wizard69

jdb8167 said:

chasm said:

Was I hallucinating when Apple appeared to devote a half-minute or so to the emulation powers of the M1, including an on-screen demonstration of some flavour of Linux running just fine on it?

Sure, that probably wasn't a native version, but if it runs fine in Rosetta 2 I don't see any rush to develop an Apple-native version -- not to mention that the software people tend to want to run in Linux won't be up to speed for a good long time. I'm glad to see another community understanding the great potential for M1 and beyond, but this project seems like an ego trip for "one guy" to take on rather than to organize a team to tackle such a big project.

I don't doubt Hector's qualifications but this just doesn't seem to be the right approach to solving this particular problem IMO.

There are already several VMs running Arm64 Linux. They work pretty well for being mostly demonstration projects. There is also a pre-beta version of QEmu that can run Arm64 Linux or Windows on Arm. These are not emulated, they are running Arm64 code in a VM on an M1 Mac. 

robaba said:

This is bullshit Tim.  The only reason to keep supply chain logistics hidden from public disclosure is to hide the location of manufacture, which leads us to believe your hiding the use of forced labor.  Hope you get raked through the coals for this one bub.

GeorgeBMac said:

Rayz2016 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

ŶGeorgeBMac said:

StrangeDays said:

zimmie said:

mainyehc said:

rcfa said:

The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.

Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.

Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...

What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.

Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.

Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.

Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.

The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.

I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.

While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market. 

Yeh!  That's why they created BootCamp!

.... Oh wait!   Never mind.....

Apple needed Windows to run well on their machines back then. It’s questionable as to how important that is to Apple’s future today. With Bootcamp, I recall Apple working with Microsoft. But Federighi stating that it was up to Microsoft, reads as though Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn’t care either way. While there are still those for whom Windows is important on. Macs, that percentage has dropped substantially.

I think Apple may have surrendered trying to compete Macs against Windows and may have simply ceded the market to them.   Not only has WIndows become increasingly stable and user friendly but Apple simply can't compete price wise with mainstream Windows machines.

Instead, they are perhaps shifting the Mac over to be yet another variation of iOS.  Or, more specifically, an extension of the iOS family -- more functional and powerful, but still an iOS variation.

When the Mac’s marketshare had fallen to 2.2% domestically, and to 1.1% worldwide, Jobs said that Microsoft had won the detsktop war, and that Mac users should get over it. But then Mac sales exploded. They keep going up. It’s very possible that with substantial advantages over Windows hardware, that explosion will stop smoldering as it has been over the past few years, and begin again.

peak personal computer sales, which include Linux, Mac and Windows, was between 365 and 370 million. Today, it’s about 265 million. Apple is a much bigger percentage than it ever was, while Linux continues to track overall sales with a varying 1.3 to 1.7% a year.

so while it’s likely true that we will never see a $499 Mac notebook, we might see an $899 one. The Mini is down to $699, which is good. But performance of these new machines is well out of their price classes. Unless somehow parity is restored, we may easily see a lot more people interested in these machines. This is particularly true if game developers, who say they don’t bother because of performance, begin to trickle over. Apple has pushed above the 20 million a year sales barrier. If they can increase sales somewhat close to where it’s been going, and yes, I know some of that is due to the pandemic, though Windows sales haven’t increased by anywhere near the same percentage, then those rising sales, particularly among younger, more financially stable populations, might gain their attention.

At least in the laptop market I do not see the growth of market share that you seem to be seeing.

Instead I see Apple as a rather stagnant, minor player hanging around at about 7 - 9%

Further, I don't see what they offere over above what you could get from most other vendors.   Actually, less since Apple never offered a gaming system or a 2 in 1 much less a moderately priced machine.

But, I agree that we may see future growth coming from younger people.   But, I suspect it will be from those familiar with Apple's iOS products and wanting to keep everything within the family.  Otherwise, what does a MacBook offer that a Lenovo can't match?

MacOS

MacOS as a reason to buy a Mac?

Windows 10 is just as powerful and easy to use as MacOS.  Plus most people are more familiar with it and it is much more compatible with school and business applications they may need to use.

MacOS is not a selling point except to the choir.

But, once it is fully integrated into Apple's iOS family, then it will gain advantages that Windows won't be able to match:   where all of a customer's products -- from their watch, phone, tablet (even their home!)  all integrate and work together.   Now THAT is the kind of thing that made Steve Jobs mouth water.  It's the kind of thing that make people's lives better.

Even as it stands, it's really nice getting messages, emails, News, TV and music on your Mac just as you do on your phone.  But that integration will be growing much tighter in the years to come.

crowley said:

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

GeorgeBMac said:

StrangeDays said:

zimmie said:

mainyehc said:

rcfa said:

The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.

Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.

Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...

What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.

Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.

Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.

Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.

The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.

I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.

While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market. 

Yeh!  That's why they created BootCamp!

.... Oh wait!   Never mind.....

Apple needed Windows to run well on their machines back then. It’s questionable as to how important that is to Apple’s future today. With Bootcamp, I recall Apple working with Microsoft. But Federighi stating that it was up to Microsoft, reads as though Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn’t care either way. While there are still those for whom Windows is important on. Macs, that percentage has dropped substantially.

I think Apple may have surrendered trying to compete Macs against Windows and may have simply ceded the market to them.   Not only has WIndows become increasingly stable and user friendly but Apple simply can't compete price wise with mainstream Windows machines.

Instead, they are perhaps shifting the Mac over to be yet another variation of iOS.  Or, more specifically, an extension of the iOS family -- more functional and powerful, but still an iOS variation.

When the Mac’s marketshare had fallen to 2.2% domestically, and to 1.1% worldwide, Jobs said that Microsoft had won the detsktop war, and that Mac users should get over it. But then Mac sales exploded. They keep going up. It’s very possible that with substantial advantages over Windows hardware, that explosion will stop smoldering as it has been over the past few years, and begin again.

peak personal computer sales, which include Linux, Mac and Windows, was between 365 and 370 million. Today, it’s about 265 million. Apple is a much bigger percentage than it ever was, while Linux continues to track overall sales with a varying 1.3 to 1.7% a year.

so while it’s likely true that we will never see a $499 Mac notebook, we might see an $899 one. The Mini is down to $699, which is good. But performance of these new machines is well out of their price classes. Unless somehow parity is restored, we may easily see a lot more people interested in these machines. This is particularly true if game developers, who say they don’t bother because of performance, begin to trickle over. Apple has pushed above the 20 million a year sales barrier. If they can increase sales somewhat close to where it’s been going, and yes, I know some of that is due to the pandemic, though Windows sales haven’t increased by anywhere near the same percentage, then those rising sales, particularly among younger, more financially stable populations, might gain their attention.

At least in the laptop market I do not see the growth of market share that you seem to be seeing.

Instead I see Apple as a rather stagnant, minor player hanging around at about 7 - 9%

Further, I don't see what they offere over above what you could get from most other vendors.   Actually, less since Apple never offered a gaming system or a 2 in 1 much less a moderately priced machine.

But, I agree that we may see future growth coming from younger people.   But, I suspect it will be from those familiar with Apple's iOS products and wanting to keep everything within the family.  Otherwise, what does a MacBook offer that a Lenovo can't match? 

Have you been hiding under a rock with all the recent reports of the M1s superior performance and power consumption?

GeorgeBMac said:

wizard69 said:

It really isn't much of a surprise the somebody has gotten QEMU running.   On my MBA I've rebuilt a number of Mac Ports as native ARM apps with no problems.   There are a few show stoppers, for example RUST isn't ready yet and that has a trickle down effect on software using that compiler.   However for the most part I'm rather surprised at just how well some of this stuff is building this early with the ARM based MBA's being available.   As such the machines are looking good for open source even if there is some lag.   The thing that really stands out though is performance of this software/system.   This machine hardly warms up and compiles faster than I'd would have imagined that a fanless device could.   

As for Apples backlog, I don't think it is going away anytime soon.   These laptops are so good I can see them pulling significant sales from the PC space.   It is actually too bad that Apple didn't debut them at the beginning of the year, with covid they would have been sold out all year.   The machines are that good.

For the vast majority of users, CPU's performance passed by their needs years ago.   A little bit faster won't buy them anything.

And, hardware itself does nothing -- it's simply a means to an end.   All functionality -- getting work done -- comes from the software.