- Last Active
ElCapitan said:Perhaps the biggest issue here is that Timmy is standing there in conferences and in front of politicians such as the EU parliament bragging over how serious Apple takes privacy, while at the same time knowing his company store their customers data with the same companies he gives flack for NOT taking privacy serious. It is, at best, hypocrisy, at worst, complete contempt of his customers.
You can't be serious!? You really think those same user-centric terms and services those companies offer are the same as the enterprise cloud hosting/server services? Do you really think Apple created a Google account and just started storing all their customer data on Google Drive. LOL And you make the assumption that Apple would store all their user data on a 3rd party server without encrypting it? The amount of ignorance and hate is unbelievable.
Look, I don't like Google or Amazon, or even Microsoft, and I would never trust any of my data with them, but the service they provide to Apple (and other companies) is NOT the same they would provide to you or me. And when offering that type of service you can in fact make the assumption that privacy and security is part of the deal. To think otherwise, well, is just stupid.
elijahg said:mjtomlin said:elijahg said:A significant factor in the PPC > x86 switch was Rosetta. It is much easier to emulate RISC PPC with its relatively small instruction set than it is CISC x86, and now x64. PPC apps running in Rosetta weren't much slower than the native ones, but that was also partly offset by the Intel CPUs being much, much faster than PPC ones. The A-series CPUs are quick, and in a less power and thermally constrained environment no doubt even quicker - but CISC emulation on RISC architectures is excruciatingly slow, no matter how fast the native CPU. Remember Connectix's Virtual PC? That emulated an x86 machine on PPC. Installing Win98 took 3 or 4 hours even on a G5. Of course API level emulation a-la Rosetta has less overhead, but it's still slow.
Hmm... “RISC” doesn’t mean smaller instruction set, it means that instructions are less complex and optimized to perform a more finite task. It basically means each instruction takes less cycles than what a CISC instruction would require, which might be much more “complex” in its execution.
It would be much easier for a RISC ISA to emulate a CISC ISA, because CISC instructions can be easily broken down into smaller instructions. In fact, Intel’s CPUs have RISC cores with a CISC front end to maintain compatibility. So even Intel takes their complex instructions and reduces them to a series of simpler instructions.
But no, it is not easier for a RISC ISA to emulate a CISC ISA. There are less instructions in RISC architectures vs CISC architectures. which - as I said before, is why Rosetta wasn't that slow. CISC CPUs also have deep pipelining, making emulation even more complex. Good luck with "easily broken down" CISC instructions. They're complex and instructions interact with eachother, which is exactly why they can't be easily broken down.
Yes Intel CPUs are RISC at the core with a CISC interpreter now, because RISC CPUs are much easier to design and optimise because they're much simpler than CISC CPUs. By your own admission, CISC is complex, and RISC is simpler. Ergo, RISC is easier to emulate.
Rosetta worked at a relatively decent speed because it did not have the overhead of translating ALL the code - The API's on both PPC and Intel were the same, so a lot of time was saved by hooking into and running native API's as it was translating the PPC code. This had nothing to do with CPU architecture (RISC or CISC).
However, translation is all about mapping... You map this one instruction to a series of instructions, or you map a series of instructions to this one instruction... the latter requires pattern matching, which is much more intensive than the former. It is much more efficient to map a single CISC instruction into multiple RISC instructions, then it would be to search for a series of RISC instructions to map to a single CISC instruction. Again, this is why Intel CPU's can have RISC cores while running CISC instructions and be as fast as they are.
Also, You're using translation to demonstrate why one direction is better, and using emulation to demonstrate why the other is worse.
Emulate and translate are not the same thing. Rosetta is not an emulator, it's a translator. It does not emulate hardware or software, it simply translates code. And when translating ANYTHING, it is much easier to break down complex into simple, because every complex task is just a series of simpler tasks.
You previously mentioned the old PPC Virtual PC... That was an emulator. It had to emulate ALL the hardware in software, then run code on that emulated hardware... that's why it was so slow. Again, that has nothing to do with CPU architecture.
seanj said:“the ARM architecture which was originally designed for mobile devices”
Err no. The ARM architecture, or using its original name the “Acorn RISC Machine” architecture was developed in the very later ‘80’s for desktop machines - the Acorn Archimedes was the most advanced desktop in the world when it launched.
True, the original ARM (Acorn RISC Machine) was a desktop CPU, but the ARM architecture as we know it today, was in fact designed specifically for mobile, more specifically for use in the Newton; co-developed by Acorn, Apple, and VLSI.
Apple then did the exact same thing for their Macs... worked with IBM (and Motorola) to scale down IBM's POWER architecture for desktops, resulting in the PowerPC CPU.
Interesting that they just didn't partner again with Acorn for a new Mac CPU?
maestro64 said:Does anyone know where these will be made, I am assuming it will be stateside. This will also explain why the internet world did not have insight into the spec of the machine prior to the announcement. US manufacturers know how to keep their mouths shut.
Has nothing to with "US manufacturer's", has more to do with it being Apple making these systems themselves and being able to keep there own employees quiet. At least I would assume so. Probably another reason why it took so long to get this "out the door" - they had to build the factory to make them.