Mac Hardware - 5k Supremacy - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Mac Hardware - 5k Supremacy

«‹›1734 »

wdarkk: Oct 26, 2007; Friends: Protected
World: Saved
Crablettes: Eaten

eames posted:

https://developer.apple.com/library/content/releasenotes/General/APIDiffsMacOS10_12/Objective-C/Kernel.html

Oooooooh poo poo.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 16:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 04:55

zergstain: Dec 15, 2005

The day I can't get a Mac that can run Windows is the day I buy a PC. If Apple wants to put ARM CPUs in like the MacBook or something, I'm fine with that. Just don't kill x86 across the whole lineup.

On that note, I have some concerns for what the OLED function row means for other operating systems. Apple had better have the firmware make it act like F-keys by default.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 18:09

wooger: Apr 16, 2005; YOU RESENT?

zergstain posted:

The day I can't get a Mac that can run Windows is the day I buy a PC. If Apple wants to put ARM CPUs in like the MacBook or something, I'm fine with that. Just don't kill x86 across the whole lineup.

zergstain posted:

On that note, I have some concerns for what the OLED function row means for other operating systems. Apple had better have the firmware make it act like F-keys by default.

If this is anything like the touch F keys on thinkpads (now reverted) it's an awful change.

You just don't get the same feedback from a touchstrip as from keys, and it's far easier to press them accidentally. Plus the inevitable compatibility problems.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 18:23

Jealous Cow: Apr 4, 2002; by Fluffdaddy

eames posted:

https://developer.apple.com/library/content/releasenotes/General/APIDiffsMacOS10_12/Objective-C/Kernel.html

What is the significance of this?

# ? Oct 1, 2016 18:51

zergstain: Dec 15, 2005

wooger posted:

If this is anything like the touch F keys on thinkpads (now reverted) it's an awful change.

You just don't get the same feedback from a touchstrip as from keys, and it's far easier to press them accidentally. Plus the inevitable compatibility problems.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I could never find the F-key I want without looking at the keyboard anyway. And with it in that location, I don't really see myself accidentally hitting anything.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 19:01

Matt Zerella: Oct 7, 2002; Norris'es are back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (fox Howl)

I guess I'm in the minority that thinks the OLED key could be cool and good especially if there's app support.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 19:02

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Jealous Cow posted:

What is the significance of this?

Hurricanes are the Apple-designed ARM processors used in iOS devices.

So, one of the following is happening:
A) OS X will be ported to the ARM architecture and the new Macs will come with Apple's CPUs instead of x86 CPUs.
B) iOS is going to be installed [instead of/in addition to] OS X on the new Macs, which are now coming with the Apple CPUs instead of x86 CPUs.
C) OS X will support iOS apps natively via addition of a second, Hurricane-based, CPU; also potentially offering enhanced graphics performance to replace/augment the Intel Iris graphics.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 19:26

EL BROMANCE: Jun 10, 2006; COWABUNGA DUDES!
🥷🐢😬

I can't see touch F keys being an issue if you dual boot, but I barely use them in OS X as software isn't so reliant on them and the expose and similar functions aren't things I tend to mess with often.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 19:28

Bob Morales: Aug 18, 2006; ~~Just wear the fucking mask, Bob~~

I don't care how many people I probably infected with COVID-19 while refusing to wear a mask, my comfort is far more important than the health and safety of everyone around me!

I have to reconnect my MacBook Pro Retina to my 27" Cinema Display a few times to get the charge light to come on. Is it most likely the MagSafe adapter, port on the MacBook, or the charging cable from the display?

# ? Oct 1, 2016 20:11

Jealous Cow: Apr 4, 2002; by Fluffdaddy

Arsten posted:

Hurricanes are the Apple-designed ARM processors used in iOS devices.

So, one of the following is happening:
A) OS X will be ported to the ARM architecture and the new Macs will come with Apple's CPUs instead of x86 CPUs.
B) iOS is going to be installed [instead of/in addition to] OS X on the new Macs, which are now coming with the Apple CPUs instead of x86 CPUs.
C) OS X will support iOS apps natively via addition of a second, Hurricane-based, CPU; also potentially offering enhanced graphics performance to replace/augment the Intel Iris graphics.

oh shi

# ? Oct 1, 2016 20:18

wdarkk: Oct 26, 2007; Friends: Protected
World: Saved
Crablettes: Eaten

Arsten posted:

Hurricanes are the Apple-designed ARM processors used in iOS devices.

So, one of the following is happening:
A) OS X will be ported to the ARM architecture and the new Macs will come with Apple's CPUs instead of x86 CPUs.
B) iOS is going to be installed [instead of/in addition to] OS X on the new Macs, which are now coming with the Apple CPUs instead of x86 CPUs.
C) OS X will support iOS apps natively via addition of a second, Hurricane-based, CPU; also potentially offering enhanced graphics performance to replace/augment the Intel Iris graphics.

My money is on A, but you never know.

I hope to god this transition is smoother and backwards compatibility is longer than the PPC/Intel transition.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 20:18

Jealous Cow: Apr 4, 2002; by Fluffdaddy

wdarkk posted:

backwards compatibility is longer than the PPC/Intel transition.

I bet they'll go some sort of code translation for App Store apps so developers don't have to do anything, and then non-app Store apps are up poo poo creek.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 20:23

wdarkk: Oct 26, 2007; Friends: Protected
World: Saved
Crablettes: Eaten

Jealous Cow posted:

I bet they'll go some sort of code translation for App Store apps so developers don't have to do anything, and then non-app Store apps are up poo poo creek.

Anything that uses WINE is so hosed.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 20:39

Phoenixan: Jan 16, 2010; Just Keep Cool-idge

Could be interesting given the improvements they've made to the performance of their own processors.

At the same time, it'd be nothing short of a pain in the rear end to transition at this point due to people using Macs for running stuff like Parallels.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 20:43

wdarkk: Oct 26, 2007; Friends: Protected
World: Saved
Crablettes: Eaten

The one way this could be painless is if Apple builds a CPU-level translation layer. Like the CPU can accept both Intel and ARM microcode.

IIRC recent Intel chips have something like this because they use a different instruction set "inside" than the standard one.

Does the recent Google/Oracle verdict mean (if it sticks) that Apple can use CPU instruction sets without a license?

# ? Oct 1, 2016 20:45

japtor: Oct 28, 2005

FCKGW posted:

We are 9 days away from the Mac mini having its longest time between refreshes

I just want to update my 2011 and hate that the 2012 models are inflated in price.

It's gone longer if you don't consider the 2007 refresh to be much of a refresh at all :colbert:

(They dropped C2Ds in and updated the firmware...you can do the same with the original Intel 2006 minis)

eames posted:

https://developer.apple.com/library/content/releasenotes/General/APIDiffsMacOS10_12/Objective-C/Kernel.html

This was posted over on Ars too, one of the replies:

Jonathon posted:

Selections from the same source file in Yosemite:
code:
#define CPUFAMILY_UNKNOWN   		0
#define CPUFAMILY_POWERPC_G3		0xcee41549
#define CPUFAMILY_POWERPC_G4		0x77c184ae
#define CPUFAMILY_POWERPC_G5		0xed76d8aa
#define CPUFAMILY_INTEL_6_13		0xaa33392b
#define CPUFAMILY_INTEL_YONAH		0x73d67300
#define CPUFAMILY_INTEL_MEROM		0x426f69ef
[ . . . ]
#define CPUFAMILY_INTEL_HASWELL		0x10b282dc
#define CPUFAMILY_INTEL_BROADWELL	0x582ed09c
#define CPUFAMILY_INTEL_SKYLAKE		0x37fc219f
#define CPUFAMILY_ARM_9			0xe73283ae
#define CPUFAMILY_ARM_11		0x8ff620d8
[ . . . ]
#define CPUFAMILY_ARM_15		0xa8511bca
#define CPUFAMILY_ARM_SWIFT 		0x1e2d6381
#define CPUFAMILY_ARM_CYCLONE		0x37a09642
#define CPUFAMILY_ARM_TYPHOON		0x2c91a47e
#define CPUFAMILY_ARM_TWISTER		0x92fb37c8
Not new; that's a map of supported CPU types for both OSX and iOS. There's no port of OSX Yosemite for the PowerPC G3, for example.

Heck, there are even CPU subtypes in there for various types of VAX machines, the Motorola 68K family, the 386, 486, and original Pentium... it's a header file that comes from the original Mach source; there's no reason why Apple wouldn't keep it in sync between iOS and OSX.

The only "news" here is that the A10 Fusion's cores are likely codenamed Hurricane (A6 was Swift; A7, A8, and A9 were Cyclone, Typhoon, and Twister respectively).

I wouldn't worry too much about it...and if anything I've always thought it's more likely that iOS expands to over form factors rather than macOS gets ported around. But of course I'm sure they've been maintaining macOS on ARM internally as a contingency plan.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 21:27

Pivo: Aug 20, 2004

wdarkk posted:

IIRC recent Intel chips have something like this because they use a different instruction set "inside" than the standard one.

It's not that recent. Intel uses RISC cores, and there's a powerful x86 translation layer on-die that can translate x86 instructions into Intel's proprietary RISC microcode. Yes, it's true, even programming in assembly no longer means that you are talking directly to the metal. Intel does not expose the RISC instruction set because the whole point of it is they can change it without worrying about backwards compatibility with x86 if they change their architecture, among other reasons.

Apple's previous transition used a software translation layer, not a hardware one. It was more of a fancy emulator than it was a hardware translator like Intel use (actually I think technically it was a software JIT recompiler/translator instead of an emulator, but it was so long ago, I've forgotten the details)

That being said, I personally don't see Apple moving to ARM for macOS, at least not for all product lines. It might make sense for the new Macbook, which is supposed to be a fanless, power-sipping media consumption and Facebook/Text/Mail runabout. Having Intel in the rMBP and ARM in the MB with a translation layer for x86 code might make sense. I won't Toxx myself because Apple does weird poo poo sometimes, but I just don't see them switching to ARM for their Pro notebooks, and it would make zero sense for desktops. We'll have to see.

Pivo fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Oct 1, 2016

# ? Oct 1, 2016 21:35

BobHoward: Feb 13, 2012; The only thing white people deserve is a bullet to their empty skull

wdarkk posted:

The one way this could be painless is if Apple builds a CPU-level translation layer. Like the CPU can accept both Intel and ARM microcode.

IIRC recent Intel chips have something like this because they use a different instruction set "inside" than the standard one.

Does the recent Google/Oracle verdict mean (if it sticks) that Apple can use CPU instruction sets without a license?

Oh, it would be painful. For Apple's CPU engineers, and also for users if they didn't catch all the corner cases. Dual-ISA CPUs are an old idea which has been tried a few times and never worked out very well. If Apple is doing this, they're probably the largest / most resourceful company that's ever done it, which would be a point in favor of success, but there are a shitload of mines in that field.

Contrary to the Pivo'ing up above, Intel chips do not translate x86 to a fundamentally alien, fully-RISC internal instruction set. Intel calls it �ops (micro-ops), and as the name suggests, they are really more like a microcode layer than anything else.

Way back in the P6 (Pentium Pro) era the point was mainly to crack memory references away from ALU operations so the core's microarchitecture could be simpler. However, over time this has changed. These days, not only do they not crack nearly as many things as they used to, sometimes they do the exact opposite: since Sandy Bridge (IIRC), some pairs of simple x86 instructions get fused into a single �op. These trends have happened because certain types of implementation complexity are no longer a compelling reason to keep �ops as simple as possible, and Intel's architects realized there were performance and power efficiency gains available by reducing the dynamic number of �ops the core needs to track.

The Google/Oracle feud resolution probably has little bearing because Intel uses patent law rather than copyright law. Intel and AMD have shitloads of cross-licensed patents that cover every conceivable way to physically implement a reasonably modern native x86.

You can see this in that implementing a software x86 emulator is legal, or at least has been done many times without getting sued into oblivion. This was the basis of a famous (in some circles) startup called Transmeta, which entered the x86 market by building a hyperefficient (and very much not-x86) VLIW CPU core intended to run only one native executable, a JIT x86 emulator firmware blob, conveniently supplied by Transmeta. This got them around the need to license anything. Transmeta failed, but not due to legal action: their CPUs succeeded at undercutting Intel's power consumption, but were too slow to sell very well.

The Transmeta intellectual property and (some) engineers ultimately landed at NVidia. The market for discrete GPUs has been shrinking for like a decade now due to very predictable market forces, so it's been an open secret that Nvidia needed to have an x86 core of their own in order to maintain their place in the PC industry. There was no loving chance Intel would grant them a license, so they bought the remnants of Transmeta to give that approach another try. For whatever reason, that project never shipped as an "x86", instead Nvidia decided to go for the ARM SoC market. The CPU became what we now know as "Project Denver", Nvidia's in-house ARM core. Denver is OK, but (much like its ancestor) hasn't taken the world by storm.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 22:45

wooger: Apr 16, 2005; YOU RESENT?

Pivo posted:

I won't Toxx myself because Apple does weird poo poo sometimes, but I just don't see them switching to ARM for their Pro notebooks, and it would make zero sense for desktops. We'll have to see.

This would be the worse move in Apple history, and would lose them so much mindshare from technical users that it'd change the kind of company they are forever.

The ARM A9 benchmarks that people post comparisons for are mostly JavaScript/ web stuff. ARM is still dogshit for many tasks.

Specifically VMs & compiling code are non starters. If all Macs more to ARM they will lose future purchases from all the sysadmins, developers and other technical users that led the way in switching to Macbooks when they returned to x86.

Though they're so insulated from failure by
having $$$ and the iPhone that they could think it's sane, maybe.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 22:57

Pivo: Aug 20, 2004

BobHoward posted:

Contrary to the Pivo'ing up above, Intel chips do not translate x86 to a fundamentally alien, fully-RISC internal instruction set. Intel calls it �ops (micro-ops), and as the name suggests, they are really more like a microcode layer than anything else.

Tomato, tomahtoe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-operation

I'm aware they call them micro-ops, but it certainly sounds to me like a CISC instruction set being translated to an internal RISC instruction set. Complex instructions are broken down into smaller ones that can be better parallelized and speculated about. These micro-ops sound a lot like a RISC instruction set to me. Call it what you want, but the fact is Intel's cores don't actually speak x86. That's my point.

I 'unno what Apple is thinking if they're porting macOS to ARM, what they're going to use that for.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 23:27

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Pivo posted:

I 'unno what Apple is thinking if they're porting macOS to ARM, what they're going to use that for.

They saw the wild success of Windows RT and thought "Hot drat. We need some of that." and they'll ship the iPad Pro 2 RT this month.

I don't actually believe this.

# ? Oct 1, 2016 23:33

BobHoward: Feb 13, 2012; The only thing white people deserve is a bullet to their empty skull

Pivo posted:

Tomato, tomahtoe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-operation

I'm aware they call them micro-ops, but it certainly sounds to me like a CISC instruction set being translated to an internal RISC instruction set. Complex instructions are broken down into smaller ones that can be better parallelized and speculated about. These micro-ops sound a lot like a RISC instruction set to me. Call it what you want, but the fact is Intel's cores don't actually speak x86. That's my point.

This is what happens when you rely on wikipedia level understanding of cpu architecture

# ? Oct 2, 2016 01:22

Pivo: Aug 20, 2004

Wiki was only for "let's catch them up". I've been doing this a while I don't need wiki. Prove me wrong. Show me how having a high powered on die translation from a complex instruction set to a simpler (reduced) one isn't what I described. It's not a fuckin' MIPS but it's not x86.

Anyhow there's a big party here I'm drunk let me know tomorrow

# ? Oct 2, 2016 04:32

FCKGW: May 21, 2006

ARM makes perfect sense if you want to differentiate the MacBooks Airs from the MacBooks by giving them a 24hr battery.

More likely is that they've just added A10 support to MacOS Sierra to be used on the ARM-based machines they already have in the basement.

# ? Oct 2, 2016 05:29

Ethereal: Mar 8, 2003

ARM macs aren't coming this year but they're certainly coming in the near future. The users that need to dual boot Mac/Windows is most likely shrinking (It's a minority of users that I know of, but that's anecdotal). There are compelling reasons to switch though, one being cost. Instead of paying Intel the margin, they can reduce/undercut their competitors while still keeping the high Apple margin they're used to. The processors work well enough and eventually a lot of the software itself will probably be stored as bitcode and AOT compiled for each of the architectures needed. Intel's architecture superiority won't last forever and eventually Apple's CPUs will be good enough for the low end, mainstream consumer.

# ? Oct 2, 2016 05:52

eames: May 9, 2009

I can see how switching the retina Macbook and perhaps an ultra-thin office iMac to ARM would make a lot of sense for Apple but I don't see them competing with Intel in the higher performance devices like the rMBP or even Mac Pro.

Perhaps they'll run both architectures side by side until their ARM lineup has enough attraction to sell itself, either through raw power efficiency or with parts of the SoC dedicated to/optimised for machine learning tasks. Those could be deliberately designed in a way that would take much longer and consume more power on Intel CPUs (or the rather mediocre GPUs they put into their devices).

# ? Oct 2, 2016 08:06

EL BROMANCE: Jun 10, 2006; COWABUNGA DUDES!
🥷🐢😬

Isn't there a version of windows that can run on ARM? I thought that was the whole point of the last iteration or two, that the same OS could run on almost any platform.

# ? Oct 2, 2016 08:45

Roadie: Jun 30, 2013

Until stuff like Civ 6 starts coming out on Macs on launch day, there will always be a pressing reason for Boot Camp to exist. If it goes away, expect college students to start reconsidering their computer choices.

# ? Oct 2, 2016 10:12

Quantum of Phallus: Dec 27, 2010

In my four years of study and one of lecturing I never met ANYONE else in college running Windows on a Mac

# ? Oct 2, 2016 10:27

IuniusBrutus: Jul 24, 2010

Apple loves their thick margins, but at the same time, the Mac is such a relatively small part of their company that I can 100% see them trying something expensive (both an ARM and an x86 processor in the same machine?) to allow them to maintain market share while at the same time pushing people to get used to work without x86 software. Super-long battery life, but only if you don't run Windows or other x86 programs. Better graphics performance, but only in ARM-native programs. Etc etc etc.

# ? Oct 2, 2016 13:55

eames: May 9, 2009

My worry isn't losing Bootcamp or the ability to run other OSes, it's macOS getting locked down to the point where you can't install unsigned apps outside the app store without a jailbreak.

# ? Oct 2, 2016 14:02

Pryor on Fire: May 14, 2013; they don't know all alien abduction experiences can be explained by people thinking saving private ryan was a documentary

I'm not really trying to kick off a debate, I was more just trying to inform as someone who has to listen to all these earnings calls for work: Apple is getting grilled about the disappointing mac sales by Wall Street, and have been for about three years now. iPhone sales keep surprising to the upside despite all the "big data" supposedly saying everyone already owns a smartphone and is tired of upgrading, so mac getting slaughtered is even more disappointing in this larger brand context. They simply have to make drastic changes now, they can't keep the mac line on ice for years and assume windows will just be worse, it's not working anymore. Also it's such a small part of the overall business now that even making a wild change like ARM or cutting prices in half is actually not very risky at all, so don't be surprised.

Pryor on Fire fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Oct 2, 2016

# ? Oct 2, 2016 14:23

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Pryor on Fire posted:

I'm not really trying to kick off a debate, I was more just trying to inform as someone who has to listen to all these earnings calls for work: Apple is getting grilled about the disappointing mac sales by Wall Street, and have been for about three years now. iPhone sales keep surprising to the upside despite all the "big data" supposedly saying everyone already owns a smartphone and is tired of upgrading, so mac getting slaughtered is even more disappointing in this larger brand context. They simply have to make drastic changes now, they can't keep the mac line on ice for years and assume windows will just be worse, it's not working anymore. Also it's such a small part of the overall business now that even making a wild change like ARM or cutting prices in half is actually not very risky at all, so don't be surprised.

Yes, they are getting grilled about it, but not for the reasons you are thinking. It's not that Macs are "disappointing"- having growth QOQ and YOY - it's that they aren't the rocket trip to the moon that the iOS devices are. Investors want more rocket-type products. So, "what are you going to do about it" is investor speak for "throw that poo poo in the garbage so that we can get more dollars from your currently successful products or plow those funds into other potential rocketships". This is only an issue if the CEO isn't sure of himself, which - for all that may be said about him on the downside - Tim hasn't shown of himself.

My opinion is that they aren't going to make a wild change and they aren't going to switch to ARM. There are changes coming, but I doubt it'll be some I Love Lucy style scheme of switching everyone to the new Hurricane processor.

# ? Oct 2, 2016 18:31

wdarkk: Oct 26, 2007; Friends: Protected
World: Saved
Crablettes: Eaten

Arsten posted:

There are changes coming

What do you think the odds of True Tone on laptops this year are? That would be a differentiation that would be "easy" to implement (compared to cpu switches at least).

# ? Oct 2, 2016 19:15

Canned Sunshine: Nov 20, 2005; CAUTION: POST QUALITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Quantum of Phallus posted:

In my four years of study and one of lecturing I never met ANYONE else in college running Windows on a Mac

Must not have been an architectural or engineering program/department at the school you went to.

# ? Oct 2, 2016 20:17

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

wdarkk posted:

What do you think the odds of True Tone on laptops this year are? That would be a differentiation that would be "easy" to implement (compared to cpu switches at least).

I'm outside my enthusiast area here so I could be wildly mistaken, but I doubt that would be very difficult to implement. I'd bet you could even implement it on elder hardware if you would cycle the camera three or four times per minute....Though people would probably hate the intermittently flashing led.

In any event my money - considering their last set of laptops - on their putting something like this as the insidey parts for most of the new equipment configured to run with as little power needed as possible, potentially with a discrete mGPU package for the retina/etc handling. I also think that it's entirely possible they use the complete cpu stick idea and then opt to build the GPU into the monitor that connects via TB3 over USBC.

# ? Oct 2, 2016 22:24

Roadie: Jun 30, 2013

Quantum of Phallus posted:

In my four years of study and one of lecturing I never met ANYONE else in college running Windows on a Mac

Well, yeah, people aren't going to be playing games while studying, by categorical definition. :v:

# ? Oct 2, 2016 22:48

wdarkk: Oct 26, 2007; Friends: Protected
World: Saved
Crablettes: Eaten

Arsten posted:

I'm outside my enthusiast area here so I could be wildly mistaken, but I doubt that would be very difficult to implement. I'd bet you could even implement it on elder hardware if you would cycle the camera three or four times per minute....Though people would probably hate the intermittently flashing led.

My assumption was that it would be somehow hard on the panel manufacturers.

# ? Oct 2, 2016 23:34