5 ms·

Macintosh Forks

37 points by robin_reala 7y ago

kemiller 7y ago
At this point is seems more likely we'll get an iPadOS laptop aimed at the non-pro market and macOS will become a pro-only system.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  What is the difference between an iPadOS laptop and an iPad with a keyboard-case?
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    Well for starters, it's difficult to balance an iPad + keyboard-case on your lap.
    - zarify 7y ago
      The new folios work really well on your lap (and are quite pleasant to type on as well, once you get over the emoji key and lack of escape key). I paired a bluetooth mouse to mine on the iPadOS beta and have been using it for work for a couple of weeks. Much nicer to use than my work-supplied Surface Pro which isn't saying much, since they are awful at using on your lap).
  - wffurr 7y ago
    Same as the difference between any other detachable or clamshell devices. They have usability tradeoffs in different scenarios. A clamshell has better balance because of the battery and internals in the keyboard half instead of in the screen. It has better screen angles and is usually smaller and lighter than both parts of a detachable. It doesn't work at all as a tablet though, and a touchscreen is an afterthought.
  - harrygeez 7y ago
    This may sound crazy to some people but I still prefer a sturdy built in keyboard and hinge
    - solarkraft 7y ago
      This may sound crazy, but I love my Surface Pro 4 clone. It has the same specs of a good laptop, the type cover is sturdy (but easily replaceable in the worst case), removable for tablet use and the screen doesn't wobble a bit. I consider it a lot more flexible (and studry, since there is no hinge to break) than a traditional laptop. Yes, the screen could be larger.
      - jasomill 7y ago
        Doesn't sound crazy to me…the Surface Pro (3) is the first non-Apple laptop I've owned that I actually like enough to avoid using since…well, I suppose the Compaq Portable II isn't a laptop, so, ever. And the closest I've come to using it in "tablet mode" is to pop off the keyboard[1] to save space when using the Surface to calibrate my desktop display. The type cover is not only "good enough" for all but full-time use, it's also upgradeable — which I've taken advantage of — and easily replaceable in the case of damage. As for the screen size, I agree in part…but if it were any bigger, it wouldn't fit perfectly in the back of my camera bag, which, for my purposes, is a significant benefit. This coming from someone with a mechanical keyboard, two pointing devices (Magic Trackpad and wired, many-buttoned mouse), and a 55" 4K display on his desk. [1] And using the Microsoft Bluetooth folder…also a surprisingly usable device given the limitations inherent in its design…as a temporary alternative.
- gfody 7y ago
  I've been using an iPad w/Brydge keyboard as a laptop replacement for a while - mouse support in iOS 13 is closing the remaining gaps.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  I'm imagining a MacBook Air 11 type device with iPadOS and an ARM processor. If the promises of good mouse/trackpad support arrive in iPadOS I think that could be quite compelling.
exabrial 7y ago
The author implies that missing a touch bar was _a bad thing_... What?
- Fnoord 7y ago
  The relevant quote: "[...] Last year, the Air was finally upgraded to a much-needed higher definition Retina display and Touch ID access module, and was updated again with display and processor tweaks; and all Pros now have a Touch Bar. So Mac laptops just got simpler and saner. [...]" I would guess the analogy of "simpler and saner" would be streamlined, more homogeneous. The term "fork" is also misleading. All what is needed is once more universal/fat binaries which work on both architectures. macOS cannot be forked in the traditional FOSS sense; there are too many proprietary components for that. A little of history on the author, Jean-Louis Gassée, can be found here on Wikipedia [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "The term "fork" is also misleading. All what is needed is once more universal/fat binaries which work on both architectures. macOS cannot be forked in the traditional FOSS sense; there are too many proprietary components for that." This has a double meaning, because the original "fat binaries" used the resource and data "forks" to store the difference versions. In fact, I thought you had misunderstood until I checked the article.
  - HelloNurse 7y ago
    Function keys that I can press by touch are simpler and saner than looking at a "touchbar".
x0x0 7y ago
You have to wonder if you can eg get a cheap enough AMD chip that you stick an Apple Axx and an AMD laptop chip in the low-end laptops to manage the transition.
- jmull 7y ago
  I'm thinking Apple will drop a couple x64 cores into an Ax chip. Maybe they license from AMD. Probably impossible, but I wonder if something clever could be done at the microcode level (mostly) so that a core could switch instruction sets. The Apple ARM instruction set would be the native, optimized one, but the x64 IS would run acceptably.
otterley 7y ago
I still don't think it's happening any time soon: 1. Much like during the PPC-to-X86 transition, Apple will need to emulate Intel x86-64 on ARM64 at reasonable speed so that legacy software will continue to function. But we haven't seen any such technology yet. (That's not to say it's impossible, just not in view at this time.) 2. Developers will instantly lose their ability to virtualize x86-64 hardware. No more Docker, no more Windows virtualization. A lot of people, particularly developers, who use the Mac today will lose significant functionality. 3. Thunderbolt is an Intel technology and only works with the x86-64 architecture. Apple will have to come up with some viable replacement for it.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  Intel donated thunderbolt to the usb-if. Usb4 will be thunderbolt.
- jhbadger 7y ago
  Apple has a long history of doing this, though. The PPC-X86 was actually the second processor migration of the Mac. The first was in the early 90s when Apple moved from the Motorola 68K series to the PPC.
- kalleboo 7y ago
  1. Doesn't Microsoft have this technology? I haven't seen any first hand reports/benchmarks but what I've heard is that it's tolerable (taking into account how pokey all the non-Apple ARM chips are). And if Apple are making their own chips, I wonder if they could do something to improve emulation performance (special instructions, separate cache etc) 2. From our perspective this is the deal breaker, but the question is how much Apple cares about us. 3. Intel has said they're opening Thunderbolt since the start, they finally donated it to the USB IF and supposedly you're seeing it on some AMD-chip motherboards now
- solarkraft 7y ago
  1. Speed is not all that important, as long as the software remains usable for the time it takes for the developer to recompile (in most cases) or move over their software to be fully ARM compatible. This will not take long, since Apple users are notorious complainers and developers in the Apple ecosystem used to moving quickly. x86 emulation is already close to a proven technology. Even though it hasn't reached real adoption yet because there is no open source version, there are some commercial offerings for Linux. Microsoft has x86 emulation built into the ARM version of Windows. I have no doubt that Apple could build a version of this as well (they probably already have). 2. With x86 emulation this point is mostly moot, although it will be slower. But then again Windows is also becoming ARM compatible. 3. Thunderbolt 3 is not Intel-exclusive. It does not only work with the x86-64 architecture. It's an open standard.
sys_64738 7y ago
I thought this article would be about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork
AndrewStephens 7y ago
This is not happening any time soon and the article is junk. Previous transitions (68K->PPC->x86) occurred when the successor CPU's were so stupidly more powerful than what they replaced that emulation was a plausible tactic. This is NOT the case with x86->ARM. Apple's ARM chips are impressive and are approaching Intel's chip in some areas if you benchmark in certain ways and ignore the areas where they fall short. I think people underestimate the gap. Maybe one day ARM while be fast enough to make switching worthwhile and emulate x86 acceptably, but it is not this day. I would say it is more likely that Apple will end up releasing some sort of cross-CPU .NET/JavaVM-esque technology that compiles software locally if they really want to merge the product lines. But I am not even convinced that Apple wants to merge the two lines.

37 points by robin_reala 7y ago

At this point is seems more likely we'll get an iPadOS laptop aimed at the non-pro market and macOS will become a pro-only system.

kennywinker 7y ago
What is the difference between an iPadOS laptop and an iPad with a keyboard-case?
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  Well for starters, it's difficult to balance an iPad + keyboard-case on your lap.
  - zarify 7y ago
    The new folios work really well on your lap (and are quite pleasant to type on as well, once you get over the emoji key and lack of escape key). I paired a bluetooth mouse to mine on the iPadOS beta and have been using it for work for a couple of weeks. Much nicer to use than my work-supplied Surface Pro which isn't saying much, since they are awful at using on your lap).
- wffurr 7y ago
  Same as the difference between any other detachable or clamshell devices. They have usability tradeoffs in different scenarios. A clamshell has better balance because of the battery and internals in the keyboard half instead of in the screen. It has better screen angles and is usually smaller and lighter than both parts of a detachable. It doesn't work at all as a tablet though, and a touchscreen is an afterthought.
- harrygeez 7y ago
  This may sound crazy to some people but I still prefer a sturdy built in keyboard and hinge
  - solarkraft 7y ago
    This may sound crazy, but I love my Surface Pro 4 clone. It has the same specs of a good laptop, the type cover is sturdy (but easily replaceable in the worst case), removable for tablet use and the screen doesn't wobble a bit. I consider it a lot more flexible (and studry, since there is no hinge to break) than a traditional laptop. Yes, the screen could be larger.
    - jasomill 7y ago
      Doesn't sound crazy to me…the Surface Pro (3) is the first non-Apple laptop I've owned that I actually like enough to avoid using since…well, I suppose the Compaq Portable II isn't a laptop, so, ever. And the closest I've come to using it in "tablet mode" is to pop off the keyboard[1] to save space when using the Surface to calibrate my desktop display. The type cover is not only "good enough" for all but full-time use, it's also upgradeable — which I've taken advantage of — and easily replaceable in the case of damage. As for the screen size, I agree in part…but if it were any bigger, it wouldn't fit perfectly in the back of my camera bag, which, for my purposes, is a significant benefit. This coming from someone with a mechanical keyboard, two pointing devices (Magic Trackpad and wired, many-buttoned mouse), and a 55" 4K display on his desk. [1] And using the Microsoft Bluetooth folder…also a surprisingly usable device given the limitations inherent in its design…as a temporary alternative.
gfody 7y ago
I've been using an iPad w/Brydge keyboard as a laptop replacement for a while - mouse support in iOS 13 is closing the remaining gaps.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I'm imagining a MacBook Air 11 type device with iPadOS and an ARM processor. If the promises of good mouse/trackpad support arrive in iPadOS I think that could be quite compelling.

exabrial 7y ago

The author implies that missing a touch bar was _a bad thing_... What?

Fnoord 7y ago
The relevant quote: "[...] Last year, the Air was finally upgraded to a much-needed higher definition Retina display and Touch ID access module, and was updated again with display and processor tweaks; and all Pros now have a Touch Bar. So Mac laptops just got simpler and saner. [...]" I would guess the analogy of "simpler and saner" would be streamlined, more homogeneous. The term "fork" is also misleading. All what is needed is once more universal/fat binaries which work on both architectures. macOS cannot be forked in the traditional FOSS sense; there are too many proprietary components for that. A little of history on the author, Jean-Louis Gassée, can be found here on Wikipedia [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "The term "fork" is also misleading. All what is needed is once more universal/fat binaries which work on both architectures. macOS cannot be forked in the traditional FOSS sense; there are too many proprietary components for that." This has a double meaning, because the original "fat binaries" used the resource and data "forks" to store the difference versions. In fact, I thought you had misunderstood until I checked the article.
- HelloNurse 7y ago
  Function keys that I can press by touch are simpler and saner than looking at a "touchbar".

x0x0 7y ago

You have to wonder if you can eg get a cheap enough AMD chip that you stick an Apple Axx and an AMD laptop chip in the low-end laptops to manage the transition.

jmull 7y ago
I'm thinking Apple will drop a couple x64 cores into an Ax chip. Maybe they license from AMD. Probably impossible, but I wonder if something clever could be done at the microcode level (mostly) so that a core could switch instruction sets. The Apple ARM instruction set would be the native, optimized one, but the x64 IS would run acceptably.

otterley 7y ago

I still don't think it's happening any time soon: 1. Much like during the PPC-to-X86 transition, Apple will need to emulate Intel x86-64 on ARM64 at reasonable speed so that legacy software will continue to function. But we haven't seen any such technology yet. (That's not to say it's impossible, just not in view at this time.) 2. Developers will instantly lose their ability to virtualize x86-64 hardware. No more Docker, no more Windows virtualization. A lot of people, particularly developers, who use the Mac today will lose significant functionality. 3. Thunderbolt is an Intel technology and only works with the x86-64 architecture. Apple will have to come up with some viable replacement for it.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
Intel donated thunderbolt to the usb-if. Usb4 will be thunderbolt.
jhbadger 7y ago
Apple has a long history of doing this, though. The PPC-X86 was actually the second processor migration of the Mac. The first was in the early 90s when Apple moved from the Motorola 68K series to the PPC.
kalleboo 7y ago
1. Doesn't Microsoft have this technology? I haven't seen any first hand reports/benchmarks but what I've heard is that it's tolerable (taking into account how pokey all the non-Apple ARM chips are). And if Apple are making their own chips, I wonder if they could do something to improve emulation performance (special instructions, separate cache etc) 2. From our perspective this is the deal breaker, but the question is how much Apple cares about us. 3. Intel has said they're opening Thunderbolt since the start, they finally donated it to the USB IF and supposedly you're seeing it on some AMD-chip motherboards now
solarkraft 7y ago
1. Speed is not all that important, as long as the software remains usable for the time it takes for the developer to recompile (in most cases) or move over their software to be fully ARM compatible. This will not take long, since Apple users are notorious complainers and developers in the Apple ecosystem used to moving quickly. x86 emulation is already close to a proven technology. Even though it hasn't reached real adoption yet because there is no open source version, there are some commercial offerings for Linux. Microsoft has x86 emulation built into the ARM version of Windows. I have no doubt that Apple could build a version of this as well (they probably already have). 2. With x86 emulation this point is mostly moot, although it will be slower. But then again Windows is also becoming ARM compatible. 3. Thunderbolt 3 is not Intel-exclusive. It does not only work with the x86-64 architecture. It's an open standard.

sys_64738 7y ago

I thought this article would be about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork

AndrewStephens 7y ago

This is not happening any time soon and the article is junk. Previous transitions (68K->PPC->x86) occurred when the successor CPU's were so stupidly more powerful than what they replaced that emulation was a plausible tactic. This is NOT the case with x86->ARM. Apple's ARM chips are impressive and are approaching Intel's chip in some areas if you benchmark in certain ways and ignore the areas where they fall short. I think people underestimate the gap. Maybe one day ARM while be fast enough to make switching worthwhile and emulate x86 acceptably, but it is not this day. I would say it is more likely that Apple will end up releasing some sort of cross-CPU .NET/JavaVM-esque technology that compiles software locally if they really want to merge the product lines. But I am not even convinced that Apple wants to merge the two lines.