NovusBogus wrote:Macbook Pro sales will see a noticeable drop in sales due to losing the buyers who installed Windows on top of the otherwise rather good hardware.
I don't think that group represents a large % of sales.
Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
NovusBogus wrote:Macbook Pro sales will see a noticeable drop in sales due to losing the buyers who installed Windows on top of the otherwise rather good hardware.
Glorious wrote:ARM was originally a desktop processor. Apple basically bought it,
End User wrote:NovusBogus wrote:Macbook Pro sales will see a noticeable drop in sales due to losing the buyers who installed Windows on top of the otherwise rather good hardware.
I don't think that group represents a large % of sales.
End User wrote:NovusBogus wrote:Macbook Pro sales will see a noticeable drop in sales due to losing the buyers who installed Windows on top of the otherwise rather good hardware.
I don't think that group represents a large % of sales.
just brew it! wrote:developers who need to use VMware or VirtualBox to run other x86 OSes in VMs on top of OS X likely represent a rather larger % of sales. I'm one of those developers, and personally work with many more. So that would probably be several dozen lost sales just from my co-workers.
End User wrote:just brew it! wrote:developers who need to use VMware or VirtualBox to run other x86 OSes in VMs on top of OS X likely represent a rather larger % of sales. I'm one of those developers, and personally work with many more. So that would probably be several dozen lost sales just from my co-workers.
A dedicated VM server solution works for me.
End User wrote:"ARM Holdings develops the architecture and licenses it to other companies, who design their own products that implement one of those architectures"
wiki wrote:In the late 1980s Apple Computer and VLSI Technology started working with Acorn on newer versions of the ARM core. In 1990, Acorn spun off the design team into a new company named Advanced RISC Machines Ltd.,[24][25][26] which became ARM Ltd when its parent company, ARM Holdings plc, floated on the London Stock Exchange and NASDAQ in 1998.[27] The new Apple-ARM work would eventually evolve into the ARM6, first released in early 1992. Apple used the ARM6-based ARM610 as the basis for their Apple Newton PDA.
End User wrote:A dedicated VM server solution works for me.
End User wrote:I sense a disturbance.
Captain Ned wrote:End User wrote:I sense a disturbance.
Yeah, in the RDF.
just brew it! wrote:Ahh, blessed silence.Captain Ned wrote:As if millions of Mac users suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced?End User wrote:Yeah, in the RDF.I sense a disturbance.
just brew it! wrote:Captain Ned wrote:End User wrote:I sense a disturbance.
Yeah, in the RDF.
As if millions of Mac users suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced?
SSK wrote:If arm can still do that reasonably well then many people will happily buy it.
sweatshopking wrote:Ok
So thinking about what a lot of the Mac owners I know use their pc for
Netflix
Porn
Music
Porn
Netflix
Microsoft word
Excel sometimes
Netflix
Yeah, that covers at least 90 percent. It's why the bought macs, because they need that macos to handle their workload, not some goofy windows pc. If arm can still do that reasonably well then many people will happily buy it.
Captain Ned wrote:just brew it! wrote:Ahh, blessed silence.Captain Ned wrote:As if millions of Mac users suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced?Yeah, in the RDF.
Glorious wrote:End User wrote:"ARM Holdings develops the architecture and licenses it to other companies, who design their own products that implement one of those architectures"
This low-effort nonsense of yours makes it impossible for anyone to tell if you are trying to refute me or agreeing with me, but I'll actually use that link to demonstrate that, yes, whatever your vague pretensions, I was right.
Glorious wrote:ARM was originally a desktop processor. Apple basically bought it,
End User wrote:You have a problem with Mac users?
End User wrote:I was replying that nonsense. Apple is an Arm architectural licensee.
YOUR CITE wrote:In the late 1980s Apple Computer and VLSI Technology started working with Acorn on newer versions of the ARM core. In 1990, Acorn spun off the design team into a new company named Advanced RISC Machines Ltd.,[24][25][26] which became ARM Ltd when its parent company, ARM Holdings plc, floated on the London Stock Exchange and NASDAQ in 1998.[27] The new Apple-ARM work would eventually evolve into the ARM6, first released in early 1992. Apple used the ARM6-based ARM610 as the basis for their Apple Newton PDA.
Wikipedia wrote:The company was founded in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd and structured as a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) and VLSI Technology.[32][33][34] The new company intended to further the development of the Acorn RISC Machine processor, which was originally used in the Acorn Archimedes and had been selected by Apple for their Newton project.
Wikipedia wrote:Apple and Acorn began to collaborate on developing the ARM, and it was decided that this would be best achieved by a separate company.[55] The bulk of the Advanced Research and Development section of Acorn that had developed the ARM CPU formed the basis of ARM Ltd. when that company was spun off in November 1990. Acorn Group and Apple Computer Inc each had a 43% shareholding in ARM (in 1996),[56] while VLSI was an investor and first ARM licensee.[57]
article wrote:Apple, who had persuaded Acorn to make the ARM platform independent, took a 43 percent stake in the new company for US$3 million.
Apple began using the first generation of mobile ARM chips in its Newton Message Pad launched the 1993. In addition to supplying chips to Apple and Acorn, ARM began licensing the rights to manufacture its chip designs as well as offering an architectural license to technology firms interested in incorporating and modifying ARM’s core technologies into their custom chip designs.
just brew it! wrote:End User wrote:just brew it! wrote:developers who need to use VMware or VirtualBox to run other x86 OSes in VMs on top of OS X likely represent a rather larger % of sales. I'm one of those developers, and personally work with many more. So that would probably be several dozen lost sales just from my co-workers.
A dedicated VM server solution works for me.
My employer is in the central business district, and many of the employees (myself included) commute long distances on public transit. I can't work on the train effectively if I'm relying on a remote server and a mobile internet connection that cuts in and out randomly because I'm sitting in a tin can hurtling down the tracks at 60 MPH.
We in fact do use VM servers quite extensively. We have a datacenter full of 'em. But sometimes you just need/want to run stuff locally.
Glorious wrote:Apple isn't just a customer of ARM Holdings, Apple is it's MOM.
DerFunk wrote:I was more-or-less with you right up until here. The Newton was a disaster. Apple dumped $100M into the project, which in the early 1990s was an enormous investment for the company. The Palm Pilot made it obsolete and Steve Jobs mercifully put it out of its misery.
DerFunk wrote:So all that is to say that just because Apple used ARM processors in a failed project doesn't make Apple ARM's "mom".
Glorious wrote:DerFunk wrote:I was more-or-less with you right up until here. The Newton was a disaster. Apple dumped $100M into the project, which in the early 1990s was an enormous investment for the company. The Palm Pilot made it obsolete and Steve Jobs mercifully put it out of its misery.
Yes, the Newton was a failure. No argument there. But I'm not really talking about that (other than to make the point to End User that the first ARM chips apple used were SUPPLIED, not licensed).
No, I am talking about Apple's 43% (equal to ARM's original owner's portion) stake in the idea that maybe we should convince Acorn to let us turn ARM into a licenseable architecture. Yes, as part of doing a failure, but there was never any requirement that Apple even do that--the Newton chips were supplied by VLSI, not licensed. It really was a largely separate idea, and yes, it was entirely beause of Apple. I documented all that if you read the links I provided closely.
They spent 100 million on the Newton? Ok, well, they spent 3 million roughly doing the above, and they cashed out over a billion dollars divesting from it between 1998-2003, when Steve Jobs desperately needed those funds to, you know, turn the company around from disaster into the most profitable thing like EVER.
[quote="DerFunk]So all that is to say that just because Apple used ARM processors in a failed project doesn't make Apple ARM's "mom".[/quote]
Right but they set up a joint venture to license ARM to anyone as part of that. It was entirely Apple's idea. And if they had waited another decade or so to divest, it would have been over 10 billion dollars, not 1 billion.
I don't think that's any real "aw shucks" moment though, considering without that ~1 billion between 1998-2003, they wouldn't be a roughly ONE TRILLION dollar market cap company today. [/quote]
Captain Ned wrote:Are they buying it because of documented and actual "superior performance" or are they buying it because to do so signals virtue and confirms their membership in a self-selected club?
Captain Ned wrote:I've watched Apple since roughly 1978.
Captain Ned wrote:While they have clearly had periods where they were the top of the heap for PC performance, those days are at least 15 years ago. What was friendly kidding over the RDF circa 1990s has clearly morphed into fetishisation to signal entry into a desired social class.
Glorious wrote:windwalker wrote:Glorious wrote:You are saying the only difference between a "real" Mac with x86 and a "real" Mac with Apple ARM is that you won't be able to hackintosh for cheaper once Apple goes Apple ARM.
I haven't said that at all.
Literally, you did.
Here, let me help you:windwalker wrote:That's me. The only Mac I'm interested in is an ARM one.
I see no reason to buy a real Mac when I can hackintosh a cheap PC.
Do you understand deductive logic?
Or can you explain to me what you meant to say as opposed to what you actually did?windwalker wrote:Congratulations, you have vanquished the straw man.
Can you even explain what this strawman argument of mine even is?
Because, dude, I know you can't.windwalker wrote:Maybe to you. To me it's about price and quality, just like any other product. In the case of computing products performance is the largest part of quality.
And it'll just be faster, because?
Previously you said it "can be", now you are acting as if it is a given?windwalker wrote:x86 processors are not particularly useful for any task, they are general purpose.
x86 is the JavaScript of instruction sets: surpassed by most competitors and rendered wholly inadequate yet still widely used because of the cost of breaking the inertia.
Which architecture surpasses x86?
Put your cards up, brah.windwalker wrote:Dude, you have a serious problem with reality perception. Where did you get this silly notion that I won't be able to hackintosh any more?
Where are you going to buy an Apple ARM processor from? Currently, you can buy equivalent Intel processors+boards from basically anyone. You're not in the same situation with ARM, at all, for innumerable reasons.
Do you understand literally any of this stuff?windwalker wrote:That makes zero sense.
There is no reason, no business case and no market niche for an ARM Mac that is not significantly cheaper than an equivalent x86 model.
WHICH IS WHY YOU USE CHEAPER HACKINTOSHES???!?!?!?!? OMGWTFBBQ-WHO-THE-HECK-ARE-YOU?!!?!
DUDE THOSE ARE -YOUR- WORDS:windwalker wrote:I see no reason to buy a real Mac when I can hackintosh a cheap PC.
YOU ARE INSANE, AS I SAID FROM THE START BEFORE YOU EVEN POSTED ANYTHING.windwalker wrote:Apple doesn't have a huge markup on Macs. Just because PC makers have the profit margins of potato farmers doesn't make Apple cartoonish evil greedy bloodsuckers.
WHAT DIMENSION HAVE YOU COME FROM?
The Macintosh takes ~50% of ALL profits for the PC sector, year after year.
Macs constitute 5%-10% of all PCs.
YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE, AS YOU HACKINTOSH "CHEAP PCS"
YOUR OWN WORDS, LET ME HELP YOU x2windwalker wrote:I see no reason to buy a real Mac when I can hackintosh a cheap PC
^ DUDE THAT GUY ABOVE WAS YOU THE WHOLE TIME!windwalker wrote:Just because other people have different preferences doesn't make them stupid or insane or brainwashed.
I'm not even anti-Apple, I've defended them plenty of times in the past.
You are just moon-barking insane and walking a complete contradiction.
EDIT: My head might explode, where do we find these people?!?
HOW ARE YOU EVEN REAL?
christos_thski wrote:I remember when Apple zealots were making that argument back in 1994. They even had, like, graphs and ****. ALL SCIENTIFIC MAN.
Can't find the original ad on my old byte magazine stack, so here's a faithful recreation.
I forget though. How did that turn out?
chuckula wrote:The funny point about what windwalker risibly refers to as "logic" is that he inevitably ends up committing heresy by calling Apple a bunch of idiots while pretending that he's their biggest fan.
HERETIC wrote:YUP-It's a combination of
1.K.I.S.S.
2.Make it pretty.
3.Con purchasers into believing they're paying a high price,because they're getting the best.
HERETIC wrote:And they still can't get the most basic of things right-A keyboard that just works.............................