4 ms·

> They pulled something off I think would be difficult for many others and have shown they're not married to a single architecture. You mean like how MS Window

> They pulled something off I think would be difficult for many others and have shown they're not married to a single architecture. You mean like how MS Windows ran on the DEC Alpha as well as X86? Or how Linux runs on X86 and ARM CPU's? Running an OS on multiple CPU types goes back a very long time.

LoganDark 4y ago
> Running an OS on multiple CPU types goes back a very long time. Yet moving the entire world onto this new architecture and getting all developers on board to start creating software for it is nearly unheard of outside of Apple.
- macintux 4y ago
  That’s the strategy that Microsoft can’t/won’t pursue: be willing to abandon legacy vendors/customers by forcing a migration.
  - eric-hu 4y ago
    I’m fan of how Apple does things for their ecosystem. I think only this strategy could have let them make the transition to arm as smooth as it’s been. That said, I also have deep respect for Microsoft for being so deeply committed to backwards compatibility. You can find developer stories about how they’ve gone out of their way to hard code support for legacy apps (even space pinball) in major Windows updates. That sounds really gross from a code perspective, but from a business/product perspective, it buys trust/loyalty from enterprise customers. We see the opposite issue with Google, who has established a reputation for unreliable long term support. Despite their reputation for strong engineering, their new product lines suffer from distrust. Potential customers ask themselves why pay the onboarding cost for a Google product when it’s unclear if it’ll be around in two to three years.
- kennend3 4y ago
  "Planned obsolescence" has its advantages? This is the third time apple has done this so one would hope they have learned form their mistakes and make the transition seemless? Windows machines on X86 are just fine.. Amazing when you dont have a monopoly on both the OS and Hardware. MS runs on Intel, AMD, ARM... MacOS runs on whatever hardware Apple sells. you can see how an attempt by Microsoft to move off Intel would fail, right?
alwillis 4y ago
You mean like how MS Windows ran on the DEC Alpha as well as X86? Or how Linux runs on X86 and ARM CPU's? It’s not the same thing. A macOS hard drive could boot either an Intel or PPC Mac and all of the apps ran on both types of machines. Apps that were “fat binaries” ran natively on both processor architectures. Same thing today with the apps and the operating system running natively on Intel and ARM machines.
- kennend3 4y ago
  Nothing you wrote is accurate. The apps ran on both types of machines thanks to rosetta and the performance hit this takes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. The reason you can "natively" run intel on ARM machines is Rosetta2 "Until recently, Mac developers only had to worry about creating Intel-based apps. However, that started to change when the first Apple silicon Macs arrived. For Intel-based apps to run on these computers, Apple introduced Rosetta 2." Please read up before posting.
  - pram 4y ago
    lol maybe you should do some reading before posting. Mach-O supports multi-architecture binaries. Rosetta is solely for things that haven’t been made “Universal” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary
    - kennend3 4y ago
      Great.. now explain why Rosetta exist if it is not needed because "mach-o supports.."
  - vetinari 4y ago
    > It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. That's the point of fat binaries: they contain .text sections for several architectures. Even the installation DVD was a single one, for both platforms. Some more modern example of the same concept: Terminal: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64e] Terminal (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 Terminal (for architecture arm64e): Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64e
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

LoganDark 4y ago

> Running an OS on multiple CPU types goes back a very long time. Yet moving the entire world onto this new architecture and getting all developers on board to start creating software for it is nearly unheard of outside of Apple.

macintux 4y ago
That’s the strategy that Microsoft can’t/won’t pursue: be willing to abandon legacy vendors/customers by forcing a migration.
- eric-hu 4y ago
  I’m fan of how Apple does things for their ecosystem. I think only this strategy could have let them make the transition to arm as smooth as it’s been. That said, I also have deep respect for Microsoft for being so deeply committed to backwards compatibility. You can find developer stories about how they’ve gone out of their way to hard code support for legacy apps (even space pinball) in major Windows updates. That sounds really gross from a code perspective, but from a business/product perspective, it buys trust/loyalty from enterprise customers. We see the opposite issue with Google, who has established a reputation for unreliable long term support. Despite their reputation for strong engineering, their new product lines suffer from distrust. Potential customers ask themselves why pay the onboarding cost for a Google product when it’s unclear if it’ll be around in two to three years.
kennend3 4y ago
"Planned obsolescence" has its advantages? This is the third time apple has done this so one would hope they have learned form their mistakes and make the transition seemless? Windows machines on X86 are just fine.. Amazing when you dont have a monopoly on both the OS and Hardware. MS runs on Intel, AMD, ARM... MacOS runs on whatever hardware Apple sells. you can see how an attempt by Microsoft to move off Intel would fail, right?

alwillis 4y ago

You mean like how MS Windows ran on the DEC Alpha as well as X86? Or how Linux runs on X86 and ARM CPU's? It’s not the same thing. A macOS hard drive could boot either an Intel or PPC Mac and all of the apps ran on both types of machines. Apps that were “fat binaries” ran natively on both processor architectures. Same thing today with the apps and the operating system running natively on Intel and ARM machines.

kennend3 4y ago
Nothing you wrote is accurate. The apps ran on both types of machines thanks to rosetta and the performance hit this takes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. The reason you can "natively" run intel on ARM machines is Rosetta2 "Until recently, Mac developers only had to worry about creating Intel-based apps. However, that started to change when the first Apple silicon Macs arrived. For Intel-based apps to run on these computers, Apple introduced Rosetta 2." Please read up before posting.
- pram 4y ago
  lol maybe you should do some reading before posting. Mach-O supports multi-architecture binaries. Rosetta is solely for things that haven’t been made “Universal” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary
  - kennend3 4y ago
    Great.. now explain why Rosetta exist if it is not needed because "mach-o supports.."
- vetinari 4y ago
  > It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. That's the point of fat binaries: they contain .text sections for several architectures. Even the installation DVD was a single one, for both platforms. Some more modern example of the same concept: Terminal: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64e] Terminal (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 Terminal (for architecture arm64e): Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64e

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]