
Macintosh Forks - robin_reala
https://mondaynote.com/apple-macintosh-forks-1804c24db29f
======
otterley
I still don't think it's happening any time soon:

1\. Much like during the PPC-to-X86 transition, Apple will need to emulate
Intel x86-64 on ARM64 at reasonable speed so that legacy software will
continue to function. But we haven't seen any such technology yet. (That's not
to say it's impossible, just not in view at this time.)

2\. Developers will instantly lose their ability to virtualize x86-64
hardware. No more Docker, no more Windows virtualization. A lot of people,
particularly developers, who use the Mac today will lose significant
functionality.

3\. Thunderbolt is an Intel technology and only works with the x86-64
architecture. Apple will have to come up with some viable replacement for it.

~~~
solarkraft
1\. Speed is not all that important, as long as the software remains usable
for the time it takes for the developer to recompile (in most cases) or move
over their software to be fully ARM compatible. This will not take long, since
Apple users are notorious complainers and developers in the Apple ecosystem
used to moving quickly.

x86 emulation is already close to a proven technology. Even though it hasn't
reached real adoption yet because there is no open source version, there are
some commercial offerings for Linux. Microsoft has x86 emulation built into
the ARM version of Windows. I have no doubt that Apple could build a version
of this as well (they probably already have).

2\. With x86 emulation this point is mostly moot, although it will be slower.
But then again Windows is also becoming ARM compatible.

3\. Thunderbolt 3 is not Intel-exclusive. It does not only work with the
x86-64 architecture. It's an open standard.

~~~
otterley
Windows only supports 32-bit x86 apps on ARM. Apple started deprecating 32-bit
x86 apps on MacOS years ago; and MacOS Catalina (10.15) won't even run them
anymore.

------
AndrewStephens
This is not happening any time soon and the article is junk. Previous
transitions (68K->PPC->x86) occurred when the successor CPU's were so stupidly
more powerful than what they replaced that emulation was a plausible tactic.

This is NOT the case with x86->ARM. Apple's ARM chips are impressive and are
approaching Intel's chip in some areas if you benchmark in certain ways and
ignore the areas where they fall short. I think people underestimate the gap.
Maybe one day ARM while be fast enough to make switching worthwhile and
emulate x86 acceptably, but it is not this day.

I would say it is more likely that Apple will end up releasing some sort of
cross-CPU .NET/JavaVM-esque technology that compiles software locally if they
really want to merge the product lines. But I am not even convinced that Apple
wants to merge the two lines.

------
sys_64738
I thought this article would be about this.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork)

------
x0x0
You have to wonder if you can eg get a cheap enough AMD chip that you stick an
Apple Axx and an AMD laptop chip in the low-end laptops to manage the
transition.

~~~
jmull
I'm thinking Apple will drop a couple x64 cores into an Ax chip. Maybe they
license from AMD.

Probably impossible, but I wonder if something clever could be done at the
microcode level (mostly) so that a core could switch instruction sets. The
Apple ARM instruction set would be the native, optimized one, but the x64 IS
would run acceptably.

------
kemiller
At this point is seems more likely we'll get an iPadOS laptop aimed at the
non-pro market and macOS will become a pro-only system.

~~~
kennywinker
What is the difference between an iPadOS laptop and an iPad with a keyboard-
case?

~~~
harrygeez
This may sound crazy to some people but I still prefer a sturdy built in
keyboard and hinge

~~~
solarkraft
This may sound crazy, but I love my Surface Pro 4 clone.

It has the same specs of a good laptop, the type cover is sturdy (but easily
replaceable in the worst case), removable for tablet use and the screen
doesn't wobble a bit.

I consider it a lot more flexible (and studry, since there is no hinge to
break) than a traditional laptop.

Yes, the screen could be larger.

~~~
jasomill
Doesn't sound crazy to me…the Surface Pro (3) is the first non-Apple laptop
I've owned that I actually like enough to avoid using since…well, I suppose
the Compaq Portable II isn't a laptop, so, ever. And the closest I've come to
using it in "tablet mode" is to pop off the keyboard[1] to save space when
using the Surface to calibrate my desktop display.

The type cover is not only "good enough" for all but full-time use, it's also
upgradeable — which I've taken advantage of — and easily replaceable in the
case of damage.

As for the screen size, I agree in part…but if it were any bigger, it wouldn't
fit perfectly in the back of my camera bag, which, for my purposes, is a
significant benefit.

This coming from someone with a mechanical keyboard, two pointing devices
(Magic Trackpad and wired, many-buttoned mouse), and a 55" 4K display on his
desk.

[1] And using the Microsoft Bluetooth folder…also a surprisingly usable device
given the limitations inherent in its design…as a temporary alternative.

------
exabrial
The author implies that missing a touch bar was _a bad thing_... What?

~~~
Fnoord
The relevant quote: "[...] Last year, the Air was finally upgraded to a much-
needed higher definition Retina display and Touch ID access module, and was
updated again with display and processor tweaks; and all Pros now have a Touch
Bar.

So Mac laptops just got simpler and saner. [...]"

I would guess the analogy of "simpler and saner" would be streamlined, more
homogeneous.

The term "fork" is also misleading. All what is needed is once more
universal/fat binaries which work on both architectures. macOS cannot be
forked in the traditional FOSS sense; there are too many proprietary
components for that.

A little of history on the author, Jean-Louis Gassée, can be found here on
Wikipedia [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-
Louis_Gass%C3%A9e](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e)

~~~
perl4ever
"The term "fork" is also misleading. All what is needed is once more
universal/fat binaries which work on both architectures. macOS cannot be
forked in the traditional FOSS sense; there are too many proprietary
components for that."

This has a double meaning, because the original "fat binaries" used the
resource and data "forks" to store the difference versions. In fact, I thought
you had misunderstood until I checked the article.

