As a reminder why we use desktop systems currently: 1. Screen size 2. Memory (RAM, lost of it) and fast interfaces
A10x is hampered by to few memory lines, it can probably only address 4GB or less and that is not enough for serious applications running side by side. I would say 8GB is a minimum for serious computing.
Memory bandwidth it not a problem but fast external interfaces like lightning are. So if Apple corrects this and makes an A10xx a $299 desktop computer is a reality.
Another step would be to make a dock and let i devices equipped with an A10xx chip switch to desktop mode; Apple could easily add 12GB or more to its i devices, or alternatively let a fast interface handle that and put more (RAM) memory in the dock.
So it's really not an OS problem in the first place, it's a hardware spec. problem and probably lack of balls that stand in the way of real innovation.
2. No battery worries. Why tax your iPhone/iPad battery at home?
It you say so, then the entire Axx series desktop dreams crash. Since you don't want to use battery power at home just plug in an Intel chip and enjoy macOS X, with high level of parallelism, hyper-threading, simultaneous multithreading provided by Intel. You would never want your system comes to a halt when you copy 128932 files from one disk to another.
Believe me, I used macOS Classic since System 7, and I know what the lack of preemptive multitasking means. God forbid...
The dock is also a charger of course and doesn't tax the iPhone (model Axx) battery at all. iOS switches to desktop mode when it's docked and is fully mutiltasing in that case. I imagine the dock has several thunderbolt slots to drive ssd's and other kind of peripherals like external (RAM) memory, video cards and so on. I expect it also to have some flash memory card slots. ...
iOS cannot fully multitask, actually the point is not necessarily multitasking. We use multitasking and parallelism interchangeably but they are different things. What makes Intel chips more suited to desktop tasks is the high level of parallelism they provide. In layman's understanding, two (or more) threads are executed at the same time, not interleavedly or one after the other, like two windows open at the same time. This is simultaneous multithreading.
ARM passed on simultaneous multithreading for the sake of switching to 64 bit in 2012. I have no further knowledge on their intentions to implement it.
Suppose a battery solution came to the rescue and iOS allowed full multitasking. Intel chips would still perform better with their hyper-threading tech and their being bullish on the power issues. Apple never commits to half-baked solutions in such essential matters.
Of course iOS can multitask, it already does this on OS (service) level and recently on app level. Multitasking can be done on hardware that runs on one hardware thread (core) or on many hardware threads, so it is virtually parallel and can be actual parallel depending on the hardware.
You talk about hyper threading of Intel chips, that is actually not an advantage at all because those hyperthreads are not fully parallel, so the OS has a more difficult task scheduling threads on it. Real parallelism is achieved with separate cores and ARM and Intel use those to speed things up. This ofcourse doesn't work without OS support and the Mach kernel (the foundation of iOS and MacOS) is very good at scheduling virtual threads (and processes) on it.
ARM 64 bit chips use multiple physical cores for true parallelism and don't need hyperthreads at all. On avarage 2 hyperthreads increase execution speed 1.5 times so a 6 core ARM chip equals a 4 core Intel chip. But this ofcourse assumes both chips execute instructions equally efficient, which isn't the case, ARM chips are better per cycle (Intel uses a CISC to RISC hardware converter to slow execution down and drain the battery at the same time: highly inefficient!), so with the same number of cores ARM is still better.
We also have low level parallelism, this is on instruction level and called pipelining, in short individual instructions are executed in parallel and thus speed up the number of instructions that are executed within a certain period of time. Deciding which instructions can be scheduled (and reordered) in parallel is also hard wired within the CPU and is similar complex and efficient for ARM and Intel processors (i5, i7).
There is no relation between batteries and iOS multitasking, as I explained above ARM chips are far more efficient and use a lot less energy per cycle than Intel chips with equal processing power and iOS (Mach) is a master at scheduling threads so they are a perfect match for true parallel processing (even on API level iOS and MacOS are thread 'masters', read about Grand Central and OpenCL if you want to know more ...).
...and even if the ARM hardware worked (which it doesn't at present, apparently), what you're asking for is, essentially, a computer that runs both iOS and macOS, and switches between the two according to what interface peripherals are hooked up. Stop calling it an "iOS-based desktop", already.
ARM hardware works, Geekbench benchmarks show that Apples Ax processors are on par with Intel's i5/i7 and that's on single and multi core. iOS desktop mode doesn't exist right now (actually it might, at Apple in a lab), it's a future 'prediction', but not that difficult to implement. Desktop mode puts less restrictions on energy use (a few kernel parameters) and allows for unrestricted multitasking (this is also a kernel parameter and/or a set of properties within the OS) and allows for trackpad, mouse and keyboard input. It also translates inputs automatically to pure iOS apps - like Safari on iOS does the other way round - or hands the inputs directly to hybrid apps.
You see, not that difficult, not that hard to understand, and you get to pay for your personal computer only once.
As a reminder why we use desktop systems currently: 1. Screen size 2. Memory (RAM, lost of it) and fast interfaces
A10x is hampered by to few memory lines, it can probably only address 4GB or less and that is not enough for serious applications running side by side. I would say 8GB is a minimum for serious computing.
Memory bandwidth it not a problem but fast external interfaces like lightning are. So if Apple corrects this and makes an A10xx a $299 desktop computer is a reality.
Another step would be to make a dock and let i devices equipped with an A10xx chip switch to desktop mode; Apple could easily add 12GB or more to its i devices, or alternatively let a fast interface handle that and put more (RAM) memory in the dock.
So it's really not an OS problem in the first place, it's a hardware spec. problem and probably lack of balls that stand in the way of real innovation.
2. No battery worries. Why tax your iPhone/iPad battery at home?
It you say so, then the entire Axx series desktop dreams crash. Since you don't want to use battery power at home just plug in an Intel chip and enjoy macOS X, with high level of parallelism, hyper-threading, simultaneous multithreading provided by Intel. You would never want your system comes to a halt when you copy 128932 files from one disk to another.
Believe me, I used macOS Classic since System 7, and I know what the lack of preemptive multitasking means. God forbid...
The dock is also a charger of course and doesn't tax the iPhone (model Axx) battery at all. iOS switches to desktop mode when it's docked and is fully mutiltasing in that case. I imagine the dock has several thunderbolt slots to drive ssd's and other kind of peripherals like external (RAM) memory, video cards and so on. I expect it also to have some flash memory card slots. ...
iOS cannot fully multitask, actually the point is not necessarily multitasking. We use multitasking and parallelism interchangeably but they are different things. What makes Intel chips more suited to desktop tasks is the high level of parallelism they provide. In layman's understanding, two (or more) threads are executed at the same time, not interleavedly or one after the other, like two windows open at the same time. This is simultaneous multithreading.
ARM passed on simultaneous multithreading for the sake of switching to 64 bit in 2012. I have no further knowledge on their intentions to implement it.
Suppose a battery solution came to the rescue and iOS allowed full multitasking. Intel chips would still perform better with their hyper-threading tech and their being bullish on the power issues. Apple never commits to half-baked solutions in such essential matters.
Of course iOS can multitask, it already does this on OS (service) level and recently on app level. Multitasking can be done on hardware that runs on one hardware thread (core) or on many hardware threads, so it is virtually parallel and can be actual parallel depending on the hardware.
You talk about hyper threading of Intel chips, that is actually not an advantage at all because those hyperthreads are not fully parallel, so the OS has a more difficult task scheduling threads on it. Real parallelism is achieved with separate cores and ARM and Intel use those to speed things up. This ofcourse doesn't work without OS support and the Mach kernel (the foundation of iOS and MacOS) is very good at scheduling virtual threads (and processes) on it.
ARM 64 bit chips use multiple physical cores for true parallelism and don't need hyperthreads at all. On avarage 2 hyperthreads increase execution speed 1.5 times so a 6 core ARM chip equals a 4 core Intel chip. But this ofcourse assumes both chips execute instructions equally efficient, which isn't the case, ARM chips are better per cycle (Intel uses a CISC to RISC hardware converter to slow execution down and drain the battery at the same time: highly inefficient!), so with the same number of cores ARM is still better.
We also have low level parallelism, this is on instruction level and called pipelining, in short individual instructions are executed in parallel and thus speed up the number of instructions that are executed within a certain period of time. Deciding which instructions can be scheduled (and reordered) in parallel is also hard wired within the CPU and is similar complex and efficient for ARM and Intel processors (i5, i7).
There is no relation between batteries and iOS multitasking, as I explained above ARM chips are far more efficient and use a lot less energy per cycle than Intel chips with equal processing power and iOS (Mach) is a master at scheduling threads so they are a perfect match for true parallel processing (even on API level iOS and MacOS are thread 'masters', read about Grand Central and OpenCL if you want to know more ...).
Hyper-threading is just one implementation of simultaneous multithreading, Intel does not apply it to every case. For example the 2-core i5 is hyper-threaded, but the 4-core i5 is not, because hyper-threading is not needed in that 4-core implementation. What I wanted to emphasize is the dismissal of simultaneous multithreading by ARM. I won't discuss whether it was good or bad, obviously good because they provided 64-bit at this time, which is an enhancement at the deepest architectural level.
Your opinion "Thanks to Mach kernel ARM chips can reach Intel's performance with less energy overhead" appears too bold to me. Apparently Apple does not think so. Because and mostly "thanks to Mach kernel", obviously, Apple has succeeded to make Intel chips sing without wind. If we expect a progress from Apple as to run full OS X on ARM, why don't we accept an achievement such as running full OS X on Intel without fans, as progress?
Apparently Apple has chosen the Intel direction for battery efficient and fanless mobile computing with Retina Macbook. If Intel fails to deliver in the next iterations then that direction will change of course. But for a few years from now, the choice seems to have been made.
iOS of course can fully multitask, but it choose not to do so. Given the capabilities of the Mach kernel as you explained perfectly, then the only reason to consider appears as the performance of the chip, including its power efficiency.
As a reminder why we use desktop systems currently: 1. Screen size 2. Memory (RAM, lost of it) and fast interfaces
A10x is hampered by to few memory lines, it can probably only address 4GB or less and that is not enough for serious applications running side by side. I would say 8GB is a minimum for serious computing.
Memory bandwidth it not a problem but fast external interfaces like lightning are. So if Apple corrects this and makes an A10xx a $299 desktop computer is a reality.
Another step would be to make a dock and let i devices equipped with an A10xx chip switch to desktop mode; Apple could easily add 12GB or more to its i devices, or alternatively let a fast interface handle that and put more (RAM) memory in the dock.
So it's really not an OS problem in the first place, it's a hardware spec. problem and probably lack of balls that stand in the way of real innovation.
2. No battery worries. Why tax your iPhone/iPad battery at home?
It you say so, then the entire Axx series desktop dreams crash. Since you don't want to use battery power at home just plug in an Intel chip and enjoy macOS X, with high level of parallelism, hyper-threading, simultaneous multithreading provided by Intel. You would never want your system comes to a halt when you copy 128932 files from one disk to another.
Believe me, I used macOS Classic since System 7, and I know what the lack of preemptive multitasking means. God forbid...
The dock is also a charger of course and doesn't tax the iPhone (model Axx) battery at all. iOS switches to desktop mode when it's docked and is fully mutiltasing in that case. I imagine the dock has several thunderbolt slots to drive ssd's and other kind of peripherals like external (RAM) memory, video cards and so on. I expect it also to have some flash memory card slots. ...
iOS cannot fully multitask, actually the point is not necessarily multitasking. We use multitasking and parallelism interchangeably but they are different things. What makes Intel chips more suited to desktop tasks is the high level of parallelism they provide. In layman's understanding, two (or more) threads are executed at the same time, not interleavedly or one after the other, like two windows open at the same time. This is simultaneous multithreading.
ARM passed on simultaneous multithreading for the sake of switching to 64 bit in 2012. I have no further knowledge on their intentions to implement it.
Suppose a battery solution came to the rescue and iOS allowed full multitasking. Intel chips would still perform better with their hyper-threading tech and their being bullish on the power issues. Apple never commits to half-baked solutions in such essential matters.
Of course iOS can multitask, it already does this on OS (service) level and recently on app level. Multitasking can be done on hardware that runs on one hardware thread (core) or on many hardware threads, so it is virtually parallel and can be actual parallel depending on the hardware.
You talk about hyper threading of Intel chips, that is actually not an advantage at all because those hyperthreads are not fully parallel, so the OS has a more difficult task scheduling threads on it. Real parallelism is achieved with separate cores and ARM and Intel use those to speed things up. This ofcourse doesn't work without OS support and the Mach kernel (the foundation of iOS and MacOS) is very good at scheduling virtual threads (and processes) on it.
ARM 64 bit chips use multiple physical cores for true parallelism and don't need hyperthreads at all. On avarage 2 hyperthreads increase execution speed 1.5 times so a 6 core ARM chip equals a 4 core Intel chip. But this ofcourse assumes both chips execute instructions equally efficient, which isn't the case, ARM chips are better per cycle (Intel uses a CISC to RISC hardware converter to slow execution down and drain the battery at the same time: highly inefficient!), so with the same number of cores ARM is still better.
We also have low level parallelism, this is on instruction level and called pipelining, in short individual instructions are executed in parallel and thus speed up the number of instructions that are executed within a certain period of time. Deciding which instructions can be scheduled (and reordered) in parallel is also hard wired within the CPU and is similar complex and efficient for ARM and Intel processors (i5, i7).
There is no relation between batteries and iOS multitasking, as I explained above ARM chips are far more efficient and use a lot less energy per cycle than Intel chips with equal processing power and iOS (Mach) is a master at scheduling threads so they are a perfect match for true parallel processing (even on API level iOS and MacOS are thread 'masters', read about Grand Central and OpenCL if you want to know more ...).
Hyper-threading is just one implementation of simultaneous multithreading, Intel does not apply it to every case. For example the 2-core i5 is hyper-threaded, but the 4-core i5 is not, because hyper-threading is not needed in that 4-core implementation. What I wanted to emphasize is the dismissal of simultaneous multithreading by ARM. I won't discuss whether it was good or bad, obviously good because they provided 64-bit at this time, which is an enhancement at the deepest architectural level.
Your opinion "Thanks to Mach kernel ARM chips can reach Intel's performance with less energy overhead" appears too bold to me. Apparently Apple does not think so. Because and mostly "thanks to Mach kernel", obviously, Apple has succeeded to make Intel chips sing without wind. If we expect a progress from Apple as to run full OS X on ARM, why don't we accept an achievement such as running full OS X on Intel without fans, as progress?
Apparently Apple has chosen the Intel direction for battery efficient and fanless mobile computing with Retina Macbook. If Intel fails to deliver in the next iterations then that direction will change of course. But for a few years from now, the choice seems to have been made.
iOS of course can fully multitask, but it choose not to do so. Given the capabilities of the Mach kernel as you explained perfectly, then the only reason to consider appears as the performance of the chip, including its power efficiency.
Your breaking up a bit, but let me say that I nowhere stated that "Thanks to Mach kernel ARM chips can reach Intel's performance with less energy overhead".
In fact I stated that Mach is an excellent scheduler but ARM hardware is energy wise (per cycle) better than Intel and 'makes up for hypertheading' because it doesn't have a crippling CISC RISC translator as all Intel chips do and otherwise can add more threads when needed.
I can add that cycle efficiently of ARM is not the only reason to use such CPUs, they are also 10 times as cheap and Apple doesn't have to wait for Intel to perform its Bubka again and again.
Why are people still ignoring that Apple used Hello for WWDC 2016 invitation? Not so long ago! Hence "again"!
That's a pretty good point. I was looking to see why people weren't making a bigger deal of "hello"'s reuse, and Mike's done a great job with this post on its history.
At first, the "hello" make me think there's something new to be introduced next week. Each time Jobs used it, he was introducing a Mac that was more affordable, more ready for home use than the computers (any computers) that were out before it. Self-introducing computers have (n=2, admittedly) always been something reasonably revolutionary... What could possibly be as different here?
But maybe this really is just Tim's Apple turning its deaf ear towards Apple's nostalgia, as you point out:
Seems like a dumb move to dilute that phrase so badly, but I'm hopeful the lower-case "hello" is different in their minds.
But then we've got nothing that's hit the rumor mill that'd come close to paralleling the previous two self-introducing Macintoshes. Think they've kept a hardware secret? Invites disbelief. ;^)
Comments
Multitasking can be done on hardware that runs on one hardware thread (core) or on many hardware threads, so it is virtually parallel and can be actual parallel depending on the hardware.
You talk about hyper threading of Intel chips, that is actually not an advantage at all because those hyperthreads are not fully parallel, so the OS has a more difficult task scheduling threads on it. Real parallelism is achieved with separate cores and ARM and Intel use those to speed things up. This ofcourse doesn't work without OS support and the Mach kernel (the foundation of iOS and MacOS) is very good at scheduling virtual threads (and processes) on it.
ARM 64 bit chips use multiple physical cores for true parallelism and don't need hyperthreads at all.
On avarage 2 hyperthreads increase execution speed 1.5 times so a 6 core ARM chip equals a 4 core Intel chip. But this ofcourse assumes both chips execute instructions equally efficient, which isn't the case, ARM chips are better per cycle (Intel uses a CISC to RISC hardware converter to slow execution down and drain the battery at the same time: highly inefficient!), so with the same number of cores ARM is still better.
We also have low level parallelism, this is on instruction level and called pipelining, in short individual instructions are executed in parallel and thus speed up the number of instructions that are executed within a certain period of time. Deciding which instructions can be scheduled (and reordered) in parallel is also hard wired within the CPU and is similar complex and efficient for ARM and Intel processors (i5, i7).
There is no relation between batteries and iOS multitasking, as I explained above ARM chips are far more efficient and use a lot less energy per cycle than Intel chips with equal processing power and iOS (Mach) is a master at scheduling threads so they are a perfect match for true parallel processing (even on API level iOS and MacOS are thread 'masters', read about Grand Central and OpenCL if you want to know more ...).
ARM hardware works, Geekbench benchmarks show that Apples Ax processors are on par with Intel's i5/i7 and that's on single and multi core.
iOS desktop mode doesn't exist right now (actually it might, at Apple in a lab), it's a future 'prediction', but not that difficult to implement. Desktop mode puts less restrictions on energy use (a few kernel parameters) and allows for unrestricted multitasking (this is also a kernel parameter and/or a set of properties within the OS) and allows for trackpad, mouse and keyboard input. It also translates inputs automatically to pure iOS apps - like Safari on iOS does the other way round - or hands the inputs directly to hybrid apps.
You see, not that difficult, not that hard to understand, and you get to pay for your personal computer only once.
Your opinion "Thanks to Mach kernel ARM chips can reach Intel's performance with less energy overhead" appears too bold to me. Apparently Apple does not think so. Because and mostly "thanks to Mach kernel", obviously, Apple has succeeded to make Intel chips sing without wind. If we expect a progress from Apple as to run full OS X on ARM, why don't we accept an achievement such as running full OS X on Intel without fans, as progress?
Apparently Apple has chosen the Intel direction for battery efficient and fanless mobile computing with Retina Macbook. If Intel fails to deliver in the next iterations then that direction will change of course. But for a few years from now, the choice seems to have been made.
iOS of course can fully multitask, but it choose not to do so. Given the capabilities of the Mach kernel as you explained perfectly, then the only reason to consider appears as the performance of the chip, including its power efficiency.
In fact I stated that Mach is an excellent scheduler but ARM hardware is energy wise (per cycle) better than Intel and 'makes up for hypertheading' because it doesn't have a crippling CISC RISC translator as all Intel chips do and otherwise can add more threads when needed.
I can add that cycle efficiently of ARM is not the only reason to use such CPUs, they are also 10 times as cheap and Apple doesn't have to wait for Intel to perform its Bubka again and again.
At first, the "hello" make me think there's something new to be introduced next week. Each time Jobs used it, he was introducing a Mac that was more affordable, more ready for home use than the computers (any computers) that were out before it. Self-introducing computers have (n=2, admittedly) always been something reasonably revolutionary... What could possibly be as different here?
But maybe this really is just Tim's Apple turning its deaf ear towards Apple's nostalgia, as you point out:
Seems like a dumb move to dilute that phrase so badly, but I'm hopeful the lower-case "hello" is different in their minds.
But then we've got nothing that's hit the rumor mill that'd come close to paralleling the previous two self-introducing Macintoshes. Think they've kept a hardware secret? Invites disbelief. ;^)