Apple Rumor to switch all macs to ARM processor

I read on macrumors that by 2013 apple wants to switch all their processors lines away from intel to Arm Processors. The same processors thats in the ipad and the iphone. They said they are just working on the 64 bit core architecture to be finished in the arm processor to make the switch. apparently non of the existing mac software will be able to run on it without emulation software so there is no telling how much this switch is going to involve. it will be on the same caliber of change as it was going from powerpc to intel except this time its intel to ARM. link is below if you want to read the whole thing. kinda cool in my opinion.

Apple to Move from Intel to ARM Processors in Future Laptops? - Mac Rumors

 

unless ARM launches about 15 years worth of tech in the next year, this would be a stupid... STUPID move... so I seriously doubt Apple is that stupid, unless they purposefully want to kill off their Mac business and re-use the Mac name for desktop and laptop style iOS devices and no longer make "PCs" anymore.

 

it wouldnt surprise me if they did. apple never was fond of clock speeds. they are more or less into the actual responsiveness of the machine. if they can make the ARM feel just as fast as a pc and run twice as cool i think they will use it regardless of advertised clock speed.

 

I just don't see this happening. ARM is really like a new processor company. They didn't experience any technology booms until smartphone manufacturers started using their processors. They were intent on pumping out 55MHz processors for DAPs before that and it took them many, many, many years before they could come up with something that could adequately power a smartphone.

I am not saying that ARM is bad but they are in the extreme early stages of their processor development. It would not make sense for Apple to switch architectures yet again. I can already tell you that they would lose one customer as I don't want to invest in a hardware and software company knowing that the machine I buy now will be phased out in a few years.

I also think Mac Rumors is forgetting that there was motivation behind the switch to the x86 architecture. A PowerPC G5 processor for Apple's PowerBook line never worked out. The processor was just too hot and it consumed too much power. Also, on a GHz for GHz comparison, the PowerPC architecture just wasn't there anymore and Intel was surpassing them. Intel processors have produced great results in Apple's computers. They are still getting top notch battery life in the MacBook lines without sacrificing on size (something Apple is focusing a lot on these days). Switching to ARM would be like starting back to square one with Apple. Not only that but they would have to rely on another company to manufacturer the chips whereas Intel directly manufactures their processors.

Apple would be in the same boat as when they used IBM's PowerPC architecture as Apple had to rely on Motorola to manufacture those. Lastly, the rumor mill has been churning about Apple switching over to Intel processors for their iPad, iPod, and iPhone lines. I am sure Mac Rumors ran some sort of story about that as Engadget did. The basis behind those rumors comes from Apple's squabbles with Samsung (who manufactures the A4 and A5 processors).

Either way, I really don't see much happening in terms of Apple switching processing platforms for either their Mac computers or their iDevice line. They have already switched platforms once for Macs and things will likely stay this way for a long time.

 

Plus, wouldn't that kill the whole bootcamp concept? Seems like a lot of switchers (like me) came over to mac because we could still run win os on the same equipment.

 

yea bootcamp would be dead just like powerpc. its just a rumor anyway. I dont think arm will ever be a threat to companies like intel. but lower power pc devices might hurt amd.

 

its called an atrix.....if you're not happy with the performance of its lapdock, you won't be happy with an ARM lappy.

 

Microsoft is supporting the ARM architecture with Windows 8. In fact, it was recently shown off (along with IE 10 or something like that) running on a 1GHz ARM processor (I think either the Snapdragon or Hummingbird). So bootcamp wouldn't necessarily be completely killed (at least when Windows 8 comes out) but having Win 8 running on ARM does end up hurting program compatibility as the majority of Windows programs out there are written for either x86 or x86-64. I think MS is supporting ARM with Win 8 as more of a novelty and to give tablet manufacturers another OS option since that tablet version of Windows Mobile was never released (and never will be).

 

if nothing else, it gives microsoft a stable platform to deploy MS office .

but really, i don't think microsoft is thinking about ARM in lappies. it is still thinking tablets.

software compatibility is less of an issue in that case because developers will need to write tablet-specific apps in order for them to be useful.

you think it sucks using phone apps on a tablet? try using an app that wasn't even made for touchscreens (actually...people have tried this - they all hated it).

 

Windows 8 will run on ARM.

So no, it won't kill BootCamp.

And no, Apple won't move exclusively to ARM. but ARM might take over duties in the Air or similarly-sized machines. And of course, iOS devices are a foregone conclusion.

 

it would kill useful bootcamp.

Just like Linux runs on ARM, or x86 or PPC.. software made for Linux for x86 doesn't run on PPC linux... etc...

Win8 ARM software will require and ARM CPU, and Win8 x86 software will require a x86 CPU.

 

here are my thoughts:

- arm has power efficient solutions that scale well. i think it's certainly at least reasonable (not crazy, but also not required) to plan a switch in the next few years.

- the current arm a15 has virtualization support, 4-8 cores, 2.5 ghz, low power consumption, 1 TB of memory support

the performance would be no joke, vmware fusion / parallels would be adapted for this system and you could run arm linux, arm windows 8. you could also expect to run bootcamp and use those operating systems.

it is kind of crazy, though.

 

This move could make sense if intel's 3D transistors fail, or underwhelm.

 

how could you even think this? VMWare would totally drop Fusion. They never supported anything Mac until x86, and have never shown a want to. You want them and Parallels to put processor emulators, so it can run just as bad as VirtualPC used to on PPC Macs? I love macs currently, and have been my primary desktop since 10.2, but I'd drop it in a second if they went to ARM. You'd lose the ability to run any useful x86 and x86-64 Windows applications, and all the x86 and x86-64 Mac OS X applications... Everything will be re-written... normal Windows games would no longer be playable by any method... it would be a disaster.

Apple survived the PPC to x86 change not because they are somehow magical or a great company, but because they were switching to Intel, and that gave them a ton of great advantages in not only performance, but compatibly. They'd lose a ton of business moving to all ARM.

Now what they might want to do... is get Intel to design them a special CPU that is say like a normal Quad Core CPU with an extra ARM quad core in it too, and it handles using the right cores for the right job. Now that could be useful, but killing off x86 would be a horrible move.

 

I had a thought.

Could Apple perhaps turn the MacBook into an ARM based computer, lower the price to ~$699, redesign it and make it incredibly thin and small like the Air, and call it good? It seems the MacBook is the most underutilized product in the Apple lineup at the moment. A true ARM based laptop with a competitive price, iPad like battery life, and the size and design of a MacBook Air sounds pretty darn enticing for a secondary device. The only thing I dislike about the iPad is the lack of a keyboard.

I just don't see how a MacBook Pro running on ARM is good... so much compatibility loss.

 

they theoretically could do that. but people would have absolutely no clue why their macbook runs differently than everybody else's MBP. it will be impossible for the average consumer to understand the concept of ISAs.

lol, it honestly is funny seeing how so few people know how weak ARM cpus are since they're effectively being compared to core 2 duo CPUs....so props to ARM and their manufacturer ecosystem.

 

I realize how weak ARM processors are compared to the full fledged CPUs of everyday notebooks. That's why I really cannot see the MacBook Pro taking them in the near future from what I see in the roadmap.

But honestly Apple probably already has Mac OS X built on ARM in their labs, just like how they had an x86 version of Mac OS X dating back to 2001. It's probably going to have to be a lot more optimized and scaled down to run on the much slower CPUs of ARM, but I think that Apple could successfully have a separate line of notebooks running on ARM.... I just cannot see the notebooks that are targeted towards professionals running it.

 

no. i am talking about virtualization. vmware fusion and parallels are not like VirtualPC. the arm variants would also not be like VirtualPC.

I'm talking about the fact that arm processors support virtualization. Therefore, you could run windows (8), os x (arm variant), and linux (arm variant) natively, ala bootcamp.

You could also virtualize those systems just like we do with x86 now. I am not talking about processor emulation, that is pointless.

----

Anyway, there is nothing inherently wrong with arm except that x86 software doesn't run on arm. It would be a big shift, would require much warning, would not be appropriate to do TODAY. But, if we were given 12-18 months warning, if there was a considerable performance & performance/watt benefit to it, it could be manageable.

Basically all the os x software that still has source code available would be easily shifted to arm.

But, this isn't something we really need to worry about. It would be a long ways off even if it happened. Probably not realistic by 2013. Maybe 2014-5.

 

except that will be be a significant performance DECREASE.

its all nice and dandy to have 30 hours of battery life. but if it takes 5 seconds to refresh a window, you're NOT going to be a happy camper. and kiss having 3 windows open at the same time away...

ps, why do people keep talking about apple making a stripped down version of OS X? you've ALREADY seen the stripped down version of OS X. its called iOS.

 

All this rumor and speculation makes me wonder if it all plays into Apple's strategy to maintain or build a strong negotiating position with Intel. Not so simple as price position, but flexibility. Intel is rather insistent on certain parameters being observed when using their processors, e.g. the chipset mandate for integrated graphics.

Maybe Apple was not behind the ARM rumor, but the rumor itself is certainly not producing frowns in Cupertino.

Wouldn't it be nice if Apple was able to secure freedom from integrated graphics/chipset mandates, if Intel somehow observed some possibility that Apple were to consider the ARM option more than a benign threat started by news-hounds?

 

maybe or maybe not. we aren't talking about current processors, we are speculating about future hardware. currently, the limitation of processing power in notebooks is based on power and heat. change the architecture, and you change those limitations. it's purely speculative, but we aren't talking about putting the iPad processor into a macbook pro. It would be some custom notebook part based on arm instead of x86. arm != sucky performance. the only arm parts you see in daily use are equivalent to intel atom parts as far as the thermal design budget.

I hope you wouldn't judge the entire x86 architecture entirely based on the intel atom.

 

Didn't they try this once already with disastrous results? Oh yea--that was the PowerPC....

 

the future is more cores but lower ghz. imagine a 16 core processor with each core running 1ghz. it takes care of the heat issue.

 

I agree with this, also cost in power per instruction.

Already Atom core servers are providing much more efficient calculations.

 

Right now, hardware isn't the issue. Software programming needs to take advantage of multicore processes more efficiently before we move to more cores.

 

I agree, except that the hardware will keep pushing on and the software will constantly lag behind it. Not much you can do. We are definitely desperate for better concurrent programming...

 

I don't see Apple moving its computers to ARM anytime soon. Lion looks like an attempt to streamline iOS and OS X, but not to the extent that this rumor believes they are. Moving to ARM in the short term would also be a significant step backwards for performance of their laptops and desktops.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting a short term switch to arm.

 

hmm I wouldn't put it past Apple to switch.

if ARM can push a Quad Core out at only a couple watts that achieves at least 50 % of the performance of a Core 2 duo... it think it may not be a terrible bad move....

and boot camp would still work... Microsoft has announced that win 8 will run on ARM as well.

 

Except that developers aren't likely going to start supporting ARM anytime soon since the majority of the Windows market (as in extreme majority) all run under either the x86 or x86-64 environments. I still don't know anyone with a PowerPC system running NT 4.0. So MS can support it all they want (though it seems more like they are doing it just to do it) but that won't mean anything if there aren't programs out there than run on ARM as well.

 

It honestly wouldn't be tha big of a deal. There weren't any apps for intel mac when it first came out. Mostly an issue of keeping source code, writing good code, and msft / apple providing decent compilers, which they would.