I'd like to see how fast the IBM system would be with 7,299,072 cores instead of 2,414,592 😉

Yup 😉

Do I understand it correctly that the Summit uses NVIDIA Volta for GPU computation while the Fugaku is basically CPU only?

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-23, 15:18:

Another thing they didn't show is the terminal, for example if I can still run homebrew, apache/php/mysql, how it will be for web devs running local development web servers for work.

This will not be a problem. While I hate Apple with passion (especially the Safari browser which is the new IE in how it interprets certain standards) I have to admit that designers are a big part of Apples customer base. They will most certainly not prevent them from doing their work.

Also, web technologies are very open by design. Apache, PHP and MariaDB have long been ported over to ARM.

But it's funny - I work in an ad agency with 99% Mac users and my boss always claims the resale value of his machines is super high! Well, we will see about that now I guess...

ShovelKnight wrote on 2020-06-24, 19:05:

Dominus wrote on 2020-06-24, 18:59:

The fastest supercomputer *today* is ARM based https://uk.pcmag.com/sound-cards/127514/japan … t-supercomputer . But again, don't let facts get the better of your feelings 😀

He doesn't care because it's not going to run CartingSimulator 2020 or whatever it is he wants to run, and anything that doesn't benefit him directly is sh# t 😉

Flight Simulator 2020, F1 2020, rFactor 2, Assetto Corsa, iRacing, GTA 5/6, Star Wars: Squadrons.... the list goes on. It will not even run Panic Coda 2 natively. The most worrying point of the keynote was when they used Parallels to virtualize some debian linux without giving details like which version of debian (ARM or x86)? Will it run Windows too? Instead they left the audience in the dark about this subject, one of the most important key points of this transition. Windows is very, very important for many mac developers as well, and they instead showcased debian linux.

Doesn't make sense to show debian linux instead of Windows 10 when they showcased Microsoft Office apps ported to ARM too without any shame.

Also, if their solution for local web development is virtualization of a linux instance, then I'm not going for it too. They didn't even shown the terminal on macOS Big Sur, I mean, this was a WWDC keynote, for developers, not for casual rich consumers of ARM toys. Whas it too much to ask for them to show some of it too?

Why would I want something that doesn't benefit me? Benchmarks mean nothing to me, that "ARM supercomputer" means nothing to me, let's get it straight, simply put. What matters is will it run my things with the same performance? My answer is a pretty straight NO, because of Rosetta 2. I've been down this road before, and I will not go down this road again to suffer the same pain again. I simply don't give a f... 😀

And I am pretty sure I am not the only one in this world with the same problem or similar problem. Not exactly a funny thing, I must add.

EDIT: And the install of macOS Big Sur requires more than 30GB - almost 50GB at the end. For users with a 128GB SSD mac, it is a big slap in their face.

Where did you find those hd requirements? The download is below 10GB and yes you will need free space as is required for all new macOS installs.
For a macOS 10.15 install 30 GB of free space is recommended as well

Bruninho's definition of "is supported" is definitely outdated by at least a decade if not more.

Here's how you should read it, Bruninho.

"is supported" - "We (Apple) will provide you technical support, this configuration should work, we will stand behind this"

"is not supported / is unsupported" - "We (Apple) will NOT provide you technical support, so we will not assign any company resources to even checking that this configuration works or not. You may be able to get it to partially work but we won't stand behind it."

There's nothing wrong with taking the latter stance, at some point in a product's lifespan a company can cut its losses and choose to no longer offer support. A lot of variables go into this decision making process (how many customers do they have still using that configuration, how many employees do they still have knowledgeable about that configuration's issues, how much time can be spent testing that configuration prior to release, how much money they can assign to doing all that, etc.) - and not just "can it still partially function"

"is supported" / "is not supported" is not supposed to mean "this configuration works" / "doesn't work" and they shouldn't be required to support you if by some chance it can work in some configuration.

It's all about choosing how long to honor their obligation to customers and that is a decision that isn't usually defined by technical limitations such as "whether a hacker can get something to function"

Dominus wrote on 2020-06-24, 19:59:

Where did you find those hd requirements? The download is below 10GB and yes you will need free space as is required for all new macOS installs.
For a macOS 10.15 install 30 GB of free space is recommended as well

I tried to install Big Sur beta in a "supported" MacBook Pro, and it required more than 40GB free or else it wouldn't let me install. So I just gave up.

EDIT: And I cannot believe someone think it is absolutely normal for an OS to require 30GB of space. Jesus... I have a Windows 10 install using only 9GB in a VM, even with updates.

Stiletto wrote on 2020-06-24, 20:17:

Bruninho's definition of "is supported" is definitely outdated by at least a decade if not more. […]
Show full quote

Bruninho's definition of "is supported" is definitely outdated by at least a decade if not more.

Here's how you should read it, Bruninho.

"is supported" - "We (Apple) will provide you technical support, this configuration should work, we will stand behind this"

"is not supported / is unsupported" - "We (Apple) will NOT provide you technical support, so we will not assign any company resources to even checking that this configuration works or not. You may be able to get it to partially work but we won't stand behind it."

There's nothing wrong with taking the latter stance, at some point in a product's lifespan a company can cut its losses and choose to no longer offer support. A lot of variables go into this decision making process (how many customers do they have still using that configuration, how many employees do they still have knowledgeable about that configuration's issues, how much time can be spent testing that configuration prior to release, how much money they can assign to doing all that, etc.) - and not just "can it still partially function"

"is supported" / "is not supported" is not supposed to mean "this configuration works" / "doesn't work" and they shouldn't be required to support you if by some chance it can work in some configuration.

It's all about choosing how long to honor their obligation to customers and that is a decision that isn't usually defined by technical limitations such as "whether a hacker can get something to function"

It's not how I should I read it. I'll not read it this way because I completely disagree with that. It's how Apple wants to fool you to make you buy their new shiny expensive toys. That iMac 2009 has been past 3 (4, if we count Big Sur with the future Dosdude1's patch in the making) macOS unsupported versions so far, still running great in spite of what Apple says. I'm not going to buy a new iMac when the one I have can perfectly run Big Sur after it's patched. Even my dad's 2011 Mac Mini i5 is on unsupported Catalina too, and it's 3 years newer than the iMac. Once I manage to get fixed the motherboard issues with an old 2010 MacBook Pro, I'll get it patched there too.

Their definition of a vintage machine is also too short sighted. For me, to declare something vintage, needs to be more than 20 years old; obsolete, more than 10/15 years. For the same reason I quit buying new graphics cards for PCs, I will quit buying new MacBook Pros; the way it quickly gets obsolete is just incredibly irritating; I am not swimming on money like Uncle Scrooge to keep buying the newest tech every year, not even in a country where 1,00 USD = 5,00 BRL.

If you really think that the outside world should align with your desires, then you’re going to live a life of bitter disappointment.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-24, 20:30:

Stiletto wrote on 2020-06-24, 20:17:

Bruninho's definition of "is supported" is definitely outdated by at least a decade if not more. […]
Show full quote

Bruninho's definition of "is supported" is definitely outdated by at least a decade if not more.

Here's how you should read it, Bruninho.

"is supported" - "We (Apple) will provide you technical support, this configuration should work, we will stand behind this"

"is not supported / is unsupported" - "We (Apple) will NOT provide you technical support, so we will not assign any company resources to even checking that this configuration works or not. You may be able to get it to partially work but we won't stand behind it."

There's nothing wrong with taking the latter stance, at some point in a product's lifespan a company can cut its losses and choose to no longer offer support. A lot of variables go into this decision making process (how many customers do they have still using that configuration, how many employees do they still have knowledgeable about that configuration's issues, how much time can be spent testing that configuration prior to release, how much money they can assign to doing all that, etc.) - and not just "can it still partially function"

"is supported" / "is not supported" is not supposed to mean "this configuration works" / "doesn't work" and they shouldn't be required to support you if by some chance it can work in some configuration.

It's all about choosing how long to honor their obligation to customers and that is a decision that isn't usually defined by technical limitations such as "whether a hacker can get something to function"

It's not how I should I read it. I'll not read it this way because I completely disagree with that. It's how Apple wants to fool you to make you buy their new shiny expensive toys. That iMac 2009 has been past 3 (4, if we count Big Sur with the future Dosdude1's patch in the making) macOS unsupported versions so far, still running great in spite of what Apple says. I'm not going to buy a new iMac when the one I have can perfectly run Big Sur after it's patched. Even my dad's 2011 Mac Mini i5 is on unsupported Catalina too, and it's 3 years newer than the iMac. Once I manage to get fixed the motherboard issues with an old 2010 MacBook Pro, I'll get it patched there too.

Their definition of a vintage machine is also too short sighted. For me, to declare something vintage, needs to be more than 20 years old; obsolete, more than 10/15 years. For the same reason I quit buying new graphics cards for PCs, I will quit buying new MacBook Pros; the way it quickly gets obsolete is just incredibly irritating; I am not swimming on money like Uncle Scrooge to keep buying the newest tech every year, not even in a country where 1,00 USD = 5,00 BRL.

No company cares what your definition is or if you disagree with it... you are not even a loyal customer. You are an entitled one that hasn't bought a new machine for years.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-24, 20:18:

EDIT: And I cannot believe someone think it is absolutely normal for an OS to require 30GB of space. Jesus... I have a Windows 10 install using only 9GB in a VM, even with updates.

Requirements for installation, not disk space required for a finished installation. I don't believe your claim that it requires 50GB once it is installed. Especially as you can't back it up.
Windows 10 64bit requires 20GB free disk space for installation (again, not the space it takes up after install)

Dominus wrote on 2020-06-24, 21:06:

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-24, 20:18:

EDIT: And I cannot believe someone think it is absolutely normal for an OS to require 30GB of space. Jesus... I have a Windows 10 install using only 9GB in a VM, even with updates.

Requirements for installation, not disk space required for a finished installation. I don't believe your claim that it requires 50GB once it is installed. Especially as you can't back it up.
Windows 10 64bit requires 20GB free disk space for installation (again, not the space it takes up after install)

The Big Sur Beta installer did not let me complete the install unless I freed more space than you said, so... that kinda goes against your argument. Don't want to believe? Fine.

I won't believe in any arguments about ARM Macs either. End of discussion.

Dominus wrote on 2020-06-24, 21:01:

No company cares what your definition is or if you disagree with it... you are not even a loyal customer. You are an entitled one that hasn't bought a new machine for years.

I bought 02 MacBooks, several iPhones, 02 iPads, 02 Apple Watches, accessories for all of the above, I'm (was) a loyal customer, no matter what you say.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-24, 21:14:

I bought 02 MacBooks, several iPhones, 02 iPads, 02 Apple Watches, accessories for all of the above, I'm (was) a loyal customer, no matter what you say.

I'm glad you were happy enough inside Apple's closed ecosystem while it lasted. Like I said earlier I wasn't right from the start which is a shame as they do have some really nice stuff.

but I'm even happier that you have now seen them for what they really are and take your money somewhere else as In the long term it's not a good thing.
Worryingly its working so well MS is also starting to emulate this closed system approach with things like the Surface, Windows S mode, and really heavy handed push for Microsoft Accounts.
And if everyone continues just accepting it soon enough we'll be told what we want by the commercial OS's

chinny22 wrote on 2020-06-24, 21:21:

I'm glad you were happy enough inside Apple's closed ecosystem while it lasted. Like I said earlier I wasn't right from the star […]
Show full quote

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-24, 21:14:

I bought 02 MacBooks, several iPhones, 02 iPads, 02 Apple Watches, accessories for all of the above, I'm (was) a loyal customer, no matter what you say.

I'm glad you were happy enough inside Apple's closed ecosystem while it lasted. Like I said earlier I wasn't right from the start which is a shame as they do have some really nice stuff.

but I'm even happier that you have now seen them for what they really are and take your money somewhere else as In the long term it's not a good thing.
Worryingly its working so well MS is also starting to emulate this closed system approach with things like the Surface, Windows S mode, and really heavy handed push for Microsoft Accounts.
And if everyone continues just accepting it soon enough we'll be told what we want by the commercial OS's

Thanks God someone finally understood it. Yes. I'm aware of MS experiments in this area, but I don't think they're going that far with it. I'm quite impressed with the fact that they are now embracing Linux (somewhat) with their WSL on Windows 10. I tested it at work before the quarantine months ago, and it was interesting.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-24, 21:51:

Thanks God someone finally understood it. Yes. I'm aware of MS experiments in this area, but I don't think they're going that far with it. I'm quite impressed with the fact that they are now embracing Linux (somewhat) with their WSL on Windows 10. I tested it at work before the quarantine months ago, and it was interesting.

The funny thing is that Apple haven't changed, they've always been exactly like that, that's why your rants read like something from a disgruntled ex who has suddenly discovered that his former girlfriend of 10 years is the worst person on the planet 😁

ShovelKnight wrote on 2020-06-24, 22:20:

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-24, 21:51:

Thanks God someone finally understood it. Yes. I'm aware of MS experiments in this area, but I don't think they're going that far with it. I'm quite impressed with the fact that they are now embracing Linux (somewhat) with their WSL on Windows 10. I tested it at work before the quarantine months ago, and it was interesting.

The funny thing is that Apple haven't changed, they've always been exactly like that, that's why your rants read like something from a disgruntled ex who has suddenly discovered that his former girlfriend of 10 years is the worst person on the planet 😁

There's something else to keep in mind, though. Apple used to be a hardware company, Microsoft a software company.
So while Apple was creating their own, more or less complete, systems, Microsoft was licensing BASIC and DOS to anyone with enough money.
Originally, DOS and Windows weren't even IBM PC specific, but ported to many non-IBM x86 systems (most notably PC98 in Japan also).
In the 90s, MS also apparently had several slimey/fishy deals with hardware manufacturers going on to get rid of the competition (DR DOS, OS/2 etc),
while Apple licensed System 7 to clone makers, had several research projects going and worked together with others until Mr. Jobs came back and changed the course.
Personally, I think that none of them is better than the other. They are like wrestling stars who fight each other just for the show's sake.
Behind the stage, they aren't really opponents, but rather business partners. Maybe always have been.
That being said, the times have changed - it's time to wake up!
Some of "us" apparently are stuck in pre post-PC and pre software-as-a-service thought patterns still. 😉
Hardware architecture as such is nolonger important (rather the infrastructure is). Companies sell/buy personal data and produce emotions/livestyle.

Edit: Speaking of MS embracing Linux.. It comes to no surprise. Linux is cheap (either way) and Linux/BSD are omnipresent in the server sector and
MS had a long relationship with Unix before this. Just think of Xenix. Also, the NT kernal reached a dead end.
It's nolonger being developed on. Partly because the original Win NT developers are either dead or spend their last days in retirement homes..

ShovelKnight wrote on 2020-06-24, 22:20:

Bruninho wrote on 2020-06-24, 21:51:

Thanks God someone finally understood it. Yes. I'm aware of MS experiments in this area, but I don't think they're going that far with it. I'm quite impressed with the fact that they are now embracing Linux (somewhat) with their WSL on Windows 10. I tested it at work before the quarantine months ago, and it was interesting.

The funny thing is that Apple haven't changed, they've always been exactly like that, that's why your rants read like something from a disgruntled ex who has suddenly discovered that his former girlfriend of 10 years is the worst person on the planet 😁

Like I said, enjoy Apple's walled garden until you can't. My honest opinion? Fuck Apple. I will enjoy watching them crash and burn as they go ahead with this endeavor and inevitably fail.

Jo22 wrote on 2020-06-25, 07:28:

That being said, the times have changed - it's time to wake up!
Some of "us" apparently are stuck in pre post-PC and pre software-as-a-service thought patterns still. 😉
Hardware architecture as such is nolonger important (rather the infrastructure is). Companies sell/buy personal data and produce emotions/livestyle.

No, this was not true 5 years ago and it's still not true today - not even in a working environment. Infrastructure and SAAS work until they don't, and this work from home period taught me better than to trust you can actually be productive with alternative architectures relying on just the infrastructure.

appiah4 wrote on 2020-06-25, 08:00:

I will enjoy watching them crash and burn as they go ahead with this endeavor and inevitably fail.

What's interesting is that Apple has been around since 1976 and is still going strong, whereas PC companies are like butterflies that come and go. Even IBM itself was forced to sell its PC division to the Chinese after years of underperformance. Oh, and they recently started issuing MacBooks to their employees.

appiah4 wrote on 2020-06-25, 08:00:

No, this was not true 5 years ago and it's still not true today - not even in a working environment. Infrastructure and SAAS work until they don't, and this work from home period taught me better than to trust you can actually be productive with alternative architectures relying on just the infrastructure.

Personally I'm a huge fan of running native applications locally, but the reality is that 90% of corporate stuff is accessed in the browser through the corporate intranet.