6 ms·

I'd prefer them to keep using Intel, if you ask me. M1 brings to me nothing but issues with different architecture. So much that I had to switch to Linux becaus

I'd prefer them to keep using Intel, if you ask me. M1 brings to me nothing but issues with different architecture. So much that I had to switch to Linux because can't take it anymore. Don't really feel it faster than Intel, TBH. May be better regarding battery, but who cares, definitely not me, working from AC outlet 24/7.

theshrike79 3y ago
Can I ask what issues did you have after the initial hassle of people recompiling for the M-series? For me the insane battery life/computing power ratio massively outweighs any possible advantages for staying with Intel
- vbezhenar 3y ago
  For example I can't run Windows XP in a VM with acceptable performance.
  - drawfloat 3y ago
    I can run Black mesa at 60FPS inside a Windows 11 VM on my Macbook M2. That suggests performance is not actually that bad?
    - vbezhenar 3y ago
      Probably because your Windows 11 VM runs ARM version of Windows and I need x86 version of Windows.
      - INGSOCIALITE 3y ago
        i was in the same situation with the switch to silicon. I have some obscure industry software that i use on a rare basis that only runs on x86 - i just bought a cheap thinkpad (x220 i think) and have XP on there. silicon (m2) is worth its weight in gold to me for the battery life and functionality.
wyldberry 3y ago
Seems like the thousands of people who bought it care, myself included. My role has significant on-call responsibility. It's nice to be able to take it charged anywhere I could need it and know that for several hours it can handle anything I will throw at it, reliably. From a security perspective, I prefer the separation from the x86 architecture if for no other reason than it imposes extra cost for exploit development.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  It is only a matter of time. https://www.darkreading.com/application-security/patchless-apple-m-chip-vulnerability-cryptography-bypass https://www.darkreading.com/application-security/patchless-a...
  - wyldberry 3y ago
    That wasn't the point. On a long enough timeline, the security of all systems drops to zero. If the entire world is running x86, then the threat model for attackers revolves around abusing x86. If things are homogeneous, it raises the bar and resourcing required to make attacks. As always with security, everything is a tradeoff.
    - namaria 3y ago
      Your argument is basically security by obscurity. You're better off in an ecosystem where a lot of attention is paid to exploits and patches then in another where it might be a long time before a zero day becomes known and fixes are issued.
      - wyldberry 3y ago
        None of what i said is security by obscurity (which is also can be an effective tactic,but obviously not the only tactic). There are only so many human hours and minds interested or allocated to exploitation and offensive security. If everyone used the same architecture for everything, the economies of scale on the offensive side (due to state funded actors) would blow everyone else out of the water. From a software perspective, Windows has an incredible amount of skilled eyes on each patch release, but we still see new exploits. Same for Linux. Likely same for MacOS. All i'm advocating for is that having separate hardware architectures is good because it raises the barrier to entry, even if it's only the next marginal step.
FabHK 3y ago
The M1 MacBook Air is way snappier than an Intel MacBook Pro. It's night and day. Much better machines.
- leptons 3y ago
  That's great if all you do with a computer is browse facebook (or hacker news). Pros of all kinds have specific platform/software requirements and Apple chucked a lot of that out the window (again) with a move to a new platform - and it isn't optional, intel Macs will be extinct soon and so will software support for them. They don't care about pros, they care about money and the money is in selling to people who only browse facebook.
  - jmkni 3y ago
    Do you have examles of 'pro' software which no longer works on Apple Silicon?
  - lelandfe 3y ago
    I respect the surliness of “(again)” despite the first example happening in 2006
    - leptons 3y ago
      > despite the first example happening in 2006 Apple Macintosh started on Motorola processors. Then they moved to PowerPC processors. Then they moved to Intel processors. And now they've moved to ARM processors. It's happened 4 times in the same product line. https://jacobbartlett.substack.com/p/through-the-ages-apple-cpu-architecture https://jacobbartlett.substack.com/p/through-the-ages-apple-...
    - wtallis 3y ago
      2006 wasn't the first such transition Apple did, just the previous one. Their transitions from 68k to PPC and from classic MacOS to OS X were similar to the PPC to x86 and x86 to ARM transitions from an application compatibility standpoint.
snapcaster 3y ago
This is such a weird comment, the m1 macbook was so obviously superior in every way to my 2019 intel macbook i was blown away
shepherdjerred 3y ago
You're an outlier. Nobody is going to come up with a product that satisfies everyone. I've found Apple Silicon to be incredibly fast. There were issues with the different architectures, but for 99% of people those are solved.

theshrike79 3y ago

Can I ask what issues did you have after the initial hassle of people recompiling for the M-series? For me the insane battery life/computing power ratio massively outweighs any possible advantages for staying with Intel

vbezhenar 3y ago
For example I can't run Windows XP in a VM with acceptable performance.
- drawfloat 3y ago
  I can run Black mesa at 60FPS inside a Windows 11 VM on my Macbook M2. That suggests performance is not actually that bad?
  - vbezhenar 3y ago
    Probably because your Windows 11 VM runs ARM version of Windows and I need x86 version of Windows.
    - INGSOCIALITE 3y ago
      i was in the same situation with the switch to silicon. I have some obscure industry software that i use on a rare basis that only runs on x86 - i just bought a cheap thinkpad (x220 i think) and have XP on there. silicon (m2) is worth its weight in gold to me for the battery life and functionality.

wyldberry 3y ago

Seems like the thousands of people who bought it care, myself included. My role has significant on-call responsibility. It's nice to be able to take it charged anywhere I could need it and know that for several hours it can handle anything I will throw at it, reliably. From a security perspective, I prefer the separation from the x86 architecture if for no other reason than it imposes extra cost for exploit development.

pjmlp 3y ago
It is only a matter of time. https://www.darkreading.com/application-security/patchless-apple-m-chip-vulnerability-cryptography-bypass https://www.darkreading.com/application-security/patchless-a...
- wyldberry 3y ago
  That wasn't the point. On a long enough timeline, the security of all systems drops to zero. If the entire world is running x86, then the threat model for attackers revolves around abusing x86. If things are homogeneous, it raises the bar and resourcing required to make attacks. As always with security, everything is a tradeoff.
  - namaria 3y ago
    Your argument is basically security by obscurity. You're better off in an ecosystem where a lot of attention is paid to exploits and patches then in another where it might be a long time before a zero day becomes known and fixes are issued.
    - wyldberry 3y ago
      None of what i said is security by obscurity (which is also can be an effective tactic,but obviously not the only tactic). There are only so many human hours and minds interested or allocated to exploitation and offensive security. If everyone used the same architecture for everything, the economies of scale on the offensive side (due to state funded actors) would blow everyone else out of the water. From a software perspective, Windows has an incredible amount of skilled eyes on each patch release, but we still see new exploits. Same for Linux. Likely same for MacOS. All i'm advocating for is that having separate hardware architectures is good because it raises the barrier to entry, even if it's only the next marginal step.

FabHK 3y ago

The M1 MacBook Air is way snappier than an Intel MacBook Pro. It's night and day. Much better machines.

leptons 3y ago
That's great if all you do with a computer is browse facebook (or hacker news). Pros of all kinds have specific platform/software requirements and Apple chucked a lot of that out the window (again) with a move to a new platform - and it isn't optional, intel Macs will be extinct soon and so will software support for them. They don't care about pros, they care about money and the money is in selling to people who only browse facebook.
- jmkni 3y ago
  Do you have examles of 'pro' software which no longer works on Apple Silicon?
- lelandfe 3y ago
  I respect the surliness of “(again)” despite the first example happening in 2006
  - leptons 3y ago
    > despite the first example happening in 2006 Apple Macintosh started on Motorola processors. Then they moved to PowerPC processors. Then they moved to Intel processors. And now they've moved to ARM processors. It's happened 4 times in the same product line. https://jacobbartlett.substack.com/p/through-the-ages-apple-cpu-architecture https://jacobbartlett.substack.com/p/through-the-ages-apple-...
  - wtallis 3y ago
    2006 wasn't the first such transition Apple did, just the previous one. Their transitions from 68k to PPC and from classic MacOS to OS X were similar to the PPC to x86 and x86 to ARM transitions from an application compatibility standpoint.

snapcaster 3y ago

This is such a weird comment, the m1 macbook was so obviously superior in every way to my 2019 intel macbook i was blown away

shepherdjerred 3y ago

You're an outlier. Nobody is going to come up with a product that satisfies everyone. I've found Apple Silicon to be incredibly fast. There were issues with the different architectures, but for 99% of people those are solved.