Having recently suffered the fate of all Apple partners, Intel is firing back against Apple Silicon in a new series of “Go PC” advertisements.
“If you can flip through Photoshop thumbnails with your actual thumb, you’re not on a Mac,” one ad reads. “If you can power a rocket launch and launch Rocket League, you’re not on a Mac,” another reads. You get the idea.
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
As many readers probably know, Intel has finally started firing back against Apple and its M1 chipset, which now powers Apple’s lower-end Macs. Most reviews of the new Macs have been overwhelmingly positive, but most also gloss over its compatibility issues and missing features. Some are new to the M1, and some are just general disadvantages of any Mac.
The most public part of Intel’s strategy to date has been its engagement with tech reviewers, and it’s been interesting to see the output from others who were also asked by Intel to make honest comparisons between Intel Evo-based portable PCs and the M1-based MacBook Pro. I’ve been working through my own comparisons, the most recent of which is Intel Evo vs. Apple M1: Preliminary Head-to-Head.
To me, the Intel ads are vaguely reminiscent of Apple’s “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” ads from long ago. But so far, at least, they’re also more honest.
dftf
<p>"If you can flip through Photoshop thumbnails with your actual thumb, you’re not on a Mac". No, but you might be on an iOS or Android device… or using a touchscreen laptop (or touchscreen desktop-monitor, attached to a PC) that runs an AMD or ARM processor. This is hardly a feature specific to using an Intel CPU!</p><p><br></p><p>I'd imagine the new M1 isn't affected by Meltdown or Spectre, either…!</p><p><br></p><p>I'm sure Intel are rattled by the new M1, and have good-reason to be, given they are currently stuck on, what, 15nm for most processors, and 10nm only for lower-end ones that don't run too-hot? Whereas AMD are currently on 7nm and working-on 5nm?</p><p><br></p><p>Let's hope their new CEO can turn-things around, as otherwise I'd struggle to see why you'd want a lower-end Intel CPU (Celeron, Pentium, Core i3 and some Core i5) in a future device instead-of an AMD equivalent (Ryzen 3 and whatever AMD's equivalents to Pentium and Celeron are thesedays) that will use less-power…</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612965">In reply to remc86007:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"[…] annoyances that arise when trying to use a Mac for business in a largely Windows environment."</em></p><p><br></p><p>That's by-design: the Apple ethos has always been that it's an individual experience. So devices are pretty-much always seen as standalone. I think there is some support for Windows GPOs on macOS, but usually you just use a phone/tablet solution, like VMWare Airwatch or Microsoft InTune, and enrol a mac device that-way. (There did used to be a thing called "macOS Server", which originally was a separate product, on its own CD/DVD; then it became a role you can install as part of a regular macOS install; not sure if it still exists now?)</p><p><br></p><p><em>"Now he carries a Mac and cheap PC"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Given you said be purchased the mac laptop last-year, I'd think it likely it would be a non-M1 model, and using an Intel CPU. In which case, Boot Camp would have also been an option, and he could switch between Windows 10 and macOS on the same device…</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612985">In reply to remc86007:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yes… but after you'd set it up, surely carrying just one device would be easier?</p><p><br></p><p>Well, if he's happy using two separate ones then problem-solved I guess</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612974">In reply to toukale:</a></em></blockquote><p>Why is AMD not a solution long-term when Intel are currently struggling to get-lower than 10nm for their chips (only lower-end ones currently are at that size; most are still on 15nm) whereas AMD are already shipping 7nm and are due to release 5nm ones this year?</p><p><br></p><p>If you run Windows 10 on an AMD CPU it'll run all the same apps and games… so what makes them not a long-term solution? Have they lost a lot of money recently or something I'm not aware of, or are getting sued?</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612967">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Clearly for the younger-generations, touchscreen is an important feature: it won't be long before a physical mouse and keyboard become as alien as a floppy-disk!</p><p><br></p><p>But my point was: sure, Apple's desktops and laptops don't come with touchscreens currently… but of devices that do, there is no-need for them to run an Intel CPU to accomplice that feature anyway!</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612992">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>Not really… they want to encourage people to still buy iPads.</p><p><br></p><p>If Apple released a macBook with a detachable screen, as some "Windows devices" have, and you could use that screen like a tablet, why bother purchasing an iPad as-well?</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#613003">In reply to Winner:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's a pain-in-the-ass <em>for you</em>: but you're not everyone.</p><p><br></p><p>Many young (as-in say age 10 or younger) right-now will be much-more familiar with touchscreen-only devices, like a smartphone or tablet.</p><p><br></p><p>And, of course, you can pair a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse to an Android device (and I'm sure recent versions of iPad OS have introduced support too). And with how many features that were previously only in the "full-fat" desktop versions of apps are getting ported-across to the iOS and Android versions, eventually you may not need macOS or Windows… just use your iOS or Android device in "desktop mode" when needed </p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#613023">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm no developer, so could be wrong here, but… there is a thing called ".NET Core" and under "Build apps – SDK" for the newest 5.0 release it offers installers for Windows, macOS and Linux</p><p><br></p><p>So… persumably that would allow you to code a .NET 5.0 Core app on macOS or Linux which would run on Windows 10?</p><p><br></p><p>Link: dotnet.microsoft.com/download/dotnet/5.0</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612983">In reply to shark47:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"that people who have a choice –and can afford it– generally pick Macs"</em></p><p><br></p><p>No, not necessarily: there are plenty of people with lots of money who build a high-end Windows gaming PC.</p><p><br></p><p>The cost of Apple devices will definitely hinder some people from considering them — but, shocking as I know it is — some people actually choose to use Windows as they prefer it. Don't assume everyone would be a convert if just they could afford it…!</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612986">In reply to nbplopes:</a></em></blockquote><p>The fair way to put it is: the M1 clearly is a gamechanger for Apple as it means better-performance, better battery-life, less-heat, and, through being an ARM CPU, the native ability to run iOS and iPadOS apps.</p><p><br></p><p>But for Windows users, the only impact it may have is if it spurs AMD and Intel on to make their CPUs better, so future Windows devices will gain similar benefits. But even if that wasn't to happen, I can't see many users suddenly jumping-over to macOS and Apple devices just because of it.</p><p><br></p><p>(Plus… is better battery-life a big-sell right-now when, due to the global situation, more people are working-from-home and therefore plugged-in near-constantly?)</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#613002">In reply to Winner:</a></em></blockquote><p>Well, first-off, surely AMD would be better-placed to compete against the M1, given they are already working at 7nm, with 5nm chips due by the end of this year?</p><p><br></p><p>But second: I'm not sure for the foreseeable any chips designed for Windows PCs will be able to improve to the same degree, as all 64-bit chips must support both the AMD64 and Intel32 instruction-sets. As of macOS 10.15 "Catalina" (Oct 2019), Apple's OS went 64-bit only. Microsoft's main-version of Windows still supports 64-bit and 32-bit apps, and they even still provide the "32-bit" version of Windows, that has a 32-bit kernel and runs 32-bit apps and drivers, along with 16-bit apps.</p><p><br></p><p>So… while I'm sure it would be possible to integrate the RAM into the CPU to reduce that bottleneck, I'm not sure how-close to the M1 other CPUs can get when the 32-bit instruction-set and circuitry is still mandatory… </p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#613005">In reply to 2ilent8cho:</a></em></blockquote><p>It will be interesting to see if they do have chips that will beat Core i9 Extreme Edition, Intel Xeon and AMD ThreadRipper CPUs, yes.</p><p><br></p><p>But the other question will be: what of their own integrated GPUs? There won't be a discrete GPU option on future "Apple CPU" devices, I read… but do they still support the use of an external GPU (eGPU)? </p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#613008">In reply to neosar:</a></em></blockquote><p>Well, there are still enterprises who have incredibly-old 16-bit Windows 95/98/Me apps, or 32-bit apps from Windows NT 4.0/2000 era, which you might not be able to use App-V, Citrix or similar for. Or maybe physical devices which use a 16-bit or 32-bit driver, and require a local parallel or serial connection (and where a USB dongle doesn't work) so a physical-machine is necessary.</p><p><br></p><p>Though I still cannot understand for-the-life-of-me why such machines would need to run a 32-bit version of Windows 10, rather-than an old version of Windows, and run in their own segmented LAN, with no Internet connectivity.</p><p><br></p><p>It continues to puzzle me as to why we still need current 32-bit kernel versions of Windows 10…</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#613010">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>AMD are clearly further-ahead in scaling-down their CPUs than Intel.</p><p><br></p><p>Integrating RAM into the CPU could easily be done, and I'm sure they could make some internal-efficiencies to the internal layout, yes.</p><p><br></p><p>But remember that all CPUs for Windows devices have to retain the 32-bit instruction set and circuitry, as unlike macOS, 64-bit Windows still offers 32-bit app support, and there is also the 32-bit versions of Windows, with a 32-bit kernel, that run 32-bit drivers, and 32-bit and 16-bit apps.</p><p><br></p><p>So with that support having to remain, don't expect as-dramatic changes as with the M1 </p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612979">In reply to Bob_Shutts:</a></em></blockquote><p>Of course… the M1 may be good, but I don't see why any Windows user would suddenly move to an Apple device just-because of it?</p><p><br></p><p>Given the current pandemic, many people are working-from-home, where an increase of battery-life isn't a big-sell, given you can remain plugged-in!</p><p><br></p><p>Being able to run iOS and iPad OS apps on an Apple laptop or desktop might become a big thing (maybe?), but nothing is stopping Microsoft from adding the ability to run Android apps in Windows 10 as a response, if so. Especially on the "Windows 10 on ARM" edition, given those devices run ARM CPUs, as-is used in most Android phones and tablets…</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#613176">In reply to ianbetteridge:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yeah… have to agree.</p><p><br></p><p>I'm sure there will be a surge in new sales, as there will be many running older Mac devices who will find the M1 shift a good-reason to do an upgrade. But as that's existing users upgrading, that means market-share doesn't move.</p><p><br></p><p>And for most average-people out-there: if using an iPhone or iPad didn't move them into also getting a macOS device, I see no-reason the M1 CPU suddenly will. Like your average person really cares about what's inside the machine, beyond the basics of "this much GB memory" (by which they mean "storage"), "this much GB RAM", "the screen is this size" and perhaps "I think an i5 would be better-than an i3 as it's a bigger-number".</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#613182">In reply to ianbetteridge:</a></em></blockquote><p>Well, you could also argue the reverse: I'm told that for corporate enrolments of devices into MDM solutions, like Airwatch or InTune, the vast-majority (in Western countries) iOS devices.</p><p><br></p><p>So aren't businesses purchasing iOS devices on-behalf-of their users, when an Android device would be cheaper, and likely do all they need it to? (Which for many users is simply: access their cloud files; read and compose e-mail; use a handful of apps, including perhaps a few in-house developed ones; and of course, make and receive calls, texts and the odd video-chat)</p>