Honestly, I would expect “multi-user iPad” before “iPad that dual-boots macOS”.
My (unlikely) dream would be an iPad that would offer the ability to use the MacOS ui when used with an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse or trackpad. Keeping the iPadOS ui when not using an external monitor.
You may want to look into which model is Apple’s best-selling Mac.
Are Apple afraid to lose Air sales if they’re confident they have a replacement that’s strictly superior? Probably not. But I don’t think they do have that (yet). The reviews would come crashing on them about how «macOS with a touch surface is really underwhelming».
1 Like
You know, it just occurred to me…
“Dual boot”. From the average user’s perspective, there’s no “boot” on an iPad. There’s “off”, and there’s “on”. There isn’t even really a “login” screen, at least not the way we know it from the Mac. And many people rarely (if ever) actually turn their devices off, other than during updates.
And I think that’s how Apple likes it.
5 Likes
Interesting point. How would each OS deal with apps, on-device storage, subscriptions, etc.? How would the users keep track of everything?
This is kind of a grab-bag comment based on the discussion so far.
I think it’s more likely that macOS turns into iPadOS than macOS ends up on an iPad. (I don’t think macOS turning into iPadOS is likely at all, even though the OSes are borrowing more and more from each other.)
I like macOS, but I think it would be horrible as a touch interface. Moreover, modifying it to work for touch would be a terrible idea. Why surrender the precision and elegance of macOS so that it can accommodate our fingers, especially when iPadOS already exists.
The problems that @cornchip identified are real technical challenges the solutions to which do not seem like they’d improve either the iPad or the Mac.
Based on what I’ve read here over the years, the people who want macOS on iPad seem to fall into three categories: (i) some just dislike the iPad interface and vastly prefer macOS; (ii) some struggle with certain hardware limitations and software restrictions, e.g.,: no terminal; absence of multiple audio channels; less robust background operations for apps; and file system quirks; and (iii) some seem to be irritated that certain apps they want to use don’t work as well on iPad. My sense is that group iii is the largest and that migrating macOS to iPad or offering macOS on iPad is a less desirable fix. The better fix is convincing third-party app developers to treat their iPadOS apps as first-class citizens. Make the apps function seamlessly on iPad and I bet Apple eliminates a great number of the people clamoring for macOS on iPad.
I’m not sure exactly where you fall in my taxonomy (or somewhere else), @Shruggie. Maybe you could share some more about what could be improved by having macOS on iPad? Because maybe an evolving iPadOS would be able to serve your needs in someway other than a wholesale migration of macOS to the iPad.
+1
+1
At my firm, we are PC based and use thin clients and login with Citrix Workspace. So, I spent a lot of time navigating Windows with my fingers. It was not fun. Using Windows through Citrix on my iPad with a trackpad and keyboard is a breeze. In fact, using it on an external display from my iPad is almost no different from using it on the desktop. The only difference I run into has to do with transferring files between the iPad and the Citrix Windows instance.
I don’t think my windows desktop is configured for touch (i.e., maybe it does not have HID-compliant touch screen active), so this is not a perfect comparison with using macOS on an iPad or using macOS as a touch interface. But it’s very clear to me that there is a huge distinction between using a touch-centric interface and a keyboard-and-pointer interface that just happens to permit touch control. It is an unpleasant experience to say the least. Also for people just using a software keyboard on their iPad, it would be terrible using macOS when 50% of the screen disappears. Surely, these are technical problems that smart, creative engineers could solve. Not sure that would be a valuable exercise, though.
2 Likes
A read only system partition on the Mac. iOS/iPadOS applications running on macOS. It would seem that Apple is taking parts of macOS in that direction.
After I installed Catalina I discovered I couldn’t clean up the PDF menu under Print. I use to delete the “Save to Web Receipts”, “Save to iCloud Drive”, etc options and add some custom ones. And there was a time I would use symlinks to relocate data in the ~Library to an external drive. Doing little things like that are no longer possible.
Apple hardware can no longer be modified and they may be doing the same thing to macOS.
1 Like
Honestly, with Catalyst and the XCode dev stuff, it would be theoretically possible for you to just be able to run a containerized iPad on your Mac. Just make a window that’s “the iPad”. Kind of like a VM, only Apple would never call it that. 
This is an interesting perspective, and I hope you don’t mind me asking a question. Why would there have to be sacrifice? I am not a programmer so I don’t understand the inner workings of it, but it sure seems like there is precision on iPad OS and iOS with touch targets. As I type this on my MBP, I definitely think I could reach up and tape “Safari” with my finger then tap “Settings”. Or I definitely think I can scroll this webpage with my finger rather than having to use the trackpad.
I guess I’m not sure I buy the idea that making macOS touch-compatible will ruin the precision. Nor do I want to lose my trackpad. But I’m definitely open to the idea of being able to just reach up to my screen to scroll the page, or it a “Submit” button (which are usually pretty big) on a website. Bonus: give me Apple Pencil support on the touch screen.
Just my thoughts - on a Mac I can change a window size by 2 pixels if I want. AFAIK that would be incredibly difficult to do with precision on an iPad. Sometimes it’s hard to do due to hand twitching on macOS.
That matters in apps that are designed for macOS sometimes. I think the iPad is more forgiving because the apps are more forgiving.
2 Likes
It’s a good question. 44pts is the minimum touch target size Apple wants to use.
44 is close to a typical finger press from a person with relatively steady hands. There isn’t much empty space around the finger, but it’s enough to handle changes in precision due to fatigue over the session, and to accommodate users who aren’t as precise or have bigger fingers.
If you have your laptop resolution set all the way to the right at More Space, 44pts is about twice as tall as the menu items. It would be frustrating, even though Settings is close to the menu bar in the Safari menu so your finger wouldn’t have to move far for the second tap.
If you set your laptop resolution all the way to the left at Larger Text, the menu items are about right for tapping. But now many menus have way too many items in them. Here’s one in Numbers. This screenshot is too small in Discourse, but it took up the entire height of my 16" laptop screen.
You could easily tap to open that menu, and would have no problem repeatedly using the menu to access the add/delete row buttons near the top, but you really wouldn’t want to have to move far down the screen for some of those menu items. Let alone the opposite end of the screen to scroll to the hidden items.
The touch interface for Numbers is excellent on iPad, but to do that, in addition to using tap target sizes that work for most people, they present a completely different menu design that keeps actions closer to the hand’s current position and puts tap targets in an accessible, labeled grid where possible.
Hopefully I haven’t typed up a complete mess. If the screenshot sizes don’t make sense, just mentally resize based on the 44. 
4 Likes
To see just how much macOS is currently not touch-friendly in terms of touch targets, just use any remote desktop client like Jump Desktop on an iPad to connect to a remote Mac – and there you have a touchscreen Mac.
If you’re not using a keyboard with a trackpad on the iPad, you’ll be frustrated with using touch to control the remote Mac quite quickly. It’s fine for a quick task on a remote Mac but that’s it.
There are paradigms and native user interface elements on the Mac that do not exist on the iPad at all or are simply not easily replicable in a touch-only interface. Once you use a remote desktop connection, you realise that double taps (double clicking) is not ‘native’ on the iPad; drag and drop is messy using touch only and requires finger gymnastics; right clicking is also not ‘native’ on the iPad, though it is often replicated by a long tap and hold or two taps and a hold to get the context menu that would otherwise pop up with only a single right click on the Mac. And selecting multiple files is impossible without a Cmd key – and these are just the most obvious examples when dealing with files and icons on the desktop. Then try dragging windows around, etc. without a touchpad. This all decreases the likelihood that Apple will ever do a dual-boot or a ‘dual interface’ device as it would be a mess in terms of user interface and would require of users to switch between two different paradigms on the same device. This is not what Apple does.
I think this is a good test for those who believe that making macOS touch-friendly is a piece of cake (though, once again, I’m sure Apple has something of a sort running in their labs on iPads and probably has had for years).
5 Likes
That was very helpful, thank you! I wonder if there’s a middle ground where the touch targets are “too small” and there’s just an acceptance that some touch-things on a Mac wouldn’t be appropriate, but that some things (scrolling, some web pages) are good to go.
IMO using MacOS with your fingers should never be your first option. That’s why I’m suggesting two interfaces.
1 Like
I disagree with your first statement, even comparing a 13” Laptop screen squeezed onto an 11” ipad has a significant amount of miniaturisation and that’s before you try to so it with someone connected to a 21” screen (like my Mac mini) a 24” iMac or a 27” Studio display.
Of course any macOS running on a 11” or 13” screen would need to scale appropriately. Yes, you’d get less on the screen of an 11” than you would on a 13” MBA, but it could still be a very usable device.
Right click could easily be replicated by a two finger tap with the first finger being where the right click happens. Is it Discoverable, no. Could it work, yes.
If anyone could make this work, it would be Apple.
And, so far, Apple does not think a touch-screen Mac is a good idea. From everything I’ve seen, I’m in full agreement.
All I want now (and I’ve mentioned this a few years ago) is a hybrid. A MacBook where the screen is an iPad. When you remove the screen it is an iPad. When the screen is connected it can act as an iPad or a MacBook (non-touch). There would be a key on the keyboard to toggle between the 2 modes. My MBP stays on my desk most of the time. When I’m away from the desk sometimes I want to use a MBP and other times I want to use an iPad. Same is true for when I am traveling. I would love to have one device to accomplish this.
1 Like
I’ve posted “why this can’t work” content to the thread so far, but I am optimistic that advances in UX are achievable that will make form factors more useful in a wider variety of situations, and make new kinds of work/play/creation possible.
If that happens, we’ll be exploring the edges of those new limitations just as much. The prospect of understanding and exploring those new problems is also exciting to me.
2 Likes
Can’t you have this right now with the Luna hardware and software?
1 Like
As far as I know, I can’t remove the screen of my MBP and use in in another room as an iPad. This is what I really want, one device.
So this would work like Jump desktop and allow MacOS on the iPad? But would work better than Jump desktop? I’ve tried Jump and it’s OK in a pinch.