Well, Apple is moving towards increasingly locked down systems. For example, it is very difficult if not impossible to install Linux on the most recent Macbooks. Previously when Apple stopped supporting a Mac, you could install Linux on it. I suspect with the ARM systems going forward, that will become even more difficult.

In other words, it is not just about better performance. It is also about Apple removing your freedoms with your own hardware in the name of 'security'. (I am not saying that there isn't increased security, but at what price?)

I would certainly love if Apple made this device friendly to Linux use. The lack of Bootcamp support makes it seem unlikely, but I can hope. The fact that they made a point of demoing Linux in a VM is (very) slightly encouraging.

The lack of Bootcamp is because Windows didn't want to support selling on Windows for ARM. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/24/21302213/apple-silicon-ma...

It's Microsoft's fault that they don't sell Windows for ARM so including Bootcamp would have no reason (as despite us power users, the primary use case for Bootcamp (it's even in the logo) is running Windows).

If they want to lock down the system there's nothing about x86 that prevents them from doing so there. So that's a faulty argument.

At around $25 a month if your laptop lasts for 6 years

I'm not a fan of these computations. If the computer functions, you should still be able to use it, regardless of how much existing use you get out of it.

I think I got 18 months out of my last two MacBooks before they gave out. Moved to windows desktops now. Much better value propositions, especially now as we don’t have to go out any more! :)

You're very unlucky. I'm still using the same macbook pro I got in 2013.

Ouch.. I guess I was lucky.

I'm on a late 2013 which I've only actually paid for a battery replacement on, so I can anecdote believe you.

I'm not in love with macos though and there's more good options nowadays than there was in 2013.

Not at all. Some people, me included, look at hardware and it falls to bits. Really they're not particularly durable machines. Apple could do a lot better.

Thinkpads are ok though. I haven't murdered one of them. Yet. I've tried and failed several times from coffee to catapulting them and they just eat my hamfistedness.

I just bought a replacement iPad for my daughter for the one that we bought in 2013 though. Stuff can last a long time.

Nah, our household has a collection of macs none newer than 2017. My phone and iPad are from 2014 and my gf’s from 2015, and I have a watch 0. They all work fine and, except for the watch and geriatric macs, continue to get software updates.

This will be a good excuse to start a mass upgrade but I won’t be an early adopter.

Or the parent was unlucky - with some faulty production units, and the general case for most people, with hundreds of millions of units sold and the highest customer satisfaction ratings, is not that.

better performance only if your desired software runs on the new processor. if not then what do you have?

I am a light weight user in the Mac world, browsing and some games. However the few games left after the Catalina change to drop 32 bit support are still important to me. One of the publishers has preemptively dropped support for Mac and its near impossible to tell if others will continue support into AS.

I know, there is a crowd out there that loves to declare "you should not use your Mac for games" along with "Buy a system for games then". Well let me be blunt, if it cannot serve both purposes then it serves none which means leaving the platform behind.

So I look at AS with excitement and trepidation all at the same time with the realization my current Mac may well be my last.

Didn’t Wendker demo a video game running under emulation? That should work fine for your 64 bit games.

And it’s not like your old hardware will suddenly stop working. If you want to place PS2 games you need an old PS2, and this is the same.

Also, along the line of your old hardware still working: no need to upgrade any time soon.

I’m hopeful we’ll see something similar to the move Steam has made for old Pc games. With a little love, devs can usually get an old Windows 95 game running as we’ve seen in the past few years.

If the Apple silicon is powerful enough, it might not matter if there is a huge performance hit for the emulation. It’ll be an interesting next 5 years for sure.

> better performance only if your desired software runs on the new processor. if not then what do you have?

Well of course... Give it some time for the patches to come. Recompiling for multiple processor architectures is easier now than it used to be.

> I know, there is a crowd out there that loves to declare "you should not use your Mac for games" along with "Buy a system for games then". Well let me be blunt, if it cannot serve both purposes then it serves none which means leaving the platform behind.

I think you SHOULD use a Mac for games. Most people saying that are not in fact Mac users. The ARM transition isn't going to push Mac games out of existence. In fact it'll probably push Microsoft to properly treat ARM as a first class citizen so companies will be compiling their software for two different architectures anyway.

Rosetta 2 translates x86 instructions to ARM and cache result. That translation seems quite good given that they demonstrated a complex 3D game running translated code on ARM hardware much weaker than what Apple will deliver in laptops.

Honestly I think x86 games will run better on these ARM laptops. Keep in mind x86 on laptops don’t work great. Apple could outperform most of their x86 laptops with a passively cooled ARM tablet.

An ARM laptop with active cooling will destroy their x86 lineup.

Besides you also get the whole iOS games catalog now which is much larger than the macOS game selection.

The iOS catalog is moot until devs starting making real games for the platform. Apple Arcade and a few indie studios have done great, but for the most part, iOS games are micro transaction laden trash. It will take years before we see any real desktop level games developed to run exclusively on ARM macs.

I think the success of gaming on the platform will come down to game engine devs like Unreal and Unity. If they can optimize exports to target Apple silicon with minimal overhead, that’s the best bet to see gaming live on. Otherwise, I don’t see how any AAA studios can find it worth their time to build for 2 completely different architectures.

One interesting exception might be EA, as The Sims is hugely popular among casual crowds that might have a MacBook for college or something. But in the case of EA, they also will create a new Sims game and then milk it for a decade, thus paying back their R&D costs. Other studios who frequently make new games and want to push the hardware may not be as inclined to spend that with such a small install base.

> Because Apple is switching to Arm for better performance?

Because I wont be able to run Windows in Fusion without a very big performance hit.

[benchmarks needed]

They will come, when the computers are available. But Apple wouldn't invest in doing it at great expensive if it didn't produce a better more competitive product.

Look at the transition dev kit. Also, look at the intel’s iris vs apple’s gpu

Shouldn't you compare to Intel Xe for integrated graphics performance?

No, when you're trying to disrespect Intel it's customary to compare announced imaginary parts to obsolete Intel parts.

Look at what from the transition kit? The only thing available show it having single-core performance that would have been state-of-the-art ten years ago. Is there something newer and more impressive?