Live data from Hacker News

Apple Silicon M1: Black Magic Fuckery

singhkays.com

11–20 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Silicon M1: Black Magic Fuckery

#11
post #6

At the risk of being that (Linux) guy -- What is gained here if we're just still applying faster cycles to Apple-esque wasteful (and perhaps harmful, as we're apparently learning re: their telemetry) software? If people really dig their Apple stuff, great. But I think its worth thinking about the likelihood that a "slower" computer running Linux could probably serve the actual user better in terms of "getting stuff d…

I have never lacked for "getting stuff done" on a Mac.

Re: Apple Silicon M1: Black Magic Fuckery

#12

I just got one. I’m blown away by the speed as well. Chrome runs insanely fast! Alas, it’s not developer ready yet. Brew is a mess. Docker doesn’t work. PyCharm is WIP although can use x86 version. I was skeptical of the hype but this little laptop has made me realize how slow everything else is. Unfortunately, while the hardware has accelerated far beyond expectations, the software - specifically MacOS BigSur is a m…

Seems pretty obvious that some future Macs will have touch screens or larger iPads will run MacOS.

I’d buy a Surface Studio style iMac in a heartbeat.

Re: Apple Silicon M1: Black Magic Fuckery

#14
post #6

At the risk of being that (Linux) guy -- What is gained here if we're just still applying faster cycles to Apple-esque wasteful (and perhaps harmful, as we're apparently learning re: their telemetry) software? If people really dig their Apple stuff, great. But I think its worth thinking about the likelihood that a "slower" computer running Linux could probably serve the actual user better in terms of "getting stuff d…

macOS has been my daily driver since 2006, fully since 2010 (when I got rid of my desktop which I dual booted between Windows for gaming and Linux for development). It's perfectly suitable for "getting stuff done". In the rare case where macOS doesn't run something that I need that another *nix or Windows supports I spin up a VM or VPS.

Re: Apple Silicon M1: Black Magic Fuckery

#15
I don't quite understand how 'retain' and 'release' can be more memory efficient on Apple Silicon than x86.... I can understand how they can be more efficient from a performance standpoint in terms of more efficient reference counting, but I don't understand how that translates to less memory usage which is apparently what's being argued... ?

Unless on x86 some of the 'free's when the ref counts hit 0 were being batched up and deferred, and that doesn't need to happen now?

Re: Apple Silicon M1: Black Magic Fuckery

#16
I'm typing this from a 2014 i7-4980HQ 15" MBP. This machine would have been replaced in 2017 but I wasn't impressed with that years model. I had planned to upgrade in 2020 but the announcement of the M1 basically quashed that. I've been on this planet long enough to know when Apple changes course like this the old architect is already obsolete. 68k -> PPC -> x86_64 -> ASi. The PPC G5 got exactly 1 OS upgrade (10.5) before it was EOL'd.

If the reports are to be believed on performance and Rosetta than this upgrade may be one of the smoothest in Apple history. The Intel CPU has had an incredibly long run, 15 years, at Apple. If they are confident they can make the leap and not leave their users in the lurch more power to them.

I'm still on the fence on buying an M1 laptop. Apple users know you pay an Apple tax and a v1 tax. My MBP is getting so long in the tooth I may have to ignore my own advice of not getting first generation Apple hardware.

Re: Apple Silicon M1: Black Magic Fuckery

#17
post #15

I don't quite understand how 'retain' and 'release' can be more memory efficient on Apple Silicon than x86.... I can understand how they can be more efficient from a performance standpoint in terms of more efficient reference counting, but I don't understand how that translates to less memory usage which is apparently what's being argued... ? Unless on x86 some of the 'free's when the ref counts hit 0 were being batc…

I believe it was being brought up as an example of "Apple has designed their hardware around their software" and then that translates to "Apple's software does well on machines with less memory".

Re: Apple Silicon M1: Black Magic Fuckery

#18
weren't the old exploits on the intel processors patched by essentially making many operations slower? like they had to disable some cpu instructions which were previously innovative and this debilitated the irreparable processors.

so a new architecture with better versions of the same instructions would feel very fast, since we went two steps back first.

Re: Apple Silicon M1: Black Magic Fuckery

#19

I just got one. I’m blown away by the speed as well. Chrome runs insanely fast! Alas, it’s not developer ready yet. Brew is a mess. Docker doesn’t work. PyCharm is WIP although can use x86 version. I was skeptical of the hype but this little laptop has made me realize how slow everything else is. Unfortunately, while the hardware has accelerated far beyond expectations, the software - specifically MacOS BigSur is a m…

It’s not fashion.

Unfortunately you are wrong. Everything we call tech is in fact driven by fashion.

My older version Mac is badgering me to upgrade to Bug Sur. Top feature: 100 new emojis. That is what Apple prioritised. Why the hell are emojis even part of the OS let alone its top feature!

Truth is GUIs are done, were a decade or more ago. All there is left now is change for the sake of change. And Apple can’t think of anything more to do in the real OS either!

Re: Apple Silicon M1: Black Magic Fuckery

#20
post #15

I don't quite understand how 'retain' and 'release' can be more memory efficient on Apple Silicon than x86.... I can understand how they can be more efficient from a performance standpoint in terms of more efficient reference counting, but I don't understand how that translates to less memory usage which is apparently what's being argued... ? Unless on x86 some of the 'free's when the ref counts hit 0 were being batc…

I believe it was being brought up as an example of "Apple has designed their hardware around their software" and then that translates to "Apple's software does well on machines with less memory".

Compared to something like Android, sure, I get that, but compared to ObjectiveC/Swift on x86 (which I think was being argued - i.e. against the Intel Macs)?

I guess it makes reference counting in general more efficient, I'm just saying I don't see why that would mean Apple Silicon Macs running ObjectC/Swift code would have less memory usage than the same code compiled and running on x86.

Post reply on HN