Apple: No Macintosh Forks. But the iPad... • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple: No Macintosh Forks. But the iPad...

#21

Post by OldHand2018 » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 3:59 AM UTC

jackvalentine wrote: post #9

My prediction is an A-series Mac won’t start from the bottom up it’ll start top down - beginning with a Mac Pro addin card.

Perhaps like the "Math co-processor" in the 386 days?

Imagine a future generation T-series chip with the neural cores that the A-series chips have. Accessible using the existing frameworks that you are already using. Or adding GPU cores to the MacBook Pro lineup as a replacement for the AMD GPUs that they have now.

And while they are doing that, they can release a Smart Keyboard for a future iPad Pro that has a trackpad. That's got to be one of the least risky ways to try out the iPad as a laptop replacement. If it's a flop, you're out the $150 or whatever it would cost but still have a perfectly good iPad that you keep using as an iPad.

Apple is in the position to take a "lets see where this takes us" approach. As long as they keep the OS and Frameworks from drifting apart, there are a lot of nice things that could happen.

Re: Apple: No Macintosh Forks. But the iPad...

#22

Post by saagarjha » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 4:01 AM UTC

jart wrote: post #19

runjake wrote: post #11

For some context: the author of this article, Jean-Louis Gassée, was a former director at Apple, founded Be, Inc. and was chairman at PalmSource for a while. His background may help or hurt his viewpoint, depending on how you see things. I will say that I disagree with his points. And I'll also point out that the Mac ARM transition is happening right before our eyes with the T2 chip , which replaces a bunch of system…

Is the struggle for microprocessor supremacy still even relevant? I'd ask, "who's going to build the best quantum processor?" rather than, "who's going to dethrone x86?"

Quantum computers can't do anything useful and will likely not be able to for quite a while.

Re: Apple: No Macintosh Forks. But the iPad...

#23

Post by saagarjha » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 4:02 AM UTC

spectramax wrote: post #2

Does anyone find the use of the word "fork" outside of open-source projects a bit annoying? BMW forked their 3-series coupe and called it 4-series. Ugh...

This has a long history, even on Mac OS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork

Re: Apple: No Macintosh Forks. But the iPad...

#24

Post by reitzensteinm » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 4:08 AM UTC

I don't buy the permanent fork argument for one reason.

AMD had the cancelled ARM version of Zen. There aren't any public plans to bring it back as far as I'm aware.

But if Apple transitions past x86, it's going to provide critical mass for desktop ARM and the Zen chip will be back.

AMD would be sitting on the highest performance single socket ARM chip, and Apple would just use that.

Re: Apple: No Macintosh Forks. But the iPad...

#25

Post by mepian » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 4:12 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #7

I see a lot of Surface Pro in the iPad[1]. That isn't a bad thing, it is great to have two design studios trying to out do each other. If you agree that these devices should work better on ARM chips rather than x86 chips, then the iPad has an advantage with an already ARM based ecosystem. Of course the Surface R/T tried that too, and stumbled. But I wonder if Apple saw that as a hint of where Microsoft might go. I fi…

I don't know how "Windows on NOT Intel" was antithetic to Gates way of thinking when Windows NT was running on most major RISC platforms while they were still relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Supported_platforms

Re: Apple: No Macintosh Forks. But the iPad...

#26

Post by kalleboo » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 4:12 AM UTC

mktmkr wrote: post #12

runjake wrote: post #11

For some context: the author of this article, Jean-Louis Gassée, was a former director at Apple, founded Be, Inc. and was chairman at PalmSource for a while. His background may help or hurt his viewpoint, depending on how you see things. I will say that I disagree with his points. And I'll also point out that the Mac ARM transition is happening right before our eyes with the T2 chip , which replaces a bunch of system…

Sorry, what do you mean? On a current MacBook Pro the memory is controlled by the CPU and the disk is attached to a PCIe root port also on the CPU. The "disk controller" as such has moved into the disk.

The only way to access the soldered-in NAND storage is through the T2 chip, which encrypts everything on-the-fly with a unique burned-in AES key. The T2 also acts as the SSD controller, controlling the raw NAND chips. You can see this in an iMac Pro teardown, as the removeable "SSDs" in it only have flash chips on them, no controller.

The T2 is not involved with memory access AFAIK though. As for I/O, it does handle the audio and camera access.

Re: Apple: No Macintosh Forks. But the iPad...

#27

Post by reaperducer » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 4:20 AM UTC

flomo wrote: post #13

My take on the iPad form-factor hasn't really changed since the introduction. Its really great for certain casual use cases, but as soon as you sit down at a desk to get some work done, oh god does this fucking suck. And the keyboard cases actually make it worse because you delude yourself into thinking it makes it better, when it does not. So an iOS/iPadOS laptop with full KVM support always seemed like a no-brainer…

And the keyboard cases actually make it worse because you delude yourself into thinking it makes it better, when it does not.

When I was given my iPad I didn't want to buy a keyboard case. But sometimes I need a keyboard. I happened to have an extra Apple Wireless Keyboard, and it works fantastically. Wireless. Full-sized. And it's only slightly larger than the 9" iPad. I just throw them both in my bag.

Re: Apple: No Macintosh Forks. But the iPad...

#28

Post by taneq » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 4:21 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #7

I see a lot of Surface Pro in the iPad[1]. That isn't a bad thing, it is great to have two design studios trying to out do each other. If you agree that these devices should work better on ARM chips rather than x86 chips, then the iPad has an advantage with an already ARM based ecosystem. Of course the Surface R/T tried that too, and stumbled. But I wonder if Apple saw that as a hint of where Microsoft might go. I fi…

Re. [3], there’s often a significant cost to maintaining a separate data plan for each device. I was recently quoted $15/mo to connect an $18/mo iPad. That’s a lot to pay for the privilege of not turning your wifi hotspot on.

Re: Apple: No Macintosh Forks. But the iPad...

#29

Post by reaperducer » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 4:22 AM UTC

OldHand2018 wrote: post #21

jackvalentine wrote: post #9

My prediction is an A-series Mac won’t start from the bottom up it’ll start top down - beginning with a Mac Pro addin card.

Perhaps like the "Math co-processor" in the 386 days? Imagine a future generation T-series chip with the neural cores that the A-series chips have. Accessible using the existing frameworks that you are already using. Or adding GPU cores to the MacBook Pro lineup as a replacement for the AMD GPUs that they have now. And while they are doing that, they can release a Smart Keyboard for a future iPad Pro that has a track…

386? Where's the love for Intel's 8087?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8087

Re: Apple: No Macintosh Forks. But the iPad...

#30

Post by taneq » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 4:23 AM UTC

gonzo wrote: post #8

spectramax wrote: post #2

Does anyone find the use of the word "fork" outside of open-source projects a bit annoying? BMW forked their 3-series coupe and called it 4-series. Ugh...

Will you also complain about Yogi Bera's "When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It! Inspiration and Wisdom from One of Baseball's Greatest Heroes", published in 2001?

But that doesn’t verb the fork...