[vineyardmike]

> There is a reason that Apple was able to port the core of iOS and many of the APIs to

Microsoft can do this and just exclude the compatibility patches. All of those various windows versions and non-desktop OSes (eg windows phone, Xbox) are certainly the same thing. Porting an OS already means you’re picking what you want, and reusing the kernel. This isn’t that special.

Regarding maintainability, I’m not sure it’s “better”. It’s a liability to depend on mac software and update your mac. Ask how many photographers (or pick a profession) keep an old mac lying around for that one version of photoshop (pick your software) they need that doesn’t work on new macs. What’re the odds old mac is getting security updates and is well maintained?

(Also a nit, the monitor has 64gb of storage not ram).

[scarface74]

Apple has ported its entire OS - not just parts - since the introduction of OS X to three different architectures. Should Apple still keep a PPC compatibility layer? If they had ported Carbon to 64 bit, would Adobe have ever moved over to modern MacOS frameworks?

Even further back, should Apple keep supporting OS 9? 68K processors?

How is the ARM transition for Windows working out no matter how hard Microsoft tries?

[pitterpatter]

I mean, Windows on ARM (first 32bit and later 64) has been a thing for years now. I don't the issue is the architecture per se. What made the M1 Macbooks so good wasn't just because they were ARM based but specifically Apple's custom M1 chip.

[scarface74]

A thing - barely.

Windows on ARM runs faster on Macs than Windows PCs

https://www.lifewire.com/your-m1-mac-can-run-windows-faster-...

https://www.androidauthority.com/windows-on-arm-2023-predict...

> Most Windows on Arm products offer slower CPUs than today's flagship smartphones