4 ms·

How much more convincing do you need that it will be Apple? No one comes close to them in ARM performance. The iPad Pro’s processor is so overpowered compared t

How much more convincing do you need that it will be Apple? No one comes close to them in ARM performance. The iPad Pro’s processor is so overpowered compared to the software you can run on it, it’s incredible that we don’t have ARM MacBooks already.

Kurtz79 9y ago
Even if they make MacOS ARM-compatible, its users will be left with tons of applications that won't work anymore on an ARM-based architecture. Considering that Apple does not compete on price, making developers and users unhappy to save on costs does not seem to me a very Apple-like move. Seeing iOS get more and more desktop features in due time is much more likely, IMHO.
- gruturo 9y ago
  Apple is the one company in the world which pulled off this sort of migration - twice - without leaving users in the cold. First, 68k to PPC, then PPC to Intel. Both times they included the ability to run binaries from the previous architecture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_68k_emulator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_68k_emulator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
  - sspiff 9y ago
    And both times they had a transitional period in which their toolchain was modified to produce "fat" binaries, including executables for both the old and new architectures. I find it stunning that people think Apple couldn't pull this of a third time.
    - reitzensteinm 9y ago
      Both times, the performance boost of the new architecture significantly offset the emulation overhead. It's going in reverse this time, emulating the old instruction set with a weaker processor. Further, there's a lot more focus on battery life these days, and while many apps will be tolerable from a UX perspective if you halved their speed, that also means the CPU is spending twice as long at the highest turbo states. Ouch. I also think Apple could pull it off, and actually want to see it happen for the health of the PC industry. But I haven't seen anyone declaring it's not possible, I think that's a bit of a straw man.
      - sspiff 9y ago
        Both times the new CPU architecture was faster than the older one, granted. But still the emulated software would be slower on the new models with the emulator compared to bare metal execution on the old models. I assume Apple will make some more improvements to close the gap between x86 and ARM, and switch when it makes sense for them. I also assume that, with the Mac App Store, they will start forcing developers to ship software compiled to both architectures ahead of making the switch. This way, only software that is distributed outside their store would be slow, which is going to become more and more niche as Apple enabled stricter signing enforcement by default in macOS Sierra (by default, only apps from the Mac App Store are allowed to run).
        gruturo 9y ago
        Given that Apple has full control over the CPU itself, I wouldn't be surprised if the first ARM Mac has a CPU with a handful of extra instructions which bridge the performance gap. I bet they already did extensive profiling of x86 code from any major app (esp. those submitted to the app store) and identified 5-6 instructions (to be made available to the emulation layer only) which avoid some of the most expensive translation / abstraction / emulation steps.
        redshirt 9y ago
        They don’t have full control. Apple can’t add instructions, only Arm can. If they want something new they have to go back to Arm, sure hey probably have lots of pull, but that’s the way it is. And one reason ppl like RiscV.
        gruturo 9y ago
        Actually - if I'm not mistaken - what you say holds true for almost any other company but _not_ for Apple: They are holders of an architectural license, which gives them (and very few others in the world) this freedom. It was discussed a while ago here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10190521 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10190521
cmrdporcupine 9y ago
I think it's more likely that Apple will just let OS X and the desktop/laptop computer form die on the vine as they turn iOS devices into more and more of a 'pro' product with more and more of OS X's features and more input modalities, etc. To me this is a bit of a frightening scenario given the closed nature of iOS.

Kurtz79 9y ago

Even if they make MacOS ARM-compatible, its users will be left with tons of applications that won't work anymore on an ARM-based architecture. Considering that Apple does not compete on price, making developers and users unhappy to save on costs does not seem to me a very Apple-like move. Seeing iOS get more and more desktop features in due time is much more likely, IMHO.

gruturo 9y ago
Apple is the one company in the world which pulled off this sort of migration - twice - without leaving users in the cold. First, 68k to PPC, then PPC to Intel. Both times they included the ability to run binaries from the previous architecture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_68k_emulator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_68k_emulator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
- sspiff 9y ago
  And both times they had a transitional period in which their toolchain was modified to produce "fat" binaries, including executables for both the old and new architectures. I find it stunning that people think Apple couldn't pull this of a third time.
  - reitzensteinm 9y ago
    Both times, the performance boost of the new architecture significantly offset the emulation overhead. It's going in reverse this time, emulating the old instruction set with a weaker processor. Further, there's a lot more focus on battery life these days, and while many apps will be tolerable from a UX perspective if you halved their speed, that also means the CPU is spending twice as long at the highest turbo states. Ouch. I also think Apple could pull it off, and actually want to see it happen for the health of the PC industry. But I haven't seen anyone declaring it's not possible, I think that's a bit of a straw man.
    - sspiff 9y ago
      Both times the new CPU architecture was faster than the older one, granted. But still the emulated software would be slower on the new models with the emulator compared to bare metal execution on the old models. I assume Apple will make some more improvements to close the gap between x86 and ARM, and switch when it makes sense for them. I also assume that, with the Mac App Store, they will start forcing developers to ship software compiled to both architectures ahead of making the switch. This way, only software that is distributed outside their store would be slow, which is going to become more and more niche as Apple enabled stricter signing enforcement by default in macOS Sierra (by default, only apps from the Mac App Store are allowed to run).
      - gruturo 9y ago
        Given that Apple has full control over the CPU itself, I wouldn't be surprised if the first ARM Mac has a CPU with a handful of extra instructions which bridge the performance gap. I bet they already did extensive profiling of x86 code from any major app (esp. those submitted to the app store) and identified 5-6 instructions (to be made available to the emulation layer only) which avoid some of the most expensive translation / abstraction / emulation steps.
        redshirt 9y ago
        They don’t have full control. Apple can’t add instructions, only Arm can. If they want something new they have to go back to Arm, sure hey probably have lots of pull, but that’s the way it is. And one reason ppl like RiscV.
        gruturo 9y ago
        Actually - if I'm not mistaken - what you say holds true for almost any other company but _not_ for Apple: They are holders of an architectural license, which gives them (and very few others in the world) this freedom. It was discussed a while ago here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10190521 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10190521

cmrdporcupine 9y ago

I think it's more likely that Apple will just let OS X and the desktop/laptop computer form die on the vine as they turn iOS devices into more and more of a 'pro' product with more and more of OS X's features and more input modalities, etc. To me this is a bit of a frightening scenario given the closed nature of iOS.