schmatzler wrote on 2020-01-09, 10:48:

Phew, that is wrong on so many levels. I'd argue the Linux ecosystem is dominating the computer industry - if you count in all the massive datacentres that make the Internet work.

Apple is mainly used by creative workers, hipsters and people who don't know any better.

Hollywood also uses their mac pros for video editing. Its really a pro work, trust me.

I would say the overall linux share is purely due to android marketshare on mobile platform. There are still far more desktops than servers in the world. And far more mobiles than tablets...

Overall: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share
Linux ~40%, Windows ~34%... macOS is ~7%

Desktop: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide
Windows ~78%, macOS/OSX ~17% ... linux ~1%

Mobile: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
Android ~74%, iOS ~25% ... the rest not worth mentioning.

Tablet: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/tablet/worldwide
iOS ~63%, android ~36% ...

Apple made more money than MS last year, but then again their markup is so high compared to others. e.g Dell would have to sell a number of PC's (and windows lic) to have the same profit as Apple selling a single MacPro. And thats just desktop computers, pretty much all large tech companies make substatial money from 'services' rather than retail.

schmatzler wrote on 2020-01-09, 10:48:

Phew, that is wrong on so many levels. I'd argue the Linux ecosystem is dominating the computer industry - if you count in all the massive datacentres that make the Internet work.

Apple is mainly used by creative workers, hipsters and people who don't know any better.

He's from an alternate universe where the iPad is the best gaming PC.

schmatzler wrote on 2020-01-09, 10:48:

Phew, that is wrong on so many levels. I'd argue the Linux ecosystem is dominating the computer industry - if you count in all the massive datacentres that make the Internet work.

Apple is mainly used by creative workers, hipsters and people who don't know any better.

If Apple did not switch to OSX ( UNIX ) and Intel Processors the would be back in 1980’s
With Motorola processors and Macintosh OS.

It is the UNIX community and Intel loyalist that made the Mac what it is today.

You might want to go back and compare benchmarks of the PowerPC macs to equivalent Intel systems at the time...
They switched to Intel because they're cheap and knew their customers would still pay premium prices for budget hardware.

There are rumours of Apple thinking about doing ARM-based Macs. While I don't know if this is entirely true, I would not like an ARM-based Mac and neither support or buy it. Leave them (ARM processors) to the tablets and smartphones, where they do really excel. I don't believe an ARM-based macbook or iMac would be as powerful as a x86 PC or Mac can be for trivial daily tasks or gaming.

For me, if Apple does switch to ARM-based macs they would be repeating the errors that almost killed them in the past (Gil Amelio's era). They actually are repeating some of these errors (with several versions of iPhones, iPads...). One of the things Jobs did when he returned was to clean up completely their product line for a more simple one. And this worked wonders for them.

Apple is the #1 choice for creative works (designers, video editors, architects...), yes it is. There's no doubt about that. I am one of these creative people.

I pretty much see the things the same way schmatzler posted above except the unecessary last part of his post ("people who don't know any better"). But I won't enter into that discussion.

While I am an Apple fan, I like their OS environment (iOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS) and I am very comfortable with it. As a creative person, Apple's environment allows me to express my creativity better than any other.

But I am the kind of fan that recognizes where Apple does mistakes, go wrong and what they can improve. And they are wrong in so many things since Steve's death. Especially with their hardware decisions.

I won't even enter into a discussion about how crap the Android is, because I don't want to sound too repetitive.

However, I do like some linux distros, I do like very old Windows classic versions (but really hate with all my heart the Windows XP, Vista, 8 and 10). And have no problem in using them. I even have some love for Win 3.x, Win 9x, and debian-based linux distros.

Some PC parts do work with macOS (the thread title really needs to be changed), I've created some hackintoshes back in 2014-2017, when I needed something to dual-boot with Windows for my sim-racing online championships. But you need to be prepared to waste some ridiculous amount of time to make them work and another amount of time for maintenance.

jmarsh wrote on 2020-01-09, 13:44:

You might want to go back and compare benchmarks of the PowerPC macs to equivalent Intel systems at the time...
They switched to Intel because they're cheap and knew their customers would still pay premium prices for budget hardware.

According to Steve Jobs himself, the reason was simply because PowerPC couldn't keep up with intel in performance and power consumption. Makes sense, that was the impression we all had at that time.

Quoting some text easy for everyone to find:
"In his keynote address on June 6, 2005 at WWDC, Steve Jobs officially stated that the reason for switching from PowerPC-based to Intel-based systems was:

Because we want to make the best computers for our customers looking forward. Now, I stood up here two years ago in front of you and I promised you [a 3 GHz Power Macintosh G5], and we haven't been able to deliver that to you yet. I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook and we haven't been able to deliver that to you yet. But these aren't even the most important reasons. The most important reasons are that as we look ahead, though we may have great products right now, and we've got some great PowerPC product still yet to come, as we look ahead we can envision some amazing products we want to build for you and we don't know how to build them with the future PowerPC road map. And that's why we're going to do this. When we look at Intel, they've got great performance, yes, but they've got something else that's very important to us. Just as important as performance, is power consumption. And the way we look at it is performance per watt. For one watt of power how much performance do you get? And when we look at the future road maps projected out in mid-2006 and beyond, what we see is the PowerPC gives us sort of 15 units of performance per watt, but the Intel road map in the future gives us 70, and so this tells us what we have to do."

Edit: italics on this font has the comic sans effect on me

bfcastello wrote on 2020-01-09, 13:55:

Apple is the #1 choice for creative works (designers, video editors, architects...), yes it is. There's no doubt about that. I am one of these creative people.

Not so much AEC (Arhcitecture Engineering and Construction)... neither Revit nor Bentley have native macOS ports, and the other big player ArchiCAD is OpenGL, so now that macOS have deprecated OpenGL it's a ticking time bomb for Graphisoft unless they are working on a metal backend. While various CAD packages do work on macOS with native ports (namely AutoCAD), not many specialised CAD programs do, and the world of CAD is full of specialisations these days. AutoCAD while popular with many industries, is generic so has a limited market in many industries. I certainly wouldn't recommend an Apple for CAD personally.

bfcastello wrote on 2020-01-09, 13:55:

There are rumours of Apple thinking about doing ARM-based Macs. While I don't know if this is entirely true

Yes this has been rumoured for the past couple of years (since about 2016, and around the time they dropped powerVR). I think it is only a matter of time before they go ARM. They have been designing their own ARM SoC's for over 10 years now and as each year goes on they are less depedant on third parties for this. The direction is only going one way... ARM's are not that bad and getting better. x64 is brute force, ARM still packs a punch in terms of throughput (especially considering it's power requirements).

For me, Snow Leopard/Lion was their heyday. It started to go downhill from Mountain Lion onwards imo... I feel they have been somewhat lacking in creativity dept when it comes to their OS... Just plodding along... I suspect they don't really care and prefer to put effort into their iOS (portable rather than desktop) ecosystem these days. They have been tunneling the ethos into their closed environment even on macOS for the last few years, so it's all pointing one direction.

Personally, I don’t know enough to have a preference between Motorola and Intel. They both work fine for me.
Obviously it had more to do with the customer loyalty base.
At the time it was Win/tel vs. Apple/Motorola.
And SGI , Sun and HP used RISC CPU’s with UNIX operating systems.

I like the simplicity of the Macintosh and Mac and Apple products.
Steve Jobs said “Build the best computer and don’t settle for anything less”.
And that the way I look at Apple. They always choose the best value components for the moment.
So users don’t have to know how to build a computer. if someone’s study in another subject there is NO need to know how to build a computer. I have worked in IT in the past and I can’t tell you how many professionals I have meet that did not know how to configure or program a computer. There studies where in other fields like engineering, science, medicine, etc.
All they wanted was for the computer to work so they could do there jobs and complete there projects.
Email servers, webservers, clusters, fail over, printers, databases, etc.
They just want it all to work seamlessly so they could complete there projects.

So as long as it works I have no preference as to what CPU or Software vender they use as long as it is reliable.

Computer programmers like the power of UNIX and performance on Intel CPU’s.
Even Sun Microsystems Solaris on Intel CPU’s.
Linux on Intel.
Etc...

Today, Intel CPU’s dominate the computer market.

spiroyster wrote on 2020-01-09, 14:21:

ARM's are not that bad and getting better. x64 is brute force, ARM still packs a punch in terms of throughput (especially considering it's power requirements).

ARM definitely has a high power consumption, I have a rPi3 and my I need to buy a new power supply instead of the one that came with it, because apparently it's not enough.

spiroyster wrote on 2020-01-09, 14:21:

They have been tunneling the ethos into their closed environment even on macOS for the last few years, so it's all pointing one direction.

Probably because they want to merge it. Catalyst is one of the ways to do it. Correct me if I am wrong, but all Catalyst does is allow you to make macOS versions of your iOS apps, not the other way around. My problem with that (merge) is... I don't want to see the macOS being more like iOS, i'd rather see it other way around. Then it'd be a powerful OS for iPads.

The NEW iPads are Fast !
Some are faster than the quad core intel MacBooks.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-01-09, 14:46:

The NEW iPads are Fast !
Some are faster than the quad core intel MacBooks.

Faster at doing what? Rendering videos?

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-01-09, 14:46:

The NEW iPads are Fast !
Some are faster than the quad core intel MacBooks.

ROFL, I have DOSBox in both, and these iPads can't barely play Grand Prix 2 without their Processor Occupancy skyrocket above 500% unless I make changes to disable certain stuff.

While on a Mac, the DOSBox can play GP2 within 100% PO. And GP2 is a 1996 game...

appiah4 wrote on 2020-01-09, 14:48:

Faster at doing what? Rendering videos?

They fly faster through the air when you throw them (up to a point; the macbook's mass gives them advantage when combined with gravity).

jmarsh wrote on 2020-01-09, 15:00:

appiah4 wrote on 2020-01-09, 14:48:

Faster at doing what? Rendering videos?

They fly faster through the air when you throw them (up to a point; the macbook's mass gives them advantage when combined with gravity).

Physics 101: v=a.t

Mass has nothing to do with falling speed 😉

bfcastello wrote on 2020-01-09, 14:52:

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-01-09, 14:46:

The NEW iPads are Fast !
Some are faster than the quad core intel MacBooks.

ROFL, I have DOSBox in both, and these iPads can't barely play Grand Prix 2 without their Processor Occupancy skyrocket above 500% unless I make changes to disable certain stuff.

While on a Mac, the DOSBox can play GP2 within 100% PO. And GP2 is a 1996 game...

Don't compare different cores... if you using the old port of Dosbox by Litchie (dospad on github, iDos on the AppStore), then keep in mind that it has no dynamic core. The ARM dynamic core was added to the DOSBox source much later.
So, at best compare the normal cores at the time the source was at the same stage (DOSBox SVN had more OS X improvements since then).
I bet that with the ARM dynamic core the current iPads would fly...

(Apart from that I wish this discussion could stay on a more leveled course and not go into cheap shots)

I'll give you that point, because you're right. If there was an update to Litchie's DOSBox port to current source version, for sure the GP2 game would be much faster in a current iPad, although mine is the 2nd gen iPad Pro 12.9 inch model.

bfcastello wrote on 2020-01-09, 14:43:

ARM definitely has a high power consumption, I have a rPi3 and my I need to buy a new power supply instead of the one that came with it, because apparently it's not enough.

Not in comparison to most x64 requirements (excluding the likes of Atom). ARM in the rpi3 draws like 0.5 watts? compare that to what a desktop draws and look at the TDP requirements of both (not too mention GPU draw, and the GPU is where a lot of number crunching happens these days). ARM is the power/performance dominant architecture... which is why tablets and phones use it, as they could have a lot of processing power with minimal power draw (you can only have so much in a battery, and especially if you want that battery to last a practical amount of time between charges) ergo being mobile. Desktops that are plugged in do not worry about things like this. In fact when you write an iOS app there are guidlines you have to abide by in order to minimise consumption and Apple actually actively check you meet these requirements with iOS apps before allowing deployment to the store. Applications on desktops have a totally different set of rules, and many things that they don't have to worry about in comparison.

Now think of it this way... how many ARM cores could you have at the same consumption of an x64 desktop.... shite loads! Thats a lot of power! Unsure if it could compete, but I think it's only a matter of time. Of course the other thing to think about is everything going cloud... so client side requirements will be small, we can leave it to the power hunger data centres to do our processing... in this sense doesn't matter what they use as long as we get a result.

bfcastello wrote on 2020-01-09, 14:43:

Probably because they want to merge it. Catalyst is one of the ways to do it. Correct me if I am wrong, but all Catalyst does is allow you to make macOS versions of your iOS apps, not the other way around. My problem with that (merge) is...

Thats exactly my point. There are UI design considerations going from a small screen (mobile) to a slightly larger one (tablet) and then going to a desktop (potentially 4K). Remember at first seeing what an iPhone iOS app was like on the early iPads... awful. It was great that you could run them but the experience wasn't exaclty great, and the graphics were all blocky (because they were designed with a different screen size in mind). Layouts and scaling all have to be changed otherwise you would have masses of wasted screen real estate... not to mention you can have multiple display contexts/windows/views on a desktop which while possible, is extrememly cumbersome on a mobile... slightly more practical on a tablet but still you only have minimal space, and your finger would obstruct a lot of view. The UI/UX is completely different for different devices. When you write an iOS app you need to define what target device you want to use it for, and supply different icon sets/layouts for the differnet devices. It won't go through Apple's vetting process if you don't, and they can be bordeline fascistict in enforcing this. You're a web developer? Why do you think there is a distinction between 'mobile friendly' and 'desktop friendly' site? Just look at all the complaints mobile users had before the forum redesign.

This started to come in in Mountain Lion (although I think the App store stuff actually started in Lion) which is why I said it started going downhill from there. Desktops with keyboards and mice, behave and perform totally different to touch devices with smaller screens. Doesn't stop Apple trying though.

I will add that I'm not entirely against it, however it may change the way Apple desktop environments are... they will diverge substantially from Linux.... tbh I suspect Windows might go the same way, although not approaching it from the mobile App way... rather just removal of cascading... they already tried it with MetroUI, and while that was hated at the time... more and more applications seem to be utilising their display space in more similar ways.. perhaps MetroUI was just a bit too early... users still wanted resizable windows... but I suspect users might be more open to it these days after over a decade of mobile usage which can somewhat change the physiche of how a user interacts and potentially expect the UI to behave and operate.... who knows?

bfcastello wrote on 2020-01-09, 14:43:

I don't want to see the macOS being more like iOS, i'd rather see it other way around. Then it'd be a powerful OS for iPads.

Well thats what I reckon Apple want.. iOS on desktops. Goodbye cascading window system (and even perhaps commandline 😉)!....Unlikely the opposite is going to happen, try using a UMPC which provides all the capabilities of a desktop environment on a small scale... It's very difficult, likewise try using an app designed for use on a small screen (icons need to be oversized, pointer is no longer touch, instead there is a mouse pointer [which doesn't obscure] and the ability to display stuff side-by-side while still being of some readable practical value etc) on a Desktop display. Pixellated or what?

bfcastello wrote on 2020-01-09, 13:55:

There are rumours of Apple thinking about doing ARM-based Macs. While I don't know if this is entirely true, I would not like an ARM-based Mac and neither support or buy it. Leave them (ARM processors) to the tablets and smartphones, where they do really excel. I don't believe an ARM-based macbook or iMac would be as powerful as a x86 PC or Mac can be for trivial daily tasks or gaming.

I'm using an Raspberry Pi (not current gen) for about two months now, because our Win XP/7 PC broke and a new Win 10 PC is out of question.
From what I can tell, it *works*. Although experience isn't the best. Having 15+ tabs open in the browser is borderline on that platform.
But popular emulators, like DOSBox, are running fine there, so performance in general isn't too shabby.
Personally, I'm not sure if ARM is the future really. RISC V doesn't seem bad, either.

Also keep in mind on most mobile platforms CPU performance is limited due to thermal throttling. They all do it, the only variant is how often/for how long. It's a different story in a desktop environment where a cooler can be used.