I have doubts that Apple is planning to switch to ARM from Intel if for no other reason that ARM is not 64bit and from what I recall it's not in the roadmap. This works fine for small devices but obviously won't work for anything larger. I doubt a PAE-style kernel is a legitimate option.
Strongly Encouraging XCode Lets Apple Switch Architectures
31–40 of 41 posts
Re: Strongly Encouraging XCode Lets Apple Switch Architectures
#32I have doubts that Apple is planning to switch to ARM from Intel if for no other reason that ARM is not 64bit and from what I recall it's not in the roadmap. This works fine for small devices but obviously won't work for anything larger. I doubt a PAE-style kernel is a legitimate option.
Why would you need 64 bit addressing on an iPad?
Re: Strongly Encouraging XCode Lets Apple Switch Architectures
#33I have doubts that Apple is planning to switch to ARM from Intel if for no other reason that ARM is not 64bit and from what I recall it's not in the roadmap. This works fine for small devices but obviously won't work for anything larger. I doubt a PAE-style kernel is a legitimate option.
Why would you need 64 bit addressing on an iPad?
[deleted]
Re: Strongly Encouraging XCode Lets Apple Switch Architectures
#34Great catch. It would be very impressive if this is the case. Looking forward to see what others think.
Re: Strongly Encouraging XCode Lets Apple Switch Architectures
#35The itouch had some undisclosed bluetooth in it that was enabled by subsequent software. Could the A4 chip be housing more than one core? ARM, and something else as well, to be activated by software later? They're already taking a bath on the unit as a long-term investment, so anything's possible.
Re: Strongly Encouraging XCode Lets Apple Switch Architectures
#36Basing their OSs on Unix is what enables Apple to switch architectures rather easily. Moving OS9 to Intel would be a huge undertaking, much bigger than the 68K to PPC migration of OS7, mostly because the huge performance gap wasn't there. By that time, NeXT's environment had been successfully ported from 68K to SPARC, HP-PA and x86 (I can't remember if MIPS was in the lot too) running over at least three different kernels (Solaris, HP/UX and it's native kernel ported to x86). The PPC port and the resulting OSX was one more in a series of successful ports (and built on work that ported the Mach kernel to PPC that ran under MkLinux - I used it).
Having a clearly defined architecture-neutral API sitting over a portable kernel is the way to go. In fact, it has been the way to go in the Unix world since about the time I was born. ARM is the winning ISA this week, but betting the farm on it being the winning ISA forever is just silly.
Re: Strongly Encouraging XCode Lets Apple Switch Architectures
#37I don't get it. As long as an ARM binary or a 'Super-Secret A4 Architecture' binary is produced, who cares? I can write Objective C code in TextMate and then use xcodebuild from the command line to build a fully functional iPhone or iPad app.
Adobe cares, because Flash CS5 only generates ARM code, not secret-crackpot-processor code. In theory.
If this was their goal, they could just mandate a specific C compiler. You can originally write in Scheme, translate it to C with Chicken and use whatever C compiler you want to compile the result. There would be no affect on any platform-switching plans Apple might have.
Re: Strongly Encouraging XCode Lets Apple Switch Architectures
#38Re: Strongly Encouraging XCode Lets Apple Switch Architectures
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and then it's turtles all the way down!
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Hmm. I just looked through my last 170 days of comments and I found the word "Turtle" exactly once. And it's in this thread.
I don't believe I need to explain the joke. +7 kind of hints that some people agree.
Re: Strongly Encouraging XCode Lets Apple Switch Architectures
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
The free markets argument in favor of the new TOS: it's a free market, and Apple should be able to ship whatever product they want.
I don't believe we've heard anyone calling for the government to step in and force them to. But people are free to express why they think its a bad idea, for them and for Apple (in the long term), just as you are free to disagree with them.
That's a straw man. Nobody's saying you can't have opinions. I'm just commenting about a particularly flimsy opinion.