207
submitted 6 months ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 149 points 6 months ago

What Apple did for Macs when switching architectures, though, was to port their own software to the new architecture. Microsoft doesn't even port fucking Minesweeper to ARM.

[-] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 22 points 6 months ago

Another thing they did is add hardware support for the x86 strong memory model to their ARM chips, allowing for efficient emulation. Without this, translated code takes a big performance hit.

Did Qualcomm add something similar to their ARM CPUs ?

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 8 points 6 months ago

They've still got things that haven't changed since about Windows 3.1, like that ODBC dialog window.

load more comments (44 replies)
[-] bleistift2@feddit.de 47 points 6 months ago

Why the fuck would they name it PRISM?

[-] sugartits@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago

Just being honest about how much data Windows collects these days...

Maybe their goal is to bury that prism and hope people forget?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 45 points 6 months ago

Prism is definitely a bad name , Edward Snowden knows

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BigTrout75@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

I don't see this working. The reason that Apple and ARM work is because Apple controls the whole ecosystem on Macs.

[-] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Apple controls the whole ecosystem on Macs.

In what sense? The vast majority of macOS software is downloaded/installed from the internet, just like Windows.

I don’t see it working because the Windows APIs are a dozen self-oxidizing dumpster fires scattered into the wind, but that’s a different story.

[-] xuniL@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 months ago

They control the ecosystem in the way that they provide what hardware is new on MacOS and what capabilities it has. So if any developer wants to support modern devices they have to port to that new hardware. They don't have any choice, if they want to stay relevant.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jqubed@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

I don’t really know if ARM adds benefits I’d really notice as an end user, but it’ll be interesting to see if this really goes through and upends the dominant architecture we’ve seen for really 40+ years.

[-] SMillerNL@lemmy.world 41 points 6 months ago

As an ARM Mac user, I wouldn’t trade all this new battery life for an x86 processor

[-] aniki@lemm.ee 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Second this. Not to mention INSTANT resume from hibernation! It's fucking crazy. I can use this thing ALL DAY doing webGL CAD work and Orca Slicer and barely scratch 50%.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

With a modern system, I honestly don't think there's a noticeable difference between suspend to ram and suspend to disk. They've gotten the boot times down so much that it's lightning-fast. My work laptop's default is suspend to disk, and I don't notice a difference except when it prompts for the bitlocker password.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pycorax@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

There's nothing stopping x86-64 processors from being power efficient. This article is pretty technical but does a really good explanation of why that's the case: https://chipsandcheese.com/2024/03/27/why-x86-doesnt-need-to-die/

It's just that traditionally Intel and AMD earn most of their money from the server and enterprise sectors where high performance is more important than super low power usage. And even with that, AMD's Z1 Extreme also gets within striking distance of the M3 at a similar power draw. It also helps that Apple is generally one node ahead.

[-] SquiffSquiff@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

If there's 'nothing stopping' it then why has nobody done it? Apple moved from x86 to ARM. Mobile is all ARM. All the big cloud providers are doing their own ARM chips. Intel killed off much of the architectural competition with Itanic in the early 2000's. Why stop?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] PeachMan@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

I'm not expert, but I can tell you that Apple Silicon gave the new Macbooks insane battery life, and they run a lot cooler with less overheating. Intel really fucked up the processors in the 2015-2019 Macbooks, especially the higher-spec i7 and i9 variants. Those things overheat constantly. All Intel did was take existing architectures and raise the clock speeds. Apple really exposed Intel's laziness by releasing processors that were just as performant in quick tasks, they REALLY kicked Intel's ass in sustained workloads, not because they were faster on paper, but simply because they didn't have to thermal throttle after 2 minutes of work. Hell, the Macbook Air doesn't even have any active cooling!

I'm not saying these Snapdragon chips will do exactly the same thing for Windows PC's, obviously we can't say that for sure yet. But if they do, it will be fucking awesome for end users.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

If nothing else it breaks the stranglehold the 2.1 x86 licensees (Intel and AMD) have on the Windows market. Its just that that market is much MUCH smaller than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

[-] _edge@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 6 months ago

So we replace two players with one (ARM)?

[-] atocci@kbin.social 9 points 6 months ago

ARM is the licensor, not the licensee. At the very least, they are willing to license the ARM architecture to more companies (the licensees) than Intel is with x86. More RISC-V support would be ideal though for sure...

[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Right? I'm much more excited to see RISC-V start to become more powerful and have more commercial offers of hardware to compete against the global tech brokers. We need the FOSS version of hardware or else our future privacy and ownership rights will forever be in jeopardy with info tech.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] doleo@lemmy.one 7 points 6 months ago

One of the biggest problems I had with windows on ARM was drivers. Most of my devices that needed drivers didn’t have an arm compatible version available. This needs to change more urgently than simply being able to run software, for me, at least.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Ugurcan@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

…It took them only 4 years to follow the leader this time.

[-] simple@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago

It has more to do with manufacturers than Microsoft. Nobody was making high performance ARM chips, so there was never a market for windows on ARM until now

[-] morbidcactus@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago

Windows on arm was a thing, I had a surface 2 rt about a decade ago, too bad it never felt like microsoft ever really fully committed to the idea imo, and yeah x86 apps wouldn't run on it (though there was an emulation tool apparently, was community developed). Market was definitely there (though I'm not sure how big it was, probably a cross over with netbook users), they just fumbled it like they did windows phone in my view.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
207 points (94.4% liked)

Technology

59623 readers
1446 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS