Apple has switched CPUs in their Macs a couple times before (once from Motorola 68k to PowerPC, and then from PowerPC to Intel). I'm sure they will probably be okay. I think it's a little disappointing though, because Macs with Intel means they can run both OS X and Windows easily. Compatibility will suffer a bit, but that will be temporary. But there will probably be a point where Intel-based Mac apps won't be updated to run on ARM-based Macs, so Mac users won't be able to use them anymore.
only difference between a 68k and PowerPC was 16-bti vs. 32-bit, the changet o Intel was significated because the Intel CPU wasn't compabible with 68k/PPC code which is why for a while OSx could run on both CPUs until they had enough of an Intel base that they phased out support for Motorola CPUs in 10.5.x (Leopard I think).
Apple has never been one for Windows, and at this point I don't think it
matters what CPU the platform runs on. Also, doesn't Win10 run on ARM CPUs? I used to love Apple systems, now they are just sealed bloatware.
I've heard Microsoft has been working on a version of Win10 that runs on ARM but I don't know of any such devices on the market yet. I thought it was st in development, and that PC makers were still working on ARM-based Windows devices.
I've heard Microsoft has been working on a version of Win10 that runs
on ARM but I don't know of any such devices on the market yet. I
thought it was st in development, and that PC makers were still
working on ARM-based Windows devices.
That wasn't the impression that I got years ago. I thought with Windows 8, they did come up with an ARM version of Windows, and it was called "Windows 8 RT", and was not well received by the consumers and Microsoft scraped the idea pretty quickly when Windows 8.1 was released (or at least pulled it off the market pretty quickly).
On 10-26-18 08:39, Jagossel wrote to Nightfox <=-
That wasn't the impression that I got years ago. I thought with Windows
8, they did come up with an ARM version of Windows, and it was called "Windows 8 RT", and was not well received by the consumers and
Microsoft scraped the idea pretty quickly when Windows 8.1 was released (or at least pulled it off the market pretty quickly).
On 10-26-18 09:56, Nightfox wrote to Jagossel <=-
though. This new ARM Windows 10 has the desktop interface and will run desktop Windows software, and even includes an x86 emulator for compatibility so it can run 32-bit Intel software on ARM.
That may have better luck, depending on how good the emulation is in
terms of both speed and accuracy. Time will tell. But will they get
it out in time, before all the popular Windows software goes 64 bit?
only difference between a 68k and PowerPC was 16-bti vs. 32-bit, the changet o Intel was significated because the Intel CPU wasn't compabible with 68k/PPC code which is why for a while OSx could run on
hmm, I always thought the transition from 68k to PowerPC was also significant because the PowerPC used a different instruction set. I've always heard Apple had to use emulation to be backwards-compatible with 68k. "Perhaps the most important feature of the new Power Macs was Apple's inclusion of a 680x0 emulator as part of Mac OS, which allowed PowerPC Macs to run most existing software efficiently on the new processors, much as Rosetta would later allow Intel Macs ro run PowerPC software."
though. This new ARM Windows 10 has the desktop interface and will
run desktop Windows software, and even includes an x86 emulator for
compatibility so it can run 32-bit Intel software on ARM.
That may have better luck, depending on how good the emulation is in terms of both speed and accuracy. Time will tell. But will they get it out in time, before all the popular Windows software goes 64 bit?
It's actually more significant than that, even. The PowerPC's emulation of the 68k is actually at the hardware level, rather than in software. Since the PowerPC was developed by Apple, IBM, and Motorola, one of it's main functions was specifically to replace the 68k, and software-level emulation at that point wasn't anywhere near efficient enough to do so effectively. So the emulation is built into the chips themselves.
What exactly is the advantage of having ARM processors? Is it just battery life? As I understand, obtaining additional speed out of a CPU is problematic due to the physics limitations of current CPU hardware. Therefore, it's unlikely that any CPU would outperform an Intel in the immediate future.
It's actually more significant than that, even. The PowerPC's emulation of the 68k is actually at the hardware level, rather than in software.
Interesting.. I do remember hearing somewhere that Mac software for 68k sometimes ran better on the PowerPC - Probably due to the hardware backwards compatibility.
On 10-29-18 09:48, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
That may have better luck, depending on how good the emulation is in terms of both speed and accuracy. Time will tell. But will they get it out in time, before all the popular Windows software goes 64 bit?
I'm wondering if a lot of Windows software will still have a 32-bit
option for a while, since 64-bit Intel/AMD processors can run 32-bit software without much (if any) performance impact.
| Sysop: | Kurt Hamm |
|---|---|
| Location: | Columbia, SC |
| Users: | 6 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 82:57:59 |
| Calls: | 2,984 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 64 |
| Messages: | 901,505 |