Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Move from Intel to ARM Processors in Future Laptops?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I agree completely with you iEvolution.
Plus how many mbp's are going to fail because of overheating (quite a prominant issue with the quad core laptops).
Its plain ridiculous that they give a laptop with a quad core cpu and a fairly powerful gpu only a 85 watt charger. That will get hot and fail much more than a say 110 watt charger would. These things also get less efficient at higher wattages and taxing the adapter will only reduce its lifetime.
Plus how many mbp's are going to fail because of overheating (quite a prominant issue with the quad core laptops).
Its plain ridiculous that they give a laptop with a quad core cpu and a fairly powerful gpu only a 85 watt charger. That will get hot and fail much more than a say 110 watt charger would. These things also get less efficient at higher wattages and taxing the adapter will only reduce its lifetime.
No kidding... how many years did we have to put up with Macs that were always slower then PCs? Mhz myth my butt!
Intel x86 is the gold standard of computing and will be for several more years. Period.
I maybe an Apple purist, but even I know the iPad 2 isn't the most powerful tablet on the market, at least spec wise. I am pretty sure the Blackberry Playbook(or crapbook as it should be called) as a better cpu, and the same goes for all those running the Nvidia Tegra 2 cpu(I read next gen will have quad core options, by Christmas time; good golly think of quad core iPad 3).
I am pretty sure the Asus tablets are Tegra 2, and so is the LG and Viewsonic models. Then we could get into disgusting garbage territory and talk about all those shoddy Windows tablets running those awful garbagetel i Core cpu
No, it wouldn't. I see that they have you listed as a demi-god. I guess I should change that to a No, it wouldn't, sir
This reminds me of that old ghostbusters movie.
Gozer: [after Ray orders her to re-locate] Are you a God?
[Ray looks at Peter, who nods]
Dr Ray Stantz: No.
Gozer: Then... DIE!
[Lightning flies from her fingers, driving the Ghostbusters to the edge of the roof and almost off; people below scream]
Winston Zeddemore: Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"!
I see that they have you listed as a demi-god. I guess I should change that to a No, it wouldn't, sir This reminds me of that old ghostbusters movie.
Gozer: [after Ray orders her to re-locate] Are you a God?
[Ray looks at Peter, who nods]
Dr Ray Stantz: No.
Gozer: Then... DIE!
[Lightning flies from her fingers, driving the Ghostbusters to the edge of the roof and almost off; people below scream]
Winston Zeddemore: Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"!
Last edited:
Who knows what the future holds, but the only part of this rumor I find even remotely plausible is that Apple might be considering making an ARM based laptop for people who find the iPad to be less useful than it should be because it lacks a keyboard.
I could foresee such a laptop to fill the price gap between the iPad and the MacBook lineup. It would be small and light, running on some variant of iOS, not OS X, and would have more battery to extend the battery life compared to the iPad when doing useful work with office applications and such which the iPad is not terribly useful for. Various pundits may have pronounced the iPad the killer of the PC, but there are many things for which the iPad is simply not well suited. The ARM would almost certainly offer better "performance per watt" than the Atom based netbooks. Let's face it, nice as the MacBook Air may be, it is at a price point that is not appealing to a lot of people for what it is.
I could foresee such a laptop to fill the price gap between the iPad and the MacBook lineup. It would be small and light, running on some variant of iOS, not OS X, and would have more battery to extend the battery life compared to the iPad when doing useful work with office applications and such which the iPad is not terribly useful for. Various pundits may have pronounced the iPad the killer of the PC, but there are many things for which the iPad is simply not well suited. The ARM would almost certainly offer better "performance per watt" than the Atom based netbooks. Let's face it, nice as the MacBook Air may be, it is at a price point that is not appealing to a lot of people for what it is.
A pure transition from x86 to ARM will not happen in this decade, but augmenting x86 offerings with ARM based Macs just makes sense and will likely occur within 5 years. It will all be motivated by a new category device -- cell phones and tablets that can be converted to traditional computers when plugged into keyboard / mice and possibly external displays. We are already seeing this with Android. Apple could blow this market away with a device that transitions between desktop and touch mode seamlessly. The most obvious thing Apple could do would be to create a notebook that could also be used as an iPad. It could be like the dream of tablet PCs of the last decade without having to awkwardly deal with software that was never designed for touch. Hopefully we'll see something even more creative.
In any case such a switch would not be as hard for developers as moving from PowerPC to Intel. There wouldn't be any endianness problems, and frankly at this point developers probably have more ARM specific code for iOS (say ARM Neon) than they do x86 specific code for Mac OS X (say Intel SSE). It would, however, probably require a quicker response from developers than the PowerPC to Intel switch, because Apple would likely not provide an emulation environment a la Rosetta on this lower power environment.
In any case such a switch would not be as hard for developers as moving from PowerPC to Intel. There wouldn't be any endianness problems, and frankly at this point developers probably have more ARM specific code for iOS (say ARM Neon) than they do x86 specific code for Mac OS X (say Intel SSE). It would, however, probably require a quicker response from developers than the PowerPC to Intel switch, because Apple would likely not provide an emulation environment a la Rosetta on this lower power environment.
Last edited:
Thats not how it works, sorry. They would approximately put off the same heat.
Last edited:
switching to ARM means no more boot camp
Too lazy to read through the thread, but I'm sure it's already been mentioned that Windows 8 will run on ARM.
Then again (much like Lion) Windows 8 won't have anything going for it that will make it a worthwhile upgrade from Windows 7...it's just more bloat and WGA botnet. Not skipping Lion and W8 = doing it wrong.
+1
I am not sure where you are getting your numbers but the EEE slate is not getting 4.5 hours of battery life. It sadly is getting close to 3 hours in real world test, and is also sadly being bottle-necked by its single channel ram setup(being assumed for battery life). Plus, you are forget one of its key advantages over the iPad line, it has a Wacom dual touch(pen+multi-touch) IPS screen, which for some people is need or wanted feature(I fit in the latter category).
If you want to talk about really powerful tablet the Fujitsu T901 can be had with an Intel SB i7, and nvidia optimus; but then we are talking about a 13.3in convertible tablet, which is a bit larger than even the 13in MBP. Just saying.
Is the Nvidia Tegra line of CPUs an ARM based architecture or is it something else?
Interesting tidbits about Apples hypothetical usage of ARM CPUs in Macs
A lot of things have already been said. Id like to talk about the most common things a little more.
Intel x86 will always be more powerful than ARM.
Sure, at least in near future. RISC-based architectures like PowerPC, Alpha, MIPS and SPARC were more powerful than CISC-based x86, and probably would still be today. However you dont see much of them around anymore - because x86 is nearly as good, but significantly cheaper. The same goes for ARM, a 2.5GHz quad-core Cortex-A9 CPU might not be a wise choice for a MacBook Pro, but it most definitely blows the MacBook Airs 1.6GHz Core2Duo out of the water, while consuming 20% less power. This means also, that an ARM core could be enhanced to use those 20%, likewise by adding two additional cores, which should bring it to a performance level comparabile to a Sandy Bridge CPU in that class. The Quad-Core Cortex-A15 is already reaching nearly the raw DMIPS performance as a Quad-Core Phenom II running at 3GHz - while using about 7% of the power.
The same nearly as good, but significantly cheaper argument goes for AMD K10 vs. Sandy Bridge as well, if you forget about the fact that synthetical benchmarks are most likely to favor Intels architecture anyways. A i7-970 costs 2.5 times as much as the Phenom X6 1100T, though. Will most people even notice the difference in day-to-day use? Probably not.
Ivy Bridge with its Tri-Gate technology wipes the floor with ARM.
Sure it does, it brings advantages in either performance or power consumption of up to 37% compared to second-generation i7 chips. However, youre comparing apples and oranges here. The smaller the manufacturing process, the lower the power consumption, and that translates to higher processing power at the same power usage by adding more cores or increasing the frequency of the CPU. The current generation of Apples ARM implementation, the A5, is manufactured in 45nm with classic transistors. Given the fact that this matches the Penryn variant of the Core 2 architecture, you have to compare these to the Cortex-A9 - and as stated, ARM exceeds the performance of the lower-end Core2Duos, while consuming 20% less power. A shrink to 32nm will probably be superior the low-end first and second generation i7 chips, while shrinking again to 22nm and implementing the Tri-Gate technology will do the same thing with Ivy Bridge. ARM states that Cortex-A15, the next generation of ARM CPUs we will most probably be introduced to as the Apple A7, which is still based on the 45nm manufacturing process, will be offering a 30% overall performance increase over the Cortex-A9 with other factors the same.
If Apple decides to go the ARM route for low-end MacBooks, they intend to ship in high volume. They are predestined to become the third large player in the CPU business behind Intel and AMD. Given the fact that Apple has incredible financial possibilities, there is nothing wrong with the idea of Apple teaming up with Samsung or any other chip manufacturer and developing the manufacturing process needed to build Tri-Gate silicon in an 22nm process. For the engineering of the CPU itself, Apple has already some knowledge in house (PA Semi+Intrinsity), its just a matter of extending it. Lastly, the Apple A5 costs $25, NVidias Tegra 2 comes in at $15, while the Core 2 Duo SU9600, found in the 11 MacBook Air has a hefty $289 written on its price tag.
That leaves enormous room for Apple to invest in this area, and even if Apple does not know how to make a $500 sub notebook that is not a piece of junk, which is reasonable given the fact that the Intel CPU alone costs nearly $300, their DNA might allow them to ship a $799 ARM based MacBook Air while enjoying the same 40% profit margin, solely for the fact that they dont have to pay off Intel anymore. Not to mention that this most probably results in increased sales. I consider this plausible for the simple fact that Apple calls the MacBook Air the notebook of the future", they need a cheap and powerful CPU which is low in power consumption - and that's exactly ARMs strength.
If we just look at all the hardware associated topics: Its plausible - if not even reasonable.
But Mac OS X doesnt run on ARM
Wrong. Mac OS X and iOS are the same thing, iOS just being a derivate of Mac OS X. They both distributions of Darwin, which is the underlying operation system - just like Ubuntu is a distribution of GNU/Linux, and kubuntu is one of its derivates. This comparison is really stating the point: Only the things that you actually see have been changed. Mac OS X incorporates the traditional ideas of windows and point'n'click, while iOS is based on the touch idea. However, this doesnt make them a different OS, the OS is still Darwin. Both Mac OS X 10.6 and iOS 4 are derivates of Darwin 9.0, both are the first versions that support Grand Central Dispatch for example. Even higher level API changes in AppKit and UIKit corespondent with each other(compare iOS API to Mac API), making the abstraction from Mac OS X only at the needed parts.
So, given the fact that there is a Mac OS X derivate that runs on ARM, porting Mac OS X is less then marginal. You can expect that there is already an iPad 2 somewhere deep in Apples labs running Mac OS X with the help of the VGA adapter, a Magic Mouse and a bluetooth keyboard. There is nothing much to state here, its not even solely possible, but something that works by default, because Mac OS X is build to be platform in-dependent already, otherwise it wouldnt run on PPC and Intel. ARM support consists literally of changing the target platform in Xcode to ARM and recompiling. Hard to believe, but true.
BootCamp doesnt work anymore
Not with your x86_64 version of Windows 7 - but with the ARM version of Windows 8. If you need it for business applications, youll be as fine as you can be with Microsoft supporting two platforms simultaneously - you cant blame that on Apple, though.
ARM CPUs are intended (at first) for notebook usage - MacBook Air and MacBook. If you run games, you dont want to do it on such a machine in the first place. It will take longer to see an ARM-based Mac Pro, and even if you think of ARM as the architecture that powers phones - if Apple takes ARM serious, it will not even be more powerful than the mobile chips talked about in the first two paragraphs, but also exceed the performance of a Xeon. Although this is a hard road, Apple likely will stick with x86 in the iMac and MacPro lines longer than in the MacBooks and the Mac Mini. There is nothing wrong with supporting two architectures simultaniously and slowly phasing the high-end lines to ARM when possible, or not at all. We had that with the introduction of the Intel Macs, which coexisted peacefully with the PPC Macs - where a PowerMac G5 was faster than a Intel MacBook, too. Apple could have kept it that way, and it wouldve been fine - But the PPCs that IBM was able to deliver werent fast enough for any Mac anymore, from the MacBook to the MacPro.
Third-party applications dont work anymore
For this matter lets assume the worst case scenario - no x86 emulation whatsoever. However complicated one application might be, Apple has done a great job solving all those problems with the Intel transistion already. Apple usually introduces such a big step in advance, so developers have time to recompile their applications before they lauch the consumer hardware. Usually, application only have to be recompiled to run on ARM, and this happens automatically when a new version of the application is released. Unlike Microsofts approach with ARM support on Windows 8, Mac OS X comes with Universal binaries, and runs one version of an application on PPC, x86, x86_64 and ARM. You dont even notice the underlaying architecture anymore, Mac OS X became the architecture in itself.
If you use applications which are not under current development, you might consider to find a replacement anyways.
Conclusion
After all that has been said, it is clear that transiting part of the Mac family to ARM is not only possible, but also reasonable and the best thing that Apple can do. Given the facts that ARM is nearly as good - and potentially even better - , but significantly cheaper than Intels chips in the near future, it wouldnt make sense to go another route in the sense of profitibility.
The fact that people associate ARM with slower mobile phone and tablet devices is a minor problem, as they will be proved wrong by raw facts anyways. If youre given the choice between a 13 Quad-Core ARM MacBook at $799 and a 13 Dual-Core i3 MacBook Pro at $1199, the question isnt anymore between ARM vs. x86, the question is whether you can afford it. The lower the scale you go down, the more money becomes an argument. The MacPro is anywhere between $2.499 and $12.000. Add $500, everybody rants, but nobody cares. But removing $200 or 20% from a MacBook while increasing the performance compared to previous generations is a chance for Apple to increse the marketshare in the areas where money matters. This alone justifies a switch to ARM.
A lot of things have already been said. Id like to talk about the most common things a little more.
Intel x86 will always be more powerful than ARM.
Sure, at least in near future. RISC-based architectures like PowerPC, Alpha, MIPS and SPARC were more powerful than CISC-based x86, and probably would still be today. However you dont see much of them around anymore - because x86 is nearly as good, but significantly cheaper. The same goes for ARM, a 2.5GHz quad-core Cortex-A9 CPU might not be a wise choice for a MacBook Pro, but it most definitely blows the MacBook Airs 1.6GHz Core2Duo out of the water, while consuming 20% less power. This means also, that an ARM core could be enhanced to use those 20%, likewise by adding two additional cores, which should bring it to a performance level comparabile to a Sandy Bridge CPU in that class. The Quad-Core Cortex-A15 is already reaching nearly the raw DMIPS performance as a Quad-Core Phenom II running at 3GHz - while using about 7% of the power.
The same nearly as good, but significantly cheaper argument goes for AMD K10 vs. Sandy Bridge as well, if you forget about the fact that synthetical benchmarks are most likely to favor Intels architecture anyways. A i7-970 costs 2.5 times as much as the Phenom X6 1100T, though. Will most people even notice the difference in day-to-day use? Probably not.
Ivy Bridge with its Tri-Gate technology wipes the floor with ARM.
Sure it does, it brings advantages in either performance or power consumption of up to 37% compared to second-generation i7 chips. However, youre comparing apples and oranges here. The smaller the manufacturing process, the lower the power consumption, and that translates to higher processing power at the same power usage by adding more cores or increasing the frequency of the CPU. The current generation of Apples ARM implementation, the A5, is manufactured in 45nm with classic transistors. Given the fact that this matches the Penryn variant of the Core 2 architecture, you have to compare these to the Cortex-A9 - and as stated, ARM exceeds the performance of the lower-end Core2Duos, while consuming 20% less power. A shrink to 32nm will probably be superior the low-end first and second generation i7 chips, while shrinking again to 22nm and implementing the Tri-Gate technology will do the same thing with Ivy Bridge. ARM states that Cortex-A15, the next generation of ARM CPUs we will most probably be introduced to as the Apple A7, which is still based on the 45nm manufacturing process, will be offering a 30% overall performance increase over the Cortex-A9 with other factors the same.
If Apple decides to go the ARM route for low-end MacBooks, they intend to ship in high volume. They are predestined to become the third large player in the CPU business behind Intel and AMD. Given the fact that Apple has incredible financial possibilities, there is nothing wrong with the idea of Apple teaming up with Samsung or any other chip manufacturer and developing the manufacturing process needed to build Tri-Gate silicon in an 22nm process. For the engineering of the CPU itself, Apple has already some knowledge in house (PA Semi+Intrinsity), its just a matter of extending it. Lastly, the Apple A5 costs $25, NVidias Tegra 2 comes in at $15, while the Core 2 Duo SU9600, found in the 11 MacBook Air has a hefty $289 written on its price tag.
That leaves enormous room for Apple to invest in this area, and even if Apple does not know how to make a $500 sub notebook that is not a piece of junk, which is reasonable given the fact that the Intel CPU alone costs nearly $300, their DNA might allow them to ship a $799 ARM based MacBook Air while enjoying the same 40% profit margin, solely for the fact that they dont have to pay off Intel anymore. Not to mention that this most probably results in increased sales. I consider this plausible for the simple fact that Apple calls the MacBook Air the notebook of the future", they need a cheap and powerful CPU which is low in power consumption - and that's exactly ARMs strength.
If we just look at all the hardware associated topics: Its plausible - if not even reasonable.
But Mac OS X doesnt run on ARM
Wrong. Mac OS X and iOS are the same thing, iOS just being a derivate of Mac OS X. They both distributions of Darwin, which is the underlying operation system - just like Ubuntu is a distribution of GNU/Linux, and kubuntu is one of its derivates. This comparison is really stating the point: Only the things that you actually see have been changed. Mac OS X incorporates the traditional ideas of windows and point'n'click, while iOS is based on the touch idea. However, this doesnt make them a different OS, the OS is still Darwin. Both Mac OS X 10.6 and iOS 4 are derivates of Darwin 9.0, both are the first versions that support Grand Central Dispatch for example. Even higher level API changes in AppKit and UIKit corespondent with each other(compare iOS API to Mac API), making the abstraction from Mac OS X only at the needed parts.
So, given the fact that there is a Mac OS X derivate that runs on ARM, porting Mac OS X is less then marginal. You can expect that there is already an iPad 2 somewhere deep in Apples labs running Mac OS X with the help of the VGA adapter, a Magic Mouse and a bluetooth keyboard. There is nothing much to state here, its not even solely possible, but something that works by default, because Mac OS X is build to be platform in-dependent already, otherwise it wouldnt run on PPC and Intel. ARM support consists literally of changing the target platform in Xcode to ARM and recompiling. Hard to believe, but true.
BootCamp doesnt work anymore
Not with your x86_64 version of Windows 7 - but with the ARM version of Windows 8. If you need it for business applications, youll be as fine as you can be with Microsoft supporting two platforms simultaneously - you cant blame that on Apple, though.
ARM CPUs are intended (at first) for notebook usage - MacBook Air and MacBook. If you run games, you dont want to do it on such a machine in the first place. It will take longer to see an ARM-based Mac Pro, and even if you think of ARM as the architecture that powers phones - if Apple takes ARM serious, it will not even be more powerful than the mobile chips talked about in the first two paragraphs, but also exceed the performance of a Xeon. Although this is a hard road, Apple likely will stick with x86 in the iMac and MacPro lines longer than in the MacBooks and the Mac Mini. There is nothing wrong with supporting two architectures simultaniously and slowly phasing the high-end lines to ARM when possible, or not at all. We had that with the introduction of the Intel Macs, which coexisted peacefully with the PPC Macs - where a PowerMac G5 was faster than a Intel MacBook, too. Apple could have kept it that way, and it wouldve been fine - But the PPCs that IBM was able to deliver werent fast enough for any Mac anymore, from the MacBook to the MacPro.
Third-party applications dont work anymore
For this matter lets assume the worst case scenario - no x86 emulation whatsoever. However complicated one application might be, Apple has done a great job solving all those problems with the Intel transistion already. Apple usually introduces such a big step in advance, so developers have time to recompile their applications before they lauch the consumer hardware. Usually, application only have to be recompiled to run on ARM, and this happens automatically when a new version of the application is released. Unlike Microsofts approach with ARM support on Windows 8, Mac OS X comes with Universal binaries, and runs one version of an application on PPC, x86, x86_64 and ARM. You dont even notice the underlaying architecture anymore, Mac OS X became the architecture in itself.
If you use applications which are not under current development, you might consider to find a replacement anyways.
Conclusion
After all that has been said, it is clear that transiting part of the Mac family to ARM is not only possible, but also reasonable and the best thing that Apple can do. Given the facts that ARM is nearly as good - and potentially even better - , but significantly cheaper than Intels chips in the near future, it wouldnt make sense to go another route in the sense of profitibility.
The fact that people associate ARM with slower mobile phone and tablet devices is a minor problem, as they will be proved wrong by raw facts anyways. If youre given the choice between a 13 Quad-Core ARM MacBook at $799 and a 13 Dual-Core i3 MacBook Pro at $1199, the question isnt anymore between ARM vs. x86, the question is whether you can afford it. The lower the scale you go down, the more money becomes an argument. The MacPro is anywhere between $2.499 and $12.000. Add $500, everybody rants, but nobody cares. But removing $200 or 20% from a MacBook while increasing the performance compared to previous generations is a chance for Apple to increse the marketshare in the areas where money matters. This alone justifies a switch to ARM.
Last edited:
Thats a lot to swallow.
Also there's no reason Arm couldn't adopt FinFETs, especially if Apple wanted to back the licensing costs of any patents.
X86 emulation or even virtualization would be trivial.
Last edited:
The average attention span of a reader is 30 seconds, so it's pretty clear that anyone is gonna read it. It's rather an exercise in writing anyways. Not that it won't automatically prove at least 20% of the next posts in this thread wrong.
It might be trivial, but doesn't that doesn't mean that it's fast.
Last edited by a moderator:
If its anywhere near the speed of Rossetta I don't think a lot of people will care.
The image you attached is so obnoxious that I've adblocked it. It also trivializes a rather well written post.
He could've made it so much more succinct. Posts of such lengths are usually just skimmed over or even skipped.
You can't virtualize x86 on top of ARM. That's not how virtualization works.
There is such a thing as "cross platform virtualization". The most common example is Power <--> x86. Not technically the same thing, no. But it is marketed using the same name as it appears to do the same thing. The most common systems I've seen use a combination of proper virtualization, a HAL and a Dynamic BTL. It's usually use in conjunction with Server and Desktop virtualization as a temporary crutch while a piece of software gets ported..
http://www.vmworld.com/docs/DOC-4294
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/virtualization/editions/lx86/index.html
http://www.stromasys.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/brochures/Stromasys_Animated_Brochure.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-platform_virtualization
I can't remember the name but there's also a similar project to do the same thing to KVM.
Last edited:
That requires a layer for emulation. Virtualization doesn't translate calls, it only presents a "virtual" image of the underlying hardware. Don't be fooled by the marketing strategy that is trying to piggy back on the current virtualization fad and in the process, completely misunderstands the terminology behind the technology.
I did say it was marketed the same way and not technically the same thing. ****, don't make us agree. Then we can't have usless arguments over context.
I've seen the IBM "solution" used on a law firm while they changed practice management software. Didn't seem to have to much of a performance hit, 10% I think from memory. Though it did have a POWER6 to drive it though instead of an ARM CPU.
Last edited:
They wont. Even people who bought the first-gen Intel macs, were still able to run all their existing PPC apps, at near-native performance. Considering that most of the work for supporting PPC apps on intel macs is done by providing universal libraries, there is very little for rosetta to do other than translate PPC instructions to Intel, and thus, very little for Apple to test. That's why there really isn't much of a performance hit, and why they pretty much got Rosetta right the first try, unlike WINE...*shudders*
If they made the switch to ARM, all of our Intel apps would still run via Intel Rosetta, and most likely at near-native speeds, as they did with PPC Rosetta. I don't get why anyone is afraid of this. In the windows world, there is plenty to be afraid of. We all saw how Microsoft handled the 32-bit to 64-bit transition. They fragmented their OS to the point where deving 64-bit apps just makes no sense when some of your customers are still using 32-bit versions of windows, with the lack of anything like "universal binaries". It just adds confusion if you have two versions for people to download. I had to explain to someone why the intel version of OpenOffice wouldn't run on their PPC mac... That's an example of lazy developing, but it's the only way things are done in the windows world.
WINE and Rosetta are about as similar as a dog sniffing on the ground and a pot of clay.
I don't even get where you got this comparison from.
- Status