[PB PM]

Shouldn't be hard for Apple to do, AMD already has.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses This isn’t just for entry level macs. I suspect Apple will make a big splash with an ARM iMac that crushes the previous intel generation.

I've never understood the thinking of those who say A-chip Macs wouldn't be for the high-end market.

Apple knows what the processor requirements are at the low and high ends of the Mac market. I imagine that literally the first thing they did when they decided to investigate A-chips was to say to the engineers: "Can we match the Intel chip used in the Mac Pro?"

Apple is not a company that aims for the midrange. It's simply not in their DNA.

The new Mac Pro was probably introduced late last year in order to give Cupertino two years to concentrate on the rest of the line.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Frank777 The new Mac Pro was probably introduced late last year in order to give Cupertino two years to concentrate on the rest of the line.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. It buys them time.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Frank777 I've never understood the thinking of those who say A-chip Macs wouldn't be for the high-end market. Apple knows what the processor requirements are at the low and high ends of the Mac market. I imagine that literally the first thing they did when they decided to investigate A-chips was to say to the engineers: "Can we match the Intel chip used in the Mac Pro?" Apple is not a company that aims for the midrange. It's simply not in their DNA. The new Mac Pro was probably introduced late last year in order to give Cupertino two years to concentrate on the rest of the line.

Yeah, this is a very good thought. Apple isn't thinking about tomorrow, they are thinking about 2025 and beyond. Their R&D engineering teams aren't tasked with solving today's problems, and they aren't tasked with solving tomorrow's problems. The task is to solve the problems of the next decade. If Apple is heading all-in on in-house chips, then you can bet your britches that their goal is to deliver a Mac Pro powered by Ax that is faster than its competitors!

[PB PM]

Of course Apple will still have limits, TSMC is already loaded up making chips for, well just about everyone other than Intel. We’ve already seen AMD, and Apple iPhone availability limited by TSMC and Samsung fab space, so at peak demand it is a real issue. The only way for Apple to truly be free from delays would be their own fabs, it’s not like they don’t have the cash.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by PB PM it’s not like they don’t have the cash.

There is also the experience level required to operate those things, and I don't suspect Apple has that.

[PB PM]

If Apple wanted to do it, which I don’t see them doing, they could buy the experience. By that I mean they could buy smaller fabs and recruit the people they need to move them forward. Apple bought PA Semi for their design knowledge, there is no reason they couldn’t do the same with a fab. Again I doubt they will, but they could, as it would mean less dependence on competitors for fab space.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by PB PM Of course Apple will still have limits, TSMC is already loaded up making chips for, well just about everyone other than Intel. We’ve already seen AMD, and Apple iPhone availability limited by TSMC and Samsung fab space, so at peak demand it is a real issue. The only way for Apple to truly be free from delays would be their own fabs, it’s not like they don’t have the cash.

Originally Posted by kscherer There is also the experience level required to operate those things, and I don't suspect Apple has that.

More than that, I think Apple has decided it's just the kind of business they want to get into. They'd rather partner with companies who do, and make appropriate investments.

Speaking of which: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/15/tsmc...p-factory.html

[kscherer]

Oh, I'm not saying they can't buy the tech/experience, just that they don't actually "make" anything. They design stuff; they do not "make" it. This is why none of Apple's products say "Made by Apple in California", but they all say "Designed by Apple in California". Apple is not a manufacturing company, and I believe this is one of the key reasons why they are so successful. They do not carry the overhead of vast manufacturing centers and all of their included employee-relations nightmares (unions and staffing and training and such). Rather, they leave that headache to companies who are very good at it. Apple simply (ha!) draws up a set of plans, submits those plans to contractors, and then hawks over them for quality control purposes. Their corporate buyouts are all related to design experience, not manufacturing experience (although there is some of that, but not for make things; rather, it is so they understand the processes for quality control and efficiency's sake).

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by kscherer Oh, I'm not saying they can't buy the tech/experience, just that they don't actually "make" anything. They design stuff; they do not "make" it. This is why none of Apple's products say "Made by Apple in California", but they all say "Designed by Apple in California". Apple is not a manufacturing company, and I believe this is one of the key reasons why they are so successful. They do not carry the overhead of vast manufacturing centers and all of their included employee-relations nightmares (unions and staffing and training and such). Rather, they leave that headache to companies who are very good at it. Apple simply (ha!) draws up a set of plans, submits those plans to contractors, and then hawks over them for quality control purposes. Their corporate buyouts are all related to design experience, not manufacturing experience (although there is some of that, but not for make things; rather, it is so they understand the processes for quality control and efficiency's sake).

This is all true but chip fabrication is very different than iPhone manufacturing (sweat shops).

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer Oh, I'm not saying they can't buy the tech/experience, just that they don't actually "make" anything. They design stuff; they do not "make" it.

That's what I'm saying, though. Under Jobs, in the early 2000s, the last Apple manufacturing plants in Elk Grove (California) and Cork (Ireland) were dismantled. I don't see Cook reversing that policy unless there are really good reasons to. Even if the new plant were largely automated and required little labor, I just feel it's not an area they want to compete in. (And, that's kind of good. They seem to be doing more and more things and losing focus.)

[kscherer]

As long as they can maintain their quality control, there is no need for them to step into direct manufacturing.

[kscherer]

Well, it is now official. "Apple Silicon" is a thing, and there are development machines running an A12Z. And, yes, I was right. They had to announce it now, because there was an official announcement of Mac Ax systems later this year.

This makes me supremely happy.

Also, emulators and virtualization and compatibility have all been thought of, solutions announced, and holy cow Intel is gonna be out within 2 years. And that means Mac Pro towers will be running Apple's proprietary silicon in 2021 or 2022, and, yes, those systems have to be under development as I type this.

Whoo and Hoo!

[turtle]

I'm tempted to get on but have a feeling I really don't want it. It is so temping though. I'm guessing I would be approved if I apply anyway though. I have no active apps so my chances are pretty slim.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by kscherer Well, it is now official. "Apple Silicon" is a thing, and there are development machines running an A12Z. And, yes, I was right. They had to announce it now, because there was an official announcement of Mac Ax systems later this year. This makes me supremely happy. Also, emulators and virtualization and compatibility have all been thought of, solutions announced, and holy cow Intel is gonna be out within 2 years. And that means Mac Pro towers will be running Apple's proprietary silicon in 2021 or 2022, and, yes, those systems have to be under development as I type this. Whoo and Hoo!

Rosetta 2 looks very very extremely interesting... It seems that Apple's claiming they can change an executable's ISA ahead of time. AFAIK, nobody's managed this for arbitrary code before. I wonder how tied to macOS's executable format it is, or if the same basic tech could be used on Linux or Windows? Or, for that matter, can x64 Linux or Windows itself be "translated" and run on ARM Macs? What, if anything, does this mean for the future of emulation in general?

[Frank777]

Apple's had about 5 years of weeding out all the old code from Mac apps that would have backed things up.

Any software that runs on a modern Mac is fairly new and cleanly written to Apple specs.

I know nothing about coding. But knowing Microsoft, there's probably DOS or parallel port code hidden somewhere in Windows that will break everything.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Frank777 Apple's had about 5 years of weeding out all the old code from Mac apps that would have backed things up. Any software that runs on a modern Mac is fairly new and cleanly written to Apple specs. I know nothing about coding. But knowing Microsoft, there's probably DOS or parallel port code hidden somewhere in Windows that will break everything.

lol, probably.

I mean, it's entirely possible that either I'm reading too much into this or Apple didn't speak as precisely as they should (or both), but unless I missed something, Apple said Rosetta 2 would work with any old app (not just theirs), so they can't assume too much about how recently it was written or which APIs it uses.

[PB PM]

I'm sure Rosetta 2 will work with only 64bit apps, so anything that doesn't work with 10.15 is out.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by PB PM I'm sure Rosetta 2 will work with only 64bit apps, so anything that doesn't work with 10.15 is out.

64-bit Mac apps have been around since 10.5 (technically 10.4, but that didn't support 64-bit GUI apps).

[PB PM]

There were still lots of older 32bit apps out there, even ones that were actively supported until recently. That was what I was getting at.

[Dave]

I guess I don’t understand your point then. Or I missed something in the announcement (entirely possible).

[PB PM]

10.15 dropped support for all 32bit apps, thus, "Apple said Rosetta 2 would work with any old app" isn't actually going to be the case. It will be compatible with all currently supported apps is what they are really saying.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by PB PM 10.15 dropped support for all 32bit apps, thus, "Apple said Rosetta 2 would work with any old app" isn't actually going to be the case. It will be compatible with all currently supported apps is what they are really saying.

Well, yeah, but “currently supported” goes back a decade, if the developer made them 64-bit.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by PB PM 10.15 dropped support for all 32bit apps, thus, "Apple said Rosetta 2 would work with any old app" isn't actually going to be the case. It will be compatible with all currently supported apps is what they are really saying.

who cares? that's the overwhelming majority of them.

[kscherer]

I took it that all apps running on Intel hardware under MacOS Catalina would be supported by Apple Silicon running Big Sur and later. I did not read or hear anything that there would be any support whatsoever for any other legacy code.

—

Of note, on Apple's website they specifically state that:

Virtualization technology allows users to run Linux.

There is absolutely no mention of Windows. This could be because A) The software is not [quite] ready; B) It will not work; or C) Apple does not care to support Windows any longer.

—

Also of note: The Apple DTK does not have support for Thunderbolt. So, is Apple abandoning Thunderbolt 3 in favor of USB-C? Can Thunderbolt even function in a non-Intel environment? Is it a PCI-e thing? What gives as far as I/O is concerned?

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by kscherer I took it that all apps running on Intel hardware under MacOS Catalina would be supported by Apple Silicon running Big Sur and later. I did not read or hear anything that there would be any support whatsoever for any other legacy code. — Of note, on Apple's website they specifically state that: There is absolutely no mention of Windows. This could be because A) The software is not [quite] ready; B) It will not work; or C) Apple does not care to support Windows any longer. — Also of note: The Apple DTK does not have support for Thunderbolt. So, is Apple abandoning Thunderbolt 3 in favor of USB-C? Can Thunderbolt even function in a non-Intel environment? Is it a PCI-e thing? What gives as far as I/O is concerned?

I am intrigued by the omission of thunderbolt, but hopefully its just because this is based on iPad hardware at the current time.

[kscherer]

Or perhaps Apple is waiting on USB 4, which is built on Thunderbolt 3?

[PB PM]

USB4 is not thunderbolt (v3 that Macs currently have), because USB does not use fiber. USB no problem, some versions are more than fast enough to replace thunderbolt for most users anyway.

[kscherer]

Apple may well be looking at Thunderbolt and realizing that it just isn't "taking off" the way they had hoped. We sell almost no Thunderbolt accessories, but we sell a ton of USB-C stuff. It seems that, not only is USB-C fast enough for almost all users, but that it also supports enough underlying tech (HDMI, DisplayPort, Ethernet, VGA, DVI, USB—duh!, power, etc.) that there is very little need for TB3 at all.

The one thing that stands out, though, is that XDR display, which is Thunderbolt. Will that thing be a one trick pony?

—

And then there is this. If VMware runs, then I imagine Windows runs on it.

[kscherer]

And now this directly from Apple:

What Can't Be Translated? Rosetta can translate most Intel-based apps, including apps that contain just-in-time (JIT) compilers. However, Rosetta doesn’t translate the following executables: * Kernel extensions * Virtual Machine apps that virtualize x86_64 computer platforms Rosetta translates all x86_64 instructions, but it doesn’t support the execution of some newer instruction sets and processor features, such as AVX, AVX2, and AVX512 vector instructions. If you include these newer instructions in your code, execute them only after verifying that they are available. For example, to determine if AVX512 vector instructions are available, use the sysctlbyname function to check the hw.optional.avx512f attribute.

Bootcamp is gone—not to return—and virtual machines appear unable to execute Windows software. So, Windows is out on Apple Silicon*, and that will end that debate. So, if you want a virtual machine, and you still want a Mac, it seems that you should get an Intel-based Mac now.

* Although it is unknown whether or not Parallels and VMware are working on a solution, I think it will be very difficult for them to find one.