5 ms·

I’m just real glad that my personal upgrade cycle is at the point where I won’t be looking for a new computer until at least the second year of ARM Macs, when m

I’m just real glad that my personal upgrade cycle is at the point where I won’t be looking for a new computer until at least the second year of ARM Macs, when most show-stopping bugs should be ironed out of the OS and the Adobe tools I spend most of my work time in. I was an early adopter of PPC and OSX, I’m not gonna sit there trying to get work done via the old-cpu emulation again.

egypturnash 6y ago
Also: On a desktop machine, there’s no benefit in lower power dissipation and slimmer bodies If you’re in a hot climate then every little bit helps. Lower your power bill due both to lower consumption on the part of your computer and due to the AC coming on that much less. Run the computers fan less. Maybe even have a Mini that does a surprising amount of what you’d buy a Pro for. Make the iMac that much more of a flat screen.
- lunixbochs 6y ago
  > On a desktop machine, there’s no benefit in lower power dissipation and slimmer bodies The obvious win for me is shipping multiple times as many cores in the same TDP. If Apple used a chiplet strategy and good interconnect to make scaling easy - imagine a 16-core Mac Mini, 64-core iMac Pro, and something obscene (256 cores?) in a Mac Pro.
  - Eric_WVGG 6y ago
    Exactly. If Intel's 3ghz cpu eats 262W and emits 895 BTU/h, and Apple's passively cooled ARM laptop chip eats 130W and 450 BTU/h (completely made up numbers), how fast would Apple's ARM chip run with active cooling and 250W?
- pier25 6y ago
  > If you’re in a hot climate then every little bit helps Jesus, yes. I live in Mexico and when it's hot anything other than idle or small bursts of CPU brings my iMac to 60-70ºC and I hate fan noise.
  - egypturnash 6y ago
    same, I wrote that comment sitting outside a cafe in New Orleans. 80ºF, plus humidity. I can only assume that Gassée has not spent much time in the tropics, or that if he has, he is more than wealthy enough to not worry about the cost of running the AC constantly. :)
- OldHand2018 6y ago
  I read that paragraph and had a completely orthogonal thought. Intel mobile CPUs compare favorably to all established competition (AMD) and the iPad with Magic Keyboard is almost a laptop anyway. Why start with a mobile device? Intel desktop CPUs are where they have problems and you would assume that this is where Apple has the most frustration with Intel. That's where I'd start. Also, by keeping ARM and Intel around simultaneously for a few years (both as first-class citizens) forces developers to maintain portable code. If you are using Swift in the manner that they want you to use it, this is already the case. If you're using some other language/approach then you have to either think about adopting Swift or putting in more work.
  - ChrisLTD 6y ago
    The thing is, the majority of Macs sold are laptops. It doesn’t make sense for them as a business to build a strategy around what’s best for desktop machines.
    - OldHand2018 6y ago
      Yes, if their plan was to keep both platforms forever it wouldn't make much sense. But if they have a 2-3 year transition plan, it might make more sense to start with something for which low sales is still a success.
  - mrkstu 6y ago
    Compared to other x86 alternatives, historically true. Compared to Apple processors? Not so much. There isn't an Intel processor that is near the performance/watt in the iPad Pro, especially factoring in graphics performance.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Yup, and if they reduce power consumption (and heat generation) per core, they can cram more in the same device without having to upgrade the cooling or power supply, and they'll have to throttle less if temperature limits are reached. It's always worthwhile to get more performance-per-watt.
TMWNN 6y ago
>I was an early adopter of PPC and OSX, I’m not gonna sit there trying to get work done via the old-cpu emulation again. The lowest spec of the very first PowerPC Macs (the 6100) was faster than any 68K Mac, including emulated software. The first Intel Mac Mini was faster than the G5 Mac Pro. EDIT: Sorry, I misremembered; 68K emulation did impose a performance penalty versus contemporary 68K Macs. PowerPC-native performance was definitely faster than any 68K Mac, and developers were very good about releasing fat binaries.
- scarface74 6y ago
  I’m glad you did the edit. I was about to tell you a story about comparing my Mac LCII with an upgraded 68030-40 and my PPC 6100/60 running emulated software.
  - mrkstu 6y ago
    Yeah- you were generally standing still at best. The nice thing though is that as your apps (and OS) updated, you were continually getting 'free' speed boosts.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      I went backwards theoretically. The 6100/60 emulated a 68K at about the speed of 68030-25. But by the time I upgraded in early 1995, the software I cared about was native. I had been using SoftPC to run compilers for school. I bought the DOS Compatibility Card for my 6100 and that was a dream machine.
      - mrkstu 6y ago
        I have a Performa 6115/CD sitting under a desk- I should fire it up and see if it still works. Was my main machine for a long while.

egypturnash 6y ago

Also: On a desktop machine, there’s no benefit in lower power dissipation and slimmer bodies If you’re in a hot climate then every little bit helps. Lower your power bill due both to lower consumption on the part of your computer and due to the AC coming on that much less. Run the computers fan less. Maybe even have a Mini that does a surprising amount of what you’d buy a Pro for. Make the iMac that much more of a flat screen.

lunixbochs 6y ago
> On a desktop machine, there’s no benefit in lower power dissipation and slimmer bodies The obvious win for me is shipping multiple times as many cores in the same TDP. If Apple used a chiplet strategy and good interconnect to make scaling easy - imagine a 16-core Mac Mini, 64-core iMac Pro, and something obscene (256 cores?) in a Mac Pro.
- Eric_WVGG 6y ago
  Exactly. If Intel's 3ghz cpu eats 262W and emits 895 BTU/h, and Apple's passively cooled ARM laptop chip eats 130W and 450 BTU/h (completely made up numbers), how fast would Apple's ARM chip run with active cooling and 250W?
pier25 6y ago
> If you’re in a hot climate then every little bit helps Jesus, yes. I live in Mexico and when it's hot anything other than idle or small bursts of CPU brings my iMac to 60-70ºC and I hate fan noise.
- egypturnash 6y ago
  same, I wrote that comment sitting outside a cafe in New Orleans. 80ºF, plus humidity. I can only assume that Gassée has not spent much time in the tropics, or that if he has, he is more than wealthy enough to not worry about the cost of running the AC constantly. :)
OldHand2018 6y ago
I read that paragraph and had a completely orthogonal thought. Intel mobile CPUs compare favorably to all established competition (AMD) and the iPad with Magic Keyboard is almost a laptop anyway. Why start with a mobile device? Intel desktop CPUs are where they have problems and you would assume that this is where Apple has the most frustration with Intel. That's where I'd start. Also, by keeping ARM and Intel around simultaneously for a few years (both as first-class citizens) forces developers to maintain portable code. If you are using Swift in the manner that they want you to use it, this is already the case. If you're using some other language/approach then you have to either think about adopting Swift or putting in more work.
- ChrisLTD 6y ago
  The thing is, the majority of Macs sold are laptops. It doesn’t make sense for them as a business to build a strategy around what’s best for desktop machines.
  - OldHand2018 6y ago
    Yes, if their plan was to keep both platforms forever it wouldn't make much sense. But if they have a 2-3 year transition plan, it might make more sense to start with something for which low sales is still a success.
- mrkstu 6y ago
  Compared to other x86 alternatives, historically true. Compared to Apple processors? Not so much. There isn't an Intel processor that is near the performance/watt in the iPad Pro, especially factoring in graphics performance.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Yup, and if they reduce power consumption (and heat generation) per core, they can cram more in the same device without having to upgrade the cooling or power supply, and they'll have to throttle less if temperature limits are reached. It's always worthwhile to get more performance-per-watt.

TMWNN 6y ago

>I was an early adopter of PPC and OSX, I’m not gonna sit there trying to get work done via the old-cpu emulation again. The lowest spec of the very first PowerPC Macs (the 6100) was faster than any 68K Mac, including emulated software. The first Intel Mac Mini was faster than the G5 Mac Pro. EDIT: Sorry, I misremembered; 68K emulation did impose a performance penalty versus contemporary 68K Macs. PowerPC-native performance was definitely faster than any 68K Mac, and developers were very good about releasing fat binaries.

scarface74 6y ago
I’m glad you did the edit. I was about to tell you a story about comparing my Mac LCII with an upgraded 68030-40 and my PPC 6100/60 running emulated software.
- mrkstu 6y ago
  Yeah- you were generally standing still at best. The nice thing though is that as your apps (and OS) updated, you were continually getting 'free' speed boosts.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    I went backwards theoretically. The 6100/60 emulated a 68K at about the speed of 68030-25. But by the time I upgraded in early 1995, the software I cared about was native. I had been using SoftPC to run compilers for school. I bought the DOS Compatibility Card for my 6100 and that was a dream machine.
    - mrkstu 6y ago
      I have a Performa 6115/CD sitting under a desk- I should fire it up and see if it still works. Was my main machine for a long while.