or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by mjtomlin

 Wow! That takes me back to programming on our Apple IIe in '84. I was writing a graphics based game in BASIC but it was too slow, so I taught myself 6502 using the built-in mini-assembler. I remember needing to know the memory layout so I could figure out which addresses I could store values.
 I sort of disagree with out here. You're basically saying Apple should've stayed out of the ARM game then and just left CPU design to ARM. Even though Apple's custom core designs have proven to be better than ARMs. I don't see why Apple couldn't create their own x64 cores and possibly even top Intel's own efforts. Like I said in a previous post... there's a lot of baggage in Intel's designs that Apple just does not need.
 Intel doesn't own the x64 ISA, they own their version of it. It is actually based of AMD's 64-bit extensions to Intel's x86 ISA, which was licensed to AMD and many others. In turn, Intel licensed those extensions from AMD. Apple can either license it from either, or develop their own x64 compatible ISA from scratch.
 Yes, Apple could license the x64 ISA, if one of the companies who "own" it allow that. And I personally believe that this is the direction Apple will head. The chips they use now are bogged down with legacy logic left in to maintain backwards compatibility for the Windows platform. Apple could very well strip out all of that and produce a core at a significant discount over what they're paying Intel. And I'm sure in a few years they'll do the same to their ARM cores;...
 An argument can be made that Apple could just develop a separate translation processor freeing the main CPUs from that task. Having said that, the raw performance of [current] ARM is no where Intel. So for that reason, I don't see it happening.
Eh, of course it's entirely possible for this to happen - never mind all the people complaining about the need for Windows compatibility - but I seriously doubt Apple will release an ARM based Mac on the market before giving developers time to update their apps to target the platform. Apple could very well announce such a system is coming and then tell developers they have X amount time to update their apps in the Mac App Store to support it.   One thing though, all...
 The point of Grand Central Dispatch was to take the complexity of task (thread) scheduling out of the developer's hands. Developers can simply create a queue and submit tasks to it... the system then handles which processing units to send the tasks to. This happens at run-time, so, yes, software will automatically see the benefits of having more cores, but only if their apps were designed to be multi-threaded (use GCD) in the first place.
Comment system strikethrough markup is in the original article; "So here's your two reason{open bracket}s{close bracket}...
"So here's your two reason[s] why Android 5.0 has such a small market share: 1) Google is not rolling it out to their own devices; 2) Carriers have not yet (for the most part) rolled it out to the majority of customer devices."   No... here's the main reason Android devices rarely see an update; COST.   It's really that simple. OEM's don't make enough money selling these devices. They have no interest in supporting old devices by continuously updating the software -...
While there are other reasons for making it this way, I tend to agree that the Apple Watch will be upgradable by an authorized agent of Apple. I also think the backside with the sensors will be replaceable/interchangeable as well - As Apple develops more sophisticated sensors, they will be added to the sensor "array" and people will be able to pick the sensor features they want and/or upgrade later. With all the hires from various industries, I think Apple understands that...
New Posts  All Forums: