Comment by SG-
21 hours ago
why would it? they're only intereated in Intel's fab, not their actualy CPU technology. they're looking at diversifying they their fab stuff so it's not only TSMC.
21 hours ago
why would it? they're only intereated in Intel's fab, not their actualy CPU technology. they're looking at diversifying they their fab stuff so it's not only TSMC.
Partnerships could mean more than just fab capacity -- maybe even incentives to build an instruction translation layer so software built for Intel chips could run natively on Apple Silicon. Something like Rosetta, but at the hardware level.
Getting a lot of down-votes for this... why are people so down on the idea? Was Boot Camp really that unpopular? I always enjoyed it -- especially for gaming. Sure, laptops weren't ideal, but even then the same games ran noticeably better on Windows than on macOS.
If Microsoft wanted Windows to run on Macs it would do it. There's ARM64 Windows already.
You wouldn't enjoy it because it has an Apple GPU and most of the appeal in a Windows PC is the completely different Nvidia GPU.
It's both technically and economically unviable for Apple.
For one, Intel's x86 IP is covered by lots of patents and licensing agreements (including with AMD) and Apple wouldn't want to encumber themselves with that. Hence making their own GPUs and modems.
For two, the M-series CPUs already have extensions which improve x86 emulation performance in Rosetta.
For three, Rosetta is already slated for removal in a macOS version or two. Apple don't look backwards, they expect users and devs to move on with them after the transition period - like 32-bit code, PowerPC Rosetta, Classic environment.
Even if Rosetta wasn't being removed, everyone should still want native ARM software because these are fast, efficient CPUs and any form of emulation will harm that. And dedicated SIP blocks would only confuse the market.
For four, Boot Camp was a selling point when the Mac and OS X were still far behind Windows in terms of software support, so dual booting and virtualization was a selling point. Now many apps are cross-platform or web-based and Microsoft's strangehold on computing is reduced. A Mac running Windows was better for Apple than a Dell running Windows, but a Mac running macOS is what Apple wants - that's how they can keep in their ecosystem, charge you (and devs) for apps, and make you evangelical for their battery life.
Five, Apple have never cared much about games. Yeah there are some classics (Marathon...) and the porting toolkit for Metal now, but with the Steam Deck and game streaming being so accessible, I see no reason why Apple would accept the previous 4 cons just to appeal slightly more to a gaming market that Apple don't target and that doesn't really target Apple.
So people are probably downvoting (not me, I don't have enough karma and it wasn't a bad-faith comment!) because it's a far-fetched fantasy which goes directly against Apple's business style and would benefit almost no Mac users.
> Even if Rosetta wasn't being removed, everyone should still want native ARM software
I think this is seriously flawed logic, and part of why I don't daily a Mac anymore. As a user, I have zero leverage in porting 90% of the stuff I own to the New Hotness. Yes, that includes video games. But it also includes BBEdit and Sublime and Git Tower and dozens of other Mac apps I paid for and can't easily use anymore. That is insulting - I should be allowed to use these apps if the hardware supports it. No software nanny should have the right to tell me playtime is over.
There's no point paying for premium software that my laptop OEM uses as leverage against their own developers. I'm not going to be complicit in it even if emulation "harms" the performance. It's not unviable for Apple to implement UEFI, take Rosetta seriously or hell, even support Windows. They are a trillion dollar company, Apple could launch a satellite into fucking orbit if you gave them enough time. They simply don't want to.
1 reply →
Thanks!
Good explanation.
I just liked that I could re-boot my MacBook Pro into "Game Mode" back when there was an Intel chip. I liked that about Bootcamp.
I played Marathon back in the day. Ha. It was a great game, and actually had a really good plot... most video games at the time didn't (especially not other FPSs).
Escape Velocity was another great Mac game from the past. And while Maelstrom wasn't really original, it was well-executed. I don't think there was any sort of PC version of either of those.
Spectre (the first FPS I remember playing), Bolo (the first multi-player network game I remember playing), Lemmings, Myst, Dark Castle, Load Runner... all amazing classic games that were Mac-first if not Mac-only. (=
Edit: Bolo may not have been Mac-first... but that's where I played it. Ha.
> Partnerships could mean more than just fab capacity -- maybe even incentives to build an instruction translation layer so software built for Intel chips could run natively on Apple Silicon. Something like Rosetta, but at the hardware level.
Rosetta is pretty damn fine as-is, and yet Apple is removing it, because they don't care for supporting anything older than 7 years.
Which is pretty hypocritical of them, touting gaming on Macs is good now, yet throwing 90% of the remaining game library (after killing off i386).
> Getting a lot of down-votes for this... why are people so down on the idea?
People mistake "downvote" for "disagree". You should only downvote a comment when it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. If you disagree - you can argue, or just move on.