Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs

[JF Mezei]

https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10686/


GPUs will be integrated into CPU which means shared RAM, reducing
transfers betwene CPU-RAM and GPU-RAM. (but that would imply need for
greater RAM on Macs compared to Intel Macs that have separate GPU memory).

Also puts into perspective the iPhone RAM since it is also used for the
GPU.


New Macs, like iPhones will have cores of different speeds (lower power
vs high performance). APIs will exist to specify the quality of service
needed for the App to give the OS hint of which core to use.

ARM will enforce memory protections to prevent writable memory from
being branched to, and executable memory from being written to.
APIs exist to switch memory so JIT code can become executable.

A package translated by Rosetta will be code signed and run only on that
specififc computer.

Rosetta doesn't translate x86 system calls. It just translates the
instriuctions. OS-X will provide a Rosetta framework that will, at
run-time, convert calls in the x86 calling standard into native ARM
based calls.

This means that applicatiosn translated by Rosetta depend on a library
provided by Apple as part of OS-X to run. If apple widthdraws that
library, apps can't run anymore.


So Rosetta needs to be seen as a transition, not a permament translation
of an app.

Booting is based on Apple's proprietary "Secure Boot" console, not EFI.
Requires any OS to be cryptographically signed and loading of the OS
boot block only happens after that. I assume that if there is a
BootCamp equivalent, only the BootCamp will be cheked. But it also means
booting Linux natively not likely.

Support for multiple boot drives added, and can boot any version signed
by Apple. (As this boot console came from iPhone, these is new
featiures since iPhone could only boot from its onw 1 internal disk).


This means that all keyboard interactions during boot are gone,
including recovery, verbose etc. Need to hold power button down to get a
GUI to select these. This includes Mac recovery options.



Target Disk mode is gone. The proproetary console introduces "Mac
Sharing Mode" in its GUI which will use SMB to access a remote disk via IP.


Normal mode is as strict as iPhone. (so strong enforcement of code
signing of the OS).

Reduced Security allows you to boot older versions that are no longer
signed by Apple and allows notarized 3rd party extensions.


The security policy will be associated with each instance of OS-X, as
opposed to Intel Macs where the security policy being enforced in NVRAM
no matter which disk you boot from.


Internet boot whcih was part of Apple's EFI is gone. Instead, a hidden
contained on disk will allow you to do a system recovery from Internet.
(though not clear what happens when you have a blank disk after hardware
failure requiring tyou replace it).

[JF Mezei]

The impression I got from that presentation is that OS-X becomes
intrisincltly linked to an integrated proprietary GPU.

While this is a no brainer for iMac, Macbook and Mac Mini, what does it
mean to the Mac pro?


Is this a dead end product with no replacement ? Will Apple continue the
INtel Mac Pro with the high perrormance multiple external GPUs beypnd
the 2 year transition, or will it produce a ARM based Mac pro with
Apple's integrated GPUs that have high end performance? WOuld it support
multiple GPUs ?

[nospam]

In article <1hOJG.42008$DO2....@fx45.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> This means that applicatiosn translated by Rosetta depend on a library
> provided by Apple as part of OS-X to run. If apple widthdraws that
> library, apps can't run anymore.

exactly the same as it's always been, with or without rosetta.

> Booting is based on Apple's proprietary "Secure Boot" console, not EFI.
> Requires any OS to be cryptographically signed and loading of the OS
> boot block only happens after that. I assume that if there is a
> BootCamp equivalent, only the BootCamp will be cheked. But it also means
> booting Linux natively not likely.

as usual, you assume wrong.

> Target Disk mode is gone. The proproetary console introduces "Mac
> Sharing Mode" in its GUI which will use SMB to access a remote disk via IP.

something which makes zero sense. might as well boot normally if all
you get is an smb share.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-06-27 17:19, nospam wrote:
> In article <1hOJG.42008$DO2....@fx45.iad>, JF Mezei
> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> This means that applicatiosn translated by Rosetta depend on a library
>> provided by Apple as part of OS-X to run. If apple widthdraws that
>> library, apps can't run anymore.
>
> exactly the same as it's always been, with or without rosetta.

No. This requires a run time "Rosetta" to translate system calls from
x86 to ARM calling standards. This isn't about the frameworks
themselves (such as drawing a swuare in a window), it is about
translating the "draw a square" system call from Intel format to ARM
forma and then resolving the "draw a square" branch destination and
branching to it.

The way argument lists are built varies from platform to platform, Some
load arguments in a stack in reverse order (so first argument is last
added to stack), orthers use a register that contains a pointer to RAM
storage where a list of consecutive pointers is stored, each for tan
argument).

This also means that at translate time, Rosetta will cause all
calls/branches to resolve/link to the Rosetta version of the system call
which then translates the argument format and calls the ARM based system
service using the ARN calling standards.

So even if a "draw square in window" system service remains unchanged,
Apple can pull the Rosetta rin time and all your translated images stop
working even if they user system services that are still supported.

>> Booting is based on Apple's proprietary "Secure Boot" console, not EFI.
>> Requires any OS to be cryptographically signed and loading of the OS
>> boot block only happens after that. I assume that if there is a
>> BootCamp equivalent, only the BootCamp will be cheked. But it also means
>> booting Linux natively not likely.
>
> as usual, you assume wrong.

Listen to the presentation. Unless the Linux image is code signed by
Apple, the system console will not allow you to boot. "Signed by Apple"
is specifcied in the presentation.

However, in Platforms State of Union, (or perhaps even Keynote) Apple
mentiosn you will be able to boot Linux as a VM inside OS-X (at which
point the machine's OS has long ago booted and th system console not
involved since it is a simple app on the Mac that emulates a new system
on which Linux boots).

> something which makes zero sense. might as well boot normally if all
> you get is an smb share.

If your OS is unavailable, you can't boot normally, so ability to boot
vms SMB from an OS stored elsewhere is important. But I have to
wordeing abdout all the code signing aspect.

Apple mentioned that Rosetta will translate apps and code signed them
for that specific machine only. The ability to boot from another system
would then assuyme that the OS is more generatically signed since you
would be booting from an OS instance signed for another machine.

[nospam]

In article <P8PJG.47519$5_4....@fx40.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:


> >> Booting is based on Apple's proprietary "Secure Boot" console, not EFI.
> >> Requires any OS to be cryptographically signed and loading of the OS
> >> boot block only happens after that. I assume that if there is a
> >> BootCamp equivalent, only the BootCamp will be cheked. But it also means
> >> booting Linux natively not likely.
> >
> > as usual, you assume wrong.
>
> Listen to the presentation. Unless the Linux image is code signed by
> Apple, the system console will not allow you to boot. "Signed by Apple"
> is specifcied in the presentation.

that can also be disabled.

try watching the presentation again.

[Lewis]

In message <1hOJG.42008$DO2....@fx45.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> This means that applicatiosn translated by Rosetta depend on a library
> provided by Apple as part of OS-X to run. If apple widthdraws that
> library, apps can't run anymore.

OMG! If Apple withdraws USB drivers from macOS you will not be able to
use USB! Oh noooooooees!

Talk about desperately seeking reasons to panic.

> So Rosetta needs to be seen as a transition, not a permament translation
> of an app.

No one has said it was permanent. The need for it will fade and when
(if) Apple does drop it only those Luddites desperately hanging on to
obsolete code will complain. As usual.

> Booting is based on Apple's proprietary "Secure Boot" console, not EFI.
> Requires any OS to be cryptographically signed

This is basically already the case and has been for a couple of versions
of macOS/

> But it also means booting Linux natively not likely.

Misleading since you can boot Linux within the Mac's new hypervisor and
that is indistinguishable from "native".

> This means that all keyboard interactions during boot are gone,
> including recovery, verbose etc. Need to hold power button down to get a
> GUI to select these. This includes Mac recovery options.

Or, put another way, Apple has a single startup action to boot recovery,
external drives, single user mode, target disk mode, etc. and no one
needs to remember which key combos do what.

> Target Disk mode is gone. The proproetary console introduces "Mac
> Sharing Mode" in its GUI which will use SMB to access a remote disk via IP.

Which behaves just as TDM does. The change will be entirely invisible to
the user other than the name.

> Internet boot whcih was part of Apple's EFI is gone. Instead, a hidden
> contained on disk will allow you to do a system recovery from Internet.

Misleadingly wrong.

Recovery mode can do any sort of recovery, including Internet recovery.

In addition there is another System Recovery that will boot a machine
regardless of the state of the disks and allow low-level recovery.
Including Internet recovery.

> (though not clear what happens when you have a blank disk after hardware
> failure requiring tyou replace it).

Yes, it is extremely clear. What the goddamn sessions at 0.5x speed and
turn on subtitles., After a dozen or so viewing maybe it will sink in.

--
Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the usual number of suspects.

[Lewis]

In message <ZxOJG.52052$0W4....@fx42.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> The impression I got from that presentation is that OS-X becomes
> intrisincltly linked to an integrated proprietary GPU.

> While this is a no brainer for iMac, Macbook and Mac Mini, what does it
> mean to the Mac pro?

Considering a single A12X is outperforming most of the Intel chips, and
given they can fit a couple hundred into the Mac Pro chassis, I suspect
it is going to mean a massive increase in Mac Pro power.

Remember, the world's fastest supercomputer is ARM.

--
A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.

[Lewis]

But that would require paying attention!


--
'I knew the two of you would get along like a house on fire.' Screams, flames, people running for safety...

[Lewis]

In message <XlPJG.32107$hQ4...@fx39.iad> Bud Frede <fr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> writes:
>> Target Disk mode is gone. The proproetary console introduces "Mac
>> Sharing Mode" in its GUI which will use SMB to access a remote disk via IP.

> That's just gross.

I don't like this new thing I know nothing about and no one has ever
used! It's an abomination! <flail helplessly>

--
'On whose authority?' demanded Wert. Trymon turned his grey eyes on him. 'Mine. I need no other.' --The Light Fantastic

[Arlen Holder]

FACT (not bullshit marketing)

Just to be clear since Apple users tend to be bamboozled by MARKETING...
o It's not "Apple Silicon" in the Mac ARM so much as ARM TSMC silicon.

Apple licensing the technology from ARM & pays TSMC to fab the silicon.
o Apple MARKETING's job is to bamboozle users into thinking otherwise.

It works great, but just be advised, when I see Apple Silicon...
o I'm gonna remind _adults_ that it's TSMC silicon & ARM technology
--
Apple users' brains are led by a ring in their nose put in by MARKETING.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-06-27 18:30, Lewis wrote:

> No one has said it was permanent.

There is an important distinction because Apple strated it is a one time
translation. That can be interpreted as creating a free standing
application that no longer needs Rosetta once translated. But that isn't
the case because it needs a Rosetta run-time support to execute.

So if you have legacy code, it is an important reminder that its life is
limited as a translated image.

>> Booting is based on Apple's proprietary "Secure Boot" console, not EFI.
>> Requires any OS to be cryptographically signed
>
> This is basically already the case and has been for a couple of versions
> of macOS/

The verification is done by the OS, EFI lets you boot any OS, at least
on Non T2-equipped Macs.

However, it appears the code signing verification can be turned off and
that will be needed to even boot version of MacOS that Apple no longer
signs.

> Misleading since you can boot Linux within the Mac's new hypervisor and
> that is indistinguishable from "native".

Not if you buy the hardware with intentiosn to run only Linux or Windows
as was possible with Intel Macs. But I agree that the market for people
who bought a fancy expensive Mac to run Linux is very small. The market
of poeple who primarily run OS-X with a bit of Linux on the side is greater.

> Or, put another way, Apple has a single startup action to boot recovery,
> external drives, single user mode, target disk mode, etc. and no one
> needs to remember which key combos do what.

Fair poimt, I had not thought at bout this way. I use "verbose" (it is
in my NVRAM) and didn't see it mentioned as an option. Remains to be see
what happens to single user mode and "safe" modes.

> Which behaves just as TDM does. The change will be entirely invisible to
> the user other than the name.

SMB requires the other computer be up and running and that there is an
ethernet connection between the two. Not sure SMB can function on othe
types of interfaces.

> Recovery mode can do any sort of recovery, including Internet recovery.

EFI had a built-in Internet recovery on recent enough Macs. (if your
physical drive has failed, you hjave neither the OS partition nor the
normal Recovery partition).

Having a hidden partition on the drive to have that function (how
different is that from recovery partition which is sort of hidden
anyways) means that if the disk fails, you don't have that internet

recovery.



> In addition there is another System Recovery that will boot a machine
> regardless of the state of the disks

Please explain. I am not aware of this.

The session spoke of a hidden partition, this implies a partition on
disk, So iof disk fails, the console ROM can't access that code for
Internet recovery.

[nospam]

In article <_jQJG.63802$Av7....@fx34.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> SMB requires the other computer be up and running and that there is an
> ethernet connection between the two.

no it doesn't.

> Not sure SMB can function on othe
> types of interfaces.

it can.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-06-27 18:41, Arlen Holder wrote:

> Just to be clear since Apple users tend to be bamboozled by MARKETING...
> o It's not "Apple Silicon" in the Mac ARM so much as ARM TSMC silicon.

Not a correct semantic. TMSC runs the machines that make the chips.
Apple makes the design of all the circuitry in the chips and gives TMSC
the bluep]rints (masks) to produce them. So TMSC plays very little role
in designing the circuitry. (other than telling Apple about tolerances
and what size masks it process).

Apple uses general architecture provided by ARM when it designs the
circuitry to implement the ARM logic.

> o Apple MARKETING's job is to bamboozle users into thinking otherwise.

The design of the Axx chips is not marketing. This is real work by
Apple, and one place where Apple has done extremely well compared to
rest of industry in designing circuits that are very efficient, and
provide leading power/performance metrics.

The Axx chips are real products with much performance differentiation
agaimst other ARM chip designers. That is one area where you have no
basis to ridiocule Apple because it is a real product with real advances
in performance. In fact they have had faster performance growth each
year than Intel has been able to achieve with its 8086.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 19:16:06 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> Not a correct semantic.

Hi JF Mezei,

Since you're not an apologist, I have to ask you a few questions to see why
you think it's not ARM technology on TSMC silicon.

Because, if anyone is gonna claim it's "Apple Silicon", then they're gonna
have to give a few "facts" that provide evidence that it's not just the
same old stuff of using ARM technology on TSMC silicon (like lots of other
OEMs do).

*Apple is desperate to _differentiate_ this Mac ARM product right?*
o *Well, then it's an honest ADULT question as to that differentiation.*

I'm open to facts where you can provide evidence that it's not just ARM
technology in the same old TSMC Silicon (like lotsa outfits do).

Facts are what I love.
o Facts help me make damn good observations.

HINT: It's not even _close_ to Apple Silicon.
o It's ARM technology and it's TSMC silicon.

Those are just facts.
o You can dispute those facts... (which is what all apologists ever do)

But you not liking those facts doesn't change that they're still facts.

Doesn't anyone here realize why Apple is so _desperate_ to give the same
old stuff a brand new name?

> So TMSC plays very little role
> in designing the circuitry.

I'm curious since you say "TSMC" has a small role.
o I wonder if you have any idea of how huge a role TSMC plays?

Where, for example, do you think the "design rules" come from?
o And, in most cases, where are the SOC I/O cells coming from?

> Apple uses general architecture provided by ARM when it designs
> the circuitry to implement the ARM logic.

Do you have any idea of how _huge_ a role ARM plays in this process?
o HINT: If the role were small, Apple wouldn't need ARM technology.

I'm not trying to minimize that Apple "intent" on creating Apple-specific
chips using licensed ARM technology fabricated on the TSMC wafers.

I realize Apple will mix and match whatever they need to use (e.g., they'll
likely add Qualcomm modems to the SOC, as just one example of mixing and
matching).

I'm just making the observation that anyone who uses the term "Apple
Silicon" is almost certainly bamboozled by Apple MARKETING.

It's not even _close_ to Apple Silicon, IMHO.
o It's ARM technology and it's TSMC silicon.

If you think otherwise, then that is fine as I'm open to actual facts.
o Just keep the MARKETING bullshit out of this discussion please. :)
--
All I'm doing is bringing the TRUTH via facts to this Apple newsgroup.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 19:16:06 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> The design of the Axx chips is not marketing. This is real work by
> Apple, and one place where Apple has done extremely well compared to
> rest of industry in designing circuits that are very efficient, and
> provide leading power/performance metrics.

Hi JF Mezei,

FACTS:
I realize you actually _believe_ what you wrote...
o But in order to believe what you wrote - you have to ignore facts.

FACTS:
You do recall that every time you folks "claim" that the Axx chips are so
great, particularly in terms of efficiency, I'm gonna bring up the FACT
that you hate (because your opinion is not based on facts).

Your entire opinion on Axx "efficiency" is based on bullshit MARKETING.

FACTS:
o Every release of iOS since iOS 10 has added THROTTLING to the Axx chips.

FACTS:
How great can the design be if you have to throttle it to less than half
speed in about a year?

FACTS:
I realize you _hate_ that fact about how shitty the Axx design really is.
o but the fact you hate facts doesn't change the fact they are still facts.
--
And don't even get me started on the hardware flaws in almost all Apple Axx
chips that allow almost every iPhone on the planet to be compromised.

[Lewis]

In message <_jQJG.63802$Av7....@fx34.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2020-06-27 18:30, Lewis wrote:
>> Which behaves just as TDM does. The change will be entirely invisible to
>> the user other than the name.

> SMB requires the other computer be up and running and that there is an
> ethernet connection between the two. Not sure SMB can function on othe
> types of interfaces.

You have absolutely no idea how it will work, and are making up reasons,
based on zero knowledge, to panic and spread FUD.

>> Recovery mode can do any sort of recovery, including Internet recovery.

> EFI had a built-in Internet recovery on recent enough Macs. (if your
> physical drive has failed, you hjave neither the OS partition nor the
> normal Recovery partition).

And?

> Having a hidden partition on the drive to have that function (how
> different is that from recovery partition which is sort of hidden
> anyways) means that if the disk fails, you don't have that internet
> recovery.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about and are making shit
up. As usual.

>> In addition there is another System Recovery that will boot a machine
>> regardless of the state of the disks

> Please explain. I am not aware of this.

WATCH THE FUCKING SESSIONS.

> The session spoke of a hidden partition, this implies a partition on
> disk

No it does not.

> So iof disk fails, the console ROM can't access that code for Internet
> recovery.

Stop making things up.

--
"A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.: - Douglas Adams

[Lewis]

In message <WqQJG.41781$575....@fx38.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2020-06-27 18:41, Arlen Holder wrote:

>> Just to be clear since Apple users tend to be bamboozled by MARKETING...
>> o It's not "Apple Silicon" in the Mac ARM so much as ARM TSMC silicon.

> Not a correct semantic. TMSC runs the machines that make the chips.
> Apple makes the design of all the circuitry in the chips and gives TMSC
> the bluep]rints (masks) to produce them. So TMSC plays very little role
> in designing the circuitry. (other than telling Apple about tolerances
> and what size masks it process).

Arlen Trollboi is entirely wrong, as usual, Apple designs the chips,
they are Apple chips. Who fabricates them is meaningless, and the fact
Apple has contracted with TSMC is entirely irrelevant.

> Apple uses general architecture provided by ARM when it designs the
> circuitry to implement the ARM logic.

As far as I know, Apple only uses the ARM instruction set, the chip
design is entirely Apple. Qualcomm does the same thing with their chips,
just not nearly as well as Apple.

--
Keep Virginia clean...throw your trash into Maryland.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 22:33:52 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> I suspect it is going to mean a massive increase in Mac Pro power.

FACT
What actual FACT do you base your Mac ARM power assessment upon, Lewis?
--
Everything apologists believe, turns out to be completely imaginary.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 02:25:00 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> As far as I know, Apple only uses the ARM instruction set, the chip
> design is entirely Apple. Qualcomm does the same thing with their chips,
> just not nearly as well as Apple.

Hi Lewis,

Apologists like Lewis always believe whatever MARKETING feeds them.

What makes ARM appealing (over x86 CISC) is "efficiency"...
o Not compute power.
"That's why we don't see large desktop-scale processors in our mobile
phones. Sure, they are orders of magnitude faster than mobile chips,
but your phone would get too hot to hold and the battery would last
just a few minutes."

"That's why you don't often see ARM chips in desktops or x86 chips
in phones; they're just not designed for that."
<https://www.techspot.com/article/1989-arm-inside/>

Even you must recall that CPUs long ago went from CISC to RISC before (and
then back to CISC), and that ARM architecture recently found a niche where
mobile devices "needed to be more efficient and portable".

Given Apple has never even once in its entire history ever built a best in
class chip, what evidence do you have, Lewis, for Apple being able to pull
off putting an ARM chip where it traditionally does not belong?
o *Did Apple (yet again) fail in chip design*
*(just like they did with modems) this time with graphics chips?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/_KhXtYcseUU>

HINT: The Axx series is _not_ even remotely best in class when it must
always be throttled to about half speed after about a year of use in the
device it is designed into (nor are its huge permanent vulnerabilities the
epitome of best-in-class CPU design!).
--
Apologists like Lewis always believe whatever MARKETING feeds them.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-06-27 22:19, Lewis wrote:

>>> In addition there is another System Recovery that will boot a machine
>>> regardless of the state of the disks
>
>> Please explain. I am not aware of this.
>
> WATCH THE FUCKING SESSIONS.

Please explain to me because I obviously did not understand by carefully
watching the sessions and writing what I learned as thje session went
along.

I heard oa a new more hiddenn partition to allowe for internet recovery.
Since you obviously watched it and understood better, surely you can
explain what I heard wrong since by watcing it againa, I will waste my
time since I will come to the same understanding.

[Lewis]

In message <o8VJG.51149$%p.2...@fx33.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2020-06-27 22:19, Lewis wrote:

>>>> In addition there is another System Recovery that will boot a machine
>>>> regardless of the state of the disks
>>
>>> Please explain. I am not aware of this.
>>
>> WATCH THE FUCKING SESSIONS.

> Please explain to me because I obviously did not understand by carefully
> watching the sessions and writing what I learned as thje session went
> along.

You did not carefully watch the session.

> I heard oa a new more hiddenn partition to allowe for internet recovery.

And you decided that this meant it was on the disk. YOU DECIDED THIS.

You Made shit up, based on ZERO KNOWLEDGE. AS usual.

Is System recovery stored on the physical internal SSD along with the
recovery and boot volumes? Maybe. Maybe not. Heck, I'll even go with
probably. Do you know that it is? No, you do not.

Also, the word "partition" is never once used in the session. System
recovery is a hidden volume, not a partition.

Yes, these are not the same thing and are, in fact, very different.

> Since you obviously watched it and understood better, surely you can
> explain what I heard wrong since by watcing it againa, I will waste my
> time since I will come to the same understanding.

Yes, of course you will. People definitely cannot gain any information
by reading or watching something again. No one has ever cleared up any
misunderstanding by checking something a second time.

You might also want to pay attention to another way to restore your
Mac, using Apple Configurator 2. I guess you fell asleep through that
part? It immediately follows the high-level description of System
Recovery.


--
In the end we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King, Jr

[Lewis]

In message <Wb_JG.15549$Ml5....@fx24.iad> Bud Frede <fr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

>> In message <XlPJG.32107$hQ4...@fx39.iad> Bud Frede <fr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> writes:
>>>> Target Disk mode is gone. The proproetary console introduces "Mac
>>>> Sharing Mode" in its GUI which will use SMB to access a remote disk via IP.
>>
>>> That's just gross.
>>
>> I don't like this new thing I know nothing about and no one has ever
>> used! It's an abomination! <flail helplessly>

> What are you on about now?

> SMB isn't new.

What Apple is doing is entirely new.

> Lewis, you're just such a dick. Maybe you should chill out a bit. I bet
> people would like you more if you did.

I do not care at all if know-nothing trolls and complainers like me or
not. Your opinion about a person you've never met is even more
meaningless than your opinion about a technological solution you have
never seen, know nothing about, haven’t used, and have no knowledge of
other than three letters.

There's all sorts of ways to use SMB, and Apple has been doing a lot
with SMB that Intel never managed to do. You know, like support proper
file names.

The time to complain about soemthign is when you see it in action and it
doesn't work how you want it to work. You know, like the bug reports
I've been filing against iOS 14/iPad OS 14, and macOS 11.0.

--
Two, Four, Six, Eight! Time to Transubstantiate!

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-06-28 12:20, Lewis wrote:
>
> Is System recovery stored on the physical internal SSD along with the
> recovery and boot volumes? Maybe. Maybe not. Heck, I'll even go with
> probably.

Yet, you go out of your way to insult me to try to discredit me.

> Also, the word "partition" is never once used in the session. System
> recovery is a hidden volume, not a partition.

Since Macs have single drive which contains at least the boot volume and
the recovery volume, it means that the disk is partitioned in some
scheme , wehther with GUID and/or APFS's own ability to partition its
space to hold multiple volumes.

> You might also want to pay attention to another way to restore your
> Mac, using Apple Configurator 2.

"To use Apple Configurator 2.12, you must have a Mac with macOS 10.14.6
or later."


Pretty hard to use it when your Mac can't boot. If you have another Mac
available, you can use it, or use the built-in SMB booting that is in
the failed Mac's ROM.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-27 3:41 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> FACT (not bullshit marketing)
>
> Just to be clear since Apple users tend to be bamboozled by MARKETING...
> o It's not "Apple Silicon" in the Mac ARM so much as ARM TSMC silicon.

Except for the little fact that Apple designs the chips themselves...

[Lewis]

In message <KV3KG.52079$0W4....@fx42.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2020-06-28 12:20, Lewis wrote:
>>
>> Is System recovery stored on the physical internal SSD along with the
>> recovery and boot volumes? Maybe. Maybe not. Heck, I'll even go with
>> probably.

> Yet, you go out of your way to insult me to try to discredit me.

You made a statement of fact based on no knowledge whatsoever. You made
it up. You do not know, you are guessing, but you were dishonest and
phrased it as a certainty.

>> Also, the word "partition" is never once used in the session. System
>> recovery is a hidden volume, not a partition.

> Since Macs have single drive which contains at least the boot volume and
> the recovery volume, it means that the disk is partitioned in some

No it does not. You are wrong. This is not true.

> scheme , wehther with GUID and/or APFS's own ability to partition its
> space to hold multiple volumes.

Partition != Volume. Stop repeating this error. You are WRONG.

>> You might also want to pay attention to another way to restore your
>> Mac, using Apple Configurator 2.

> "To use Apple Configurator 2.12, you must have a Mac with macOS 10.14.6
> or later."

OH NOES! You can, of course, also boot from an external drive with a
backup. Amazing, isn't it, the number of ways you can boot and recover a
Mac. It's almost like they planned for this.

> Pretty hard to use it when your Mac can't boot.

You use Apple Configurator 2 to configure OTHER DEVICES, not the one you
are on. You really know nothing.

--
'They say that whoever pays the piper calls the tune.' 'But, gentlemen,' said Mr Saveloy, 'whoever holds a knife to the piper's throat writes the symphony.' --Interesting Times

[Your Name]

On 2020-06-28 19:44:22 +0000, Alan Baker said:
> On 2020-06-27 3:41 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>> FACT (not bullshit marketing)
>>
>> Just to be clear since Apple users tend to be bamboozled by MARKETING...
>> o It's not "Apple Silicon" in the Mac ARM so much as ARM TSMC silicon.
>
> Except for the little fact that Apple designs the chips themselves...

Yep. Techncially ...

A. Apple Silicon chips are not ARM chips anyway. They are designed
by Apple, *based on ARM*, and manufactured by TSMC and probably
other chip manufacturing companies if needs require it or
contracts are changed (as has happened in the past).

B. Apple has never manufactured anything themselves (except in some
cases the prototypes). They have always designed stuff and for
some of that they also *assembled* it, but the manufacturing of
the components is done by other companies under contracts and
NDAs. Same goes for Microsoft, as well as quite a few other
tech and electronics companies - open up many XYZ-brand TVs and
you'll find a Sony display, for example.

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-06-28 19:51, Your Name wrote:
> On 2020-06-28 19:44:22 +0000, Alan Baker said:
>> On 2020-06-27 3:41 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>>> FACT (not bullshit marketing)
>>>
>>> Just to be clear since Apple users tend to be bamboozled by MARKETING...
>>> o It's not "Apple Silicon" in the Mac ARM so much as ARM TSMC silicon.
>>
>> Except for the little fact that Apple designs the chips themselves...
>
> Yep. Techncially ...
>
> A.  Apple Silicon chips are not ARM chips anyway. They are designed

ARM do not make chips. The license designs.

>    by Apple, *based on ARM*, and manufactured by TSMC and probably

They are ARM and Apple pay ARM a license fee for each chip. That Apple
have added functionality is beside the point since many licensees add
some functionality to their SOC's - if not as much as Apple do - as part
of their product integration.

Indeed the Apple "Secure Enclave" is another ARM processor added to the
silicon (or chip carrier).

[Lewis]

In message <K8lKG.19999$Vp4....@fx44.iad> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2020-06-28 19:51, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2020-06-28 19:44:22 +0000, Alan Baker said:
>>> On 2020-06-27 3:41 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>>>> FACT (not bullshit marketing)
>>>>
>>>> Just to be clear since Apple users tend to be bamboozled by MARKETING...
>>>> o It's not "Apple Silicon" in the Mac ARM so much as ARM TSMC silicon.
>>>
>>> Except for the little fact that Apple designs the chips themselves...
>>
>> Yep. Techncially ...
>>
>> A.  Apple Silicon chips are not ARM chips anyway. They are designed

> ARM do not make chips. The license designs.

>>    by Apple, *based on ARM*, and manufactured by TSMC and probably

> They are ARM and Apple pay ARM a license fee for each chip. That Apple
> have added functionality is beside the point since many licensees add
> some functionality to their SOC's - if not as much as Apple do - as part
> of their product integration.

No, this is very wrong. Apple is designing their own chips from the
ground up. They are licensing the ARM instruction set, not ship design.

--
Lately, I’ve just been feeling a little bit off. If we were on earth, I’d know what to do, but is there like a magic plant or something out here that I can pee on to find out if I’m … Bunny: Pregnant.

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-06-29 09:00, Lewis wrote:
> In message <K8lKG.19999$Vp4....@fx44.iad> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2020-06-28 19:51, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2020-06-28 19:44:22 +0000, Alan Baker said:
>>>> On 2020-06-27 3:41 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>>>>> FACT (not bullshit marketing)
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to be clear since Apple users tend to be bamboozled by MARKETING...
>>>>> o It's not "Apple Silicon" in the Mac ARM so much as ARM TSMC silicon.
>>>>
>>>> Except for the little fact that Apple designs the chips themselves...
>>>
>>> Yep. Techncially ...
>>>
>>> A.  Apple Silicon chips are not ARM chips anyway. They are designed
>
>> ARM do not make chips. The license designs.
>
>>>    by Apple, *based on ARM*, and manufactured by TSMC and probably
>
>> They are ARM and Apple pay ARM a license fee for each chip. That Apple
>> have added functionality is beside the point since many licensees add
>> some functionality to their SOC's - if not as much as Apple do - as part
>> of their product integration.
>
> No, this is very wrong. Apple is designing their own chips from the
> ground up. They are licensing the ARM instruction set, not ship design.

I doubt it very much, but please post definitive proof.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-29 5:29 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2020-06-28 19:51, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2020-06-28 19:44:22 +0000, Alan Baker said:
>>> On 2020-06-27 3:41 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>>>> FACT (not bullshit marketing)
>>>>
>>>> Just to be clear since Apple users tend to be bamboozled by
>>>> MARKETING...
>>>> o It's not "Apple Silicon" in the Mac ARM so much as ARM TSMC silicon.
>>>
>>> Except for the little fact that Apple designs the chips themselves...
>>
>> Yep. Techncially ...
>>
>> A.  Apple Silicon chips are not ARM chips anyway. They are designed
>
> ARM do not make chips.  The license designs.
>
>>     by Apple, *based on ARM*, and manufactured by TSMC and probably
>
> They are ARM and Apple pay ARM a license fee for each chip.  That Apple
> have added functionality is beside the point since many licensees add
> some functionality to their SOC's - if not as much as Apple do - as part
> of their product integration.
>

No. Apple's CPUs are based on ARMs instruction set and architecture, but
the chips are designed by Apple.

[Alan Baker]

Since the A6 at least:

'Similarly, none of the SoC vendors would have something A15-based ready
in time for volume production in Q3 2012 which helped force Apple's hand
in designing its own core.'

<https://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/the-iphone-5-review/5>

'Apple previously leveraged its ARM processor license as well. Until
last year’s A6 SoC, all Apple SoCs leveraged CPU cores designed by and
licensed from ARM.

With the A6 SoC however, Apple joined the ranks of Qualcomm with
leveraging an ARM architecture license. At the heart of the A6 were a
pair of Apple designed CPU cores that implemented the ARMv7-A ISA. I
came to know these cores by their leaked codename: Swift.'

<https://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/2>

So that was back in 2012 that the A6 was released.

Need more? It's hardly a secret.

[Lewis]

Of course you do.

> but please post definitive proof.

Google is your friend. Apple has been designing their own chips for...
8? years?

--
wants to give, it's giving people what they need to get.'

[Alan Browne]

So point out the one article that proves it. All I find is what core
design they've used at various revisions. Nothing says they're not
using the source description files from ARM (with changes as they see
fit as this is a licencable form of ARM). As ARM continue to push the
ARM designs Apple certainly want to use the latest and best.

Quoting Wikipedia: "With the synthesizable RTL, the customer has the
ability to perform architectural level optimisations and extensions.
This allows the designer to achieve exotic design goals not otherwise
possible with an unmodified netlist (high clock speed, very low power
consumption, instruction set extensions, etc.)."

But it starts with ARM's original core description files.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-06-28 17:30, Lewis wrote:

> OH NOES! You can, of course, also boot from an external drive with a
> backup.

Internet recovery was needed for when you really had no other means to
restore a Mac, no external disks, no other Mac from which you could boot
from.

> You use Apple Configurator 2 to configure OTHER DEVICES, not the one you
> are on. You really know nothing.

Internet recovery was needed for when you really had no other means to
restore a Mac, no external disks, no other Mac from which you could boot
from. Apple Configurator assumes you have a functioning Mac to
provision the naked mac with empty drive.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-06-28 19:51, Your Name wrote:

> A. Apple Silicon chips are not ARM chips anyway. They are designed
> by Apple, *based on ARM*, and manufactured by TSMC

They are ARM architecture implemted on silicon by Apple. Apple makes the
blueprints of where the diodes and transistors are to be placed and the
connectiosn between them to implement the logic provided by ARM (as well
as its own logic to augment it (such as piopelining out of order
execution etc). These blueprints then sent to FABs such as TMSC to be
"printed" on silicon wafers, tested and those that work encased in a
plastic container.

> B. Apple has never manufactured anything themselves (except in some
> cases the prototypes).

Not sure about about Apple II, but the Mac and Mac Plus were
manufacturerd in an Apple facility with fancy robots. Something Steve
Jobs was porud of and which allowed much lower production cost, alas,
Scully insisted on higher price which reduced volumes.

The Mac Pro as well as Xserve were also done by Apple in USA.

(Obviously, components come from all over the placeé In the case of the
Mac Pro's 3.5" disk drive, it came from Sony and was first to use that
format).

[Alan Baker]

Already done...

>
> Quoting Wikipedia: "With the synthesizable RTL, the customer has the
> ability to perform architectural level optimisations and extensions.
> This allows the designer to achieve exotic design goals not otherwise
> possible with an unmodified netlist (high clock speed, very low power
> consumption, instruction set extensions, etc.)."
>
> But it starts with ARM's original core description files.

And from the very same Wikipedia article (for which you didn't bother to
provide a link, thank you very much):

'Companies can also obtain an Arm architectural licence for designing
their own CPU cores using the Arm instruction sets. These cores must
comply fully with the Arm architecture. Companies that have designed
cores that implement an Arm architecture include Apple,'

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-06-29 12:15, Alan Baker wrote:

> No. Apple's CPUs are based on ARMs instruction set and architecture, but
> the chips are designed by Apple.

And Jony Ive ensures the chips are very thin and elegant with nice
curves and flashy connectors at the base of chip, and that the stuff
printed on the top of the chip (logo, model number, version etc) uses
proportional fonts and pastel colours that fully embody Ive's style guide.

Ive's attention to detail also ensure the chip itself (under the
plastic) is very cosmetically pleasing to the eye when viewed under a
microscope even if nobody can see it :-)

:-) :-)

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:55:44 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> But it starts with ARM's original core description files.

Hi JF Mezei,

An adult conversation with you is possible, where it's clear that all Apple
has to do is change a single line of the synthesizable RTL, for example,
and it's instantly, by virtue of one line, "Apple Silicon", so to speak.

For Type III apologists like Lewis, Jolly Roger, and likely Alan Baker,
that one-line change would be, in their minds, an astoundingly huge ground
shaking feat on Apple's part worthy of the Apple MARKETING claims of...

o *WE CHANGED ONE LINE OF ARM CODE! IT'S ALL NEW!! IT'S _APPLE SILICON_!!!*

Since it's my belief there's no evidence Apple has _ever_ created a
best-in-class chip, and yet, the apologists list all the A-series chips
(almost all of which have unfixable holes so big in them that you can drive
a Mack truck through them), it's clear that the apologists live in fantasy
land.

They can't cite even a _single_ best-in-class chip that Apple substantially
designed in Apple's entire history.
--
Not even one.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 19:41:06 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

>> I doubt it very much,
>
> Of course you do.
>
>> but please post definitive proof.
>
> Google is your friend. Apple has been designing their own chips for...
> 8? years?

Why is it not shocking that the Type III apologists like Lewis
o Scoff at any adult simply asking for proof of wild-assed claims?
--
It's clear apologists like Lewis hold utter disdain for actual facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Jun 2020 19:14:09 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> I doubt it very much, but please post definitive proof.
>

> LOL... Get a load of this guy. : D

Why is it not shocking that the Type III apologists like Jolly Roger
o Literally laugh at someone simply asking for proof of wild-assed claims
--
Jolly Roger literally makes fun of anyone asking for a factual cite!

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-29 2:16 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 19:41:06 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>
>>> I doubt it very much,
>>
>> Of course you do.
>>
>>> but please post definitive proof.
>>
>> Google is your friend. Apple has been designing their own chips for...
>> 8? years?
>
> Why is it not shocking that the Type III apologists like Lewis
> o Scoff at any adult simply asking for proof of wild-assed claims?
>

Why is it not shocking that something that has been widely discussed for
more than 5 years escapes you?

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-06-29 13:00, Alan Baker wrote:

> With the A6 SoC however, Apple joined the ranks of Qualcomm with
> leveraging an ARM architecture license. At the heart of the A6 were a
> pair of Apple designed CPU cores that implemented the ARMv7-A ISA. I
> came to know these cores by their leaked codename: Swift.'

Beforee that, Apple used chip blueprints and architecture from ARM with
a few bells and whistles added on the side. With A6, Apple started to
design its own blueprints.

Consider this: the blueprints/masks cannot just be scaled when a
manufacturer offeres a process shrink. When you bring two "wires" closer
to each other or make them smaller to fit, there are interference and
heat issues to consider. So doijg a process shrink involves more than
grabbing one of the 4 corners of the design and scaling it down while
pressure the shift key.

There is no doubt that the blueprints Apple gives to the FAB came from
Apple.

There is no doubt that Apple designs the blueprints, designs where each
diode and transistor goes.

There is no doubt that Apple adds various peripherals around the CPU
(secure enclave, neural engine) and has designed the types of
connections between the CPU and these peripherals).

Apple also has logci if I am not mistaken to turn off cores. Not sure if
that is provided by ARM or designed by Apple.

The instruction set comes from ARM.
The logic to implement the instruction set could still be coming form
ARM. Or it could be a misture, or could be all Apple. Not sure this is
made public.

Consider one of the recent Intel 8086 bug where the pipelining would
pre-load a register with a value before access to the memory was
checked, the process could then divide by ero to generate an exception
which it handled at which point it had access to the value in the
register that came from a memroy location that the process had no access to.

In the context of ARM/Apple relationship, it isn't clear to me whether
such a problem would have come from ARM or Apple had it happened on an
Axx chip.

Compaq reverse engineered the IBM OC BIOS.
AMD reverse engineered the 8086 archit6ecture, then in court got rights
to use it. They are the ones who developed 64 bit entesnions for it, and
developepd advanced memory controller before Intel did. So the
distinction of who does what is cleared in this case.


ARM does a lot more than just keep a dictioonary of instruction set for
ARM. There is a grey area at the higher levels where it isn't clear to
me whether that part comes from ARM or Apple. But at the lower
implementation levels, it is clearly Apple.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-29 2:16 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:55:44 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> But it starts with ARM's original core description files.
>
> Hi JF Mezei,
>
> An adult conversation with you is possible, where it's clear that all Apple
> has to do is change a single line of the synthesizable RTL, for example,
> and it's instantly, by virtue of one line, "Apple Silicon", so to speak.
>
> For Type III apologists like Lewis, Jolly Roger, and likely Alan Baker,
> that one-line change would be, in their minds, an astoundingly huge ground
> shaking feat on Apple's part worthy of the Apple MARKETING claims of...
>
> o *WE CHANGED ONE LINE OF ARM CODE! IT'S ALL NEW!! IT'S _APPLE SILICON_!!!*

They don't change ARM code...

...because they don't USE ARM code, Arlen.

They license the ARCHITECTURE, not chip designs.

>
> Since it's my belief there's no evidence Apple has _ever_ created a
> best-in-class chip, and yet, the apologists list all the A-series chips
> (almost all of which have unfixable holes so big in them that you can drive
> a Mack truck through them), it's clear that the apologists live in fantasy
> land.
>
> They can't cite even a _single_ best-in-class chip that Apple substantially
> designed in Apple's entire history.

Designed by Apple:

Starting with:

2.4 Apple A6

'The A6 is said to use a 1.3 GHz[52] custom[53] Apple-designed ARMv7
based dual-core CPU, called Swift,[54]'

2.5 Apple A6X
2.6 Apple A7
2.7 Apple A8
2.8 Apple A8X
2.9 Apple A9
2.10 Apple A9X
2.11 Apple A10 Fusion
2.12 Apple A10X Fusion
2.13 Apple A11 Bionic
2.14 Apple A12 Bionic
2.15 Apple A12X Bionic
2.16 Apple A12Z Bionic
2.17 Apple A13 Bionic

And:

'The Apple S1 is an integrated computer designed by Apple. It includes
memory, storage and support circuits like wireless modems and I/O
controllers in a sealed integrated package. It was announced on
September 9, 2014 as part of the "Wish we could say more" event. Its
first appearance was in the original Apple Watch.'

So:

3 S series
3.1 Apple S1
3.2 Apple S1P
3.3 Apple S2
3.4 Apple S3
3.5 Apple S4
3.6 Apple S5


And:

4 T series
4.1 Apple T1
4.2 Apple T2
5 W series
5.1 Apple W1
5.2 Apple W2
5.3 Apple W3
6 H series
6.1 Apple H1
7 U series
7.1 Apple U1

[Lewis]

You have been given information that you've evidently dismissed or
ignored, Seems a waste of my time to educate you, Instead, I will
correct your disinformation.

> All I find is what core design they've used at various revisions.

Then you need to learn to read better. Apple is designing their own
chips. Your denial of this is absurd.

> Nothing says they're not using the source description files from ARM
> (with changes as they see fit as this is a licencable form of ARM).
> As ARM continue to push the ARM designs Apple certainly want to use
> the latest and best.

As you have been told many times, Apple has an architecture license,
which means they can license only the ARM instruction set. Which they do.
They are not the only ones doing this, it is how Qualcomm designs their
ARM chips as well.

> Quoting Wikipedia:

Are you fucking joking?

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "Are you pondering cheesesticks?"

[Lewis]

In message <0qsKG.76487$7vd....@fx35.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2020-06-28 17:30, Lewis wrote:

>> OH NOES! You can, of course, also boot from an external drive with a
>> backup.

> Internet recovery was needed for when you really had no other means to
> restore a Mac, no external disks, no other Mac from which you could boot
> from.

And where is your evidence that Internet Recovery is no longer possible?

Go on, provide a link or the time-stamp in an Apple session video.

You can't.

--
MEGAHAL: within my penguin lies a torrid story of hate and love.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 04:19:26 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> Apple is designing their own
> chips. Your denial of this is absurd.

What's clear is Apple is desperate to differentiate away from ARM...
o Even though, the technology Apple is licensing is clearly ARM

Apple:
"*WE CHANGED ONE LINE OF CODE! IT'S ALL NEW!! IT'S _APPLE SILICON_!!!*"

All adults are asking of Lewis is for Lewis to lay out his facts...
o Which Lewis, the record shows, is completely unable to produce
--
Yet again, the apologists' belief system turns out to be imaginary
o There are literally zero facts underlying Lewis' entire belief system

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:

All verbatim (since Apologists _hate_ facts about Apple products):

"The _top_ score for Apple's new silicon at the time of this writing
is 844 for single-core and 2958 for multi-core, whereas a 4th-gen
iPad Pro scored 1118 for single-core and 4726 for multi-core."

o *A Wild Apple ARM Benchmark Appears*
<https://gizmodo.com/a-wild-apple-arm-benchmark-appears-1844204355>

"Beyond the iPad, the closest thing we have to compare to the alleged
dev kits at the moment are Intel cores... from mid-2020 MacBook Pro.
According Geekbench 5, one of the highest single-core scores is 1244,
and one of the highest multi-core scores is 4526. That Intel core is
running 400 MHz less per core than the Apple ARM dev kits, and has the
same number of cores, yet its performance is leaps and bounds ahead."

More details in the article...
--
Apple is all MARKETING & the lowest R&D % spend in the tech industry.

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE (verbatim since Apologists hate facts about Apple products).

"the Apple silicon-equipped developer kits average 811 for
single-threaded Geekbench and 2781 for multi-threaded.
*That's about 20 percent slower than the entry-level i3-1000ng4*
powered Macbook Air's single-core results"

o *Developers leak benchmarks from the Apple silicon Mac transition kit*
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/06/developers-leak-benchmarks-from-the-apple-silicon-mac-transition-kit/>

"These tell us what emulation of legacy apps might look like on Apple
silicon Macs"
--
Never forget that Apple is all MARKETING & at the same time, Apple has the
absolute lowest R&D % spend in the entire high-tech industry, bar none.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:53:01 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> They are ARM architecture implemted on silicon by Apple.

o *This is Apple's roadmap for moving the first Macs away from Intel*
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/06/this-is-apples-roadmap-for-moving-the-first-macs-away-from-intel/>
--
There's a reason Apple has the lowest R&D spend % in all high tech.

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATED... (all verbatim since Apologists love to dispute facts)...

"The machines seem to be achieving around *800* on the Geekbench v5
single core test, and around *2600* on multi-core.

For comparison, the entry-level $999 2020 MacBook Air achieves a
Geekbench score of *1005* on single core and *~2000* on multi-core.

o *First benchmarks surface for Apple's ARM-based Developer Transition Kit*
<https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/29/first-benchmarks-surface-for-apples-arm-based-developer-transition-kit/>

"Developers estimate the performance penalty could be around 25-40%."

Plenty more details in the cited article.
--
Ever wonder why Apple MARKETING is so high & yet Apple R&D is so very low?

[joe]

On 6/29/2020 11:53 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:53:01 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:
>
>> They are ARM architecture implemted on silicon by Apple.
>
> o *This is Apple's roadmap for moving the first Macs away from Intel*
> <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/06/this-is-apples-roadmap-for-moving-the-first-macs-away-from-intel/>
>

Breaking News:

AH post a links that refutes his earlier claim.

This statement tends to refute the claim that Apple has not created a
best in class SoC.

"So far, Apple's chip division has excelled in every market it has
entered. In the world of smartphones, the company's SoCs are easily a
generation ahead of the best Qualcomm, Samsung, and MediaTek have to
offer. Apple's most dominant smartphone showing is probably the iPhone
SE, a $400 iPhone that will out-perform $1,200 Android phones thanks to
the A13 Bionic SoC."

[Wolffan]

On 30 Jun 2020, joe wrote
(in article <rdfdqu$si7$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):

> On 6/29/2020 11:53 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:53:01 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:
> >
> > > They are ARM architecture implemted on silicon by Apple.
> >
> > o *This is Apple's roadmap for moving the first Macs away from Intel*
> > <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/06/this-is-apples-roadmap-for-moving-t
> > he-first-macs-away-from-intel/>
>
> Breaking News:
>
> AH post a links that refutes his earlier claim.

he does that quite often.

>
>
> This statement tends to refute the claim that Apple has not created a
> best in class SoC.
>
> "So far, Apple's chip division has excelled in every market it has
> entered. In the world of smartphones, the company's SoCs are easily a
> generation ahead of the best Qualcomm, Samsung, and MediaTek have to
> offer. Apple's most dominant smartphone showing is probably the iPhone
> SE, a $400 iPhone that will out-perform $1,200 Android phones thanks to

> the A13 Bionic SoC.”
Well, obviously. Except when someone has a reading comprehension problem,
like, oh, poor old Arlen the kiddie-fiddler.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 08:14:05 -0500, joe wrote:

> "So far, Apple's chip division has excelled in every market it has
> entered. In the world of smartphones, the company's SoCs are easily a
> generation ahead of the best Qualcomm, Samsung, and MediaTek have to
> offer.

Hi "joe",

Given you're an apologists, it's clear FACTS are not your shtick...
o Since you're an apologist, I will speak in simple sentences, OK?

1. *Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be fatally compromised.*
2. *Apple was literally _desperate_ to add Qualcomm technology to iPhones.*
3. *Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are throttled "after about a year".*

I realize, for people like you, "joe", who don't comprehend facts...
o That you consider those three facts the absolute _best_ Apple can do.

But please don't make us adults laugh when you claim it's best-in-class to
have known fatally _unpatchable_ holes in your design such that almost
every iPhone out there is fatally compromised by.

Also, please don't make us adults laugh when you claim it's best-in-class
to have to give almost all smartphone owners the unenviable choice, after
only about a year of use, of:
A. *You _must_ either choose now to throttle your CPU* (in about 1/2!), or,
B. *You _must_ choose completely unacceptable stability*.

Note you absolutely _must_ choose one or the other (or, you can choose to
pay Apple to replace the battery about every year - which Apple will love
to do for you - at your expense).

And that's the _best_ Apple can do!
--
If apologists claim that is the "best in class", then I don't want Apple
products because (a) they're fatally compromised, and (b) Apple throttles
the CPU speed to about half after about a year just to maintain stability.

[joe]

On 6/30/2020 12:48 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 08:14:05 -0500, joe wrote:
>
>> "So far, Apple's chip division has excelled in every market it has
>> entered. In the world of smartphones, the company's SoCs are easily a
>> generation ahead of the best Qualcomm, Samsung, and MediaTek have to
>> offer.
>
> Hi "joe",
>
> Given you're an apologists, it's clear FACTS are not your shtick...

Given that its a direct quote from the link you provided, I think you
have problems with your facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:09:24 -0500, joe wrote:

> Given that its a direct quote from the link you provided, I think you
> have problems with your facts.

Hi "joe",

FACTS.

Yes. Facts.

Those funny things called "facts" that actual adults deal with, "joe".

Facts.

I realize facts aren't your shtick, "joe", but facts are still facts.

I get it you _hate_ facts about Apple products... trust me... I get that.
o But the fact you hate facts doesn't change the fact they're still facts.

Or, are you claiming the _best_ Apple can do, is create a smartphone chip
that _must_ either be throttled, or the user must accept unacceptable
performance?

*Are you denying that known basic fact, "joe", or not?*

Likewise, are you claiming the absolute _best_ Apple can do is create a
smartphone CPU that is so horridly flawed that almost every iPhone on the
planet is currently fatally flawed by _known_ unpatchable holes, Joe.

*Are you denying that basic known fact, "joe", or not?*

Any time the Apple apologists "claim" Apple has _ever_ created a best in
class CPU, they have to _ignore_ the facts - as the facts prove otherwise.
--
Apple apologist like "joe" claim the _best_ Apple can do is create a
smartphone design that _must_ be throttled after about a year, and, worse,
which is fatally flawed with unpatchable holes.

And "joe" claims that this is the absolute _best_ that Apple can do!

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:51:20 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

> Well, obviously. Except when someone has a reading comprehension problem,
> like, oh, poor old Arlen the kiddie-fiddler.

Hi Wolffan,

*"kiddie-fiddler"*?

How _old_ are you, Wolffan?
o Ten?

Regarding this thread today:
o Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>

And specifically this post by Wolffan, moments ago...
o <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I/Zf0dIIgYAwAJ>

It's interesting when I brought up known _facts_ about Apple smartphone CPUs
o Appologists' only response to those facts is.... "*kiddie fiddler*"?

Is _that_ how you apologists "process" facts about Apple that you hate?
o *kiddie fiddler*

Apologists simply deny all facts, even these, which are well known facts:
o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be fatally compromised
o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be throttled in about a year

To those facts, you apologists respond....
o "*kiddie fiddler*"?

That's apologists' _best_ response to the known facts about Apple products?
*Kiddie Fiddler*
--
Apologists have only 7 responses to facts about Apple products, none adult.

[Just for Arlen]

On 2020-06-30 12:37 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:51:20 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
>> Well, obviously. Except when someone has a reading comprehension problem,
>> like, oh, poor old Arlen the kiddie-fiddler.
>
> Hi Wolffan,
>
> *"kiddie-fiddler"*?
>
> How _old_ are you, Wolffan?
> o Ten?
>
> Regarding this thread today:
> o Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
>
> And specifically this post by Wolffan, moments ago...
> o <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I/Zf0dIIgYAwAJ>
>
> It's interesting when I brought up known _facts_ about Apple smartphone CPUs
> o Appologists' only response to those facts is.... "*kiddie fiddler*"?
>
> Is _that_ how you apologists "process" facts about Apple that you hate?
> o *kiddie fiddler*
>
> Apologists simply deny all facts, even these, which are well known facts:
> o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be fatally compromised

No. That is not a fact.

> o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be throttled in about a year

And neither is that.

Why must you lie?

[Especially for Arlen]

On 2020-06-30 12:07 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:09:24 -0500, joe wrote:
>
>> Given that its a direct quote from the link you provided, I think you
>> have problems with your facts.
>
> Hi "joe",
>
> FACTS.
>
> Yes. Facts.
>
> Those funny things called "facts" that actual adults deal with, "joe".
>
> Facts.
>
> I realize facts aren't your shtick, "joe", but facts are still facts.
>
> I get it you _hate_ facts about Apple products... trust me... I get that.
> o But the fact you hate facts doesn't change the fact they're still facts.
>
> Or, are you claiming the _best_ Apple can do, is create a smartphone chip
> that _must_ either be throttled, or the user must accept unacceptable
> performance?
>
> *Are you denying that known basic fact, "joe", or not?*
>
> Likewise, are you claiming the absolute _best_ Apple can do is create a
> smartphone CPU that is so horridly flawed that almost every iPhone on the
> planet is currently fatally flawed by _known_ unpatchable holes, Joe.
>
> *Are you denying that basic known fact, "joe", or not?*
>
> Any time the Apple apologists "claim" Apple has _ever_ created a best in
> class CPU, they have to _ignore_ the facts - as the facts prove otherwise.
>

You snipped the direct quote from your source, Liar.

Why was that?

Why is it only the bits of a source that you believe are "facts"?

[Alan Baker]

As ever...

[Arlen Holder]

*The key adult question is, is there _any_ benefit, whatsoever, for users?*

(verbatim)

"It's a risky and expensive move for Apple and right now I'm scratching
my head on why Apple would do this.

There's no clear benefit for developers or for users and it appears
Apple is trying to boost profits.

All things equal, Apple's new CPUs would need to outperform Intel's to
translate the X86 (Intel/AMD) world to ARM.

To get a strategic benefit, Apple needs developers to rewrite
applications to take advantage of its GPUs and NPUs which is a heavy lift."

o Apple to move Mac to Arm CPUs: What you need to know
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-to-move-mac-to-arm-cpus-what-you-need-to-know/>
--
Apple does a lot of things which are not of benefit for its customers.

[Alan Browne]

No. Because that is how it works. Apple get the design file for the
core and then add to it and modify to their needs. But it is central to
Apple's design to use the existing design.

Sorry you don't understand something so blatantly clear.

[Arlen Holder]

Dateline today, all verbatim given apologists play silly semantic games.
"Pull up a chair, friend, and let me tell you a thing or two
about a little company called Apple."

o *Apple Silicon Macs will be cheaper than Intel Macs, right?*
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-silicon-macs-will-be-cheaper-than-intel-macs-right/>

"There's a lot that we don't know about Apple Silicon powered Macs,
but one question that's on the mind of a lot of people is whether
this shift will result in cheaper Macs.

It's a logical question. After all, an Apple Silicon Arm chip such
as the A12X will surely be cheaper than a chip from Intel, right?

Well, pull up a chair, friend, and let me tell you a thing or two
about a little company called Apple."

See also:
o *Does the best price:performance choice in any common consumer*
*electronics device NOT get better, faster, and CHEAPER over time?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/gYbrI4EepAs>
--
Only extremely highly marketed consumer products go up in price in time.

[Lewis]

Quoting Wikipedia is not sufficient to make your case. Quoting it
without reading it entirely exposes you being a fool.

As you have been told many times, Apple has an architecture license for
ARM. You might want to look up what this means.

Apple designs its own chips, this is simply a fact.

--
"Oh damn", said Maladict.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:21:14 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> Apple designs its own chips, this is simply a fact.

Where is even a single reliable cite from you, Lewis?
o What is the evidence upon which you base you entire belief system upon?

*Apple MARKETING brochures?*

Adults, unlike Lewis, actually have a factual basis for their belief
systems, where Lewis has yet to provide any cited evidence that Apple plans
on "substantial" design improvements to the Mac ARM technology.

Of course, as little as adding a single resistor would suffice - for people
like Lewis whose belief systems are based on MARKETING glossy literature -
but in substance - you haven't provided _any_ cited evidence, Lewis, for
your (always imaginary) belief systems about the superiority of Apple
designs.

HINT: These same "superior" designs which require throttling and which have
unpatchable vulnerabilities in them so large you can drive a Mack truck
through them... those are the designs Lewis claims are superior?

The claim remains that Apple has _never_ in its entire history ever created
even a single best-in-class chip... not even one.

In fact, Apple admitted recently they aren't best in class in _any_ market
segment whatsoever... where I can easily cite the basis for that claim:

o Direct public quote from Sr. Apple exec:
"*Apple does _NOT_ have a dominant position in _ANY_ market*"
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/WQpGuZnzp2c>
--
This is the one time in its history, I think, where Apple told the truth.

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-07-01 12:21, Lewis wrote:
> In message <eL0LG.34503$hQ4....@fx39.iad> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2020-06-30 00:19, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <4HrKG.41441$zX4....@fx41.iad> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Quoting Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> Are you fucking joking?
>
>> No.
>
> Quoting Wikipedia is not sufficient to make your case. Quoting it
> without reading it entirely exposes you being a fool.
>
> As you have been told many times, Apple has an architecture license for
> ARM. You might want to look up what this means.

You might want to look into what it doesn't mean.

>
> Apple designs its own chips, this is simply a fact.

Around the core designed by ARM. Fact.

[Alan Baker]

No... ...that is not how it works.

Apple has an architecture license from ARM.

They design their own CPUs and have for quite some time now.

[Alan Baker]

Nope.


'The company has seven publicly announced 64-bit architectural
licensees: Applied Micro, Broadcom, Cavium, Apple, Huawei, Nvidia, AMD
and Samsung. It also has another seven publicly announced 32-bit
architectural licensees, of which five – Marvell, Microsoft, Qualcomm,
Intel and Faraday – do not have a 64-bit licence.'

<https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/finance/arm-adds-architectural-licensee-2015-04/>


'The final option is an architecture license. Here, ARM would license
you one of its architectures (e.g. ARMv7, ARMv8) and you’re free to take
that architecture and implement it however you’d like. This is what
Qualcomm does to build Krait, and what Apple did to build Swift. These
microprocessors are ISA compatible with ARM’s Cortex A15 for example,
but they are their own implementations of the ARM ISA. Here you
basically get a book and a bunch of tests to verify compliance with the
ARM ISA you’re implementing. ARM will offer some support to help you
with your design, but it’s ultimately up to you to design, implement and
validate your own microprocessor design.

Finally at the top of the pyramid is an ARM architecture license.
Marvell, Apple and Qualcomm are some examples of the 15 companies that
have this license.'

<https://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-how-arms-business-model-works/3>

You lose.

[Not Arlen]

On 2020-07-01 9:56 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:21:14 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>
>> Apple designs its own chips, this is simply a fact.
>
> Where is even a single reliable cite from you, Lewis?
> o What is the evidence upon which you base you entire belief system upon?
>
> *Apple MARKETING brochures?*

'The final option is an architecture license. Here, ARM would license
you one of its architectures (e.g. ARMv7, ARMv8) and you’re free to take
that architecture and implement it however you’d like. This is what
Qualcomm does to build Krait, and what Apple did to build Swift. These
microprocessors are ISA compatible with ARM’s Cortex A15 for example,
but they are their own implementations of the ARM ISA. Here you
basically get a book and a bunch of tests to verify compliance with the
ARM ISA you’re implementing. ARM will offer some support to help you
with your design, but it’s ultimately up to you to design, implement and

validate your own microprocessor design.'

<https://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-how-arms-business-model-works>

You lose.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-07-01 8:09 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Dateline today, all verbatim given apologists play silly semantic games.
> "Pull up a chair, friend, and let me tell you a thing or two
> about a little company called Apple."
>
> o *Apple Silicon Macs will be cheaper than Intel Macs, right?*
> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-silicon-macs-will-be-cheaper-than-intel-macs-right/>
>
> "There's a lot that we don't know about Apple Silicon powered Macs,
> but one question that's on the mind of a lot of people is whether
> this shift will result in cheaper Macs.
>
> It's a logical question. After all, an Apple Silicon Arm chip such
> as the A12X will surely be cheaper than a chip from Intel, right?
>
> Well, pull up a chair, friend, and let me tell you a thing or two
> about a little company called Apple."

What you left out:

'The good news, however, is that I doubt they are going to be more
expensive. Apple has very likely timed the transition such that it can
offer the benefits of making a shift to Arm without the downside of
additional cost.'

[Lewis]

Cite any reference on this, because this is just flat out false.

--
You are twisted and sick; I like that in a person.

[Lewis]

In message <rdihd3$iun$1...@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> On 2020-07-01 7:06 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2020-06-30 00:19, Lewis wrote:


>>> Then you need to learn to read better. Apple is designing their own
>>> chips. Your denial of this is absurd.
>>>
>>>> Nothing says they're not using the source description files from ARM
>>>> (with changes as they see fit as this is a licencable form of ARM).
>>>> As ARM continue to push the ARM designs Apple certainly want to use
>>>> the latest and best.
>>>
>>> As you have been told many times, Apple has an architecture license,
>>> which means they can license only the ARM instruction set. Which they do.
>>> They are not the only ones doing this, it is how Qualcomm designs their
>>> ARM chips as well.
>>>
>>>> Quoting Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> Are you fucking joking?
>>
>> No.  Because that is how it works.  Apple get the design file for the
>> core and then add to it and modify to their needs. But it is central to
>> Apple's design to use the existing design.

Still 100% wrong.

> No... ...that is not how it works.

> Apple has an architecture license from ARM.

> They design their own CPUs and have for quite some time now.

Exactly.

--
By the authority vested in me by Kaiser William II, I pronounce you
man and wife. Proceed with the execution.

[sms]

On 6/27/2020 1:49 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10686/

<snip>

The key issue for some will be the loss of Boot Camp and the inability
to run high-CPU and high-GPU demand Windows x86 applications natively.

Between running Windows in a virtual machine, and doing x86 emulation on
a RISC processor, that's a serious performance hit.

Of course Apple has certainly realized that the subset of Mac users that
run Windows-only apps are probably not going to buy an ARM Mac, but the
enormous cost benefits of using their own CPU/GPU will be worth writing
off that small percentage of users.

It will be interested to see what happens with the Mac Pro. That's a
machine that many users run Windows or Linux on because, despite the
seemingly high price, it's actually a very good deal for a
high-performance workstation. Hopefully the Mac Pro will continue as an
Intel-based machine.

[Alan Browne]

Eh? Such as the A13 Bionic being based on ARM?

[nospam]

In article <rdio3q$uvf$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The key issue for some will be the loss of Boot Camp

very few, and it's not up to apple anyway.

> and the inability
> to run high-CPU and high-GPU demand Windows x86 applications natively.

they can still do that.

> Between running Windows in a virtual machine, and doing x86 emulation on
> a RISC processor, that's a serious performance hit.

false.

the developer transition mac is showing *very* good performance for
emulated apps, and that's with a 2 year old processor that was designed
for a tablet, using half its cores and is underclocked.

future processors that are designed specifically for macs will be
*significantly* better.

> Of course Apple has certainly realized that the subset of Mac users that
> run Windows-only apps are probably not going to buy an ARM Mac, but the
> enormous cost benefits of using their own CPU/GPU will be worth writing
> off that small percentage of users.
>
> It will be interested to see what happens with the Mac Pro. That's a
> machine that many users run Windows or Linux on because,

nonsense.

> despite the
> seemingly high price, it's actually a very good deal for a
> high-performance workstation.

that part is true.

> Hopefully the Mac Pro will continue as an
> Intel-based machine.

it won't.

apple has already stated that the transition to apple silicon will be
*complete* in two years.

note that they said the same thing for intel, and the transition was
done in about one year.

[Alan Baker]

Cite your source for you claim that Apple uses ARM DESIGNS for its
processors...

...because I provided you with multiple credible sources that say that
Apple only licenses the architecture and designs its own chips.

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-07-01 15:13, Lewis wrote:

I'll throw in the towel. I was wrong. I see now that the architecture
license doesn't mean having to use "source" data from ARM for a new chip
layout.

[Alan Baker]

Great.

Now why did it take you so fucking long?

[Wolffan]

On 30 Jun 2020, Just for Arlen wrote
(in article <rdg90c$s6a$1...@dont-email.me>):

he’s a pervert and a troll...

[Lewis]

Apple designs it's own chips, not modifies ARM's designs.

You want to claim that's not the case, you will have to find a reliable
source. Like Apple, or ARM, that agrees with you. This is something you
will not be able to do because you are wrong.


--
Nihil est--in vita priore ego imperator Romanus fui.

[Lewis]

In message <rdio3q$uvf$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/2020 1:49 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
>> https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10686/

> <snip>

> The key issue for some will be the loss of Boot Camp

Some? Sure. Some dozens? Some hundreds? Certainly not some millions.

> and the inability to run high-CPU and high-GPU demand Windows x86
> applications natively.

"natively" is meaningless.

> Between running Windows in a virtual machine, and doing x86 emulation on
> a RISC processor, that's a serious performance hit.

No it's not. The two year-old iPad-optimized chips are running x86
benchmarks faster than most Intel chips RIGHT NOW.

> It will be interested to see what happens with the Mac Pro. That's a
> machine that many users run Windows or Linux on because

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahah!

Utter bullshot. Neither Windows nor Linux can even use the majority of
the hardware that makes the MacPro the MacPro.


--
A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand.

[John Doe]

Nym-shifting troll (changed the follow-up groups)...

--
Not Arlen <who...@ness.biz> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED.R8eJF2d5Sj7K9oM5gI/gRA.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: Not Arlen <who...@ness.biz>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Why does Arlen always lose? Re: Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs
> Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:40:19 -0700
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 24
> Message-ID: <rdihq2$l10$2...@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <rdarum$vav$1...@dont-email.me> <rdbaeg$179h$1...@gioia.aioe.org> <K8lKG.19999$Vp4....@fx44.iad> <slrnrfjpf5....@ProMini.lan> <xvnKG.43374$DO2....@fx45.iad> <slrnrfkgui....@ProMini.lan> <4HrKG.41441$zX4....@fx41.iad> <slrnrflfae....@ProMini.lan> <eL0LG.34503$hQ4....@fx39.iad> <slrnrfpdvq....@ProMini.lan> <rdif8k$nch$1...@news.mixmin.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: R8eJF2d5Sj7K9oM5gI/gRA.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Content-Language: en-US
> Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.sys.mac.system:185118 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:236365 comp.mobile.android:70253 alt.comp.os.windows-10:121235

>
> On 2020-07-01 9:56 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:21:14 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> Apple designs its own chips, this is simply a fact.
>>
>> Where is even a single reliable cite from you, Lewis?
>> o What is the evidence upon which you base you entire belief system upon?
>>
>> *Apple MARKETING brochures?*
>
> 'The final option is an architecture license. Here, ARM would license

> you one of its architectures (e.g. ARMv7, ARMv8) and youƒ Tre free to take
> that architecture and implement it however youƒ Td like. This is what

> Qualcomm does to build Krait, and what Apple did to build Swift. These

> microprocessors are ISA compatible with ARMƒ Ts Cortex A15 for example,

> but they are their own implementations of the ARM ISA. Here you
> basically get a book and a bunch of tests to verify compliance with the

> ARM ISA youƒ Tre implementing. ARM will offer some support to help you
> with your design, but itƒ Ts ultimately up to you to design, implement and

[Arlen Holder]

"Apple's introduction to ARM in the Mac was the T1 coprocessor chip
in the 2016 MacBook Pro with Touch Bar."

o *Ten years of Apple technology shifts made the ARM Mac possible*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/12/ten-years-of-apple-technology-shifts-made-the-arm-mac-possible>

In that article, Apple Insider lays out the prior groundwork:
o Xcode
o OpenGL and Metal
o Swift
o System Integrity Protection
o Apple T-series chips and Secure Boot
o Death of 32-bit apps
o Catalyst

"Apple apparently believes this shift to be important, and not just
because of Intel's recent hiccups. With much more minute control
over the entire hardware and software stack of its devices,
*costs will be reduced*..."

More in the article...
--
Bringing adult TRUTH to the child-like Apple newsgroups, fact by fact.

[Alan Baker]

Indeed there is!

Like this:

"For Apple-designed hardware like ARM chips"

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-07-01 15:27, sms wrote:
>Hopefully the Mac Pro will continue as an
> Intel-based machine.

Since Apple has hinted that the trasition to ARM will be complete within
2 years and hinted that OS-X support on Intel will continue for many
years (not "indefinitely"), I have to assume that the Mac Pro will move
to ARM as well (or be discontinued).

The other option I can think of is an Intel Mac pro with an ARM card on
it and special boot ROM that lets you boot EFI and Intel, or the Secure
Boot on the ARM card.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-07-01 15:41, nospam wrote:

> the developer transition mac is showing *very* good performance for
> emulated apps, and that's with a 2 year old processor that was designed
> for a tablet, using half its cores and is underclocked.

translated != emulated.

If you run SoftPC to boot 8086 Windows, then SoftPC is an app on OS-X
that is will be an ARM binary. That app will emulate an x86 _computer_
and perform actions based on the data it reads. (That data will be 8086
binaries on a cotainer file.

So SoftPC will interpret what it sees. (much like Sheepshaver does).

So when you run Windows, all the DLLs and linker references to them
remain in 8086 image file formast and opcodes and addresses.

Thi is a huge performance difference compared to doing a translation
once with Rosetta which creates an almost native app that runs on ARM
natively, and maps system calls to a Rosetta library that provides an
x86 intrerface to the system routines that use the ARM calling standard.
(which likely uses different format for argument lists, different
registers etc, and then call the native ARM routine.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-07-01 15:46, Alan Browne wrote:

> I'll throw in the towel. I was wrong. I see now that the architecture
> license doesn't mean having to use "source" data from ARM for a new chip
> layout.

Having certain rights does not mean Apple writes an implenentation of
the ARM instruction set from scratch. The logic that ARM created for the
instructions, and various rules on how they rul provide a solid base
that has been tested and evaluated. There is no point rewriting it all
only to come to the same thing.

This doesn't eman Apple won't tweak some parts which is what the license
gives Apple.

Note that Apple stopped using silicone masks from ARM long ago and has
made its own designs on where to place transistors and diodes and what
not for quite some time. But that step is different from deciding that
the add 2 registers opcode will require x number of XOR/OR/AND gates in
the following order abd synchronize opening of registers with the
folliwing XOR/AND/NOR/OR gates.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-07-02 23:51, Arlen Holder wrote:

> In that article, Apple Insider lays out the prior groundwork:
> o Xcode
> o OpenGL and Metal
> o Swift
> o System Integrity Protection
> o Apple T-series chips and Secure Boot
> o Death of 32-bit apps
> o Catalyst

Xcode was able to generate ARM binaries for quite some time because it
could create IOS apps. So no groundwork really needed to allow Mac to
move to ARM

OpenGL has exised for quite some time.
Metal isn't so much an enabled of Macs moving o ARM, but rather Macs
moving to Apple's proprietary GPUs for Macs.

SIP is only indirectly part of it, as a move to reduce 3rd party system
software and kernel extensions.

T-Series chips are more part of "Back to mac" with OS-X getting more
IUOS features than more to ARM. These T2 worked under Intel Macs.

Death of 32 bit apps is definitely part of the move since it allows
Rosetta to not handle 32 bit calls and map them to 64 bit ARM calls.

Catalysts has nothing to do with the move to ARM, it has more to do with
"Back to Mac". However, it has a big advantage n that an IOS app
compiled for iPhone should run on a Mac.

[Alan Baker]

Once again, you show you are utterly wrong.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 02:31:57 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> Xcode was able to generate ARM binaries for quite some time because it
> could create IOS apps. So no groundwork really needed to allow Mac to
> move to ARM

Hi JF Mezei,

Given you're not an apologist, a normal adult conversation can ensue,
simply because you're not bent on claiming all facts about Apple are "lies
by liars", & you don't refute obvious facts simply because you don't like
them, & you don't brazenly fabricate imaginary functionality, and you don't
incessantly play silly childish pedantic games around quoted semantics,
etc.

You are correct on Xcode, where the article concurs, saying:
"While Apple may not have specifically had an ARM Mac in mind when
it released Xcode, the unified IDE... was still the first initial
step toward such a device. Without a centralized development
environment for macOS, the current transition — and the previous
shift to Intel — just wouldn't be possible."

> OpenGL has exised for quite some time.

You're again correct that it's not so much that OpenGL existed, but that it
was _deprecated_, as explained in the quote below:

"The introduction of Metal on iOS in 2014 - and ultimate deprecation of
OpenGL in 2018 - introduced a new layer of independence for Apple
developers."

> Metal isn't so much an enabled of Macs moving o ARM, but rather Macs
> moving to Apple's proprietary GPUs for Macs.

Again, you appear to be correct, based on what the article surmised:
"By using Metal, both macOS and iOS developers could code to this
specific API and allow their apps to function regardless of what GPU
is present."

> SIP is only indirectly part of it, as a move to reduce 3rd party system
> software and kernel extensions.

You skipped "Swift", where this is what they said about it:
"Apple believes that having a single coding language for apps across iOS,
macOS and Apple's other platforms is going to make optimization and
performance better across the board."

As for SIP, again you're correct, showing you have a good overall grasp:
"While System Integrity Protection did bolster security, it did do away
with some of the UNIX-like system functions that macOS had for years.
And by doing so, it took macOS a step toward its other operating systems
which are, importantly, already designed for ARM.

> T-Series chips are more part of "Back to mac" with OS-X getting more
> IUOS features than more to ARM. These T2 worked under Intel Macs.

While it's interesting that the T-Series is called "ARM-based silicon" in
this article (as opposed to the ridiculously desperate non-ARM trademark
Apple expects us to employ moving forward), Apple Insider suggested it was
a "test run" of the ARM based Macs to come:
"it also appears as a sort of test run for integrating ARM technology in
X86 Macs. The T-series chips are purpose-built, customized chips
specifically designed for Macs. With a switch to ARM-based CPUs,
there are opportunities for even further integration, especially since
Apple could ditch the T2 chip and bake its features directly into an
ARM system-on-chip (SoC)."

NOTE: Luckily, Apple Insider didn't use the ridiculously desperate term
Apple now wants us to use, but likely, perhaps, only because Apple
hadn't frantically coined the new term at that article's debut.

> Death of 32 bit apps is definitely part of the move since it allows
> Rosetta to not handle 32 bit calls and map them to 64 bit ARM calls.

Again, you're on the mark as it appears it killed a lot of code that no
longer needs to be ported to the new Mac ARM computers:
"It's especially important because it spelled the end of all the
legacy 32-bit code that Macs have been running for years."

NOTE: Of course, that "could" mean loss of functionality for users,
depending on whether they had legacy 32-bit code they needed.

> Catalysts has nothing to do with the move to ARM, it has more to do with
> "Back to Mac".

As you noted, and as Apple Insider noted:
"it did lay a foundation for apps that could be optimized for an
ARM environment."

> However, it has a big advantage n that an IOS app
> compiled for iPhone should run on a Mac.

Not only iOS, but the article implies that even the X86 ports are easier:
"Catalyst makes it easy for developers to create apps that can work
on both ARM and x86 architecture."

"That's something that could smooth the transition for developers and
consumers alike, since it'll make porting apps to an ARM-optimized
version of macOS as easy as porting one from iPad to Mac."

"This will save developers time and hassle, particularly since the
overall transition to ARM-based Macs isn't going to be a short one."
--
Usenet works best when helpful adults share ideas politely with each other.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 21:27:41 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> Apple designs it's own chips, not modifies ARM's designs.

Verbatim:

"Long before serious talk about Apple ditching Intel for ARM,
the Cupertino tech giant put *ARM-based silicon* into its Macs."

For the permanent Usenet record, and for any _adults_ on this newsgroup...

*Lewis believes anything & everything Apple MARKETING feeds him to believe.*
o Type III apologists prove to NOT own independent thought processes

Unlike nospam, Type III apologists actually _believe_ what they claim!
o Joerg Lorenz: Only believes what's in the German media (not BBC).
o Alan Baker: Runs his own translation instead of relying on media reports.
o Jolly Roger: Still believes in the imaginary iOS WiFi debugging tools.
o Lewis: Doesn't even realize it's been called "ARM Silicon" for years!

HINT to Lewis (who is immune to facts, so this is for the adults):

o *Ten years of Apple technology shifts made the ARM Mac possible*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/12/ten-years-of-apple-technology-shifts-made-the-arm-mac-possible>

Notice in _that_ article, written prior to Apple's ridiculously desperate
attempt to have the ignorati focus NOT on the ARM technology they're
licensing, they repeatedly call it "ARM Silicon" & "ARM chips", etc.

"Apple's transition to Macs with *proprietary ARM chips* may soon be
officially acknowledged, but there have been clear and definite signs
of the switch for years."

"Laying the groundwork for *ARM Macs*"

"The actual start of the *transition to ARM Macs*"

"with the first of the *ARM-based Macs* due to potentially debut in 2021."

"Apple is already an *ARM chipmaking expert*, with A-series chips
powering the company's iPhones, iPads and Apple TVs."

"paving the way for an *ARM Mac* in general."

"Apple has laid the groundwork for *ARM Macs* for longer than a decade."

"Rumors of an *ARM Mac* are fairly recent*

"With a switch to *ARM-based CPUs*, there are opportunities for
even further integration"

"Apple made... the first publicly visible step toward an *ARM Mac*"

"Apple may not have specifically had an *ARM Mac* in mind when it
released Xcode"

"tentative signs that Apple may bring the IDE to *ARM-based chips*

"For *Apple-designed hardware like ARM chips*, it's... integral"

"although not a heralding of *ARM-based Mac* devices"

"Apple will apply the lessons... *to ARM Macs*."

"could also play a larger role in the transition to *ARM-based Macs*"

"There's a high possibility that Apple will market the *switch to ARM*
as a security upgrade"

"bake its features directly into an *ARM system-on-chip* (SoC)."

"One of the more major changes that *paved the way for ARM Macs* was
the death of 32-bit apps"

"For a transition to *ARM-based Macs, that's going to be an important
point"

"Apple has a clear goal and path in mind for the *switch to ARM*"

"the overall transition to *ARM-based Macs* isn't going to be a short one."

"For eagle-eyed technologists and enthusiasts, it also hinted at the
potential of *Apple's first-party _ARM silicon_*."
--
Apple Silicon is a frantically desperate ploy ignoring it's ARM Silicon.

[nospam]

In article <xhALG.55408$DO2....@fx45.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Xcode was able to generate ARM binaries for quite some time because it
> could create IOS apps. So no groundwork really needed to allow Mac to
> move to ARM

that's just a tiny, tiny part.

> OpenGL has exised for quite some time.

deprecated.

> Metal isn't so much an enabled of Macs moving o ARM, but rather Macs
> moving to Apple's proprietary GPUs for Macs.

metal was a key factor in moving to apple silicon.

> SIP is only indirectly part of it, as a move to reduce 3rd party system
> software and kernel extensions.

sip is much more than that

> T-Series chips are more part of "Back to mac" with OS-X getting more
> IUOS features than more to ARM. These T2 worked under Intel Macs.

that had little to do with moving to apple silicon.

> Death of 32 bit apps is definitely part of the move since it allows
> Rosetta to not handle 32 bit calls and map them to 64 bit ARM calls.

at least you got one correct.

> Catalysts has nothing to do with the move to ARM, it has more to do with
> "Back to Mac". However, it has a big advantage n that an IOS app
> compiled for iPhone should run on a Mac.

nonsense.

[Lewis]

In message <qbALG.53570$5_4....@fx40.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2020-07-01 15:46, Alan Browne wrote:

>> I'll throw in the towel. I was wrong. I see now that the architecture
>> license doesn't mean having to use "source" data from ARM for a new chip
>> layout.

> Having certain rights does not mean Apple writes an implenentation of
> the ARM instruction set from scratch.

Apple designs its own chips.

> The logic that ARM created for the instructions, and various rules on
> how they rul provide a solid base that has been tested and evaluated.
> There is no point rewriting it all only to come to the same thing.

You know as little about chip design as you know about most things, that
is to say, next to nothing at all.

> This doesn't eman Apple won't tweak some parts which is what the license
> gives Apple.

Apple does not tweak. Apple. Designs. Its. Own. Chips.

> Note that Apple stopped using silicone masks from ARM long ago and has
> made its own designs on where to place transistors and diodes and what
> not for quite some time. But that step is different from deciding that
> the add 2 registers opcode will require x number of XOR/OR/AND gates in
> the following order abd synchronize opening of registers with the
> folliwing XOR/AND/NOR/OR gates.

Spewing nonsense again, I see.

--
Alice: You should be happy. Less competition.
Margo: I like competition.

[Lewis]

In message <nRzLG.57703$AN2....@fx46.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Since Apple has hinted that the trasition to ARM will be complete within
> 2 years

No, Apple did not "hint" any such thing.

> and hinted that OS-X support on Intel will continue for many
> years

No, Apple did not "hint" any such thing.

--
Sam, I thought I told you never to play--

[Alan Baker]

Yes, you incredible simpleton.

"ARM"... ..."BASED".

Apple has a license for the ARM ARCHITECTURE and that means Apple
designs its own chips.

[Lewis]

In message <rdnlb5$ldv$1...@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> Yes, you incredible simpleton.

> "ARM"... ..."BASED".

> Apple has a license for the ARM ARCHITECTURE and that means Apple
> designs its own chips.

Even simple words are beyond his poor brain's ability to process.

--
What's another word for Thesaurus?

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-07-03 10:21 a.m., Lewis wrote:
> In message <rdnlb5$ldv$1...@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>> Yes, you incredible simpleton.
>
>> "ARM"... ..."BASED".
>
>> Apple has a license for the ARM ARCHITECTURE and that means Apple
>> designs its own chips.
>
> Even simple words are beyond his poor brain's ability to process.
>

It's hilarious, because you can get good answers to this question by
simply typing "does apple design its own chips" into Google

:-)

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-07-03 13:21, Lewis wrote:
> In message <rdnlb5$ldv$1...@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>> Yes, you incredible simpleton.
>
>> "ARM"... ..."BASED".
>
>> Apple has a license for the ARM ARCHITECTURE and that means Apple
>> designs its own chips.
>
> Even simple words are beyond his poor brain's ability to process.
>

I admitted my error 2 days ago. Don't be a dick about it even when it's
pretty much beyond hope for you to restrain yourself.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-07-03 04:11, Alan Baker wrote:

> Once again, you show you are utterly wrong.

The text you showed says that Apple has permission to modify or use its
own. It doesn't state that Apple designs its Axx chips from scratch and
just uses the ARM instruction set.

It doesn't make sense for Apple to re-invent the wheel when it designs
the car so it can focus on other aspects of the car.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-07-03 12:11, Alan Baker wrote:
> Apple has a license for the ARM ARCHITECTURE and that means Apple
> designs its own chips.

"designs its own chip" is a very very very vague statement which you
refuse to fully specicy.

designing a chip can range from develooping an instruction set all the
way to deciding on the colour of the logo to be printed on the black chip.

There are a LOT of steps in between and they are very significant.

Consider that for the first 64 bit Axx, Apple was first to market. It
wouldn't have been first to market had it designed the chip from scratch
while Qualcomm could have based its design on the ready-made core designs.


This isn't a binary question, it is a question of how much of the chip
is designed by Apple, and how much is drawn from designs done by ARM.
Design happens at many levels.

There is no debate that what Apple sends to TMSC or others to be FABbed
is done by Apple. the masks that indicate where each component
(transistor, diodes etc) are placed is definitely done by Apple as these
are specific to the targer mask size.

There is no debate that Apple adds to the silicone wafer not only the
ARM cores, but also the Secure Enclave, Neural Engine and what not.

However, the logic of an individual ARM CPU core is a grey area as it is
entirely possible Apple uses the ARM logic (whether at the
AND/NAN/OR/XOR level, or at lower transistor/diode logic level (not
actual placement).

It is also possible Apple bases its design on the standard ARM core but
makes sufficient changes to it at the logic level to improve pipelining
etc.

It is not clear to me who designs the memory controller which becomes
very important when you have multiple cores.

Also not clear to me how the peripherals such as Secure Enclave and
Neural network are connected to the multiple CPU cores. (interrupt with
DMA, or other method). That would be designed by Apple but the interface
would have to fit within the ARM architecture.


And now, Apple will have integrated GPU with share RAM. So again, the
memory controller becomes key. If the GPU isn't on PCI express, what
method does it use? Interrupts? That is definitely Apple's design.


Just because Apple designs a lot of real estate around the ARM cores and
how they connect to it does not mean that Apple fully designs the ARM
cores from scartch without using any logic provided by ARM.

[nospam]

In article <GvMLG.95263$eN2....@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2020-07-03 12:11, Alan Baker wrote:
> > Apple has a license for the ARM ARCHITECTURE and that means Apple
> > designs its own chips.
>
> "designs its own chip" is a very very very vague statement which you
> refuse to fully specicy.

it's not at all vague.

> designing a chip can range from develooping an instruction set all the
> way to deciding on the colour of the logo to be printed on the black chip.

no.

> There are a LOT of steps in between and they are very significant.

and apple is responsible for them.

> Consider that for the first 64 bit Axx, Apple was first to market. It
> wouldn't have been first to market had it designed the chip from scratch
> while Qualcomm could have based its design on the ready-made core designs.

apple did design it from scratch.

> It is also possible Apple bases its design on the standard ARM core but
> makes sufficient changes to it at the logic level to improve pipelining
> etc.

it's also possible you haven't a clue.

> It is not clear to me

yep. that is very obvious.