Apple also has a particular advantage in owning the os and having the ability to force independent developers to upgrade their software, which make incompatible updates (including perf optimizations) possible.
They could also just sit down with Microsoft and say "Right, we're going to go in an entirely different direction, and provide you with something absolutely mind-blowing, but we're going to have to do software emulation for backward compatibility and that will suck for a while until things get recompiled, or it'll suck forever if they never do".
Apple did this twice in the last 20 years - once on the move from PowerPC chips to Intel, and again from Intel to Apple Silicon.
If Microsoft and enough large OEMs (Dell, etc.), thought there was enough juice in the new proposed architecture to cause a major redevelopment of everything from mobile to data centre level compute, they'd line right up, because they know that if you can significantly reduce the amount of power consumption while smashing benchmarks, there are going to long, long wait times for that hardware and software, and its pay day for everyone.
We now know so much more about processor design, instruction set and compiler design than we did when the x86 was shaping up, it seems obvious to me that:
1. RISC is a proven entity worth investing in
2. SoC & SiP is a proven entity worth investing in
3. Customers love better power/performance curves at every level from the device in their pocket to the racks in data centres
4. Intel is in real trouble if they are seriously considering the US government owning actual equity, albeit proposed as non-voting, non-controlling
Intel can keep the x86 line around if they want, but their R&D needs to be chasing where the market is heading - and fast - while bringing the rest of the chain along with them.
For an example of why this doesnt work, see 'Intel Itanium'.
The alternative is death - they do nothing, they're going to die.
Which option do you think they should take?
Thats a subjective opinion. Plenty of people still value higher power multi core chips over apple silicon, because they are still better at doing real work. I dont think they need to go in a new direction personally, but I was just showing an example of why your provided solution is not a silver bullet.
Each time they had a pretty good emulation story to keep most stuff (certainly popular stuff) working through a multi-year transition period.
IMO, this is better then carrying around 40 years of cruft.
> IMO, this is better then carrying around 40 years of cruft.
Backwards compatibility is such a strong point, it is why windows survives even though it has become a bloated ad riddled mess. You can argue which is better, but that seriously depends on your requirements. If you have a business application coded 30 years ago on x86 that no developer in your company understands any more, then backwards compatibility is king. On the other end of the spectrum if you are happy to be purchasing new software subscriptions constantly and having bleeding edge hardware is a must for you, then backwards compatibility probably isnt required.
A new major version of macOS comes out every year. The oldest Mac still supported by the upcoming macOS 26 is from 2019.
"oh a post about Apple, let me come in and share my hatred for Apple again by outright lying!"
As stated already, macOS 26 runs on the M1 and even the 2019 Macbook Pro. So i think i know where you got the "3 new versions" figure, and it's a dark and smelly place.
However My parents 2017 Macbook pro can only upgrade to Ventura, which is a 2022 release. 5 years and that $2.5k baby was obselete. However rude you are about your defense of Apple, 5-6 years until software starts being unable to install is pretty shitty. I use 30 year old apps daily on windows with no issue.
Looks like defending Apple is the smelly place to be judging by your tone and condescending snark.
Meanwhile, in [Windows land], > Microsoft has provided the minimum and feature-specific device specifications required for upgrading to Windows 11. A number of devices will meet these requirements, however devices with legacy BIOS or without a Trusted Platform Module (TPM 2.0) are not compatible for the upgrade.
> Microsoft also provided a full list of supported Intel processors; however this loosely translates to compatibility with Intel's 8th-generation processors and newer, meaning devices produced within the last 6-7 years have a high chance of being compatible.
Sure looks like Apple's support of old machines is in line with Windows here.
[Windows land] https://www.rm.com/blog/2024/may/a-surprising-number-of-pcs-...
But as you mention - they've at multiple times changed the underlying architecture, which surely would render å large part of prior optimizations obsolete?
> Software in x86 world is not optimized, broadly, because it doesn’t have to be.
Do ARM software need optimization more than x86?
If Windows-World software developers could one day announce that they will only support Intel Gen 14 or later (and not bother with AMD at all), and only support the latest and greatest NVidia GPUs (and only GPUs that cost $900 or more), I'm pretty sure they would optimize their code differently, and would sometimes get dramatic performance improvements.
It's not so much that ARM needs optimizations more, but that x86 software can't practically be broadly optimized.
This is why I get so livid regarding Electron apps on the Mac.
I’m never surprised by developer-centric apps like Docker Desktop — those inclined to work on highly technical apps tend not to care much about UX — but to see billion-dollar teams like Slack and 1Password indulge in this slop is so disheartening.
* Apple has had decades optimizing its software and hardware stacks to the demands of its majority users, whereas Intel and AMD have to optimize for a much broader scope of use cases.
* Apple was willing to throw out legacy support on a regular basis. Intel and AMD, by comparison, are still expected to run code written for DOS or specific extensions in major Enterprises, which adds to complexity and cost
* The “standard” of x86 (and demand for newly-bolted-on extensions) means effort into optimizations for efficiency or performance meet diminishing returns fairly quickly. The maturity of the platform also means the “easy” gains are long gone/already done, and so it’s a matter of edge cases and smaller tweaks rather than comprehensive redesigns.
* Software in x86 world is not optimized, broadly, because it doesn’t have to be. The demoscene shows what can be achieved in tight performance envelopes, but software companies have never had reason to optimize code or performance when next year has always promised more cores or more GHz.
It boils down to comparing two different products and asking why they can’t be the same. Apple’s hardware is purpose-built for its userbase, operating systems, and software; x86 is not, and never has been. Those of us who remember the 80s and 90s of SPARC/POWER/Itanium/etc recall that specialty designs often performed better than generalist ones in their specialties, but lacked compatibility as a result.
The Apple ARM vs Intel/AMD x86 is the same thing.