
Should I buy an Intel Mac today or wait to buy an Arm-based Mac? - jedimind
https://www.macrumors.com/guide/buy-or-wait-intel-apple-silicon-mac/
======
Lammy
Buy a used Intel Mac today and it will give you several more years of service
while the ecosystem handles the ARM transition. You should never buy a first-
gen Apple product, especially the first gen of such a radical change. I expect
buyers of the first ARM-based Macs to end up like the buyers of the first
Intel-based Macs who were saddled with Core Solo processors and 32-bit EFI.

~~~
jmull
> You should never buy a first-gen Apple product

FUD. First Intel Macbook Pro, first iPhone, first iPad, first Apple Watch...
these were all excellent devices.

Also, I believe you are misinformed about the types of processors available in
the first Intel macs.

~~~
rangibaby
> FUD. First Intel Macbook Pro, first iPhone, first iPad, first Apple Watch...
> these were all excellent devices.

The 2nd gen were all extreme improvements though

> Also, I believe you are misinformed about the types of processors available
> in the first Intel macs.

as far as I remember the initial Intel Macs were a Mac Mini (Core Solo) and
MacBooks (Core Duo).

32bit EFI was a thing and made life difficult with a Mac Pro. At some point
the MacOS dropped support for the 32bit EFI, and had to have OS upgrades
installed with patched installers.

~~~
lallysingh
The iPhone 3g was hot garbage.

~~~
christoph
The iPad 3 was pretty terrible very quickly as well - I think it was the
slowest iPad they ever made. Mainly due to quickly cobbling a retina screen to
hardware (GPU and RAM) that simply couldn’t drive that many pixels.

~~~
rangibaby
I never have or had a problem with the iPad 3’s performance. I did have a
problem with how heavy it was compared to the previous generation

------
dasil003
I'm pretty keen on buying one of the last Intel MBPs late this year or next
year. First-generation Apple products are always buggier than the subsequent
versions, so even as a consumer I'd want to wait for second gen. More
importantly, as a developer, I'm still deploying everything to Linux on Intel,
so I value the ability to virtualize Linux without emulation.

That said, I'm excited about the potential for ARM over time with Apple's
performance trajectory, and if Apple holds onto developer mindshare and
doesn't totally nerf Mac OS in the name of iOS parity, then there could be a
strong halo effect pushing ARM servers and cloud hosting forward. I just don't
want to be on that bleeding edge of architecture transition pain.

~~~
bdcravens
> More importantly, as a developer, I'm still deploying everything to Linux on
> Intel, so I value the ability to virtualize Linux without emulation.

Then why not just develop on Linux?

~~~
skwb
Some of us are not masochists at heart, and value the ability to switch
between a GUI for my desktop things and a virtualized Linux image for
development/testing.

~~~
freetime2
Of course you should use whatever works best for you, but I disagree with your
characterization of Linux users as masochists at heart.

I’m very much a person who values technology that “just works”. While my
latest Ubuntu installation admittedly wasn’t quite as smooth as running macOS
on Apple hardware, the gap has narrowed considerably. Especially for anyone
who already possesses a fair amount of Linux experience from working with
servers for work, and who sticks with known-compatible hardware, running a
Linux desktop can be a delight.

~~~
wtallis
Linux on a desktop can be fine, depending on what you want out of that desktop
experience. But Linux on a laptop still tends to be Sisyphean: by the time you
get all the hardware features working correctly and with proper power
management and with all the firmware bugs worked around, at least one of the
hardware or the distro will be years out of date. The only way to be satisfied
is to decide you didn't need that feature anyways, or didn't need that last
hour of battery life.

~~~
freetime2
Out of curiosity, does this still hold true if you buy one of the System76 /
Dell / Lenovo laptops with Linux pre-installed? I’m currently using a desktop,
so don’t have any recent experience with this, but my assumption is the
experience has also improved quite a bit on these OEM Linux laptops.

~~~
livueta
It's better but not perfect. If you tried Linux on commodity laptops a decade
ago, you'd frequently run into awful hardware issues. There's less of that now
with the OEM laptops (with some exceptions; looking at you, Killer wlan
chipsets!).

UI jank is also reduced but not eliminated. Even Pop!/DE Ubuntu have a fair
number of rough edges - not so much that you're constantly tearing your hair
out, but there's definite room for improvement. Personally, I live with it
because I also think Windows and OSX have regressed in usability and
stability, but I'd be a liar if I didn't mention all the time spent yelling at
things like DPI scaling w/ hardware dock-attached monitors.

e: also, expect to do some manual power tuning if you want anything close to
battery life parity.

------
SomeHacker44
Not fully responsive, but I would just buy a nice Windows 10 computer.
Surface, Dell XPS, Thinkpad X1, plus numerous others from various
manufacturers, are available. They can run WSL, Docker, various hypervisors
and VM tools, and still be fully AMD/Intel compatible for deployment.
Furthermore I doubt they will become as closed as macOS is becoming, and
Windows will run on them for years and years to come.

I am not looking back. Touchbar, crappy keyboards, regressive and user hostile
macOS, and now custom CPUs? The walled garden has become a hellish prison and
I am out. I wont miss Aperture, Logic and Final Cut that much. Everything else
I use is ... Imagine this ... Fully cross platform! Adobe, Ableton, Native
Instruments, JetBrains, etc. Anything I cannot do easily in Windows I have WSL
or Cygwin.

Thanks for 12 great years and 4 increasingly miserable years, Apple. I'm out,
and once my current hardware dies it won't be replaced. I like my OnePlus
phone and Surface Book and Go.

~~~
sneak
Windows comes with a great deal more embedded spyware and adware than macOS,
and has a lot more malware targeted at it in the wild. I think the security
situation is far better on macOS.

~~~
tootie
Windows really doesn't, it's the OEMs. It's a pain, but I usually spend like
30 minutes cleaning up a new laptop and it never bothers me again. My last few
machines have been Acers and they were pretty clean.

~~~
sneak
This is not an accurate statement. Windows 10 includes a huge amount of
spyware out of the box direct from Microsoft.

~~~
spronkey
Have you looked at the network traffic coming out of macOS lately?

~~~
sneak
Yes, I run Little Snitch with the Apple whitelists disabled.

[https://git.eeqj.de/sneak/hacks/src/branch/master/fixcatalin...](https://git.eeqj.de/sneak/hacks/src/branch/master/fixcatalina/fixcatalina.sh)

The above script helps a little bit.

------
tln
As a developer who values running the same docker images as production, I'm
out -- no more mac purchases for me.

Gaming on a mac is already a challenge. None of my most valued software is Mac
specific anymore. The trend of incredibly locked down software will only
continue.

The calculus may be different if I were heavily in the iOS ecosystem, or if
the "exciting new Intel-based Macs" buck the trend and represent good value.

If you're not an iOS developer, do you see things the same way?

~~~
stunt
I don't understand how people use Docker on macOS. It's so slow and non of
those tricks like UNISON and NFS really solve it.

I do all my work on Linux powered XPS and all my personal stuff on macOS.

~~~
baddox
Absolutely. It’s broken. Given that Apple mentioned explicit support for or
cooperation with Docker for the new ARM Macs, I think there’s a decent chance
it will actually perform better.

------
catmistake
Answer is simple, explanation is complex. Wait, unless you need to run virtual
Windows. x86 always sucked. It was always a dog. Everything that ever competed
with x86 was technically superior to x86, including 68k, PPC, and ARM will be
no different. If you have some burning need to run WinVMs, then you need x86.
Otherwise, even this first gen Apple ARM hardware will be better than the
Intel Macs in performance, and this even in Rosetta2 emulation, and this has
been proven by the developer kit using 2 year old processor competing with
today's x86. When Apple releases their first ARM macs, they will be cutting
edge, will see faster and far more efficient processing, thus expect battery
life in ARM MacBooks that any x86 MacBook or AnyBook can not compete. As far
as the "don't buy first gen Macs" folks are concerned, they are stuck in 1994.
Apple is a different company now. Except for minor issues like avant garde
butterfly keyboards that they're abandoning, the internal hardware has no
competition, and you're going to pay for that, but it is not actually more
expensive than any hardware comparatively configured. So save your money, get
another year out of your x86 Mac, and get the ARM Mac. Otherwise, you'll have
2 gens of x86 Macs, and one will gather dust. Wait for the ARM, and you will
continue to use your x86 Mac.

~~~
rsecora
Osborne effect.

The Osborne effect is a social phenomenon of customers canceling or deferring
orders for the current soon-to-be-obsolete product as an unexpected drawback
of a company's announcing a future product prematurely.

~~~
catmistake
> Osborne effect.

Totally. Don't buy either, Apple is obviously going under. ><

Thing about Macs is, they have this incredible lifetime, annoyingly (to those
that like to save with buying older hw) hold high value in resale. Try pricing
a Mac Mini from 2012, or Late 2014. Compare a similar compact WinDesk from
those years. Though it is interesting to see a pattern, and moreso when it is
famous enough to have a name, I do not think the Osborne effect applies here.
Today's current Intel Mac will still be unaffordable NIB or used when the 3rd
gen ARM Macs are released. I'm not really happy about that.

~~~
rsecora
Right... And the previous transitions in early 2000s was eased by the usage of
universal binaries with powerpc and intel code. Same will apply for the
universal binary 2 with intel + arm code.

~~~
catmistake
1994 68k --> PPC 2006 PPC --> x86

As I recall, the first switch had the issue of the early PPC chips, 601, was
kind of slow, and the boxes not designed well. The second transition in 2006
was annoying because Adobe doesn't like to rewrite their code... they
carbonized, and then just kept charging for the same cruft. But frankly, I
liked the Classic Environment, and I liked the first Rosetta. I'd like to run
the whole shebang in MAME on whatever hw, if others were doing it to make it
easier for me. If only MAME had a emulated coprocessor, I'd run A/UX on it.

Apple's current ARMs and OS running on it are already quite amazing, IMHO. So
I don't think the new ARM Macs could disappoint. And the same thing here,
Universal Binaries, a switch in the compiler to make it easy for devs, and I
don't know how it could be easier.

~~~
klodolph
> As I recall, the first switch had the issue of the early PPC chips, 601, was
> kind of slow, and the boxes not designed well.

I had a first-generation PPC Mac. It was pretty good, I thought. The baseline
601 ran at 60MHz and had a superscalar architecture with 16K instruction / 16K
data L1 cache. The high-end 68Ks were not superscalar, ran at 33MHz, and had
4K instruction / 4K data caches.

If anything was slow it was probably because big chunks of code were 68K. My
personal experience was that once I switched to PPC, running the same software
on 68K felt slow by comparison.

~~~
catmistake
That's interesting. I didn't get to touch a 601 until the 604 were common,
side by side in a commercial environment, the older machines gunked with more
use (old installs) and more users over time, thus my opinion is biased and
worthless. Thank you for posting.

------
jlokier
It's awkward. I have a 2013 rMBP which I'm very happy with.

It was bought in part to start developing OSX/iOS software _while also_
continuing to use Linux for the majority of my work, which I now do in a VM on
the Mac.

This setup works really well as an "all rounder" machine with excellent
hardware.

In a couple of years time, having an x86 Mac won't make sense for developing
MacOS/iOS software. Apple talks of emulating x86 on ARM for MacOS, but not the
other way around.

But on the other hand, having an ARM Mac won't make sense for running x86
Linux and x86 Windows VMs. And my servers will probably still be x86.

Neither choice is good.

------
htk
To most people I would say that it depends on what you want to do with your
Mac. If you also want/need to run Windows I would pick an Intel one. If you
think you’d be content to live exclusively in Apple’s World I would pick the
Arm one as it has the upside of also running iOS apps natively.

~~~
als0
> it has the upside of also running iOS apps natively

I've been thinking about this lately, and I wonder who the audience is. For
example, I've had a Chromebook that can run Android apps for a while now, but
I've never wanted to run them when the desktop equivalent is available. Even
if a desktop equivalent is not available, it has the downside of not fitting
in well with the look-and-feel and ergonomics of the desktop.

However, I think being able to run iOS apps natively is great for developers
testing iOS/iPadOS apps.

~~~
minimaxir
Since it seems like Catalyst is not as popular as expected, I'd _love_ to run
streamlined native apps in their own window without having to open a browser
tab of everything (e.g. for Reddit, using Apollo instead of the god-awful web
UI)

iOS apps on the Mac would give it a robust gaming library overnight.

~~~
dmitriid
> iOS apps on the Mac would give it a robust gaming library overnight.

It wouldn't. It would give MacOS a library of games optimised for mobile. Why
would you want those on a desktop computer? And how would you play many of
them when they require touch input?

~~~
minimaxir
Sure, not 100% of the games will work / some gestures may be wonky, but the
vast majority of popular iOS games I can think of would work fine out of the
box. (much less APM than games like Diablo or MOBAs)

I’d love to play longer iOS games on a system that doesn’t cause it to heat up
profusely and massively drain battery life, as there are some _unique_ iOS
games that were never ported to a Mac.

~~~
dmitriid
> Sure, not 100% of the games will work / some gestures may be wonky

That probably includes the vast majority of games that you would want to play
on a desktop system: the ones with perceived console quality.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Apple Arcade. It has cross platform
games. About none of them have any appeal for a desktop gamer. Non-ported
mobile games? They will have even less appeal.

Except some casual games like Monument Valley.

> there are some unique iOS games that were never ported to a Mac

Once again, the vast majority of those will most likely be very foreign on a
desktop OS.

------
_ph_
It depends on how quickly you need to upgrade, how important smooth operations
are, and of course, whether you depend on bootcamp/virtualisation.

If you need to upgrade soon and are dependant on the machine "just working",
get an Intel based Mac. Obviously the same, if you need virtualisation. You do
get a machine, which works now and will do so easily for the next 5 years to
come.

The new ARM Macs are very tempting, but it might take up to 2 years until the
device you want to refresh is avialable with an ARM processor, and there might
be teething problems. In any case, it will take some time, till most software
is avialable natively. On the other side, unless there are first-generation
issues, with an ARM-Mac you are very forward-looking.

So for me, the answer is easy. For my work, I am going to renew my MB Pro on
Intel, but privately, I am going to try to stretch the life of my iMac out,
until I can an ARM based one. The iMac is still running on Mojave for
compatibility reasons, so if I upgrade, going to ARM shouldn't be less
compatible (which probably was the reason for Catalina to be that
incompatible).

------
m0zg
I bypassed the whole decision entirely and after 15 years of using Macs of
various flavors went back to Windows for stuff that doesn't run on Linux
(Lightroom, Ableton). It works fine and I got used to it within a week. I
think quite a few people will do the same thing, especially when it comes to
laptops. MBP pricing in particular makes no sense when Lenovo X1 exists and
has a vastly superior keyboard, more ports, and a higher density display.
Importantly, it also looks great. Similar configs are literally $1K apart.
It's time to give MS another chance, IMO.

------
vbezhenar
Apple discontinued the use of PowerPC processors in 2006. Mac OS X 10.6 Snow
Leopard released at August 28, 2009 was the first version of OS X to be built
exclusively for Intel Macs.

So extrapolating on Mac history one can expect last Intel Mac to be supported
for 3 years.

~~~
rovr138
> extrapolating

 _With a sample size of 1,..._

We don’t know.

~~~
SahAssar
Similar for the 68k to PPC transition, 1996 was the last year for the
powerbook 190s, the last 68k, and MacOS 8.5 (which required PPC) was released
1998 (to the month 2 years later).

So going by history we can expect 2-3 years, with a sample size of 2.

------
jbirer
I would advise app and mobile developers to wait for the ARM Macs. They will
have near native performance for iOS emulation (or even native if everything
works out). The demand for people who can do ARM optimizations will also
surge.

~~~
ArgyleSound
Apple has already said they will natively run every iOS app on the App Store
unless devs opt out so I expect this does indeed mean literally native
performance.

~~~
jbirer
That sounds great for testing and performance. I expect that macOS and ipadOS
will merge after sometime.

------
minimaxir
I do want to upgrade my 2016 MacBook to an iMac because although everything on
the OS works fine, I'm beginning to do work that's hitting performance
ceilings.

If new Macs w/ Apple Silicon are being released this fall, I hope the 27/30-in
iMacs w/ Apple Silicon rumored to launch next year count as the "second"
revision in context of Apple's infamous first-gen issues.

~~~
als0
As far as first-gen issues are concerned, I don't think Apple has a bad track
record compared to other companies. Which first gen products were bad?

~~~
minimaxir
The big ones in recent memory are the Apple Watch Series 0 (which got
obsoleted unusually quickly) and the 2016 MacBook Pros w/ keyboard and screen
flex issues (I keep mine almost-permanently plugged in so it hasn't been an
issue for me, yet)

~~~
valuearb
What issues did the first gen AppleWatch have? Mine was fine through last
year.

~~~
minimaxir
As someone who had a S0 (in steel!), the battery died _very_ quickly after a
year or two and it was impossible to actually use any apps on it because
loading them took forever.

I eventually upgrade to a S3 and was very happy with it, although I don't
think I am rushing to upgrade, yet.

~~~
valuearb
Yes, apps sucked in it for the most part. My battery held on for a long time,
maybe because I ran it to zero a lot.

------
jtchang
Would it be possible to design a macbook that has both an intel x86 processor
and an ARM one? Sort of like how we turn off the discrete GPU when not needed.
Too expensive or too complex?

~~~
valuearb
Actually existing Macs sort of have both, given they include the T2 chip which
contains the same ARM cores that were in the iPhone 7.

It's actually not the cost, though having two functional CPUs would cost more.
How would it work? How much time and effort would go into building the
hardware so they could interoperate and the OS to make it usable?

Just a massive amount of complexity for very little gain. Apple's Rosetta2
will already run x86 code with very good performance on Apple Silicon, in
MacOS as a MacOS app. Hundreds of dollars per Mac cheaper, and far less
complex to integrate.

~~~
toast0
This could be fun to make work. Processes would have a flag for x86 or arm,
and only be scheduled on the processors for that type of processor.

Most likely pick one processor architecture as native for the kernel in, and
the other one has just enough kernel to trap system calls and call into the
native kernel, and switch tasks.

------
lowbloodsugar
Seems like there is a pretty straightforward decision tree that one could
create by rearranging these questions: Is this business or pleasure? Do you
just run windows on it (as I've seen CEOs and COOs do)? Are you a developer?
For binary linux builds (including docker)? For iOS? For Mac? Or Java? Do you
have a build farm running on the various platforms and OS you support? Do you
target just one specific platform and are you already cross-compiling or
building on a remote machine? Do you need to debug binaries locally? Do you
require a particular piece of software for your job? Is that software
available for an ARM Mac?

I think if a person isn't qualified to answer these questions for themselves,
then that gives us enough information to recommend that they buy an ARM Mac.
ARM is the future for Apple.

~~~
ghaff
The main thing, based on what we know now, is that virtualized (or Bootcamp)
Windows is a non-starter. That's not to say someone won't figure out how to do
something hacky with a Surface Pro build or something, but basically no.

Other than that I agree that if you need a system to write/debug MacOS apps
that run on Windows, you probably need a MacOS system if you don't have access
to one.

Otherwise, if you need a new system, get an ARM and just deal with the
migration pains.

------
klelatti
The great unknown is of course how the Arm based Macs will perform vs Intel
models.

Thinking back to the PowerPC to Intel transition then the step up in
performance per watt was enough to make the MacBook Pro a very, very clear
winner - I don't think that many people were wishing they had bought a PowerPC
laptop. There is clearly the potential for this to happen again.

Apple clearly doesn't want to "Osborne" its existing range, but if the gains
are only marginal then the justification for the change becomes quite weak.

If you depend on x86 for Windows or for server development then buying a Intel
Mac will give you what you need. For everyone else - especially buying a
laptop - I would have thought that at least hanging on, if you can, would be a
sensible option.

~~~
rsecora
> I would have thought that at least hanging on.

it happened the same to the Sega Saturn / Dreamcast, the MakerBot, and the
Osborne Computer in the 80s. Customer delayed buys, because a new and
disruptive product generation was coming.

That effect is named as Osborne Effect since the 80s. Let's see what happens
with the upcoming Macs.

~~~
lostlogin
It’s made all the more interesting by the current MacBook line. For the first
time in a very long time it’s a good lineup and is close to the ‘good, better,
best’ of the olden times.

------
coldtea
Shouldn't there be a leasing program for computers?

So you can have the latest model every 3-4 years, give it back if it breaks
down and get a new one pronto, and just pay monthly instalments (with some
premium) instead of the whole upfront fee.

~~~
viraptor
There are programs like that. For example
[https://h20386.www2.hp.com/AustraliaStore/Merch/Offer.aspx?p...](https://h20386.www2.hp.com/AustraliaStore/Merch/Offer.aspx?p=leasing)

------
satvikpendem
I need Windows and macOS support, so it'll be Intel for me. I'm working on a
Hackintosh right now, so hopefully either x86 is supported for a while, or we
can get ARM-based Hackintoshes before the deprecation of x86 macOS.

------
foxyv
This reminds me of the decision to not support Adobe Flash on the original
iPad. It was a huge inconvenience to early adopters but eventually changed the
face of the internet.

I wonder what effect ARM Macs will have on other x86 based environments like
Windows and Linux. Will we start to see a migration from x86 to ARM or will we
retain the split? Ubuntu and Arch have ARM distributions but I can't build a
gaming rig out with ARM. It's mostly non-upgradable integrated systems. Will
that change?

As an iPad 1 early adopter I would hold off on getting an ARM Mac immediately.
Within a year half of the apps in the app store wouldn't work for various
reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens here.

------
sgt
This is a question that comes up regardless of huge paradigm shifts like
changing the CPU architecture. Don't worry so much - what you DO on the
computer is much more important than having the latest spec. Intel Mac's will
be relevant for almost 10 years, based on my experience with the PPC
transition.

~~~
seabrookmx
My experience with the PPC transition was definitely not that. A 2004 PowerMac
G5 lost basically all software support and required community involvement (the
likes of tenfourfox) to even get a competent browser by around 2010. Snow
Leopard released in 2009 and didn't support PPC Macs.

That said, I think the Intel transition will likely be slower. Apple has said
they plan to keep releasing Intel Mac's and there's certain things (discrete
GPU support?) that might motivate them to do so.

That and upgrade cycles on desktops/laptops have also slowed quite a bit in
the last 15 years.

~~~
sgt
I retired my G4-based Mac from everyday use in 2009. I don't recall having
major issues. But I suppose it depended on what you were doing. I was doing
mostly web, Java, Python at the time.

~~~
goalieca
I traded in my iBook g4 around then. It was just too slow and it couldn’t keep
up with basic things we all take for granted. The laptop was the fastest
around when it came out but everything changed so quickly that decade. Not
being able to stream video at any resolution higher than “low” was the final
straw for me.

~~~
sgt
For something that lasted about 9 years, I'd say that was pretty darn good
value for money, at least it was in my case. This led me to continue buying
Mac's until today, mainly Mac Mini, Macbook Air and Macbook Pro's. None of
them have given any issues except the GPU issue on the 2015 MBP, which was
sorted out by Apple. I notice that people complain a lot about Apple quality
having gone down, but one also has to realize the complexities of their
hardware went up quite dramatically, along with their ambitions to change
everything now and then (the keyboard flop comes to mind).

------
angry_octet
I think it is really a very simple question: do you want to run the software
you have now, at the fastest speed possible, with all the current defects? If
so, get an Intel machine now. If you want to be able to do future, different
things, wait for the ARM machine.

Personally I would use something like an Apple Chromebook. Long long battery
life, more secure (from hardware support like the trusted enclave, microarch
stuff like tagged pointers, and the OS moving towards unpriviledged
applications and code signing), better iOS integration.

I think we're actually overdue for Apple to offer cloud offload processing,
especially for iOS, but maybe offload to the edge (your macbook) becomes
easier with ARM.

------
Havoc
Given that the future of mac software will clearly be arm I don't see the
point of buying intel now. Unless you plan on replacing it before transition
period...but even then the resell value will presumably be shocking by then

~~~
ComputerGuru
Given that rMBPs from 2012 and 2013 command a huge premium right now...

You'd basically have to believe that Apple is actually serious about it's non-
iOS offerings and is actually committing to perftecting the hardware and
software to a degree that we haven't seen in a decade.

Remember when Apple "invented" the trashcan workstation that was going to
revolutionize the world of desktop computers? People might prefer to have
trusty tech that supports all the software written today and more or less just
works instead of incredibly ambitious but half-baked and de facto abandoned
tech from tomorrow.

If you take into account that a lot of the impetus behind this transition is
so they can reuse their hardware/software stack from the iOS world, you'll see
that it is quite a leap of faith to take.

~~~
Havoc
>you'll see that it is quite a leap of faith to take.

One that Apple is clearly willing to take. Do you really want to bet against
that?

Full disclosure though - iphone aside I'm not in the apple world so my opinion
may not be particularly informed

------
SV_BubbleTime
> Apple has demoed Rosetta 2 with apps and games, and shown that there's no
> apparent difference between running an Intel app on an Intel machine versus
> an Apple Silicon machine. Everything works as you'd expect, but if
> performance is important to you it may take some time for all your software
> to be updated to support the new processors.

Marketing fluff or what? Because if they are emulating x86 on ARM, doesn’t
there have to be a performance issue? Unless they built their ARM chip with
lots of suspiciously x86-looking functions?

~~~
sroussey
It’s non emulation really. Emulation is like JIT. Only converting code as its
running. So emulator and the code have to run at the same time.

This time they are doing AOT — converting the entire app at once ahead of
time. Slow to start the first time, but decent speed after. Without the source
it is not optimized, but still faster than emulation.

~~~
SV_BubbleTime
AOT / recompile...

Ok, that makes more sense than straight emulation all the time.

------
stunt
If you are building stuff on Apple ecosystem and you can wait, better to go
for ARM.

Otherwise, why do you want to wait? I don't think Apple is going to drop Intel
support anytime soon.

------
jonplackett
If you can wait, then wait. That should always be the motto when buying a mac
anyway. But even more so now.

You will either get the Arm, or get a fantastic deal on an Intel mac.

~~~
rovr138
That should be the motto for everything.

The odds something will have a newer/revised version in the future is higher.

~~~
jonplackett
Every now and then it’s extra true though

------
manicdee
The list of things stopping me going to ARM-based macs:

\- OCR software for my scanner (admittedly becoming less and less relevant
over time) \- Fortinet VPN client which is intel-only \- Steam library (still
on Mojave because half my games won’t work on Catalina)

I can resolve the Steam library issues by getting a dedicated computer to be
my games computer, but then that it an extra thing to carry on long trips.

------
jitendrac
It highly depends on your use case, If your work require Mac extensively [iOs
app dev??]and you also require mobility with device, I will suggest to buy 1-2
year old Mac laptop. else if mobility is not concern, try using Hackintosh
based system. There are many known well working sets of hardware combination
discussed among hackintosh community.

------
valuearb
I would like to switch from my 2018 Mini to a 16 inch MBP, I miss being able
to code anywhere in the house or being able to code elsewhere while waiting
for kids.

But it’s not a need yet, so trying to hold on till Q2 2021 when the 16 inch
ARM MBP is due. Not worried about buying the first version, Apple has always
nailed these transitions incredibly well in the past.

~~~
izacus
Why would you expect that Apple ARM is going to get close to i9 performance of
16" MBP? Nothing from benchmarks shows that.

All the Apple ARM benchmarks I've seen is that they're competitive with
MacBook Air class offerings and not the high performance CPUs.

~~~
valuearb
Best Benchmarks

MBPs with i9s:

Single Core: 1,119

8 Core: 6,900

A12Z (iPad 12.9 inch)

Single Core: 1,118

8 Core: 4,626

A13 Bionic (iPhone 11)

Single Core: 1,327

6 Core: 3,384

Neither of these ARM CPUs will be used in Apple Silicon. It will be an A14
class chip. It will be significantly faster due to

1) New 5 nm process vs. the older 7 nm process.

2) Greater thermal headroom ie they will be able to use more power in laptops
and desktops than in tablets/phones.

3) More cores

It is expected that Apple Silicon will have at least 12 to 20 cores, and more
for high end desktop versions.

4) GPU integration

The current A13 has an Apple integrated GPU that’s reputedly much faster than
the Intel integrated GPUs. The 5 nm process will provide many more transistors
for even faster GPU performance.

My expectation is Apple will have a family of Apple Silicon SOCs next year
that start around 1,400 single core, and with multi-core starting at 7,000 and
going over 20,000 for 30 or 40 core desktop versions.

They will probably include T2 functionality and more, further reducing power
draw.

Also remember that i9s are $200-$300 each. A13s are around $100 each.

MacBooks will get the benefits of longer battery life, faster CPUs & GPUs
while also being as much as $200 cheaper.

------
jimnotgym
Sorry to be boring, but I am wondering about how Arm Macs are going to get on
with Microsoft Office. With my mac users their most used applications are
Outlook, Word and Excel. Somehow I can't set them getting the same level of
support as Adobe is getting. I'm interested what other people think?

~~~
_ph_
Considering that they demoed Powerpoint and Excel in the keynote, I would
assume, that Microsoft is going to offer Office natively from the start on.

------
protomyth
For work, I expect we will buy some Intel Macs, but for myself, I'll probably
go with the ARM since I do some Mac App programming. That whole need Boot Camp
or x86 Windows is a powerful need.

Question, can someone hang a x86 off the thunderbolt port to help with
virtualization?

~~~
na85
> hang a x86 off the thunderbolt port

What does that mean?

~~~
perardi
I think they're asking “can you hang an entire x86 system off of Thunderbolt
like you can an eGPU, and then have x86 binaries execute there?”

Which, no? Probably? If your goal is to run Windows, it’d be cheaper and
easier to just buy a Windows box and then screenshare into it.

~~~
protomyth
I was more thinking of a Stick without the graphics or I/O. Kinda like the old
coprocessor card in some of the early PCs.

------
acdha
It depends on what you’re buying for: if you’re a professional you buy what
runs your software when you need it. If you’re looking to play older games
under Windows, buy Intel and see how the transition goes to see whether you
need to buy a PC next time.

------
justnotworthit
I'd say: If you have to ask, then don't early adopt, even if it's obviously
the future.

I advise against buying 1st-gen/Rev A. hardware to begin with. It's almost
always quickly replaced by something much much better.

------
bpye
The promise of ARM based Macs is delaying my next laptop purchase for a single
reason - battery life. I want to see the battery life metrics of their new
devices, depending on that I intend to decide.

------
gajjanag
Does anyone here have a good source for how fast vector instructions (AVX2 and
the like) will compute under Rosetta2 on the Arm-based Macs vs the current x86
Macs?

~~~
Veedrac
Rosetta 2 doesn't support AVX.

------
Jemm
I'll hold out until Apple decides the iPad format is good enough for MacOS

------
ScottFree
I'd buy an Intel mac from 2015. The modern ones all have their well-documented
problems. The ARM based macs will almost certainly have a small period of
instability and incompatibility when they first launch, just like the Intel
macs did.

~~~
valuearb
The current MacBooks (Air and Pro) are easily the best they’ve ever made, and
have addressed all key complaints from the 2016 redesign.

~~~
als0
What do you think of the keyboard? I'm still lovingly holding on to my 2015
MBP which has keys that actually travel. For context, the last new Mac
keyboard I tried was the butterfly variant.

~~~
valuearb
Lots of people actually liked the 2016 keyboards, less travel is fine for many
people, including me. The real problem as the susceptibility to debris
breaking keys, and not being easily fixable.

So the new MacBook keyboards seemed to have the debris issue licked, and a
little more travel. That’s all I need, but if you want more travel I can see
it’s not there for you yet.

------
fierarul
Of course, the question is a false dichotomy.

Now is the perfect time to switch to something else entirely.

The Ryzen laptops with Linux are beasts and even Windows might be a good
developer workstation with their Linux subsystem.

~~~
qayxc
That time to switch depends entirely on the target demographic, though.

It might be fine for your web developer type or casual user.

Professionals, however, have a lot invested in certain platforms. Be it the
ability to publish their work (e.g. Apple's Walled Garden requires you to use
a Mac for publishing to their app stores), workflows established over years,
or investment in hard- and software that are tied to the Mac ecosystem.

Switching to something else entirely is of course always an option, but it's
not always a realistic or sensible option...

~~~
fierarul
In my book a professional that marries a given platform so hard is no true
professional. Although it might seem oh so sensible and realistic to give into
even more strings to be attached. It should give these professionals pause if
they are so utterly dependent on a system.

There are also quite a lot of professionals that could easily switch with some
minor inconveniences.

PS: I find it jarring how you are associating the casual user with a web
developer type.

~~~
qayxc
> I find it jarring how you are associating the casual user with a web
> developer type.

How so? Both don't require any special hard- or software environment and in
principle only need an environment that provides access to a modern browser
(and optionally some tools for office, graphic editing and the like).

You can use cloud-based services like REPL.it to fulfil all your development
needs in the browser. Backends are available in the cloud and all your source
code lives there anyway. No need for beefy local hardware or any particular
OS.

It's the ultimate platform-agnostic development activity and thus your OS or
hardware shouldn't matter - just like it shouldn't matter for casual users;
every mainstream and even many niche OS these days are usable enough for
everyday tasks and running modern browsers.

If you think it's somehow degrading to say that modern web development doesn't
require any more hard- or software than casually browsing the web, watching
movies, or editing holiday pictures, then you completely missed the point.

It's actually great that you _don 't_ need expensive workstation level hard-
and software to do web development and that - in principle - an iPad with a
keyboard will do.

~~~
fierarul
>> I find it jarring how you are associating the casual user with a web
developer type.

> How so? Both don't require any special hard- or software environment

Because you're implying they're not professionals.

Requiring specific hardware / software doesn't make one more professional.

The entirety of Java developers are using cross platform tools. Are Java
developers not professionals?

More to the point, all the major IDEs are Java based and you could run them on
Linux too.

~~~
qayxc
> Because you're implying they're not professionals.

Don't be ridiculous - nowhere did I imply that. If you feel that way, that's
more projection than anything else.

~~~
fierarul
> Don't be ridiculous - nowhere did I imply that.

You did imply that:

> It might be fine for your web developer type or casual user.

> _Professionals_ , however,....

"However" means "on the other hand" and it looks like you emphasise
professionals.

> If you feel that way, that's more projection than anything else.

Could have also been a Freudian slip from you.

~~~
qayxc
By "professional" I meant self-employed people who make a living from working
with their computer. This should be clear form the context, but alas that's
among the things that go by many people these days.

You chose to ignore this meaning of the word and decided to be offended
instead. Fair enough, but not my problem.

------
rsecora
Maybe latent Osborne effect?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect)

------
jhoechtl
Buy a Ryzen today

~~~
fierarul
+1

The Ryzen 4800h is the biggest leap in terms of CPU power for me since the
Core Duo days. My 2015 MBP seems quite slow now.

And the Lenovo Legion 5 was less that $1000!

------
christiansakai
Will this break VMs like Parallel?

~~~
saagarjha
Yes, until they update for ARM support (they will not run Intel VMs anymore).

------
appleiigs
I am guessing here and hoping some can correct me if i’m wrong: Existing Mac
Intel applications need to transitioned to ARM applications and will be
either: A) recompiled (buggy) or, B) emulated (slow).

My options are: 1) ARM - which will be buggy or slow immediately or, 2) Intel
- which will have problems 5-7 years when Intel apps no longer supported...
and by that time I’ll be ready for a new computer anyway.

So, Option 2) is the way to go??

~~~
lunixbochs
They are recompiled by Rosetta at install time, leaked benchmarks indicate
it’s not slow.

~~~
sfgweilr4f
This puzzles me. Why don't they just recompile the projects to ARM and go with
fat binaries? Stop emulating things. It wastes power. Plus the compiler
toolchain already exists.

~~~
acdha
That’s what they announced, and it’s trivial as you’d expect from a company
which has at times supported 4 architectures (32/64-bit PowerPC and Intel).
Rosetta 2 is for the apps which don’t do that.

