5 ms·

Adobe has a lot of stuff that works well on iOS. ARM has neon instructions for SIMD. I think they will be okay. Changing over from one SIMD architecture to a

Adobe has a lot of stuff that works well on iOS. ARM has neon instructions for SIMD. I think they will be okay. Changing over from one SIMD architecture to another is not that hard. AutoCAD isn't ultra optimized for Mac anyhow, it will be okay. This transition may screw up or significantly slow down VMs of Intel-based OSes like Ubuntu.

ssutch3 9y ago
A lot of progress has been made recently in ARM virtualization (see its push into datacenter units). An ARM VM should run reasonably quick, and Ubuntu works fine on ARM.
- wilun 9y ago
  Are there extensions with a stronger memory model by at very low cost (matching the one of x86)? If not, we might not get excellent perf with x86 emulated by arm in the multithread & multicore era we are.
- zeveb 9y ago
  > An ARM VM should run reasonably quick, and Ubuntu works fine on ARM. Sure, but if we're deploying to x86 servers running Linux, then running Ubuntu on virtual ARM doesn't seem terribly wise[0] — it won't tickle the right bugs. [0] For my money, running Ubuntu in general is a poor idea. It's not a great server OS, so it shouldn't be on the server — and if it's not on the server, it shouldn't be on the development systems either. Just run Debian everywhere.
huebnerob 9y ago
Your last point may be a bit of an understatement. It's going to absolutely annihilate x86 virtualization on the Mac. Like, I don't think parallels or VMware will even attempt to write an x86 emulator for ARM, they'll just pack up and leave. But the Mac thrived for a very long time without x86 compatibility, and it can do the same again, virtualization was always kind of a happy accident for us anyway.
- Bud 9y ago
  Parallels and VMWare will just abandon their primary market? No they won't.
  - 0x0 9y ago
    Maybe not Parallels, but VMWare Fusion always seemed like a skunkworks side-project that almost got killed off at least once. Their cash cow is enterprise hypervisors, not $60 consumer windows emulation, unfortunately. (Fusion has been serving me very well for windows and .NET development purposes so far)
  - huebnerob 9y ago
    They can try, but you can't get blood from a stone. Emulating x86 on ARM is going to give you grotesquely low performance, it's arguably not even the same category of problem that they currently solve (virtualization, not emulation). One thing they could run with is ARM-on-ARM virtualization, which is a more direct (heh) parallel to what they do on Intel now, but ARM hypervisors are less mature, and their practical applications, less readily apparent.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    Didn't Parallels start off with an Intel emulation before Apple switched to x86.
    - huebnerob 9y ago
      There was "Microsoft Virtual PC for Mac" which was x86 emulation for PowerPC but performance was abysmal.
  - hug 9y ago
    VMWare's primary market is not Fusion. VMWare's primary market is vSphere -- and you don't run vSphere on a MacBook.
- vbezhenar 9y ago
  There's Windows for ARM, so important Windows applications will be recompiled to ARM and those who stay behind probably can take that performance hit.
Stranger43 9y ago
But adobe's arm work is probably related a completely different series of products directed at the not quite a demanding pro segment of the market, and you still need to port autoCAD something they might not think is worth it. The problem is that you are not just porting from a low TDP atom(by any other name) chip with a intel gfx card but a class of computers that include dual Xeon systems with 2 or more high end ati cards, to something that don't really scale upwards from a macbook air in terms of raw power. And when you remember how badly outperformed even the highest spec mac pro is compared to their competitors, who is likely still going to be around a decade from now the question is to what extend a maker of high margin niche product targeted at demanding professionals(with corporate procurement budgets) to even consider supporting the mac with anything but a simplified html5 based consumer version that lacks most of the advanced features going forward.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mmcconnell1618 9y ago
I think developers flocked to Intel Macs because it gave them one machine that could run Mac, Linux, Windows in virtual or bootcamp environments. If x86 compatibility goes away, developers may jump ship to Linux or Windows machines.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  UNIX developers you mean.
- squiggleblaz 9y ago
  I used to have a PPC G5 iMac running Linux. It was fine; hitched me onto the Linux-on-Mac train for more than a decade once I finally ditched Mac OS X. And Linux already works nicely on ARM - it's the most common deployment. This may be a terrible outcome for multi-OS users, but it's not guaranteed.
mr_toad 9y ago
Server versions of major Linux distributions already run on ARM. Gnome and KDE too, although I hear that there can be issues. Part of the problem with ARM support is the lack of hardware for Linux developers to test on. MacBooks with ARM would actually help this process.

ssutch3 9y ago

A lot of progress has been made recently in ARM virtualization (see its push into datacenter units). An ARM VM should run reasonably quick, and Ubuntu works fine on ARM.

wilun 9y ago
Are there extensions with a stronger memory model by at very low cost (matching the one of x86)? If not, we might not get excellent perf with x86 emulated by arm in the multithread & multicore era we are.
zeveb 9y ago
> An ARM VM should run reasonably quick, and Ubuntu works fine on ARM. Sure, but if we're deploying to x86 servers running Linux, then running Ubuntu on virtual ARM doesn't seem terribly wise[0] — it won't tickle the right bugs. [0] For my money, running Ubuntu in general is a poor idea. It's not a great server OS, so it shouldn't be on the server — and if it's not on the server, it shouldn't be on the development systems either. Just run Debian everywhere.

huebnerob 9y ago

Your last point may be a bit of an understatement. It's going to absolutely annihilate x86 virtualization on the Mac. Like, I don't think parallels or VMware will even attempt to write an x86 emulator for ARM, they'll just pack up and leave. But the Mac thrived for a very long time without x86 compatibility, and it can do the same again, virtualization was always kind of a happy accident for us anyway.

Bud 9y ago
Parallels and VMWare will just abandon their primary market? No they won't.
- 0x0 9y ago
  Maybe not Parallels, but VMWare Fusion always seemed like a skunkworks side-project that almost got killed off at least once. Their cash cow is enterprise hypervisors, not $60 consumer windows emulation, unfortunately. (Fusion has been serving me very well for windows and .NET development purposes so far)
- huebnerob 9y ago
  They can try, but you can't get blood from a stone. Emulating x86 on ARM is going to give you grotesquely low performance, it's arguably not even the same category of problem that they currently solve (virtualization, not emulation). One thing they could run with is ARM-on-ARM virtualization, which is a more direct (heh) parallel to what they do on Intel now, but ARM hypervisors are less mature, and their practical applications, less readily apparent.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  Didn't Parallels start off with an Intel emulation before Apple switched to x86.
  - huebnerob 9y ago
    There was "Microsoft Virtual PC for Mac" which was x86 emulation for PowerPC but performance was abysmal.
- hug 9y ago
  VMWare's primary market is not Fusion. VMWare's primary market is vSphere -- and you don't run vSphere on a MacBook.
vbezhenar 9y ago
There's Windows for ARM, so important Windows applications will be recompiled to ARM and those who stay behind probably can take that performance hit.

Stranger43 9y ago

But adobe's arm work is probably related a completely different series of products directed at the not quite a demanding pro segment of the market, and you still need to port autoCAD something they might not think is worth it. The problem is that you are not just porting from a low TDP atom(by any other name) chip with a intel gfx card but a class of computers that include dual Xeon systems with 2 or more high end ati cards, to something that don't really scale upwards from a macbook air in terms of raw power. And when you remember how badly outperformed even the highest spec mac pro is compared to their competitors, who is likely still going to be around a decade from now the question is to what extend a maker of high margin niche product targeted at demanding professionals(with corporate procurement budgets) to even consider supporting the mac with anything but a simplified html5 based consumer version that lacks most of the advanced features going forward.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mmcconnell1618 9y ago

I think developers flocked to Intel Macs because it gave them one machine that could run Mac, Linux, Windows in virtual or bootcamp environments. If x86 compatibility goes away, developers may jump ship to Linux or Windows machines.

pjmlp 9y ago
UNIX developers you mean.
squiggleblaz 9y ago
I used to have a PPC G5 iMac running Linux. It was fine; hitched me onto the Linux-on-Mac train for more than a decade once I finally ditched Mac OS X. And Linux already works nicely on ARM - it's the most common deployment. This may be a terrible outcome for multi-OS users, but it's not guaranteed.

mr_toad 9y ago

Server versions of major Linux distributions already run on ARM. Gnome and KDE too, although I hear that there can be issues. Part of the problem with ARM support is the lack of hardware for Linux developers to test on. MacBooks with ARM would actually help this process.