Rumor: Apple to ditch Intel chips on the Mac

Color this a rumor through and through, but it’s possible that Apple is planning on dumping Intel processors on their desktop and laptops and will replace them with processors similar to that which is in the iPad and iPhone. The change is not imminent, but rather is something being discussed by engineers at Apple.

According to Bloomberg, three anonymous sources within Apple have confirmed that the company is looking at ways to remove Intel processors from their Mac lineup. The potential switch makes sense: Unifying the underlying processor would help simplify development across the platforms, similar to how Microsoft is attempting to simply the user experience across mobile, desktop, and gaming console. The company also doesn’t believe that Intel is creating less power-hungry chips, something that Apple desperately wants in order to improve the battery life of their products in addition to reducing the heat dissipation that the thinner devices desperately require.

Any change is bound to take at least a couple of years, so Intel is in no imminent danger. That said, we wouldn’t be surprised to hear more whispers as Apple looks to control their product image.

Source: Bloomberg | Image courtesy of Bloomberg

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Charlottesville, Virginia using Surface for US election on Tuesday

Next Story

What will technology look like in 2020?

74 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

they could always go back to RISC chips from Motorola.....oh no wait, Google now own them and would flip them the silicon bird!

I remember the sales guff from Apple Inc, PowerPc chips outperform any intel inferior chips....then they move to intel, if they move back to another architecture, perhaps theyll rehash their old sales pitch (and lose once loyal followers since the arch move to x86)

Are apple REALLY this ignorant/stupid/naive....answers on a postcard......

Considering the rumor is true, Apple would be repeating what they did with PowerPC, ditch again because it was consuming lots of power and creating heat. But PowerPC was a RISC based processor like ARM, although with focus on high performance. Maybe is not so much CPU to blame, but the operating system as well?
Since battery technology still drags behind, what I see happening is a convergence of ARM and Intel; ARM will make more multicore, high performance CPUs and Intel will lower their consumption while retaining performance. This couple will keep each other competing very hard for dominance and great CPUs will come out from this, so the OS of the future better runs on both. If Apple breaks compatibility just now, it would be a huge mistake, such as their PowerPC move that created an unnecessary limbo of several years and left a lot of hardware completely unusable. Had Apple moved to Intel back in 2000, they would have gained a lot of momentum much earlier.

And so the convergence of IOS and OSX began... Didn't Tim say that toasters and washing machines are a terrible combination?

You guys talk about this like it's going to happen tomorrow.
I bet Apple talks about this as a possibility down the road (5-10 years).
ARM chips are catching up to Intel quite quickly in regards to performance, and they are unbeaten in regards to power effiency.

Did you ever see the tablet market as it is today 5 years ago? Nope.
Before the iPhone - was "everything" touch-based? Nope.

Things change extremely quickly in the technology area, and that's a good thing.

I see this happening in the next 24 months. Apple is going to have custom A8X Arm CPU's
with 8 cores for processing data and 12 cores for handling video. It will be most likely clocked
at 2 GHz or 2.5 GHz. Using Apple custom flash and DRAM in the system.

When these does happen the OS X and iOS X is going to combined and it's only going to be one OS. Their is going to be a OS that can run on both the laptop or the iPad for better compatibility between the devices.

Only time will tell ....

I just don't know if I could see them going down this route - however the Apple processors do seem pretty powerful and convenient packing wise so it would allow them to miniaturise their desktop products even smaller so I guess it doesn't seem that far fetched.

They handled the switch from PowerPC pretty gracefully with applications cross-compiled for both architectures so they now know how to do that fairly effortlessly. The only downside I'd see would be all the customers who bought Macs because of the ability to boot Windows for whatever reason.. but then again Apple must know what sort of percentage of customers do this and maybe it's not enough for them to care?

I was just idly wondering if they'd do something funny like provide every customer with their own Windows virtual machine hosted in their datacentres for the occasions they needed to run Windows applications, presented over something like VDI - and then just remembered there was a rumour the other week about Apple working with VMware on some project...... or maybe VMware are writing them some custom virtualisation software that would allow users to run Windows on Apple's processors within OSX?

All interesting stuff.

It's a rumor. And there is close to zero chance that it's true. There is no good reason for Apple to move to ARM on their desktop computers - the users of Mac Pro don't need power efficiency, they need power.

As long as performance is there, assuming it's better than what on the market at the time of release, and as long as developers get on board i don't see the problem.

Whether thats the case on that will be the deciding point in whether i leave Apple for good.

It's going to be another huge debate about specs and stuff, but you have to remember those days are long gone.. as long as the device is performing as it should, and runs everything it says it can then does it really matter whats inside? again, this is assuming that the performance is great, and that developers are onboard, because if not then it is guaranteed to be the death of their mac line considering it's the number one machine for industry pro's, they will also possibly be alienating people who want gorgeous mac hardware but only intend on running windows.

We'll see..

Even as an Apple guy, this would be hard to swallow. Part because it would imply a "Rosetta 2.0", and part because Boot Camp would be no more. No more running Windows / Mac on the same computer, _except_ the kind of odd savior in Windows 8 RT. But that may or may not be what a user is looking for when using Boot Camp.

Not possible economically. It'd be helpful for them for their OS maybe, but the lack of software compatibility (again) would ruin them. No-one would buy an Apple desktop/laptop again.

Won't happen in the near future. Guaranteed.

I've been hearing this for as long as I can remember. Also the 'we will be using amd processors' rumor too.

Apple will do what makes the most money, and the most money for them comes from iPad/iPhone/iPod lines and possibly air. I can see them screwing everyone and moving to a full iOS line-up including the air and simply dropping the rest. Not saying they will, but I would not be surprised if they did.

duddit2 said,
Apple will do what makes the most money, and the most money for them comes from iPad/iPhone/iPod lines and possibly air. I can see them screwing everyone and moving to a full iOS line-up including the air and simply dropping the rest. Not saying they will, but I would not be surprised if they did.

How will screwing everyone make them the most money? For profits, they need users. Many users want either Boot Camp, or would be quite inconvenienced by backwards incompatibility / a new "Rosetta". So even for Apple, this would be a risky move unless they could give users massive benefits with the move.

Northgrove said,
How will screwing everyone make them the most money? For profits, they need users. Many users want either Boot Camp, or would be quite inconvenienced by backwards incompatibility / a new "Rosetta". So even for Apple, this would be a risky move unless they could give users massive benefits with the move.

But it is a different situation today given that OS X is more hardware agnostic with many of the hardware specific API's already deprecated in favour of modern replacements which should allow most developers to recompile and thus with it. The biggest problem I can see are the big packages like Adobe Creative Suite and Microsoft Office - Apple might consider that throwing the pros under the bus will open themselves to an even larger market of people who want their computer to be like an appliance.

We'll improve out computers by removing your ability run other operating systems which will unify all of your products and simplify your life.

warwagon said,
Just shows that the movie idiocracy is coming true. It seems everything is getting dumbed down.

Time to buy stock in Gatorade...

I can honestly see ARM over taking x86 and x64, not right now but in a few years I can see it (it's not just Apple looking into it, MS is there too and Linux has always been there)

Why would Intel be worried. RT is a small subset of Windows 8. Surface PRO will use Intel processors.
Apple would have to be ****ing retarded to drop Intel processors in their stuff.

It's AMD that should be worried as they've pretty much ran themselves out of the industry.

ok then maybe a amd chip ?

The company also doesn't believe that Intel is creating less power-hungry chips, something that Apple desperately wants in order to improve the battery life of their products in addition to reducing the heat dissipation that the thinner devices desperately require

This was the only reason I bought a couple of Macs. They remove Intel and i'll never be buying a Mac again... Emulation just doesn't cut it.

I could see this headed in the direction of MacBook Pros having built-in AXX ARM chips alongside an Intel CPU that it would toggle between like discreet graphics vs. integrated.

AeonicVision said,
I could see this headed in the direction of MacBook Pros having built-in AXX ARM chips alongside an Intel CPU that it would toggle between like discreet graphics vs. integrated.

I can't see how you can achieve that. The software architecture is vastly different. You can't just shut down a processor and start an entirely different one up...

ARM's main benefit is the ability to scale down but once you scale up and add the sort of complexity required for desktop, laptop and workstation performance you soon find that that the power savings between an x86 and ARM really don't add up to much. Add on top of that the fact that ARM will always be behind the manufacturing technology (Yes, I know ARM doesn't manufacturer but those who use who do manufacture) which Intel has (one of the reasons AMD has also struggled over the years) it might end up becoming more of a PITA for Apple than any benefits it might bring.

Putting the above aside for the second one has to consider the fact that Apple has killed of its Mac Pro, their server and storage range so I wouldn't be surprised by the time the transition does happen that the iMac has been killed off with all the product line up orientated around MacBook Air devices with ARM processors sitting next to the iPad and iPhone. People here may hate but Apple will go where they think they can make the most money and if you happen to be in a different direction then you're probably better off just accepting that Apple is no longer catering for you and switch to a PC running Windows.

Edited by Mr Nom Nom's, Nov 6 2012, 3:53am :

Mr Nom Nom's said,
ARM's main benefit is the ability to scale down but once you scale up and add the sort of complexity required for desktop, laptop and workstation performance you soon find that that the power savings between an x86 and ARM really don't add up to much. Add on top of that the fact that ARM will always be behind the manufacturing technology (Yes, I know ARM doesn't manufacturer but those who use who do manufacture) which Intel has (one of the reasons AMD has also struggled over the years) it might end up becoming more of a PITA for Apple than any benefits it might bring.

Putting the above aside for the second one has to consider the fact that Apple has killed of its Mac Pro, their server and storage range so I wouldn't be surprised by the time the transition does happen that the iMac has been killed off with all the product line up orientated around MacBook Air devices with ARM processors sitting next to the iPad and iPhone. People here may hate but Apple will go where they think they can make the most money and if you happen to be in a different direction then you're probably better off just accepting that Apple is no longer catering for you and switch to a PC running Windows.

+1

ARM at higher performance levels no longer has advantages, even the quad core ARMs today don't touch the low level AMD and Intel Atom class CPUs, and their power consumption is rather close.

Even Microsoft's Surface, uses the classic 5 core approach, with a low power single core ARM and the Quad Core when it needs power. The long battery life comes from the fact that in idle state the Quad Core ARM CPU is turned off.

It is also true that Apple doesn't seem to care about their computers. Even as they moved to Intel their lineup of computers was rather lackluster, sticking with Intel graphics and using SSE instead of using the GPU for their graphics layer. (The GPU is still only used a composer that is rendering textures on simple surfaces, even most graphic special effects are still shove through the CPU.)

Apple had trouble with SMP and never offered the latest or even close to the greatest GPU options in their high end Pros.

Even today if you buy a 8 CPU Mac Pro, the kernel lock issues, still leave a large portion of the time computing on only two cores because of locks. (Even using the 'new' multi-processing APIs they had to introduce to 'get around' this problem, doesn't guarantee that other older processes won't still keep the kernel locked and the system in queue running on two cores until it unlocks.)

Apple was trying to get OS X on lower power CPUs when they came out with the iPhone. They truly wanted to have a full OS X running at least on the second generation iPhone and the iPad. They failed. Even the iOS kernel is NOT the OS X kernel, it just mimics the same interfaces, because the OS X kernel is too heavy for ARM devices. (Which is why they are dismissive of Windows 8, because Microsoft is running the full NT kernel on ARM, without issues; in fact Microsoft is running the entire OS on ARM without issue.)

thenetavenger said,
+1

ARM at higher performance levels no longer has advantages, even the quad core ARMs today don't touch the low level AMD and Intel Atom class CPUs, and their power consumption is rather close.

IIRC there was a comparison with Intel's latest super low power CPU and ARM with the benchmarks coming back showing that Intel has a massive performance lead with only something like using 0.1W more than the ARM competitor.

Even Microsoft's Surface, uses the classic 5 core approach, with a low power single core ARM and the Quad Core when it needs power. The long battery life comes from the fact that in idle state the Quad Core ARM CPU is turned off.

It will be interesting to see where things end up once the Intel offering makes it way onto the market. As much as I'd love Microsoft to have success with their ARM offerings I also have a inkling that given the chance we'll see end users either go for the Intel offering because of their own knowledge or their tech friend suggested it to them.

It is also true that Apple doesn't seem to care about their computers. Even as they moved to Intel their lineup of computers was rather lackluster, sticking with Intel graphics and using SSE instead of using the GPU for their graphics layer. (The GPU is still only used a composer that is rendering textures on simple surfaces, even most graphic special effects are still shove through the CPU.)

In Mountain Lion they've started to use Core Animation for some of their parts of the GUI but even then they're going be limited due to the older OpenGL they included with OS X which has the less flexible GLSL to accomplish what they need to do. OpenGL might be a great concept of business sitting around discussing and debating a standard but the reality is that you end up with an API designed by a committee with so many compromises you end up with a half-assed result coming out the other end.

I mean, there are issues with Windows such as a significant part of the GUI being based in GDI which is only partially hardware accelerated but these issues are being addressed which is more than I can say for OS X which has bugs and issues that have been around with us since OS X was released over a decade ago.

Apple had trouble with SMP and never offered the latest or even close to the greatest GPU options in their high end Pros.

Even today if you buy a 8 CPU Mac Pro, the kernel lock issues, still leave a large portion of the time computing on only two cores because of locks. (Even using the 'new' multi-processing APIs they had to introduce to 'get around' this problem, doesn't guarantee that other older processes won't still keep the kernel locked and the system in queue running on two cores until it unlocks.)

The lack of scalability within OS X has been well known - heck, on Slashdot there was a MySQL controversy that got the OS X devotee's panties in a bunch because an OS X programmer said that they (Apple programmers) don't focus on fixing performance issues if at the end result there is only a small improvement in performance. Where as Microsoft, Linux and *BSD programmers will drill down into the lowest parts of the operating system to squeeze out almost every last drop of performance possible, we have Apple on the other hand who decide that such 'hard work' isn't 'worth it'.

Apple was trying to get OS X on lower power CPUs when they came out with the iPhone. They truly wanted to have a full OS X running at least on the second generation iPhone and the iPad. They failed. Even the iOS kernel is NOT the OS X kernel, it just mimics the same interfaces, because the OS X kernel is too heavy for ARM devices. (Which is why they are dismissive of Windows 8, because Microsoft is running the full NT kernel on ARM, without issues; in fact Microsoft is running the entire OS on ARM without issue.)

iOS shares a lot of the code from the OS X kernel but you're right in stating that they're very much gone in a different direction to the point that two entirely different beasts. The problem with iOS is the same with OS X - huge amounts of inefficiency existing with the assumption by Apple that the hardware will 'eventually catch up' and 'sort things out in the end' but that isn't happening; hardware is becoming more constrained and whilst Microsoft has focused on efficiency and the refocus on native code we see Apple doing the 'same old, same old'.

Edited by Mr Nom Nom's, Nov 6 2012, 7:57am :

i am usually on the fence about most of Apples decisions. They know their business so who am I to say. But even when I know they know more then me, I can't help but question their moves in the last year. First, you can't be self-sufficient, its isn't economically viable, this is why no company in the world builds "everything" themselves. First they get rid of Google maps, then getting rid of screens from Samsung, and now this... I honestly didn't think they would make such odd decisions, so I wonder if they are not really all the on top of things like i thought they were.

So this is where Apple falls its sad and I just got into Apple computers to be able to fix both pc and Apple pcs. Jobs wouldnt agree with this, he knew that Intel cpus were the best out there and still are. To make a cpu based on cellphone techology its just insane!

If they did this, it would be the death of OSX86 for all future releases not using the Intel platform, so in a way - it would make sense for Apple to do this to eliminate that part of the equation.

I think one of Apple's successes was to make it Apple/Win/Linux capable using Intel. People saw that you could bootcamp into Windows and that was the best of both worlds.

If Apple moves in this direction, then it will be back to what they were basically, a solo company with exclusive products based on whatever chipset they use (Probably something like A12), and would shut out any cross compatibility unless manufacturers got license from Apple to sell a compatible product with that chipset.

If Apple wants to improve battery life then it should invest in battery development.

On the otherhand Apple is probably one of the only companies that can do it. This would destroy their application base; they could seriously loose their Pro base.

Intel inside I would argue has given new life to the Mac and Mac book lines, with users having access to Windows too making it a plus.

I don't think they would move the entire like this way at least not at first. Maybe the Air line would go ARM and build a solid base. ::Shrug::

Thats dum, most of Apples success in recent years has come from their use of intel chips in products such as the iMac, Mac Pro's, Laptops and minimacs. CRAZY!

sworph said,
Thats dum, most of Apples success in recent years has come from their use of intel chips in products such as the iMac, Mac Pro's, Laptops and minimacs. CRAZY!

Actually the majority of Apple's success has been on ARM CPUs, with the iPod, iPhone, iPad. That is where their large sales come from, not their computers.

In computers, they are still a rather small percentage, and with Windows 7 started losing marketshare again.

if apple went to ARM chips on their desktops they'd be doing nothing but screwing themselves over

I'm sure companies like Adobe, Avid and other high end production software companies would just leave the Mac platform

and what does battery life have to do with desktop systems? Apple doesn't only make laptops... Mac Pro's and iMac's don't have battery life to care about, and Intels latest desktop chips are pretty energy efficient... the Ivy Bridge systems can run pretty well at a whole 35 watts

dude, apple macintosh computers used to use a risc chip before.. and i'm sure they would love nothing than to go back to using one. it would seem like a great step to take to me.

Jared Jackson said,
dude, apple macintosh computers used to use a risc chip before.. and i'm sure they would love nothing than to go back to using one. it would seem like a great step to take to me.

Where's an UnLike button when you need one?

neufuse said,
Apple doesn't only make laptops... Mac Pro's and iMac's don't have battery life to care about

Apple's best selling computers, by far, are their MacBook line.
The Mac Pro at this point is a joke. It hasn't been significantly updated in years.
The highest configuration you can get is a dual Xeon X5675 (a 2 year old CPU) and dual ATI Radeon HD 5770 (a 3 year old graphic card).
That would be OK for a home PC, but "Pro" models are for heavy/professional use.

Jared Jackson said,
dude, apple macintosh computers used to use a risc chip before.. and i'm sure they would love nothing than to go back to using one. it would seem like a great step to take to me.

Apple went to Intel because of processing power wasn't going up fast enough on PPC, Why go to ARM and lose a ton of power just to save some energy? high end software would hate that

neufuse said,
I'm sure companies like Adobe, Avid and other high end production software companies would just leave the Mac platform

Yeah, people said the same thing when Apple switched to PPC and then once again when they switched to Intel... Anyway, you people pretend like it's going to happen tomorrow. It's probably merely an option Apple keeps open for the future.

And they were Motorola CISC chips before that. What is your point??

Jared Jackson said,
dude, apple macintosh computers used to use a risc chip before.. and i'm sure they would love nothing than to go back to using one. it would seem like a great step to take to me.

LaP said,
It's a rumor.

Rumor or not, they have flip flopped again and again over the years from CPUs to how the OS works. They also have a horrible habit of saying they will never do something or how 'unimportant' a feature or technology is, and then when they are able to provide the technology the proclaim they did it first, better, and always thought it was the best idea.

From the move to PowerPC and on to Intel to System 8 and 9 not supporting better memory management or multi-tasking as it WASN'T important to OS X where these were the most important features.


Apple has been trying to get OS X to run on ARM level devices, and failed. This is why their comments about Microsoft and Windows 8 doing what Apple failed at, are reductive, and specifically say that using a unified OS is stupid.

Apple was on a crusade against 'color displays' in the late 80s, saying they were cluttered and low resolution and not as pretty as their grayscale displays. Apple told the world that a one button mouse was all that was needed, and more than that was counter productive. It was just a few years ago Apple made fun of 1920x1080 laptop displays, as being overkill and silly, and now they are throwing 2K resolution display sin a 10" iPad.

And 100 other things Apple did and said that they flip and flop on a few years later when they offered the same technology.

thenetavenger said,
Rumor or not, they have flip flopped again and again over the years from CPUs to how the OS works.

I have no idea what you've been smoking but the OS X user experience hasn't fundamentally changed since 2001. That's over 11 years ago.

thenetavenger said,
From the move to PowerPC and on to Intel to System 8 and 9 not supporting better memory management or multi-tasking as it WASN'T important to OS X where these were the most important features.

Apple tried to add those things to "Classic" Mac OS but it failed. Hence the shift to OS X.

thenetavenger said,
Apple has been trying to get OS X to run on ARM level devices, and failed.

iOS is a slimmed down version of OS X and it seems to run just fine. Beyond that do you have any solid evidence that Apple ever intended to ship the iPad with desktop OS X?

thenetavenger said,
And 100 other things Apple did and said that they flip and flop on a few years later when they offered the same technology.

Like how people at Microsoft said the iPod, iPhone and iPad would fail?

thenetavenger said,
<words>

From what I've seen, Apple keeps a keen eye on existing technologies and works on implementing them when they feel they are ready to. What they say against the competition shouldn't be taken for how they actually feel. I mean, they are in competition with others, why the hell would they promote features or ideas that they haven't implemented yet? That'd just be stupid...

tl;dr: don't buy into marketing.

#1 reason why I bought un MacBook Pro Retina? OS X + Windows compatibility.

No more Windows compatibility Apple? my next laptop is a PC...

Like we need a laptop with a homemade "tablet" processor running X86 softwares with a crappy "Rosetta v2.0" gimmick...

Edited by xendrome, Nov 6 2012, 9:05pm :

myxomatosis said,
#1 reason why I bought un MacBook Pro Retina? OS X + Windows compatibility.

No more Windows compatibility Apple? Go fu__ yourself, my next laptop is a PC...

Like we need a laptop with a homemade "tablet" processor running X86 softwares with a crappy "Rosetta v2.0" gimmick...

Windows is pushing towards ARM as well.

Did I miss something or has apple somehow convinced you that your current MacBook Pro not a personal computer?

Edited by xendrome, Nov 6 2012, 9:37pm :

NyaR said,

Did I miss something or has apple somehow convinced you that your current MacBook Pro not a personal computer?

Yup you missed the part where they said next laptop...

NyaR said,

Did I miss something or has apple somehow convinced you that your current MacBook Pro not a personal computer?

"Hi, I'm a Mac.
Hi, I'm a PC."

Slayer said,

"Hi, I'm a Mac.
Hi, I'm a PC."


Yeah, but in every Apple keynotes and interviews, Steve Jobs and all the executives always refer to the Mac line as "PCs" as in "Personal Computer" (vs smartphones, media players and tablets).

They only push Windows RT for their mobiles and tablets. I don't see ARM processors can match the power of Intel chips for desktops/laptops. They can check with AMD on that lol. Also abandon the x86 ecosystem is not something they can afford.

ruelle41 said,

Windows RT

Stetson said,

Windows is pushing towards ARM as well.

Actually, no... Windows doesn't have to live in only ONE world at a time.

Windows is moving to be completely hardware/architecture and application framework agnostic.

Right now, if you develop a Windows Store App, it is designed to run on x86, x64, ARM each natively.

With NT the OS can sit on any hardware, and with a rather robust .NET (evolved) framework on top that can get near native performance, there is no reason for developers or users to ever be locked to specific hardware.

What Microsoft is doing is why Intel is STILL not happy with Microsoft.

NT POed Intel in the 90s and now that Microsoft has moved back using NT as intended, it has Intel scared again. (There are a few divisions in Intel that see the architecture agnostic nature of NT as an opportunity to ditch x86 and begin with something new and cleaner.)

However, Intel won't have the hold they currently have, even in high end CPUs, because anything faster than Intel can do emulation/translation for x86 code, and Windows NT is the vehicle to make it possible.

MDboyz said,
They only push Windows RT for their mobiles and tablets. I don't see ARM processors can match the power of Intel chips for desktops/laptops. They can check with AMD on that lol. Also abandon the x86 ecosystem is not something they can afford.

EXACTLY. Windows on ARM. Hence,

Windows is pushing towards ARM as well.

Just because they're going ARM doesn't mean they're giving up on x86. Although at some point, they may actually do it, we'll see in the future.

We have to see in next couple years if the power of ARM can reach Intel chips. At this point right now, they can only compare to the Atom.

ruelle41 said,

EXACTLY. Windows on ARM. Hence,

Just because they're going ARM doesn't mean they're giving up on x86. Although at some point, they may actually do it, we'll see in the future.

thenetavenger said,

Actually, no... Windows doesn't have to live in only ONE world at a time.

(clip...)

To add to this, Windows is not tied to one hardware architecture, and has not since WinNT made its introduction. When WinNT was first released it ran on multiple processors, DEC Alpha, PPC, MIPS, and x86. Later it supported Itanium, x64, and now ARM. All that is needed is to put in place a new HAL (hardware abstraction layer) and compilers to compile to a new instruction set for the chip set.

X86/x64 became the predominant chips, and so the other architectures were later dropped because they were no longer commercially viable. But now with ARM becoming more interesting, they were able to build a new HAL, and with a recompile it works.

The thing about Apple possibly switching is that we have been seeing Apple fans claiming that WinRT is slow, and causes confusion because WinRT devices do not run x86 software (got to protect that iPad monopoly). If Apple does switch, will we see claims that OSX is slow? Will ARM be able to emulate the x86/x64 instruction set so that existing software still work (doubtful)? We have seen the gradual conversion of OSX into iOS, will Apple fully convert their computers to be iOS only, which is another complaint of Win8, that it is trying to merge the mobile, full screen (even though it has snap) experience into desktop computing - which I expect will then be entirely acceptable and hailed as revolutionary on an Apple device.

MDboyz said,
They only push Windows RT for their mobiles and tablets. I don't see ARM processors can match the power of Intel chips for desktops/laptops. They can check with AMD on that lol. Also abandon the x86 ecosystem is not something they can afford.

Incidentally, last week ARM announced there will be a Windows RT version for their forthcoming 64 bit chip. This processor will be scaring the pants off Intel. Since iOS already runs on ARM32 it would make sense for there to be an iOS powering ARM64 notebooks and tablets.

This will be great. Now we'll have a choice of 120,000 different apps to make fart noise on our Mac laptops too. Farting in stereo if you also have an iPhone.

But Apple will have to do something about their ageing user interface. Metro makes them look soooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooold.

Shane Nokes said,
Yup you missed the part where they said next laptop...

Both the next laptop and the mac are personal computers.

You already own a PC aka Personal Computer... Egg on your face dude!

[quote=myxomatosis said? Go fu__ yourself, my next laptop is a PC...
...[/quote]

MDboyz said,
We have to see in next couple years if the power of ARM can reach Intel chips. At this point right now, they can only compare to the Atom.

The only problem here is that Intel hasn't been pushing performance that much, for some time they have been moving to power friendly processors. Next year, when they release Haswell, we'll see great improvements in both fronts.

My predict is that when MS is waiting for Intel to produce a powerful and low power x86 chip, then they will move everything to x86 platform. WP7 is the way to introduce new mobile platform to the world. WP8/Surface RT are building the bridge to their x86 platform. Soon everything will merge into on big ecosystem x86.

sviola said,

The only problem here is that Intel hasn't been pushing performance that much, for some time they have been moving to power friendly processors. Next year, when they release Haswell, we'll see great improvements in both fronts.