5 ms·

Its no secret that Apple are one of the biggest players when it comes to in-house R&D in the IT world. So if you were them, would you not put some resources in

Its no secret that Apple are one of the biggest players when it comes to in-house R&D in the IT world. So if you were them, would you not put some resources into keeping on top of potentially useful processors such as RISC-V so you have something up your sleeve if you need it for a project ?

dylan604 5y ago
Just like they had a skunk works team whose job was to ensure OS X could be compiled to a different processor than what was currently in use. That's why the switch from PowerPC to Intel was able to be done as quickly as it was. Apple funded a team whose work might never have been needed. It would seem the same thing was in place for Intel->ARM as well. So it totally makes sense this is being done.
- zenron 5y ago
  Well, honestly, Apple already did the hard work years ago when they created OS X itself based on NextStep and used a derivative Mach microkernel. Now, Apple ofc has pushed a lot on top of that but that is platform specific so they call it a hybrid kernel but this is the true legacy of Steve Jobs. This allowed them to have a pretty tight product line using similar OSs with different user spaces and those needs. It isn't revolutionary on a technical front, that is what all that work was working towards at the colleges that developed them. But it was in fact forward thinking from a product and pricing perspective that a company would make a bold move and incorporate that when we had a lot of PC companies sticking to one arch ride or die style at the time.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    I wonder how much Intel appreciates that MS show closely tied Windows to their chips?
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  I wouldn’t be surprised if they still maintain a fork that runs on PPC as insurance. OS X/macOS has had multi-ISA support internally since it was just a codename project. And likely always will.
  - tcmb 5y ago
    Must be super hard to stay motivated on this team, if it exists.
    - dmitrygr 5y ago
      Wait till you hear of the team that also supports macOS 11 on 68k and 6502
      - dylan604 5y ago
        Not impressed unless you can play Doom on it
    - eyelidlessness 5y ago
      I think this is similar to research work in general. Definitely not for everyone but it can be very attractive for certain people. If I were on the team I’d imagine my motivation would be ensuring huge platform transitions are successful. - They’ve happened often enough it’s a valuable effort for people (like me) who feel comfortable/at home in a maintainer role. - All of the ISA changes have been widely praised as smooth transitions. - The Intel transition was part of what saved Apple. - All of the software transitions that have been followed through on (i.e. not the several failed “modern OS projects” before OS X) have been similarly successful, if a bit less smooth. - All of those things together have been a huge factor in Apple’s overall success in the last two decades. Doing obscure work that may never see the light of day is probably as motivating as your interest in the work itself and how much you value whatever else it (might) support.
baybal2 5y ago
> Its no secret that Apple are one of the biggest players when it comes to in-house R&D in the IT world. Google is easily bigger, and Samsung will stomp both. Apple's engineering is known to be very conservative. And it's certainly more of quality over quantity spirited. I knew people who worked in Apple's Shenzhen RnD centre myself.

dylan604 5y ago

Just like they had a skunk works team whose job was to ensure OS X could be compiled to a different processor than what was currently in use. That's why the switch from PowerPC to Intel was able to be done as quickly as it was. Apple funded a team whose work might never have been needed. It would seem the same thing was in place for Intel->ARM as well. So it totally makes sense this is being done.

zenron 5y ago
Well, honestly, Apple already did the hard work years ago when they created OS X itself based on NextStep and used a derivative Mach microkernel. Now, Apple ofc has pushed a lot on top of that but that is platform specific so they call it a hybrid kernel but this is the true legacy of Steve Jobs. This allowed them to have a pretty tight product line using similar OSs with different user spaces and those needs. It isn't revolutionary on a technical front, that is what all that work was working towards at the colleges that developed them. But it was in fact forward thinking from a product and pricing perspective that a company would make a bold move and incorporate that when we had a lot of PC companies sticking to one arch ride or die style at the time.
- dylan604 5y ago
  I wonder how much Intel appreciates that MS show closely tied Windows to their chips?
eyelidlessness 5y ago
I wouldn’t be surprised if they still maintain a fork that runs on PPC as insurance. OS X/macOS has had multi-ISA support internally since it was just a codename project. And likely always will.
- tcmb 5y ago
  Must be super hard to stay motivated on this team, if it exists.
  - dmitrygr 5y ago
    Wait till you hear of the team that also supports macOS 11 on 68k and 6502
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Not impressed unless you can play Doom on it
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    I think this is similar to research work in general. Definitely not for everyone but it can be very attractive for certain people. If I were on the team I’d imagine my motivation would be ensuring huge platform transitions are successful. - They’ve happened often enough it’s a valuable effort for people (like me) who feel comfortable/at home in a maintainer role. - All of the ISA changes have been widely praised as smooth transitions. - The Intel transition was part of what saved Apple. - All of the software transitions that have been followed through on (i.e. not the several failed “modern OS projects” before OS X) have been similarly successful, if a bit less smooth. - All of those things together have been a huge factor in Apple’s overall success in the last two decades. Doing obscure work that may never see the light of day is probably as motivating as your interest in the work itself and how much you value whatever else it (might) support.

baybal2 5y ago

> Its no secret that Apple are one of the biggest players when it comes to in-house R&D in the IT world. Google is easily bigger, and Samsung will stomp both. Apple's engineering is known to be very conservative. And it's certainly more of quality over quantity spirited. I knew people who worked in Apple's Shenzhen RnD centre myself.