ShovelKnight wrote on 2020-06-26, 07:40:

I bet it works exactly the same as on Intel Macs with the T2 chip: you can boot anything you want if you disable secure boot, but the built-in storage is off-limits.

Gotcha. Yes and no. From what the video hinted, even if u disable it and only obviously try to boot any ARM based OS, its unclear if unsigned non Apple OS can be booted. Its the same boot process used on iOS and iPadOS. In this case, iOS jailbreak history shows that it could be done.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-06-26, 11:17:

It's quite ironic how Apple more and more resembles the stuff they opposed in their infamous commercial.

I couldn’t agree more! But they’re repeating errors of the past before Jobs return. And this time, Jobs isn’t around to save them again if that transition don’t pay off. I haven’t seen a word from Wozniak about the transition but I believe he hated it as well...

Tim Cook is just John Scully 2.0.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-06-26, 11:17:

It's quite ironic how Apple more and more resembles the stuff they opposed in their infamous commercial.

hahaha this is brilliant

Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology—where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests purveying contradictory truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!

so a garden secure from contradictory thinking? so what became the Apple Eco system!

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-26, 11:49:

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-06-26, 11:17:

It's quite ironic how Apple more and more resembles the stuff they opposed in their infamous commercial.

I couldn’t agree more! But they’re repeating errors of the past before Jobs return. And this time, Jobs isn’t around to save them again. I haven’t seen a word from Wozniak about the transition but I believe he hated it as well...

Tim Cook is just John Scully 2.0.

Oh please, not that beaten old horse again! That 1984 video is ancient and was made by a different Apple company. *sigh* 🙁
As if Intel and MS are not rying to make x86 PC a closed platform.. 🙄
They are planning to force UEFI and SecureBoot (opt-in) for years onto the users and are going to kill BIOS/CSM off past 2020,
so someone can't run any OS older than Windows 7 anymore (which was also patched to death to not run on Skylake+).
If that happens, we will eventually run out of systems that can be used as a subsitute to legacy PC hardware.
It won't take long and PC motherboards by various hardware makers will comply and let boot only Windows x64 and a few hand-selected (Linux) OSes.
Or are you so blind that you haven't noticed that Microsoft tries very hard to remove the user's need for real Linux distros by incorportating their own Linux system into Windows 10 ? Windows 10 IS pretty much like macOS already. 😢

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-26, 04:51:

The ARM Windows is terrible, terrible. If it were good enough, Apple would've demoed it in their keynote instead of an ARM Debian Linux.

It is 100% down to hardware.

Apple A-processors are really great for desktop/pro usage (competing with Intel on mobile computers), but Qualcomm really sucks in comparison!

Qualcomm might be good/OK for phones, but not at performance competing with Intel and Apple ARM on computers or Pro tablets.

I would say that Apple has a definitive advantage here - that Microsoft, and all other vendors for that matter, do not have in the ARM performance space.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-06-26, 11:17:

i want to control my computer, not being controlled by it.

It's quite ironic how Apple more and more resembles the stuff they opposed in their infamous commercial.

Yes, I totally agree (even if a curated and top down controlled garden has it's advantages for many users and use cases)! 😀

martinot wrote on 2020-06-26, 12:41:

It is 100% down to hardware. […]
Show full quote

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-26, 04:51:

The ARM Windows is terrible, terrible. If it were good enough, Apple would've demoed it in their keynote instead of an ARM Debian Linux.

It is 100% down to hardware.

Apple A-processors are really great for desktop/pro usage (competing with Intel on mobile computers), but Qualcomm really sucks in comparison!

Qualcomm might be good/OK for phones, but not at performance competing with Intel and Apple ARM on computers or Pro tablets.

I would say that Apple has a definitive advantage here - that Microsoft, and all other vendors for that matter, do not have in the ARM performance space.

I don't think that it's 100% down to hardware. A significant percentage, yes. But a small part has to do with how they emulate x86 Windows software on it. They implemented it really badly. And with the lack of real good native apps; they do not have the luxury to port iOS apps/games to their desktop counterpart.

For Windows 10 ARM to succeed in an ARM Mac, be it with a BootCamp reincarnation or using virtualization software, they need to make their x86 apps work with minimal performance loss compared to the desktop x86 version.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-26, 14:46:

I don't think that it's 100% down to hardware. A significant percentage, yes. But a small part has to do with how they emulate x86 Windows software on it.

Ok, let´s say it's 95%. 😀

In this case Qualcomm CPU really sucks big time, performance wise, and can not provide any competition in the desktop/computer market at all against Intel or Apple, regardless of software emulation, or running native compiled apps.

But yes, I also think Apple will do it much better than on the PC side, as they control the whole chain, from hardware/silicon, computers/devices, OS, emulation and applications (they control their developers much better/harder than what Microsoft ever can).

They also got the previous experience from PPC-x86 (and from 68k-PPC), and has executed those transitions very well.

Qualcomm and Microsoft are two different companies, with different agendas, and not as experienced (in this area) as Apple.

I am not a fan of Apple in general, but moving to ARM would make sense for them and likely their users. Maybe we'll stop hearing about overheating/throttling high-end MACs . The environmenal aspect is a significant one as well, not to mention the cost of electricity.

not only that, intel has nothing to offer and switching to AMD is just giving another dependence.

I also would make that decision if i where Apple.
Its simply a Decision of Freedom. Why not become your own CPU Supplier ?

It also will save a lot of money, think of a Mac Mini with HBM2 RAM on ARM SOC ? imagine how small the mainboard is, how much cost you can save on Hardware compared to Intel.. combining low power cores with High Performance Cores ? no Problem!
But Apple will not give this savings to end user for sure 😀

Rosetta for example was a Master Piece of Software Engineering!

And as they run Unix anyway.. a Transition is much easier then with Windows like Systems.

matze79 wrote on 2020-06-26, 18:47:

not only that, intel has nothing to offer and switching to AMD is just giving another dependence. […]
Show full quote

I am not a fan of Apple in general, but moving to ARM would make sense for them and likely their users. Maybe we'll stop hearing about overheating/throttling high-end MACs . The environmenal aspect is a significant one as well, not to mention the cost of electricity.

not only that, intel has nothing to offer and switching to AMD is just giving another dependence.

I also would make that decision if i where Apple.
Its simply a Decision of Freedom. Why not become your own CPU Supplier ?

It also will save a lot of money, think of a Mac Mini with HBM2 RAM on ARM SOC ? imagine how small the mainboard is, how much cost you can save on Hardware compared to Intel.. combining low power cores with High Performance Cores ? no Problem!
But Apple will not give this savings to end user for sure 😀

Rosetta for example was a Master Piece of Software Engineering!

And as they run Unix anyway.. a Transition is much easier then with Windows like Systems.

But but but... they will solder everything on the mainboard. Meaning you can't upgrade the parts, if it's broken you'll need a new Mac...

Before the 2012 MBPs, I could upgrade them to be still relevant. I work on a 2013 Late MBP and I could only upgrade the SSD to 1TB. I have a 2010 MBP which was fully upgraded - SSD, extra HDD, max RAM (16). A 2011 Mac Mini was upgraded for two HDDs and 16GB. The 2009 iMac was upgraded to a new HDD, included a SSD for OS boot and software, new GPU, new CPU and maxed out the RAM as well. All machines so far are still rock solid;

Rosetta 1 was a NIGHTMARE. Terrible performance for PPC apps on Intel Macs.

Actually a PPC built of Dosbox runs much faster in Rosetta in 10.5 VM than on a real PPC machine 😉

But Apple will not give this savings to end user for sure

Lets also not forget, that Apple may decide to not allow any upgrade options to CPU on any new platform. Or at the very least that will require "certified" personnel to do that for you. For a chunky fee of course.

Dominus wrote on 2020-06-26, 20:17:

Actually a PPC built of Dosbox runs much faster in Rosetta in 10.5 VM than on a real PPC machine 😉

That's a lot of stacked emulation. Surprising it runs so well.

If current industry trends continue, I wonder how many layers of stacked virtualization/emulation/containerization we might have go through between an application and baremetal within the next 20 years (both on cloud servers and local clients).

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-06-26, 20:26:

But Apple will not give this savings to end user for sure

Lets also not forget, that Apple may decide to not allow any upgrade options to CPU on any new platform. Or at the very least that will require "certified" personnel to do that for you. For a chunky fee of course.

Isn't that already the case?

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-06-26, 20:26:

But Apple will not give this savings to end user for sure

Lets also not forget, that Apple may decide to not allow any upgrade options to CPU on any new platform. Or at the very least that will require "certified" personnel to do that for you. For a chunky fee of course.

There is tendency for CPUs to be integrated into SOCs (usually BGA soldered), especially in mobile devices (laptops, phones, tablets). Except for AMD, CPU board compatibility no longer spans more than 1 or maybe 2 gens .

The days of upgrading a Pentium Pro to a P3 are behind us .

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-26, 19:20:

But but but... they will solder everything on the mainboard. Meaning you can't upgrade the parts, if it's broken you'll need a new Mac...

No offense, but those were customers Apple wished they wouldn't have. Apple has never wished to monetize aftermarket upgrades as their business model, and they don't mind killing off that market for their own sake.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-26, 19:20:

Rosetta 1 was a NIGHTMARE. Terrible performance for PPC apps on Intel Macs.

You cannot compare the technology back then and the progress of technology for virtual machines that we have today. In fact, with Apple designing their own CPUs, it is interesting if they will ever step into the nerve of Intel legal by by supporting x86 instruction sets in hardware virtual machine. Back in year 2009, all Intel 80386 instructions patents had expired, another 10 years or so had passed, perhaps it is possible for them to create a hybrid virtual machine where "free" Intel instructions are executed in hardware within VMENTRY/VMEXIT while "non-free" Intel instructions are emulated in dynamic recompilers. AMD already did that for several legacy x86 instructions on the Zen cores that some legacy x86 instructions cannot be natively executed by the CPU, but they are handled by hardware within VMENTRY/VMEXIT to facilitate virtual machines from VMWare/VirtualBox/QEMU for running legacy x86 codes without the performance hit of breaking out hardware VM.

Or, Apple could have bought a company with an Intel instruction sets license to allow them to do such things in their own CPUs.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-06-26, 20:26:

But Apple will not give this savings to end user for sure

Lets also not forget, that Apple may decide to not allow any upgrade options to CPU on any new platform. Or at the very least that will require "certified" personnel to do that for you. For a chunky fee of course.

This has been the case for the past, I dunno, 10 years?

kjliew wrote on 2020-06-26, 20:48:

No offense, but those were customers Apple wished they wouldn't have. Apple has never wished to monetize aftermarket upgrades as their business model, and they don't mind killing off that market for their own sake.

No offense, but you're speaking mainly of Apple 'post-Jobs'. Because there were certain years where you could indeed upgrade your Macs, be it in the 80's, early 90's or even in the late 2000's (2006-2012) there was this possibility.

kjliew wrote on 2020-06-26, 20:48:

You cannot compare the technology back then and the progress of technology for virtual machines that we have today. In fact, with Apple designing their own CPUs, it is interesting if they will ever step into the nerve of Intel legal by by supporting x86 instruction sets in hardware virtual machine. Back in year 2009, all Intel 80386 instructions patents had expired, another 10 years or so had passed, perhaps it is possible for them to create a hybrid virtual machine where "free" Intel instructions are executed in hardware within VMENTRY/VMEXIT while "non-free" Intel instructions are emulated in dynamic recompilers. AMD already did that for several legacy x86 instructions on the Zen cores that some legacy x86 instructions cannot be natively executed by the CPU, but they are handled by hardware within VMENTRY/VMEXIT to facilitate virtual machines from VMWare/VirtualBox/QEMU for running legacy x86 codes without the performance hit of breaking out hardware VM.

Or, Apple could have bought a company with an Intel instruction sets license to allow them to do such things in their own CPUs.

What comparison did I do? I did not compare anything. All I said was that first version of Rosetta really was (expletive word censored) terrible for me during the PPC -> Intel transition.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-26, 22:20:

No offense, but you're speaking mainly of Apple 'post-Jobs'. Because there were certain years where you could indeed upgrade your Macs, be it in the 80's, early 90's or even in the late 2000's (2006-2012) there was this possibility.

Just a couple of days ago I was perusing Lenovo's website to look at the current state of ThinkPad, and as it turns out, they have no current laptops under 15 inch that have upgradable CPU or RAM or anything else besides the SSD. Some of the last years's models under 15 inch have 1 free RAM slot.

I'm afraid this trend is now industry-wide, even Intel is now supplying their best Wi-Fi adapters as modules that have to be soldered to the motherboard.

If it weren't for the lack of Classic Environment support, Rosetta would've been just perfect. RTCW will fly on an Intel Mac.