robertmo wrote on 2021-03-07, 19:18:

Apple stopped producing iMac Pro https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro Buy iMac Pro. While supplies last. […]
Show full quote

Apple stopped producing iMac Pro
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro
Buy iMac Pro.
While supplies last.

With all due respect, why buy a system based on a CPU architecture (x86-64) that is essentially dead in the water in the MacOS world ?

EDIT : I mean a new system at MSRP. Sanely priced used x86-64 macs can make probably make decent Linux/BSD/Windows boxes or run soon to be legacy x86-64 optimized MacOS apps .

Interesting as the iMac pro never even have a hardware revision, but not very surprising given Apples shift from Intel.

I use an iMac pro at work (well, not much the past year). It's a work horse for sure, but I don't know if I'd buy one with my own dough.

They will become a major collectors item.

darry wrote on 2021-03-07, 19:53:

robertmo wrote on 2021-03-07, 19:18:

Apple stopped producing iMac Pro https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro Buy iMac Pro. While supplies last. […]
Show full quote

Apple stopped producing iMac Pro
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro
Buy iMac Pro.
While supplies last.

With all due respect, why buy a system based on a CPU architecture (x86-64) that is essentially dead in the water in the MacOS world ?

EDIT : I mean a new system at MSRP. Sanely priced used x86-64 macs can make probably make decent Linux/BSD/Windows boxes or run soon to be legacy x86-64 optimized MacOS apps .

Think different! Macs do work differently. 😉

a) The current OS supports both x86-64 and M1.
Which means, x86-64 applications are supported for the next 2-3 years. At least. Maybe longer, if the next macOS can run on Intel Macs, still.

b) macOS supported FAT Binaries and Universal Binaries in the past.
The macOS on M1 will have something similar (app package/bundle containing M1 and x86-64 executables. Maybe x86-32, Power PC G3/G4/G5, too)

c) For pure/legacy x86-64 apps (on M1 Mac), that Rosetta2 transpiler-compiler is likely used..
It converts the application before the execution.

Edit : A few edits.

Although I am also an Apple fan, I’d not buy it too. I need mobility, so I look after the M1 MacBooks. The iMacs are insanely expensive in Brazil since 2013. You’d be better off buying a M1 Mac Mini if you want a desktop model.

Even better, if you want to stick with x86, get a mac mini style PC with AMD Ryzen and Vega gpu. Much cheaper and you can VM macOS while running W10 for almost serious gaming or Linux, so you have the best of all worlds in it.

There's an iMac Pro?

Sounds like a contradiction.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-03-08, 10:24:

Think different! Macs do work differently. ;) […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2021-03-07, 19:53:

robertmo wrote on 2021-03-07, 19:18:

Apple stopped producing iMac Pro https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro Buy iMac Pro. While supplies last. […]
Show full quote

Apple stopped producing iMac Pro
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro
Buy iMac Pro.
While supplies last.

With all due respect, why buy a system based on a CPU architecture (x86-64) that is essentially dead in the water in the MacOS world ?

EDIT : I mean a new system at MSRP. Sanely priced used x86-64 macs can make probably make decent Linux/BSD/Windows boxes or run soon to be legacy x86-64 optimized MacOS apps .

Think different! Macs do work differently. 😉

a) The current OS supports both x86-64 and M1.
Which means, x86-64 applications are supported for the next 2-3 years. At least. Maybe longer, if the next macOS can run on Intel Macs, still.

b) macOS supported FAT Binaries and Universal Binaries in the past.
The macOS on M1 will have something similar (app package/bundle containing M1 and x86-64 executables. Maybe x86-32, Power PC G3/G4/G5, too)

c) For pure/legacy x86-64 apps (on M1 Mac), that Rosetta2 transpiler-compiler is likely used..
It converts the application before the execution.

Edit : A few edits.

For point a), getting 2 or 3 years of OS support, maybe longer, out of a brand new, retail priced (arguably over-priced), high-end machine is not exactly inspiring, to me at least .

For point b) , that is great, if developers actually bother doing so . And if they do, for how long will they ?

For point c) , if I understand correctly, Rosetta2 lets x86-64 binaries run on M1 hardware, not the other way around , so it does nothing to help x86-64 hardware run M1 binaries . (If I am wrong here, please provide a reference that explains things correctly)

So, at the end of the day, current buyers of an iMac Pro based on x86-64 will

1) pay full price for high-end hardware that might be supported for 2-3 years or more on the OS side or might not .

2) hope that software devs will support x86-64 through compatible binaries for as long as they use their new machine

3) Not have the benefits of the M1 architecture while still paying for a new product .

I, for one, will not be attending that party . I'm afraid that I can't think that different .

EDIT: Correct glaring typo

They should just bring back the “Cinema Display“ to use with the Mac mini and Mac Pro.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2021-03-08, 17:29:

They should just bring back the “Cinema Display“ to use with the Mac mini and Mac Pro.

They have the Pro Display for $5k. Or for $6k you can get the anti glare version 😀

I saw and used it briefly at one of their engineering meetings. It's nice, but way too much $$$.

darry wrote on 2021-03-08, 14:35:

For point a), getting 2 or 3 years of OS support, maybe longer, out of a brand new, retail priced (arguably over-priced), high-e […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2021-03-08, 10:24:

Think different! Macs do work differently. ;) […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2021-03-07, 19:53:

With all due respect, why buy a system based on a CPU architecture (x86-64) that is essentially dead in the water in the MacOS world ?

EDIT : I mean a new system at MSRP. Sanely priced used x86-64 macs can make probably make decent Linux/BSD/Windows boxes or run soon to be legacy x86-64 optimized MacOS apps .

Think different! Macs do work differently. 😉

a) The current OS supports both x86-64 and M1.
Which means, x86-64 applications are supported for the next 2-3 years. At least. Maybe longer, if the next macOS can run on Intel Macs, still.

b) macOS supported FAT Binaries and Universal Binaries in the past.
The macOS on M1 will have something similar (app package/bundle containing M1 and x86-64 executables. Maybe x86-32, Power PC G3/G4/G5, too)

c) For pure/legacy x86-64 apps (on M1 Mac), that Rosetta2 transpiler-compiler is likely used..
It converts the application before the execution.

Edit : A few edits.

For point a), getting 2 or 3 years of OS support, maybe longer, out of a brand new, retail priced (arguably over-priced), high-end machine is not exactly inspiring, to me at least .

For point b) , that is great, if developers actually bother doing so . And if they do, for how long will they ?

For point c) , if I understand correctly, Rosetta2 lets x86-64 binaries run on M1 hardware, not the other way around , so it does nothing to help x86-64 hardware run M1 binaries . (If I am wrong here, please provide a reference that explains things correctly)

So, at the end of the day, current buyers of an iMac Pro based on x86-64 will

1) pay full price for high-end hardware that might be supported for 2-3 years or more on the OS side or might not .

2) hope that software devs will support x86-64 through compatible binaries for as long as they use their new machine

3) Not have the benefits of the M1 architecture while still paying for a new product .

I, for one, will not be attending that party . I'm afraid that I can't think that different .

EDIT: Correct glaring typo

Hi again! Yes, I can fully understand your frustration..

The architectural transition process at Apple has been a one-way road, always..
What makes the big iMacs interesting were the 5k screen and the powerful GPU/x86 CPU.

I was tempted to get one a few years ago, because my favorite use case was running multiple x86 VMs.

But current times bear some uncertainty.
Especially when it comes to the x86 architecture.

Intel's removal of the BIOS (Latin for "life") or AMDs drop of backwards compatibility (3DNow) some years ago.
Until that, it seemed that x86 would continously evolve without sacrificing it's roots.

To me, it seems that x86 PCs will loose their open nature slowly, step by step.
Not sure where this is going to.

That's why I'm stuck on a Raspberry Pi 4.
I loved working with Windows XP, respected Windows 7.. But I'm not compatible with Windows 10.

To make things even worse, the rights to ARM now belong to nVidia.
That hardware pendant to Oracle, so to say. 😉
Which means that ARM is also potentially doomed now (hopefully RISC-V will gain relevance).

The positive thing is, however, that you can hope that companies like Parallels will make emulation/virtualization tools available to ease the transition process.

Or that the Hackintosh people will be able to patch the next macOS far enough that it will run in emulation. Especially the M1 version.

The normal x86-64 version perhaps will run in the official virtualization applications available on macOS (Parallels Desktop etc).

If everything fails, universal binaries may still give hope.
In the "old" Power PC times, the Mac OS X universal apps were just special folders holding multiple binaries and a single set of resources (picture/audio files, config files, and so on).

Technically, it is still possible to make such an universal binary that can run on the latest Intel Mac and holds executables for the pre-3G, 3G, 4G, 5G and x86, x86-64 instruction sets.

Since they are separate binaries, they perhaps can be compiled against differences API versions, too. So that the G3 binary will, say, run on Mac OS Cheetah onwards, but the G5 binary will be targeted for Leopard..

If memory serves, it may also contain special binaries that use the deprecated Carbon API.
So in theory, these binaries for the pre3 to 4G processors could run on Mac OS 8/9, still.

Not sure about the macOS for M1.
I have no experience with that yet.
Maybe in will get a new type of universal binary that has limitations.

Intel based macs will for sure stay and have support “for the years to come”. When they run out of support, you can always run any linux distro (like they do with PowerPC macs) or install Windows. It’s just like any other Intel based computer. You have to decide if you want to buy one knowing that you’ll be doing that in the future. I have decided to keep mine until I can buy an Apple Silicon mac or runs out of macOS support, whatever comes first.

Actually, the NVIDIA buyout is still pending, and will probably not get approved. Qualcomm has opposed to the deal, basically they had the same worries you had. I have not read news about that since then.

Having worked myself with a few Raspberry Pi models, I find them very, very limited in terms of power and speed. They were not useful for me at all. But this is just my experience with them.

There is no danger for Apple Silicon, because Apple just licenses the instruction set from arm, and I believe they use a heavily customized version of these instructions, for years, since the iPhone model with A6 or A7 installed on it. They can just go from there without NVIDIA.

What is really doomed is the Hackintosh scene. When the transition completes and Apple ceases releasing universal binaries of their OS, the M1 macOS version will not run on x86 machines no matter how much they mess with it, period. It is simply not possible unless its done under (very slow) emulation.

Hackintosh may be dead, but I think they will pretty much be reduced to a community similar to what PowerPC has on macrumors.

Virtualization requires host and guest to have the same architecture. In other words, linux arm based distros and - maybe if MS licenses it - Windows 10 arm. Anything other than that is just JIT emulation.

What people want most is x86 Windows virtualization on M1 with all the bells and whistles. Not possible, only emulation. But the M1 is so fast that even the arm W10 version runs faster on it, than it does natively on Microsoft Surface, although without video acceleration and all the stuff that causes the overhead, a performance hit on Windows. But it’s a first step into that direction.

Bruninho wrote on 2021-03-12, 02:29:

Intel based macs will for sure stay and have support “for the years to come”. When they run out of support, you can always run a […]
Show full quote

Intel based macs will for sure stay and have support “for the years to come”. When they run out of support, you can always run any linux distro (like they do with PowerPC macs) or install Windows. It’s just like any other Intel based computer. You have to decide if you want to buy one knowing that you’ll be doing that in the future. I have decided to keep mine until I can buy an Apple Silicon mac or runs out of macOS support, whatever comes first.

Actually, the NVIDIA buyout is still pending, and will probably not get approved. Qualcomm has opposed to the deal, basically they had the same worries you had. I have not read news about that since then.

Having worked myself with a few Raspberry Pi models, I find them very, very limited in terms of power and speed. They were not useful for me at all. But this is just my experience with them.

There is no danger for Apple Silicon, because Apple just licenses the instruction set from arm, and I believe they use a heavily customized version of these instructions, for years, since the iPhone model with A6 or A7 installed on it. They can just go from there without NVIDIA.

What is really doomed is the Hackintosh scene. When the transition completes and Apple ceases releasing universal binaries of their OS, the M1 macOS version will not run on x86 machines no matter how much they mess with it, period. It is simply not possible unless its done under (very slow) emulation.

Hackintosh may be dead, but I think they will pretty much be reduced to a community similar to what PowerPC has on macrumors.

Virtualization requires host and guest to have the same architecture. In other words, linux arm based distros and - maybe if MS licenses it - Windows 10 arm. Anything other than that is just JIT emulation.

What people want most is x86 Windows virtualization on M1 with all the bells and whistles. Not possible, only emulation. But the M1 is so fast that even the arm W10 version runs faster on it, than it does natively on Microsoft Surface, although without video acceleration and all the stuff that causes the overhead, a performance hit on Windows. But it’s a first step into that direction.

Well there is an ARM version of windows but its only for OEM use right now, and most apps in windows are x86 and will have to be emulated anyway. FWIW the linux virtualization 'demo' they showed when debuting the M1 was also an ARM version of Linux. Since Apple's just getting started with these custom chips, I wonder if they may end up adding some additional hardware in future machines which help alleviate the emulation bottleneck, since its obvious they don't want to be hitched to the x86 hw bandwagon any longer.

Agree with doubting they'll completely drop support for intel based macs for quite some time. I mean their entire desktop/laptop product lineup has been intel for 15 years.

As far as hackintosh - to me, it seemed more of a hobby and way of defeating a mostly artificial limitation imposed by Apple. From my tinkering a few years ago it was prone to breaking, for example if Apple pushed any sort of OS update. When it was running, some things just don't work 'right' within the OS, compared to a legit Apple product... but i guess that depends more on the underlying hardware you have. Personally I wouldn't use a hackintosh as a system where i was relying on it working every day I turned it on.

I have my early 2006 iMac with a 32 bit core2 cpu and it still works fine

however I think the mac mini m1 could be the future (of mac)

drosse1meyer wrote on 2021-03-12, 14:19:

As far as hackintosh - to me, it seemed more of a hobby and way of defeating a mostly artificial limitation imposed by Apple. From my tinkering a few years ago it was prone to breaking, for example if Apple pushed any sort of OS update. When it was running, some things just don't work 'right' within the OS, compared to a legit Apple product... but i guess that depends more on the underlying hardware you have. Personally I wouldn't use a hackintosh as a system where i was relying on it working every day I turned it on.

I'd buy the PowerPC 2006 MacMini if I could find one here in Brazil for a reasonable price and in good condition. Might just stick to emulation though. I don't even think it would be useful for me anyways - I am an UI/UX Web Designer now, so no more coding *yay* from my previous role as a Frontend Web Designer. But I think that the PowerPC was a great machine in its heyday (and probably still is).

Regarding the Hackintosh scene, I have been there, done that. I did it because I had a need for an all-in-one solution for both work and serious sim racing events, everything in one machine only, meaning I could carry it around with me and have less maintenance... how I was wrong.

Between 2011 and 2019, I have mounted two or three hackintoshes, two customized PC towers and a Dell G5 laptop with dual booting Windows and OS X. I don't have them anymore, got fed up of the maintenance hard work it gave to me in the first years I tried to run one. Mainly the iMessage authentication was the biggest headache. Nevertheless, I was able to do my work from them without issues.

With the Dell G5 though, it was another story. I sold a 2014 MBA 11-inch i5 8gB + 128GB and bought the Dell, but it lasted only one year because the Dell was one hell of a very heavy laptop to carry around. The system worked just fine, but as always, maintenance with system updates was again a headache. I just got fed up of doing constant maintenance, so I sold it and got a second hand 2013 rMBP 13" i7, with 16GB RAM and 1TB SSD. Runs great so far.

To sum up: If you can afford an Intel Mac, even an used/refurbished one in excellent condition, don't even bother with a Hackintosh. Unless you have other needs like Windows apps or serious gaming.

shamino wrote on 2021-03-08, 12:02:

There's an iMac Pro?

Sounds like a contradiction.

They are used in professional media production a lot. They will pay anything for a high power mac machine to run lightroom or what-have-you, because it is so much more expensive for them to change their workflow or miss deadlines.

I kind of doubt Apple will just never have a mac pro again. My guess is that they feel confident their M1 architecture can scale to the workstation and is coming soon.

mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-03-12, 18:19:

shamino wrote on 2021-03-08, 12:02:

There's an iMac Pro?

Sounds like a contradiction.

They are used in professional media production a lot. They will pay anything for a high power mac machine to run lightroom or what-have-you, because it is so much more expensive for them to change their workflow or miss deadlines.

I kind of doubt Apple will just never have a mac pro again. My guess is that they feel confident their M1 architecture can scale to the workstation and is coming soon.

The iMac Pro is quite powerful, surpassing the trashcan style mac pro, and also has a 27" 5k screen, USBC ports, and at least a 8 gb graphics cards

About "fat"/universal binaries:
You can still do those, in fact you can still have a binary that runs on ppc/intel 32bit/64bit/arm64.
On an intel mac with macOS 11 you can still build all four (though it needs some hoops to jump through first).
Technically you just compile it for each platform and then "glue" it together into one big binary. In the plist of the app you can set which platform to run on a macOS version.

Dominus wrote on 2021-03-12, 21:55:

About "fat"/universal binaries: You can still do those, in fact you can still have a binary that runs on ppc/intel 32bit/64bit/a […]
Show full quote

About "fat"/universal binaries:
You can still do those, in fact you can still have a binary that runs on ppc/intel 32bit/64bit/arm64.
On an intel mac with macOS 11 you can still build all four (though it needs some hoops to jump through first).
Technically you just compile it for each platform and then "glue" it together into one big binary. In the plist of the app you can set which platform to run on a macOS version.

Yep. FWIW 'arm64' is a target arch even when building distribution pkgs. Otherwise that too will fail to install, unless you've already enabled rosetta2 on your system. https://scriptingosx.com/2020/12/platform-sup … r-packages-pkg/

Apple gives plenty of notice for these changes to developers and vendors. Unfortunately, many of them ignore this information, and take their time updating their products.

Oh, good point. Reminds me that I have one pkg to update...