I can't see Apple switching to ARM for the iMacs and Macbooks. I don't think it would work very well. Do the iDevices already use ARM processors?
Of course! Didn't you know that. Apple custom designs their own processors after buying that chip company but it is still all ARM technology.
Let's not forget Macs etc were on PPC before Intel and they made the transition.
It's not so appealing to give up Intel's power for iMacs but it is appealing on things like the Macbook Air if you can get all-day battery life alongside decent performance.
Of course! Didn't you know that. Apple custom designs their own processors after buying that chip company but it is still all ARM technology.
Let's not forget Macs etc were on PPC before Intel and they made the transition.
It's not so appealing to give up Intel's power for iMacs but it is appealing on things like the Macbook Air if you can get all-day battery life alongside decent performance.
Actually I didn't I hope the men in black turtlenecks don't turn up at my house to tell me off. Maybe they'll use ARM processors on the Macbook Airs and keep the Intel on the iMacs and the Macbook Pros. And then of course there's the Mac Mini and Mac Pro (my dream computer ) to think about. I remember PPC Macs. Hadn't Apple been using them since the 90s? I had an old Mac Performa once and I think it had a PPC chip.
Of course! Didn't you know that. Apple custom designs their own processors after buying that chip company but it is still all ARM technology.
It's not "all" ARM technology. ARM simply licenses out the core design. Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, etc, all do their own further tweaks. ARM is not a chip manufacturer.
Let's not forget Macs etc were on PPC before Intel and they made the transition.
Why would they switch to ARM for laptops when they would obviously be much weaker chips?
Also, ARM only has the advantage in mobile because Intel and AMD simply ignored that market all these years. It's only a matter of time before at least Intel moves strongly into the mobile arena.
t's not so appealing to give up Intel's power for iMacs but it is appealing on things like the Macbook Air if you can get all-day battery life alongside decent performance.
It would be foolish to handicap the Airs by using ARM licensed chips. The Mac Airs are quite powerful and Apple is not going to do anything to interfere with that.
It's not "all" ARM technology. ARM simply licenses out the core design. Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, etc, all do their own further tweaks. ARM is not a chip manufacturer.
Yawn. Irrelevant pedantry. The discussion was about which architecture platform is used => ARM, not Intel's x86.
Why would they switch to ARM for laptops when they would obviously be much weaker chips?
Also, ARM only has the advantage in mobile because Intel and AMD simply ignored that market all these years. It's only a matter of time before at least Intel moves strongly into the mobile arena.
It would be foolish to handicap the Airs by using ARM licensed chips. The Mac Airs are quite powerful and Apple is not going to do anything to interfere with that.
You're ill informed to think that ARM only makes "weak" chips, especially compared to using a ULV chip from Intel.
Performance per watt is much higher than even Intel's latest iterations. It's much easier to scale up performance than it is to scale down the power envelope.
ARM chips are actually making a move into the server space now. Also if an iPad with a dual-core CPU can handle most of the tasks the average Joe needs; it's not going to be hard to make a laptop that can handle what the average Joe needs.
The main difference is in writing for iOS on ARM vs compiling for x86 on OS X. OS X devs would have to make another transition.
ARM chips are great in that, that they can be tailored precisely to the needs of a particular device. So far they were used in mobile devices mostly, which means designers had to take power consumption into consideration, which means using minimum computing power to do required work satisfyingly, but not more. But you have more battery power to spend in laptops, which means you can have more powerful chips. There's no fundamental obstacle to use ARM processors in laptops. You need a compiler that generates ARM instructions. It being a RISC architectures it needs more simpler instructions to do the same work as CISC, but that's about it.
No sorry, having seen comments from users using the latest builds from Microsoft servers, even they are claiming the OS is still unstable. The new UI renders incorrectly and several features have been omitted from the OS in an attempt to release it faster. It has been rushed.
Well I'm actually using it. I'm typing this response right now on IE10 on Windows 8. I've suffered two bugs on my desktop PC. One was related to the graphics driver and was sorted when NVidia put out a WHQL-certified driver. The other was just patched via Windows update. I've also had it on my laptop since the Developer Preview. On there it has always been rock solid.
Just because you've read a few complaints about pre-release software on the internet does not mean its been rushed. Getting a new OS out in three years is not rushed, its normal.
You're ill informed to think that ARM only makes "weak" chips, especially compared to using a ULV chip from Intel.
Performance per watt is much higher than even Intel's latest iterations. It's much easier to scale up performance than it is to scale down the power envelope.
Am I? If they were as capable as you claim you would have already seen them on desktops and laptops.
As I said, they have a lead in mobile chips, and that has all to do with Intel and AMD foolishly ignoring the mobile market, but you are greatly exaggerating their advantage.
ARM chips are actually making a move into the server space now. Also if an iPad with a dual-core CPU can handle most of the tasks the average Joe needs; it's not going to be hard to make a laptop that can handle what the average Joe needs.
IPads are great but you are comparing apples to oranges. You can run a more powerful cpu in a desktop/laptop environment than what you have in the iPad and it would be a sluggish experience for even browsing for the simple fact that you are dealing with more resource intensive operating systems and applications.
Making a laptop with an iPad cpu would be a big step backwards and if you are going to do that you may as well stick with the iPad and get much better performance with the mobile OS and mobile apps it was designed to use.
The Mac is pricey but worth it Why is it a problem that Apple use Intel CPUs?
Intel is like a Sky of CPU production, they want their chips in every ones computer and no doubt any other product that needs them and they don't care how they do it.
You made an important claim related to what you were discussing that was simply not true. It was fair to be corrected on that.
Yes, I made a claim that all iDevices run on ARM technology rather than Intel processors.
You simply chose to interpret it in a way to suit your needs.
Let's not forget that in the tablet forum you chopped a sentence of mine in half to selectively quote so you could interpret it in a way to suit you and your special brand of pedantry.
Let's not forget that in the tablet forum you chopped a sentence of mine in half to selectively quote so you could interpret it in a way to suit you and your special brand of pedantry.
I have no idea what you are talking about and why you think that is somehow relevant to my simply responding to your remark above and in this discussion.
IPads are great but you are comparing apples to oranges. You can run a more powerful cpu in a desktop/laptop environment than what you have in the iPad and it would be a sluggish experience for even browsing for the simple fact that you are dealing with more resource intensive operating systems and applications.
You're making an assumption that such a laptop needs to run a "heavier" system like OS X and heavier application. (And let's not forget, Apple is slowly "iOSifying" OS X).
The iPad is Apple's most successful computing device in marketshare terms. Partly because it covers a large swathe of "average Joe's" needs. Where many people feel is lacking in the few applications where you want a keyboard. This is why you see things like the logitech covers with integrated keyboards that turn the iPad into a poor pseudo-laptop.
Making a laptop with an iPad cpu would be a big step backwards and if you are going to do that you may as well stick with the iPad and get much better performance with the mobile OS and mobile apps it was designed to use.
I never said to put an iPad CPU in a laptop. You're again making assumptions.
I'm sure an iPad in Macbook Air clothing could be plenty powerful and suit many people perfectly well.
Your memory is short if you think there have never been RISC-based computers. Acorn Computers made desktops with RISC.
Power PC is a RISC architecture too, Apple obviously thought that was good enough to make desktops and laptops for a while at least. Microsoft and Sony also that that RISC processors were powerful enough for the Xbox 360 and the PS3.
You're making an assumption that such a laptop needs to run a "heavier" system like OS X and heavier application. (And let's not forget, Apple is slowly "iOSifying" OS X).
It sure does need to run a heavier OS if it wants to continue running desktop class applications as the Air, for example, can easily do now.
The iPad is Apple's most successful computing device in marketshare terms. Partly because it covers a large swathe of "average Joe's" needs. Where many people feel is lacking in the few applications where you want a keyboard. This is why you see things like the logitech covers with integrated keyboards that turn the iPad into a poor pseudo-laptop.
As it relates to being able to use desktop class applications, as even the lightest laptops can, what's lacking is power. The iPad does well with the OS it uses and the apps it uses but the hardware in an iPad would make for a lousy laptop experience as it simply wouldn't be able to handle such an environment as they currently exist. The way they currently exist part is key.
I never said to put an iPad CPU in a laptop. You're again making assumptions.
I'm sure an iPad in Macbook Air clothing could be plenty powerful and suit many people perfectly well.
You seem to be losing track of what you are saying and what I am responding to. Your second sentence above is essentially what you said before and what i was responding to.
Your memory is short if you think there have never been RISC-based computers. Acorn Computers made desktops with RISC.
Power PC is a RISC architecture too, Apple obviously thought that was good enough to make desktops and laptops for a while at least. Microsoft and Sony also that that RISC processors were powerful enough for the Xbox 360 and the PS3.
Also there has been plenty of speculation and discussion about Windows RT based laptops with some OEMs saying these will come in 2013.
I never made any reference to any specific type of computer existing, or not existing, in the past. Everything I have addressed is in the here and now. Taking a functional and capable step backwards by incorporating existing ARM solutions into a laptop is not smart, at this time. The key words being existing ARM solutions.
It sure does need to run a heavier OS if it wants to continue running desktop class applications as the Air, for example, can easily do now.
As it relates to being able to use desktop class applications, as even the lightest laptops can, what's lacking is power. The iPad does well with the OS it uses and the apps it uses but the hardware in an iPad would make for a lousy laptop experience as it simply wouldn't be able to handle such an environment as they currently exist. The way they currently exist part is key.
You seem to be losing track of what you are saying and what I am responding to. Your second sentence above is essentially what you said before and what i was responding to.
I never made any reference to any specific type of computer existing, or not existing, in the past. Everything I have addressed is in the here and now. Taking a functional and capable step backwards by incorporating existing ARM solutions into a laptop is not smart, at this time. The key words being existing ARM solutions.
Why are you insisting on defining the conversation the way you want.
a) I made the point that the iPad covers a large surface area of the average user's needs when looking at what they do from an application perspective - video watching, browsing, email, basic productivity etc.
b) In that context, you can have an iOS-class product but with a clamshell laptop form factor.
c) The entire discussion started from a comment of what Apple would move to in 2-3 years time. Existing ARM processors (designed to spec for a particular device) are not relevant, I don't understand why you are so intent about focusing on existing components in a discussion about future products.
I also re-iterate the fact that Microsoft still consider Windows RT devices to be PCs, no less PCs than Intel-based ones. After all, their RT machines will all be coming with Office 15.
Why are you insisting on defining the conversation the way you want.
a) I made the point that the iPad covers a large surface area of the average user's needs when looking at what they do from an application perspective - video watching, browsing, email, basic productivity etc.
b) In that context, you can have an iOS-class product but with a clamshell laptop form factor.
c) The entire discussion started from a comment of what Apple would move to in 2-3 years time. Existing ARM processors (designed to spec for a particular device) are not relevant, I don't understand why you are so intent about focusing on existing components in a discussion about future products.
When a person is responding to something specific in a conversation that is not "defining the conversation.
I give up; It's too much work and too much of a hassle trying to discuss anything with you.
The iPad is Apple's most successful computing device in marketshare terms. Partly because it covers a large swathe of "average Joe's" needs. Where many people feel is lacking in the few applications where you want a keyboard. This is why you see things like the logitech covers with integrated keyboards that turn the iPad into a poor pseudo-laptop.
It is successful in the tablet space for now. Android is struggling in the tablet space and it will be interesting to see what Microsoft will be able to achieve.
To put that into perspective iOS accounts for just 1.46% of Worldwide operating system share browsing the web.
The early Vista installations were on underspecced hardware, so they were slow. That's how Vista got its bad name. There should be no performance problems with W8 when compared to Vista/W7. It's all just drama about the start screen, that nobody has to see too often if they haaaaaate it so much.
I've noticed people are ranting about it like people rant about a programme they've watched for the sole purpose of getting offended :rolleyes::sleep:
As I said before, I loved Vista until W7 replaced it, I had a powerful PC that could handle it, W8 will use less resource than W7 so it should fly when installed no my beast of a PC
Mine's flying already, in fact I now boot straight into my 8 Preview and have hardly used 7 for two days :cool: Love 8
It did not fly on mine, it was a bit quicker at some things, but it certainly did not fly.
Start up was no faster, true getting to the Metro may have been a bit faster, but getting to the desktop is another click so that slows things down.
i noticed very little different to be honest and my machine is not that slow.
AMD Phenom II 3.5Ghz quad core, 8Gb of corsair XMS3 ram, sata 3 120GB corsair force 3 SSD. The only slow bit is the graphics card, a old Nvidia Geforce 9400GT.
shut down takes the same amount of time as windows 7 and I mean a proper shut down not what MS wants us to to do all the time.
Ohhhh, the HORROR ..:rolleyes:
Why are there so many age-obsessed people on here using it as an excuse to slate this fine piece of art OS?? They'll find anything :rolleyes:
Not sure if this has been mentioned but StarDock as released a free tweak that brings back a start button and sort of tries to turn the metro interface in to a start menu as we are all familiar with.
Google it as I don't recall the name and haven't tried it personally myself.
Hating Windows 8 though. Metro just doesn't appeal to me, which is sad because this is the first time ever I've actually been disappointed in a release from Microsoft. I hope they see sense and at least add an option for those who want the traditional start menu.
Not sure if this has been mentioned but StarDock as released a free tweak that brings back a start button and sort of tries to turn the metro interface in to a start menu as we are all familiar with.
Google it as I don't recall the name and haven't tried it personally myself.
Hating Windows 8 though. Metro just doesn't appeal to me, which is sad because this is the first time ever I've actually been disappointed in a release from Microsoft. I hope they see sense and at least add an option for those who want the traditional start menu.
I actually prefer that Metro, admittedly not at first, but now I'm getting used to it and actually learning how to use it properly I'm enjoying, and very impressed with it
Perhaps that's people's problem, they haven't given it a chance or even attempted to learn how to use it
I actually prefer that Metro, admittedly not at first, but now I'm getting used to it and actually learning how to use it properly I'm enjoying, and very impressed with it
Perhaps that's people's problem, they haven't given it a chance or even attempted to learn how to use it
Personally, it's just not to my taste. I do hope that it becomes successful but I've lived with the start menu for as long as I can remember and to me, it feels unnatural to move away from it. I'm sure in time I'll become adapted to Metro and may even love it in the coming future - I certainly hope so if Metro is what we are faced with for the next decade or two of new Windows releases lol.
Not writing off 8 just yet but it won't be making its way on to my main machine for the foreseeable future.
Personally, it's just not to my taste. I do hope that it becomes successful but I've lived with the start menu for as long as I can remember and to me, it feels unnatural to move away from it. I'm sure in time I'll become adapted to Metro and may even love it in the coming future - I certainly hope so if Metro is what we are faced with for the next decade or two of new Windows releases lol.
Not writing off 8 just yet but it won't be making its way on to my main machine for the foreseeable future.
Well I'm now using it as my main OS, and hardly using 7 at all
Not sure if this has been mentioned but StarDock as released a free tweak that brings back a start button and sort of tries to turn the metro interface in to a start menu as we are all familiar with.
Google it as I don't recall the name and haven't tried it personally myself.
Hating Windows 8 though. Metro just doesn't appeal to me, which is sad because this is the first time ever I've actually been disappointed in a release from Microsoft. I hope they see sense and at least add an option for those who want the traditional start menu.
If I went for Windows 8 I would have it booting into the desktop, and get a a start menu tweak, so there would be little point in going for windows 8. the charm menu get on my nerves, go to that side of the screen and out it pops. Reminds me of Windows 95 task bar which used to be hidden.
It is a shame that the Mac Os is not available on a normal PC.
Comments
I can't see Apple switching to ARM for the iMacs and Macbooks. I don't think it would work very well. Do the iDevices already use ARM processors?
Of course! Didn't you know that. Apple custom designs their own processors after buying that chip company but it is still all ARM technology.
Let's not forget Macs etc were on PPC before Intel and they made the transition.
It's not so appealing to give up Intel's power for iMacs but it is appealing on things like the Macbook Air if you can get all-day battery life alongside decent performance.
Actually I didn't
It's not "all" ARM technology. ARM simply licenses out the core design. Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, etc, all do their own further tweaks. ARM is not a chip manufacturer.
Why would they switch to ARM for laptops when they would obviously be much weaker chips?
Also, ARM only has the advantage in mobile because Intel and AMD simply ignored that market all these years. It's only a matter of time before at least Intel moves strongly into the mobile arena.
It would be foolish to handicap the Airs by using ARM licensed chips. The Mac Airs are quite powerful and Apple is not going to do anything to interfere with that.
Yawn. Irrelevant pedantry. The discussion was about which architecture platform is used => ARM, not Intel's x86.
You're ill informed to think that ARM only makes "weak" chips, especially compared to using a ULV chip from Intel.
Performance per watt is much higher than even Intel's latest iterations. It's much easier to scale up performance than it is to scale down the power envelope.
ARM chips are actually making a move into the server space now. Also if an iPad with a dual-core CPU can handle most of the tasks the average Joe needs; it's not going to be hard to make a laptop that can handle what the average Joe needs.
The main difference is in writing for iOS on ARM vs compiling for x86 on OS X. OS X devs would have to make another transition.
Well I'm actually using it. I'm typing this response right now on IE10 on Windows 8. I've suffered two bugs on my desktop PC. One was related to the graphics driver and was sorted when NVidia put out a WHQL-certified driver. The other was just patched via Windows update. I've also had it on my laptop since the Developer Preview. On there it has always been rock solid.
Just because you've read a few complaints about pre-release software on the internet does not mean its been rushed. Getting a new OS out in three years is not rushed, its normal.
You made an important claim related to what you were discussing that was simply not true. It was fair to be corrected on that.
Am I? If they were as capable as you claim you would have already seen them on desktops and laptops.
As I said, they have a lead in mobile chips, and that has all to do with Intel and AMD foolishly ignoring the mobile market, but you are greatly exaggerating their advantage.
IPads are great but you are comparing apples to oranges. You can run a more powerful cpu in a desktop/laptop environment than what you have in the iPad and it would be a sluggish experience for even browsing for the simple fact that you are dealing with more resource intensive operating systems and applications.
Making a laptop with an iPad cpu would be a big step backwards and if you are going to do that you may as well stick with the iPad and get much better performance with the mobile OS and mobile apps it was designed to use.
Intel is like a Sky of CPU production, they want their chips in every ones computer and no doubt any other product that needs them and they don't care how they do it.
they are a dirty company.
Yes, I made a claim that all iDevices run on ARM technology rather than Intel processors.
You simply chose to interpret it in a way to suit your needs.
Let's not forget that in the tablet forum you chopped a sentence of mine in half to selectively quote so you could interpret it in a way to suit you and your special brand of pedantry.
It's quite obvious what I was responding to. That's it below.
I have no idea what you are talking about and why you think that is somehow relevant to my simply responding to your remark above and in this discussion.
You're making an assumption that such a laptop needs to run a "heavier" system like OS X and heavier application. (And let's not forget, Apple is slowly "iOSifying" OS X).
The iPad is Apple's most successful computing device in marketshare terms. Partly because it covers a large swathe of "average Joe's" needs. Where many people feel is lacking in the few applications where you want a keyboard. This is why you see things like the logitech covers with integrated keyboards that turn the iPad into a poor pseudo-laptop.
I never said to put an iPad CPU in a laptop. You're again making assumptions.
I'm sure an iPad in Macbook Air clothing could be plenty powerful and suit many people perfectly well.
Your memory is short if you think there have never been RISC-based computers. Acorn Computers made desktops with RISC.
Power PC is a RISC architecture too, Apple obviously thought that was good enough to make desktops and laptops for a while at least. Microsoft and Sony also that that RISC processors were powerful enough for the Xbox 360 and the PS3.
People are starting to look at ARM processors for servers.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/09/boston_viridis_arm_server/
Also there has been plenty of speculation and discussion about Windows RT based laptops with some OEMs saying these will come in 2013.
It sure does need to run a heavier OS if it wants to continue running desktop class applications as the Air, for example, can easily do now.
As it relates to being able to use desktop class applications, as even the lightest laptops can, what's lacking is power. The iPad does well with the OS it uses and the apps it uses but the hardware in an iPad would make for a lousy laptop experience as it simply wouldn't be able to handle such an environment as they currently exist. The way they currently exist part is key.
You seem to be losing track of what you are saying and what I am responding to. Your second sentence above is essentially what you said before and what i was responding to.
I never made any reference to any specific type of computer existing, or not existing, in the past. Everything I have addressed is in the here and now. Taking a functional and capable step backwards by incorporating existing ARM solutions into a laptop is not smart, at this time. The key words being existing ARM solutions.
Why are you insisting on defining the conversation the way you want.
a) I made the point that the iPad covers a large surface area of the average user's needs when looking at what they do from an application perspective - video watching, browsing, email, basic productivity etc.
b) In that context, you can have an iOS-class product but with a clamshell laptop form factor.
c) The entire discussion started from a comment of what Apple would move to in 2-3 years time. Existing ARM processors (designed to spec for a particular device) are not relevant, I don't understand why you are so intent about focusing on existing components in a discussion about future products.
When a person is responding to something specific in a conversation that is not "defining the conversation.
I give up; It's too much work and too much of a hassle trying to discuss anything with you.
It is successful in the tablet space for now. Android is struggling in the tablet space and it will be interesting to see what Microsoft will be able to achieve.
To put that into perspective iOS accounts for just 1.46% of Worldwide operating system share browsing the web.
I'm sure you're a trimmed down version of another on here with a similar name :cool:
I've noticed people are ranting about it like people rant about a programme they've watched for the sole purpose of getting offended :rolleyes::sleep:
Mine's flying already, in fact I now boot straight into my 8 Preview and have hardly used 7 for two days :cool: Love 8
There's too many, and the stupid thing is, if they hate it so much, don't come in to these threads :rolleyes:
Usual human nature for the thick brigade who won't even give change a chance
Ohhhh, the HORROR
Why are there so many age-obsessed people on here using it as an excuse to slate this fine piece of art OS?? They'll find anything :rolleyes:
Because noise747 is endianness-ist!
Google it as I don't recall the name and haven't tried it personally myself.
Hating Windows 8 though. Metro just doesn't appeal to me, which is sad because this is the first time ever I've actually been disappointed in a release from Microsoft. I hope they see sense and at least add an option for those who want the traditional start menu.
I actually prefer that Metro, admittedly not at first, but now I'm getting used to it and actually learning how to use it properly I'm enjoying, and very impressed with it
Perhaps that's people's problem, they haven't given it a chance or even attempted to learn how to use it
Personally, it's just not to my taste. I do hope that it becomes successful but I've lived with the start menu for as long as I can remember and to me, it feels unnatural to move away from it. I'm sure in time I'll become adapted to Metro and may even love it in the coming future - I certainly hope so if Metro is what we are faced with for the next decade or two of new Windows releases lol.
Not writing off 8 just yet but it won't be making its way on to my main machine for the foreseeable future.
Well I'm now using it as my main OS, and hardly using 7 at all
If I went for Windows 8 I would have it booting into the desktop, and get a a start menu tweak, so there would be little point in going for windows 8. the charm menu get on my nerves, go to that side of the screen and out it pops. Reminds me of Windows 95 task bar which used to be hidden.
It is a shame that the Mac Os is not available on a normal PC.