When you only have 10% of the desktop/laptop market, and don't care about backward compatibility, you can do what you like
Arm Inside: Is Apple ready for the next big switch?
One day we'll look back and wonder why it took PCs so long to move from RISC chips that had to pretend to be CISC chips to RISC chips that didn't have to pretend to be anything. From CISC to RISC The Apple Mac made its debut in 1984 running Motorola's 68k chips, then the most efficient in the PC industry. Apple switched to …
COMMENTS
-
-
Tuesday 21st November 2017 16:07 GMT Dan 55
If they didn't care they wouldn't have made developers upload bitcode to their App Store.
You might need to wait a bit before Non-App Store apps and Steam games are available on the new machines though. I guess universal binaries will return for third party developers but Rosetta probably won't.
-
-
Tuesday 21st November 2017 19:25 GMT ThomH
Re: @Dan 55
I think bitcode is merely alignment plus calling convention plus data size dependent. You could use it to port to a different instruction set if all of those things were the same.
That being said, if Apple didn't care about backwards compatibility then why did it expend so much effort on the 68k emulator and on Rosetta? The company even skipped the very first PowerPCs because the instruction cache wasn't quite large enough to fit the 68k emulator no matter what they did, so didn't produce acceptable performance with 68k applications.
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 11:34 GMT P. Lee
>You might need to wait a bit before Non-App Store apps and Steam games are available on the new machines though.
Unless its basically two systems in a box with ARM picking up all the lower power/always on work and x86 running high-power applications with a fast interlink between them. You could "sleep" the x86 side while keeping ARM running to save power.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 21st November 2017 21:55 GMT Thomas Wolf
Re: bootcamp?
Is there a link that compares performance for desktop VMs? When I worked at Lenovo (and used their WS class laptop) I used VMWare. Now I'm using an MBP with VirtualBox - and don't see any performance differences in similar use cases. I realize my experience may not representative - thus my question.
VMWare is definitely a much better solution if you have to manage many VMs on servers.
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 19:14 GMT ThomH
Re: bootcamp? @Thomas Wolf
The main difference I've seen is that VirtualBox supports only either software rendering or passthrough of antiquated version of OpenGL. It's pretty easy to demonstrate the difference: on my MacBook if I enable accelerated rendering then no browser supports WebGL. If I disable it then they run WebGL in software.
VMWare supports passthrough of relatively modern versions of OpenGL. So WebGL is accelerated. As is the desktop compositor I happen to use, which makes a massive difference for ordinary productivity if, like me, that means X11.
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 10:30 GMT joeldillon
Re: bootcamp?
None of these are going to be in any way fast if they are actually emulating the x86 instruction set on ARM, hth. An x86 VM on x86 is a very different proposition.
It can be done (and was, when Apple went from 68k to PowerPC for example) but it's not as simple as 'lol just run Virtualbox'.
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 10:58 GMT Dave 126
Re: bootcamp?
Genuine questions for a more technical bear than me:
Is it feasible to have OSX run on ARM but offload some tasks to an x86 processor as required? Or:
Is is feasible for OSX to run on ARM, and then Xwindows (or whatever the equivalent is) into an x86 instance of OSX that is spun up when required?
Either way, the ARM chip is primary, but the computer contains an x86 chip to be used occasionally.
It seems to me that the applications that people use 80% of the time (Safari, email, LightRoom etc) are those that can be quickly compiled for ARM by Apple or others, leaving the x86 chip for legacy applications on occasion.
-
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 10:10 GMT T. F. M. Reader
Re: bootcamp?
It's called Virtual Box.
Does it run on ARM? Even if it does, I don't see how one could run an x64 guest on an arm host with anything approaching native performance. When your host and guest architecture are the same most instructions (except privileged ones) are executed directly on HW. WIth different architectures you would have to translate. Slowly. Until MSFT port Windows to ARM, and El Reg reported in the past that they were on their way to that noble goal (though probably not because of Apple). Linux would be simpler, by the way.
However, given Apple's history, I would not put it past them to switch to ARM (partly) to prevent virtualization. Years ago, when Apple kit was still PowerPC and Intel and AMD did not have virtualization support in HW (this makes it pre-2006), I grabbed an Apple computer with an idea to install Linux and play with LPARs, etc. I discovered, to my surprise then (the surprise dissolved very quickly), that the otherwise perfectly normal PPC 970 (I think) had virtualization support disabled on Apple's demand. Once they switched to Intel whose arm [sic!] they could not twist too painfully to disable the VT-x/VT-d/friends they had just introduced, virtualization became possible. Maybe now it's time for ARM-twisting of a new kind?
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 21st November 2017 16:15 GMT Korev
Speed
Lightroom on my gen 1 iPad Pro runs very quickly and feels more responsive than the "classic" client running on my 32GB Core i5 PC.
Assuming that other ISVs can write similarly fast code for ARM then this could be very good for the end users. If they're already targeting IOS devices then that might be a head start for them
-
Tuesday 21st November 2017 17:28 GMT Steve Davies 3
Well Done
Mr O for a nice informative article without the usual bad mouthing of Apple.
If what you say is true then the sweetner for Intel must be the increasing use of Intel Modems in iPhones.
Sadly it makes building Hackintoshes a whole lot more difficult. Still, the one I built last month should last 3-4 years.
-
Tuesday 21st November 2017 18:11 GMT R 11
Reminder of Acorn Advert
I'm reminded of Acorn's advert in The Times following Apple's PowerPC move to RISC in 1994:
*************************************************************************
[white text on black background, large text]
As a founder member,
Acorn is delighted
to welcome Apple
to the RISC Club.
[2/3 of way down page, switch to black on white, smaller text]
After 11 years of development and 7 years of production, we at Acorn are
still marvelling at the sheer power, performance and potential of 32-bit
RISC technology.
Our ARM 32-bit RISC processors have delivered these capabilities to our
many customers in education, the home and industry worldwide, in our
products since 1987.
So it comes as little surprise to hear that Apple's new desktop range
also incorporates 32-bit RISC technology.
[large italic text, stands out prominently]
Oh well. Better late than never.
...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.powerpc/I2AlOpqdSik/KbTTGJbAAVoJ
*************************************************************************
Looks like Acorn get's the last laugh.
-
Tuesday 21st November 2017 19:02 GMT ecarlseen
I suspect Apple has reached peak frustration with Intel's mobile graphics
This has been a thorn in Apple's side for a long time - I personally thought the A6 was more of a shot across Intel's mobile CPU bow than it was at the smartphone industry. It was powerful enough to run a low- to mid-end MacBook, and suddenly Intel's drivers and compatibility got a *lot* better, but were still (and are still) a long way from great. Hence their recent partnership with AMD on a high-priced, oddball mobile CPU/GPU package (which other manufacturer has the price flexibility to use a high-cost part like that in meaningful volume?) and their sudden expansion of their internal GPU initiatives. Of course, there are other problems that center around Intel's inability to deliver chips in volume on new process technology over the last few cycles. 14nm was a mess, 10nm is still a mess, and 7nm is probably not going to be better. This hurts their mobile performance per watt quite badly, especially when competing with more efficient architectures like ARM.
Apple very much wants a single-die (or at least a single-package) high-end CPU/GPU solution in the MacBook and low-end iMac product lines, similar to what they've achieved with their A-Series chips. Like the A6, the A11 is far more powerful than it needs to be (again, powerful enough to run a low- to mid-range MacBook) and coincidentally Intel is suddenly making very public moves in this space.
I suspect that Apple will move their macOS lines to ARM eventually, but the priority is somewhat dictated by Intel's ability to deliver serviceable parts in the immediate- and near-term.
-
Tuesday 21st November 2017 19:04 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I suspect Apple has reached peak frustration with Intel's mobile graphics
Well they are already solving this problem, for now at least, with the recently announced combination of Intel CPU and AMD graphics. There's no way Intel makes a deal like that without Apple twisting their arm heavily and threatening to go with an all-AMD x86 solution.
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 09:49 GMT Dave 126
Re: I suspect Apple has reached peak frustration with Intel's mobile graphics
The hybrid Intel AMD chips are possible because of:
Intel announced its EMIB technology over the last twelve months, with the core theme being the ability to put multiple and different silicon dies onto the same package at a much higher bandwidth than a standard multi-chip package but at a much lower cost than using a silicon interposer.
No technical reason Intel can't combine an Intel CPU with an Apple GPU, if that was something Apple want.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 21st November 2017 20:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
I hope...
That someday they'll release an OS X version for the full Intel platform. I know it's not likely to happen because every piece of Apple hardware is also registered with the "homeland" which allows you to gain access to your OS updates (and the OS itself if I heard right) which would be a little more difficult to accomplish on Intel. Heck, Microsoft tried (you know: change too much hardware in your PC and you'll end up with an unregistered version) but that got so much backlash...
So I don't think it'll happen all too soon but it would be very interesting to see what might happen. Back in the days OS/2 wasn't exactly cheap (also because of its very niche market share) but even so several people still bought into it because it was actually a very solid operating system (one which I truly miss from time to time).
I'm convinced that even more people would buy into OS X if Apple were to take this route and place their flagship directly in opposition to Windows. I probably would!
-
Tuesday 21st November 2017 22:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I hope...
Apple has a lot of money but they didn't get where they are by having to make stuff work on a highly fragmented platform. Microsoft have got something that works with an awful lot of stuff. I dread to think what's in there to get it working with all the different hardware. It's not a problem Apple have had to address.
Google has demonstrated how hard it is to move from software to hardware nowadays. I suspect Apple wouldn't want to risk falling flat on their faces.
-
Tuesday 21st November 2017 22:11 GMT Shane Sturrock
Re: I hope...
Why would Apple (a hardware company) let other hardware companies install the software they develop to sell their own hardware? Seriously, this comes up many times. Apple is not a software company. They sell integrated solutions with hardware and software designed to work together. Microsoft is trying to get into this game but the two companies come from very different backgrounds with Microsoft originally being all about software and Apple originally being all about hardware. Apple sells very little of their software, they just bundle it with their hardware so they're simply not going to be motivated to sell macOS to run on competing hardware. They tried it back in the 90's and it nearly killed them because there was the usual race to make cheaper and cheaper macOS compatibles. If you want a Mac, buy a Mac. Otherwise there's Windows or if you prefer to OS to be unrestricted Linux is very good these days.
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 08:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I hope...
>> "They tried it back in the 90's and it nearly killed them because there was the usual race to make cheaper and cheaper macOS compatibles."
I'm glad someone reminded the resident Apple bashers of that fact !
Back in those days, I was working for a large Apple reseller that was also an AASP (Apple Authorised Service Provider). The same reseller also sold and repaired many of the clones.
My role gave me an "all areas" pass.
First, looking at and playing with the Apple units side-by-side with the clone units on the shop-floor. This was the 90's remember, so industrial design had not yet made it into IT, so neither the Apple or clone units were particularly pretty to look at, but it was clear whose hardware was better built, 1-0 to Apple. The tech-specs also frequently told a similar story. 2-0 to Apple.
But the service department is where the story was really told. At the rear of the service department there were rows of shelves dedicated to the temporary storage of customer equipment in various stages disrepair.
Walking through the service shelving, the number of clone units vastly outnumbered the Apple units. This was not down to lack of Apple sales, the reseller was doing good business in Apple units and had a strong corporate/educational customer base, so they were doing the volumes.
The number of clone units awaiting repair was simply down to what has already been said by the other poster. The introduction of "authorised clones" simply ended up following the same old sad IT story of a race to the bottom.
Speaking to the service engineers, and looking at the machines opened up on their anti-static benches, the difference in quality between Apple and the clones was palpable. Whether we're talking the neatness of the chassis cabling or the quality of parts. When you saw them side-by-side there was little argument. 3-0 to Apple.
The 90s clone era is thus not one I would like to see repeated.
One of Apple's core strengths is the structural integration of hardware and software.
This integration is *NOT* as the Apple bashers would like you to believe, some sort of "closed garden just to be spiteful".
The integration is there because the user experience matters to Apple. Unlike Microsoft and Linux they don't want to bloat their software with a litany drivers, kludges and work-arounds just to it will work on any old random hardware. Apple optimise the hardware to work with the software and vice versa.
Apple continue to spend more money on R&D than the vast majority of manufacturers out there, and if you put your subjective Apple-bashing hat to one side and look at it on a purely objective basis, it does show in terms of the quality of the products that Apple puts out.
I'm not saying Apple is perfect. No manufacturer is. Apple like any other has had their fair share of issues whether manufacturing defects or otherwise. But when considered objectively as a whole, the old SWOT test would easily show you that Apple's strengths far outweigh any perceived weaknesses.
P.S. Before the Apple-fanperson accusations start flying... to this date, I use Apple, Microsoft, Linux and BSD in equal measure. In a business environment each have their own purpose and utility. Yes "at home" I personally use Apple kit, but that's because I prefer to invest in robust, well-built and reliable equipment and software that I know from practical experience that the "whole package" (hardware+software) will outlive "cheaper" PC desktop or laptop. Headline price is not everything in this world.
-
-