Big Apple Change?

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

I've been reading such rumors for a while now.  My first question would be how will this effect Intel based Macs.  Will they work with the new all for one scheme?  Will they have to run things as VMs in the Mac OS for that to happen?

Apple have switched CPU architecture in the Mac before: from 68k to PPC, then to x86. 

 

On both occasions, they relied on software emulation to smooth the transition. That was helped by the new CPU family being significantly faster than the outgoing one, so the speed penalty wasn't notable when compared to the old hardware. Switching from x86 to ARM, this advantage will not be available. On the other hand, emulation technology has improved, drawing on JIT compilation as used by Java and other modern languages. Furthermore, software upgrade cycles are much shorter than they used to be, so most applications should get a native build fairly quickly.

 

Regarding existing x86 based Mac hardware, if history is any indication, they would continue to receive OS updates for a few years. Third-party software would also likely be available for both CPU types during this time.

 

If they are determined to make the switch, I have no doubt Apple would be able to pull it off. Worst case, they'd just bludgeon the users into submission.

 

20 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Not sure how powerful a processor like the ARMs can get.

That's entirely up to the microarchitecture designer. There is nothing inherently limiting in the instruction set. If anything, it should be easier to make fast ARM than an x86.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Miska said:

Let's see what appears... So far, fastest ARM I have where I can freely run something is 64-bit NXP's i.MX8M (quad-core) and it barely reaches lowest end of Intel quad-core Atom's. Extremely far from what bigger Intel/AMD CPUs can do. But otherwise it is quite nice piece of hardware in it's own class.

That's a mobile/embedded chip. Things like Cavium's ThunderX2 are in a different class. Apple has a strong CPU design team (formerly PA Semi) that surely can come up with something adequate. It doesn't need to compete with the top Intel/AMD offering for use in a laptop.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

If the general idea is to be able to develop one app across all products, I wonder whether Apple intends to stop at laptops.

It's my impression that the more powerful desktop machines have for some time been something of an after-thought for Apple, to the extent they've made any at all. Unless I'm mistaken, the latest Mac Pro is the 2013 "dustbin" model.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

today, the bigly big iron is used at the National Labs

They have some nice toys. I used to have an account on a machine at Argonne, until they decommissioned it.

[mansr]

6 hours ago, Mike Rubin said:

I worked at a semiconductor company for a number of years after twelve at Apple.  I have been retired for four years, so I might be out of the loop, but my employer licensed ARM architecture not because it was as powerful as other architectures, but because it consumed less power.

People keep confusing instruction set architecture (ISA) with microarchitecture. The ISA defines how you program the CPU. The microarchitecture determines how the CPU actually runs your program. The ARM ISA is a general purpose instruction set with mostly the same capabilities as other common architectures (MIPS, PPC, x86, etc). The microarchitectures available from ARM (the company), that is the licensable cores, have historically achieved good performance per watt at their operating points. The focus has been on providing moderate performance with very low power consumption, not on high-performance desktop or server applications. This has changed somewhat in recent years with the introduction of the ARM64 ISA and advanced implementations thereof such as the Cortex-A76. While these can't compete with the likes of Intel Xeon, they do compare well against the lower end of the Intel range (Atom, i3). Nothing precludes an ARM CPU being as fast as an x86. Indeed, should they wish to, Intel could replace the instruction decoding stage on their top performer with an ARM compatible unit. Apparently, they do not have this wish.

 

In addition to complete CPU cores, ARM has also long offered the option of an architecture licence. This lets a licensee create their own microarchitecture implementing the ARM ISA. (The need for a licence has to do with patents, mostly.) Apple holds such a licence. From the PA Semi acquisition, they also have a capable CPU design team. This lets them create a CPU targeting whatever performance and power goals they see fit. Their success with the iPhone chips speaks for itself.

 

The advantage for Apple in rolling their own CPU is that they can tune it for the specific needs of their products. Laptops, having traditionally been scaled-down desktop systems, are becoming increasingly integrated, and modern designs look more like a tablet with an added keyboard. When using an off the shelf system on chip (SoC), you typically end up with a bunch of unused features wasting both chip area and power, besides the fact that you're paying for them. A custom design thus has clear advantages, provided volumes are large enough to offset the development cost.

 

For a desktop system seen in isolation, these aspects are probably less important. However, a single platform shared between laptops and desktops is beneficial as it reduces the burden of software development and distribution. For Apple, the prospect of using the same core operating system, without even a rebuild, across the entire product line is no doubt alluring. Switching to x86 on phones and tablets is clearly not feasible, leaving only the option of moving away from x86 in laptops and desktops. The common architecture wouldn't have to be ARM, but seeing as it is already being used, it is the logical choice.

 

6 hours ago, Mike Rubin said:

I could be way out of the loop, but it's hard for me to see Apple retaining leadership in any processor-intensive applications if it goes the ARM route for anything more powerful than phones or tablets.

Whatever leadership they may have had, they lost years ago. As mention up-thread, the most recent Mac Pro is from 2013. It's not too shabby a system, but a modern PC will likely run circles around it.

 

(Disclosure: I have worked for ARM in the past.)

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

The flip side is that the reduced burden for Apple corresponds to an increased burden, however slight, for anyone whose base development platform is x86.

Apple has never been known to care about others. For example, developers have to pay them money for the privilege of producing software for their system. Then they take a 30% cut of the sales as well. If that doesn't put people off Apple, I don't think a mostly invisible compiler change will either. Remember, modern desktop software is not nearly as system specific as once was the case. Most such dependencies have already been removed as a result of the shift to 64-bit architectures.

 

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

It will also make Apple slightly less attractive to people who are looking at Apple computers but need to run Windows to use specific programs for work, for example. Running Windows under emulation will almost certainly be a bit less snappy than running it natively.

That's a valid point. On the other hand, it would strengthen Apple's platform lock-in. As I said, Apple does not care about others. Incidentally, Windows can run on ARM, but most applications probably do not, so this isn't particularly helpful.

[mansr]

50 minutes ago, semente said:

I've been using Apple and ArchiCAD professionally since the mid 90s. The software is an expensive investment for me and I have to skip several versions. Moving from Mac OS 9 to 10 was problematic...

 

In regards to "running circles" my office Dell workstation is from 2015 and has 3x more RAM than my 2012 MacBook Pro and a much more powerful graphics card yet it's slower at processing CGI renders. I wonder why this is so.

Also, I sometimes tap two or three commands ahead of what's being processed and whilst this is fine on the Mac I manage to crash Windows more often than I would like. And I can open 10 or 30 large files on Photoshop in the Mac whilst the Win/Dell will start coughing with less than a handful.

All this, shortcuts and an OS that is robust and does what I want is what has kept me in.

But if they move towards a smartphone-like OS I may be forced to say goodbye...

Let's just say performance and stability are not qualities typically associated with Windows.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Here is an issue with Thunderbolt that does not look good....

 

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/thunderbolt-vulnerabilities-leave-computers-wide-open-519855

 

Win 10 has been patched but Apple has not at all.

Someone did a similar attack over Firewire some 20 years ago.

[mansr]

Technical and economical advantages aside, there is another big factor at play here. Apple are complete control freaks. Nothing gives them more control than using their own CPU.

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

Let’s see, Apple supported 68k Macs from 1982 to 2008 or so, and Intel Macs from what? 2005 to sometime we’ll past 2020?

 

That’s hardly a terrible track record. 

The 68k was replaced with PowerPC starting 1994. The last PPC based Mac was discontinued in 2006.