Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-01, 19:04:

I wouldn't use a pen on a phone - but on a tablet yes.

Could not agree more.

I like it on 2-1-computers (most useful when tablet part is on it's own, but also good for notes in OneNote laptop mode), and perfect on tablets. But I never liked it on phones (had a model with it once), and do not miss it at all on my phones.

schmatzler wrote on 2020-07-01, 19:38:

The only reason why Apple hasn't put a Wacom touchscreen into their Macbooks is that they're afraid to kill the iPad sales. Why […]
Show full quote

The only reason why Apple hasn't put a Wacom touchscreen into their Macbooks is that they're afraid to kill the iPad sales. Why buy a tablet when you can get a notebook that is also a tablet?

I might even switch to Apple if they had a similar device to my ThinkPad L390 Yoga which is very versatile.
- I can use touch to read PDF's (print magazines, for example) and scroll through / zoom into them with my finger.
- I can also use the Wacom tablet with my Bamboo pen to draw and be creative. 4096 pressure points is a very high sensitivity to simulate all kinds of brushes.
- I can take quick notes in OneNote while speaking to a customer on a phone or sitting right next to them.

All of this in one device instead of two.

But: Apple can do marketing better than Lenovo. Their devices aren't nearly as capable in comparison, but they make really good ads.

I have several MBP's, and I would also love if Apple (at least as an extra option) offered touch screens and pen enabled screens on future versions of them.

Was quite close just two months ago to buy the new 16" MBP, which is really a great computer and power house (being still very portable), but choose a Surface Book 3 instead. Extremely happy with it!

SPBHM wrote on 2020-07-01, 20:30:

very curious to see how far Apple can push their SoCs, I've been very impressed by what they are doing for a while (at least since 2014), so without the form factor/TDP limitations of a phone/tablet things can get interesting,

I agree. Apple has been extremely good at their development of their ARM implementations, and other silicon. I think they mount the biggest challenge to the x86 architecture and dominance in the desktop market, for decades, and I think they have good chance to succeed very well.

Will be extremely interesting to follow this development!

Any news on VMware Fusion Tech Preview? I heard it could be out this month but not sure when. I need to virtualize Big Sur and run Xcode 12 beta to start learning some things about the new UI.

Not yet

Anyone noticed the striking similarity of macOS Big Sur with Linux Deepin OS 20 ?

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/07/07/ap … pport-in-danger

I guess eGPU will still be a thing for some years

I dont understand why so many of you are so against the apple idea to make their own CPUs. Intel is lacking any amazing way to surprise us. AMD is catching up, but the software support (drivers etc.) from the AMD is always somehow shaky. I have Threadripper CPU and windows is somehow problematic - only linux is giving me proper access to this HW. I also have AMD SSG video card (its not cheap). Funny reality is that this card runs without any graphical glitches (3D Coat, Maya, Houdini, Blender, Substance) only on my Hackintosh box that runs on my i9 7940x and the SSG video card. On Windows or Linux there are some graphical glitches. So if apple will give me headache free HW with decent speed I will be very satisfied to use only them.
Apple today is very rich company with very strong money stream. I will be very surprised if they decided to develop their own CPU without proper research. The cash they have, get them access to very smart people and possible technology. I will be definitely watching them.

dank0 wrote on 2020-07-08, 07:18:

I dont understand why so many of you are so against the apple idea to make their own CPUs. Intel is lacking any amazing way to surprise us. AMD is catching up, but the software support (drivers etc.) from the AMD is always somehow shaky.

I stopped reading right here.

Any indication if they will separately from ARM as well? Technically they don't make their own cpus for mobile either, they are licensed tech from ARM.

appiah4 wrote on 2020-07-08, 07:28:

dank0 wrote on 2020-07-08, 07:18:

I dont understand why so many of you are so against the apple idea to make their own CPUs. Intel is lacking any amazing way to surprise us. AMD is catching up, but the software support (drivers etc.) from the AMD is always somehow shaky.

I stopped reading right here.

Personally, it's kinda ironic how things turned out.
Intel was once leading in the ARM department with its XScale CPUs (derived from StrongARM ?)..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/StrongARM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XScale

kolderman wrote on 2020-07-08, 08:11:

Any indication if they will separately from ARM as well? Technically they don't make their own cpus for mobile either, they are licensed tech from ARM.

There are two types of ARM licenses - core level and architecture level. Core level license gives you rights to ARM core designs (such as Cortex A76). Architecture level license gives you rights to the instruction set, but you’re free to implement your own designs — this is exactly what Apple is doing.

Jo22 wrote on 2020-07-08, 08:42:

Personally, it's kinda ironic how things turned out. Intel was once leading in the ARM department with its XScale CPUs (derived from StrongARM ?)..

AFAIK, Intel has never been a leader in ARM ecosystem. I believe Intel dipped their toe in the water, thought 'gosh, water is too cold and filthy', and backed off as fast as they could.

I mean, let's say you're sitting in their management board and get to see side by side how much juice you can squeeze from x86 and ARM.

You would have to pinch your private part hard enough to believe if Intel decided to continue playing ARM, while the big, fat x86 market poured on you.

On top of that, contrary to the popular belief, I don't think the eventual demise of x86 is a death sentence to Intel.

The company has other profit-churning 'sectors' to milk all they want, and it's just x86 boys, like me, are the ones who get screwed.

Perhaps, that might be the primary motivation as to why AMD is literally desperate to prove the value of x86 platform after all.

brownk wrote on 2020-07-08, 09:21:

On top of that, contrary to the popular belief, I don't think the eventual demise of x86 is a death sentence to Intel.

The company has other profit-churning 'sectors' to milk all they want, and it's just x86 boys, like me, are the ones who get screwed.

Well, x86 still accounts for about 75% of their revenue, and their gross margin on x86 chips is higher than 50%. When the x86 cash cow dies, it will be a very, very sad day for Intel.

brownk wrote on 2020-07-08, 09:21:

AFAIK, Intel has never been a leader in ARM ecosystem. I believe Intel dipped their toe in the water, thought 'gosh, water is to […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2020-07-08, 08:42:

Personally, it's kinda ironic how things turned out. Intel was once leading in the ARM department with its XScale CPUs (derived from StrongARM ?)..

AFAIK, Intel has never been a leader in ARM ecosystem. I believe Intel dipped their toe in the water, thought 'gosh, water is too cold and filthy', and backed off as fast as they could.

I mean, let's say you're sitting in their management board and get to see side by side how much juice you can squeeze from x86 and ARM.

You would have to pinch your private part hard enough to believe if Intel decided to continue playing ARM, while the big, fat x86 market poured on you.

Ok, please let me rephrase what I wrote. ARM became (now: was) the primary architecture of the Handheld and Pocket PC platforms which ran Windows CE.
Originally, in the late 90s, there were three architectures which were supported by Win CE - SH3, MIPS and ARM.
These were still supported on the "Pocket PC 2000" OS (based on Windows CE 3.0), but later releases, Pocket PC 2002 (Windows Mobile 2002), Windows Mobile 2003, Windows Mobile 5* and so on were all ARM-only.
I think it is worth mentioning that these PDA devices were quite popular for a while (before iPhone/iPad).
They also were commonly used as hardware for GPS navigation systems.
If we look at it this way, then Intel XScale proessors had a certain marketshare.

*"Windows Mobile 5.0 requires at least 64MB of RAM, and the device must run an ARM compatible processor such as the
Intel XScale or the Samsung and Texas Instruments ARM compatibles."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile_5.0#cite_note-6

Jo22 wrote on 2020-07-08, 12:10:

Ok, please let me rephrase what I wrote. ARM became (now: was) the primary architecture of the Handheld and Pocket PC platforms […]
Show full quote

Ok, please let me rephrase what I wrote. ARM became (now: was) the primary architecture of the Handheld and Pocket PC platforms which ran Windows CE.
Originally, in the late 90s, there were three architectures which were supported by Win CE - SH3, MIPS and ARM.
These were still supported on the "Pocket PC 2000" OS (based on Windows CE 3.0), but later releases, Pocket PC 2002 (Windows Mobile 2002), Windows Mobile 2003, Windows Mobile 5* and so on were all ARM-only.
I think it is worth mentioning that these PDA devices were quite popular for a while (before iPhone/iPad).
They also were commonly used as hardware for GPS navigation systems.
If we look at it this way, then Intel XScale proessors had a certain marketshare.

These early devices were just harbingers of what was to come - kinda like Altair 8800 was a harbinger of the true home computer revolution that started with the likes of Apple II, TRS-80 etc. The market for PDAs was absolutely tiny, just ~10 million units a year at its peak in 2003. In comparison, smartphone sales are well into the hundreds of millions every quarter. It doesn't change the fact that Intel's management was kinda short-sighted, but it is understandable why they wanted to get out of this small (and contracting) market at the time.

dank0 wrote on 2020-07-08, 07:18:

I dont understand why so many of you are so against the apple idea to make their own CPUs. Intel is lacking any amazing way to surprise us. AMD is catching up, but the software support (drivers etc.) from the AMD is always somehow shaky. I have Threadripper CPU and windows is somehow problematic - only linux is giving me proper access to this HW. I also have AMD SSG video card (its not cheap). Funny reality is that this card runs without any graphical glitches (3D Coat, Maya, Houdini, Blender, Substance) only on my Hackintosh box that runs on my i9 7940x and the SSG video card. On Windows or Linux there are some graphical glitches. So if apple will give me headache free HW with decent speed I will be very satisfied to use only them.
Apple today is very rich company with very strong money stream. I will be very surprised if they decided to develop their own CPU without proper research. The cash they have, get them access to very smart people and possible technology. I will be definitely watching them.

I was against Apples move to ARM (I mean, Apple Silicon) in the beginning. But then after watching the WWDC videos and when some news on this matter surfaced, while also clarifying some doubts, I also had to change my mind and now I want an ARM Mac. Well, almost. I am yet to see how it will handle x86 virtualization so can I make a final decision.

Much of my prejudice against ARM computers comes from a disappointment I have with the Raspberry Pi, which is nothing more than a pretty little shitbox that did not meet my expectations.

I changed my mind for a while now, and I might buy one (I will not buy the first one though, I will wait until second generation, except for the first iPhone, Apple's first gen devices always have issues), but my dad has already decided to stop buying Macs. I can't blame him for that when he keeps complaining about Apples planned obsolescence. But in a few months I believe he will be crawling back because he will miss the ecosystem and macOS.

But come on, he has a 2009 iMac, 2011 Mac Mini, 2010 MacBook Pro 13" (dead broken), and a 2017 MacBook Pro. He can't complain when he has already squeezed almost ten years from the first three devices. The 2010 MBP with 16GB and 512GB was a beast of a machine still in 2019 when an asshole who was washing the windows (oh, the irony!) of our home let it spill a lot on our MBP that was next to a window. The 2009 iMac though is still rocking and lightning fast with Catalina patcher - although it can't run latest VMware Fusion due to CPU requirements.

I am writing this from a Late 2013 second hand MBP 13" which is still by far a great machine even in 2020 for my needs. This machine also nearly made the cut to receive Big Sur support when it comes out in the fall, which means that I still have more two years at least. So my initial plan to wait until second gen arm macs can happen.

ShovelKnight wrote on 2020-07-08, 13:18:

Jo22 wrote on 2020-07-08, 12:10:

Ok, please let me rephrase what I wrote. ARM became (now: was) the primary architecture of the Handheld and Pocket PC platforms […]
Show full quote

Ok, please let me rephrase what I wrote. ARM became (now: was) the primary architecture of the Handheld and Pocket PC platforms which ran Windows CE.
Originally, in the late 90s, there were three architectures which were supported by Win CE - SH3, MIPS and ARM.
These were still supported on the "Pocket PC 2000" OS (based on Windows CE 3.0), but later releases, Pocket PC 2002 (Windows Mobile 2002), Windows Mobile 2003, Windows Mobile 5* and so on were all ARM-only.
I think it is worth mentioning that these PDA devices were quite popular for a while (before iPhone/iPad).
They also were commonly used as hardware for GPS navigation systems.
If we look at it this way, then Intel XScale proessors had a certain marketshare.

These early devices were just harbingers of what was to come - kinda like Altair 8800 was a harbinger of the true home computer revolution that started with the likes of Apple II, TRS-80 etc. The market for PDAs was absolutely tiny, just ~10 million units a year at its peak in 2003. In comparison, smartphone sales are well into the hundreds of millions every quarter. It doesn't change the fact that Intel's management was kinda short-sighted, but it is understandable why they wanted to get out of this small (and contracting) market at the time.

Yes, maybe this is true.
I admit, though, that I have difficulties following such business logic.
That's as if an airplane company stops making engines for planes because the market for cars is so much bigger.
x86 is the most popular architecture ever.
And it already was before Intel acquired StrongARM, even.
So what did the company expect, anyway?
I guess they didn't truely want ARM to successfully compete with their own x86 architecture in first place, or did they? 😕

Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-07, 04:42:

Any news on VMware Fusion Tech Preview? I heard it could be out this month but not sure when. I need to virtualize Big Sur and run Xcode 12 beta to start learning some things about the new UI.

Now https://twitter.com/VMwareFusion/status/1280902079792332800

Jo22 wrote on 2020-07-08, 16:16:

Yes, maybe this is true.
That's as if an airplane company stops making engines for planes because the market for cars is so much bigger.

The difference is that airplane engines are high margin compared to car engines, but ARM CPUs are low margin compared to x86 CPUs.