[stoppingdown]

Apple is going to change processors for their computers in a couple of years:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/3/17191986/apple-intel-cpu-processor-design-competition

They already did it twelve years ago, I suppose they will go with the same incremental, compatibility path, but it was not painless. I see tons of problems ahead...

[you2]

Your pain is their gain !

[stoppingdown]

Your pain is their gain !

Yeah...

[photonius]

That article is more of a clickbait. If we approach to end of Moore's law, that applies to all chips, not just Intel. Yes, different low level chip design can improve things, but it's not disruptive. When quantum computing (or whatever) comes, then there will be a disruptive advance. In the meantime, I had a film camera that served me decades. With the current computer and the current digital camera I have, if the stuff keeps running, I'll be fine for a long long time. I don't need the latest Xfutz 500K 4D movie HD 5000 Terapixels stuff, my eyes are not that good anymore.... ;-)

[stoppingdown]

Forget the article in all the technicalities, I've only quoted it as a reference for the news.

---

The discussion about Apple going for ARM chips is quite old: I've discussed about it already years ago in various computer engineering forums, etc... From a technical point of view, things are quite complex: while ARM has got an advantage (it doens't have to keep a huge retro-compatibility as Intel, so their design is more clean), I don't see it probable that they catch up Intel in terms of performance - for sure, not within 2020. Actually, the article says this quite clearly (also Wired, see below). In the past I've argued against a number of people that said the opposite, and I'm still right. So, from a technical point of view, there would have been no reasons for Apple to switch.

But, in the end, those people forecasted this switch and actually it sounds as Apple is going to di it anyway, for some reason (which I suppose is largely political, I mean they can design ARMs on their own, in the end they design basically all the chips in their gear, from the Apple Watch to the MacBooks, _but_ the main processor of the laptops).

Now, what I'm not understanding - also looking at the Wired article - is whether they will *completely* replace Intels in MacBooks, also dropping macOS, or whether they will keep a "high profile" model. After all, they also have desktops, and I don't see it easy for high ends professionals (think for instance of video makers) to accept any drop in computing power. Truth is that for that kind of job parallelism works, and Apple could in theory roll out a desktop with dozens of ARM processors.

It's really *annoying* that Apple is not releasing an official statement if they have such a radical change in the two-years horizon.

My concern is twofold. For many applications, I presume that I won't have any problem because we'll see an ARM-compiled version after 2020. But this will definitely kill applications that I'm using as legacy (I mean, still using them but not upgrading, being on the lookout for a replacement; for instance Lightroom, that I'm only using as a catalog system. Now, I presume I'll have replaced Lightroom by 2020, but in the meantime the same fate might occur to some other applications).

The second source of concern is that *some* applications could not see the light for ARM... Who knows? For instance, Capture One, or some apps in the Cubase family (music synth). I really do hope I'll not be forced to move back to Windows... it would be absurd.

The biggest problem is that now I can enjoy Virtual Machines and have, for my engineering job, Windows or Linux boxes running on my laptop, when I need them. It's the reason for which I ultimately switched to Apple in 2006, when they introduced Intel processors. Without this possibility, I'll be forced to have a separated laptop for business, running Linux.

https://www.wired.com/story/apple-quitting-intel-processors/

---

Technical question: it sounds as the new forum is "merging" two consecutive posts from the same user, am I right?

[you2]

Well there is a lot of advantage if they go this route (both for apple and consumers). First it allows them to (a liimited extent) merge ios and mac-os around a common platform (also I would expect to see touch screens on mac if they go this route - they can do touch screens without switching to arm - but it seems more natural fit if they intend to merge ios/mac-os). Second (big one for apple) is higher profit margin on macs. Third arm is winning the op/$ and op/watt fight (esp with gpu) so battery operated device should run a lot longer (of course technology is always a moving target so these factors can change over time).

[stoppingdown]

All those advantages are relevant for some people, not for others. Professionally, on my engineer job, I don't have any need for touch screens; batteries are good enough these days; and Apple profits are not a business of mine. What I need is the capability of running Virtual Machines with Linux and Windows inside, and this stuff will be lost (as far as we know from the published rumours).

[JJ_SO]

Let's cross that bridge when we come to. You don't know if Apple's update policies will keep you happy in 2020. And as for battery life: You don't kn ow where they aiming at (and I'm not sure if they know, sometimes I get the idea they just throw out devices with slight improvements to see if the market will swallow them too)

[stoppingdown]

Let's cross that bridge when we come to.

Sure: each day has already got its pain. But it's something to track, because it will require time to be prepared...

[photonius]

Well there is a lot of advantage if they go this route (both for apple and consumers). First it allows them to (a liimited extent) merge ios and mac-os around a common platform (also I would expect to see touch screens on mac if they go this route - they can do touch screens without switching to arm - but it seems more natural fit if they intend to merge ios/mac-os). Second (big one for apple) is higher profit margin on macs. Third arm is winning the op/$ and op/watt fight (esp with gpu) so battery operated device should run a lot longer (of course technology is always a moving target so these factors can change over time).

well, Microsoft's version of windows that merged tablets and desktop worked so well that they abandoned it in a hurry.  
A tablet and a desktop for serious use are two different beast requiring different interfaces. Of course that does not preclude a common core.