6 ms·

Could it be that Apple brings an X86 emulator on the machine like they did with Rosetta in the PowerPC to Intel transition? Most calls to native libraries like

Could it be that Apple brings an X86 emulator on the machine like they did with Rosetta in the PowerPC to Intel transition? Most calls to native libraries like Metal and UI would be handled natively so we probably don't notice slowness in most apps. Even Chrome and nowadays Adobe Photoshop are compiled to ARM versions. If so this will be a smooth transition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_%28software%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_%28software%29

JosephRedfern 6y ago
I’d like to know more about ARM Photoshop — is this fully featured photoshop, or are you referring to the iOS app?
- akmarinov 6y ago
  The iOS app should be a fully featured one - https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/photoshop-ipad/ https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/photoshop-ipad/
  - Mindwipe 6y ago
    Yeah, that didn't happen. The iOS app had a tiny fraction of the functionality of the full Mac app. Adobe were simply lying when they announced that. Indeed, it's a very poor imitation, just with some of the same codebase underneath (and literally nobody is "wow, Photoshop's famous codebase! That's what I want because it's totally not an infamous piece of garbage that I tolerate because of it's functionality!").
    - jurmous 6y ago
      The problem was that they needed to do the whole UI to be touch first. That won't be a problem on an ARM macOS version.
    - pandatigox 6y ago
      Link to the infamous PSD file format rant https://devrant.com/rants/1292858/found-this-gem-on-github-at-this-point-id-like-to-take-a-moment-to-speak-to-you https://devrant.com/rants/1292858/found-this-gem-on-github-a...
- jurmous 6y ago
  As announced originally the iOS version is compiling the same code as the desktop version. The unfortunate thing is that they have to slowly redo the whole UI touch first. That disadvantage is not present on macOS where they can use the current UI code and just compile it to ARM. https://theblog.adobe.com/adobe-photoshop-aero-gemini-dimension-photoshop-cc/ https://theblog.adobe.com/adobe-photoshop-aero-gemini-dimens... Don't forget that most photoshop code also ran on PowerPC and is thus platform agnostic.
twoodfin 6y ago
Right, I expect the seamless native library integration to be there too, but AFAIK that would be new secret sauce: For the Intel transition they just shipped fat versions of everything. My guess is that dropping 32-bit support last year was a way to front-load the developer cost / user pain of the architecture swap in service of a mechanism like this, which presumably only would be practical 64-bit x64 to 64-bit ARM.
Mindwipe 6y ago
> If so this will be a smooth transition. That is extremely unlikely. Anything involving gaming is unlikely to run at even 50% of it's performance. It is going to be an extremely, extremely rough transition.
- jurmous 6y ago
  Any big macOS game would have an iOS gaming equivalent. The code was probably already metal and ARM compatible and probably only needs a recompile. They will have more than six months to figure that out. Other recent more desktop like games are probably using a big game engine like Unity/Unreal with Metal support and probably also only need a recompile. And older games which are less likely to be recompiled can likely run perfectly fine even at 50% performance on a new ARM MacBook which is very likely way faster than the latest non pro intel MacBooks.
  - Mindwipe 6y ago
    > Any big macOS game would have an iOS gaming equivalent. Lol. That isn't true, in any way. There is virtually no commonality. > Other recent more desktop like games are probably using a big game engine like Unity/Unreal with Metal support and probably also only need a recompile. Do you really think that's how game engine support works? Heck, if that was remotely the case why does Metal get so little support with titles even on x86? > And older games which are less likely to be recompiled can likely run perfectly fine even at 50% performance on a new ARM MacBook which is very likely way faster than the latest non pro intel MacBooks. Any game with graphics performance is not going to run at 50% performance through an emulator. If it's done very well it might run at 20%, much more likely 10%. A "way" faster ARM MacBook isn't going to run five times faster than the Intel equivalent. Different thermal windows aren't magic. A 10% performance improvement is unlikely.
- tgv 6y ago
  Anything that uses a lot of CPU or pushes much data around. I use Logic to make music. Many of te plugins run on one core, and can take up 100% of it. If performance via emulation is around 50%, that means a lot of drop-outs in the sound, and basically an unworkable situation. Been there, seen it, don't want to go throug it again. The bigger plugin makers will probably port their products, but it's going to cost the user; the smaller ones may simply give up macOS completely.
xoa 6y ago
It's early from a pure legal no-negotiation standpoint, but remember that we're approaching the point (which has gotten surprisingly little coverage to me) where a lot of core patents on x86-64 will expire. AMD64 was announced in 1999, 2000 saw the spec out, 2003 was the first implementation if I remember right with Opteron, and in 2006 Intel had Conroe out. Even Apple officially dropped support for early x86-64 Macs, it was often due to things like early issues with their EFI implementations or GPU drivers for Intel IGP, not because of some added instruction they were depending on. There were many examples of people doing some hacks to get non-supported versions of macOS to run long after it wouldn't install by default and it would work fine. So in terms of the minimum needed to achieve essentially all the backwards compatibility Apple would care about, it's gotta be pretty close since patent applications and priority dates are typically well before implementations. And even if not everything they wanted was expired, the mere fact of it happening would create leverage for other bits. So it'll be really interesting what they've done, they may well have not merely an emulator but something involving a hardware layer as well. Or I guess maybe they'll just dump BC like some have pessimistically expected, but useful forms of x86-64 becoming open to any player seems like it might be a pretty big deal for the industry doesn't it? As we've reached the flatter part of the S-curve and the ISA lifetime has stretched out far longer then anyone expected at one point, it's actually catching up with old IP law for once. 20 years is a long, long time in tech. But it's not forever, and maybe not so long as it once was even.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  The hardware patent expiration situation is interesting. It will be exciting to see open hardware reimplementations (FPGA and ASIC) move beyond the usual, long-unencumbered 6502 and Z80 architectures and into stuff like 32-bit 80x86 and 68000 (In fact there's already a high-performance, pin-compatible reimplementation of the latter, and it's quite usable for retrocomputing). And the situation wrt. peripherals is just as compelling, with quite a bit of new, retro-compatible hardware being released and extending the usability of these well-understood architectures.
  - userbinator 6y ago
    32-bit x86 has been patent-free for a long time. There's a small number of Chinese companies making "586"-level SoCs with them. Here's one of the more well-known: http://www.vortex86.com/ http://www.vortex86.com/
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

JosephRedfern 6y ago

I’d like to know more about ARM Photoshop — is this fully featured photoshop, or are you referring to the iOS app?

akmarinov 6y ago
The iOS app should be a fully featured one - https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/photoshop-ipad/ https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/photoshop-ipad/
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  Yeah, that didn't happen. The iOS app had a tiny fraction of the functionality of the full Mac app. Adobe were simply lying when they announced that. Indeed, it's a very poor imitation, just with some of the same codebase underneath (and literally nobody is "wow, Photoshop's famous codebase! That's what I want because it's totally not an infamous piece of garbage that I tolerate because of it's functionality!").
  - jurmous 6y ago
    The problem was that they needed to do the whole UI to be touch first. That won't be a problem on an ARM macOS version.
  - pandatigox 6y ago
    Link to the infamous PSD file format rant https://devrant.com/rants/1292858/found-this-gem-on-github-at-this-point-id-like-to-take-a-moment-to-speak-to-you https://devrant.com/rants/1292858/found-this-gem-on-github-a...
jurmous 6y ago
As announced originally the iOS version is compiling the same code as the desktop version. The unfortunate thing is that they have to slowly redo the whole UI touch first. That disadvantage is not present on macOS where they can use the current UI code and just compile it to ARM. https://theblog.adobe.com/adobe-photoshop-aero-gemini-dimension-photoshop-cc/ https://theblog.adobe.com/adobe-photoshop-aero-gemini-dimens... Don't forget that most photoshop code also ran on PowerPC and is thus platform agnostic.

twoodfin 6y ago

Right, I expect the seamless native library integration to be there too, but AFAIK that would be new secret sauce: For the Intel transition they just shipped fat versions of everything. My guess is that dropping 32-bit support last year was a way to front-load the developer cost / user pain of the architecture swap in service of a mechanism like this, which presumably only would be practical 64-bit x64 to 64-bit ARM.

Mindwipe 6y ago

> If so this will be a smooth transition. That is extremely unlikely. Anything involving gaming is unlikely to run at even 50% of it's performance. It is going to be an extremely, extremely rough transition.

jurmous 6y ago
Any big macOS game would have an iOS gaming equivalent. The code was probably already metal and ARM compatible and probably only needs a recompile. They will have more than six months to figure that out. Other recent more desktop like games are probably using a big game engine like Unity/Unreal with Metal support and probably also only need a recompile. And older games which are less likely to be recompiled can likely run perfectly fine even at 50% performance on a new ARM MacBook which is very likely way faster than the latest non pro intel MacBooks.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  > Any big macOS game would have an iOS gaming equivalent. Lol. That isn't true, in any way. There is virtually no commonality. > Other recent more desktop like games are probably using a big game engine like Unity/Unreal with Metal support and probably also only need a recompile. Do you really think that's how game engine support works? Heck, if that was remotely the case why does Metal get so little support with titles even on x86? > And older games which are less likely to be recompiled can likely run perfectly fine even at 50% performance on a new ARM MacBook which is very likely way faster than the latest non pro intel MacBooks. Any game with graphics performance is not going to run at 50% performance through an emulator. If it's done very well it might run at 20%, much more likely 10%. A "way" faster ARM MacBook isn't going to run five times faster than the Intel equivalent. Different thermal windows aren't magic. A 10% performance improvement is unlikely.
tgv 6y ago
Anything that uses a lot of CPU or pushes much data around. I use Logic to make music. Many of te plugins run on one core, and can take up 100% of it. If performance via emulation is around 50%, that means a lot of drop-outs in the sound, and basically an unworkable situation. Been there, seen it, don't want to go throug it again. The bigger plugin makers will probably port their products, but it's going to cost the user; the smaller ones may simply give up macOS completely.

xoa 6y ago

It's early from a pure legal no-negotiation standpoint, but remember that we're approaching the point (which has gotten surprisingly little coverage to me) where a lot of core patents on x86-64 will expire. AMD64 was announced in 1999, 2000 saw the spec out, 2003 was the first implementation if I remember right with Opteron, and in 2006 Intel had Conroe out. Even Apple officially dropped support for early x86-64 Macs, it was often due to things like early issues with their EFI implementations or GPU drivers for Intel IGP, not because of some added instruction they were depending on. There were many examples of people doing some hacks to get non-supported versions of macOS to run long after it wouldn't install by default and it would work fine. So in terms of the minimum needed to achieve essentially all the backwards compatibility Apple would care about, it's gotta be pretty close since patent applications and priority dates are typically well before implementations. And even if not everything they wanted was expired, the mere fact of it happening would create leverage for other bits. So it'll be really interesting what they've done, they may well have not merely an emulator but something involving a hardware layer as well. Or I guess maybe they'll just dump BC like some have pessimistically expected, but useful forms of x86-64 becoming open to any player seems like it might be a pretty big deal for the industry doesn't it? As we've reached the flatter part of the S-curve and the ISA lifetime has stretched out far longer then anyone expected at one point, it's actually catching up with old IP law for once. 20 years is a long, long time in tech. But it's not forever, and maybe not so long as it once was even.

zozbot234 6y ago
The hardware patent expiration situation is interesting. It will be exciting to see open hardware reimplementations (FPGA and ASIC) move beyond the usual, long-unencumbered 6502 and Z80 architectures and into stuff like 32-bit 80x86 and 68000 (In fact there's already a high-performance, pin-compatible reimplementation of the latter, and it's quite usable for retrocomputing). And the situation wrt. peripherals is just as compelling, with quite a bit of new, retro-compatible hardware being released and extending the usability of these well-understood architectures.
- userbinator 6y ago
  32-bit x86 has been patent-free for a long time. There's a small number of Chinese companies making "586"-level SoCs with them. Here's one of the more well-known: http://www.vortex86.com/ http://www.vortex86.com/

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]