Not supporting 32 bit apps is not an advantage. It's a disadvantage. 64bit mode is not needed for the vast majority of the apps. On the other hand, 64 bit apps use (waste) more memory.The only reason Apple is doing it is because they want to save money by not having to support 32bit apps.
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.
Mac With Apple-Designed Arm Processor Coming in First Half of 2021
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow. Just wow. I won't bother wasting my time any further talking to someone like you. You're smart enough to know what you are by acting like that.
I’m not sure why you consistently resort to personal attacks. Let’s rehash:
1) you said there is no technical benefit to Apple removing 32-bit support
2) I pointed out that, in fact, there is. I explained that in the AMD64 architecture, if any process is running in 32 bits (including the processes that are required to support apps running in 32-bits, whether such apps are actually running or not), the processor has to run in a hybrid mode that reduces performance by about 15%.
3) You started name-calling, and complained that AMD64 is not applicable because Apple doesn’t even use such processors.
4) I pointed out that AMD64 is *exactly* what all Macs use for their processors, and that the term does not mean that it’s an AMD processor, and pointed out that this mistake by you may mean you don’t quite understand what you are talking about.
5) you reverted to name-calling.
I think even the most casual observer of this thread may have a different opinion than you as to who is wasting their time.
App developers had more than a decade to adapt to 64-bit. APparently you would like apple to support 32-bit forever, regardless of what that means, and have no interest in understanding exactly what the downsides of that support are. I was one of the people who designed the first x86-64 processor. I even wrote the first draft of the x86-64 64-bit ALU instructions (things like add, subtract, multiply, shift, etc.). I actually know what I’m talking about. When you say I’m “acting like that,” it appears “acting like that” means “disagreeing with MagnusVonMagnum.”
If you’d like to discuss the technology without name calling, I’m happy to continue to engage. Otherwise, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
[automerge]1583211353[/automerge]
No, 64 bits do not necessarily use more memory. Any 64-bit app COULD use the same amount of memory as a 32-bit app, if the app developer chose to do so. There are also multiple 64-bit modes, some of which use 32-bit data but support more than 32-bits of address, allowing you to access more data, etc. And one can even run in 64-bit mode using 32-bit data and 32-bit addresses (while losing the ability to use a bunch of terribly inefficient instructions that are not included in the 64-bit instruction set), and get a speed increase.
In other words, when an app is “64-bit” on x86-64, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is using 64-bit data or 64-bit addresses, but it does mean it is using the new instruction set extensions which have a lot less cruft in them and are a lot more efficient.
Obviously, I was referring to 64bit addresses. 64bit data can be used even by 32bit apps. I have never heard about 32bit address mode for 64bit apps (well, I personally never needed it, so I never looked for it). I trust you that it exists but I doubt it is ever used by the developers.
Wow. Just wow. I won't bother wasting my time any further talking to someone like you. You're smart enough to know what you are by acting like that.
You're getting really worked up about some real concerns, but also about some misunderstandings.
Apple does use AMD64. It's called that (among many other names) because AMD came up with it and Intel licensed it. Basically any x86 CPU these days actually has AMD64 as its architecture.
[automerge]1583219850[/automerge]
One of the many aspects people miss is that 32-bit also came with the legacy of the old Objective-C runtime, which they deemed prohibitive to ever migrate to the features of the new one. That right there is a huge reason to 'need' 64-bit — many modern platform features simply weren't available on 32-bit at all.
Personally, I wish Apple had added a VM to keep running old apps as-is. Unfortunately, they chose not to. They have Hypervisor.framework just laying around doing nothing.
Last edited:
Agreed. Apple is not going to gain any major performance improvement with its SoC arm architecture with 3-5-7 processor node.
So the question is whether did the Apple CPU team prototype a chiplet design for the SoC that can offer 2-3x more performance.
Last edited:
You are an angry person. You also are making arguments about things that have nothing to do with ARM. What does a SAAS business model have to do with ARM architecture??? What does 32 Bit vs 64 bit have to do with ARM vs x86/64? What does your choice not to upgrade your software even though it is available to you to do so on your current machine have to do with ARM architecture? What does gaming have to do with Mac even, let alone ARM vs x86/64? If you are a traditional gamer, you are not even in Apple’s sights as a target market - you never have been and you never will be. If you want to cling to all the games, you should be using Windows, and that’s just the way it is.Wow. Just wow. I won't bother wasting my time any further talking to someone like you. You're smart enough to know what you are by acting like that.
You also KNOW that some slight theoretical speed improvement can't justify ditching hundreds and hundreds of games and other programs (e.g. good luck finding a Photoshop you don't have to RENT to replace one you own, for example). I've seen dumb arguments in my life, but the ones on here take the absolute cake. A new Mac with NO SOFTWARE is a dead Mac. The end is near for the Macintosh and if it means getting rid of the likes of the worthless zombie fanboyz on here forever, I say good riddance! You might have to find a different hobby instead like collecting bottle caps....
Um....so they're not worried about some "developer" but what about CONSUMERS? I should start renting Photoshop because Adobe couldn't be bothered to update to 64-bit? That's MY fault? Geezus. These argument SUCK. You guys can't point to ONE thing worth cutting loose all that software because there are NONE. A bunch of fanboyz that support anything and everything Apple does no matter if it's the death of the Macintosh as we know it.
There's another old saying. You can polish a turd all you want, but it's still a turd.
I've been here since 2006, much longer than most, but I definitely won't miss Apple Kool-Aid drinking mindless zombies after I move to Windows 10 for good. All the goose-stepping to Tim's parade makes me want to vomit.
Technology, as in all things, is bound to change, and go through paradigm shifts along the way. This is one of them, and it is already starting. Both Linux and Windows are shipping ARM laptops already, and when Apple is ready to launch theirs, it will massively accelerate this paradigm shift, just like the iPhone, iPad, and USB-C implementations did in their areas.
I grew up a gamer as well, spent countless hours fiddling with config.sys and autoexec.bat files to scrape out enough free RAM to get my favorite DOS games to run on the old Packard Bell 486 SX 25, and even more countless hours Chuck Norrising the crap out of those games once I got them running - I can’t play them anymore except through some kind of virtualization like DOSbox or something...so is the way of things.
But, I can say on ARM, I can and do play Fortnite @120 fps on my iPad Pro next to my son, who is stuck at 30 fps on his Switch, or 60 on his PC...
Example for 32bit pointer 64bit Apps: Apple Watch Series 4.
Whole system is running in (by Apple's naming in Xcode)"ARM64_32" mode.
That's probable the only widely adopt use case of this mode.
It make sense for a device that have limited amount of ram but need those added registers and other instruction stuff from 64bit optimizations.
Last edited:
When I worked at AMD designing chips, I also was responsible for our electronic design automation software, and wrote much of it myself. Using our own version of gcc we were able to specify for each program whether to use 32- or 64-bit data or addresses. We used 64-bit data almost all the time, and only used extended addresses when we thought the data set would be huge (which was rarely).
I also did my best to optimize data structures so that, in 64-bit data mode, I wasn't using 64-bit data except where I needed to. (e.g.: no reason to make loop counters 64-bit
When I worked at AMD designing chips, I also was responsible for our electronic design automation software, and wrote much of it myself. Using our own version of gcc we were able to specify for each program whether to use 32- or 64-bit data or addresses. We used 64-bit data almost all the time, and only used extended addresses when we thought the data set would be huge (which was rarely).
I also did my best to optimize data structures so that, in 64-bit data mode, I wasn't using 64-bit data except where I needed to. (e.g.: no reason to make loop counters 64-bit
It's interesting because usually as you said the advantage of using 32bit pointers aren't worth the cost of recompiling. In fact Apple dropped support for ARMv7s (A6 iPhone 5) because the gain is almost within margin of error.
For Apple Watch they mandate the LLVM IR BitCode as S0-S3 were all ARMv7 and was well prepared for any transitioning from armv7 to arm64.
This recompile to arm64_32 was done on AppStore servers so they have this flexibility to choose the compile target with almost no extra cost.
They can recompile everything to arm64/arm64e(Apple's name for ARMv8.2 extensions) with no hassle next time when they need it.
To be clear, fortnite running 120 fps on Apple ARM SoC experience a severe downgrade in graphic fidelity.
That's on GPU's side. The core game mechanic is not something you can scale down a lot.
The GPU is bottlenecking it. Apple should do a secondary chip like dual gpu for ARM that can push 2x the performance without lower the graphic fidelity.
I am angry. I'm angry Apple is trying to destroy my bought and paid for software library for no good reason whatsoever. I'm angry that people like YOU only care about yourself and the 5% speed improvement you hope to get out of Safari or Apple email out of one or any of these changes. The rest of us know it's NOT WORTH IT. A computer without software is a waste of time.
What do they have to do with each other? I just said it. If I upgrade my current Mac, a LOT of software dies. Period.
64-bit only killed countless older software packages that aren't being updated anymore including many games.
You may not like games. I do.
They are MAC games. You don't care. I do.
Photoshop CS3 doesn't work and the only thing for sale now is RENT-WARE. You don't care. I do.
iZotope RX is extremely expensive so are the upgrades. It also stopped working. You don't care. I do.
The list goes on.
I know it's SO HARD to comprehend, but it's the EXACT SAME THING. It kills ALL Intel Mac software. PERIOD. Apple's software will be updated. Many two-bit app store junk apps might get updated. Do you think many other companies will welcome Apple's change? Do you recall how little software was available compared to today when it was PowerPC? Intel brought that software because it's easy to convert! A move to ARM will KILL most commercial software. The Mac market is too small to bother. I know that's difficult for people like YOU to comprehend, but put some actual thought into something for once in your life and try to think about someone other than just yourself. You may only use Safari and Apple Mail, but a lot of other people use actual REAL software not just toys. You might as well just get a Chromebook.
I've heard the "Mac isn't for gaming" routine a 1000x over the years, but it's 100% HORSE CRAP to anyone that likes to casual game and owns a Mac. The sad thing is you actually think you're intelligent for parroting the same tired old BS Mac users who don't game have said for decades. You're not. It's a stupid and extremely selfish argument and always was, showing no consideration to how others use Mac except for your own. Should I buy a PC too just to play some games? Is the Mac not a general purpose computing platform? It WAS. But YOU want it to be a Chromebook imitation with no software outside browsing "apps" like Google spyware and Apple Kool-Aid all for a perceived possible speed improvement. Amazing.
I'm done talking to you. You are not worth the time of day and considering what's happening in the world, I'd rather spend my time, should it possibly be my last, talking to a better class of people. I've spent 15 years on this site reading horse manure from Apple worshiping fools and I'm done with it. I realize now it was all a waste of time. It's not the computer or the brand, but what you can do with it. If Apple wants to kill everything you can do with it, then the Mac truly will be dead. A glorified iPad will replace it? No thanks. I prefer what Steve Jobs called a "truck" to that, but I'm sure you'll enjoy your ARM powered iMaxi-Pad.
That’s insane. Your software library (which is licensed, not bought and paid for) still runs on hardware you bought and paid for. What you want is for Apple to keep making machines just for your convenience for the rest of time.
Apple gave developers a 15-year period to transition to 64-bit. If they can’t do that transition in that length of time, that says a lot about the developer & they probably don’t deserve to be in business. The developer that puts in the effort in keeping their app up to date deserves to get rewarded. Not the lazy ones.
Apple shouldn’t stop pushing their platform forward because people like you want to toy around with ancient software.
Those were gonna stop working or working well no matter what. CS3 is from 2007. Are you seriously going to complain that Apple isn’t very interested in the compatibility of pro apps from 13 years ago?
Your anger is based on bogus assumptions:
1 - Who says SAAS is going to replace anything? This is just an assumption made by someone, there is no evidence whatsoever hinting this might become reality
2 - You compare the PowerPC to Intel transition to a possible Intel to ARM transition. These are NOT exactly comparable, because back then factually it not only was a PPC->Intel but also a Framework/Toolchain transition, the latter being much more important when it comes to transitioning software.
Today, IF Apple transitions to macOS ARM, it would not be resembling the PPC->Intel transition at all: Toolchain, Frameworks, API basically remain the same, ARM versions of existing software just a compile away. I guess processor/platform optimized software is largely a thing of the past
Last edited:
What major app wasn't available on PowerPC?
(edit)
I suppose you could say "games". Quite a few Mac games now are really just Wine wrappers. But you seem to be angling for pro software, and I don't think there was a new influx of pro software due to the arch change.
You're overestimating how much compiling for a different arch still matters in 2020. And if anything, more and more apps these days are on ARM first, x86 second.
Last edited:
Moving to ARM based processors will make MacBooks obsolete if you already have an iPad Pro in addition to general universal app support with iOS. What is their plan with this? lol
Tell me how I would continue to develop applications on an iPad instead of a Mac?
If they are going all in with ARM and Catalyst/Marzipan then the lines continue to get blurred if we leave x86 behind. I know they say they’re not merging macOS and iOS/iPadOS but who knows with Apple these days. I was considering getting a MacBook Pro 16 but if they’re aggressively heading in this direction then I don’t know if I should wait or not.
ARM really isn't relevant to Catalyst. iOS apps have always run on x86 (with some exceptions that have ARM-specific code or Apple-specific GPU optimizations that don't use Metal); that's how the iOS Simulator in Xcode works. Catalyst is a short-term way to boost available Mac apps (while also providing an incentive to make more iPadOS apps!) and provide a more Apple-like alternative to things like Electron.
Apple's longer-term bet isn't Catalyst, but SwiftUI. And, again, not limited to (or better on) ARM at all.