5 ms·
But why do Apple Silicon macs require an addition 1.1 GB of updates?
by audiodude 3y ago
But why do Apple Silicon macs require an addition 1.1 GB of updates?
- mike_d 3y agoBecause the original download is a combined Intel+Non platform specific data. It then downloads the ARM specific binaries.
- arcticbull 3y agoI don’t think that’s exactly right, I think the second ARM package is personalized, ie, signed by apple for your device. That’s why it’s not cacheable per the article.
- mike_d 3y agoSix of one, half dozen of another.
- arcticbull 3y agoNot trying to be pedantic but the intel package has everything you need, it’s equivalent to packages 1 and 2 from the ARM update. I don’t think ARM package 1 contains any intel code at all.
- mike_d 3y agoI'm just going by what the article says. Feel free to disagree with the author if you have better data.
- arcticbull 3y agoMy comment is supported by the article. > …but the second 1.1 GB always has to be downloaded direct from Apple’s software update servers and can’t be served from the cache, making it slower to download. Why can’t it be cached? Because it’s unique per device. Only thing that makes sense. There’s no reason to think the ARM package is supplemental binaries to overlay on top of an Intel package in the way your original comment stated. All the article says is Intel gets 1 500mb package, ARM gets two packages, a 700mb and a 1.1GB. It doesn’t opine on the contents. All we know is that Intel gets 1 cacheable package and ARM gets 2, 1 cacheable and one not, and that the Intel one happens to be roughly the same size - but not exactly - as one of the ARM ones.
- TazeTSchnitzel 3y agoThe “Intel” version actually contains a lot of Arm-specific code in Universal Binary form.
- bitwize 3y agoProbably because Apple Silicon is the only ISA platform Apple still has fucks to give about. I keep running headlong into driver bugs on Intel Macs -- that work just fine on Apple Silicon.
- speed_spread 3y agoIts okay, they'll switch ISA again in a few years then ARM will get parity with Intel in updates
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y agoCalling 15 years “a few” is a tad dramatic.
- heavyset_go 3y agoI don't think it'll take 15 years for RISC-V processors to be competitive with ARM.
- epcoa 3y agoWhat’s the point if they’re merely competitive? There has to be some compelling advantage - why would Apple throw out their ARM ISA for RISC-V. Unlike other companies the licensing isn’t really an issue.
- smoldesu 3y agoWell, Apple already designs their own processors; the math also works out for them to cut out the middleman with ARM if you disregard their Softbank relationship. They don't rely on Cortex designs like Qualcomm and they already have extended the ISA for their own purposes. It appears that Apple could stand to benefit from an ISA they can truly control. Whether it's worth another transition is unclear, but Apple's desire for control over their digital supply chain is obvious. It's not like you can argue that they can't pull off a RISC transition, either.
- Someone 3y agoThey may be running multiple updaters. https://eclecticlight.co/2021/12/15/how-recovery-works-on-m1-series-macs/ https://eclecticlight.co/2021/12/15/how-recovery-works-on-m1... (emphasis added): “for M1 models, their ‘firmware’ update also brings a new Recovery system which is based on the latest macOS, in this case 12.0.1 even when the update is 11.6.1”