MacOS and its supported software applications.
If Windows or Linux (or any other OS) is going to be used, why not go with standard PCs, all of which would be far more than capable of doing what you need them to do?

This sounds like less of an Apple issue in your workplace, and more of a management issue...
There will probably be a handful of people that may need to stick with Apple if we can adjust their workflows over the next few years, we'll end up giving them a VDI instance for any Windows stuff. For the rest of us, we'll just adjust our workflows and go nix/windows only.
 

idiomatic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
132
Apple will totally support things, like they supported X Serve, X San, Color, Shake, FCP, FCP server. Like all the upgrades the Trashcan got. Like the way they maintained the 17" Macbook Pros.

In 3 years will Adobe still be putting out new builds for x86 Macs? Will all the niche companies, or will they all have migrated to ARM? Thats a shit load of back porting for tiny companies who mostly struggle to maintain windows ports for the same plugins.
 

Shoganai

Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
679
Apple will totally support things, like they supported X Serve, X San, Color, Shake, FCP, FCP server. Like all the upgrades the Trashcan got. Like the way they maintained the 17" Macbook Pros.

In 3 years will Adobe still be putting out new builds for x86 Macs? Will all the niche companies, or will they all have migrated to ARM? Thats a shit load of back porting for tiny companies who mostly struggle to maintain windows ports for the same plugins.
One of their goals is to make it easy for the insane amount of iOS developers to make macOS versions of their software. It's going to be an interesting few years for Apple, that's for sure.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,662
Apple will totally support things, like they supported X Serve, X San, Color, Shake, FCP, FCP server. Like all the upgrades the Trashcan got. Like the way they maintained the 17" Macbook Pros.
No, they will support it with OS releases and security updates, just like they did with PPC Macs after the transition. No reason to expect otherwise.

In 3 years will Adobe still be putting out new builds for x86 Macs? Will all the niche companies, or will they all have migrated to ARM? Thats a shit load of back porting for tiny companies who mostly struggle to maintain windows ports for the same plugins.
Why not do new Intel builds? It costs almost nothing to keep doing universal binaries, and there will still be a lot of Macs (if not the majority) with Intel CPUs in 3 years. Also what backporting? No one will be maintaining separate code bases. This is the same code with checkboxes for output.

It's a transition. You make a rational decision based on your needs.

If you desperately need to run x86 Windows on a Mac, you get an x86 Mac, and live with the fact that your support might be shorter, but still adequate for typical business life of a computer. Or you can switch to Windows.

But for most people, who don't need x86 Windows, they are probably better off waiting a bit and getting an ARM Mac, which I bet will eventually be able to run ARM Windows in Parallels or equivalent.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,488
Apple will totally support things, like they supported X Serve, X San, Color, Shake, FCP, FCP server. Like all the upgrades the Trashcan got. Like the way they maintained the 17" Macbook Pros.
Discontinuing hardware is different than supporting said hardware. It's weird you can't tell the difference. Like every other product the XServe as an example continued to receive software updates way after it was discontinued.

FCP Server didn't need to be maintained as its functions were no longer necessary as it was integrated into other products (namely FCPX). If you're still using FCP 7 you can still use FCP Server if you really want to. But I'm not sure what your point is here.
XServe was so well supported that there are entire groups that were buying the things well into 2016. That's despite them being discontinued in essentially 2010 (January 2011 officially).
Similar things can be said for product lines like the 17" Macbook Pro. The 2011 17" is still considered by Apple to be Vintage and can run High Sierra meaning it is still receiving extended support.

But to that end do you also go this crazy every time Google makes a new product and then discontinues it? How about Microsoft? You must be equally as mad at the Surface RT and Surface phone. If not more so, because those all flamed out way more recently and they aren't even receiving software support unlike the Apple products. Let me know your rage for those systems.

One of their goals is to make it easy for the insane amount of iOS developers to make macOS versions of their software. It's going to be an interesting few years for Apple, that's for sure.
All iOS software is already ARM Mac compatible. This was announced during WWDC. By default, iOS software will appear on ARM Mac App store. The devs will have the option to choose to opt out of having their iOS software appear. But to reiterate, by default they are opted in.

Whether or not they'll actually push them to build specifically ARM Mac software will be another thing entirely. But it will be enticing to devs because it will be essentially like programming for a platform they're already familiar with.
 

idiomatic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
132
Discontinuing hardware is different than supporting said hardware. It's weird you can't tell the difference. Like every other product the XServe as an example continued to receive software updates way after it was discontinued.

FCP Server didn't need to be maintained as its functions were no longer necessary as it was integrated into other products (namely FCPX). If you're still using FCP 7 you can still use FCP Server if you really want to. But I'm not sure what your point is here.
XServe was so well supported that there are entire groups that were buying the things well into 2016. That's despite them being discontinued in essentially 2010 (January 2011 officially).
Similar things can be said for product lines like the 17" Macbook Pro. The 2011 17" is still considered by Apple to be Vintage and can run High Sierra meaning it is still receiving extended support.

But to that end do you also go this crazy every time Google makes a new product and then discontinues it? How about Microsoft? You must be equally as mad at the Surface RT and Surface phone. If not more so, because those all flamed out way more recently and they aren't even receiving software support unlike the Apple products. Let me know your rage for those systems.


All iOS software is already ARM Mac compatible. This was announced during WWDC. By default, iOS software will appear on ARM Mac App store. The devs will have the option to choose to opt out of having their iOS software appear. But to reiterate, by default they are opted in.

Whether or not they'll actually push them to build specifically ARM Mac software will be another thing entirely. But it will be enticing to devs because it will be essentially like programming for a platform they're already familiar with.
Where were you when they pulled actual boxes of FCP 7 off the shelves? Thats not how pro or enterprise operations live. FCPx was dogshit. Among other things it expected you to maintain multiple clients assets in your personal media library.

People were put out when Itanium was killed, but it wasn't nearly as popular as half the stuff Apple takes to the woodshed when they get bored of it.
 
Top