They have to justify increasing the price. So we get the crappy keyboard, useless touchbar and useless T2.
My question is why do these machines actually need two separate CPU's and two separate operating systems? Clearly this has turned out to be detrimental for users.
Well, I still think they should have done to T2 chip in a x86_64 ARCH to match the Core ix series and then they wouldn't have had to crate BridgeOS, which is the cause of these issues.While 2 separate processors is obviously not an easy set-up, it's extremely common. All mobile phones used to have this and probably still do, with an ARM (typically) for what the user sees and another, far less common processor to decode the GSM/3G/4G protocol. Also, heterogeneous multicore (as it is officially called) used to be a common configuration for high-end computing. In the old days, the Commodore 64 and Amiga had separate chips for audio and video. Currently, ALL computers have a separate processor for video. Also, every hard drive, SSD, network card, ... has its own processor. Nobody complains about that.
The T2 is just another implementation of that common architecture. It's true that it's currently problematic, but in my view, it's also a great idea. People mainly think about the secure enclave (Touch ID) and SSD encryption. But as is obvious from some of the problems, it also does the camera. It turns out it also processes audio, using Apple's experience with the HomePod. As a result, some reviews point out that the speakers' audio quality is seriously improved over the 2017 version. If BridgeOS is realtime, they could implement a high-end software DAC (like Chord Electronics does on an FPGA) and plenty of other fancy stuff that is just impossible without it.
It's because of that potential that I'm looking forward to the future of the Tx chips. When they fix the current problems, they can offload plenty of stuff to increase the overall quality of the machine, without any load on the main CPU at all.
build" : "Bridge OS 3.2 (16P2542)",
"crashReporterKey" : "c0dec0dec0dec0dec0dec0dec0dec0dec0de0001",
"date" : "2019-01-09 23:31:52.66 +0000",
"incident" : "D9A467ED-4EE1-4F25-A13A-55EAE274133F",
"kernel" : "Darwin Kernel Version 18.2.0: Mon Nov 12 20:24:14 PST 2018; root:xnu-4903.231.4~3\/RELEASE_ARM64_T8010",
"macOSOtherString" : "\n** In Memory Panic Stackshot Succeeded ** Bytes Traced 769232 **\n",
"macOSPanicFlags" : "0x4",
"macOSPanicString" : "panic(cpu 1 caller 0xffffff7f921ad462): \"OSX Watchdog Timeout: 5i0 5r2934 395i1 1305i0 2240i1 \"@\/BuildRoot\/Library\/Caches\/com.apple.xbs\/Sources\/OSXWatchdog\/OSXWatchdog-28.200.3\/Source\/AppleOSXWatchdog\/AppleOSXWatchdog.cpp:282\nBacktrace (CPU 1), Frame : Return Address\n0xffffff82076e3c70 : 0xffffff800e1aeafd \n0xffffff82076e3cc0 : 0xffffff800e2e85a3 \n0xffffff82076e3d00 : 0xffffff800e2d9fca \n0xffffff82076e3d70 : 0xffffff800e15bca0 \n0xffffff82076e3d90 : 0xffffff800e1ae517 \n0xffffff82076e3eb0 : 0xffffff800e1ae363 \n0xffffff82076e3f20 : 0xffffff7f921ad462 \n0xffffff82076e3f60 : 0xffffff7f921ad590 \n0xffffff82076e3fa0 : 0xffffff800e15b0ce \n Kernel Extensions in backtrace:\n com.apple.driver.AppleOSXWatchdog(1.0)[F677275E-0C32-3CCB-9AE8-FD02558657AB]@0xffffff7f921ac000->0xffffff7f921affff\n dependency: com.apple.iokit.IOPCIFamily(2.9)[7EA30FDD-A2FB-390F-99DD-42BC19691BB4]@0xffffff7f8eaeb000\n\nBSD process name corresponding to current thread: kernel_task\n\nMac OS version:\n18C54\n\nKernel version:\nDarwin Kernel Version 18.2.0: Mon Nov 12 20:24:46 PST 2018; root:xnu-4903.231.4~2\/RELEASE_X86_64\nKernel UUID: 56B30885-F9BA-30E8-AD1C-5D59EC243BA9\nKernel slide: 0x000000000de00000\nKernel text base: 0xffffff800e000000\n__HIB text base: 0xffffff800df00000\nSystem model name: Macmini8,1 (Mac-7BA5B2DFE22DDD8C)\n\nSystem uptime in nanoseconds: 4881452045008\nlast loaded kext at 243231236274: @filesystems.msdosfs\t1.10 (addr 0xffffff7f92539000, size 69632)\nlast unloaded kext at 4860344051748: >!AFileSystemDriver\t3.0.1 (addr 0xffffff7f8f4c4000, size 8192)\nloaded kexts:\ncom.intel.driver.EnergyDriver\t3.5.5\ncom.softraid.driver.SoftRAID\t5.7.2\n>!AGraphicsDevicePolicy\t3.28.4\n@fileutil\t18.306.12\n@AGDCPluginDisplayMetrics\t3.28.4\n>!AHV\t1\n|IOUserEthernet\t1.0.1\n|IO!BSerialManager\t6.0.9f2\n>pmtelemetry\t1\n@Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X\t7.0.0\n>!AUpstreamUserClient\t3.6.5\n>AGPM\t110.23.46\n>!APlatformEnabler\t2.7.0d0\n>X86PlatformShim\t1.0.0\n>!AVirtIO\t2.1.2\n>!AMCCSControl\t1.5.6\n>!A!IKBLGraphics\t12.0.4\n>BridgeAudioCommunication\t5.2\n>!AThunderboltIP\t3.1.2\n>!ABridgeAudio!C\t5.2\n>!AGFXHDA\t100.1.40\n>!AAVEBridge\t6.18\n>!A!ISlowAdaptiveClocking\t4.0.0\n>!AOSXWatchdog\t1\n>!A!IPCHPMC\t2.0.1\n>!A!ICFLGraphicsFramebuffer\t12.0.4\n@filesystems.autofs\t3.0\n>BCMWLANFirmware4355.Hashstore\t1\n>BCMWLANFirmware4364.Hashstore\t1\n|!ABCM5701Ethernet\t10.3.3\n>!ABCMWLANBusInterfacePCIe\t1\n@filesystems.apfs\t945.230.6\n>!AAHCIPort\t329.200.2\n@filesystems.hfs.kext\t407.200.4\n@BootCache\t40\n@!AFSCompression.!AFSCompressionTypeDataless\t1.0.0d1\n@!AFSCompression.!AFSCompressionTypeZlib\t1.0.0\n@!ASystemPolicy\t1.0\n@private.KextAudit\t1.0\n>!AACPIButtons\t6.1\n>!ASMBIOS\t2.1\n>!AACPIEC\t6.1\n>!AAPIC\t1.7\n@nke.applicationfirewall\t190\n$TMSafetyNet\t8\n>!AGraphicsControl\t3.28.4\n|IOAVB!F\t710.1\n@plugin.IOgPTPPlugin\t700.7\n>!ASSE\t1.0\n>!ASMBus!C\t1.0.18d1\n@!AGPUWrangler\t3.28.4\n|IONDRVSupport\t530\n>X86PlatformPlugin\t1.0.0\n|IOSlowAdaptiveClocking!F\t1.0.0\n|IO!BHost!CUARTTransport\t6.0.9f2\n|IO!BHost!CTransport\t6.0.9f2\n>!A!ILpssUARTv1\t3.0.60\n>!A!ILpssUARTCommon\t3.0.60\n>!AOnboardSerial\t1.0\n|IOSkywalk!F\t1\n>IOPlatformPlugin!F\t6.0.0d8\n|IOAudio!F\t206.5\n@vecLib.kext\t1.2.0\n@!AGraphicsDeviceControl\t3.28.4\n|IOAccelerator!F2\t404.2.2\n|IOGraphics!F\t530.14\n|IOSurface\t255.1\n@kext.triggers\t1.0\n|IOUSBHIDDriver\t900.4.2\n>Core!S\t546.50.1\n|IOAHCIBlock!S\t301.200.2\n>usb.IOUSBHostHIDDevice\t1.2\n>usb.cdc.ncm\t5.0.0\n>!AHPM\t3.3.0\n>!A!ILpssI2C!C\t3.0.60\n>!A!ILpssDmac\t3.0.60\n>!A!ILpssI2C\t3.0.60\n>!AThunderboltDPInAdapter\t5.5.8\n>!AThunderboltDPOutAdapter\t5.5.8\n>!AThunderboltDPAdapter!F\t5.5.8\n>!AThunderboltPCIUpAdapter\t2.1.4\n>!AThunderboltPCIDownAdapter\t2.1.4\n>usb.cdc\t5.0.0\n>usb.networking\t5.0.0\n>usb.!UHostCompositeDevice\t1.2\n>!UHostMergeProperties\t1.2\n|IOEthernetAVB!C\t1.1.0\n>!ABCMWLANCore\t1.0.0\n>mDNSOffloadUserClient\t1.0.1b8\n>IOImageLoader\t1.0.0\n|IOSerial!F\t11\n|IO80211!FV2\t1200.12.2\n>corecapture\t1.0.4\n>!AThunderboltNHI\t4.7.6\n|IOThunderbolt!F\t6.8.1\n|IOAHCI!F\t288\n>!UVHCI\t1.2\n>usb.!UVHCICommon\t1.0\n>!AEffaceableNOR\t1.0\n|IOBufferCopy!C\t1.1.0\n|IOBufferCopyEngine!F\t1\n|IONVMe!F\t2.1.0\n>usb.!UXHCIPCI\t1.2\n>usb.!UXHCI\t1.2\n@filesystems.hfs.encodings.kext\t1\n>usb.!UHostPacketFilter\t1.0\n|IOUSB!F\t900.4.2\n>!AEFINVRAM\t2.1\n>!AEFIRuntime\t2.1\n>!ASMCRTC\t1.0\n|IOSMBus!F\t1.1\n|IOHID!F\t2.0.0\n$quarantine\t3\n$sandbox\t300.0\n@kext.!AMatch\t1.0.0d1\n>!AKeyStore\t2\n>!UTDM\t456.230.1\n>!AMobileFileIntegrity\t1.0.5\n@kext.CoreTrust\t1\n|IOUSBMass!SDriver\t145.200.2\n|IOSCSIBlockCommandsDevice\t408.200.1\n|IOSCSIArchitectureModel!F\t408.200.1\n>!ACredentialManager\t1.0\n>KernelRelayHost\t1\n>!ASEPManager\t1.0.1\n>IOSlaveProcessor\t1\n>!AFDEKeyStore\t28.30\n>!AEffaceable!S\t1.0\n|IOTimeSync!F\t700.7\n|IONetworking!F\t3.4\n>DiskImages\t493.0.0\n|IO!S!F\t2.1\n|IO!B!F\t6.0.9f2\n|IOUSBHost!F\t1.2\n>usb.!UCommon\t1.0\n>!ABusPower!C\t1.0\n|IOReport!F\t47\n>!AACPIPlatform\t6.1\n>!ASMC\t3.1.9\n|IOPCI!F\t2.9\n|IOACPI!F\t1.4\n@kec.Libm\t1\n@kec.pthread\t1\n@kec.corecrypto\t1.0\n",
The addition of the T1 chip and then the expansion of its responsibilities on the T2 seem to be like an experimental stage for the eventual fully ARM'd-Mac that Apple is obviously interested in developing. In fact the whole 2016-2018(or even 2019) generation of MBPs look experimental, with the Butterfly mechanism needing endless adjustments, and the TouchBar being deemed a pilot of touch-based keyboard/interface. Apple pretty much managed to screw up every one of these changes on the reliability / usability point of view, which is pretty spectacular really.Well, I still think they should have done to T2 chip in a x86_64 ARCH to match the Core ix series and then they wouldn't have had to crate BridgeOS, which is the cause of these issues.
update, for my sons birthday he asked for a 2018 Macbook Pro. I got him one, within 24 hrs of setting up we got 2 KP's! Called Apple, after doing some firmware updates and wiping the laptop clean. it was good for about a week. KP again! so far its had close to 5-6 in a 10 day period. I'm returning this before the return period is up. Just going to buy a 2017 MBP.
I know the full-ARM-mac rumours, but I don't believe them because of app incompatibilities. It'll be years before you can run everything on another processor. And the ARM will not have sufficient power to emulate an Intel (rather the inverse...). I am betting on the super-coprocessor scenario, but I don't know what extra they'll make it do.The addition of the T1 chip and then the expansion of its responsibilities on the T2 seem to be like an experimental stage for the eventual fully ARM'd-Mac that Apple is obviously interested in developing. In fact the whole 2016-2018(or even 2019) generation of MBPs look experimental, with the Butterfly mechanism needing endless adjustments, and the TouchBar being deemed a pilot of touch-based keyboard/interface. Apple pretty much managed to screw up every one of these changes on the reliability / usability point of view, which is pretty spectacular really.
Recent benchmarks of Apple's latest ARM processors for the iPad, have shown remarkable competitiveness with the x86 CPUs in Apple's laptops. I wouldn't be too surprised if Apple's ARM lineup does actually get sufficiently powerful to replace Intel's mobile CPUs, at the very least. The desktop processors may present more of a challenge. It really depends on how well they scale.I know the full-ARM-mac rumours, but I don't believe them because of app incompatibilities. It'll be years before you can run everything on another processor. And the ARM will not have sufficient power to emulate an Intel (rather the inverse...). I am betting on the super-coprocessor scenario, but I don't know what extra they'll make it do.
But you're right about how spectacularly these new developments are failing. I'd like to add one: because of Intel's complete failure to deliver 10nm chips for 3 years, Apple's future-oriented MBP casing is also "less optimal" than it should be. Apple designs its laptops so that they'll be perfect next year or the year after. So the 14nm in the MBP was supposed to be for only one year. Yes, the i9 works pretty good, but with 10nm, it would've worked much better.
I suspect one reason we are seeing the T1/T2 chips is because of this... even if an ARM chip can't quite meet Intel's performance, it probably will be cheaper for apple to have two ARM chips than one Intel chip... and if they can split OS-functions well-enough across two, then they can more easily reach performance-parity. All these KP problems may be because we are actually already beta-testing the next generation Mac...Recent benchmarks of Apple's latest ARM processors for the iPad, have shown remarkable competitiveness with the x86 CPUs in Apple's laptops. I wouldn't be too surprised if Apple's ARM lineup does actually get sufficiently powerful to replace Intel's mobile CPUs, at the very least. The desktop processors may present more of a challenge. It really depends on how well they scale.
I have been reading about Microsoft's latest ARM version of Windows (not the first failed attempt). Interestingly, every app in the Windows Store can run on the new Windows-ARM, without recompilation and without emulation. How? Apps compiled using Microsoft's compliers over the last few years don't compile to Intel machine code -- they compile to an "IL" (Intermediate Language). This IL code is translated on demand at run-time, so the underlying processor is irrelevant. Swift code can also do this as well. So most (all?) Apps on the App Store will probably run natively on an ARM at launch...I know the full-ARM-mac rumours, but I don't believe them because of app incompatibilities. It'll be years before you can run everything on another processor. And the ARM will not have sufficient power to emulate an Intel (rather the inverse...).
Stop buying these machines. Get your money back on the faulty ones that you have. And wait until Apple has really fixed the issue. It’s not worth the time, hassle and cost. Made me realise how much I really liked my 2015 MBP which works great!
I was playing Civ V, minding my own business, and the game crashed with no warning. I was pretty far along in the game, lots going on. I cannot tell if this was because of a T2 / BridgeOS issue, or if it was just the game itself failing. Any input?
Civ V crashes, definitely not a new thing. If it was BridgeOS, it would likely bring down your entire system.I may have ran my luck into the ground commenting here and not knocking on wood.
I was playing Civ V, minding my own business, and the game crashed with no warning. I was pretty far along in the game, lots going on. I cannot tell if this was because of a T2 / BridgeOS issue, or if it was just the game itself failing. Any input?
The computer itself did not restart; just app crash.
I have an update. I was able to reproduce this Bridge OS KP 3 out of 3 times. I’ve been in touch with a senior Apple Advisor. She had me do a data capture using an Apple app and sent the info to an Apple Engineer. I should hear more next week.
Knocking on wood, the Bridge OS KPs I’ve had have all occurred when waking from sleep. It’s inconvenient but not enough for me to return the MacBook Pro. My holiday return window closes in 2 days and I’ve decided not to return it. I’ll keep working with Apple Support. If the KPs increase in frequency or start occurring while I’m working then I’ll try to get a new replacement under AppleCare. I’ve been working with Apple Support on this problem since December 5.