Macintel: The End Is Nigh • Hacker News Board

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#111

Post by quanticle » Mon, Aug 04, 2014, 12:25 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #98

ricw wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making the incorrect assumption that apple would in fact emulate. As they control the whole stack, they can (relatively) quickly switch architectures. They'd lose the market that does in fact install windows on mac hardware, though that is likely a negligible niche. So for the vast majority of their customers there would not be a performance penalty. Quite the opposite. Apple chips are in terms of tech already…

No. You also lose compatibility with every game and most major applications like Adobe, since all of these use lots of highly optimized, handwritten assembler code for critical sections, as well of all code paths using x86 vector instructions or other hw acceleration. Thanks but no thanks.

>You also lose compatibility with every game and most major applications like Adobe

Just like they lost compatibility when they switched from PPC to Intel?

I think that's one thing that a lot of commenters in this thread are ignoring: Apple has done this before. They've switched from PPC to Intel when IBM wasn't committing to making the power efficiency gains that they were looking for, and they'll switch from Intel to their own homegrown ARM chips for essentially the same reason.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#112

Post by whyenot » Mon, Aug 04, 2014, 12:36 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #98

ricw wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making the incorrect assumption that apple would in fact emulate. As they control the whole stack, they can (relatively) quickly switch architectures. They'd lose the market that does in fact install windows on mac hardware, though that is likely a negligible niche. So for the vast majority of their customers there would not be a performance penalty. Quite the opposite. Apple chips are in terms of tech already…

No. You also lose compatibility with every game and most major applications like Adobe, since all of these use lots of highly optimized, handwritten assembler code for critical sections, as well of all code paths using x86 vector instructions or other hw acceleration. Thanks but no thanks.

I don't think they would snap their fingers and every Mac they sell would abruptly switch to ARM. If they chose to go with ARM they would almost certainly move more gradually and come out with only one or two ARM machines at first. Maybe an iPad "Pro" or something like that which leverages all the software already written for the iPad and iPhone but has a detachable keyboard can also run Mac software if it's recompiled... something like that.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#113

Post by sjwright » Mon, Aug 04, 2014, 12:44 AM UTC

Glide wrote: post #68

RexRollman wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently switched back to Mac for the first time since 2006 and one of the factors in my decision is that I can run other x86 compatable OSes. I haven't felt the need to but it is nice to have the option.

Compatibility with x86 is a lot like why people don't buy purely electric cars. Being able to run another OS is much like being able to take a very long road trip.

That's why I like BMW's solution for their i3. It's a purely electric car, but if range anxiety is an issue, you can option a tiny petrol engine from a scooter that acts purely as a generator to charge the battery.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#114

Post by MBCook » Mon, Aug 04, 2014, 12:47 AM UTC

quanticle wrote: post #111

mschuster91 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You also lose compatibility with every game and most major applications like Adobe, since all of these use lots of highly optimized, handwritten assembler code for critical sections, as well of all code paths using x86 vector instructions or other hw acceleration. Thanks but no thanks.

>You also lose compatibility with every game and most major applications like Adobe Just like they lost compatibility when they switched from PPC to Intel? I think that's one thing that a lot of commenters in this thread are ignoring: Apple has done this before . They've switched from PPC to Intel when IBM wasn't committing to making the power efficiency gains that they were looking for, and they'll switch from Intel…

That switch took years and years and YEARS, and it was done for clear benefit. Desktops were one thing but in laptops Apple was way behind in performance. The new machines were so much faster that the emulated software didn't feel slower in normal use and you gained access to Windows software (which was horrendously slow when emulated on a PPC).

I'm not sure they could do such a transition again on the desktop. Other commenters ideas of making an 'iPad pro' and coming at it from that direction seems like a much better idea if you think any of this should be done.

Don't forget that Apple is up against Intel. They're called Fabzilla for a reason. Apple has a done an amazing job with their phones and tablets but when it comes to raw performance on the desktop I don't think they'd be able to keep up when Intel decided to start playing hardball.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#115

Post by MBCook » Mon, Aug 04, 2014, 12:51 AM UTC

ricw wrote: post #101

mschuster91 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You also lose compatibility with every game and most major applications like Adobe, since all of these use lots of highly optimized, handwritten assembler code for critical sections, as well of all code paths using x86 vector instructions or other hw acceleration. Thanks but no thanks.

Those vendors will follow. As they have previously when they transitioned from powerpc to x86. Games is a good point. But this is not a big thing on MacOS (as yet) anyways. If it saves hundreds of dollars per machine, its a no-brainer for the vast majority of users.

It took a VERY long time for the large ISVs to switch, and while games aren't big on OS X many people like the fact they can boot into Windows to play them.

If Apple was able to get the performance of their chips up to the level of Intel chips, would they be able to save hundreds per machine? Intel has some very large economies of scale.

If Apple wanted to save hundreds per machine they could do that right now. Intel's marketing campaigns that Apple doesn't take part of (like the 'Intel Inside' stickers) come with large rebates. Apple could use that and not have to go through the huge pain of another architecture switch.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#116

Post by noir_lord » Mon, Aug 04, 2014, 12:59 AM UTC

joshstrange wrote: post #57

jareds wrote: post #9

If this happens I hope entry level Mac’s get below $500. I bought a MacBook Air for use as a Windows machine with the plan to learn iOS development at some point. It was worth the cost since I can use it as my day to day machine running Windows. I wouldn’t be able to justify spending $1000 on a Mac Laptop that could not run Windows. I could justify $400 for an entry level Mac Mini running ARM but not a lot more then…

I find the "Apple is too expensive" argument to hold little water when you really look at it. I won't argue that up front you will pay more for the lowest-end Apple laptop/desktop over a Windows laptop/desktop but in my experience Apple products hold their value much better than any Dell/HP/etc product. Even if you hate OS X then you still are better off buying an Apple laptop and running Windows than you are buying…

It is exactly for this reason my next laptop will be a MBP running Linux (I have zero interest in MacOSX).

I bought a mid level Vostro a while back and it is absolute piece of shit.

Touch pad detects my palm from across the room but is inaccurate when I actually touch it, screen is mediocre and lets dust in constantly, keyboard is mushy with no positive click.

The spec looked good and Vostro's used to be ok, the Vostro 1700 I had prior was a fine machine.

It's so bad I've found myself using my ancient Thinkpad (Celeron M) when I have to do a lot of typing.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#117

Post by MBCook » Mon, Aug 04, 2014, 1:03 AM UTC

deong wrote: post #69

geon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why is this ARM OS like my Intel OS but without all my apps? The problem should be much smaller on OS X than on Windows. Apple has a culture of breaking things regularly, instead of worshipping backwards compatabillity. The result is that most Mac apps are kept up to date by the developer. Recompiling for an arm-based OS X shouldn't be an issue.

> The result is that most Mac apps are kept up to date by the developer. That's maybe true for indie developers. It's not generally true for things like Photoshop, Microsoft Office, MATLAB, Mathematica, Skype, and dozens of other major titles that would likely be complete dealbreakers for a pretty significant portion of their userbase.

Apple kept Carbon (the OS9 to OS X transitional bindings) around for so long because of Photoshop and Office.

From personal experience, I can tell you that this does not happen with big software. Apple released the first Intel Macs in early 2006. The next year Intuit released Quicken 2007 which was PPC only.

The first version of Quicken to be x86 for Mac was Quicken Essentials 2010. First of all that's four years after the transition. Second, Quicken Essentials was crippled. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

> Some of the features of Quicken are not present in Quicken Essentials for Mac, such as the ability to track investment buys and sells or to pay bills online from the application.

So unless you wanted something ultra-basic you were screwed. Intuit's answer was that they'd give you a free copy of Quick '08 for Windows. All you needed to do was buy Parallels (etc.) and Windows.

This was a big problem because OS X finally dropped PPC emulation support, called Rosetta, in 2011 with the release of Lion. So after 5 years Intuit, a VERY big company, was unwilling to update their software or provide a real equivalent for their Mac users.

If you look at the announcements for each version of Adobe Creative Suite for Mac you'll find references to starting to use features of the OS that Apple introduced years ago.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#118

Post by forgotketchup » Mon, Aug 04, 2014, 1:22 AM UTC

ricw wrote: post #101

mschuster91 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You also lose compatibility with every game and most major applications like Adobe, since all of these use lots of highly optimized, handwritten assembler code for critical sections, as well of all code paths using x86 vector instructions or other hw acceleration. Thanks but no thanks.

Those vendors will follow. As they have previously when they transitioned from powerpc to x86. Games is a good point. But this is not a big thing on MacOS (as yet) anyways. If it saves hundreds of dollars per machine, its a no-brainer for the vast majority of users.

Why should they?

Intel chips blew the doors off PPC by the time Apple got around to the PPC -> Intel transition. That (and good emulation software) allowed a relatively pain-free transition for most consumers: PPC apps didn't feel any slower when run on a new Intel-based Mac. That made it fairly easy to accumulate a critical mass of users with Intel systems, yet it still took ages for native apps to become available from the likes of Adobe and others.

Fast forward to today.

ARM chips are, at best, a little slower than the Intel chips they would replace. On top of that, the x86 ISA has a reputation for being hard to emulate well. So put yourself in the shoes of the consumer: are you going to upgrade to the new ARMBook Air, if it runs all your old apps at 1/2 or 1/4 the speed (and I'm being super optimistic here) they ran on your old MacBook Air? No! You're not! You're going to stick it out until the second generation of ARMBook comes out.

That means no critical mass of people who own ARM-based Macs and are willing and able to pay for native ARM software. That means vendors will. not. follow. This doesn't even take into account that Apple have burned their bridge with Adobe (a major vendor of 3rd party software for Mac).

Last point: I think you're wrong about games. There are tons of games for Mac on Steam. Would vendors go to the trouble of making a Mac port if there was no money in it?

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#119

Post by forgotketchup » Mon, Aug 04, 2014, 1:40 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #81

ggreer wrote: post #26

What would happen to the cost, battery life, and size of an A10-powered MacBook Air? It would be worse in almost every aspect. The cost wouldn't change much, and Apple wouldn't profit much more from the switch. The cited CPU cost is the suggested retail price . Apple's volume lets them negotiate huge discounts. Battery life would go up a bit, but battery life is already pretty good on Apple laptops. My 2013 11" Air g…

> It would be worse in almost every aspect. I don't see any explanation in your comment of how any of those aspects would be worse. You say "Apple wouldn't profit much more from the switch" because of the volume discounts they get from Intel, but you don't cite exactly how much of a discount they get, and you still concede that Apple's own ARM chips might have a lower cost. You say "battery life would go up a bit," a…

Worse from the customer perspective.

All their old apps now run probably 2 to 10 times slower, until new native binaries arrived. Compare that with the PPC->Intel transition, when old binary apps stayed about the same or maybe got a little faster.

Also, emulating Intel binary apps with the CPU pegged for twice as long nullifies any energy savings, so the battery life in practice gets worse. Even if it is 20% for native binary apps, consumers are going to see "new computer, worse battery life, Og smash!" during the transition.

You're not going to see a 20% gain in battery life for native binaries, though. The only way you'd see that is if the ARM CPU used no energy at all. Extraordinary claims, evidence, and all that.

Is there really any reason to think that an Intel and ARM chip of comparable performance will have significantly different package sizes? Intel has always been the leader in process technology, so it would surprise me if the ARM die were any smaller.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#120

Post by vacri » Mon, Aug 04, 2014, 1:43 AM UTC

joshstrange wrote: post #57

jareds wrote: post #9

If this happens I hope entry level Mac’s get below $500. I bought a MacBook Air for use as a Windows machine with the plan to learn iOS development at some point. It was worth the cost since I can use it as my day to day machine running Windows. I wouldn’t be able to justify spending $1000 on a Mac Laptop that could not run Windows. I could justify $400 for an entry level Mac Mini running ARM but not a lot more then…

I find the "Apple is too expensive" argument to hold little water when you really look at it. I won't argue that up front you will pay more for the lowest-end Apple laptop/desktop over a Windows laptop/desktop but in my experience Apple products hold their value much better than any Dell/HP/etc product. Even if you hate OS X then you still are better off buying an Apple laptop and running Windows than you are buying…

I find the "holds value" argument to hold little water. While Apple hardware does hold its value very well, most people don't resell their hardware every year or two. Yes, some people do, and they're quite organised and know what they're doing when it comes to moving all their stuff between machines and their setup, but most people don't.

As for massive slowdowns, I'm having a problem at the moment in that everyone I know with an old 4GB ram mac is having a massively slow system once they upgrade to Mavericks. On a clean boot, these machines are already using 3.5-4GB, which makes no sense.