[Macworld]

Post your comments for The pros and cons of an Apple-Intel divorce here

[bastion]

Macworld, on 22 January 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

Jobs never liked sharing profits with anyone, which is why Apple’s platforms are walled gardens.

One of Apple's platforms - the general purpose computer - is not a walled garden, so explaining the reason it is one is nonsensical.

The other Apple platform - the consumer appliance - is a walled garden not to avoid sharing profits but to increase the relability of devices that are supposed to "just work" and improve accountability when they don't.

Pity. Other than that sentence it wasn't really that bad a piece.

[mretondo]

Give me a break with this stupid story. Anyone who knows a hoot about processors and programing knows the ARM processor is about five years behind Intel chips for pure processing power. The ARM chip is fine for use in devices that don't need high performance (iPhones) but where low power is more important.

[bastion]

mretondo, on 22 January 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

Give me a break with this stupid story. Anyone who knows a hoot about processors and programing knows the ARM processor is about five years behind Intel chips for pure processing power. The ARM chip is fine for use in devices that don't need high performance (iPhones) but where low power is more important.

This is actually acknowledged in the "stupid" story. Anyone who knows a hoot about processors and programming knows that the raw performance gap between the two architectures only matters if the target audience is running compute-bound processes for any significant amount of time. For most consumers, that's really not an issue and hasn't been for a decade or more. Storage - the amount of RAM and the performance of disk - has been the limiting factor of late. Cheaper, higher-density RAM and dropping prices on SSD are starting to chip away at that.

[ingus]

Quote

Give me a break with this stupid story. Anyone who knows a hoot about processors and programing knows the ARM processor is about five years behind Intel chips for pure processing power. The ARM chip is fine for use in devices that don't need high performance (iPhones) but where low power is more important.

It's not the story that's stupid, it's the idea of using ARM over Intel that is. This idea has been getting tossed around, and the author is responding to it.

You're right in that ARM gives rudimentary performance at a huge energy savings (for mobile), but raw performance is another matter. I don't mind ARM too much for phones, tablets, or my fridge, but for my laptops or desktop. No way. Even if somehow ARM catches up in performance ("centicore" chip?), compatibility is not something that should be sacrificed "willy nilly", there would have to be compelling reasons.

[technologist]

Quote

Anyone who knows a hoot about processors and programming knows that the raw performance gap between the two architectures only matters if the target audience is running compute-bound processes for any significant amount of time.

Anyone who knows a hoot about consumer behavior knows that people don't make rational purchasing decisions based on usage-weighted profiling of performance bottlenecks. They want the fastest CPU, period, end of story, and no amount of "oh, this tradeoff makes sense when you do the math, really!" will convince them otherwise.

This post has been edited by technologist: 23 January 2013 - 07:53 AM

[bastion]

technologist, on 23 January 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

Quote

Anyone who knows a hoot about processors and programming knows that the raw performance gap between the two architectures only matters if the target audience is running compute-bound processes for any significant amount of time.

Anyone who knows a hoot about consumer behavior knows that people don't make rational purchasing decisions based on usage-weighted profiling of performance bottlenecks. They want the fastest CPU, period, end of story, and no amount of "oh, this tradeoff makes sense when you do the math, really!" will convince them otherwise.

That's true for measurebators. Not the general consumer of this century. I've seen a small but growing number of people foregoing traditional PCs outright because their phone or tablet does everything they need from a computer. Implicitly that means they've come to the conclusion that it's "fast enough."

[SpaceCoder]

Quote

mretondo said
Anyone who knows a hoot about processors and programming knows that the raw performance gap between the two architectures only matters if the target audience is running compute-bound processes for any significant amount of time. For most consumers, that's really not an issue and hasn't been for a decade or more.

Can you cite some references to support this claim?

[macmutt]

I would love to see a modular computer design that allowed a person to upgrade not only their CPU's and GPU's, but also their mother boards with ease, keeping their hardware viable long past the standard the tech world has now set. Greed drives everything all the tech giants do. None of them care about making a product that has longevity built into it's DNA. Imagine a computer that has a slot base you plug your choice of mother board into. In another slot, you plug in a CPU card with a wide choice of CPU types and configurations....everything from a humble single core unit up to four powerful multi-core processors (or more). The next slot would house a similarly versatile GPU card. There would be further slots to accommodate memory and storage solutions such as solid state cards. All of this could be housed in a 7"x7" Cube, making for a small and stylish computing powerhouse the likes of which has never been seen. THAT is what I would like to see Apple build....a virtual 'name your own price' computer you can upgrade as funds become available that won't be worthless after the first major OS update.

[technologist]

Quote

technologist said
Anyone who knows a hoot about processors and programming knows that the raw performance gap between the two architectures only matters if the target audience is running compute-bound processes for any significant amount of time. Anyone who knows a hoot about consumer behavior knows that people don't make rational purchasing decisions based on usage-weighted profiling of performance bottlenecks. They want the fastest CPU, period, end of story, and no amount of "oh, this tradeoff makes sense when you do the math, really!" will convince them otherwise. That's true for measurebators. Not the general consumer of this century. I've seen a small but growing number of people foregoing traditional PCs outright because their phone or tablet does everything they need from a computer. Implicitly that means they've come to the conclusion that it's "fast enough."

Indeed, but Apple already has a product line for these people.

[wardoggie]

macmutt, on 23 January 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

I would love to see a modular computer design that allowed a person to upgrade not only their CPU's and GPU's, but also their mother boards with ease, keeping their hardware viable long past the standard the tech world has now set.¹ Greed drives everything all the tech giants do. None of them care about making a product that has longevity built into it's DNA. Imagine a computer that has a slot base you plug your choice of mother board into. In another slot, you plug in a CPU card with a wide choice of CPU types and configurations....everything from a humble single core unit up to four powerful multi-core processors (or more). The next slot would house a similarly versatile GPU card. There would be further slots to accommodate memory and storage solutions such as solid state cards. All of this could be housed in a 7"x7" Cube², making for a small and stylish computing powerhouse the likes of which has never been seen. THAT is what I would like to see Apple build....a virtual 'name your own price' computer you can upgrade as funds become available that won't be worthless after the first major OS update.

1. The platform you're describing is called a PC (or a hackintosh, if you will).

2. Been there, done that.

[wardoggie]

technologist, on 23 January 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

Quote

technologist said
Anyone who knows a hoot about processors and programming knows that the raw performance gap between the two architectures only matters if the target audience is running compute-bound processes for any significant amount of time. Anyone who knows a hoot about consumer behavior knows that people don't make rational purchasing decisions based on usage-weighted profiling of performance bottlenecks. They want the fastest CPU, period, end of story, and no amount of "oh, this tradeoff makes sense when you do the math, really!" will convince them otherwise. That's true for measurebators. Not the general consumer of this century. I've seen a small but growing number of people foregoing traditional PCs outright because their phone or tablet does everything they need from a computer. Implicitly that means they've come to the conclusion that it's "fast enough."

Indeed, but Apple already has a product line for these people.

Intel Macs have never, ever had the fastest processors Intel makes, yet they continue to sell well. Why? Because the number of people (i.e., professionals) who need the absolute best-performing computers is shrinking. For most computer consumers, the garden-variety Core i7s are fast enough.

This post has been edited by wardoggie: 23 January 2013 - 11:23 AM

[bastion]

macmutt, on 23 January 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

I would love to see a modular computer design that allowed a person to upgrade not only their CPU's and GPU's, but also their mother boards with ease, keeping their hardware viable long past the standard the tech world has now set. Greed drives everything all the tech giants do. None of them care about making a product that has longevity built into it's DNA. Imagine a computer that has a slot base you plug your choice of mother board into. In another slot, you plug in a CPU card with a wide choice of CPU types and configurations....everything from a humble single core unit up to four powerful multi-core processors (or more). The next slot would house a similarly versatile GPU card. There would be further slots to accommodate memory and storage solutions such as solid state cards. All of this could be housed in a 7"x7" Cube, making for a small and stylish computing powerhouse the likes of which has never been seen. THAT is what I would like to see Apple build....a virtual 'name your own price' computer you can upgrade as funds become available that won't be worthless after the first major OS update.

This is a fascinating theory. How do you reconcile these notions with the reality that the cooling profiles of future components will be very different from those contemporary with the "host" structure and that any physical interface you design is likely to be outmoded - by need, not by whimsy - in a few years?

[bastion]

technologist, on 23 January 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

Quote

technologist said
Anyone who knows a hoot about processors and programming knows that the raw performance gap between the two architectures only matters if the target audience is running compute-bound processes for any significant amount of time. Anyone who knows a hoot about consumer behavior knows that people don't make rational purchasing decisions based on usage-weighted profiling of performance bottlenecks. They want the fastest CPU, period, end of story, and no amount of "oh, this tradeoff makes sense when you do the math, really!" will convince them otherwise. That's true for measurebators. Not the general consumer of this century. I've seen a small but growing number of people foregoing traditional PCs outright because their phone or tablet does everything they need from a computer. Implicitly that means they've come to the conclusion that it's "fast enough."

Indeed, but Apple already has a product line for these people.

What product line is that, please?