18 ms·

Internally Apple always had an x86 build of OS X running. Just like I’m sure they have an ARM build running today. Intel chips ran cooler, had better power eff

Internally Apple always had an x86 build of OS X running. Just like I’m sure they have an ARM build running today. Intel chips ran cooler, had better power efficiency and were way faster at a lot of things than PowerPC. Leadership was actually super reluctant to switch and it took a demo from an engineer showing the massive improvement to convince them. If Apple is ready to switch to ARM they must have some impressive CPU. Apples not usually one to dabble here and there, so if they switch it’s going to be a wholesale ordeal. What will this look like for the Mac Pro?

melling 6y ago
NeXTStep ran on Intel so when they ported it to PowerPC they simply kept the Intel builds running.
- cmiles74 6y ago
  It also ran on SPARC and PA-RISC, I think even some Motorola 68000 at some point.
  - icedchai 6y ago
    Yes, NeXT's original hardware platform was 68K based: the NeXT Cube and NeXTStation (slab.) They were 68030 and later, 68040, based machines.
    - cmiles74 6y ago
      I didn't mean to be didactic. I was thinking more that likely remains fairly easy to port. :-)
      - icedchai 6y ago
        Oh, sorry! I have a NeXTstation in my retro collection and have a fondness for those old machines. I plan to install NeXTStep on a Sparc but haven't got there yet...
- mattl 6y ago
  They were already working on PPC but when they went software-only the hardware division was sold to Canon and spun off as Firepower Systems.
- gsnedders 6y ago
  Heck, until Rhapsody Developer Release 2 Apple shipped IA-32 builds. It was only after that, with Mac OS X Server 1.0 that they dropped IA-32 support publicly. That they'd kept the whole thing running on IA-32 never seemed at all far-fetched.
JS2Java 6y ago
I'm not so sure. Just looking at all the dongles they ship, it seems they are more interested on what is better for Apple rather than what is better for the end user.
- kyriakos 6y ago
  To be fair every company does whats best for itself, if that also happens to be good for the user so much the better.
  - notRobot 6y ago
    I don't know, I can't even think of any examples of (good for for-profit company) = (good for users)
    - ben-schaaf 6y ago
      Any time there's competition, companies need to make things that users want more than their competition, and most choices towards that goal are beneficial to the consumer. Users want a faster cpu at a good price, and AMD and intel competing has lowered prices and increased performance.
    - TomMarius 6y ago
      You have never been happy with any thing someone made?
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      You're not thinking very hard.
    - fortran77 6y ago
      NVidia? And in the non-tech world there are many: Ikea, Target, Trader Joe's,
hannibalhorn 6y ago
The article posted the other day had benchmarks for the Apple chips vs some Intel chips, they seem to be much more competitive than I'd have ever guessed: rel= https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-arm-and-intel/?href=
- spacedcowboy 6y ago
  And that competitiveness is without taking into account the different operating environments. The power envelope afforded to the intel chip is dramatically larger than that of the Apple chip. Apple is fighting with one arm tied behind its back, here, it’ll be truly interesting to see what they can do on a level playing field
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Note that that is SPEC, which is a synthetic benchmark that chip makers have been playing games with forever because it's quite sensitive to compiler optimizations. Much the same issue with browser benchmarks when you're using Apple's browser engine on Apple's chips -- expect them to have specific optimizations for the code in common benchmarks. I'd really like to see some independent benchmarks here. It'll be interesting if they actually release a macOS device and then we can see how it runs GIMP and 7-zip and Firefox etc.
  - Someone 6y ago
    You can blame SPEC for lots of things (the most important one being that it may not be relevant for your workload), but I don’t think you can blame it for not being an independent benchmark. It’s made by a non-profit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Performance_Evaluation_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Performance_Evaluatio...) Yes, companies can try to influence the definitions of new SPEC benchmarks to make their CPUs look good and they also may spend time tweaking their compilers to look good on it, but it’s not that they write those benchmarks unopposed by representatives of other companies.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
fluffything 6y ago
> If Apple is ready to switch to ARM they must have some impressive CPU. Apples not usually one to dabble here and there, so if they switch it’s going to be a wholesale ordeal. Apple has an ARM-based product on sale today that has a better screen, better battery life, and better performance, than the 2020 Macbook air for many workloads, including compiling and doing development work (it crushed the air in the benchmark sets that can be run there). That product is the 2020 ipad pro, and that is why there are so many posts about people actually trying to turn them into development machines. This product is one step away from being a real laptop: it is missing real MacOSX. The performance of the Intel-based Macbook Air has increased by 1.8-1.9x from 2012 to 2020 (that's 8 years). Apple already has internal A13 prototypes, and A14 is probably going to the prototype phase right now. I can't imagine the numbers working in favor of Intel. By 2021 Intel can probably deliver a 1.1-1.2x speed up tops for Macbook airs, while Apple can probably deliver a 2x speed up for 2021 with the A13 and another 2x one for 2023 with the A14. Being able to scale the same chip for iphones, ipads, and macbooks, reusing internal resources, and avoiding the "hassle" of having to deal with Intel. The only thing that's IMO in the air is what is going to be the discrete graphics story for macbook pro's and Mac pros. Its unclear whether it would make sense for AMD to deliver discrete gfx products that interface well with ARM, and the Apple-nvidia bridge burned long time ago. So I wonder whether Apple has openings for electrical engineers to work on discrete graphics verification & design, and driver developers. It would strongly hint that apple would design their own discrete gfx in house.
- ianai 6y ago
  It’s even got a keyboard stand case that almost turns it into a miniature iMac-like device.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    Imagine a teeny tiny iMac, that'd be a fun look. I wonder if the size vs. needs has changed in general as the adoption of large screens seems to have slowed down a bit in my environment (probably because everyone that wanted one now has one).
- ajross 6y ago
paulcole 6y ago
> Leadership was actually super reluctant to switch and it took a demo from an engineer showing the massive improvement to convince them. Is there any truth to this or is it just apocryphal and-then-all-the-executives-stood-up-and-clapped.
- jarjoura 6y ago
  I wasn't in the room, I was only an intern at the time, but I worked with engineers who were. They literally had an ugly beige Dell machine with the OS running. Although I can't seem to find any article backing this up, it was wildly believed internally that Avie and Rubinstein left because they didn't agree with the change. Avie for sure was quoted as saying the PowerPC made the Mac special. https://www.zdnet.com/article/tevanian-rubinstein-leave-apple/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/tevanian-rubinstein-leave-appl... Rosetta was the missing piece Apple needed to make the transition viable. https://web.archive.org/web/20140714174257/http://news.cnet.com/The+brains+behind+Apples+Rosetta+Transitive/2100-1016_3-5736190.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140714174257/http://news.cnet....
nojito 6y ago
This isn’t really true. Intel macos story was revealed to be very small and essentially a hobby project. https://www.quora.com/Apple-company/How-does-Apple-keep-secrets-so-well https://www.quora.com/Apple-company/How-does-Apple-keep-secr...
mistrial9 6y ago
> Internally Apple always had an x86 build of OS X running. This is true. > Intel chips ran cooler, had better power efficiency and were way faster at a lot of things than PowerPC. This is false, and so much so that it brings into question the whole comment. Heat from Intel parts was massively greater, and power consumption overall was greater on Intel parts for similar work. "faster" would have to include some specifics. A low-end Intel part would not beat an expensive PowerPC part, obviously. > Leadership was actually super reluctant to switch and it took a demo from an engineer showing the massive improvement to convince them. There were many demos internally and many casts of characters at the executive level, all along. >If Apple is ready to switch to ARM they must have some impressive CPU. hint- it is about the money
tuatoru 6y ago
> If Apple is ready to switch to ARM they must have some impressive CPU. Not necessarily. The tech advantage that Apple gains by designing its own CPUs is ease of adding its own specialist circuitry for computer vision, speech recognition, and other difficult sensing tasks. Think Siri on device, not over the internet. And a Siri who is aware of conversational context, and the environment generally. Siri writing meeting minutes -- being asked for them after the meeting is over. OK, that's probably not what Apple is thinking, but rapid circuitry addition is a real technical option that likely has real value to Apple. Unified architecture is another thing that has value.
- fomine3 6y ago
  They already do similar things on T2 chip. It has video encoder and other processing feature. Maybe integrating it to SoC makes it possible to implement other feature that works with CPU processing.
pier25 6y ago
> What will this look like for the Mac Pro? Is there any benefit in switching to ARM for beefy desktop machines? I can see the benefit of ARM for the iMac or a Mac Mini, but I imagine on a tower like the Mac Pro Apple will not want to compromise on performance regardless of heat or power consumed. I could be wrong but I think the Mac Pro would rather switch to AMD than to ARM.

melling 6y ago

NeXTStep ran on Intel so when they ported it to PowerPC they simply kept the Intel builds running.

cmiles74 6y ago
It also ran on SPARC and PA-RISC, I think even some Motorola 68000 at some point.
- icedchai 6y ago
  Yes, NeXT's original hardware platform was 68K based: the NeXT Cube and NeXTStation (slab.) They were 68030 and later, 68040, based machines.
  - cmiles74 6y ago
    I didn't mean to be didactic. I was thinking more that likely remains fairly easy to port. :-)
    - icedchai 6y ago
      Oh, sorry! I have a NeXTstation in my retro collection and have a fondness for those old machines. I plan to install NeXTStep on a Sparc but haven't got there yet...
mattl 6y ago
They were already working on PPC but when they went software-only the hardware division was sold to Canon and spun off as Firepower Systems.
gsnedders 6y ago
Heck, until Rhapsody Developer Release 2 Apple shipped IA-32 builds. It was only after that, with Mac OS X Server 1.0 that they dropped IA-32 support publicly. That they'd kept the whole thing running on IA-32 never seemed at all far-fetched.

JS2Java 6y ago

I'm not so sure. Just looking at all the dongles they ship, it seems they are more interested on what is better for Apple rather than what is better for the end user.

kyriakos 6y ago
To be fair every company does whats best for itself, if that also happens to be good for the user so much the better.
- notRobot 6y ago
  I don't know, I can't even think of any examples of (good for for-profit company) = (good for users)
  - ben-schaaf 6y ago
    Any time there's competition, companies need to make things that users want more than their competition, and most choices towards that goal are beneficial to the consumer. Users want a faster cpu at a good price, and AMD and intel competing has lowered prices and increased performance.
  - TomMarius 6y ago
    You have never been happy with any thing someone made?
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    You're not thinking very hard.
  - fortran77 6y ago
    NVidia? And in the non-tech world there are many: Ikea, Target, Trader Joe's,

hannibalhorn 6y ago

The article posted the other day had benchmarks for the Apple chips vs some Intel chips, they seem to be much more competitive than I'd have ever guessed: rel= https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-arm-and-intel/?href=

spacedcowboy 6y ago
And that competitiveness is without taking into account the different operating environments. The power envelope afforded to the intel chip is dramatically larger than that of the Apple chip. Apple is fighting with one arm tied behind its back, here, it’ll be truly interesting to see what they can do on a level playing field
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Note that that is SPEC, which is a synthetic benchmark that chip makers have been playing games with forever because it's quite sensitive to compiler optimizations. Much the same issue with browser benchmarks when you're using Apple's browser engine on Apple's chips -- expect them to have specific optimizations for the code in common benchmarks. I'd really like to see some independent benchmarks here. It'll be interesting if they actually release a macOS device and then we can see how it runs GIMP and 7-zip and Firefox etc.
- Someone 6y ago
  You can blame SPEC for lots of things (the most important one being that it may not be relevant for your workload), but I don’t think you can blame it for not being an independent benchmark. It’s made by a non-profit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Performance_Evaluation_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Performance_Evaluatio...) Yes, companies can try to influence the definitions of new SPEC benchmarks to make their CPUs look good and they also may spend time tweaking their compilers to look good on it, but it’s not that they write those benchmarks unopposed by representatives of other companies.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago

fluffything 6y ago

> If Apple is ready to switch to ARM they must have some impressive CPU. Apples not usually one to dabble here and there, so if they switch it’s going to be a wholesale ordeal. Apple has an ARM-based product on sale today that has a better screen, better battery life, and better performance, than the 2020 Macbook air for many workloads, including compiling and doing development work (it crushed the air in the benchmark sets that can be run there). That product is the 2020 ipad pro, and that is why there are so many posts about people actually trying to turn them into development machines. This product is one step away from being a real laptop: it is missing real MacOSX. The performance of the Intel-based Macbook Air has increased by 1.8-1.9x from 2012 to 2020 (that's 8 years). Apple already has internal A13 prototypes, and A14 is probably going to the prototype phase right now. I can't imagine the numbers working in favor of Intel. By 2021 Intel can probably deliver a 1.1-1.2x speed up tops for Macbook airs, while Apple can probably deliver a 2x speed up for 2021 with the A13 and another 2x one for 2023 with the A14. Being able to scale the same chip for iphones, ipads, and macbooks, reusing internal resources, and avoiding the "hassle" of having to deal with Intel. The only thing that's IMO in the air is what is going to be the discrete graphics story for macbook pro's and Mac pros. Its unclear whether it would make sense for AMD to deliver discrete gfx products that interface well with ARM, and the Apple-nvidia bridge burned long time ago. So I wonder whether Apple has openings for electrical engineers to work on discrete graphics verification & design, and driver developers. It would strongly hint that apple would design their own discrete gfx in house.

ianai 6y ago
It’s even got a keyboard stand case that almost turns it into a miniature iMac-like device.
- oneplane 6y ago
  Imagine a teeny tiny iMac, that'd be a fun look. I wonder if the size vs. needs has changed in general as the adoption of large screens seems to have slowed down a bit in my environment (probably because everyone that wanted one now has one).
ajross 6y ago

paulcole 6y ago

> Leadership was actually super reluctant to switch and it took a demo from an engineer showing the massive improvement to convince them. Is there any truth to this or is it just apocryphal and-then-all-the-executives-stood-up-and-clapped.

jarjoura 6y ago
I wasn't in the room, I was only an intern at the time, but I worked with engineers who were. They literally had an ugly beige Dell machine with the OS running. Although I can't seem to find any article backing this up, it was wildly believed internally that Avie and Rubinstein left because they didn't agree with the change. Avie for sure was quoted as saying the PowerPC made the Mac special. https://www.zdnet.com/article/tevanian-rubinstein-leave-apple/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/tevanian-rubinstein-leave-appl... Rosetta was the missing piece Apple needed to make the transition viable. https://web.archive.org/web/20140714174257/http://news.cnet.com/The+brains+behind+Apples+Rosetta+Transitive/2100-1016_3-5736190.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140714174257/http://news.cnet....

nojito 6y ago

This isn’t really true. Intel macos story was revealed to be very small and essentially a hobby project. https://www.quora.com/Apple-company/How-does-Apple-keep-secrets-so-well https://www.quora.com/Apple-company/How-does-Apple-keep-secr...

mistrial9 6y ago

> Internally Apple always had an x86 build of OS X running. This is true. > Intel chips ran cooler, had better power efficiency and were way faster at a lot of things than PowerPC. This is false, and so much so that it brings into question the whole comment. Heat from Intel parts was massively greater, and power consumption overall was greater on Intel parts for similar work. "faster" would have to include some specifics. A low-end Intel part would not beat an expensive PowerPC part, obviously. > Leadership was actually super reluctant to switch and it took a demo from an engineer showing the massive improvement to convince them. There were many demos internally and many casts of characters at the executive level, all along. >If Apple is ready to switch to ARM they must have some impressive CPU. hint- it is about the money

tuatoru 6y ago

> If Apple is ready to switch to ARM they must have some impressive CPU. Not necessarily. The tech advantage that Apple gains by designing its own CPUs is ease of adding its own specialist circuitry for computer vision, speech recognition, and other difficult sensing tasks. Think Siri on device, not over the internet. And a Siri who is aware of conversational context, and the environment generally. Siri writing meeting minutes -- being asked for them after the meeting is over. OK, that's probably not what Apple is thinking, but rapid circuitry addition is a real technical option that likely has real value to Apple. Unified architecture is another thing that has value.

fomine3 6y ago
They already do similar things on T2 chip. It has video encoder and other processing feature. Maybe integrating it to SoC makes it possible to implement other feature that works with CPU processing.

pier25 6y ago

> What will this look like for the Mac Pro? Is there any benefit in switching to ARM for beefy desktop machines? I can see the benefit of ARM for the iMac or a Mac Mini, but I imagine on a tower like the Mac Pro Apple will not want to compromise on performance regardless of heat or power consumed. I could be wrong but I think the Mac Pro would rather switch to AMD than to ARM.