9 ms·

And that's why in 2006 they introduced Macbook Pros which were 32-bit only? If you want to switch to 64-bit, you don't introduce machines that cannot do that,

And that's why in 2006 they introduced Macbook Pros which were 32-bit only? If you want to switch to 64-bit, you don't introduce machines that cannot do that, that need their 32-bit ABI and have to be supported for years to follow.

saagarjha 6y ago
Apple didn’t really have a choice. The choice required a fairly decent amount of legacy support for the next decade or so; I doubt they really wanted to commit to that if they didn’t have to.
- Jasper_ 6y ago
  This to me says one of two things: 1. Either their engineering org is so bad they can't afford to spend some of their massive resources on backwards compatibility. 2. They just don't give a shit. Either way, not a great look.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    What engineering organization would prefer to support an architecture for the next 10 years because they had to use that chip for two?
- vetinari 6y ago
  Of course, they did have a choice: 1. Wait a few months, Core 2 Duo was on it's way. Previous Nehalem generation did support 64-bit, so obviously, the next Core Duo SKUs with 64-bit support were on the way. This way, they could skip x86 ABI entirely. It's not like Apple doesn't have long periods without updates of specific models. 2. If they really had to release a model that introduces 32-bit ABI, they could support it properly. So by doing it the way they did it, I have to agree with Jasper_. The only difference with his conclusion is, that in my opinion they just took the option 2.
  - bzzzt 6y ago
    Easy with 20/20 hindsight, but back then Apple didn't know it would be a few months. Should Intel have had unforeseen trouble with the Core 2 and decided to delay the release they would not be releasing any hardware. Also, availability of enough processors and ease of porting existing 32-bits x86 Windows software could have been factors.
    - vetinari 6y ago
      Sure, easy with hindsight. But they did take that option and now refuse to pay the price. They are forcing paying the price on their users now. They got additional benefit at the time, if I remember correctly: Adobe suite was 32-bit + Carbon; so having 32-bit x86 ABI allowed to them and to Adobe to have the suite running natively on the new CPUs, buying Adobe time to port to 64-bit and Cocoa, and axe Carbon without waiting to axe Intel entirely. Given the benefits they got, they should be called for not wanting to pay the price.

saagarjha 6y ago

Apple didn’t really have a choice. The choice required a fairly decent amount of legacy support for the next decade or so; I doubt they really wanted to commit to that if they didn’t have to.

Jasper_ 6y ago
This to me says one of two things: 1. Either their engineering org is so bad they can't afford to spend some of their massive resources on backwards compatibility. 2. They just don't give a shit. Either way, not a great look.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  What engineering organization would prefer to support an architecture for the next 10 years because they had to use that chip for two?
vetinari 6y ago
Of course, they did have a choice: 1. Wait a few months, Core 2 Duo was on it's way. Previous Nehalem generation did support 64-bit, so obviously, the next Core Duo SKUs with 64-bit support were on the way. This way, they could skip x86 ABI entirely. It's not like Apple doesn't have long periods without updates of specific models. 2. If they really had to release a model that introduces 32-bit ABI, they could support it properly. So by doing it the way they did it, I have to agree with Jasper_. The only difference with his conclusion is, that in my opinion they just took the option 2.
- bzzzt 6y ago
  Easy with 20/20 hindsight, but back then Apple didn't know it would be a few months. Should Intel have had unforeseen trouble with the Core 2 and decided to delay the release they would not be releasing any hardware. Also, availability of enough processors and ease of porting existing 32-bits x86 Windows software could have been factors.
  - vetinari 6y ago
    Sure, easy with hindsight. But they did take that option and now refuse to pay the price. They are forcing paying the price on their users now. They got additional benefit at the time, if I remember correctly: Adobe suite was 32-bit + Carbon; so having 32-bit x86 ABI allowed to them and to Adobe to have the suite running natively on the new CPUs, buying Adobe time to port to 64-bit and Cocoa, and axe Carbon without waiting to axe Intel entirely. Given the benefits they got, they should be called for not wanting to pay the price.