241–250 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even for the Mac Pro workstations? I bet Apple Audio and VFX shops will not be happy
Within a year or two, Apple ARM parts will trounce x86-64 performance-wise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple didn’t really have a choice. The choice required a fairly decent amount of legacy support for the next decade or so; I doubt they really wanted to commit to that if they didn’t have to.
Of course, they did have a choice: 1. Wait a few months, Core 2 Duo was on it's way. Previous Nehalem generation did support 64-bit, so obviously, the next Core Duo SKUs with 64-bit support were on the way. This way, they could skip x86 ABI entirely. It's not like Apple doesn't have long periods without updates of specific models. 2. If they really had to release a model that introduces 32-bit ABI, they could support…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to be pedantic - a few Youtube videos as a business as evidence of a thriving market is about like showing a record store selling vinyl as evidence of a resurgence.
Those channels have millions of subscribers and even more views. Maybe it's insignificant in your view, and that's fine.
Everyone here is very positive that the transition will go smoothly based on their last few transitions being fairly successful. I'm a bit more skeptical. Back then, their desktop/laptop business line was much more important to them. They needed it to go well. They were also a niche player and couldn't afford to lose more market share to PCs/Windows. But now, they barely care about their desktop/laptop revenue (being…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, they did have a choice: 1. Wait a few months, Core 2 Duo was on it's way. Previous Nehalem generation did support 64-bit, so obviously, the next Core Duo SKUs with 64-bit support were on the way. This way, they could skip x86 ABI entirely. It's not like Apple doesn't have long periods without updates of specific models. 2. If they really had to release a model that introduces 32-bit ABI, they could support…
Easy with 20/20 hindsight, but back then Apple didn't know it would be a few months. Should Intel have had unforeseen trouble with the Core 2 and decided to delay the release they would not be releasing any hardware. Also, availability of enough processors and ease of porting existing 32-bits x86 Windows software could have been factors.
But they did take that option and now refuse to pay the price. They are forcing paying the price on their users now.
They got additional benefit at the time, if I remember correctly: Adobe suite was 32-bit + Carbon; so having 32-bit x86 ABI allowed to them and to Adobe to have the suite running natively on the new CPUs, buying Adobe time to port to 64-bit and Cocoa, and axe Carbon without waiting to axe Intel entirely.
Given the benefits they got, they should be called for not wanting to pay the price.
What are the possible reasons why they haven't done it already? 1. The power savings just isn't there. I find this hard to believe. 2. The performance of the chips just isn't there. This is very possible. 3. Not enough software is compatible yet. What are the crucial pieces? 4. Xcode isn't up to snuff running on ARM yet.
- They have only just finished deprecating 32-bit x86 instruction set support in Catalina. Now there is space to support another instruction set, as supporting 3 at the same time would be more expensive
- The patents on AVX are due to expire, making x86_64 emulation a possibility, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14523587
Everyone here is very positive that the transition will go smoothly based on their last few transitions being fairly successful. I'm a bit more skeptical. Back then, their desktop/laptop business line was much more important to them. They needed it to go well. They were also a niche player and couldn't afford to lose more market share to PCs/Windows. But now, they barely care about their desktop/laptop revenue (being…
Until 32 bit support was dropped, the system supported running 32 bit apps and drivers. What kind of ‘Rosetta’ are you looking for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
32 bit Carbon was deprecated in 2012. Did it really take a rocket scientist to know that you shouldn’t be writing 32 bit software in 2017? 10 years after the last 32 bit Mac shipped?
You keep on repeating that devs are stupid because they only coded their apps in 32-bit. Perhaps you need to be more charitable and try to find the reasons why devs and businesses chose to only support 32-bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My prediction of Apple’s moves here are far less dire. These are just predictions mind you, but the point is Apple could do this without ruining the platform for enthusiasts. 1. They’re going to have some kind of breakthrough with x86 emulation where the Apple ARM CPU has a translator, or an accelerator, or a co-processor, or something that will make x86 run at decent speeds. 2. Apple will move to a long term two-CPU…
While they might like to go that way, I would say the subpar UX of iPadOS with keyboards/pointing devices suggests that they will need to pour a lot of money into the effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While they might like to go that way, I would say the subpar UX of iPadOS with keyboards/pointing devices suggests that they will need to pour a lot of money into the effort.
I look at two things Apple did recently: giving iOS on iPad its own name, and releasing the Magic Keyboard. To me, both these things look like moves in preparation for Apple seriously scaling up iPad as a computing platform.