4 ms·

Not that these Apple chips will run x86 or x64 code. Unless they bother with a Rosetta 2.0 then gaming is out of the question if Apple makes this jump.

MrBuddyCasino 7y ago
Aren't apps already submitted as bitcode? They don't have to emulate, just recompile.
- nagisa 7y ago
  LLVM Bitcode is still architecture specific. That is, bitcode generated targetting x86 is not compatible with bitcode targetting ARM is not compatible with bitcode targetting aarch. The reason they are distributed as bitcode is to enable additional optimisations based on what exact chip will run the code (i.e. -march=native equivalent)
  - pascoej 7y ago
    https://www.highcaffeinecontent.com/blog/20190518-Translating-an-ARM-iOS-App-to-Intel-macOS-Using-Bitcode https://www.highcaffeinecontent.com/blog/20190518-Translatin... This article appears to successfully statically translate arm64 binary into an x86_64 binary using bitcode.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    Using LLVM IR merely solves the problem of being able to compile to a specific instruction. You still need a compatibility wrapper for all the platform specific APIs like wine or Windows on Windows. If Apple puts in the effort then it might work out.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  On Mac? I don’t think so, no, because you can move App Store apps to different machines on USB keys. Also, a considerable number of Mac apps don’t use the App Store for distribution.
- ken 7y ago
  No, the Mac compiler target has never supported bitcode. And LLVM bitcode doesn’t work like that anyway.
rsynnott 7y ago
The Catalina move already killed off a lot of games where the developers didn't provide an updated (x86_64) binary. A move to ARM would kill more, of course, but it's not like there's not precedent. I'm half-convinced that Apple killed 32bit support so early precisely to see how developers coped; if it had been really bad they could have re-introduced it in a point release of Catalina. As it was, it wasn't very bad and most developers complied, which is an argument in favour of an ARM transition being feasible. The only other reason I can think of to so aggressively move to 64bit is security, but most of the apps that were stuck on 32bit were not that big a security concern.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  Yes, I think the true reason, that Catalina is so incompatible with old programs, is, that they wanted to have the big compatibility breaking before the announce the ARM transition, which then would look as not so much a big step.
  - leemailll 7y ago
    This does not make sense. I can give an counter-example for this: the education market, especially the higher-education market. This market exists so long and aged so well that, in real life, enterprise-level deployment of Macs well-likely exist mostly in this market now. The down-side for this market: they are slow or reluctant to change. Those ones who make research-related or educational software never are quick enough to do the big jump for an architecture change. And they also might not be able hire more people to do this. And the customer also hate to do those type of changes, both the IT department and the researchers, nobody wants to find their code couldn’t run properly anymore on these new machines.
    - _ph_ 7y ago
      But that is already true. You cannot buy a mac any more which runs 32 bit software. So Apple is obviously willing to make things miserable for a considerably part of their user base. Me included. I will avoid anything with Catalina, because I still have a very few 32bit programs I want to run and can't upgrade. As long as macOS runs on x86 hardware, there is not much justification for such a break. Yes, they clean up the software stack, but at a very high price. The only good reason I can imagine is, that when Tim Cook announces macOS on ARM, he will claim "runs everything that runs on Catalina".
yoz 7y ago
Have you looked at the iOS App Store lately? There are tens of thousands of games there. Apple Arcade has a small (100+) but well-curated selection of good games that run on both iOS and MacOS. Oh, you meant PC games? Sure, the Mac only has a small percentage of (for example) Steam games, but that percentage is steadily rising - it's now over 25%. Switching architecture is unlikely to present a major problem for most developers, especially given that they're probably using Unity or Unreal Engine.
- DeathArrow 7y ago
  >Switching architecture is unlikely to present a major problem for most developers, especially given that they're probably using Unity or Unreal Engine. As a former game developer I can tell you that that is an issue. Apple is totally against using cross platform tools. They break compatibility as much as they can. Framework change, architecture change and so on. Instead of going with OpenGL ES, Vulkan, OpenCL they made Metal. If user base is large enough, as is the case with iOS, there's an incentive to go trough the pains of releasing for that platform. But that isn't the case with macOS. Maybe for Adobe is worth it to spend resources to build software for macOS, but for other companies that might not be the case. Anyway, you make much more money by targeting Play station and Xbox, and the resources needed are the same in money and man hours so it kame sense to target macOS last, if ever. And no, not everybody is using Unity and Unreal. That is true mostly for indies.

MrBuddyCasino 7y ago

Aren't apps already submitted as bitcode? They don't have to emulate, just recompile.

nagisa 7y ago
LLVM Bitcode is still architecture specific. That is, bitcode generated targetting x86 is not compatible with bitcode targetting ARM is not compatible with bitcode targetting aarch. The reason they are distributed as bitcode is to enable additional optimisations based on what exact chip will run the code (i.e. -march=native equivalent)
- pascoej 7y ago
  https://www.highcaffeinecontent.com/blog/20190518-Translating-an-ARM-iOS-App-to-Intel-macOS-Using-Bitcode https://www.highcaffeinecontent.com/blog/20190518-Translatin... This article appears to successfully statically translate arm64 binary into an x86_64 binary using bitcode.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Using LLVM IR merely solves the problem of being able to compile to a specific instruction. You still need a compatibility wrapper for all the platform specific APIs like wine or Windows on Windows. If Apple puts in the effort then it might work out.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
On Mac? I don’t think so, no, because you can move App Store apps to different machines on USB keys. Also, a considerable number of Mac apps don’t use the App Store for distribution.
ken 7y ago
No, the Mac compiler target has never supported bitcode. And LLVM bitcode doesn’t work like that anyway.

rsynnott 7y ago

The Catalina move already killed off a lot of games where the developers didn't provide an updated (x86_64) binary. A move to ARM would kill more, of course, but it's not like there's not precedent. I'm half-convinced that Apple killed 32bit support so early precisely to see how developers coped; if it had been really bad they could have re-introduced it in a point release of Catalina. As it was, it wasn't very bad and most developers complied, which is an argument in favour of an ARM transition being feasible. The only other reason I can think of to so aggressively move to 64bit is security, but most of the apps that were stuck on 32bit were not that big a security concern.

_ph_ 7y ago
Yes, I think the true reason, that Catalina is so incompatible with old programs, is, that they wanted to have the big compatibility breaking before the announce the ARM transition, which then would look as not so much a big step.
- leemailll 7y ago
  This does not make sense. I can give an counter-example for this: the education market, especially the higher-education market. This market exists so long and aged so well that, in real life, enterprise-level deployment of Macs well-likely exist mostly in this market now. The down-side for this market: they are slow or reluctant to change. Those ones who make research-related or educational software never are quick enough to do the big jump for an architecture change. And they also might not be able hire more people to do this. And the customer also hate to do those type of changes, both the IT department and the researchers, nobody wants to find their code couldn’t run properly anymore on these new machines.
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    But that is already true. You cannot buy a mac any more which runs 32 bit software. So Apple is obviously willing to make things miserable for a considerably part of their user base. Me included. I will avoid anything with Catalina, because I still have a very few 32bit programs I want to run and can't upgrade. As long as macOS runs on x86 hardware, there is not much justification for such a break. Yes, they clean up the software stack, but at a very high price. The only good reason I can imagine is, that when Tim Cook announces macOS on ARM, he will claim "runs everything that runs on Catalina".

yoz 7y ago

Have you looked at the iOS App Store lately? There are tens of thousands of games there. Apple Arcade has a small (100+) but well-curated selection of good games that run on both iOS and MacOS. Oh, you meant PC games? Sure, the Mac only has a small percentage of (for example) Steam games, but that percentage is steadily rising - it's now over 25%. Switching architecture is unlikely to present a major problem for most developers, especially given that they're probably using Unity or Unreal Engine.

DeathArrow 7y ago
>Switching architecture is unlikely to present a major problem for most developers, especially given that they're probably using Unity or Unreal Engine. As a former game developer I can tell you that that is an issue. Apple is totally against using cross platform tools. They break compatibility as much as they can. Framework change, architecture change and so on. Instead of going with OpenGL ES, Vulkan, OpenCL they made Metal. If user base is large enough, as is the case with iOS, there's an incentive to go trough the pains of releasing for that platform. But that isn't the case with macOS. Maybe for Adobe is worth it to spend resources to build software for macOS, but for other companies that might not be the case. Anyway, you make much more money by targeting Play station and Xbox, and the resources needed are the same in money and man hours so it kame sense to target macOS last, if ever. And no, not everybody is using Unity and Unreal. That is true mostly for indies.