Official ARM manycore/server thread

[ldesnogu]

Originally Posted by retina

You can't separate the CPU from the chip. It doesn't work that way. They are designed together. If you want just a CPU ask ARM directly for the IP. You won't find anyone selling an ARM CPU chip as just a CPU, they are always as part of a larger chip.

Do you mean Apple couldn't use their own CPU and put it in another SoC that could be placed in a laptop or desktop, and would fit well?

Cortex-A72 CPU have gone into SoCs ranging from Phone, RPi, up to chips with 64 cores that go into servers. What would be different for Apple CPU?

[retina]

Originally Posted by ldesnogu

Do you mean Apple couldn't use their own CPU and put it in another SoC that could be placed in a laptop or desktop, and would fit well?

The problem is nobody outside Apple knows about Apple's chip because they keep the details secret. I don't want to be using a system that only allows Apple approved OSes and Apples approved apps to run.

Originally Posted by ldesnogu

Cortex-A72 CPU have gone into SoCs ranging from Phone, RPi, up to chips with 64 cores that go into servers. What would be different for Apple CPU?

You are talking about the CPU core IP. No one makes a chip with just that component. Because that is just a portion of what it takes to make a working chip.

As long as a company is willing to provide documentation and support (like Apple doesn't), and won't put in ROM code that enslaves me into a single OS (like Apple does), then I would have no problem using it. But when you say you "wish Apple would ..." then I go running and screaming. That is far from an open system.

[ldesnogu]

Originally Posted by retina

The problem is nobody outside Apple knows about Apple's chip because they keep the details secret. I don't want to be using a system that only allows Apple approved OSes and Apples approved apps to run.You are talking about the CPU core IP. No one makes a chip with just that component. Because that is just a portion of what it takes to make a working chip.

I know that well. I meant to say there's little doubt Apple could do it. All CPU companies do it: Intel and AMD cores go into various chips, with different interconnects and different IPs.

As long as a company is willing to provide documentation and support (like Apple doesn't), and won't put in ROM code that enslaves me into a single OS (like Apple does), then I would have no problem using it. But when you say you "wish Apple would ..." then I go running and screaming. That is far from an open system.

Oh I certainly agree with you! But I'd still prefer an Apple ARM-based system rather than nothing or underpowered system or ARM machines running Windows for ARM

[retina]

Originally Posted by ldesnogu

Oh I certainly agree with you! But I'd still prefer an Apple ARM-based system rather than nothing or underpowered system or ARM machines running Windows for ARM

You prefer closed systems that you have no documentation for? It might be a faster version than others make, but if you get stopped from running your preferred code (because it isn't signed and blessed by Apple for "security") then it ends up being a huge hassle.

[ldesnogu]

Originally Posted by retina

You prefer closed systems that you have no documentation for? It might be a faster version than others make, but if you get stopped from running your preferred code (because it isn't signed and blessed by Apple for "security") then it ends up being a huge hassle.

Aren't you talking about iOS? As far as I know that's not applicable to Mac OS X. I was doing dev on some MacBook years ago and was not constrained by anything. And I felt much more comfortable on that system than on anything running Windows.


To clarify; iOS and its restrictions (the inability to generate code at runtime) are not acceptable to me for dev.

[retina]

Originally Posted by ldesnogu

Aren't you talking about iOS?

I thought you wanted the Apple chip from the latest phone, right? That chip has a boot ROM that forbids you from booting anything but signed Apple code. Just last week someone found a way around it due to a use-after-free bug or something. It is considered an exploit that a user would be able to run their own code! That is Apple's chip. That is Apple's attitude towards user's own code.

The Mac used Intel(?) chips, not an Apple chip.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by ldesnogu

...or ARM machines running Windows for ARM

What's wrong with Windoze for ARM?

One of the best things we did in our life, beside of our children, was porting WinCE for Intel's (actually Marwell's) XScale PXA series. Of which we are very proud. Our company produced (manufactured) the Colibri module for Toradex for a while, till they switched to better things. We were good in handling the XScale's from the earliest PXA210 to 320 and one of the few (and first ever) porting a WinCE to ARM in Thailand. We owned for a long while a Gigabyte's "GSmart" phone (some people call it "GSM Art" because it was really ART at that time), with WinCE OS. We could connect to it with RemoteDisplay and see its VGA (640x480) screen as a window on our desktop computer, and its memory, etc, as a local file system, and do whatever we liked with it, and we were very happy with it. The GPS of that phone is still the best we have seen, and we still use it as a GPS occasionally. When our daughter bought her Galaxy S7, she gave SWMBO her "old" S4 and SWMBO discarded her S2 (which belonged to the daughter too, before). Our daughter had to hide our GSmart from us (she calls it "the brick", because we ordered a long-lasting, larger battery from the web, which made the phone look like a little thin brick, it was about 2 cm thick) and we could not find it for days and we were very upset, to convince us to take the S2. We took the S2, but didn't like Android so much. Meantime, the daughter bought S-whatever (newer), she gave the S7 to SWMBO, which discarded the S4. We like S2 very much and kept it, so now we have an S4 growing molds somewhere around in the house... This time, we like S2 because it has a stand-alone (discrete) GPS chip which makes it faster and more accurate in measuring the speed, etc., which we use more frequent than the phone feature. It may have been the last phone with a discrete GPS chip (newer phones have CPUs with more cores, which are faster and can handle the GPS calculation so they use the CPU for that, and do not have a discrete GPS chip, as the manufacturers will want to save money there, but old CPUs/MCUs with one or two cores only were too slow for the complicate float calculus needed for GPS, and had separate specialized chips) .

Anyhow... Old grumpy guy ...

[ldesnogu]

Originally Posted by retina

I thought you wanted the Apple chip from the latest phone, right? That chip has a boot ROM that forbids you from booting anything but signed Apple code. Just last week someone found a way around it due to a use-after-free bug or something. It is considered an exploit that a user would be able to run their own code! That is Apple's chip. That is Apple's attitude towards user's own code.

The Mac used Intel(?) chips, not an Apple chip.

I'm out of argument here.


I obviously failed to explain why a chip with an Apple CPU doesn't have to be in the same SoC that is found in phones or tablets. That's likely due to having worked for more than 20 years in CPU and SoC design teams and failing to explain what is so obvious to me.

[retina]

Originally Posted by ldesnogu

I'm out of argument here.


I obviously failed to explain why a chip with an Apple CPU doesn't have to be in the same SoC that is found in phones or tablets. That's likely due to having worked for more than 20 years in CPU and SoC design teams and failing to explain what is so obvious to me.

Because Apple won't make a chip like that. They don't want to get into selling chips. They want to keep tight control over the end user product, not make chips for everyone to use freely.

[ldesnogu]

Originally Posted by LaurV

What's wrong with Windoze for ARM?

It's not Windows for ARM in particular, it's Windows that I can't stand. I really tried, I just can't (I only use it as a gaming OS). And now that I have been spoiled by dozens of years of UNIX/Linux it's unlikely things will change

On the other hand, I wonder if WSL2 couldn't make such a system usable for me. If that is supported by WoA.

Old grumpy guy ...

You mean old expeirenced guy, I guess

[ldesnogu]

Originally Posted by retina

Because Apple won't make a chip like that. They don't want to get into selling chips. They want to keep tight control over the end user product, not make chips for everyone to use freely.

And you know for sure that Apple itself won't make a laptop with a proper OS and an ARM chip? No one knows that for sure. And that's exactly why I phrased my very first comment in this thread the way I did (though I certainly was ambiguous when I talked about 'chips' rather than 'core' or 'CPU;).