4 ms·

haha. Yeah, because a benchmark from the 80s means something today. So you honestly think Apple will forsake the x86 ecosystem, all the apps, maybe put another

by buster 14y ago

haha. Yeah, because a benchmark from the 80s means something today. So you honestly think Apple will forsake the x86 ecosystem, all the apps, maybe put another emulator approach to it AND lose the benefit of running windows on a macbook? For what? What's the benefit? It's just fucking over customers. Well, as always. So maybe, they'll just do it. Opportunity to take even more control of the users, yay.

acchow 14y ago
Out of curiosity, how much code nowadays is tied to an architecture? Operating systems, sure (but even then not much outside the kernel). Most code I write is architecture-agnostic... Yes, in C++.
- buster 14y ago
  You are kidding right? Actually, as a linux and open source user i am probably the next likely person to switch to ARM on the laptop. But i can cleary see that this would be next to impossible for 90% of "normal" users. Homework for you: Pick the next best non-geek person (secretary job is good, or some family member) and go through all the desktop software they have. How much of it is not available on ARM? How much of it is available on Windows, MacOSX AND Linux. Because... multiplatorm is easy, right? Everyone has it. No, no, no. Unfortunately that's faaaaaaar away. :(
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    I like to consider my mom very normal and I'm very sure everything she uses is just a compile away from running on ARM. Ubuntu, Firefox and LibreOffice are usually sufficient for 99.9% of what PC users do. Even those who are doomed to use Exchange can rely on OWA, which runs just fine on any decent browser (and at least one very crappy browser)
    - buster 14y ago
      Yourline of thought is the same that i had for the last decade with regards to Linux. It's still not the year of Linux on the Desktop ;) And a big part of why is: There is no MS Office, no Photoshop and no Games. Same will apply for ARM/MacOSX.
rbanffy 14y ago
Apple has done it on the Mac now three times with ISAs (68K to PPC to Intel, with multi-ISA binaries) and once with operating system architecture (MacOS classic to OSX). NeXT has ported their OS from the original 68K implementation to x86, HP-PA, POWER and SPARC before making it run on Macs. Their IDE, the predecessor of Xcode, also ran on Windows NT. Apple has also shifted its strategy from "we build really fast computers" (PPC, MacPros) to "we build tools you love" (current Mac line). I see not big problem to gradually moving again to a new ISA, in special if it promises very long battery lives and even lighter machines.
- buster 14y ago
  I'm not saying they can't do it. And not saying they never did it. Does it mean that they should constantly switch the architectures? Why?! It's just some stupid "ARM is cool, let's do ARM, it's different" sentiment more then for technical reasons. Again: If ARM would build a speed equivalent (in major important benchmarks) processor, why do you think that the battery life would increase significantly? Your battery life would _not_ double or triple or whatever. You would maybe get.. i don't know.. 30% more? And why would the machine be lighter?! So again, where is the real benefit here. Keep in mind that you would likely lose Windows support (that'd even make sense in closing up the Apple ecosystem even more!) and most legacy app (except Apple does another crappy emulator support multibinary thing). Anyway. As i said in the original post: I hope Apple does this. I hope Apple abandons Windows/Bootcamp and goes further along the road of the Apple ecosystem. If they do, Apple will fall. History repeated :)

by buster 14y ago

acchow 14y ago

Out of curiosity, how much code nowadays is tied to an architecture? Operating systems, sure (but even then not much outside the kernel). Most code I write is architecture-agnostic... Yes, in C++.

buster 14y ago
You are kidding right? Actually, as a linux and open source user i am probably the next likely person to switch to ARM on the laptop. But i can cleary see that this would be next to impossible for 90% of "normal" users. Homework for you: Pick the next best non-geek person (secretary job is good, or some family member) and go through all the desktop software they have. How much of it is not available on ARM? How much of it is available on Windows, MacOSX AND Linux. Because... multiplatorm is easy, right? Everyone has it. No, no, no. Unfortunately that's faaaaaaar away. :(
- rbanffy 14y ago
  I like to consider my mom very normal and I'm very sure everything she uses is just a compile away from running on ARM. Ubuntu, Firefox and LibreOffice are usually sufficient for 99.9% of what PC users do. Even those who are doomed to use Exchange can rely on OWA, which runs just fine on any decent browser (and at least one very crappy browser)
  - buster 14y ago
    Yourline of thought is the same that i had for the last decade with regards to Linux. It's still not the year of Linux on the Desktop ;) And a big part of why is: There is no MS Office, no Photoshop and no Games. Same will apply for ARM/MacOSX.

rbanffy 14y ago

Apple has done it on the Mac now three times with ISAs (68K to PPC to Intel, with multi-ISA binaries) and once with operating system architecture (MacOS classic to OSX). NeXT has ported their OS from the original 68K implementation to x86, HP-PA, POWER and SPARC before making it run on Macs. Their IDE, the predecessor of Xcode, also ran on Windows NT. Apple has also shifted its strategy from "we build really fast computers" (PPC, MacPros) to "we build tools you love" (current Mac line). I see not big problem to gradually moving again to a new ISA, in special if it promises very long battery lives and even lighter machines.

buster 14y ago
I'm not saying they can't do it. And not saying they never did it. Does it mean that they should constantly switch the architectures? Why?! It's just some stupid "ARM is cool, let's do ARM, it's different" sentiment more then for technical reasons. Again: If ARM would build a speed equivalent (in major important benchmarks) processor, why do you think that the battery life would increase significantly? Your battery life would _not_ double or triple or whatever. You would maybe get.. i don't know.. 30% more? And why would the machine be lighter?! So again, where is the real benefit here. Keep in mind that you would likely lose Windows support (that'd even make sense in closing up the Apple ecosystem even more!) and most legacy app (except Apple does another crappy emulator support multibinary thing). Anyway. As i said in the original post: I hope Apple does this. I hope Apple abandons Windows/Bootcamp and goes further along the road of the Apple ecosystem. If they do, Apple will fall. History repeated :)