Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 166 posts

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

#71

Post by sjwright »

je42 wrote: post #66
vlozko wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s definitely some common threads with this and Apple’s push to have apps use bitcode. It would make this duality a lot easier from an app distribution perspective without the need to have an emulation layer. My only guess as to why Apple hasn’t required bitcode by now is the sheer number of 3rd party libraries out there that aren’t built with bitcode enabled.

they are forcing notarization in the next OS-X update. this means they can eventually force bitcode.

They don't need to force anything: Apple will simply release the hardware and make it straightforward for developers to build fat binaries. And why wouldn't developers eagerly comply?

— The vast majority of programs will probably recompile with no changes.

— Many developers who will need to make ARM-specific optimisations will have already done that work for iOS releases. Ditto for graphics optimisations for Apple's custom graphics cores.

— For the remaining developers, the skill of optimising for Apple's ARM CPU and GPU is already mature in the marketplace.

— Most apps which don't fall under the aforementioned categories are probably high performance apps that won't be important for buyers of the smaller iMac and MacBook Air.

For a platform with a history of smooth transitions, this would be the easiest "transition" in Apple's history.

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

#72

Post by eecc »

Frankly I’m surprised no one hasn’t built an external core/ram expansion docking station yet.

With OS support for Numa and a broker to schedule tasks on Big/Little cores all the pieces are there.

My guess is the halo effect around the cloud that put these devices back into the drawers; when you can sync files across two conventional independent devices, risk aversion wins.

But people might become aware and weary of routing everything through Facebook/Google so the value of cloudless mobility might tip the scale.

Plus, if AR/VR ever takes off, the hardware for high bandwidth wired or not PAN will become available

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

#73

Post by dmix »

mjg59 wrote: post #61
Moto7451 wrote: post #4

I don’t think the argument holds very well. Apple has made three processor architectural changes including one on the current OS. “Too complicated” doesn’t really align with the execution history Apple has. The fat binary support Apple has is a huge tool and the ability to add instructions and optimizations to their chips to help with x86 emulation is a big deal. I don’t know if Apple will ever actually do this, but…

Apple has made two transitions while retaining compatibility, in one case with emulation of the old architecture being around the speed of the previous (68k to PPC) and in the other with emulation being faster than the previous architecture (PPC to x86). There's no ARM that's fast enough to emulate an x86 in the same power envelope, so right now any transition would either require all performance sensitive apps to be…

Do the ARM companies besides Apple even care about desktop long-term? There seems to be enough billions to be made in Mobile and IoT that they can keep focusing on that indefinitely.

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

#74

Post by _ph_ »

ken wrote: post #60

Every analysis I've read, including this one, assumes that Apple would start at the bottom rather than the top, as they have with every other CPU transition in the history of the company. Is there something especially difficult about making a high-core-count CPU? The A-series is already crushing single-threaded performance and they're competitive with Intel desktop CPUs for some applications. Once you have a high-per…

It isn't especially difficult, but is is expensive. The big challenge with CPU design is to make up for the costs and for that you need numbers. In the 90ies, there were plenty of high-performance CPU designs, Alpha, Sparc, Mips. They were alle killed by two mechanisms, that Intel had a lead in fab technology and that Intel had much higher numbers, consequentely could gain back much higher investments as the competitors could afford.

The big question wouldn't be whether Apple could make a high-performance ARM, but if the financials play out for it. The Mac Pro numbers certainly wouldn't pay for such a CPU development. This could change of course, if they would bring back the Xserve in a modern incarnation or find some other uses for a high-performance ARM cpu.

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

#75

Post by dmix »

kccqzy wrote: post #5

It doesn't make much sense. The processor architecture should be an implementation detail to a user. This has very little to do with product lines.

We’re the only people who know what a T2 is too. I doubt that had big marketing implications like they are trying to spin ‘Axx’. Absent some geopolitical/supply chain risk.

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

#76

Post by _ph_ »

pjmlp wrote: post #67
dehrmann wrote: post #44

ARM on the Macbook Pro would put a lot of software shops (I'm guessing tech and design firms are the main purchasers of Macs) using Docker in an awkward spot with their containers not running on dev machines.

Those shops are deploying into Linux servers anyway, so they would be better off supporting an Linux OEM. We use our Macs for Design (Sketch, Zepplin, Adobe), Web (via Java) and native iOS/macOS development, I am yet to hear anyone caring about docker beyond conference talks.

But developers using Macs for x86 Linux development is a common thing. Besides that they actually also might need the Mac part (Office, other software requirements), it certainly would be a hit to Apple, if those developers dropped the Macs.

I am one developer using a MacBook Pro at work, but depend on the ability to run x86-Linux VMs. I could not use an ARM-Based Laptop for work.

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

#77

Post by sa1 »

josteink wrote: post #68
dehrmann wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's consolidating some controllers. It probably has more to do having fewer parts, fewer vendors, and better repair lock-in. It's not really an architectural step towards replacing the CPU--it's a southbridge with better marketing.

> It's not really an architectural step towards replacing the CPU--it's a southbridge with better marketing. Except it locks out any OS not Windows or MacOS from using it. Southbridge didn’t have hardware mechanisms in place to intentionally lock Linux out from using the machine’s (rather expensive) internal storage.

It doesn't lock out linux from using it. They deviated from the NVMe spec, and it took time(and somebody to actually investigate) for the linux guys to figure it out:

https://github.com/Dunedan/mbp-2016-linux/issues/71

It's not a lockout by any means, and your next version of linux kernel will support it just fine(assuming the NVMe patches are merged).

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

#78

Post by c256 »

wodenokoto wrote: post #55
Moto7451 wrote: post #4

I don’t think the argument holds very well. Apple has made three processor architectural changes including one on the current OS. “Too complicated” doesn’t really align with the execution history Apple has. The fat binary support Apple has is a huge tool and the ability to add instructions and optimizations to their chips to help with x86 emulation is a big deal. I don’t know if Apple will ever actually do this, but…

I think the argument against building custom cpu for Mac Pro is pretty good, as this puts them in a situation that is different from past architecture changes.

The future of Pro machines is largely about VMs. Heck, the recent past of Pro machines is largely about VMs — that’s the reason I so often hear people complain about 16GB ram limits, for example.

In that world, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Mac Pro running a (few?) very high core-count cpus(s) underneath an Apple/ARM based software stack, even if the cpu comes from Intel or AMD. That would let a putative Mac Pro run the same software as the battery-friendly laptops.

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

#79

Post by steeleduncan »

dehrmann wrote: post #44

ARM on the Macbook Pro would put a lot of software shops (I'm guessing tech and design firms are the main purchasers of Macs) using Docker in an awkward spot with their containers not running on dev machines.

The containers don't run on macOS as such, they run on linux inside a VM. You could spin up that linux inside an x86_64 emulator such as qemu instead. The emulation would be slower, but it would be a serious problem for most use cases.

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

#80

Post by pjmlp »

_ph_ wrote: post #76
pjmlp wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those shops are deploying into Linux servers anyway, so they would be better off supporting an Linux OEM. We use our Macs for Design (Sketch, Zepplin, Adobe), Web (via Java) and native iOS/macOS development, I am yet to hear anyone caring about docker beyond conference talks.

But developers using Macs for x86 Linux development is a common thing. Besides that they actually also might need the Mac part (Office, other software requirements), it certainly would be a hit to Apple, if those developers dropped the Macs. I am one developer using a MacBook Pro at work, but depend on the ability to run x86-Linux VMs. I could not use an ARM-Based Laptop for work.

Those developers would be better off supporting Linux OEMs.

That is what I did with my Asus travel netbook (1215 B), which was sold with Ubuntu LTS pre-installed.

Post reply on HN