dick applebaum said: I think that Apple has the talent and enough time to have accomplished this — Including the Intel RevEng for lower-end Macs... and they seem to be working on tech for high-end Macs, as well as cross-platform graphics.
Obviously, Apple won’t sell their chips/tech to others. If Apple is in a place to reveal this at WWDC 2018, they could make some interesting hardware announcements on Monday... and put a tent pole in the ground for the future.
As a Developer it makes sense!
I hope you're right, but it looks more like incompetence to me, which hopefully they are trying to finally address. Even the way they are handling situations, like the guy with the broken iMac Pro VESA mount... that wouldn't have happened a decade ago.
I think they've grown fast, the culture has changed, and the new Apple talent just doesn't have the old Apple vibe, and the leadership are too distracted and scrambling to keep it under control.
But, if the old Apple ethos is still in there somewhere, maybe the leadership can work on bringing it back and teach it to the new people.
dick applebaum said: I think that Apple has the talent and enough time to have accomplished this — Including the Intel RevEng for lower-end Macs... and they seem to be working on tech for high-end Macs, as well as cross-platform graphics.
Obviously, Apple won’t sell their chips/tech to others. If Apple is in a place to reveal this at WWDC 2018, they could make some interesting hardware announcements on Monday... and put a tent pole in the ground for the future.
You must understand why we want better hardware, though. The software can’t be the best–and continue to be the best–if it’s crippled by half-decade old hardware being sold as new (and being forced to be supported).
cgWerks said: ... that wouldn't have happened a decade ago.
At least it was reliable and just works.
Partly that, but even when I've had problems in the past, especially with the pro equipment, the service staff were very professional and often offered to swap out with a new one if things weren't quite right. (In the case I mentioned, they knew about the issue and tried to pass it off, and only offered the swap for a new after they figured out he was a YouTube personality.)
Apple has legally reverse-engineered Intel ala AMD
Then I'll take back some of the negative stuff I've said over the last couple of years, and have a bit more hope in future Apple again.
However, they'd still need some Intel-based updates until the above has matured or proven itself capable for those who need x86 compatibility. I don't think that's the kind of thing people would just leap into.
I think that Apple has the talent and enough time to have accomplished this — Including the Intel RevEng for lower-end Macs... and they seem to be working on tech for high-end Macs, as well as cross-platform graphics.
Obviously, Apple won’t sell their chips/tech to others. If Apple is in a place to reveal this at WWDC 2018, they could make some interesting hardware announcements on Monday... and put a tent pole in the ground for the future.
As a Developer it makes sense!
I don't disagree, but find the the solution is for the lower priced Macs to sport an ARM processor that doesn't support x64, and work with MS to run a first class version of Windows 10 for ARM. True, it's a bifurcation of the product line, but benefits both Apple and MS. Additionally, Apple can provide a class leading ARM SOC exclusively to MS for them to build there own product line. Apple benefits from a larger SOC production, and limited Windows 10 compatibility, and MS benefits from a class leading processor.
Once Apple has established a market for such a product, which would be MacOS. iOS, and Windows 10 (all being a competitive solution for K-12), then they can later develop versions that do support x64 and directly compete against Intel.
Apple has legally reverse-engineered Intel ala AMD
Then I'll take back some of the negative stuff I've said over the last couple of years, and have a bit more hope in future Apple again.
However, they'd still need some Intel-based updates until the above has matured or proven itself capable for those who need x86 compatibility. I don't think that's the kind of thing people would just leap into.
I think that Apple has the talent and enough time to have accomplished this — Including the Intel RevEng for lower-end Macs... and they seem to be working on tech for high-end Macs, as well as cross-platform graphics.
Obviously, Apple won’t sell their chips/tech to others. If Apple is in a place to reveal this at WWDC 2018, they could make some interesting hardware announcements on Monday... and put a tent pole in the ground for the future.
As a Developer it makes sense!
I don't disagree, but find the the solution is for the lower priced Macs to sport an ARM processor that doesn't support x64, and work with MS to run a first class version of Windows 10 for ARM. True, it's a bifurcation of the product line, but benefits both Apple and MS. Additionally, Apple can provide a class leading ARM SOC exclusively to MS for them to build there own product line. Apple benefits from a larger SOC production, and limited Windows 10 compatibility, and MS benefits from a class leading processor.
Once Apple has established a market for such a product, which would be MacOS. iOS, and Windows 10 (all being a competitive solution for K-12), then they can later develop versions that do support x64 and directly compete against Intel.
Why couldn’t Apple’s ARM chip support X64? From what I’ve read Intel just adopted AMD’s implementation— and there would be even less legal problems than X386.
My sincere advice is to leave the Apple ecosystem. If you think for one millisecond Apple is going to produce a Gaming PC you are living in another universe. No, really, you are. And then you proceed to trash everything else about Apple except for macOS. You say you’re impressed with iPhones and iPads but then say iOS is boring. After years of “disappointment” and “depression” you are way past leaving the platform. Go. Leave. Be happy. Apple most assuredly does not care about your user demographic. Serious PC gamers wouldn’t touch a Mac with a ten foot pole. Go to a Frys or MicroCenter, buy a bunch of parts off the shelves and put together your dream gaming machine and be done with it. Seriously. You don’t belong here and probably will not respond either.
Harsh man. I would argue that every single Mac user wishes they could play games better on their Mac - who wouldn’t want a better GPU? Who wouldn’t want a better graphics engine?
There are millions of users who play games on their Mac. Most playing Blizz games cuz that’s all that runs half decent on the Mac. Lots of Pros play games on their macs.
I think you underestimate the frustration of Mac users.
Why be frustrated? The gaming waters are just fine in Windows land. Instead of being frustrated, depressed, disappointed, etc., just make the move. I really don’t understand the constant bitching about it. Apple is not going to change after 40 years now. Apple is headed in an entirely different direction these days. So why aren’t these frustrated, depressed, disappointed Mac users leaving? Do they like being frustrated, depressed, disappointed for years and years. Do they thrive on unrequited love from Apple? The whole topic is complete bullshit. It’s to the point of rejecting reality, a psychosis, an irrational stubbornness, mental instability.
Yeah... Apparently FDB abandoned work on the SQL layer and reassigned the engineers to other areas. They say it isn’t worth the effort to resuscitate the existing code:
Apple has legally reverse-engineered Intel ala AMD
Then I'll take back some of the negative stuff I've said over the last couple of years, and have a bit more hope in future Apple again.
However, they'd still need some Intel-based updates until the above has matured or proven itself capable for those who need x86 compatibility. I don't think that's the kind of thing people would just leap into.
I think that Apple has the talent and enough time to have accomplished this — Including the Intel RevEng for lower-end Macs... and they seem to be working on tech for high-end Macs, as well as cross-platform graphics.
Obviously, Apple won’t sell their chips/tech to others. If Apple is in a place to reveal this at WWDC 2018, they could make some interesting hardware announcements on Monday... and put a tent pole in the ground for the future.
As a Developer it makes sense!
I don't disagree, but find the the solution is for the lower priced Macs to sport an ARM processor that doesn't support x64, and work with MS to run a first class version of Windows 10 for ARM. True, it's a bifurcation of the product line, but benefits both Apple and MS. Additionally, Apple can provide a class leading ARM SOC exclusively to MS for them to build there own product line. Apple benefits from a larger SOC production, and limited Windows 10 compatibility, and MS benefits from a class leading processor.
Once Apple has established a market for such a product, which would be MacOS. iOS, and Windows 10 (all being a competitive solution for K-12), then they can later develop versions that do support x64 and directly compete against Intel.
Why couldn’t Apple’s ARM chip support X64? From what I’ve read Intel just adopted AMD’s implementation— and there would be even less legal problems than X386.
I should have stated "doesn't emulate x64". MS is stating the they will not run x64 in emulation, but MS will run x64 recompiled to ARM which limits ARM to UWP apps That being the case, Apple might be best to only support Windows for ARM via UWP apps, rather than attempting their own emulation for x64.
I'm guessing that AMD will license x64 to Apple, but having heard no rumors to the effect, who knows.
Apple has legally reverse-engineered Intel ala AMD
Then I'll take back some of the negative stuff I've said over the last couple of years, and have a bit more hope in future Apple again.
However, they'd still need some Intel-based updates until the above has matured or proven itself capable for those who need x86 compatibility. I don't think that's the kind of thing people would just leap into.
I think that Apple has the talent and enough time to have accomplished this — Including the Intel RevEng for lower-end Macs... and they seem to be working on tech for high-end Macs, as well as cross-platform graphics.
Obviously, Apple won’t sell their chips/tech to others. If Apple is in a place to reveal this at WWDC 2018, they could make some interesting hardware announcements on Monday... and put a tent pole in the ground for the future.
As a Developer it makes sense!
I don't disagree, but find the the solution is for the lower priced Macs to sport an ARM processor that doesn't support x64, and work with MS to run a first class version of Windows 10 for ARM. True, it's a bifurcation of the product line, but benefits both Apple and MS. Additionally, Apple can provide a class leading ARM SOC exclusively to MS for them to build there own product line. Apple benefits from a larger SOC production, and limited Windows 10 compatibility, and MS benefits from a class leading processor.
Once Apple has established a market for such a product, which would be MacOS. iOS, and Windows 10 (all being a competitive solution for K-12), then they can later develop versions that do support x64 and directly compete against Intel.
Why couldn’t Apple’s ARM chip support X64? From what I’ve read Intel just adopted AMD’s implementation— and there would be even less legal problems than X386.
I should have stated "doesn't emulate x64". MS is stating the they will not run x64 in emulation, but MS will run x64 recompiled to ARM which limits ARM to UWP apps That being the case, Apple might be best to only support Windows for ARM via UWP apps, rather than attempting their own emulation for x64.
I'm guessing that AMD will license x64 to Apple, but having heard no rumors to the effect, who knows.
You obviously know more about Windows than I! Currently, you can run Windows 10 under a VM like Parallels on an Intel Mac — what would it take to do the same on an ARM Mac?
Apple has legally reverse-engineered Intel ala AMD
Then I'll take back some of the negative stuff I've said over the last couple of years, and have a bit more hope in future Apple again.
However, they'd still need some Intel-based updates until the above has matured or proven itself capable for those who need x86 compatibility. I don't think that's the kind of thing people would just leap into.
I think that Apple has the talent and enough time to have accomplished this — Including the Intel RevEng for lower-end Macs... and they seem to be working on tech for high-end Macs, as well as cross-platform graphics.
Obviously, Apple won’t sell their chips/tech to others. If Apple is in a place to reveal this at WWDC 2018, they could make some interesting hardware announcements on Monday... and put a tent pole in the ground for the future.
As a Developer it makes sense!
I don't disagree, but find the the solution is for the lower priced Macs to sport an ARM processor that doesn't support x64, and work with MS to run a first class version of Windows 10 for ARM. True, it's a bifurcation of the product line, but benefits both Apple and MS. Additionally, Apple can provide a class leading ARM SOC exclusively to MS for them to build there own product line. Apple benefits from a larger SOC production, and limited Windows 10 compatibility, and MS benefits from a class leading processor.
Once Apple has established a market for such a product, which would be MacOS. iOS, and Windows 10 (all being a competitive solution for K-12), then they can later develop versions that do support x64 and directly compete against Intel.
Why couldn’t Apple’s ARM chip support X64? From what I’ve read Intel just adopted AMD’s implementation— and there would be even less legal problems than X386.
I should have stated "doesn't emulate x64". MS is stating the they will not run x64 in emulation, but MS will run x64 recompiled to ARM which limits ARM to UWP apps That being the case, Apple might be best to only support Windows for ARM via UWP apps, rather than attempting their own emulation for x64.
I'm guessing that AMD will license x64 to Apple, but having heard no rumors to the effect, who knows.
You obviously know more about Windows than I! Currently, you can run Windows 10 under a VM like Parallels on an Intel Mac — what would it take to do the same on an ARM Mac?
Can Apple do this without involving MS?
I'm just going off of what I've seen from MS. It could be that Apple or a third party would create an emulator like Parallels or even emulate in hardware.
Still, why would either company want to go to the trouble of supporting what is obviously legacy software on ARM, when Intel isn't going away anytime soon for PC's or Mac's? An ARM analog to the Mac Book at a better price point, supporting iOS, Mac OS, and Windows for ARM, would be more than sufficient for both education and entry level price points.
tmay said: I'm just going off of what I've seen from MS. It could be that Apple or a third party would create an emulator like Parallels or even emulate in hardware.
Note, Parallels isn't an emulator but a virtualization. It's running on x86 hardware.
dick applebaum said: Currently, you can run Windows 10 under a VM like Parallels on an Intel Mac — what would it take to do the same on an ARM Mac?
AFAIK, you'd need x86 hardware to do it efficiently. Emulation always loses a lot of speed, so the CPU would have to be many times faster, not just a bit faster. I'm not sure Apple would want to design x86 into a desktop ARM chip, though it's possible, I suppose.
tmay said: I'm just going off of what I've seen from MS. It could be that Apple or a third party would create an emulator like Parallels or even emulate in hardware.
Note, Parallels isn't an emulator but a virtualization. It's running on x86 hardware.
Thx. We are MS free in our household except for my daughter who needs Excel for her job.
dick applebaum said: Currently, you can run Windows 10 under a VM like Parallels on an Intel Mac — what would it take to do the same on an ARM Mac?
AFAIK, you'd need x86 hardware to do it efficiently. Emulation always loses a lot of speed, so the CPU would have to be many times faster, not just a bit faster. I'm not sure Apple would want to design x86 into a desktop ARM chip, though it's possible, I suppose.
A while back I did a bit of research on this. As I understand it Intel hardware converts CISC instructions to RISC instructions for execution. If so, could not that be done in advance, efficiently... translation, rather than emulation... honest question.
dick applebaum said: A while back I did a bit of research on this. As I understand it Intel hardware converts CISC instructions to RISC instructions for execution. If so, could not that be done in advance, efficiently... translation, rather than emulation... honest question.
Apple is the only one that build powerful ARM cores for now (Samsung is catching up though), and Intel haven’t change their microarchitecture since Skylake.
I don’t really trust Geekbench results, but then the cores they build inside an iPhone doesn’t show its full potential.
NVIDIA has also been further developing their own cores. Although, we haven't seen them used outside of their automotive hardware.
Xavier SoC:
Geekbench has its flaws, but a lot of the time it depends on what's being asked. For example, when the A9X was first released, it had similar results in Geekbench to a Core m3-6Y30. However, when it was tested in SPEC benchmark, it turned out to be weaker in almost every regard. One other aspect of Geekbench that needs to be considered, is the fact that there are pauses between workloads to avoid thermal throttling, so it doesn't necessarily represent the real world performance.
Comments
Even the way they are handling situations, like the guy with the broken iMac Pro VESA mount... that wouldn't have happened a decade ago.
I think they've grown fast, the culture has changed, and the new Apple talent just doesn't have the old Apple vibe, and the leadership are too distracted and scrambling to keep it under control.
But, if the old Apple ethos is still in there somewhere, maybe the leadership can work on bringing it back and teach it to the new people.
Once Apple has established a market for such a product, which would be MacOS. iOS, and Windows 10 (all being a competitive solution for K-12), then they can later develop versions that do support x64 and directly compete against Intel.
would love to see Swift language bindings ,API's, and Graph, Relational/SQL, Doc, and Event Layers...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaYJuptZBfY
https://forums.foundationdb.org/t/sql-layer-in-foundationdb/94
I'm guessing that AMD will license x64 to Apple, but having heard no rumors to the effect, who knows.
Can Apple do this without involving MS?
Still, why would either company want to go to the trouble of supporting what is obviously legacy software on ARM, when Intel isn't going away anytime soon for PC's or Mac's? An ARM analog to the Mac Book at a better price point, supporting iOS, Mac OS, and Windows for ARM, would be more than sufficient for both education and entry level price points.
AFAIK, you'd need x86 hardware to do it efficiently. Emulation always loses a lot of speed, so the CPU would have to be many times faster, not just a bit faster. I'm not sure Apple would want to design x86 into a desktop ARM chip, though it's possible, I suppose.
Xavier SoC:
Geekbench has its flaws, but a lot of the time it depends on what's being asked. For example, when the A9X was first released, it had similar results in Geekbench to a Core m3-6Y30. However, when it was tested in SPEC benchmark, it turned out to be weaker in almost every regard. One other aspect of Geekbench that needs to be considered, is the fact that there are pauses between workloads to avoid thermal throttling, so it doesn't necessarily represent the real world performance.