Really? Do you have anything to back that up? While not a mac user anymore, I can't speak directly, but from my travels I don't see that.
Even so, I still maintain that boot times is really a non-issue
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
M1 chip fast my ass...
- Thread starter Kung gu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Even so, I still maintain that boot times is really a non-issue
An IBM supercomputer will probably take several hours to boot up completely.
Does that mean it's garbage too?
Do you still use 16 bit software too?
The sign-off for 32bit software was made more than a decade ago with the release of Vista and other OS's.
Developers should adapt or fail.
If you want to continue running 32bit software, keep an old Mac to one side with an older OSX installation at the ready.
You sound like those people who complained when DOS was finally removed from MS OS's.
So, I've been reading about it and it seems that modern Windows starts faster because it never actually shuts off (it's called Fast Startup). Instead, the kernel is hibernated and resumed from deep sleep. This is neat if you are shutting off your compute often, but as resuming the kernel does not reload the drivers it can interfere with some things (like antivirus programs and wake on LAN feature). It also apparently locks down the disk making it unusable with dual boot systems.
So all we have here is a case of optimization that macOS does not offer (probably because Apple designs the machines to never be turned off in the first place).
So all we have here is a case of optimization that macOS does not offer (probably because Apple designs the machines to never be turned off in the first place).
You are just being deliberately stupid now, and you know it.
There is nothing wrong with a PC. It has its place.
But right now, tell me an Intel PC (or even an AMD one), that can do what I currently have right now, and keep it going for 14 hours on a single battery charge.
- MS Edge with about 40-50 browser tabs
- Brave Browser with about 3-4 tabs
- Safari with about 10 tabs
- My calendar app
- Google meetings
- Visual Studio Code
- MS Remote desktop
- Photoshop (yes, I use Photoshop for work)
- Balsamiq Wireframing
- Microsoft Word (1 document)
- Microsoft PowerPoint (1 presentation)
- Microsoft Excel (3 spreadsheets open)
- Apple Music
- OpenVPN client
- WhatsApp Messenger
- Slack
- iMessage
- 1password
- OneDrive
- iCloud
- (And various other apps and things that I use on and off)
- Logitech unified controller (mouse and keyboard)
- AirPod Pro's
- WiFi6 connection in my home
Just to compare, I have a year older ThinkPad T490 i7 8th gen ultrabook. That has 32GB RAM and while it can more or less manage the same (it does crawl at times, sticking and taking longer to load apps), the battery will wince itself after about an hour if I am lucky. Agreed the capacity is much lower, but even will a full-size battery, it wouldn't get close.
We're not all children and we don't all play games at every hour of the day. Some of us have jobs and make money, so productivity is key. The M1 excels at that.
Go and build your rainbow keyboards and enjoy putting stickers on your laptop.
I'm going back to work.
the move to kill off 32bit apps was foolish on Apple's part, there's really no if ands or buts. Apple's draconian move to basically reduce the amount of software that can run was unnecessary and limited its customers for no reason.
Why have two computers laying around that's an odd justification. I have one Pc that can run both, and apple's move made gaming on the Mac (which was already sad) down right pathetic.
I see your point, but when should it happen then?
In 1 year? In 5 years? Maybe 10 years or never?
Maintaining dual architecture is both time-consuming, more prone to bugs, and expensive for Apple.
As I suggested, 32bit software has had its writing on the wall now for over a decade, with full 64bit architecture available on Snow Leopard in 2009! 64bit was even available for Tiger, two years earlier.
Blame the developers for not getting their lazy backsides in gear. Not Apple.
ETA:
| Version | Year | Name | Kernel Support | App Support |
| 10.4 (First announced) | 2005 | Tiger | x86 | x86 |
| 10.5 | 2007 (14 years ago) | Leopard | x86 | x86/x64 |
| 10.6 | 2009 | Snow Leopard | x86/x64 | x86/x64 |
| 10.7 | 2011 | Lion | x86/x64 | x86/x64 |
| 10.8 | 2012 | Mountain Lion | x86/x64 | x86/x64 |
| 10.9 - 10.14 | 2013-2018 | ... | x64 | x86/x64 |
| 10.15 + | 2019 + | ... | x64 | x64 |
Last edited:
I play games, and I'm closer to 60 then 50
and it is important to me, but as someone who supports enterprise applications on the server and desktops, its clear that many large software vendors still use 32bit applications - so are they lazy? No, because the cost of converting, testing and re-writing code makes little sense.You can blame them, but I don't fault them and they're not lazy. I'm sure new programs are 64 bit, but it makes no sense to spend a lot of money converting applications that have been out, just to be 64 bit because Apple has made it so.
Just look at games, so many of the developers decided to concede any future sales of existing games instead of incurring the cost of converting it to 64 bit. That's not laziness, that's business, when a platform is only 10% market share and then makes an arbitrary decision, developers and publishers have to decide whether to dedicate resources on the other platform(s) that make the 90% or spend money they don't have on such a niche platform
Wouldn't they a trillion dollar company be better able to absorb the cost and allow their customers a full range of programs then some publishers who could go into bankruptcy if their major game failed - so many studios have run into deep weeds in the past because of a failed game - so its clear many game developers play things close to the line ('m picking games simply because that had the largest impact and it shows how developers are not millionaires diving into the vault of gold like scrooge mcDuck)
This is incorrect. Supporting 32bit applications means supporting an additional hardware operation mode (sometimes with different rules!), supporting and testing two pairs of libraries and also supporting a tricky set of edge cases of transitioning between the 32bit and 64bit boundary. There is also no reasonable way to transition to high-performance ARM while keeping 32-bit support (because 32-bit ARM is crap).
64-bit in x86 world has been mainstream for the last 15 years. There only reason why it took so long to embrace the many advantages of the x86-64 architecture was because Microsoft (as usual) royalty messed up and still sold 32-bit Windows for way too long, de-facto forcing the developers to continue with 32bit nonsense to reach the full user audience for years to come. What was really unnecessary is to split Windows in 32bit and 64bit editions, and this has royally messed up the industry. In fact, Apple was the only one to deal with this mess competently, as they were the only OS to have a hybrid kernel with simultaneous support for x32 and x64 user space.
Removal of 32bit was long term coming, 100% justified and was fully motivated by technological and economical factors, and in fact, necessary for technological progress. Developers had a decade to clean up their code.
This is completely uncalled for. People have different hobbies and do different things to entertain themselves. Having the ability to play games is important to me, even though I use my computer professionally.
Fair point on the games. I just felt @vir was being deliberately pedantic and naive in their answers.I play games, and I'm closer to 60 then 50
You can blame them, but I don't fault them and they're not lazy. I'm sure new programs are 64 bit, but it makes no sense to spend a lot of money converting applications that have been out, just to be 64 bit because Apple has made it so.
Just look at games, so many of the developers decided to concede any future sales of existing games instead of incurring the cost of converting it to 64 bit. That's not laziness, that's business, when a platform is only 10% market share and then makes an arbitrary decision, developers and publishers have to decide whether to dedicate resources on the other platform(s) that make the 90% or spend money they don't have on such a niche platform
Wouldn't they a trillion dollar company be better able to absorb the cost and allow their customers a full range of programs then some publishers who could go into bankruptcy if their major game failed - so many studios have run into deep weeds in the past because of a failed game - so its clear many game developers play things close to the line ('m picking games simply because that had the largest impact and it shows how developers are not millionaires diving into the vault of gold like scrooge mcDuck)
But I disagree entirely with your statement regarding 32bit applications.
Developers have had 15 years to prepare themselves for this change. It didn't happen overnight.
By your logic, we should continue manufacturing and selling VHS players for those of us who have VHS cassettes (I have many stacked up in my loft). Also going by your logic, we should continue supporting IE6 standards for those communities where Windows 98 is still used. Talking of which, why not continue supporting Windows 2000. Many many POS systems still use embedded versions of this OS and the cost would be tremendous to small businesses to upgrade.
My wife's business still uses a DOS-based PMS platform which I despise. To support it, I have created a VM within a NAS box to emulate DOS and a network so they are still able to access it through a terminal service. They will finally migrate this year, but the developer refused to update his software to 64bit even though 32bit is no longer supported even by Microsoft.
There is simply a point where we need to move on and a fair warning was given. There are both hardware and software constraints in supporting 32-bit applications and with respect, you are a fading minority.
32-bit support should have died long ago. 64 bit is and has been the standard now for easily a decade.
Yeah, I'm sorry. @vir's annoyingness just wound me up.
Seriously, this thread is a joke. I've never had a kernel panic in over 13 years of using a Mac. What is this poster on?
Looks like Intel are getting desperate. What a troll.
Yes and new programs are 64bit, but as I stated, but it doesn't make sense for a publisher to go back to their entire catalog of applications and spend money on making them 64bit - especially if they support other platforms.
Take 1Password, they started out as Mac only but have made recent decisions on the latest version to streamline its development to the chagrin and anger of the mac community. Yet at this point, the Mac platform represents a smaller percentage of their entire sales and they have to make business decision on how bet to spend their limited resources. That's my point.
You forgot to say, all while on battery without losing any performance.
What most of us didn't realise at the time is that Apple dropping 32 bit was actually an important step towards Apple Silicon. It forced developers to do a lot of the hard, but necessary, work long before AS was ever announced and made far easier for them to port their applications from X64 to Arm64. Like many of Apple's annoying disruptions, it only really makes sense with hindsight.
@beanbaguk, Let me just add, that you're putting the onus on developers, Why not put the onus on Apple for removing a compatibility layer for no reason. Would apple save money and time by removing 32 bit libraries, yes, but there is zero benefit to the consumer, but instead a higher level of impediment meaning there are now less apps that are available.
Just to spin it in this way, one million dollars to a trillion dollar company 0.0001% but to a company a 10 million dollar company its 10% Apple would have been better off imo, allowing the 32bit apps which is a consumer friendly move then just removing it and making life harder on the consumer.
Just to spin it in this way, one million dollars to a trillion dollar company 0.0001% but to a company a 10 million dollar company its 10% Apple would have been better off imo, allowing the 32bit apps which is a consumer friendly move then just removing it and making life harder on the consumer.
It makes even less sense to block the technological advance just because of some old software that not even its publisher is willing to support. We are not talking about arbitrary decisions here. Someone has to pay the cost. Keeping 32bit is much more expensive in the long turn than removing it — for everybody involved.
OSX shouldn't have had x86 libraries period, IMO. The ONLY Intel Macs that ever existed with 32 bit processors were the very first using the Core Duo. Literally a 6 month period in 2006 led to 12 years of maintaining a pointless architecture in the OS and Xcode. Every other computer sold past that point supported x86_64
That is purely on Apple. It was a regression for sure. Arguments about the "consumer friendliness" of keeping 32 bit support are quaint, but it shouldn't have been possible in the first place. They had the opportunity to cut the knot in the transition, didn't, and created this situation.
That is purely on Apple. It was a regression for sure. Arguments about the "consumer friendliness" of keeping 32 bit support are quaint, but it shouldn't have been possible in the first place. They had the opportunity to cut the knot in the transition, didn't, and created this situation.
I'm still not agreeing with you.
Reasons why 32 bit support was dropped:
- Performance. Modern CPUs are optimised for 64bit performance.
- Battery life. Emulating 32bit support drains more resources, power on the CPU and therefore battery life.
- Capacity. The 32bit libraries of MacOS used 500MB of disk space. Not a lot, but then you load those into memory alongside the 64bit counterparts and you begin to see the issue.
- I'm quoting an interesting one here: (https://pilky.me/apples-technology-transitions/)
Every app running on your machine needs to access some subset of the system APIs. Rather than loading these into memory separately for each app, the OS will load them once and share them with all the apps. When you have multiple apps running, this saves huge amounts of RAM. The problem is the 32 and 64 bit versions of these APIs have to be loaded separately. Now macOS is smart enough not to load these into memory until needed, but they remain there once they have been loaded. This means that if you launch a single 32 bit app, even for just a second, you will have 32 bit system APIs taking up some of your memory until you restart the system.
iOS suffered from the exact same problem (unsurprising given the shared foundation with macOS). Unfortunately iOS devices don't have the same storage or RAM capacity that a Mac does, so this proved a much more critical issue. Even though Apple only introduced the first 64 bit iPhone in 2013 with the 5S, they dropped support for 32 bit software in 2017 with iOS 11, barely 4 years later.
While this saving of disk space and RAM usage certainly benefits the Mac, there are arguably more important reasons to Apple for dropping 32 bit on the Mac. They don't actually have much to do with 32 bit itself, but more with decisions that were made in 2007 when 64 bit was finalised.
I appreciate your frustration in not being able to use your software, but once again blame the developers. They had plenty of time.
"But it remains true that there is so very, very, very little to run on M1 processors " Just got my M1 MBP, I know little late to the party, but my old MBP is still working great (2014, MPB 15 2.5 GHz i7). My new laptop is the absolute most incredible laptop I have ever used. and guess what? It runs everything I use!
Sure some could claim there is a this or that that is not available, and if you use them, well, its a done deal for you. BUT THIS IS THE OST INCREDIBLE LAPTOP I HAVE EVER USED AND IT RUNS EVERYTHNG I USE!
Thank-you and good night
Thank you for the keepalive, I was worried this thread might die off.
the m1 is truly amazing. great battery life, fast in certain tasks, slow in others.
unfortunately, benchmarks dont tell the whole story. AutoCAD runs like crap on the m1. Granted, it's not native but yeah... it's garbage.
Another thing is, i'm learning Python and it seems some Python libraries don't work in M1 too.
Everything else that I use seem to work fine, and fast. The battery among all things is the absolute winner for me, it's insane how Apple managed to make the Apple Silicon, a real revolution in the desktop space while MS continue to make their Surface lineups incredibly expensive and not as efficient(thanks Intel).
unfortunately, benchmarks dont tell the whole story. AutoCAD runs like crap on the m1. Granted, it's not native but yeah... it's garbage.
Another thing is, i'm learning Python and it seems some Python libraries don't work in M1 too.
Everything else that I use seem to work fine, and fast. The battery among all things is the absolute winner for me, it's insane how Apple managed to make the Apple Silicon, a real revolution in the desktop space while MS continue to make their Surface lineups incredibly expensive and not as efficient(thanks Intel).
That's the downsides of synthetic benchmarks - they provide an incomplete picture. Still, I think over all the M1 offers a superior laptop for many people. What still makes me shake my head at the innovation of Apple, is as the other member pointed out. The M1 is an iPad Pro CPU that they tweaked - well that CPU is hands down amazing since its by and large beating out Intel and AMD
