schmidtbag:

I get the impression Apple is going to start off with Macbooks for their ARM series, where it is more reasonable they'd make their own GPU. However, AMD already supports Metal, so I suspect that until Apple comes up with a dGPU good enough to outpace AMD's, they will continue to use AMD for desktops. That's the sort of thing where I really don't understand Apple's move toward Metal. All that's doing is pushing away developers. On the other hand, maybe Apple doesn't want multi-platform software, because they know they're slower than the competition and don't want that to be highlighted in benchmarks.

Not at all, it's like to say "we will do a PS4 and a XBox One version that work as is on both plateform" you will see the fan boys from each side flaming the editor... A Mac isn't a PC, and so switching to something that fit better their vision of their system is better than kept compatibility with PC. Also the easy hardware compatibility made game dev lazy "why should i bother to do a real mac version when the PC version work with some simple tricks?" Most of real native mac game program work or have update on the way, and don't have issue (as i said mostly independents studios), Metal is on the way since a long time and the end of windows 32 comptability and Intel CPU too it's not as we discovered this in the last Apple's keynote... I am not pro or con Apple (personaly i don't like), but what they have done and it's really focused on the user's experience, and they do it looking future.

craycray:

Wait, it clearly says that for Intel Macs the GPU options are 'Intel, Nvidia, and AMD'. Intel Macs are not changing. Metal API support has always been available for these GPUs. No change there. .

Intel Macs are not changing, but disappearing. They have pretty clearly said that in the long run (~ 2 years) they want to fully transition the entire product stack. What I'm personally worried about is that they'll use this "chance" to kill OpenGL, forcing every developer to write a Metal backend instead. Personally, I would rather give up Mac support then bow to their nonsense, but i'm not sure my boss sees it that way...

rl66:

Not at all, it's like to say "we will do a PS4 and a XBox One version that work as is on both plateform" you will see the fan boys from each side flaming the editor... A Mac isn't a PC, and so switching to something that fit better their vision of their system is better than kept compatibility with PC. Also the easy hardware compatibility made game dev lazy "why should i bother to do a real mac version when the PC version work with some simple tricks?" Most of real native mac game program work or have update on the way, and don't have issue (as i said mostly independents studios), Metal is on the way since a long time and the end of windows 32 comptability and Intel CPU too it's not as we discovered this in the last Apple's keynote... I am not pro or con Apple (personaly i don't like), but what they have done and it's really focused on the user's experience, and they do it looking future.

Yes.... they are PCs. It's the hardcore fans who like to pretend they're not. Mac OS is nothing more than a mutilated version of BSD with a focus on desktop usage. Apple did a good job at doing that, but that doesn't hide what the OS really is. The easy hardware compatibility is another reason why it's still "just a PC". That compatibility issue is why software for Windows is also often un-optimized. So what's so different about Mac OS? I understand that having a unified platform that only Apple controls will help make software ported to Mac OS more refined, but you don't need Metal to do that. There is very little evidence suggesting that Metal would be better than Vulkan. It's better than OGL4.x, but so is Vulkan. The move to ARM is irrelevant here because Vulkan also exists on ARM.

nevcairiel:

Intel Macs are not changing, but disappearing. They have pretty clearly said that in the long run (~ 2 years) they want to fully transition the entire product stack. What I'm personally worried about is that they'll use this "chance" to kill OpenGL, forcing every developer to write a Metal backend instead. Personally, I would rather give up Mac support then bow to their nonsense, but i'm not sure my boss sees it that way...

Hey Nev, Intel Macs are going to stay in Professional lineup, to what I understand nothing is changing in professional lineup for now. The only thing changing is intel going away in non-professional lineup, which never had AMD GPUs to start with. EDIT: I am calling the lineup with dGPUs as professional lineup.

As a dedicated Apple customer I cannot wait to see where they go with this.

schmidtbag:

Yes.... they are PCs. It's the hardcore fans who like to pretend they're not. Mac OS is nothing more than a mutilated version of BSD with a focus on desktop usage. Apple did a good job at doing that, but that doesn't hide what the OS really is. The easy hardware compatibility is another reason why it's still "just a PC". That compatibility issue is why software for Windows is also often un-optimized. So what's so different about Mac OS? I understand that having a unified platform that only Apple controls will help make software ported to Mac OS more refined, but you don't need Metal to do that. There is very little evidence suggesting that Metal would be better than Vulkan. It's better than OGL4.x, but so is Vulkan. The move to ARM is irrelevant here because Vulkan also exists on ARM.

If you go this way of thinking: PS4 is a PC too... Sharing hardware with PC world doesn't make those a PC. Also a Mac never have been linked to it's "PC" hardware, started motorola, then IBM PPC, Intel X86, ARM... But it's still a Mac, mean the system is the fusion of the OS and the hardware, this is why Metal should have been made and exist in Apple world, up to dev to do their work now. And last point you made 2 error: the Apple OS's origin, Vulkan... i will let you found more documentation about them 🙂

But a Mac is a personal computer. Apple buzzwords and PR ad campaigns can't change that basic fact. Does a Mac not meet the entire definition, word for word? Brittanica says:

Personal computer (PC), a digital computer designed for use by only one person at a time. A typical personal computer assemblage consists of a central processing unit (CPU), which contains the computer’s arithmetic, logic, and control circuitry on an integrated circuit; two types of computer memory, main memory, such as digital random-access memory (RAM), and auxiliary memory, such as magnetic hard disks and special optical compact discs, or read-only memory (ROM) discs (CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMs); and various input/output devices, including a display screen, keyboard and mouse, modem, and printer.

Macs are doorstops, not PCs. Apple has gone to great lengths to define their products as not being pc's.

Astyanax:

Macs are doorstops, not PCs. Apple has gone to great lengths to define their products as not being pc's.

You aren't wrong..... [youtube=pI-iJcC9JUc]

rl66:

If you go this way of thinking: PS4 is a PC too...

PS4 is effectively a PC, it's just focused primarily on gaming. Plug in a USB keyboard and go to Google Docs in a web browser and you can start doing productivity work on a PS4.

Sharing hardware with PC world doesn't make those a PC.

I didn't say it does, but hardware definitely contributes toward whether something can be defined as a PC. Read the first paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer A Mac is a PC. A PS4 is a PC. A smartphone is a PC. Just because it doesn't run Windows, doesn't mean something isn't a PC. Just because something runs Windows, that doesn't make it a PC.

Also a Mac never have been linked to it's "PC" hardware, started motorola, then IBM PPC, Intel X86, ARM... But it's still a Mac, mean the system is the fusion of the OS and the hardware, this is why Metal should have been made and exist in Apple world, up to dev to do their work now.

lol yes they have... The Motorola CPU Apple used was also used by the Commodore Amiga and Atari ST, both of which were PCs (the Commodore was specifically advertised as a PC). The IBM PPC Macs shared a platform that BeOS was on, which is another OS specifically for PC use. Intel obviously makes PC platforms, and you can dual-boot an x86 Mac with Windows, making it a "legit PC" ostensibly by your definition. There are dozens of ARM platforms out there advertised as PCs (I'm using one right now, that can also run Windows). So it is utter nonsense for you to say it hasn't been linked to PC hardware, because it always was linked to PC hardware for its entire history. The very first Mac ever made is explicitly described as a PC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K This is not up for debate. This isn't an opinion. Macs are PCs. As for Metal, it's nothing more than an API. Same with DirectX. Same with Vulkan. The only thing that's special about it is its integration with Apple's various OSes. But they didn't have to do that. Vulkan is open-source; they could have easily tweaked that for their needs. Apple did this with OpenGL: https://www.khronos.org/opengl/wiki/OpenGL_Extension#Extension_Types

And last point you made 2 error: the Apple OS's origin, Vulkan... i will let you found more documentation about them 🙂

Not sure what it is you're trying to say here. Is it that Vulkan isn't natively supported in Mac OS? Because I'm aware of that, but you can run Vulkan software through MoltenVK.

On that you play on word... (litteraly PC mean Personal Computer) The usual PC maening is a PC under DOS or Windows, with another OS you add the OS or distro like "I have a Mint PC (or Machine if you hate every that is M$ compatible lol)" I remember the Commodore advertise for 1500 and 2000/2500 series, it was a pack with a 8086 for the 1st add on card to a 486DX for the last official commodore version (higher for 3rd part) it was 2 computer in one and was working great. On Apple the OS is document oriented, the hardware is just to be paired with the OS (and so can be from everywhere). And the user should no bother with anything else than what he can do with his document. So in this vision, would you bother with X86 win32 compatibility, Vulkan etc ? I wouldn't myself. You think too much as a PC or Hackintosh user, i have worked a long time with Mac user to said they think different than us.