Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #145182 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-06-29 20:07 +0100 |
| Last post | 2020-07-20 11:51 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 64 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac
Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-06-29 20:07 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-29 16:04 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-06-29 21:51 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-29 17:08 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> - 2020-06-30 12:23 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Sak Wathanasin <sw@nan.co.uk> - 2020-07-14 09:14 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-14 16:38 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Sak Wathanasin <sw@nan.co.uk> - 2020-07-17 06:24 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-07-17 14:33 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-07-17 15:23 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-17 10:25 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-07-17 15:31 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-17 11:08 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-07-17 16:18 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-17 11:39 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.here> - 2020-07-17 15:23 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-17 11:39 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.here> - 2020-07-18 06:18 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-18 04:35 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-17 15:22 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-17 18:46 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-17 16:00 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-17 23:13 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-17 20:18 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> - 2020-07-18 10:45 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-18 09:49 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 04:02 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-18 12:10 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 11:42 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 11:46 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-18 19:14 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 15:48 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 23:04 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-19 08:42 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 08:49 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 15:39 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-19 23:16 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 16:28 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 04:01 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-18 12:11 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 11:47 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Sak Wathanasin <sw@nan.co.uk> - 2020-07-20 02:36 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-20 10:33 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-17 19:34 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-17 20:20 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-18 04:35 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 04:04 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-19 07:55 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 12:06 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-20 09:21 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-20 10:35 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-21 11:23 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-21 08:50 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 14:51 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-20 09:21 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-20 10:30 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-21 11:23 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-21 08:46 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-22 08:39 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-22 13:40 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2020-07-17 17:23 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2020-07-17 21:18 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Sak Wathanasin <sw@nan.co.uk> - 2020-07-20 02:37 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-20 11:51 +0000
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-29 20:07 +0100 |
| Subject | Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.24AA736A01BD10B770000B9FF38F@news.individual.net> |
<https://www.macworld.com/article/3564712/geekbench-results-for-the-apple- silicon-developer-transition-kit-surface-online.html#tk.rss_all> Summary: under Rosetta 2 emulation it’s about 2018 MBA levels. Which is pretty good, I think. Cheers, Ian
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-29 16:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <290620201604022294%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145182 |
In article <0001HW.24AA736A01BD10B770000B9FF38F@news.individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote: > <https://www.macworld.com/article/3564712/geekbench-results-for-the-apple- > silicon-developer-transition-kit-surface-online.html#tk.rss_all> > > Summary: under Rosetta 2 emulation it¹s about 2018 MBA levels. Which is > pretty good, I think. keep in mind that the developer machine is using a 2 year old chip designed for ipads and *not* representative of a future mac. it's just for testing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-29 21:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.24AA8BD501C2C9C070000B9FF38F@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145183 |
On 29 Jun 2020, nospam wrote (in article<290620201604022294%nospam@nospam.invalid>): > In article<0001HW.24AA736A01BD10B770000B9FF38F@news.individual.net>, > Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote: > > > <https://www.macworld.com/article/3564712/geekbench-results-for-the-apple- > > silicon-developer-transition-kit-surface-online.html#tk.rss_all> > > > > Summary: under Rosetta 2 emulation it¹s about 2018 MBA levels. Which is > > pretty good, I think. > > keep in mind that the developer machine is using a 2 year old chip > designed for ipads and *not* representative of a future mac. it's just > for testing. Yep, and at 2018 levels. Impressive. Cheers, Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-29 17:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <290620201708042837%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145184 |
In article <0001HW.24AA8BD501C2C9C070000B9FF38F@news.individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote: > > > <https://www.macworld.com/article/3564712/geekbench-results-for-the-apple- > > > silicon-developer-transition-kit-surface-online.html#tk.rss_all> > > > > > > Summary: under Rosetta 2 emulation it1s about 2018 MBA levels. Which is > > > pretty good, I think. > > > > keep in mind that the developer machine is using a 2 year old chip > > designed for ipads and *not* representative of a future mac. it's just > > for testing. > > Yep, and at 2018 levels. Impressive. what's even more impressive is this: <https://twitter.com/stroughtonsmith/status/1277628592458006528> So the DTK with a two year old iPad chip runs x86_64 code, in emulation, faster than the Surface Pro X runs it natively. Oh boy Qualcomm, what are you even doing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-30 12:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rdf7as$oct$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145182 |
On 29/06/2020 20:07, Ian McCall wrote: > <https://www.macworld.com/article/3564712/geekbench-results-for-the-apple- > silicon-developer-transition-kit-surface-online.html#tk.rss_all> > > Summary: under Rosetta 2 emulation it’s about 2018 MBA levels. Which is > pretty good, I think. Absolutely, and these are just repurposed 2 year old CPUs and nothing like what will end up in actual shipping kit. There have been some amusing comparisons with the MS Surface Pro X, which runs Qualcomm ARM. Rosetta on the DTK benchmarks *faster* than native benchmarks on the Surface Pro X. -- Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sak Wathanasin <sw@nan.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-14 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3bf109ae-7c0b-486c-96b4-8dbddafa1ce2o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #145187 |
On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 12:23:10 PM UTC+1, Chris Ridd wrote: > On 29/06/2020 20:07, Ian McCall wrote: > > <https://www.macworld.com/article/3564712/geekbench-results-for-the-apple- > > silicon-developer-transition-kit-surface-online.html#tk.rss_all> > > > > Summary: under Rosetta 2 emulation it’s about 2018 MBA levels. Which is > > pretty good, I think. > > Absolutely, and these are just repurposed 2 year old CPUs and nothing > like what will end up in actual shipping kit. Our DTK arrived a couple of weeks ago but I hadn't had time to give it a spin. Our app runs fine under Rosetta, though Fuse refuses to load without going through a whole song-n-dance routine. Which I can't do 'cos it's in the office in London & my arms aren't long enough to reach the power button. Guess I'll have to go in one day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-14 16:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hn65bfFs1u3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145458 |
On 14 Jul 2020 at 17:14:23 BST, "Sak Wathanasin" <sw@nan.co.uk> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 12:23:10 PM UTC+1, Chris Ridd wrote: >> On 29/06/2020 20:07, Ian McCall wrote: >>> <https://www.macworld.com/article/3564712/geekbench-results-for-the-apple-silicon-developer-transition-kit-surface-online.html#tk.rss_all> >>> >>> Summary: under Rosetta 2 emulation it’s about 2018 MBA levels. Which is >>> pretty good, I think. >> >> Absolutely, and these are just repurposed 2 year old CPUs and nothing >> like what will end up in actual shipping kit. > > Our DTK arrived a couple of weeks ago but I hadn't had time to give it a spin. Our app runs fine under Rosetta, though Fuse refuses to load without going through a whole song-n-dance routine. Which I can't do 'cos it's in the office in London & my arms aren't long enough to reach the power button. Guess I'll have to go in one day. They really should have put an Intel chip into it as a systems management controller, handling reboots and remote console over VNC and whatnot. That would have been hilarious. Cheers - Jaimie -- "The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted" -- Bertrand Russell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sak Wathanasin <sw@nan.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 06:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90b1a846-adbb-447d-ba67-3e94d64a635ao@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #145460 |
On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:38:09 PM UTC+1, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> They really should have put an Intel chip into it as a systems management
> controller, handling reboots and remote console over VNC and whatnot. That
> would have been hilarious.
Didn't the old Apple Servers have a LOM ("lights out module"). I have an old Sun server that did (it's in the garage if someone wants to make me an offer :-). It used a PPC (irony!) with its own e-net & power that you could ssh to and then connect to the server's console; you could even do BIOS updates remotely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 14:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.24C1E0310068A33870000D81138F@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145526 |
On 17 Jul 2020, Sak Wathanasin wrote
(in article<90b1a846-adbb-447d-ba67-3e94d64a635ao@googlegroups.com>):
>
> Didn't the old Apple Servers have a LOM ("lights out module"). I have an old
> Sun server that did (it's in the garage if someone wants to make me an offer
> :-). It used a PPC (irony!) with its own e-net & power that you could ssh to
> and then connect to the server's console; you could even do BIOS updates
> remotely.
One thing I -do- remember is Apple used to do a PC-on-a-card thing, complete
with an x86 chip as an insert. I had a similar solution in my Atari ST -
Vortex AT Once it was
called:<http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d163/will2097/Mobile%20Uploads/2017-
01/DSC_0176_zpslf2yuo6h.jpg>.
Wonder if we’ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt.
Cheers,
Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 15:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.24C1EBE5006B618770000D81138F@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145527 |
On 17 Jul 2020, Ian McCall wrote (in article<0001HW.24C1E0310068A33870000D81138F@news.individual.net>): > Wonder if we’ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt. Replying to myself, but I hereby name this idea...the eCPU. It will go with my eGPU quite nicely. Cheers, Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 10:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <170720201025553157%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145527 |
In article <0001HW.24C1E0310068A33870000D81138F@news.individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote: > > One thing I -do- remember is Apple used to do a PC-on-a-card thing, complete > with an x86 chip as an insert. I had a similar solution in my Atari ST - > Vortex AT Once it was > called:<http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d163/will2097/Mobile%20Uploads/2017- > 01/DSC_0176_zpslf2yuo6h.jpg>. > > Wonder if we¹ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt. what for? x86 emulation on apple silicon is already quite good, and that's running on a 2 year old chip never designed to be used in a mac.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 15:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.24C1EDAB006BCBE670000D81138F@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145529 |
On 17 Jul 2020, nospam wrote (in article<170720201025553157%nospam@nospam.invalid>): > In article<0001HW.24C1E0310068A33870000D81138F@news.individual.net>, > Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote: > > > > > One thing I -do- remember is Apple used to do a PC-on-a-card thing, complete > > with an x86 chip as an insert. I had a similar solution in my Atari ST - > > Vortex AT Once it was > > called:<http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d163/will2097/Mobile%20Uploads/201 > > 7- > > 01/DSC_0176_zpslf2yuo6h.jpg>. > > > > Wonder if we¹ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt. > > what for? > > x86 emulation on apple silicon is already quite good, and that's > running on a 2 year old chip never designed to be used in a Mac Windows. Don’t need it for Mac, just thinking of x86 Windows. Cheers, Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 11:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <170720201108497652%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145530 |
In article <0001HW.24C1EDAB006BCBE670000D81138F@news.individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote: > > > > > > Wonder if we1ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt. > > > > what for? > > > > x86 emulation on apple silicon is already quite good, and that's > > running on a 2 year old chip never designed to be used in a Mac > > Windows. it's not a big enough market to matter anymore, although there may be a solution coming soon anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 16:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.24C1F8E2006E6CA470000D81138F@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145531 |
On 17 Jul 2020, nospam wrote (in article<170720201108497652%nospam@nospam.invalid>): > In article<0001HW.24C1EDAB006BCBE670000D81138F@news.individual.net>, > Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wonder if we1ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt. > > > > > > what for? > > > > > > x86 emulation on apple silicon is already quite good, and that's > > > running on a 2 year old chip never designed to be used in a Mac > > > > Windows. > > it's not a big enough market to matter anymore, although there may be a > solution coming soon anyway. Ah, I should be clear. I didn’t really mean by Apple. More a third-party thing. I don’t expect Apple to do anything vaguely like what I’m suggesting. More in the tradition of ye olde third party greats like Spectre GCR, Vortex ATOnce, and yes - the first-party Apple one I can’t remember the name of that was in the Amelio era. I don’t even expect Apple to maintain Rosetta for longer than three maybe five years. They might I supposed, but they didn’t maintain it last time and the reason I’m picking three-maybe-five is pure guesswork tying it to EU/UK consumer rights timings. Either way, I wouldn’t expect Rosetta 2 to last all that long. Cheers, Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 11:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <170720201139197442%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145532 |
In article <0001HW.24C1F8E2006E6CA470000D81138F@news.individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote: > > > > > Wonder if we1ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt. > > > > > > > > what for? > > > > > > > > x86 emulation on apple silicon is already quite good, and that's > > > > running on a 2 year old chip never designed to be used in a Mac > > > > > > Windows. > > > > it's not a big enough market to matter anymore, although there may be a > > solution coming soon anyway. > > Ah, I should be clear. I didn¹t really mean by Apple. More a third-party > thing. I don¹t expect Apple to do anything vaguely like what I¹m > suggesting. More in the tradition of ye olde third party greats like Spectre > GCR, Vortex ATOnce, and yes - the first-party Apple one I can¹t remember > the name of that was in the Amelio era. both microsoft and vmware hinted that something might be coming with the 'nothing to announce at this time' line. i think vmware said there could be an announcement in the summer (i.e., very soon). > I don¹t even expect Apple to maintain Rosetta for longer than three maybe > five years. They might I supposed, but they didn¹t maintain it last time > and the reason I¹m picking three-maybe-five is pure guesswork tying it to > EU/UK consumer rights timings. Either way, I wouldn¹t expect Rosetta 2 to > last all that long. a reasonable guess, but there are a *lot* of intel apps that won't ever be ported, far more than powerpc apps 15 years ago. apple will support rosetta 2 until demand for it no longer justifies keeping it going. keep in mind that apple did not own the original rosetta. they licensed it from transitive, which ibm bought and had no interest in licensing it to anyone, which meant apple *couldn't* continue offering it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.here> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 15:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrh3gjq.11r.alanrichardbarker@alans-air.home> |
| In reply to | #145531 |
On 2020-07-17, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <0001HW.24C1EDAB006BCBE670000D81138F@news.individual.net>, > Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Wonder if we1ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt. >> > >> > what for? >> > >> > x86 emulation on apple silicon is already quite good, and that's >> > running on a 2 year old chip never designed to be used in a Mac >> >> Windows. > > it's not a big enough market to matter anymore, although there may be a > solution coming soon anyway. Can you tell us more? -- Cheers, Alan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 11:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <170720201139207512%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145533 |
In article <slrnrh3gjq.11r.alanrichardbarker@alans-air.home>, Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote: > >> > x86 emulation on apple silicon is already quite good, and that's > >> > running on a 2 year old chip never designed to be used in a Mac > >> > >> Windows. > > > > it's not a big enough market to matter anymore, although there may be a > > solution coming soon anyway. > > Can you tell us more? as i said in another post, both microsoft and vmware used the 'nothing to announce at this time' line, which suggests they're working on something, or at least thinking about it. boot camp, however, is unlikely to happen any time soon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.here> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-18 06:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <reu472$re5$1@alanrichardbarker.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #145535 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <slrnrh3gjq.11r.alanrichardbarker@alans-air.home>, Alan B > <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote: > >>>>> x86 emulation on apple silicon is already quite good, and that's >>>>> running on a 2 year old chip never designed to be used in a Mac >>>> >>>> Windows. >>> >>> it's not a big enough market to matter anymore, although there may be a >>> solution coming soon anyway. >> >> Can you tell us more? > > as i said in another post, both microsoft and vmware used the 'nothing > to announce at this time' line, which suggests they're working on > something, or at least thinking about it. > Yes I’ve seen that now, thanks. In my time I’ve tried Linux via VMware et al and I expect many Linux distributions will be recompiled for run either directly on via virtualisation on ARM Macs. Incidentally I’ve got an Elementary OS based VM running reasonably OK on a VMWare beta with Big Sur beta 2 but that of course is on an Intel Mac. Since there is a version of W10 already developed for ARM using Qualcomm chips, I guess MS might be willing to support the Apple ARM chipset? Well that’s my read between the lines! > boot camp, however, is unlikely to happen any time soon. That does not bother me personally as having to restart a Mac to go back and forth between OS’s is a pain. -- Cheers, Alan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-18 04:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <180720200435569277%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145545 |
In article <reu472$re5$1@alanrichardbarker.eternal-september.org>, Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote: > In my time I¹ve tried Linux via VMware et > al and I expect many Linux distributions will be recompiled for run either > directly on via virtualisation on ARM Macs. linux already runs natively on arm, so getting it to work on apple silicon macs should be very simple. > Incidentally I¹ve got an > Elementary OS based VM running reasonably OK on a VMWare beta with Big Sur > beta 2 but that of course is on an Intel Mac. Since there is a version of > W10 already developed for ARM using Qualcomm chips, I guess MS might be > willing to support the Apple ARM chipset? Well that¹s my read between the > lines! that's entirely up to microsoft. however, their x86 emulation is awful, so it might not be that useful. > > boot camp, however, is unlikely to happen any time soon. > > That does not bother me personally as having to restart a Mac to go back > and forth between OS¹s is a pain. indeed it is, which is why so few people bother.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hnemkpFm3p8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145529 |
On 7/17/20 7:25 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <0001HW.24C1E0310068A33870000D81138F@news.individual.net>, > Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote: > > >> >> One thing I -do- remember is Apple used to do a PC-on-a-card thing, complete >> with an x86 chip as an insert. I had a similar solution in my Atari ST - >> Vortex AT Once it was >> called:<http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d163/will2097/Mobile%20Uploads/2017- >> 01/DSC_0176_zpslf2yuo6h.jpg>. >> >> Wonder if we¹ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt. > > what for? > > x86 emulation on apple silicon is already quite good, and that's > running on a 2 year old chip never designed to be used in a mac. > I do have concerns about how well it will work -- though to be fair the recent version of Parallels have not been great with Windows. Do not know what the issue is, but it SLOW. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac
csiph-web