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

Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

androidauthority.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 364 posts

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#171

Post by jsgo »

dhruvmittal wrote: post #149
jsgo wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hope so, but Apple implemented the wholesale Metal Only (not Metal Only unless you run a command in terminal) update which killed off using Nvidia cards for those of us who bought MBPs for eGPUing Nvidia cards. Considering Apple hardware doesn’t have a Nvidia option and people like me are probably niche to bring their own GPU (even though CUDA exists), it’d be highly unrealistic to think that Nvidia would rewrite the…

Possibly naive question but does anyone know if CUDA is supported on the new M1 macs? I think I heard on a podcast last week that eGPUs would no longer be supported, but I can't find a reference.

Well, Nvidia (outside of some really, really old hardware) isn’t supported on Mac so I’d imagine effectively M1 doesn’t support CUDA.

I would hope they didn’t kill off eGPUing Radeon cards, but I haven’t kept track of the new hardware other than M1 being really good.

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#172

Post by MrRiddle »

moepstar wrote: post #162
gameswithgo wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don’t think there is anything that suggests Apple is going to stop people from installing Apps outside their App Store Of course there are things that suggest this, such as, that is how iphones and ipads work, and its become increasingly difficult over time to do it on a mac.

As in what, having to RMB -> Open ? In what way was it made "more difficult" than that? What exactly suggests it is "becoming (even?) more difficult"?

I had to enable it in settings, I was prevented from opening an app that was not signed by apple. And I was prevented from opening even signed apps when their servers were down the other day.

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#173

Post by socialdemocrat »

throw0101a wrote: post #6
nathancahill wrote: post #4

Maybe it was Intel that had platform control all along.

With Intel there at least was AMD as an option: * https://amd-osx.com * https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-hackintosh-syste...

Yeah... because nobody else makes ARM compatible chips.

x86 is not an open ISA. For all practical purposes nobody besides intel and AMD can make x86 chips.

Pretty much anybody can ask ARM to get a license to make ARM chip.

Sure Macs have special chips in addition but that is true for their intel offerings as well. You have never been able to just plop an AMD chip into a Mac so it is not like that choice ever meant anything to consumers.

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#174

Post by my123 »

masklinn wrote: post #158
hehetrthrthrjn wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there is: the lack of third party graphics drivers. That single issue has the potential to nobble any useable ARM based Hackintosh, though someone might step forward and implement a graphics driver, but that's quite hard.

And while I have not seen anything on that subject (yet), a much deeper integration with their Secure Enclave is likely, and it’s very much possible they extended the ISA and take advantage if that internally.

macOS arm64 doesn't require any instructions that aren't part of the standardized Arm ISA. And about the Secure Enclave, just don't expose the device in the device tree (that's enough w/ stubbing AppleSystemPolicy).

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#175

Post by chongli »

lsiebert wrote: post #141
terramex wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The writing has thus been on the wall for circa a decade, as I said. So do you say that there is writing on the wall for removing 32-bit support in Windows and Linux too? I certainly don't. If Apple deprecated 32-bit while introducing x64 then the writing would be on the wall but they kept supporting and updating 32-bit. > You figured 32-bit would be supported for what, 20 years? 30? At least one hardware generatio…

I saw someone post on a non work slack about their steam library, where they had a bunch of games that previously ran on mac, being decimated, and they meant decimated literally by catalina. 90% of their games were 32 bit.

The good news for steam users is that you don’t have to purchase the game separately for each platform. The decimated users can build their own Windows gaming PC and easily regain access to all of their old games. I doubt they had any Mac-exclusive games that also happened to be 32-bit only. Do such games even exist? Maybe.

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#176

Post by resynth1943 »

newbie578 wrote: post #19
joshsyn wrote: post #5

Always one guy who shouts about control and submission. Don't like it don't buy it?

I bet there were people like you back when slavery was legal. If you don't like slavery, just don't buy slaves. Nothing wrong with that, right? YoU hAvE oPtIonS aS a CoNsuMer.

> I bet there were people like you back when slavery was legal.

It still is.

Go research Apple's relationship with Foxconn.

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#177

Post by nottorp »

rsynnott wrote: post #159
nottorp wrote: post #96

Apple has been screwed by CPU manufacturers 3 times already, or do you think they changed architectures because they were having great fun doing that? In the past 3 years I've seen more and more people asking not for an Arm Mac, but for an AMD Mac. Because AMD is again cheaper and faster than Intel. But it appears Apple can now afford to build their own CPUs that are better and lower power than either AMD or Intel. N…

> Apple has been screwed by CPU manufacturers 3 times already Arguably 4. Motorola abandoned m68k (at least as a desktop route; variants lived on for a very, very long time as an embedded thing). Then Motorola largely abandoned PPC, leaving IBM as the only desktop-y manufacturer. Then, unsurprisingly, IBM fell behind with it. And now Intel.

Sounds right. I was counting PPC only once.

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#178

Post by karmakaze »

There are other benefits to the architecture change. A strong motivation is that profit margins can be increased by using more efficient in CPU size/speed, battery size, and amount of RAM to deliver the same performance compared to x86 Macs. Rather than pass these savings to consumers Apple can bank the difference. And the consumer wins with smaller/lighter devices and longer battery life. Expect that macOS will continue by adding background processing limit permissions etc.

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#179

Post by im3w1l »

terramex wrote: post #77
Bud wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

64-bit apps debuted something like 12 years ago on the Mac. The writing has thus been on the wall for circa a decade, as I said. You figured 32-bit would be supported for what, 20 years? 30?

> The writing has thus been on the wall for circa a decade, as I said. So do you say that there is writing on the wall for removing 32-bit support in Windows and Linux too? I certainly don't. If Apple deprecated 32-bit while introducing x64 then the writing would be on the wall but they kept supporting and updating 32-bit. > You figured 32-bit would be supported for what, 20 years? 30? At least one hardware generatio…

Sounds like the writing is on the wall for 32bit linux but you still have some time.

https://ubuntu.com/blog/statement-on-32-bit-i386-packages-fo...

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#180

Post by throw0101a »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #173
throw0101a wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Intel there at least was AMD as an option: * https://amd-osx.com * https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-hackintosh-syste...

Yeah... because nobody else makes ARM compatible chips. x86 is not an open ISA. For all practical purposes nobody besides intel and AMD can make x86 chips. Pretty much anybody can ask ARM to get a license to make ARM chip. Sure Macs have special chips in addition but that is true for their intel offerings as well. You have never been able to just plop an AMD chip into a Mac so it is not like that choice ever meant an…

And what about disk controllers like the T2? How is that going to be emulated?

The ARM ISA versus x86 ISA is probably the least complicated part of this equation. At least on x86 there were widely used graphics components that were leveraged. What exactly do we know about the built-in GPU on the M1?

Post reply on HN