Yeah that would be lovely and a strong statement of confidence from Apple but could also discourage future sales due to the perception that a current platform is outdated so quickly.
I would love to take a peek in Apple’s R&D lab to see heir Mx line up, as well as listening in to Intel, AMD etc conference calls discussing the M1. Apple wont make this processor family available for other non Apple designs so other cpu manufacturers arent too afraid about their market i imagine. But this design style will have an effect outside Apple i hope.
Just to clarify, I don’t think Apple’s going to come out with anything that replaces the computers they just introduced in the next six months. I’m thinking of higher end machines that replace some of the Intel powered Macs remaining in the lineup (4-port 13" MacBook Pro, 16" MacBook Pro, and maybe the iMac).
Honestly, I think that losing the ability to virtualized Linux would be a much bigger deal. I suspect (but have no real evidence beyond anecdotal) that a large percentage of people running VMWare and Parallels are developers. Thankfully it seems as if we won’t lose that ability. But, I’m not saying that the lose of virtualizing Windows isn’t going to be a blow either.
Oddly enough, the switch to x86 was what got me onto the Mac to begin with, with the promise of running Windows in a VM (or booting it) if absolutely necessary. However in recent years I find that it’s become far, far less of a concern, due largely to the trend toward cloud computing.
Yes - my two key applications at the moment are Devonthink (Mac only) and Madcap Flare (Windows Only). I have large data sets which I use for each.
For travel I have outgrown my older MacBook (pre-butterfly keyboard) which now cannot even run Catalina. I thought the new M1 would be its replacement but it seems instead a current Intel Macbook Pro makes more sense for now.
You will be able to buy an Intel Mac for a considerable time into the future. It you are the sort of users that uses Parallels to run Windows on your Mac, I suspect that you re savvy enough not to buy an M1 Mac by “mistake” thinking that it will continue to run Intel Windows. And if you have a business that requires you to run Intel Windows on a Mac then you can use an older Mac that you probably already have or buy one of the MANY Intel Macs that are now available.
Sure - but I don’t believe that there isn’t a significant market for a non-Microsoft solution to this problem. Are there really that few other companies that offer virtualized Windows? Corporations that perhaps want to have their own virtualized Windows servers on their own hardware?
I feel like one of the virtualization companies will definitely do that, if Microsoft doesn’t play ball relatively soon. But I can imagine it being in limbo for awhile, as nobody wants to write an x86 emulator only to have Microsoft say “oops, sorry, our bad - here you go” and make the whole thing functionally unnecessary.
I think a more interesting limit is that the M1 based machines can seemingly support only two displays, so for the notebooks that limits them to a single external display. I don’t expect that to be a limit in subsequent models but it’s surprising to me.
I’m pretty sure that Docker was mentioned back in the intro video at WWDC. I’m absolutely certain that that won’t be an issue for long, especially once VMWare and Parallels get their stuff running on the new Macs. Worst case scenario is that you run Docker in a Linux VM while things settle out. But, if you’re relying on containers and VMs, I think it’s pretty clear that the first generation of these new Macs isn’t for you. The machines capable of that are coming.
In general Docker images have to be built for the target architecture. (That’s why on z/OS we talk about images built for the Z architecture.) And the "just enough Linux” has to be built for it as well. (In z/OS 2.4 - with zCX - we did all that.)
In this case the target architecture is ARM / Apple Silicon.
I can’t think of a way of phrasing this without it coming across as being sarcastic, so please know that I am in no way trying to be sarcastic or snarky at all
I’m not sure what you’re trying to tell me. What you wrote is true, but seems somewhat orthogonal to what I wrote (and to which you responded). What am I missing, good sir?
… So any Docker image that is to run is going to have to be built for Apple Silicon, rather than Intel X86(64). Unless it is to run in Rosetta 2 (supposedly one-time+)translation.
+ I say “supposedly one time”, by the way, because every time someone deploys an update to a module / app / program it would have to go through the 20-second-sh translation.
I get (and got) that; I was just assuming that ARM-ready images are generally available. Of course that depends on what you want to run in a container from a given image.
Right. But the author of such an application has to make them ready for Apple Silicon. It’s not a given that they would be - which is why we explicitly mentioned our number (3,000 from a standing start) at our (zCX on z/OS) announcement.
Not to decry Docker on Apple Silicon but to note there’s work to do.
It’s so funny when affirmative headlines lead to articles showing as little proof as the claim that the article claims to debunk. But I guess « Nobody knows about the true performances of the M1 yet and the benchmarks are so obscure! » makes for a far less compelling headline.
I agree that it would be most fair to say the jury is still out.
But I think the criticism is valid because of how strongly Apple stated their case of superiority - clearly without enough specifics to support this extreme claim.
