4 ms·
And they haven't even re-revolutionised computers again by putting their incredible low-nanometer and can-be-fanless A-series chips into their Mac line-up. That
by mindfulhack 7y ago
And they haven't even re-revolutionised computers again by putting their incredible low-nanometer and can-be-fanless A-series chips into their Mac line-up. That's coming up this year.
I am very impressed and hope they've put their MacBook hardware defects era behind them. Typing this on an awesome 16-inch MBP.
- jasondclinton 7y agoSource for the A chips in Mac line-up?
- butterthebuddha 7y agoThis from Feb 2019: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-mac-arm-cpus-2020-intel,38668.html https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-mac-arm-cpus-2020-in...
- mindfulhack 7y agoInformative YT video covering the significance of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1hnTKrbq2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1hnTKrbq2I
- jeromegv 7y agoNone, pure guess.
- wtmt 7y agoWith Apple’s secrecy, it may not be easy to get a source for certain product developments. But it’s a guess that one could wager on, since Apple values complete control over its design, components, etc. Relying on Intel, while a lot better than how it was relying on PowerPC, has forced Apple to work with Intel’s delayed schedules for newer processors and to wait for the right ones for different device classes (mobile vs. desktop). In the same vein that Apple is now working on designing and building its own modem chips (with the Qualcomm agreement being a stop gap thing), I’m sure (as are thousands of others) that Apple has been working on an ARM based Mac for some years. It’s just a matter of getting enough performance to use it on a low end MacBook and getting the related details on the software side (porting x64 apps to it with lesser effort) ironed out.
- threeseed 7y agoLots of suspicion because of the move to force App Store apps to have Bitcode enabled for submission. This would allow them to potentially transpile x86 apps for ARM: https://lowlevelbits.org/bitcode-demystified/ https://lowlevelbits.org/bitcode-demystified/ Also as we've seen with iPad Pro + AWS M6G instances the performance is now there to power desktops.
- scarface74 7y agoThis is not true. It would not allow them to transpile between architectures. This myth was dispelled by no less than Chris Lattner on ATP. Even though he did later admit that he wasn’t completely being honest. Part of the purpose of the bitcode requirement for the Watch was that Apple knew that they would be shipping a 64 bit chip for the Watch two years later. https://atp.fm/205-chris-lattner-interview-transcript https://atp.fm/205-chris-lattner-interview-transcript Bitcode is not [12:30] a magic solution, though. You can't take a 32-bit app, for example, and run it on a 64-bit device. That kind of portability isn’t something that Bitcode can give you, notably because that is something that's visible in C. As you're writing C code, you can write #ifdef pointer size equals 32, and that’s something that Bitcode can't abstract over. It's useful for very specific, low-level kinds of enhancements, but it isn't a panacea that makes everything [13:00] magically portable. John Siracusa: The same thing I would assume for architecture changes, especially if there was an endian difference, because endianness is visible from the C world, so you can't target different endianness? Chris Lattner: Yep. It's not something that magically solves all portability problems, but it is very useful for specific problems that Apple's faced in the past.