Apple Announces "3rd Transition" for macOS: From Intel CPUs to Apple Silicon

[Raftrix86]

Those to think that ARM CPUs can't compete with Intel CPUs need to take a look at the Geekbench scores of the latest iPhones. It outperforms my overclocked i9-9900K in single core. It trails in multi-core performance, but on a laptop or desktop they can easily tack on more cores and increase clock speeds since space and cooling won't be as limited. I think it would be foolish to think that Apple will release ARM based Macs that can't out-bench Intel based ones, including the Mac Pros.

View attachment 477611

What I'd like to know is whether the ARM based Macs will still be using AMD graphics and whether users will still be able to replace graphics cards with off-the-shelf cards in the ARM based Mac Pros when they are released.

Those who believe that macOS will continue to be updated with support for Intel CPUs are lying to themselves. It makes no sense for Apple to continue support and development for two different platforms. I see a gradual wind down of support for Intel. Realistically, I think Intel based Macs and, by extension, hackintoshes will continue to see OS support and updates for 3-5 years. After that, whatever the last version of macOS that has Intel support will continue to get "Security Updates" for a few more years but no more new major releases of macOS and no more Universal 2 or Rosetta 2.

Looking at the comments, I see some have already made the decision to move on to Linux or Windows. To me, this really shows why Apple really left hackintoshing alone and never really actively went out of their way to inhibit it. Many hackintoshers would not have purchased Macs anyway.

Whle I do use Linux and Windows when I must, I can't see myself using either as my daily OS. I have always liked the UI of macOS best. I am most comfortable with macOS. I know macOS far better than any of the alternatives. Personally, I'm looking forward to buying my first ARM based Mac.

Just my two cents and my guesses/estimates...

Well People are just angry because of the end of hackintosh... in my case I will look first how the machines are going, because apple has a lot of bad engineering, I don’t like that from that machines, their high cost spare parts, and in case you need their repair services it cost a fortune with no reason and the most of the times they just lie, it happened to me a lot of times in the past when they overpriced me repairs until I started to repair my own machines and later I just started to build my own hackintosh, after this if they can only repair their machines that would be hell, they prices will be sky high, sorry they did it in the past, they will continue to do it in the future, hope I am wrong but They don’t have reasons to change that behave...

 

[Bustycat]

Inconvenient truths for Hackintosh users:

• A 2-year transition means all Mac lines will be added with ARM-based models within 2 years
• A12Z is merely a placeholder for testing but its single-core and multi-core performance is close to current mid-range Intel Core & AMD Ryzen CPUs
• The lifespan for macOS devices is estimated to be 4 years
• Apple has no obligation to support Hackintosh users

 

[Lotlorien]

This is 2020 Bruh.. Lot's of things have changed. If you don't like KDE you can choose a different DE. Or even a different distro. If you don't like Arch, switch to debian or Ubuntu or fedora, Gentoo. The options are endless. Since most of the stuff are moving towards online in these days, all you need internet access and a browser. I get the fact that Mac shines in video editing and music production area and windows in games. But, Linux is all about freedom. I use my linux machine for my work. I do all my python stuff in linux and Libreoffice and rest are based on online. So, For me, Linux is almost perfect as a daily driver.

I was on Arch and loved the package manager. The options are endless on Linux, the result in realty is you can choose between ten different desktop environments but none is even close to the Mac desktop. All coding efforts for a desktop are splittered instead of focused. Same with file systems: endless choices, but none is anywhere close to APFS. Ext4 is arguably the best file system originating from the old days, but what about a modern one? XFS might become the new modern file system for Linux. And no, not Btrfs, Btrfs is broken by design, another dead body lying around in the kernel, like ReiserFS. But I agree that for very specific work setups, possibly like the one you have, Linux is an alternative. Just my experience and thinking.

 

[Ritchie333]

Arch did my head in, going back to trying to get a full X server working with acceleration by installing the right packages, whereas Debian / Ubuntu worked right out of the box. I don't know why people like Arch; maybe it's just personal preferences. If I wanted to play "package tombola", I'd use FreeBSD.

This might not be the end of the Hackintosh. As soon as the first ARM Macs come out, people will be looking to see what is on the SOAC (or if it's just a CPU, what buses there are and how the GPU is connected), then there'll be a demand for that hardware on a Raspberry Pi or some other third-party ARM box. Like Intel, a third party should in theory be able to make compatible hardware that will run the OS, and like existing MacOS, there has to be an emergency recovery measure so you'll be able to boot off a third-party hardware device like a USB stick.

 

[Simon70]

It's foolish to believe that they will continue to split development between Intel and ARM. The transition and the wind down for Intel support has begun.

I agree that it is more difficult to manage two architectures, but from the management of two architectures one can derive enormous advantages in terms of improvements of the single ones, even just for the necessary comparison and the opportunities to notice factors that in one architecture cannot be they would highlight by difference (always thinking with an eye on innovation in Apple's DNA).
In any case, the key is expansion and therefore I believe that for the moment there is the decision to remove the wind from Intel (unless they are so expansionist as to really want to cultivate two architectures and take advantage of them, but it would be really ambitious: worthy of Jobs I would say, again), but that the effective execution of the measure will only come after analyzing the responses of the market and the world of software.
So until that analysis of the answer, still the Intel structure will remain fully functional and growing in order not to lose ground, in the case of having to continue to use it, then after analysis made if Apple Silicon will be successful enough, the wind will be permanently suspended.
Obviously the countdown starts already from the moment that Apple communicates the "closing" measure (yesterday) in the home of all its architecture, because in any case for that purpose it will continue to work regardless of the results that may in the worst of the hypothesis for them, to brake, but not to stop. Except for miracles or expliot from Intel, which in any case it must be said that in many years of stagnation some projects and some surprises in the cylinder could also have it and therefore, once presented on the market, it could change many balances, also influencing the process of autonomization from Apple, but still I think it could only be a temporary thing, unless it's really an Intel signed revolution.

 

[yekta1]

I am gone switch to Linux.

 

[animalflynn]

The first Mac Pro was released over a year after the transition announcement, so it doesn’t mean that there won’t be when Apple didn’t mention pro machines.

It can happen. But when? I am pretty sure they developed both machines at the same time. ARM and the new Mac Pro. That had to happen for a reason. They did not develop both machines in a vacuum. They were created at the same company so there must be a strategy there. I don’t think they would spend millions (if not billions) of dollars on developing a modular $5999 computer unless they planned on selling it for years to come.

 

[Bustycat]

It can happen. But when? I am pretty sure they developed both machines at the same time. ARM and the new Mac Pro. That had to happen for a reason. They did not develop both machines in a vacuum. They were created at the same company so there must be a strategy there. I don’t think they would spend millions (if not billions) of dollars on developing a modular $5999 computer unless they planned on selling it for years to come.

Mid-2021 to early 2022 for Mac Pro I presume.

 

[Giskard]

Guys, really, stop acting like this is the end of hackintosh. Don't be drama queens! They clearly said on the keynote that the transition will last 2 years, so it's IMPOSSIBLE that we won't have at least 2 more macOS releases for Intel. Now add more years of support for the Intel Macs that will be released within these 2 years. Definitely at least 1 more year because it would be a very horrible move to stop updating Macs that are still on warranty, and that's not something Apple would do. So we have at least 3 years to keep enjoying our hackintoshes. But that's the bare minimum. There's just not any objective reason to think macOS for Intel won't last even more. So calm down, we are not leaving this forum anytime soon.

:'(

 

[Ritchie333]

The main reason we only began to have hackintoshes at the start of the Intel transition, is that before that, there was no cheap commodity hardware close enough. Sure, the PowerPC ran on Windows NT 3.51, as did various Unices, but those were in the days when "cheap and cheerful" was a 386SX with 4MB RAM. If you go back far enough, in the late 1980s there was a hardware emulator that allowed you to turn an Atari ST into a Mac by using OS upgrade ROMs - the hardware was close enough, it's just the software was only supplied on a chip. So I think rumours of the hackintosh's death are greatly exaggerated.