There is a lot they could strip out if they only intend to support x86-64. In fact I would hope that the processors they ship to console manufacturers fit that bill. ![]() That said could AMD make a x86-64 processor without real mode or compatibility mode support? Yes they can. The fact that there is one IP holder helped as well. ![]() Insofar as the UEFI or loader sets the CPU in a state the OS can use then it's fine. because there was no guarantee that the 圆4 extensions were going to take off, so AMD had to maintain that strict compatibility to be competitive.ĪArch64 had no prohibition, because there is no universal boot protocol for ARM. This is why even a modern x86-64 processor has to boot up in real mode. Because unless both had agreed to shift to UEFI at the same time and agreed on an ISA it wasn't going to happen. They weren't horrible either, AArch64 is incompatible with AArch32 but you can still implement both on the same chip with shared internals.ĪMD didn't have to extend x86 the way they did, but without buy in from intel there was no way forward unless they went the route they did. It's of course very cool that ARM has proved itself flexible enough to be used from (almost) the smallest embedded devices to supercomputers (not to mention Apple M1), but there's not that much diversity as there was in the 80s either. Here also there are free alternatives which however have very marginal market share.Īs for actual CPU architectures, there are only two that really matter at the moment: x86/AMD64 and ARM. For mobile devices, we had a bit of a "Cambrian explosion", unfortunately followed by a very quick extinction, which left us with another duopoly. In the desktop/notebook market, Wintel and Apple are firmly entrenched, with only ChromeOS and Linux challenging them - plus a few less significant OSes (FreeBSD, ReactOS anyone?). "Apple Silicon" is not a new system, it's just one of the large incumbents switching to another architecture (which is also not a first, this now being their fourth architecture, after 680x0, PowerPC and x86). the chances for that are pretty slim I'm afraid. So as far as I'm concerned, this is all irrelevant until someone's SSD wears out, and no one's reported that, so everyone is all tempest-in-a-teapot over some numbers that an open source tool is handcrafting from a macOS kernel API based on assumptions about Apple's proprietary hardware that are probably wrong. ![]() Either the combination of "smartmontools is emulating SMART access, but doesn't actually have it" and "a source at Apple said that smartmontools is incorrect" is enough to make this a non-issue, or it's not - and since most people who think that there is a wear issue don't realize the part about smartmontools faking that it has access to SMART data in this scenario (hint: nope!), I don't expect to find common ground. ![]() We'll likely never hear anything else about this again from Apple officially or unofficially, so I don't expect anyone who believes there's an SSD wear issue to stop believing that there is. The source refused to elaborate any further on the matter when pressed for specifics. "While we're looking into the reports, know that the SMART data being reported to the third-party utility is incorrect, as it pertains to wear on our SSDs" said an AppleInsider source within Apple corporate not authorized to speak on behalf of the company.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |