• iMac 24" - M1

    From Alan Browne@bitbucket@blackhole.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Tuesday, April 20, 2021 20:09:47
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


    Wow.

    I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
    home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.

    Jaw dropper for looks.

    Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard. I'll
    probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance. I would
    assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"

    16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
    the next 10 years.

    I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
    the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
    still a very capable machine.

    --
    "...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
    man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
    -Samuel Clemens
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 00:32:23
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <g3KfI.22793$D16.6630@fx40.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

    Wow.

    I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
    home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.

    Jaw dropper for looks.

    Agreed. The fact that they have finally achieved a sliver-thin flat
    panel computer is quite stunning. They look fantastic, and I bet they
    look better in person.

    Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard. I'll probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance. I would assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"

    We will see, but it is unlikely that there will be a 27" I think. If
    they make a larger iMac than the current 24" it will probably be a 6K
    30" screen along the lines of the XDR and be a significant step up in
    both performance and cost.

    I know if I were Apple I wold be differentiating the Pro and non pro
    lines much more than they have been in the past, and there is little
    point in having a 24" 4.5K display and a 27" 5K display.

    I doubt that you need more performance. The M1 Mac Book Air is already
    faster than nearly all of the Intel Macs save the iMac Pro and the Mac
    Pro. And unless you are working heavily in 4K video, these machines are
    already incredibly fast.

    16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
    the next 10 years.

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
    the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
    still a very capable machine.

    $1500 for the iMac (the $1300 model would probably be fine, but I would
    not pass up having a touchID keyboard and that is most the cost
    difference and would prefer having 4 ports than 2) seems like an
    excellent machine that I really would like to have, but at this point
    have no need for as I already have an M1 mini. What I am waiting for is
    a MBP that is a little specced up from the current M1 MBP, though that
    one would do for everything I need with no problem, but it's not
    something I have to have right now, so I can wait and see what else
    comes this year.

    --
    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 00:27:41
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    I know if I were Apple I wold be differentiating the Pro and non pro
    lines much more than they have been in the past, and there is little
    point in having a 24" 4.5K display and a 27" 5K display.

    The CPU chip will be key. With the 8086, Apple had a number of
    significant differences between XEON, and the various Core Ix (and
    previous names).

    Apple has the potential to create a variety of chips, each using the
    same design for cores and fluff like neural engines and GPUs, but can
    vary number of cores and GPUs.

    If they all user the same memory architecture, then they will all be
    fixed config, not upgreadable and same performance so harder to
    differentiate. Remains to be seen if/how they scale the various I/O ports.

    When everything is integrated in the one chip, it becomes much harder to differentiate your products on the motherboard by addinfg more chips,
    more ports etc.

    I was hoping today would point the way, but it didn't. Though there is
    now a 10gbps option for the Mac Mini, so we know this wsn't an M1
    limitation at the time it was first released.


    It all comes down to what Apple's product roadmap is to be like. They
    can fit all models into the same cubby hole, same CPU, same memory, but
    vary how many thunderbolt ports, and how big a screen they have. or they
    could adcance the Mx chip to have more scalability in order to give
    "pro" models moch mroe power and configurability and perhals upgradability.

    Today pointed in one direction, but still too early to tell wherher
    Apple will make a broadder offering with differentiated Mxx chips.



    I doubt that you need more performance. The M1 Mac Book Air is already
    faster than nearly all of the Intel Macs save the iMac Pro and the Mac
    Pro. And unless you are working heavily in 4K video, these machines are already incredibly fast.

    A number of peopple who had been very gung ho when the first M1 Macs
    came out have since produced videos titled "why I came back to Intel"
    type. In short: limited RAM.


    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I really don't understand why you keep pushing this. The size of video
    files hasn't changed and videop editing software like After Effects or
    even Premiere really want a LOT of RAM to load video for processing.
    When you have multiple cores, you multiply that amount.

    If all you do is rowse the web and read emails, then yeah you're OK, but
    for seriious work, you need more than 16GB.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Baker@notonyourlife@no.no.no.no to comp.sys.mac.system on Tuesday, April 20, 2021 21:51:21
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-20 9:27 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    I know if I were Apple I wold be differentiating the Pro and non pro
    lines much more than they have been in the past, and there is little
    point in having a 24" 4.5K display and a 27" 5K display.

    The CPU chip will be key. With the 8086, Apple had a number of
    significant differences between XEON, and the various Core Ix (and
    previous names).

    "With the 8086"?

    Which century are you living in?


    Apple has the potential to create a variety of chips, each using the
    same design for cores and fluff like neural engines and GPUs, but can
    vary number of cores and GPUs.

    If they all user the same memory architecture, then they will all be
    fixed config, not upgreadable and same performance so harder to differentiate. Remains to be seen if/how they scale the various I/O ports.

    When everything is integrated in the one chip, it becomes much harder to differentiate your products on the motherboard by addinfg more chips,
    more ports etc.

    I was hoping today would point the way, but it didn't. Though there is
    now a 10gbps option for the Mac Mini, so we know this wsn't an M1
    limitation at the time it was first released.


    It all comes down to what Apple's product roadmap is to be like. They
    can fit all models into the same cubby hole, same CPU, same memory, but
    vary how many thunderbolt ports, and how big a screen they have. or they could adcance the Mx chip to have more scalability in order to give
    "pro" models moch mroe power and configurability and perhals upgradability.

    Today pointed in one direction, but still too early to tell wherher
    Apple will make a broadder offering with differentiated Mxx chips.



    I doubt that you need more performance. The M1 Mac Book Air is already
    faster than nearly all of the Intel Macs save the iMac Pro and the Mac
    Pro. And unless you are working heavily in 4K video, these machines are
    already incredibly fast.

    A number of peopple who had been very gung ho when the first M1 Macs
    came out have since produced videos titled "why I came back to Intel"
    type. In short: limited RAM.

    Got an example?

    I'm betting... ...not.



    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I really don't understand why you keep pushing this. The size of video
    files hasn't changed and videop editing software like After Effects or
    even Premiere really want a LOT of RAM to load video for processing.
    When you have multiple cores, you multiply that amount.

    If all you do is rowse the web and read emails, then yeah you're OK, but
    for seriious work, you need more than 16GB.

    You have no clue.



    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 07:02:39
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <1RNfI.13362$IC5.5644@fx24.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    I know if I were Apple I wold be differentiating the Pro and non pro
    lines much more than they have been in the past, and there is little
    point in having a 24" 4.5K display and a 27" 5K display.

    The CPU chip will be key. With the 8086, Apple had a number of
    significant differences between XEON, and the various Core Ix (and
    previous names).

    What the fuck are you talking about?

    1) Apple never used an 8086.
    2) Apple did not make x86 chips
    3) Intel did not make custom chips for Apple.


    Stop spewing nonsense.

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I really don't understand why you keep pushing this.

    Because it is true.

    If all you do is rowse the web and read emails, then yeah you're OK, but
    for seriious work, you need more than 16GB.

    Not so far, no.

    I have a friend who is working in 4K video and some 8K video. The
    performance of the Mac Mini 16GB is DOUBLE the performance of the top of
    the line 32GB Intel MBP (i9 with discrete GPU). DOUBLE.

    That is to say, a video that takes 40 minutes to process on the Intel,
    takes less than 20 minutes on the Mac mini. Identical files.

    You continue to spew bullshit that you INVENT based on nothing more than
    your COMPLETE Lack of knowledge.

    --
    "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's nothing
    trivial." Irvin S. Cobb
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 03:18:08
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 00:51, Alan Baker wrote:

    A number of peopple who had been very gung ho when the first M1 Macs
    came out have since produced videos titled "why I came back to Intel"
    type. In short: limited RAM.

    Got an example?

    I'm betting... ...not.


    www.youtube.com search for "back to intel from m1"


    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Wade Garrett@wade@cooler.net to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 07:51:57
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

    Wow.

    I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
    home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.

    Jaw dropper for looks.

    Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard.  I'll probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance.  I would assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"

    16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
    the next 10 years.

    I hope to upgrade later this year.  My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
    the graphics processing is a bit on the light side.  Otherwise it is
    still a very capable machine.

    Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple
    ones ;-)

    --
    Karl Marx is an historically prominent figure...but no one ever mentions
    his sister Onya who invented the Starter’s Pistol

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Browne@bitbucket@blackhole.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 07:56:32
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 07:51, Wade Garrett wrote:
    On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

    Wow.

    I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
    home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.

    Jaw dropper for looks.

    Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard.  I'll
    probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance.  I
    would assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"

    16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
    the next 10 years.

    I hope to upgrade later this year.  My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
    the graphics processing is a bit on the light side.  Otherwise it is
    still a very capable machine.

    Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple
    ones ;-)

    A real man gets what he wants and doesn't care what other people think.

    I like the blue. Wonder why there isn't a red. Space grey would have
    been great. Tossup over blue / silver for me.


    --
    "...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
    man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
    -Samuel Clemens
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Browne@bitbucket@blackhole.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 08:15:16
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
    In message <g3KfI.22793$D16.6630@fx40.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

    Wow.

    I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
    home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.

    Jaw dropper for looks.

    Agreed. The fact that they have finally achieved a sliver-thin flat
    panel computer is quite stunning. They look fantastic, and I bet they
    look better in person.

    Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard. I'll
    probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance. I would
    assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"

    We will see, but it is unlikely that there will be a 27" I think. If
    they make a larger iMac than the current 24" it will probably be a 6K
    30" screen along the lines of the XDR and be a significant step up in
    both performance and cost.

    A good point, and 24" would be satisfactory - with > M1 and more memory.

    I doubt that you need more performance. The M1 Mac Book Air is already
    faster than nearly all of the Intel Macs save the iMac Pro and the Mac
    Pro. And unless you are working heavily in 4K video, these machines are already incredibly fast.

    It's more the 10 year thing than what I get out of the box on day 0.

    16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
    the next 10 years.

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with
    only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond M1≠intel.

    I don't like mem swap if I can have more RAM. I'm pretty sure there
    will be higher memory versions and for the long term that's what I'll
    want. It's unlikely, at least in 'consumer' level iMacs, that we'll see
    user upgradeable memory again.


    I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
    the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
    still a very capable machine.

    $1500 for the iMac (the $1300 model would probably be fine, but I would
    not pass up having a touchID keyboard and that is most the cost

    Touch ID keyboard is nice, but not a decision point. On a MBP that
    would be more of a benefit. At home I have the iMac unlocked for 3 hours

    difference and would prefer having 4 ports than 2) seems like an
    excellent machine that I really would like to have, but at this point

    I haven't spent time thinking about the ports. I have 3 of 4 USB3 ports
    in use, plus Ethernet, plus 2nd display. And I already have a new 4K
    display that will be used (currently used in a small embedded project
    off an OS-less Rasp Pi).

    I don't need 10Gb Ethernet - but always prefer wired to WiFi.

    have no need for as I already have an M1 mini. What I am waiting for is
    a MBP that is a little specced up from the current M1 MBP, though that
    one would do for everything I need with no problem, but it's not
    something I have to have right now, so I can wait and see what else
    comes this year.

    I'm in no rush.

    --
    "...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
    man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
    -Samuel Clemens
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 08:36:29
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <1RNfI.13362$IC5.5644@fx24.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

    The CPU chip will be key. With the 8086,

    it's not the 1980s anymore.




    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I really don't understand

    yep, you don't.

    why you keep pushing this.

    because it's true.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 08:36:30
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <QkQfI.11084$1%.8417@fx37.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:


    A number of peopple who had been very gung ho when the first M1 Macs
    came out have since produced videos titled "why I came back to Intel"
    type. In short: limited RAM.

    Got an example?

    I'm betting... ...not.


    www.youtube.com search for "back to intel from m1"

    because if it's on youtube, it must be true.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Baker@notonyourlife@no.no.no.no to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 08:15:38
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 12:18 a.m., JF Mezei wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 00:51, Alan Baker wrote:

    A number of peopple who had been very gung ho when the first M1 Macs
    came out have since produced videos titled "why I came back to Intel"
    type. In short: limited RAM.

    Got an example?

    I'm betting... ...not.


    www.youtube.com search for "back to intel from m1"



    Nope.

    YOU search.

    You made the claim.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Wade Garrett@wade@cooler.net to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 11:39:33
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 4/21/21 7:56 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 07:51, Wade Garrett wrote:
    On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

    Wow.

    I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
    home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.

    Jaw dropper for looks.

    Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard.  I'll
    probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance.  I
    would assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"

    16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
    the next 10 years.

    I hope to upgrade later this year.  My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
    the graphics processing is a bit on the light side.  Otherwise it is
    still a very capable machine.

    Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple
    ones ;-)

    A real man gets what he wants and doesn't care what other people think.

    I like the blue.  Wonder why there isn't a red.   Space grey would have been great.  Tossup over blue / silver for me.


    Perhaps if Timmy had saved a little manufacturing inventory money by not having to buy seven different paint colors and just used gray, he could
    have upgraded the puny base model HD from 256 to something actually useful...and also included all eight cores in the base model M1
    processor instead of the hamstrung seven.

    I was definitely planning to buy an M1 iMac but with the tiny hard drive
    and seven processor cores, I may just take a pass.

    Hard to understand why the HD is so puny. The supplier cost to increase
    it to a 512 or 1 TB capacity is not much, even though the Apple Tax to
    the consumer for it would have been plentty

    --
    I miss the country I grew up in.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 12:27:55
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <s5pgvm$rbl$1@dont-email.me>, Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net>
    wrote:


    Perhaps if Timmy had saved a little manufacturing inventory money by not having to buy seven different paint colors and just used gray, he could
    have upgraded the puny base model HD from 256 to something actually useful...and also included all eight cores in the base model M1
    processor instead of the hamstrung seven.

    that's called chip binning and standard in the industry.

    very, very few people will notice the difference between 7 & 8 core
    gpus in normal use.

    would you prefer that apple throw those chips away, thereby increasing
    costs for everyone?

    I was definitely planning to buy an M1 iMac but with the tiny hard drive
    and seven processor cores, I may just take a pass.

    higher capacity ssds and 8 core processors are available.

    Hard to understand why the HD is so puny. The supplier cost to increase
    it to a 512 or 1 TB capacity is not much, even though the Apple Tax to
    the consumer for it would have been plentty

    the reason is simple: most people have that much stuff on their
    internal storage.

    those who do can get higher capacity internal storage and/or external
    storage.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 17:07:58
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with
    only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond M1≠intel.

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
    outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    It's like comparing MHz between Intel and PowerPC, it is just not a
    relevant number in anyway.

    I don't like mem swap if I can have more RAM. I'm pretty sure there
    will be higher memory versions and for the long term that's what I'll
    want. It's unlikely, at least in 'consumer' level iMacs, that we'll see user upgradeable memory again.

    I doubt we will see user upgradable memory at all. Possible, but I doubt
    it. But yes, I expect systems with more memory to come along.

    I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
    the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
    still a very capable machine.

    $1500 for the iMac (the $1300 model would probably be fine, but I would
    not pass up having a touchID keyboard and that is most the cost

    Touch ID keyboard is nice, but not a decision point. On a MBP that
    would be more of a benefit. At home I have the iMac unlocked for 3 hours

    The biggest benefit of TouchID is the ability to switch users simply by touching the button with a different finger. On the MBA I swap between
    my account and my wife;s account when troubleshooting in a second simply
    by touching the TouchID with one finger or the other.

    And confirming nearly every admin action as well.

    I hope this new keyboard will work with any M1 Mac and not just the
    iMac because if ti does I will definitely buy it for my mini.

    I haven't spent time thinking about the ports. I have 3 of 4 USB3 ports
    in use, plus Ethernet, plus 2nd display. And I already have a new 4K display that will be used (currently used in a small embedded project
    off an OS-less Rasp Pi).

    I have a USB-4 hub n m mini with a TB3 drive array connected to it, and
    a TB2 drive array connected to the TB3 Drive array. I also have a USB-C
    Display Port cable for my main screen (with a USB hub in the monitor)
    and a USB-c SSD external and a USB-3 hub that has keyboard and other
    drives and chargers and such connected to it. Current;y there is a total
    of 53TB of storage and a shitload of USB-A devices connected to two
    USB-4 ports. And I *could* have everything connected off od a single
    USB-4 port, but I like having the drive arrays on their own and the
    other drives on their own and it works better for cabling.

    And then a second monitor on the HDMI.

    I don't need 10Gb Ethernet - but always prefer wired to WiFi.

    Since 802.11ac I hardly ever notice if I am on Wifi or wired, but yes, I
    still prefer the comfort of being wired, though I doubt it makes any difference.

    --
    "Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
    "I think so, Brain, but the ointment expired weeks ago!"
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 17:10:48
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <s5p3ku$k6q$1@dont-email.me> Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> wrote:
    On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

    Wow.

    I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
    home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.

    Jaw dropper for looks.

    Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard.  I'll
    probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance.  I would
    assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"

    16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
    the next 10 years.

    I hope to upgrade later this year.  My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
    the graphics processing is a bit on the light side.  Otherwise it is
    still a very capable machine.

    Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple
    ones ;-)

    Lots of people. If I were going to buy one of the iMacs it would
    definitely be the purple one.


    --
    People in cages is never not personal, sweetie.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 17:16:21
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <s5pgvm$rbl$1@dont-email.me> Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> wrote:
    On 4/21/21 7:56 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 07:51, Wade Garrett wrote:
    On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

    Wow.

    I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
    home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.

    Jaw dropper for looks.

    Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard.  I'll >>>> probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance.  I
    would assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"

    16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for >>>> the next 10 years.

    I hope to upgrade later this year.  My only issue with the 2012 i7 is >>>> the graphics processing is a bit on the light side.  Otherwise it is >>>> still a very capable machine.

    Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple
    ones ;-)

    A real man gets what he wants and doesn't care what other people think.

    I like the blue.  Wonder why there isn't a red.   Space grey would have >> been great.  Tossup over blue / silver for me.

    Perhaps if Timmy had saved a little manufacturing inventory money by not having to buy seven different paint colors and just used gray, he could
    have upgraded the puny base model HD from 256 to something actually useful...and also included all eight cores in the base model M1
    processor instead of the hamstrung seven.

    Perhaps if you were not an idiot troll you would notice that there are
    multiple configurations, and will be more with some BTO customization
    once orders open.

    I was definitely planning to buy an M1 iMac but with the tiny hard drive
    and seven processor cores, I may just take a pass.

    Oh, boohoo! the base model isn't what you want, so you're going to suck
    your thumb and sit in the corner! Don't forget to have someone change
    your nappies before your ass chafes.

    Hard to understand why the HD is so puny.

    Maybe because for the vast majority of iMac buyers it is perfectly
    reasonable to have a 256GB drive. My wife's work computer which she uses
    every day for her job has 100GB used on it's internal drive, and 20GB of
    that is shared Dropbox files that she actually does not need tohave on
    her drive.

    The supplier cost to increase it to a 512 or 1 TB capacity is not
    much

    You are making shit up.

    --
    A cubicle is simply a cell without a door.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 13:24:06
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <slrns80mve.2hgs.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:


    I hope this new keyboard will work with any M1 Mac and not just the
    iMac because if ti does I will definitely buy it for my mini.

    it will, but you will have to wait to buy it separately.

    <https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/20/magic-keyboard-touch-id-compatible- all-m1-macs/>
    As first noted by Rene Ritchie and confirmed by MacRumors, the
    Magic Keyboard with Touch ID is fully compatible with all M1 Macs,
    including the new iMac, 13-inch MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, and Mac
    mini. If used with Intel-based Macs or other Bluetooth devices, the
    Magic Keyboard will still function with the exception of Touch ID.

    While the new Magic Keyboard is compatible with all M1 Macs, it
    will only be available with the new iMac, at least initially. The new
    iMac can be configured with one of three different Magic Keyboards,
    including a standard version with Touch ID, a standard version
    without Touch ID, and an extended version with Touch ID and a
    numeric keypad.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Browne@Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 13:28:55
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 11:39, Wade Garrett wrote:
    On 4/21/21 7:56 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 07:51, Wade Garrett wrote:
    On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

    Wow.

    I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
    home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.

    Jaw dropper for looks.

    Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard.
    I'll probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance.
    I would assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"

    16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using
    for the next 10 years.

    I hope to upgrade later this year.  My only issue with the 2012 i7
    is the graphics processing is a bit on the light side.  Otherwise it >>>> is still a very capable machine.

    Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple
    ones ;-)

    A real man gets what he wants and doesn't care what other people think.

    I like the blue.  Wonder why there isn't a red.   Space grey would
    have been great.  Tossup over blue / silver for me.


    Perhaps if Timmy had saved a little manufacturing inventory money by not having to buy seven different paint colors and just used gray, he could
    have upgraded the puny base model HD from 256 to something actually useful...and also included all eight cores in the base model M1
    processor instead of the hamstrung seven.

    I was definitely planning to buy an M1 iMac but with the tiny hard drive
    and seven processor cores, I may just take a pass.

    4 x HP
    4 x EP
    7 x GPU (or 8 x GPU) - I'm confounded over this bizarre difference....

    Hard to understand why the HD is so puny. The supplier cost to increase
    it to a 512 or 1 TB capacity is not much, even though the Apple Tax to
    the consumer for it would have been plentty

    Apple memory pricing is truly bizarre - whether flash or RAM.

    I can be happy with 500 GB flash by moving stuff on to spinners. 1 TB
    is better. (My VM's run 45 and 75 GB respectively at present, so that's
    a good chunk right there).
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Wade Garrett@wade@cooler.net to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 13:40:22
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 4/21/21 12:27 PM, nospam wrote:
    In article <s5pgvm$rbl$1@dont-email.me>, Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> wrote:


    Perhaps if Timmy had saved a little manufacturing inventory money by not
    having to buy seven different paint colors and just used gray, he could
    have upgraded the puny base model HD from 256 to something actually
    useful...and also included all eight cores in the base model M1
    processor instead of the hamstrung seven.

    that's called chip binning and standard in the industry.

    very, very few people will notice the difference between 7 & 8 core
    gpus in normal use.

    would you prefer that apple throw those chips away, thereby increasing
    costs for everyone?

    I was definitely planning to buy an M1 iMac but with the tiny hard drive
    and seven processor cores, I may just take a pass.

    higher capacity ssds and 8 core processors are available.

    Hard to understand why the HD is so puny. The supplier cost to increase
    it to a 512 or 1 TB capacity is not much, even though the Apple Tax to
    the consumer for it would have been plentty

    the reason is simple: most people have that much stuff on their
    internal storage.

    those who do can get higher capacity internal storage and/or external storage.

    I understand your rebuttals- and sure, I can increase
    capacities/performance and add an external drive...but at a big price
    over the already top dollar/Apple Tax price of the base iMac.

    My point is- it's a chintzy business model. Kinda' like Rolls-Royce,
    Ferrari or Lamborghini equipping and selling their base model car with
    steel wheels, hub caps, retread tires and a push button AM radio.

    Of course, for just a few thousand bucks extra on top of those serious six-figure base prices, you could upgrade to a set of 19" alloy wheels
    dressed in top-of-the-line Michelin Pilot Sport tires and the available voice-controlled dash unit with the CD player and the hardware/software
    to stream music from your phone as well as do navigation.

    --
    Every time a bird craps on my car, I sit on the front porch eating a
    plate of wings to show them what I'm capable of.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Browne@Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 13:40:30
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
    In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with
    only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond
    M1≠intel.

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
    outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Ludicrous. There are no miracles where memory is concerned - there are certainly improvements - but no miracles. RISC also means more
    instructions to do ...

    And, again, I make 10 year buys so future proofing = more memory. Esp.
    if I don't have an upgrade path.


    It's like comparing MHz between Intel and PowerPC, it is just not a
    relevant number in anyway.

    That's really a poor analogy for this...


    I don't like mem swap if I can have more RAM. I'm pretty sure there
    will be higher memory versions and for the long term that's what I'll
    want. It's unlikely, at least in 'consumer' level iMacs, that we'll see
    user upgradeable memory again.

    I doubt we will see user upgradable memory at all. Possible, but I doubt
    it. But yes, I expect systems with more memory to come along.

    I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
    the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
    still a very capable machine.

    $1500 for the iMac (the $1300 model would probably be fine, but I would
    not pass up having a touchID keyboard and that is most the cost

    Touch ID keyboard is nice, but not a decision point. On a MBP that
    would be more of a benefit. At home I have the iMac unlocked for 3 hours

    The biggest benefit of TouchID is the ability to switch users simply by touching the button with a different finger. On the MBA I swap between
    my account and my wife;s account when troubleshooting in a second simply
    by touching the TouchID with one finger or the other.

    I troubleshoot my SO's computer from her account. When she uses my iMac
    she uses my account. But it's likely she'll see a MBA M1 this year on
    her desk. Her MBA is about 2015.
    And confirming nearly every admin action as well.

    I hope this new keyboard will work with any M1 Mac and not just the
    iMac because if ti does I will definitely buy it for my mini.

    No obvious reason that it shouldn't.

    I haven't spent time thinking about the ports. I have 3 of 4 USB3 ports
    in use, plus Ethernet, plus 2nd display. And I already have a new 4K
    display that will be used (currently used in a small embedded project
    off an OS-less Rasp Pi).

    I have a USB-4 hub n m mini with a TB3 drive array connected to it, and
    a TB2 drive array connected to the TB3 Drive array. I also have a USB-C
    Display Port cable for my main screen (with a USB hub in the monitor)
    and a USB-c SSD external and a USB-3 hub that has keyboard and other
    drives and chargers and such connected to it. Current;y there is a total
    of 53TB of storage and a shitload of USB-A devices connected to two
    USB-4 ports. And I *could* have everything connected off od a single
    USB-4 port, but I like having the drive arrays on their own and the
    other drives on their own and it works better for cabling.

    I have two USB-3 ports devoted to 2 cradles of 2 disks each (24TB
    total), 1 USB-3 port for the Arduino and 1 'free' port for whatever is
    needed. (The Arduino doesn't have to be connected, just convenient at
    present as a signal simulator for the Pi project...).


    And then a second monitor on the HDMI.

    I have a DVI port for that at present - it will obviously need to migrae
    to whatever it's called (Thunderbolt-3 / USB-3).


    I don't need 10Gb Ethernet - but always prefer wired to WiFi.

    Since 802.11ac I hardly ever notice if I am on Wifi or wired, but yes, I still prefer the comfort of being wired, though I doubt it makes any difference.

    It does on occasion. With Ethernet I get my ISP's full load when
    testing (120 Mb/s contract, 130 actual); with WiFi it varies from 90 ..
    130 depending on some pixies in the room). The base is only a couple
    metres away.

    Nice that on the iMac, the Ethernet goes into the external power supply (otherwise I'd be complaining about the external power supply).
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 13:44:17
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <s5po28$jio$1@dont-email.me>, Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net>
    wrote:


    I understand your rebuttals- and sure, I can increase
    capacities/performance and add an external drive...but at a big price
    over the already top dollar/Apple Tax price of the base iMac.

    what top dollar is that?

    spec out an equivalent windows pc and it will cost more.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 18:41:00
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <210420211324067629%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrns80mve.2hgs.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:


    I hope this new keyboard will work with any M1 Mac and not just the
    iMac because if ti does I will definitely buy it for my mini.

    it will, but you will have to wait to buy it separately.

    <https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/20/magic-keyboard-touch-id-compatible- all-m1-macs/>
    As first noted by Rene Ritchie and confirmed by MacRumors, the
    Magic Keyboard with Touch ID is fully compatible with all M1 Macs,

    Excellent!

    an extended version with Touch ID and a numeric keypad.

    <warms up the credit card>

    --
    "He loves Nature in spite of what it did to him." - Forrest Tucker
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 18:42:34
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
    In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with
    only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond >>> M1≠intel.

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
    outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Ludicrous.

    Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.

    --
    You are in my inappropriate thoughts
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 18:45:22
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <210420211344170237%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <s5po28$jio$1@dont-email.me>, Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> wrote:


    I understand your rebuttals- and sure, I can increase
    capacities/performance and add an external drive...but at a big price
    over the already top dollar/Apple Tax price of the base iMac.

    what top dollar is that?

    spec out an equivalent windows pc and it will cost more.

    good luck getting an equivalent windows PC at any price.


    --
    Billionaire beats up a schizophrenic woman and a deformed little person
    who likes birds.
    (Batman Returns)
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Browne@Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 15:00:27
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
    In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
    In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with
    only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond >>>> M1≠intel.

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
    outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Ludicrous.

    Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.

    Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V
    word.

    Apple have definitely improved the memory footprint of the OS by jumping
    off the intel model. But there are no miracles. You don't get 2:1 that
    way.

    And I almost always have a VM running as well (and I'm not sure how that
    will go in the future despite VMWare's announcements - they aren't there
    yet) and lately 2 VM's (dev environment for the Pi project I'm doing is
    under Linux (or Windows), the Mac version not yet having been released).

    So, more memory for that too...
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Wade Garrett@wade@cooler.net to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 15:23:15
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 4/21/21 2:45 PM, Lewis wrote:
    In message <210420211344170237%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <s5po28$jio$1@dont-email.me>, Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net>
    wrote:


    I understand your rebuttals- and sure, I can increase
    capacities/performance and add an external drive...but at a big price
    over the already top dollar/Apple Tax price of the base iMac.

    what top dollar is that?

    spec out an equivalent windows pc and it will cost more.

    good luck getting an equivalent windows PC at any price.


    Good one!

    --
    Three things cannot be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
    - Buddha

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 17:03:58
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
    outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Swapping to SSD is still slower than the "slow" Intel memory. Not just
    the operation itself but the fact that it causes an interrupt which the
    OS needs to handle, make all the necessary protection checks etc.


    I doubt we will see user upgradable memory at all. Possible, but I doubt
    it. But yes, I expect systems with more memory to come along.

    Which is why I doubt we will see a "Mac Pro". My guess is what is
    announced at WWDC will give a clue whether Apple is truly moving to
    fixed configs iDevices totally self contained in one chip or whether it
    still intends to make "computers".



    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 17:23:45
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <3r0gI.17087$9F5.10027@fx43.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:


    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
    outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Swapping to SSD is still slower than the "slow" Intel memory. Not just
    the operation itself but the fact that it causes an interrupt which the
    OS needs to handle, make all the necessary protection checks etc.

    ssds do not use interrupts.

    I doubt we will see user upgradable memory at all. Possible, but I doubt it. But yes, I expect systems with more memory to come along.

    Which is why I doubt we will see a "Mac Pro".

    yet another thing about which you are wrong.

    *all* macs are moving to apple silicon by next year at the latest (two
    years from the announcement last june).

    that includes the mac pro, whatever form it might take.

    My guess is

    wrong

    what is
    announced at WWDC will give a clue whether Apple is truly moving to
    fixed configs iDevices totally self contained in one chip or whether it
    still intends to make "computers".

    both are computers.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 17:34:52
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 17:23, nospam wrote:

    ssds do not use interrupts.

    swapping does. YoU're trying to access virtual RAM that is mapped to
    disk. The OS is interrupted so it can issue the IO tro read the relevant
    disk blocks from disk into RAM and then map your virtual space to it.
    (and often requires the OS select which other RAM can be freed to make
    way for your request, and that requires that memory be written to disk
    and memory mapping changed to reflect that).


    that includes the mac pro, whatever form it might take.

    Yes, just like the MacBook Pro is no longer "pro" or have any "Pro"
    features in it. So the Mac Pro will be a Mac Mini with dongles.

    In the end, if all Apple has is the equivalent of the M1 chip with
    everything self contained, the "mac pro" will be no different from an
    iMac or MacBook or iPad or iPhone with the same chip,

    Hence the need to get some visibility on Apple true roadmap for its
    products.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Baker@notonyourlife@no.no.no.no to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 14:43:52
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 2:34 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 17:23, nospam wrote:

    ssds do not use interrupts.

    swapping does. YoU're trying to access virtual RAM that is mapped to
    disk. The OS is interrupted so it can issue the IO tro read the relevant
    disk blocks from disk into RAM and then map your virtual space to it.
    (and often requires the OS select which other RAM can be freed to make
    way for your request, and that requires that memory be written to disk
    and memory mapping changed to reflect that).


    that includes the mac pro, whatever form it might take.

    Yes, just like the MacBook Pro is no longer "pro" or have any "Pro"
    features in it. So the Mac Pro will be a Mac Mini with dongles.

    Oh, look: wrong...


    again!

    'On the right side of the machine, there’s a visible HDMI port,
    accompanied by a USB-C/Thunderbolt port and followed by an SD Card
    reader. The left side features two additional USB-C/Thunderbolt ports
    and a ‌MagSafe‌ charging slot, for a total of three USB-C/Thunderbolt ports instead of four as we have today.'


    <https://www.macworld.com/article/343999/stolen-macbook-pro-schematics-confirm-hdmi-sd-card-and-magsafe.html>


    In the end, if all Apple has is the equivalent of the M1 chip with
    everything self contained, the "mac pro" will be no different from an
    iMac or MacBook or iPad or iPhone with the same chip,

    Assuming that Apple cannot make better, faster chips that follow on from
    the M1...

    ...which only an idiot would assume.


    Hence the need to get some visibility on Apple true roadmap for its
    products.


    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 18:02:05
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <0U0gI.92156$ST2.39682@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:


    ssds do not use interrupts.

    swapping does.

    nope.

    YoU're trying to access virtual RAM that is mapped to
    disk. The OS is interrupted so it can issue the IO tro read the relevant
    disk blocks from disk into RAM and then map your virtual space to it.
    (and often requires the OS select which other RAM can be freed to make
    way for your request, and that requires that memory be written to disk
    and memory mapping changed to reflect that).

    nope.

    you're confusing interrupts with exceptions.

    actually, you're just flat out confused.

    that includes the mac pro, whatever form it might take.

    Yes, just like the MacBook Pro is no longer "pro" or have any "Pro"
    features in it.

    false.

    So the Mac Pro will be a Mac Mini with dongles.

    nope.

    In the end, if all Apple has is the equivalent of the M1 chip with
    everything self contained, the "mac pro" will be no different from an
    iMac or MacBook or iPad or iPhone with the same chip,

    very much nope.

    Hence the need to get some visibility on Apple true roadmap for its
    products.

    they don't disclose their roadmap.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Your Name@YourName@YourISP.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 10:06:36
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 11:51:57 +0000, Wade Garrett said:
    On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

    Wow.

    I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
    home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.

    Jaw dropper for looks.

    Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard.  I'll
    probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance.  I would
    assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"

    16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
    the next 10 years.

    I hope to upgrade later this year.  My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
    the graphics processing is a bit on the light side.  Otherwise it is
    still a very capable machine.

    Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple ones ;-)

    Probably those weird Hello Kitty fanatic Japanese girls.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Your Name@YourName@YourISP.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 10:15:57
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 15:39:33 +0000, Wade Garrett said:
    On 4/21/21 7:56 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 07:51, Wade Garrett wrote:
    On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

    Wow.

    I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
    home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.

    Jaw dropper for looks.

    Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard.  I'll >>>> probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance.  I would >>>> assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"

    16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for >>>> the next 10 years.

    I hope to upgrade later this year.  My only issue with the 2012 i7 is >>>> the graphics processing is a bit on the light side.  Otherwise it is
    still a very capable machine.

    Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple ones ;-)

    A real man gets what he wants and doesn't care what other people think.

    I like the blue.  Wonder why there isn't a red.   Space grey would have
    been great.  Tossup over blue / silver for me.

    Perhaps if Timmy had saved a little manufacturing inventory money by
    not having to buy seven different paint colors and just used gray, he
    could have upgraded the puny base model HD from 256 to something
    actually useful...and also included all eight cores in the base model
    M1 processor instead of the hamstrung seven.

    I was definitely planning to buy an M1 iMac but with the tiny hard
    drive and seven processor cores, I may just take a pass.

    Hard to understand why the HD is so puny. The supplier cost to increase
    it to a 512 or 1 TB capacity is not much, even though the Apple Tax to
    the consumer for it would have been plentty

    There aren't any "hard drives" at all, nor "Fusion" drive either. Apple
    has moved over to only SSD storage, which means either more expensive
    or less capacity than hard drives. Custom build options mean you can
    upgrade at purchase time to a maximum of 2TB, but the price won't be
    known until ordering is possible next week.

    RAM is still limited to 16GB, and again has to be done at purchase time because it is "unified" (on the CPU chip itself).

    Apple has stupidly continued over the inability to user-upgrade these
    new iMac models, in some ways even worse dur to "unifided" memory. It
    is yet to be known by iFixit if the stroage drives can be upgraded even
    by Apple service technicians. :-(



    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Your Name@YourName@YourISP.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 10:25:33
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 19:00:27 +0000, Alan Browne said:
    On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
    In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne
    <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
    In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne
    <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond >>>>> M1≠intel.

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
    outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Ludicrous.

    Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.

    Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V word.

    Apple have definitely improved the memory footprint of the OS by
    jumping off the intel model. But there are no miracles. You don't get
    2:1 that way.

    And I almost always have a VM running as well (and I'm not sure how
    that will go in the future despite VMWare's announcements - they aren't there yet) and lately 2 VM's (dev environment for the Pi project I'm
    doing is under Linux (or Windows), the Mac version not yet having been released).

    So, more memory for that too...

    The M1 works differently and more efficiently than the Intel chips, so
    the simple fact is that less RAM is required to perform the same
    functions. There's also the speed of access to SSD that is another
    reason why less RAM is needed.

    Those who may actually need more RAM will be professional users, who
    will be waiting for the iMac Pro / 30" iMac or the Mac Pro to be
    released, with either an "M1x" or "M2" CPU giving more RAM capacity.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 18:44:44
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <s5q86r$1kkj$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
    <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

    Custom build options mean you can
    upgrade at purchase time to a maximum of 2TB, but the price won't be
    known until ordering is possible next week.

    pricing is already known.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 18:53:41
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 17:43, Alan Baker wrote:

    Assuming that Apple cannot make better, faster chips that follow on from
    the M1...


    I never said anything about per core performance. Apple has shown since
    the A4 that it has been leading the industry in not only improvements
    but more importantly sustained pace of improvements.

    They have scaled the iPhone chip to MacBooks and now an iMac. But it is
    still a very closed/fixed config with 16GB max.

    In the real workd where high performance desktops need 64GB and more,
    Apple apologists just wave that issue away with "16GB is plenty because
    it's Apple".

    It is still unclear to me how or even IF Apple will go to high end
    desktops. The higher end you go, the lesser the volume, and the lesser
    the volume, the lesser the fincicial justification to design a
    proprietary Mxx chip for only that market.


    XEON isn't built just for the small Mac Pro Market. It servers a lot of
    high end desktop and almost all servers. There is a large enough market
    to justify its development.

    But Apple's high end market is limited to imac Pro and Mac Pro, the
    later proced to fail at very low volumes.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 18:58:45
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 18:25, Your Name wrote:

    The M1 works differently and more efficiently than the Intel chips, so
    the simple fact is that less RAM is required to perform the same
    functions. There's also the speed of access to SSD that is another
    reason why less RAM is needed.

    Yes, especially since the M1 GPUs used a Tardis and can occupy the same
    RAM as applications without reducing Application's availabhle RAM
    because the GPU use the same RAM but from from another dimension.

    Amazing the lengths people go to to justify the 16GB limit being much
    more than on conventional computers despite the Apple GPUs reducing the
    amount of RAM available to the OS on M1 macs.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Baker@notonyourlife@no.no.no.no to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 16:23:31
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 3:53 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 17:43, Alan Baker wrote:

    Assuming that Apple cannot make better, faster chips that follow on from
    the M1...


    I never said anything about per core performance. Apple has shown since
    the A4 that it has been leading the industry in not only improvements
    but more importantly sustained pace of improvements.




    They have scaled the iPhone chip to MacBooks and now an iMac. But it is
    still a very closed/fixed config with 16GB max.

    They have NOT "scaled the iPhone chip". They designed a NEW chip.

    And you have literally no basis for claiming it is designed with a 16GB maximum for RAM.


    In the real workd where high performance desktops need 64GB and more,
    Apple apologists just wave that issue away with "16GB is plenty because
    it's Apple".

    And as I said (if you'd been paying attention):

    Even if the M1 has a 16GB limit for RAM (not proven or even supported),
    that doesn't stop Apple from designing other chips with higher limits.


    It is still unclear to me how or even IF Apple will go to high end
    desktops. The higher end you go, the lesser the volume, and the lesser
    the volume, the lesser the fincicial justification to design a
    proprietary Mxx chip for only that market.


    XEON isn't built just for the small Mac Pro Market. It servers a lot of
    high end desktop and almost all servers. There is a large enough market
    to justify its development.

    But Apple's high end market is limited to imac Pro and Mac Pro, the
    later proced to fail at very low volumes.

    You have no clue about anything of which Apple is capable or willing to do.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 19:48:32
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <W12gI.29724$Qf2.17696@fx38.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

    It is still unclear to me how or even IF Apple will go to high end
    desktops.

    apple said *all* macs will transition to apple silicon.

    do you not understand what the word 'all' means?

    The higher end you go, the lesser the volume, and the lesser
    the volume, the lesser the fincicial justification to design a
    proprietary Mxx chip for only that market.

    false.

    XEON isn't built just for the small Mac Pro Market. It servers a lot of
    high end desktop and almost all servers. There is a large enough market
    to justify its development.

    different business model.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 20:38:29
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-21 19:48, nospam wrote:

    apple said *all* macs will transition to apple silicon.

    The correct text is that the transktion will be done within 2 years.
    They did not commit to transiting all Macs since not all Macs will go. (consider a certain size iMac may not make it and be replaced by a
    slightly differe t size one, same with laptops).

    XEON isn't built just for the small Mac Pro Market. It servers a lot of
    high end desktop and almost all servers. There is a large enough market
    to justify its development.

    different business model.


    The realities of the cost of designing a chip in the real world (outside
    of Appple reality distortion field in which you ive) dictate that the
    small volumes for a very focused niche of Mac Pro would he horrendous
    for Apple and not financially viable).

    It's a huge amount of work to take a glorified iDevice chip and add to
    it external expandibility that isn't present in its design. (such as
    external memory, external GPUs, support for NVMe drives etc). hence the question of whether Apple will give hints of heading that way for future
    iMacs (alloweding a MacPro) or whether Apple will stay the course wioth
    self contained chips with whatever RAM it can cram into it and just
    aboandon the high end market because it isn't big enough.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 21:11:06
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <aA3gI.109174$J_5.33822@fx46.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:


    apple said *all* macs will transition to apple silicon.

    The correct text is that the transktion will be done within 2 years.

    that was 10 months ago, which means the 2 year time frame has about 1
    more year left.

    They did not commit to transiting all Macs since not all Macs will go. (consider a certain size iMac may not make it and be replaced by a
    slightly differe t size one, same with laptops).

    a slightly different size counts as the same product.

    XEON isn't built just for the small Mac Pro Market. It servers a lot of
    high end desktop and almost all servers. There is a large enough market
    to justify its development.

    different business model.


    The realities of the cost of designing a chip in the real world (outside
    of Appple reality distortion field in which you ive) dictate that the
    small volumes for a very focused niche of Mac Pro would he horrendous
    for Apple and not financially viable).

    intel's product are processors.

    apple's product are phones, macs, etc. they do not need to make a
    profit on the chip itself.

    It's a huge amount of work to take a glorified iDevice chip and add to
    it external expandibility that isn't present in its design. (such as
    external memory, external GPUs, support for NVMe drives etc). hence the question of whether Apple will give hints of heading that way for future iMacs (alloweding a MacPro) or whether Apple will stay the course wioth
    self contained chips with whatever RAM it can cram into it and just
    aboandon the high end market because it isn't big enough.

    no.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 04:29:54
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <3r0gI.17087$9F5.10027@fx43.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
    outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Swapping to SSD is still slower than the "slow" Intel memory. Not just
    the operation itself but the fact that it causes an interrupt which the
    OS needs to handle, make all the necessary protection checks etc.

    How about you shut up until you have any actual experience using an M1
    Mac?

    Which is why I doubt we will see a "Mac Pro".

    Oh, we will see a Mac Pro, there' no doubt about that.

    --
    I AM NOT A 32 YEAR OLD WOMAN Bart chalkboard Ep. 7F08
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 04:38:59
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
    In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
    In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond >>>>> M1≠intel.

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
    outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Ludicrous.

    Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.

    Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V word.

    You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
    not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
    wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference.
    Maybe you should try it?

    Apple have definitely improved the memory footprint of the OS by jumping
    off the intel model. But there are no miracles. You don't get 2:1 that way.

    The FACT is that an M1 mini outperforms a 32GB i9 Intel in processing
    4K video at about 2:1 better performance. I did not call that a miracle,
    but it IS a fact.

    The FACt is that my M1 that is not processing 5K video simply never
    slows down for anything. Apps open faster, the system boots faster.
    Everything is faster than on the previous 6 core i7 Intel.

    In fact, the M1 *EMULATES* Intel faster than the native intel chips can
    run their won code natively. You can call that a miracle if you want, I
    prefer to call it excellent engineers doing something remarkable.

    --
    'We get that in here some nights, when someone's had a few. Cosmic
    speculation about whether the gods exist. Next thing, there's a
    bolt of lightning through the door with a note wrapped round it
    saying, "Yes, we do" and a pair of sandals with smoke coming
    out.' (Small Gods)
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 04:57:04
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:

    You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
    not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
    wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference.
    Maybe you should try it?


    Are you claiming that paging to SSD is also magically boosted to a speed
    that matches what the "RAM inside" provides?

    Unless you are making that claim, then you can't claim that having less
    RAM is faster. Once you have page faults, you no longer get rans RAM
    access and you depend on disk IO with all the overhead of paging to/from
    disk.


    Doing a fancy test of a 30 secodn 4K video clip won't need much memory
    and let you make all your fancy claims. And depending on your software
    and type of process, you may not be using all your cores and hence have
    far less RAM requiremen. Doing an After Effects of a 20 minute video
    with many tracks, special effects on it will make full use of all that
    is available, and you are short of RAM, you will feel it and there may
    not be enough RAM available to use all cores.


    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Browne@bitbucket@blackhole.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 08:21:12
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:
    In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
    In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
    In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond >>>>>> M1≠intel.

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
    outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Ludicrous.

    Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.

    Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V
    word.

    You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
    not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
    wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference.
    Maybe you should try it?

    No. The memory is definitely not at all on the same chip as previously
    pointed out - indeed you agreed to that when it was pointed out.


    Apple have definitely improved the memory footprint of the OS by jumping
    off the intel model. But there are no miracles. You don't get 2:1 that
    way.

    The FACT is that an M1 mini outperforms a 32GB i9 Intel in processing
    4K video at about 2:1 better performance. I did not call that a miracle,
    but it IS a fact.

    Speed ≠ Memory (at least not directly.


    The FACt is that my M1 that is not processing 5K video simply never
    slows down for anything. Apps open faster, the system boots faster. Everything is faster than on the previous 6 core i7 Intel.

    In fact, the M1 *EMULATES* Intel faster than the native intel chips can
    run their won code natively. You can call that a miracle if you want, I prefer to call it excellent engineers doing something remarkable.

    You're conflating speed improvements (which I'm not arguing) with memory requirements.

    Further, you're ignoring life cycle needs. I keep computers a long
    time. This 2012 iMac for example (that I bought in 2013).

    So with swapping I'd want to avoid SSD wear as well - lots of memory definitely avoids that (As I posted recently the difference between 8 GB
    and 32 GB).

    --
    "...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
    man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
    -Samuel Clemens
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 08:54:42
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <ETagI.94370$ST2.65381@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:


    You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
    not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
    wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference. Maybe you should try it?


    Are you claiming that paging to SSD is also magically boosted to a speed
    that matches what the "RAM inside" provides?

    nobody made that claim.

    Unless you are making that claim, then you can't claim that having less
    RAM is faster. Once you have page faults, you no longer get rans RAM
    access and you depend on disk IO with all the overhead of paging to/from disk.

    the comparison is not more ram versus less ram.

    it's 16 gig on an m1 versus 16 (or more) on intel.

    benchmarks show that the m1 mac is faster in most cases than intel,
    sometimes even matching a mac pro: <https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Final-Cut-Pro-4k60-Do lby-Vision-HDR.png> <https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/webkit-compile-time.j

    <https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/xcode-unzip-time.jpg>

    and also uses less battery power: <https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Final-Cut-Pro-5-minut e-8K-Timeline-Export-Battery-Remaining.png> <https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/webkit-compile-batter y1.jpg>
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 13:43:39
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <ETagI.94370$ST2.65381@fx47.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:

    You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
    not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
    wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference.
    Maybe you should try it?

    Are you claiming that paging to SSD is also magically boosted to a speed
    that matches what the "RAM inside" provides?

    Unless you are making that claim, then you can't claim that having less
    RAM is faster. Once you have page faults, you no longer get rans RAM
    access and you depend on disk IO with all the overhead of paging to/from disk.

    The M1 under load is faster than the 6 core i7 under load. Across the
    board. Unlike you, I do not make up bullshit explanations for why it
    performs the way it does, but I sure do notice it.

    Doing a fancy test of a 30 secodn 4K video clip won't need much memory

    30 MINUTES you idiot troll.

    --
    "One of the great tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful
    theory by a gang of brutal facts." - Benjamin Franklin
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 13:48:49
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <YSdgI.74720$OF5.63838@fx07.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:
    In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
    In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
    In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond
    M1≠intel.

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
    outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Ludicrous.

    Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.

    Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V
    word.

    You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
    not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
    wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference.
    Maybe you should try it?

    No. The memory is definitely not at all on the same chip as previously pointed out - indeed you agreed to that when it was pointed out.

    You need to watch the M1 introduction again, obviously. The CPU, GPU, and
    RAM (and a few other things?) are all on a single SoC. The M1 is not a
    CPU, it is a SoC.

    You're conflating speed improvements (which I'm not arguing) with memory requirements.

    No, I am comparing a 32GB Intel i9 to a 16GB M1. It's easy to see the
    effects of hitting the memory ceiling on the Intel, it is not on the M1.

    Further, you're ignoring life cycle needs.

    No, I'm not, i simply don't care about the 10 year life of a $800
    computer.

    --
    Anybody who tells me what happens to me after I'm dead is either a
    liar or a fool because they DON'T KNOW
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Browne@Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 14:57:46
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 09:48, Lewis wrote:
    In message <YSdgI.74720$OF5.63838@fx07.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:
    In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
    In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
    In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond
    M1≠intel.

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far >>>>>>> outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Ludicrous.

    Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.

    Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V >>>> word.

    You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
    not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
    wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference.
    Maybe you should try it?

    No. The memory is definitely not at all on the same chip as previously
    pointed out - indeed you agreed to that when it was pointed out.

    You need to watch the M1 introduction again, obviously. The CPU, GPU, and
    RAM (and a few other things?) are all on a single SoC. The M1 is not a
    CPU, it is a SoC.

    SoC's do not as a rule always have RAM on the SoC chip. For memory this
    size it would be near impossible as I explained to you in the past.

    per Apple: ( https://www.apple.com/macbook-air/ )
    "Our first chip designed specifically for Mac. Packed with an
    astonishing 16 billion transistors, the Apple M1 system on a chip (SoC) integrates the CPU, GPU, Neural Engine, I/O, and so much more onto a
    single tiny chip."

    16 GB of memory would require a minimum of 137,438,953,472 logic gates.
    Each gate would require a minimum of 2 transistors. (Probably more).

    So you're north of 137B transistors for the memory alone. Does that
    sound like 16B transistors on the M1 to you?

    We've been through this. I sent a link to an image showing the memory
    is not on chip. And IIRC I sent the numbers above too.

    https://www.apple.com/v/mac/m1/a/images/overview/chip__fffqz3ljssi2_large.jpg

    Is what I posted in reply to you on 2020-11-14.

    Here's another image: https://images.idgesg.net/images/article/2020/11/m1-system-on-chip-100866046-large.jpg

    And I seem to recall a graphic in the original M1 intro video that
    alludes to this as well.


    You're conflating speed improvements (which I'm not arguing) with memory
    requirements.

    No, I am comparing a 32GB Intel i9 to a 16GB M1. It's easy to see the
    effects of hitting the memory ceiling on the Intel, it is not on the M1.

    Further, you're ignoring life cycle needs.

    No, I'm not, i simply don't care about the 10 year life of a $800
    computer.

    Life cycle costs include waste management, impact on the environment,
    etc. Aka: the commons.

    The US price of the base iMac is $1300. $1700 for more storage and
    ports (and one mysterious extra GPU). Put it at 16 GB.... what will the
    price be.

    And of course the one I get will be more expensive to be sure assuming
    its a Mx, possibly larger screen and more memory. And I tend to avoid electronics waste. So more up front is more down the road.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Fishrrman@Fishrrman2000@yahoo.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 15:02:02
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 4/20/21 8:32 PM, Lewis wrote:
    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    That's because of all the extreme, high-volume VM disk
    swapping and other disk writes the m1 does as a part of the
    "unified memory" design.

    My guess is the m1 won't work with RAM capacities higher
    than 16gb (at least in the Macs) -- hence, no larger amount
    of RAM is available.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 15:21:45
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <s5sh7a$pct$1@dont-email.me>, Fishrrman
    <Fishrrman2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    That's because of all the extreme, high-volume VM disk
    swapping and other disk writes the m1 does as a part of the
    "unified memory" design.

    no, that's not why.

    My guess is the m1 won't work with RAM capacities higher
    than 16gb (at least in the Macs) -- hence, no larger amount
    of RAM is available.

    for now, 16 gig is the maximum, which is more than enough for most
    people.

    the transition has only begun. the m1 is the *first* in a long line of processors.

    future macs will support higher amounts of memory.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Browne@Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 15:26:05
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 15:02, Fishrrman wrote:
    On 4/20/21 8:32 PM, Lewis wrote:
    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    That's because of all the extreme, high-volume VM disk swapping and
    other disk writes the m1 does as a part of the "unified memory" design.

    My guess is the m1 won't work with RAM capacities higher than 16gb (at
    least in the Macs) -- hence, no larger amount of RAM is available.

    To be seen. The basic ARM 64 bit design accommodates memory models
    north of 1 TB IIRC.

    And while the unified memory indeed means a lot less blocks of memory
    moving to/from I/O, it's not an huge fraction of the overall memory.
    Certainly a big contributor to speed.

    I'd guess that it's conveniently sized memory chip carriers for, eg, 32
    GB, that are the issue (or having to lay out 4 carriers on the MB. With
    a larger motherboard in a larger iMac, such would not be an issue.

    This first iMac is the most "base" iMac for the next couple years. iMac
    have come in a pretty wide performance range. (i5, i7, i9) with a very
    wide memory range (8 GB up to 64, 128GB).

    So I'm guessing the fall will see some powerful options including
    whatever comes after M1 (M1+, M2, whatever...)
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Browne@Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 15:30:56
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 15:26, Alan Browne wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 15:02, Fishrrman wrote:
    On 4/20/21 8:32 PM, Lewis wrote:
    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    That's because of all the extreme, high-volume VM disk swapping and
    other disk writes the m1 does as a part of the "unified memory" design.

    My guess is the m1 won't work with RAM capacities higher than 16gb (at
    least in the Macs) -- hence, no larger amount of RAM is available.

    To be seen.  The basic ARM 64 bit design accommodates memory models
    north of 1 TB IIRC.

    And while the unified memory indeed means a lot less blocks of memory
    moving to/from I/O, it's not an huge fraction of the overall memory. Certainly a big contributor to speed.

    I'd guess that it's conveniently sized memory chip carriers for, eg, 32
    GB, that are the issue (or having to lay out 4 carriers on the MB.  With
    a larger motherboard in a larger iMac, such would not be an issue.

    This first iMac is the most "base" iMac for the next couple years.  iMac have come in a pretty wide performance range. (i5, i7, i9) with a very
    wide memory range (8 GB up to 64, 128GB).

    (recent models, naturally, before someone goes bananas).


    So I'm guessing the fall will see some powerful options including
    whatever comes after M1 (M1+, M2, whatever...)

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 16:50:09
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 15:26, Alan Browne wrote:

    To be seen. The basic ARM 64 bit design accommodates memory models
    north of 1 TB IIRC.

    The architecture accomodates 64 bit memory. ( 16 exabytes)
    Each implememtation decides how many of the 64 bits will actually be
    looked at by the memory controller (which also defines memory address
    data path) and hence implementation memory limit. This is why for
    instance, each 8086 chip model has a memory limit in the specs released
    by Intel. I don't think anyone has implemented full 64 bit for memory
    address.

    How many bits for memory addressing Apple has implemented for M1 or A14
    is not known. But it is quite possible that they only implememnted 34
    bits giving a max addressable of 16GB. Coming from iPhone/iPad, Apple
    woudln't have felt need to implement much wider data path within memory controller.

    The picture you show may have the RAM in separate real estate, but it is
    still embeded inside the chip so a very fixed configuration when the
    chip is made. Not something soldered in after chip is packaged.

    What I can see coming however is Apple doing production runs of say 64GB
    RAM, but disabling is down to various levels, and perhaps having tools
    to enable memory for a fee after the fact. (a way to give you
    software-enabled RAM upgrades).




    And while the unified memory indeed means a lot less blocks of memory
    moving to/from I/O, it's not an huge fraction of the overall memory. Certainly a big contributor to speed.

    Cuts both ways. Memory to the GPU doesn't use PCIe bus to transit to the
    GPU, but then, as the multiple GPUs are doing their work, it competes
    against the other CPU cores for access to memory.

    The issue or multiple cores accessing memory dates back to the 1990s
    with machines such as Digital's Wilffire whose multiple Alpha processors
    in the machine were slowed down because they couldn't access memory fast enough.

    It wasn't till the early 2000s that new memory controller (EV7 Alpha
    from DEC and IBM's Power processor) made multi core work well. DEC's
    demise resulted in AMD and PA Semi (now Apple) getting engineers, and
    Intel getting the IP. Intel developped Quickpath available end 2008
    (Nehalem XEON) (CSI/QUIckpath was EV7 controller but without cache
    coherence), and AMD was first to market with better memory controller.

    Scaling memory access remains a challenge despite the huge advances made
    in early/mid 2000s.

    Just because Apple designed a memmroy controller than has scaled to 8
    cores and a couple of GPUs doesn't mean that they can just take on more
    cores and GPUs to it, You end up with law of diminishing returns when
    each componently is slowed , waiting for RAM because everyone is using
    it at same time. This is expecially true as CPU and GPUs become faster
    and faster and wants faster access to RAM.

    Having your GPUs integrated may give fantastic performance for iPhone
    and low end MACs, but it remains to be seen how/if Apple scales this up
    to high end Macs, or whether it goes a more conventional route with
    separate GPUs.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Baker@notonyourlife@no.no.no.no to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 13:56:08
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 1:50 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 15:26, Alan Browne wrote:

    To be seen. The basic ARM 64 bit design accommodates memory models
    north of 1 TB IIRC.

    The architecture accomodates 64 bit memory. ( 16 exabytes)
    Each implememtation decides how many of the 64 bits will actually be
    looked at by the memory controller (which also defines memory address
    data path) and hence implementation memory limit. This is why for
    instance, each 8086 chip model has a memory limit in the specs released
    by Intel. I don't think anyone has implemented full 64 bit for memory address.

    Why do you continue to reference a processor that became irrelevant
    nearly 40 years ago?


    How many bits for memory addressing Apple has implemented for M1 or A14
    is not known. But it is quite possible that they only implememnted 34
    bits giving a max addressable of 16GB. Coming from iPhone/iPad, Apple woudln't have felt need to implement much wider data path within memory controller.

    The picture you show may have the RAM in separate real estate, but it is still embeded inside the chip so a very fixed configuration when the
    chip is made. Not something soldered in after chip is packaged.

    Wrong.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Your Name@YourName@YourISP.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 09:18:37
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 20:56:08 +0000, Alan Baker said:
    On 2021-04-22 1:50 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 15:26, Alan Browne wrote:

    To be seen. The basic ARM 64 bit design accommodates memory models
    north of 1 TB IIRC.

    The architecture accomodates 64 bit memory. ( 16 exabytes)
    Each implememtation decides how many of the 64 bits will actually be
    looked at by the memory controller (which also defines memory address
    data path) and hence implementation memory limit. This is why for
    instance, each 8086 chip model has a memory limit in the specs released
    by Intel. I don't think anyone has implemented full 64 bit for memory
    address.

    Why do you continue to reference a processor that became irrelevant
    nearly 40 years ago?

    How many bits for memory addressing Apple has implemented for M1 or A14
    is not known. But it is quite possible that they only implememnted 34
    bits giving a max addressable of 16GB. Coming from iPhone/iPad, Apple
    woudln't have felt need to implement much wider data path within memory
    controller.

    The picture you show may have the RAM in separate real estate, but it is
    still embeded inside the chip so a very fixed configuration when the
    chip is made. Not something soldered in after chip is packaged.

    Wrong.

    The RAM is not inside the physical chip itself, but is part of the SoC architecture (direct access paths, etc.), so it's not "normal" RAM as
    such. Reportedly it can be upgraded from 8GB to 16GB ... with expert electronics skills and the right tool.

    <https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/04/06/theoretically-you-can-upgrade-ram-ssd-on-your-m1-mac-mini-but-you-shouldnt>




    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 22:55:00
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <5klgI.23115$RC2.1279@fx27.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 15:26, Alan Browne wrote:

    To be seen. The basic ARM 64 bit design accommodates memory models
    north of 1 TB IIRC.

    The architecture accomodates 64 bit memory. ( 16 exabytes)
    Each implememtation decides how many of the 64 bits will actually be
    looked at by the memory controller (which also defines memory address
    data path) and hence implementation memory limit. This is why for
    instance, each 8086

    Let's try to come up with something from this century. Where is your
    citation that memory addressing is limited to less than 64 bits on ARM
    in general and the M1 specifically.

    Just because Intel did some bullshit 40 years ago doesn't make it
    relevant to anything today.

    How many bits for memory addressing Apple has implemented for M1 or A14
    is not known.

    So you admit you made this up. I suppose that is progress of some sort.

    --
    "Making music should not be left to the professionals." - Michelle
    Shocked
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 23:08:01
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <KGjgI.19525$9F5.17428@fx43.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 09:48, Lewis wrote:
    In message <YSdgI.74720$OF5.63838@fx07.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:
    In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
    In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
    In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.

    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>>>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond
    M1≠intel.

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far >>>>>>>> outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Ludicrous.

    Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.

    Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V >>>>> word.

    You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
    not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
    wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference. >>>> Maybe you should try it?

    No. The memory is definitely not at all on the same chip as previously
    pointed out - indeed you agreed to that when it was pointed out.

    You need to watch the M1 introduction again, obviously. The CPU, GPU, and
    RAM (and a few other things?) are all on a single SoC. The M1 is not a
    CPU, it is a SoC.

    SoC's do not as a rule always have RAM on the SoC chip. For memory this size it would be near impossible as I explained to you in the past.

    Fine. The module that contains the SoC also contains the RAM, which is
    much more tightly integrated to the CPU than memory normally is.

    here's the M1 module:

    <https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/ZRQGFteQwoIVFbNn>

    But the fact is that the RAM has a much wider path to the CPU and that a
    16GB M1 system is much more responsive than a 32GB Intel.

    --
    Heisenberg's only uncertainty was what pub to vomit in next and Jung
    fancied Freud's mother too. -- Jared Earle
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 19:28:39
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 17:44, Alan Browne wrote:

    No it does not because it only has somewhere around 50 - 52 address
    bits.

    https://developer.arm.com/documentation/101811/0100/Address-spaces-in-AArch64


    Address sizes

    Armv8-A is a 64-bit architecture, but this does not mean that all
    addresses are 64-bit.


    This is why I stated that it depends on the chip. The archiecture is 64
    bits, but the chip maker decides how many of those 64 bits it actually
    uses. Have no idea if Apple documented how many it uses for its A14/M1
    chips. But if it only implememnted 34 bits, i would explain the 16GB
    limit of M1.

    using only 34 bits instead of 64 allows one to make smaller electronics
    since you only need 34 traces on the chip instead of 64 leading to
    memory controller from each core.


    No it absolutely is not. The M1 has 16B transistors. The memory would
    need a minimum of 137B transistors if each memory bit were implemented
    in 1 transistor.


    Couldn't find an iFixit teardown of a 2020 Mac. But did find this one: https://youtu.be/hczcaGX62S0

    I had interpreted the picture you had posted more as a "concept", but
    the chip packaging really has the RAM is a separate component mounted on
    the same carrier and thus socket. Not sure at what point in the building
    of the "unit" the RAM is added.

    So this bring interesting question: is each of the 2 chip a DD4 stick
    with 288 pins (traces) to the memory controller? Do both chips form a
    single DDR4 stick with 288 pins to controller? Or are the chips "raw"
    memory and connect directly to the memory controller?

    In the first 2 cases, it makes it easy for Apple to add external slots
    for DDR4 memory. In the last case, it really is basically part of the
    CPU and very proprietary.

    If they truly are separate DD4 memory sticks moumted onto same carrier
    as the CPU, it makes for compact design, but not sure here are big
    performance difference vs same sticks mounted on a slot next to CPU
    (sicne the DDR4 interface dictates transfer speeds etc).

    And if they act as DDR4 sticks, the "unified memory" is really more
    about the GPUs beuing connected to the same memory controller inside,
    than it has to do with actual memory if it connect via standard DDR4
    interface and could be on a slot separate from CPU socket.

    Seeing the separation of RAM from the CPU, assuming there is a DDR4 288
    pin interface between the two makes it much more likely that other Macs
    will have upgreadable memory.


    Cuts both ways. Memory to the GPU doesn't use PCIe bus to transit to the
    GPU, but then, as the multiple GPUs are doing their work, it competes
    against the other CPU cores for access to memory.

    You're assuming 1980's memory architecture. No surprise.

    The problem still exists. Unless you're calculating Pi within only
    registers, each core wants to access a lot of memory. When they all want
    to access at the same time, there is contention. There are issues with
    cache coherence when one core (GPU = core here) changes memory contents
    etc. The more cores you have, the harder it is to scale.

    That is why when you choose a CPU chip that has many cores, you need to
    look at the memory controller, how many channels to memory it has and
    the throughput of each channel.

    I mentioned the Alpha Wildfires because they were one of the first (if
    not the first) where CPUs were slowed by memory whereas in the past, the
    CPUs were the slow part.

    Prior to Nehalem/Quickpath, Intel's attenpts at multi core 8086s
    struggled because it lacked a memory controller design capable fo many
    cores.

    I am sure Apple has a finely tuned memory controller for M1/A14 which as
    16 cores (4 fast CPU, 4 slow CPU and 8 GPUs) as well as the neural engine/secure enclave and what not).

    But remains to be seen how (or if) they scale things up to get "pro"
    models with Ryzen class CPU and RTYX 3090 class GPU (which has 24GB to
    itself and a gazillion of ots own cores).
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Browne@Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 19:41:43
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 19:08, Lewis wrote:
    In message <KGjgI.19525$9F5.17428@fx43.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 09:48, Lewis wrote:
    In message <YSdgI.74720$OF5.63838@fx07.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:
    In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
    In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
    In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel. >>>>>>>>>
    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>>>>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond
    M1≠intel.

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far >>>>>>>>> outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Ludicrous.

    Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.

    Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V >>>>>> word.

    You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have >>>>> not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very >>>>> wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference. >>>>> Maybe you should try it?

    No. The memory is definitely not at all on the same chip as previously >>>> pointed out - indeed you agreed to that when it was pointed out.

    You need to watch the M1 introduction again, obviously. The CPU, GPU, and >>> RAM (and a few other things?) are all on a single SoC. The M1 is not a
    CPU, it is a SoC.

    SoC's do not as a rule always have RAM on the SoC chip. For memory this
    size it would be near impossible as I explained to you in the past.

    Fine. The module that contains the SoC also contains the RAM, which is
    much more tightly integrated to the CPU than memory normally is.

    That does appear to be so. They're getting very high bandwidth between
    the M1 and memory and sustaining it - at least until several cores are
    running at full load.

    here's the M1 module:

    <https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/ZRQGFteQwoIVFbNn>

    But the fact is that the RAM has a much wider path to the CPU and that a

    No it doesn't. The memory path for DDR4 is 128 bits wide and that's the
    same for intel devices using DDR4 memory.

    Where Apple do make a huge improvement is in keeping that bus _full_ for
    more of the time.

    16GB M1 system is much more responsive than a 32GB Intel.

    Again you're conflating operating speed with memory size. These are not
    the same thing. I want more memory so I have more things in memory
    (other OS', massive files, etc. and so on) w/o swapping to SSD for
    various reasons.

    You can be pretty sure that upcoming Mx iMacs will have a lot more
    memory. And customers for it.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 19:46:38
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 18:55, Lewis wrote:

    Let's try to come up with something from this century. Where is your
    citation that memory addressing is limited to less than 64 bits on ARM
    in general and the M1 specifically.

    I stated that ARM architectirs ius 64 bit, In my previous post, provided
    quote from ARM's web site.

    What I also stated is that actual implemenmtation do not implement 64
    bits of address space. This varies from chip to chip depending on what
    the chip designer wanted.

    Example:

    machdep.cpu.brand_string: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz machdep.cpu.address_bits.physical: 46

    https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/75279/intel-xeon-processor-e5-2690-v2-25m-cache-3-00-ghz.html

    States max memory is 768GB for the chip (46 bits).

    Since Apple hasn't released specs for M1, at this point all we know is
    that it is able to support 16GB. And that requires 34bits of address
    bits. M1 could have more, but we don't know that. Supporting more
    requires more traces in the physical data paths within the cores and
    memory controller.


    The previous iPad Pro based on A12z had 6GB of RAM form unofficial
    reports, and that would require 33bits address space (8GB max).
    The iPhone 12 Pro Max (A13) is said to have 6GB as well. So again at
    least 33bit addressing space, but it is a fair bet that the A14 shares
    M1 designs and would have at least 34 or more, unless Apple is truly
    diverging the development. (My expectation is that core design will
    remain common along with various co processors such as secure enclave
    etc, but packaging will be very different).





    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, April 22, 2021 20:13:18
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 19:08, Lewis wrote:

    But the fact is that the RAM has a much wider path to the CPU and that a
    16GB M1 system is much more responsive than a 32GB Intel.


    You don't know that. For all we know, the RAM mounted into the same
    support as the "CPU" means nothing about the interface between RAM and
    CPU. For all we know, it is the same 288 pins (data paths) running at
    same DDR4 speed.


    In the case of the iPhone 12 Pro, it has:

    Samsung K3UHCHC0MM-VGCL memory. It is an LPDDR4X module.


    Can't find it on the Samsung site, but it looks to be like these are
    DDR4 interfaces that are "soldered in" instead of plougged into a
    standard memory slot. Not sure the CPU knows the RAM is soldered vs slot
    or wheyher isrt is on board the same packlaging of whether the
    connection to RAM is via pins on the socket.



    To have the RAM embededd into the packaging with the CPU is smart when
    you plan products such as latops and the iPad Pro. But today,
    discovering that the RAM is in fact separate and APPEARS to use standard
    DDR4 interface points to the possibility of much more RAM that is
    seprate in future and removes the myth that the ram is integrated into
    the CPU.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 06:32:27
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <BVngI.21342$9L1.3132@fx05.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 18:55, Lewis wrote:

    Let's try to come up with something from this century. Where is your
    citation that memory addressing is limited to less than 64 bits on ARM
    in general and the M1 specifically.

    I stated that ARM architectirs ius 64 bit, In my previous post, provided quote from ARM's web site.

    What I also stated is that actual implemenmtation do not implement 64
    bits of address space. This varies from chip to chip depending on what
    the chip designer wanted.

    that's nice,. but yu provided no citation for this other than a 40 year
    old chip.

    Example:

    machdep.cpu.brand_string: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz machdep.cpu.address_bits.physical: 46

    Nifty. Now, what is the value for the M1 that you claimed could only
    address 16GB of RAM?

    Since Apple hasn't released specs for M1, at this point all we know is
    that it is able to support 16GB. And that requires 34bits of address
    bits. M1 could have more, but we don't know that. Supporting more
    requires more traces in the physical data paths within the cores and
    memory controller.

    So, you are making shit up. Gotcha. That's what I said.

    --
    Are you a lucky little lady in the city of light Or just another lost
    angel?
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 06:38:28
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <YQngI.135654$PE7.30359@fx39.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 19:08, Lewis wrote:
    In message <KGjgI.19525$9F5.17428@fx43.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 09:48, Lewis wrote:
    In message <YSdgI.74720$OF5.63838@fx07.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:
    In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
    In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
    In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
    On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:

    16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel. >>>>>>>>>>
    I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with
    only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond
    M1≠intel.

    No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far >>>>>>>>>> outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.

    Ludicrous.

    Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.

    Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V >>>>>>> word.

    You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have >>>>>> not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very >>>>>> wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference. >>>>>> Maybe you should try it?

    No. The memory is definitely not at all on the same chip as previously >>>>> pointed out - indeed you agreed to that when it was pointed out.

    You need to watch the M1 introduction again, obviously. The CPU, GPU, and >>>> RAM (and a few other things?) are all on a single SoC. The M1 is not a >>>> CPU, it is a SoC.

    SoC's do not as a rule always have RAM on the SoC chip. For memory this >>> size it would be near impossible as I explained to you in the past.

    Fine. The module that contains the SoC also contains the RAM, which is
    much more tightly integrated to the CPU than memory normally is.

    That does appear to be so. They're getting very high bandwidth between
    the M1 and memory and sustaining it - at least until several cores are running at full load.

    here's the M1 module:

    <https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/ZRQGFteQwoIVFbNn>

    But the fact is that the RAM has a much wider path to the CPU and that a

    No it doesn't. The memory path for DDR4 is 128 bits wide and that's the same for intel devices using DDR4 memory.

    Where Apple do make a huge improvement is in keeping that bus _full_ for more of the time.

    16GB M1 system is much more responsive than a 32GB Intel.

    Again you're conflating operating speed with memory size. These are not
    the same thing.

    No I am not. I can fill the RAM on my M1 and the machine continues to
    operate at fill speed. I can fill the RAM on an Intel and watch it drop
    to a snail's pace of struggling to do anything at all.

    The experience is entirely different.

    You can be pretty sure that upcoming Mx iMacs will have a lot more
    memory. And customers for it.

    Never said otherwise, but they will probably have less memory than you
    think they need, based on everything you've said.

    (BTW, when I say fill the RAM, I mean a load of well over 100 on the M1
    mac in top/htop and the computer continuing to chug along just fine with
    no appreciable drop in speed where an Intel starts getting sluggish at a
    load of 20 or 30.)

    --
    Let there be songs to fill the air
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 06:41:56
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <ziogI.18007$v3H9.8248@fx01.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 19:08, Lewis wrote:

    But the fact is that the RAM has a much wider path to the CPU and that a
    16GB M1 system is much more responsive than a 32GB Intel.


    You don't know that. For all we know, the RAM mounted into the same
    support as the "CPU" means nothing about the interface between RAM and
    CPU.

    You say dumb shit like this because either you ignore what Apple has
    said or you assume Apple is lying.

    For all we know, it is the same 288 pins (data paths) running at
    same DDR4 speed.

    i"The Apple M1 chip also features our unified memory architecture, or
    UMA. The Apple M1 chip unifies its high‑bandwidth, low‑latency memory
    into a single pool within a custom package. As a result, all of the technologies in the SoC can access the same data without copying it
    between multiple pools of memory."

    --
    Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice
    the usual number of suspects.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 06:53:21
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <IEngI.118354$nn2.98685@fx48.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 17:44, Alan Browne wrote:

    No it does not because it only has somewhere around 50 - 52 address
    bits.

    https://developer.arm.com/documentation/101811/0100/Address-spaces-in-AArch64


    Address sizes

    Armv8-A is a 64-bit architecture, but this does not mean that all
    addresses are 64-bit.


    This is why I stated that it depends on the chip. The archiecture is 64
    bits, but the chip maker decides how many of those 64 bits it actually
    uses. Have no idea if Apple documented how many it uses for its A14/M1 chips. But if it only implememnted 34 bits, i would explain the 16GB
    limit of M1.

    YOu are making up TWO thinkgs there. First, you are inventing the idea
    that Apple would make a chip that uses only 34 of 74 bits for memory
    addresses. Second, you are inventing that there is a limit on the M1 to
    16GB.

    It is far more likely the M1 module uses only 16GB because of the die
    size of the module and it's capacity and not anything having to do with
    the M1 itself.

    using only 34 bits instead of 64

    Would be idiotic in 2021. Only you would assume that Apple would be that spectacularly stupid.

    Couldn't find an iFixit teardown of a 2020 Mac. But did find this one: https://youtu.be/hczcaGX62S0

    I had interpreted the picture you had posted more as a "concept", but
    the chip packaging really has the RAM is a separate component mounted on
    the same carrier and thus socket. Not sure at what point in the building
    of the "unit" the RAM is added.

    "separate component:" is a meaningless phrase that you would wiggle to
    mean anything. The M1 and the RAM are a single die, ad integrated
    module.

    --
    You know what they say about paradigms: Shift happens.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Browne@bitbucket@blackhole.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 09:36:02
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-23 02:38, Lewis wrote:
    In message <YQngI.135654$PE7.30359@fx39.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
    On 2021-04-22 19:08, Lewis wrote:

    16GB M1 system is much more responsive than a 32GB Intel.

    Again you're conflating operating speed with memory size. These are not
    the same thing.

    No I am not. I can fill the RAM on my M1 and the machine continues to
    operate at fill speed. I can fill the RAM on an Intel and watch it drop
    to a snail's pace of struggling to do anything at all.

    Filling an intel memory with data doesn't slow the machine. Actual work
    on data slows a machine no matter what the size of the data. Think
    fluid dynamics. You don't need a monster data set to slow the CPU in simulated flow that never stops. That will bog down any computer of any
    kind - not much data or code memory needed.
    ie: Low memory, high processing load.

    Thus the point is actual use cases. And I tend to run with many large
    data heavy apps and usually 1 VM. (2 at present as it turns out). With
    the new iMac I'll be doing more video work at higher resolutions as
    well. That takes a lot of memory to avoid swaps. Again: not a speed issue. ie: high memory, variable processing load.

    There are tests out there that show the M1 saturating the cores and
    memory fetches lagging. While the M1 is showing outstanding memory
    bandwidth, the cores can strip that in the right cases. In general use
    not. Start the video work and background renders and things will start
    to drop. And of course add a 2nd monitor, VM's etc.... Yep - I'll want
    more memory: not for speed but to avoid swaps.

    I'll get the link next week - can't find it now, but it's on my work mini.

    You can be pretty sure that upcoming Mx iMacs will have a lot more
    memory. And customers for it.

    Never said otherwise, but they will probably have less memory than you
    think they need, based on everything you've said.



    --
    "...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
    man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
    -Samuel Clemens
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Browne@bitbucket@blackhole.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 17:50:57
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-22 17:18, Your Name wrote:

    The RAM is not inside the physical chip itself, but is part of the SoC architecture (direct access paths, etc.), so it's not "normal" RAM as
    such. Reportedly it can be upgraded from 8GB to 16GB ... with expert electronics skills and the right tool.

    The DDR4 RAM is in chip carriers that are mounted very close to the M1
    chip. That someone with expert electronic skills can upgrade it is
    proof that it's not a special architecture - it's using off the shelf
    DDR. It is exceptionally well integrated ("unified") to be sure given
    the bandwidth numbers being bandied about.

    --
    "...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
    man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
    -Samuel Clemens
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 20:08:42
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-23 02:32, Lewis wrote:

    that's nice,. but yu provided no citation for this other than a 40 year
    old chip.

    Intel XEON is not 40 years old.

    Nifty. Now, what is the value for the M1 that you claimed could only
    address 16GB of RAM?

    Nobody knows because Apple did not release the specs. What I stated is
    that they needed at least 34 bits to provide 16GB, but none of Apples
    ARM based chips have supported more so it is likely that M1 may be
    limited to that.

    (and likely a big differentiator with M2).


    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 20:10:19
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <fkJgI.25601$9F5.6701@fx43.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:


    that's nice,. but yu provided no citation for this other than a 40 year
    old chip.

    Intel XEON is not 40 years old.

    you said 8086.

    xeon is not in any way an 8086.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Baker@notonyourlife@no.no.no.no to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 17:14:57
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-23 5:08 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
    On 2021-04-23 02:32, Lewis wrote:

    that's nice,. but yu provided no citation for this other than a 40 year
    old chip.

    Intel XEON is not 40 years old.

    The 8086 you keep mention is MORE than 40 years old.


    Nifty. Now, what is the value for the M1 that you claimed could only
    address 16GB of RAM?

    Nobody knows because Apple did not release the specs. What I stated is
    that they needed at least 34 bits to provide 16GB, but none of Apples
    ARM based chips have supported more so it is likely that M1 may be
    limited to that.

    Why?

    Why would a DIFFERENT chip be likely to have the SAME limits?

    They took the time and trouble to design an entire chip and they just
    got bored when the got to the memory controller?


    (and likely a big differentiator with M2).
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 20:19:30
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-23 20:10, nospam wrote:

    you said 8086.

    Current chips implement the original instruction set with extentions.
    So the latest "x86" has 8086 inside.

    Just as an A14 is an ARM chip just like A4 even though one is 64 bits
    with many more extensions.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 20:27:01
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <muJgI.25676$9F5.24745@fx43.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:


    you said 8086.

    Current chips implement the original instruction set with extentions.

    where 'extensions' is implementing an entirely new 64 bit instruction
    set.

    So the latest "x86" has 8086 inside.

    the latest 'x86' is wildly different than an 8086 in just about every
    possible way.

    Just as an A14 is an ARM chip just like A4 even though one is 64 bits
    with many more extensions.

    you mean those same extensions that add an entirely new 64 bit
    instruction set, along with even more extensions for the multi-core gpu
    and neural engine?
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Baker@notonyourlife@no.no.no.no to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 17:27:15
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-23 5:19 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
    On 2021-04-23 20:10, nospam wrote:

    you said 8086.

    Current chips implement the original instruction set with extentions.
    So the latest "x86" has 8086 inside.


    Ummmmmm.... ...no.


    Just as an A14 is an ARM chip just like A4 even though one is 64 bits
    with many more extensions.

    Ummmm... ...no.

    A4: ARMv7-A

    A14: A64; ARMv8.5-A

    What's amazing is that in an age when all of this stuff can easily be
    checked, you still post bullshit ALL THE TIME.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From JF Mezei@jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 21:17:26
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-23 20:27, Alan Baker wrote:

    A4: ARMv7-A

    A14: A64; ARMv8.5-A

    What's amazing is that in an age when all of this stuff can easily be checked, you still post bullshit ALL THE TIME.

    An instruction set evolves with time. A14 is a superset of A4. Both are
    still the same overall architecture and programs compiled on ARMv7
    instructiosn will run on ARM v8 chips. ( Though IOS will prevent them
    from launching because of lack of OS level support, but the chip itself
    is perfectly capable as was seen with the first 64 bit iPhone still able
    to run ARM v7 code.).


    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 21:30:02
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <GkKgI.26330$D16.675@fx40.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:


    A4: ARMv7-A

    A14: A64; ARMv8.5-A

    What's amazing is that in an age when all of this stuff can easily be checked, you still post bullshit ALL THE TIME.

    An instruction set evolves with time. A14 is a superset of A4.

    no it isn't.

    Both are
    still the same overall architecture and programs compiled on ARMv7 instructiosn will run on ARM v8 chips. ( Though IOS will prevent them
    from launching because of lack of OS level support, but the chip itself
    is perfectly capable as was seen with the first 64 bit iPhone still able
    to run ARM v7 code.).

    nope.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Baker@notonyourlife@no.no.no.no to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 23, 2021 18:41:38
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-04-23 6:17 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
    On 2021-04-23 20:27, Alan Baker wrote:

    A4: ARMv7-A

    A14: A64; ARMv8.5-A

    What's amazing is that in an age when all of this stuff can easily be
    checked, you still post bullshit ALL THE TIME.

    An instruction set evolves with time. A14 is a superset of A4. Both are still the same overall architecture and programs compiled on ARMv7 instructiosn will run on ARM v8 chips. ( Though IOS will prevent them
    from launching because of lack of OS level support, but the chip itself
    is perfectly capable as was seen with the first 64 bit iPhone still able
    to run ARM v7 code.).



    Isn't it interesting how you so often need to snip what you've just
    said, so that you don't look foolish
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Saturday, April 24, 2021 07:53:20
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <fkJgI.25601$9F5.6701@fx43.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
    On 2021-04-23 02:32, Lewis wrote:

    that's nice,. but yu provided no citation for this other than a 40 year
    old chip.

    Intel XEON is not 40 years old.

    Nice snippage, Mr 8086 dipshit.

    Nifty. Now, what is the value for the M1 that you claimed could only
    address 16GB of RAM?

    Nobody knows

    And yet you claim the M1 is limited to 16GB and that Apple make the
    idiotic decision to use only 34 bits for memory, thus limiting
    themselves to 16GB of RAM.

    so it is likely that M1 may be limited to that.

    A ridiculous statement. Absurd in every way.

    --
    "If it's a hobby to us and a job to you, why are you doing such a
    shoddy job?" - Linus Torvalds to Microsoft
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Saturday, April 24, 2021 07:57:14
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <muJgI.25676$9F5.24745@fx43.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
    On 2021-04-23 20:10, nospam wrote:

    you said 8086.

    Current chips implement the original instruction set with extentions.
    So the latest "x86" has 8086 inside.

    No, that is utter bullshit, x86 is a series of chips, the 8086 is a
    specific chip. You said 8086, which is 40 years or so old.

    an 80285 and an 80486 and an 80486 are also not 8086s.

    You are, once again, entirely wrong.

    Just as an A14 is an ARM chip just like A4 even though one is 64 bits
    with many more extensions.

    No, it is not just like an A4, you know-nothing monkey's ass.

    --
    I AM NOT A 32 YEAR OLD WOMAN Bart chalkboard Ep. 7F08
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lewis@g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me to comp.sys.mac.system on Saturday, April 24, 2021 08:00:01
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In message <230420212027016728%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <muJgI.25676$9F5.24745@fx43.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:


    you said 8086.

    Current chips implement the original instruction set with extentions.

    where 'extensions' is implementing an entirely new 64 bit instruction
    set.

    So the latest "x86" has 8086 inside.

    the latest 'x86' is wildly different than an 8086 in just about every possible way.

    In fact, it would be more accurate to call it an amd64, which is what it
    is called on most linux/bsd systems.

    Just as an A14 is an ARM chip just like A4 even though one is 64 bits
    with many more extensions.

    you mean those same extensions that add an entirely new 64 bit
    instruction set, along with even more extensions for the multi-core gpu
    and neural engine?

    He's an entirely clueless git, over an over again, on every topic.

    --
    Cause love's such an old fashioned word
    And love dares you to care for the people on the
    Edge of the night, and love dares you to change
    Our way of caring about ourselves,
    This is our last dance This is ourselves.
    Under Pressure.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113