Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC
-
@RojoLoco said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@RojoLoco said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
I've got a buddy who works in Dev Ops who has complaining about this yesterday.
Complained? Seems really cool to me. Now I kinda want one and I generally dislike Apple products.
His complaints were based on cross platform development woes. He works for Disney+ (well, one of their subsidiaries).
One would assume they are already developing for iPhone and iPad, so really this will likely simplify the codebase for Apple products.
-
@RojoLoco said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@RojoLoco said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
I've got a buddy who works in Dev Ops who has complaining about this yesterday.
Complained? Seems really cool to me. Now I kinda want one and I generally dislike Apple products.
His complaints were based on cross platform development woes. He works for Disney+ (well, one of their subsidiaries).
Already needed to handle ARM for Android, iOS and RP. This should actually allow for apps across iOS and macOS.
-
@Dashrender said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@travisdh1 said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
Microsoft has traditionally failed at this because they have to support every piece of hardware made for the past 10-15 years.
And legacy software - Apple just flips their nose at their customers, LOL
I say that last part somewhat in jest, as a complete NON-mac user, I have no knowledge on what was or wasn't needed to be repurchased after the processor changes.Nonsense. Nothing need to be repurchased, unless software developer wishes to charge you for it. And even then you don't have to, you can stick to using existing software, that's what Rosetta 2 is for. Most software devs will provide universal binaries, like was the case after switch from PowerPC to Intel. And if your software is subscription based, you're covered. Apple showed native ARM MS Office and Adobe applications already, both subscription.
I just wish they had already announced new machines with ARM cpus, my 2012 iMac needs replacement soon. I don't want to invest in obsolete technology.
-
@marcinozga said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@Dashrender said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@travisdh1 said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
Microsoft has traditionally failed at this because they have to support every piece of hardware made for the past 10-15 years.
And legacy software - Apple just flips their nose at their customers, LOL
I say that last part somewhat in jest, as a complete NON-mac user, I have no knowledge on what was or wasn't needed to be repurchased after the processor changes.Nonsense. Nothing need to be repurchased, unless software developer wishes to charge you for it. And even then you don't have to, you can stick to using existing software, that's what Rosetta 2 is for. Most software devs will provide universal binaries, like was the case after switch from PowerPC to Intel. And if your software is subscription based, you're covered. Apple showed native ARM MS Office and Adobe applications already, both subscription.
I just wish they had already announced new machines with ARM cpus, my 2012 iMac needs replacement soon. I don't want to invest in obsolete technology.
Yeah, this wasn't a problem 17 years ago, why would today, with subscriptions being the key way that people buy software, would it be assumed to suddenly be an issue?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@marcinozga said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@Dashrender said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@travisdh1 said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
Microsoft has traditionally failed at this because they have to support every piece of hardware made for the past 10-15 years.
And legacy software - Apple just flips their nose at their customers, LOL
I say that last part somewhat in jest, as a complete NON-mac user, I have no knowledge on what was or wasn't needed to be repurchased after the processor changes.Nonsense. Nothing need to be repurchased, unless software developer wishes to charge you for it. And even then you don't have to, you can stick to using existing software, that's what Rosetta 2 is for. Most software devs will provide universal binaries, like was the case after switch from PowerPC to Intel. And if your software is subscription based, you're covered. Apple showed native ARM MS Office and Adobe applications already, both subscription.
I just wish they had already announced new machines with ARM cpus, my 2012 iMac needs replacement soon. I don't want to invest in obsolete technology.
Yeah, this wasn't a problem 17 years ago, why would today, with subscriptions being the key way that people buy software, would it be assumed to suddenly be an issue?
There are users out there that avoids upgrading the OS because it will affect their 32bit plugins for a specific app.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@marcinozga said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@Dashrender said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@travisdh1 said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
Microsoft has traditionally failed at this because they have to support every piece of hardware made for the past 10-15 years.
And legacy software - Apple just flips their nose at their customers, LOL
I say that last part somewhat in jest, as a complete NON-mac user, I have no knowledge on what was or wasn't needed to be repurchased after the processor changes.Nonsense. Nothing need to be repurchased, unless software developer wishes to charge you for it. And even then you don't have to, you can stick to using existing software, that's what Rosetta 2 is for. Most software devs will provide universal binaries, like was the case after switch from PowerPC to Intel. And if your software is subscription based, you're covered. Apple showed native ARM MS Office and Adobe applications already, both subscription.
I just wish they had already announced new machines with ARM cpus, my 2012 iMac needs replacement soon. I don't want to invest in obsolete technology.
Yeah, this wasn't a problem 17 years ago, why would today, with subscriptions being the key way that people buy software, would it be assumed to suddenly be an issue?
Where subscriptions a general thing on Macs 17 years ago? I know it wasn't on PC - sure some did exist, but it definitely wasn't the common setup.
But you're both definitely right - the subscription thing does solve a lot of that type of problem. -
@Dashrender said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
Where subscriptions a general thing on Macs 17 years ago? I know it wasn't on PC - sure some did exist, but it definitely wasn't the common setup.
No, but it didn't need to be thanks to backwards compatibility options. Most software just kept running.
-
@Dashrender said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
I know it wasn't on PC
Remember, Apple Mac has been the most "PC" of any computer since 2003.
Now, and this drives me absolutely crazy, for the first time in 17 years, the ARM Macs will not be PC again, so all the people incorrectly using PC to refer to something that isn't necessarily PC when Mac is the most PC thing ever made since the original IBM PCs, will suddenly sound correct again.
-
PC refers to machines running IA32 and now AMD64 architecture with the PC infrastructure. So the vast majority of Linux and Windows, and all Mac until now.
So phones have not been PCs. Raspberry Pi is not PC. Anything with Power, ARM, Sparc, RISC-V and similar chips are not PC. When Windows runs on AMD64 it is PC, when it runs on ARM it is not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
PC refers to machines running IA32 and now AMD64 architecture with the PC infrastructure. So the vast majority of Linux and Windows, and all Mac until now.
So phones have not been PCs. Raspberry Pi is not PC. Anything with Power, ARM, Sparc, RISC-V and similar chips are not PC. When Windows runs on AMD64 it is PC, when it runs on ARM it is not.
So, it's the CPU architecture that determines whether or not a computer is personal?
-
@Obsolesce said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
So, it's the CPU architecture that determines whether or not a computer is personal?
No, it's what determines if it is a PC. IBM PC is an IBM/Intel designed computer architecture that was originally used with CP/M and later other operating systems were written for it. It's the most well known computing architecture standard. While PC standard for Personal Computer, don't confuse it with the more general personal computer. Any computer that is personal is a personal computer, but nothing in being a personal computer implies that it is a PC and nothing in PC actually means it's personal. Every typical server you use is a PC, but the average personal computer is not.
A server is like 95% certain to be a PC today (AMD64 PC architecture) but a personal computer is only like 30% likely to be a PC (because most personal computers are ARM based mobile devices.)
Chromebooks famously come in both PC and non-PC variants.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
So, it's the CPU architecture that determines
It's more than that. You can make an IA16, IA32, or AMD64 CPU based system that is not a PC, but you'd be engineering all your own parts and connections. It's the PC architecture that makes it possible to have interchangeable parts, the PCI bus and stuff like that. So some embedded systems that use those processors opt to not build a PC, but it's rare because once you diverge from PC you generally do so enough that you are stuck writing your own operating system and that's really expensive.
The PC standard is what makes those processors cheap and standard. Pretty much you choose PC first, then you choose which PC compatible processor you want, not the other way around as it would rarely, if ever, make sense. If you dont want PC, you don't likely want an expensive PC focused processor.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@Dashrender said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
I know it wasn't on PC
Remember, Apple Mac has been the most "PC" of any computer since 2003.
Now, and this drives me absolutely crazy, for the first time in 17 years, the ARM Macs will not be PC again, so all the people incorrectly using PC to refer to something that isn't necessarily PC when Mac is the most PC thing ever made since the original IBM PCs, will suddenly sound correct again.
/sigh - I know.
-
In the old days, there used to be an actual PC. PC is the name of a specific computer model from IBM. Computers that used that architecture, but weren't the PC itself, were called PC-compatible. The IBM PC, aka the 5250, was the first of the architecture that we use today. It was designed around CP/M, but DOS was quickly made for it (DOS is a CP/M clone anyway.)
Once IBM discontinued making their own PC line, people stopped using the term PC-compatible and everything that was "compatible" became simply known as a PC.
The term PC in the name of IBM's PC was to stand for "personal computer", but they weren't personal computers, they were computers generally used by individual in a company. They were very business oriented, not personal like everyone things of today. They were in competition with those primarily. The reference today is to the product, not the incorrect reference that that product made.
Even back in 1984 there were non-PC computers that ran Intel processors and would run CP/M or DOS or both. So even from the very beginning PC was very specifically one thing while the OS and even chips were not part of it. Being PC or PC-compatible never referred to the OS in any way, only to the hardware. An OS would have to be written for PC/PC-compatible to run on it, but any OS that runs on it is equally a PC OS. And Windows was the third OS to be famous on PC, after DOS, which came after CP/M. But many others, even from Microsoft like Xenix, were PC OSes meant only for that architecture.
And Windows, almost always, and DOS absolutely always, has been available in both PC and non-PC variants.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
So, it's the CPU architecture that determines
It's more than that. You can make an IA16, IA32, or AMD64 CPU based system that is not a PC, but you'd be engineering all your own parts and connections. It's the PC architecture that makes it possible to have interchangeable parts, the PCI bus and stuff like that. So some embedded systems that use those processors opt to not build a PC, but it's rare because once you diverge from PC you generally do so enough that you are stuck writing your own operating system and that's really expensive.
The PC standard is what makes those processors cheap and standard. Pretty much you choose PC first, then you choose which PC compatible processor you want, not the other way around as it would rarely, if ever, make sense. If you dont want PC, you don't likely want an expensive PC focused processor.
I like NIST's definition better.
I think I'll stick to that until you find some other better documentation. I can't really find anything official that goes into the kind of background you do.
-
To add to the confusion, Apple decided to license Power from IBM and make their own Power processors (actually via the Motorola foundry) that they branded PowerPC, in that case the PC stood for personal computer again, but had no association with PC architecture and was a completely competing product.
But PC was an architecture, and PowerPC was a specific brand of Power architecture. So even when you had PowerPC, the architecture was Power, not PowerPC. PowerPC was more like an AMD Sempron - a low performance, cheap, third party copy of someone else's original.
But PC was all the rage as something to say in the late 1990s, so Apple attempted to capitalize on its popularity by adding it to a brand name. But Power was a bad design for personal computing / desktop needs and PowerPC was an anemic offering in the Power lineup and it all failed. By 2003 Apple decided to finally ditch having their own hardware vertical and embraced the PC architecture 100%. So starting in 2003, the Apple Mac lineup became a PC in every way, and because they were the only brand that absolutely required Intel-made processors, and the original PC was Intel, one could argue that they were the most completely PC computer made since the original IBM PC line.
-
@Obsolesce said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
So, it's the CPU architecture that determines
It's more than that. You can make an IA16, IA32, or AMD64 CPU based system that is not a PC, but you'd be engineering all your own parts and connections. It's the PC architecture that makes it possible to have interchangeable parts, the PCI bus and stuff like that. So some embedded systems that use those processors opt to not build a PC, but it's rare because once you diverge from PC you generally do so enough that you are stuck writing your own operating system and that's really expensive.
The PC standard is what makes those processors cheap and standard. Pretty much you choose PC first, then you choose which PC compatible processor you want, not the other way around as it would rarely, if ever, make sense. If you dont want PC, you don't likely want an expensive PC focused processor.
I like NIST's definition better.
I think I'll stick to that until you find some other better documentation. I can't really find anything official that goes into the kind of background you do.
Yeah, but NIST just making up a new definition for an industry term means nothing. That they are willing to lie doesn't make it true.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@Obsolesce said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
So, it's the CPU architecture that determines
It's more than that. You can make an IA16, IA32, or AMD64 CPU based system that is not a PC, but you'd be engineering all your own parts and connections. It's the PC architecture that makes it possible to have interchangeable parts, the PCI bus and stuff like that. So some embedded systems that use those processors opt to not build a PC, but it's rare because once you diverge from PC you generally do so enough that you are stuck writing your own operating system and that's really expensive.
The PC standard is what makes those processors cheap and standard. Pretty much you choose PC first, then you choose which PC compatible processor you want, not the other way around as it would rarely, if ever, make sense. If you dont want PC, you don't likely want an expensive PC focused processor.
I like NIST's definition better.
I think I'll stick to that until you find some other better documentation. I can't really find anything official that goes into the kind of background you do.
Yeah, but NIST just making up a new definition for an industry term means nothing. That they are willing to lie doesn't make it true.
I think I'd be better off sticking to a defined industry term by NIST than something one person says.
-
@Obsolesce their definition isn't even a definition... they call it something running a PC OS. WTF is a PC OS?
However, if you look at their definition and think about it, you can tell that they are TRYING to tell you what I just said. PC OS is pretty obviously intended to mean an OS written to run on the PC architecture, and their examples are just that. Vista, and Mac OSX run ONLY on PC architecture, and Linux was originally written for it (then branched out.)
So while this is an incredibly sloppy and dumbed down definition that leaves all the hard work in the definition of "What is a PC OS", you can tell from their wording and their examples, that it's exactly what I just said. I just provided the history and "why" so that it all makes sense.
And notice, like I had said, that Personal Computer is capitalized, PC = Personal Computer, but PC != personal computer.
-
@Obsolesce said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@Obsolesce said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
@scottalanmiller said in Apple Mac Going to ARM RISC:
So, it's the CPU architecture that determines
It's more than that. You can make an IA16, IA32, or AMD64 CPU based system that is not a PC, but you'd be engineering all your own parts and connections. It's the PC architecture that makes it possible to have interchangeable parts, the PCI bus and stuff like that. So some embedded systems that use those processors opt to not build a PC, but it's rare because once you diverge from PC you generally do so enough that you are stuck writing your own operating system and that's really expensive.
The PC standard is what makes those processors cheap and standard. Pretty much you choose PC first, then you choose which PC compatible processor you want, not the other way around as it would rarely, if ever, make sense. If you dont want PC, you don't likely want an expensive PC focused processor.
I like NIST's definition better.
I think I'll stick to that until you find some other better documentation. I can't really find anything official that goes into the kind of background you do.
Yeah, but NIST just making up a new definition for an industry term means nothing. That they are willing to lie doesn't make it true.
I think I'd be better off sticking to a defined industry term by NIST than something one person says.
Well, that's a really bad logic. Because I provided exactly why it is what it is, and have had the same answer for decades. The NIST example is new and obviously isn't a useful or reliable source. It has neither logic, nor history, nor reliably applicability. It's clear from looking at it that it's not a viable description.
That said, if you use it in any meaningfully logical way, it leads you right back to what I original said. So you end up agreeing with me, except with skipping the understanding of why - which is the underlying problem in IT. Everyone wants to memorize definitions or simple answers instead of understanding what terms, technologies, or whatever actually mean. If you understand what PC was from the beginning, which is actually really simple, then knowing how it applies later is easy. If you try to memorize a quick answer that doesn't address the actual factors making it true, then it's easy to get confused or lost or need to constantly have to "figure out" when it applies or doesn't.
