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

Apple M3 Ultra

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple M3 Ultra

#251

Post by cosmic_cheese »

dylan604 wrote: post #215
cosmic_cheese wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those buying the hardware to run Linux also aren’t writing software for macOS to help make the platform more attractive.

There are a large number of macOS users that are not app software devs. There's a large base of creative users that couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag, yet spend lots of money on Mac hardware. This forum looses track of the world outside this echo chamber

I’m among them, even if creative works aren’t my bread and butter (I’m a dev with a bit of an artistic bent).

That said, attracting creative users also adds value to the platform by creating demand for creative software for macOS, which keeps existing packages for macOS maintained and brings new ones on board every so often.

Re: Apple M3 Ultra

#253

Post by naikrovek »

devmor wrote: post #225
kstrauser wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I run Docker and Podman on my Macs. 2. If you mean MDM, there are several good options. Screen sharing and SSH are build in. 3. In what sense? 4. `uv python install whatever` is infinitely better than upgrading on the OS vendor’s schedule. 5. What does that affect?

>I run Docker and Podman on my Macs. The same way Windows users run them. In a linux VM. You don't get real on-hardware containerization.

surprisingly, Windows containers on Windows are not run in a VM. Well, not necessarily; they can be.

It is definitely odd that Macs have no native container support, though, especially when you learn that Windows does.

Re: Apple M3 Ultra

#254

Post by mapcars »

pmarreck wrote: post #200
InTheArena wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No native docker support, no headless management options (enterprise strength), Limited QoS management, lack of robust python support (out of the box), interactive user focused security model.

> lack of robust python support There is no such thing. Tell me, which combination of the 15+ virtual environments, dependency management and Python version managers would you use? And how would you prevent "project collision" (where one Python project bumps into another one and one just stops working)? Example: SSL library differences across projects is a notorious culprit. Python is garbage and I don't understand w…

> at least be able to use Python, but in a very controlled, not-insane way

Thats funny, about 10 years ago I started my career in a startup that had Python business logic running under Erlang (via custom connector) which handled supervision and task distribution, and it looked insane for me at the time.

Even today I think it can be useful but is very hard to maintain, and containers are a good enough way to handle python.

Re: Apple M3 Ultra

#255

Post by spiderfarmer »

bigyabai wrote: post #233
cxie wrote: post #222

512GB of unified memory is truly breaking new ground. I was wondering when Apple would overcome memory constraints, and now we're seeing a half-terabyte level of unified memory. This is incredibly practical for running large AI models locally ("600 billion parameters"), and Apple's approach of integrating this much efficient memory on a single chip is fascinating compared to NVIDIA's solutions. I'm curious about how…

For enterprise markets, this is table stakes. A lot of datacenter customers will probably ignore this release altogether since there isn't a high-bandwidth option for systems interconnect.

You can use Thunderbolt 5 interconnect (80Gbps) to run LLMs distributed across 4 or 5 Mac Studios.

Re: Apple M3 Ultra

#256

Post by lynndotpy »

notpushkin wrote: post #224
exabrial wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple supported Linux (headless) natively, and we could rack m4 pros, I absolutely would use them in our Colo. The CPUs have zero competition in terms of speed, memory bandwidth. Still blown away no other company has been able to produce Arm server chips that can compete.

Asahi is a thing. For headless usage it’s pretty much ready to go already.

Not at all for M3 or M4. Support is for M2 and M1 currently.

Re: Apple M3 Ultra

#257

Post by dylan604 »

bigyabai wrote: post #227
dylan604 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I replied in else where here, I do not run any Apple Services on my Mac hardware. I do on my iDevices though, but that's a different topic. Again, I could be the edge case

> I do not run any Apple Services on my Mac hardware Not even OCSP?

I have no idea what that is, so ???

But if you're being pedantic, I meant Apple SaaS requiring monthly payments or any other form of using something from Apple where I give them money outside the purchase of their hardware.

If you're talking background services as part of macOS, then you're being intentionally obtuse to the point and you know it

Re: Apple M3 Ultra

#258

Post by duped »

InTheArena wrote: post #92
jagged-chisel wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This hardware is really being held back by the operating system at this point. Please elucidate.

No native docker support, no headless management options (enterprise strength), Limited QoS management, lack of robust python support (out of the box), interactive user focused security model.

> No native docker support

Honest question: why do you want this in MacOS? Do you understand what docker does? (it's fundamentally a linux technology, unless you are asking for user namespaces and chroot w/o SIP on MacOS, but that doesn't make sense since the app sandbox exists).

MacOS doesn't have the fundamental ecosystem problems that beget the need for docker.

If the answer is "I want to run docker containers because I have them" then use orbstack or run linux through the virtualization framework (not Docker desktop). It's remarkably fast.

Re: Apple M3 Ultra

#260

Post by whimsicalism »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #255
bigyabai wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For enterprise markets, this is table stakes. A lot of datacenter customers will probably ignore this release altogether since there isn't a high-bandwidth option for systems interconnect.

You can use Thunderbolt 5 interconnect (80Gbps) to run LLMs distributed across 4 or 5 Mac Studios.

why would you ever want to do that remains an open question
Post reply on HN