3 ms·

> So should Apple have kept the silicon required to support 32 bit apps in their ARM chips forever? Yes. That is why x86 became so successful and why Windows

> So should Apple have kept the silicon required to support 32 bit apps in their ARM chips forever? Yes. That is why x86 became so successful and why Windows is so much loved by big corporations. Microsoft and Intel care(d) a lot about backwards compatibility - even desktop applications that were released 20 years ago usually work on today's Windows/PCs. > Even Microsoft dropped 16 bit support from the 64 bit version of Windows. Only in the 64 bit versions of Windows. Microsoft still sells 32 bit versions of Windows 10 if you want. In the 32 bit versions, 16 bit applications were supported for a long after. I admit that I have not tested whether 16 bit applications still run under the current 32 bit version of Windows 10 - but I consider it as plausible.

scarface74 7y ago
Yes. That is why x86 became so successful and why Windows is so much loved by big corporations. So instead of using the die space saved by removing 32 bit support and using it for some combination of increasing performance, improving battery life, decreasing die size etc they should have left it and suffered? How well is Intel’s backwards compatibility strategy working on mobile where they are basically non existent? Also, Apple sells more devices with ARM chips than all of personal computer manufacturers combined, the performance of their ARM chips is competitive with Intel’s chips except for the server chips and they use less power. It doesn’t seem to be a winning strategy to keep backwards compatibility forever. So backwards compatibility hasn’t exactly helped Intel in mobile - which is a much larger market than the desktop/server market. Even there PC manufacturers are trying to move to ARM for price performance and energy savings. Yes, Microsoft still sells 32 bit Windows. But it can’t take advantage of modern processors - and by “modern” I mean even my circa 2009 Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz Dell with 8Gb of RAM (running 64 bit Windows 10) that served as my Plex server until earlier this year. How has backwards compatibility helped MS? Apple was able to port their core OS to 128Mb RAM/400Mhz iPhone back in 2007. Since then, they’ve ported it to everything from watches, tablets, and set top boxes. Microsoft has tried and failed in each of those markets.
- vaxman 7y ago
  How did you get that Intel and Microsoft failed in mobile "markets" because they had backwards compatibility with 32-bit and 16-bit apps? (I'm thinking you might not know the difference between RISC and CISC --hint: one is not better. than the other.) > So instead of using the die space saved by removing 32 bit support and using it for some combination of increasing performance, improving battery life, decreasing die size etc they should have left it and suffered? Removing the 32-bit instructions/registers isn't what achieves the performance and battery life improvements, those come from eliminating the RAM, cache-misses and context-switches dedicated to the 32-bit apps and that can be more than offset by not activating the 32-bit environment at all, unless it is actually needed by the user for legacy compatibility. > Apple was able to port their core OS to 128Mb RAM/400Mhz iPhone back in 2007 Note that MS ported their core to a 4Mb RAM 36MHz Velo-1 back in 1997 and many Chinese manufacturers make low power chips like that (for DVD players, TV sets, etc.) that ship with operating systems that have exactly the same APIs (knock offs) of Win16 and Win32. > 2007. Since then, they’ve ported it to everything from watches, tablets, and set top boxes. Microsoft has tried and failed in each of those markets. You might want to look into Xbox, Surface, Foldable Surface the old Casio watch and what kind of boat anchor Apple's Darwin has been for realtime embedded devices like Apple Watch.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    How did you get that Intel and Microsoft failed in mobile "markets" because they had backwards compatibility with 32-bit and 16-bit apps? (I'm thinking you might not know the difference between RISC and CISC --hint: one is not better. than the other.) Apple was able to successfully port the Core of MacOS to phones and other products - MS not so much. I didn’t say anything about RISC vs CISC, but Intel has had to throw a lot more money at the x86 architecture to achieve performance while keeping backwards compatibility and they have not been able to make a chip that was suitable for mobile. Removing the 32-bit instructions/registers isn't what achieves the performance and battery life improvements, those come from eliminating the RAM, cache-misses and context-switches dedicated to the 32-bit apps and that can be more than offset by not activating the 32-bit environment at all, unless it is actually needed by the user for legacy compatibility. That’s also logically not true. How can it not be a win to being able to remove entire parts of the chip dedicated to 32 bit instructions? Note that MS ported their core to a 4Mb RAM 36MHz Velo-1 back in 1997 and many Chinese manufacturers make low power chips like that (for DVD players, TV sets, etc.) that ship with operating systems that have exactly the same APIs (knock offs) of Win16 and Win32. How did that work out in the market? Also in 1997, there was a lot less cruft in Windows than a decade later. And the XBox hasn’t exactly been a success in terms of either profitability or units shipped compared to mobile. Microsoft is busy fighting the last war. The “foldable surface” is vapor ware, the x86 based surface still has horrible performance and battery life compared to ARM tablets.

scarface74 7y ago

Yes. That is why x86 became so successful and why Windows is so much loved by big corporations. So instead of using the die space saved by removing 32 bit support and using it for some combination of increasing performance, improving battery life, decreasing die size etc they should have left it and suffered? How well is Intel’s backwards compatibility strategy working on mobile where they are basically non existent? Also, Apple sells more devices with ARM chips than all of personal computer manufacturers combined, the performance of their ARM chips is competitive with Intel’s chips except for the server chips and they use less power. It doesn’t seem to be a winning strategy to keep backwards compatibility forever. So backwards compatibility hasn’t exactly helped Intel in mobile - which is a much larger market than the desktop/server market. Even there PC manufacturers are trying to move to ARM for price performance and energy savings. Yes, Microsoft still sells 32 bit Windows. But it can’t take advantage of modern processors - and by “modern” I mean even my circa 2009 Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz Dell with 8Gb of RAM (running 64 bit Windows 10) that served as my Plex server until earlier this year. How has backwards compatibility helped MS? Apple was able to port their core OS to 128Mb RAM/400Mhz iPhone back in 2007. Since then, they’ve ported it to everything from watches, tablets, and set top boxes. Microsoft has tried and failed in each of those markets.

vaxman 7y ago
How did you get that Intel and Microsoft failed in mobile "markets" because they had backwards compatibility with 32-bit and 16-bit apps? (I'm thinking you might not know the difference between RISC and CISC --hint: one is not better. than the other.) > So instead of using the die space saved by removing 32 bit support and using it for some combination of increasing performance, improving battery life, decreasing die size etc they should have left it and suffered? Removing the 32-bit instructions/registers isn't what achieves the performance and battery life improvements, those come from eliminating the RAM, cache-misses and context-switches dedicated to the 32-bit apps and that can be more than offset by not activating the 32-bit environment at all, unless it is actually needed by the user for legacy compatibility. > Apple was able to port their core OS to 128Mb RAM/400Mhz iPhone back in 2007 Note that MS ported their core to a 4Mb RAM 36MHz Velo-1 back in 1997 and many Chinese manufacturers make low power chips like that (for DVD players, TV sets, etc.) that ship with operating systems that have exactly the same APIs (knock offs) of Win16 and Win32. > 2007. Since then, they’ve ported it to everything from watches, tablets, and set top boxes. Microsoft has tried and failed in each of those markets. You might want to look into Xbox, Surface, Foldable Surface the old Casio watch and what kind of boat anchor Apple's Darwin has been for realtime embedded devices like Apple Watch.
- scarface74 7y ago
  How did you get that Intel and Microsoft failed in mobile "markets" because they had backwards compatibility with 32-bit and 16-bit apps? (I'm thinking you might not know the difference between RISC and CISC --hint: one is not better. than the other.) Apple was able to successfully port the Core of MacOS to phones and other products - MS not so much. I didn’t say anything about RISC vs CISC, but Intel has had to throw a lot more money at the x86 architecture to achieve performance while keeping backwards compatibility and they have not been able to make a chip that was suitable for mobile. Removing the 32-bit instructions/registers isn't what achieves the performance and battery life improvements, those come from eliminating the RAM, cache-misses and context-switches dedicated to the 32-bit apps and that can be more than offset by not activating the 32-bit environment at all, unless it is actually needed by the user for legacy compatibility. That’s also logically not true. How can it not be a win to being able to remove entire parts of the chip dedicated to 32 bit instructions? Note that MS ported their core to a 4Mb RAM 36MHz Velo-1 back in 1997 and many Chinese manufacturers make low power chips like that (for DVD players, TV sets, etc.) that ship with operating systems that have exactly the same APIs (knock offs) of Win16 and Win32. How did that work out in the market? Also in 1997, there was a lot less cruft in Windows than a decade later. And the XBox hasn’t exactly been a success in terms of either profitability or units shipped compared to mobile. Microsoft is busy fighting the last war. The “foldable surface” is vapor ware, the x86 based surface still has horrible performance and battery life compared to ARM tablets.