Forum: Author Hangout

Benchmarking software says it's about 3 times faster than the old pro. 1755 vs 625. But it feels so much faster.

The RAM is inside the processor. The drive is a next gen SSD that can read 3.25 GB/s write 4.5GB/s

It's faster than almost anything on the market in single threaded applications.

I'm ecstatic with its performance.

The MOST important thing!

Is it? The article I read gave the impression that Apple was using it to decrease its compatibility with non-Apple systems.

AJ

Since I'm stuck with windows, I merely skimmed the article rather than reading it thoroughly. But I got the impression Apple is upset that tech-savvy people have been able to run Linux programs on to mac os, and the proprietary chip should stop that. If I'm barking up the wrong tree, I apologise.

AJ

But I got the impression Apple is upset that tech-savvy people have been able to run Linux programs on to mac os, and the proprietary chip should stop that.

First, the new chip doesn't do that. Xcode can easily compile Linux stuff for the new chips.

What company wants to keep people away from its hardware? That would be stupid, no matter how it's spun. Apple didn't become the biggest company on earth by being stupid.

Let's see, I enabled apache and php-fpm on my new mini. They came with it. So Apple itself ported those to the new chip and is shipping them with its hardware, so that kind of blows this theory out of the water. I'm running LibreOffice and MySQL under emulation until they're recompiled for the new chips.

Care to share the link to the article?

Care to share the link to the article?

It was a newspaper article a while back. Even if I could find it, the on-line version would be behind a paywall.

Sorry if I got it wrong.

AJ

Outside high end retail where you convince idiots to pay more because of the name on the bag their purchases go in

This assumes that quality has no bearing on price. Now , the ratio of quality to price may not equal price, quality is one reason for purchasing 'high-end' goods rather than 'low-end' goods. There are other potential reasons as well (features, etc).

But, I've NEVER been one to follow the ins and outs of the stock market each and every day, because I don't think it reflects jack shit about the health of the country!

Because it doesn't. Specifically, the DOW is 'rigged' by removing companies which they judge are no longer relevant. But if you always move out declining companies/sectors in favor of growing ones, you'll always see the DOW go up over time.

They've built their success as a computer company by making the public overpay for their offerings on the basis of being a prestige brand. I can imagine that they'd want customers to pay full price for Apple versions of programs rather than being able to get them free or cheap because they were intended for other hardware.

AJ

unrivalled customer service

As someone who resisted moving to a Mac until a few years ago, that is the best thing and worth the extra price. We're not all tech gurus.

In the free market there is no 'make them overpay'.

That's not generally true.

Take BMW, another prestige brand. In a motoring publication, someone complained about being charged over £1000 for an official replacement part. The resident expert explained that the part was available for under £200 under a different part number catalogued for a different manufacturer's vehicle.

We have different perceptions of Apple. I don't think their superiority in some fields is worth their premium price considering the reduced number of programs available. But we pay our money and make our choices.

AJ

I thought that it was because it was cheaper, faster and more energy-efficient - important with a laptop.

Those are all very well, and I'm sure most Apple users will be pleased. But I personally place more importance on being able to run the programs I need.

AJ

The article I read gave the impression that Apple was using it to decrease its compatibility with non-Apple systems.

Various publications have different agendas. These days, they tend to write articles with outrageous claims as articles that hit people on the emotional level and get a strong reaction get shared more, thus generating more ad revenue.

Intel has been stagnant for years now. They're like 5 years behind in node process. Apple has fantastic chip design team that has proven itself over and over with the iPhone/iPad chips. If I were Apple I would definitely move my computers from somebody else's chips if I have something better.

The M1 so far has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it's better than the Intel stuff.

The simple fact that the iPhone can encode an x265 video at the same speed or sometime faster speed than a decked out Mac Pro costing $30,000 should be hint to anybody about how things are going in the chip world.

The only compatibility affected by this change is the ability to install Windows on the Mac. I don't think a company like Apple needs to hold itself back in order to support another company's systems. If there is another compatibility that they talk about, I would love to know what it is.

Intel has been stagnant for years now. They're like 5 years behind in node process. Apple has fantastic chip design team that has proven itself over and over with the iPhone/iPad chips.

Uhhh, Apple does not really "make" the chip. It is just a copy they design based on the ARM technology.

And you really can not compare an ARM processor with a full X86 or other because of a great many things. ARM processors are designed to work with a more streamlined code, and are on average much less powerful than "full blown" CPUs by say Intel, AMD, or Motorola. But for the reduced code, they are as fast or faster than a more conventional chip that runs more powerful code.

And it is not that the others are "stagnant", it is that the industry in the last decade has drastically shifted. Most people never needed the 2 core 64 bit systems that became dominant a decade ago, they just wanted to watch cat videos and view web pages. And most have since reverted to tablets and other things which are basically glorified cell phones. That is really all they need, and they are simply cheaper.

Where the majority of "computers" were at one time bought by home users, the industry is going back to an older model where corporate is once again the major purchaser. That means slower upgrade cycles, but much more power with each new iteration.

But if all you want is browsing and word processing between games of Crushing Candy Story, that is more than enough. But if you are doing things like rendering 1080p videos for WatchTube or wanting to play the latest FPS, I wish you a lot of luck. An older X86 or Apple Intel will still run circles around the M1.

Hmm, this simply isn't true any more. RISC vs CISC is long dead and irrelevant, the chip team that Apple acquhired have made something seemingly far away from an ARM reference design and the latest and greatest chips, from Fujitsu's world-fastest supercomputers to Apple's M1 are fastest in class.

"In class" being the key thing to remember.

And as I said, it all depends on what you are trying to do. If you are doing tasks with programs that have been streamlined to work with an ARM processor, it is going to be a lot faster than a conventional processor. That is why for example your phone can handle a web page or video site as fast or faster than your home computer.

But do not confuse that with raw processor power. And the entire CISC-RISC argument is like a decade obsolete. Once we transitioned to multi core 64 bit processors, the differences between the two became less and less important. Not like it was when we were playing with 1GHz and slower 32 bit processors.

But if you think they are the best, then let's have a race. Compile a 60 minute 1080P video with stereo sound on an M1, and I will use my AMD. Let' see which one is done first. Or do a 3D rendering of multiple layers of a CAD file into a composite image.

Or as I said, games. If you are playing "mobile games", that is a great system to use. But if you are playing ones that require more raw processor power like an FPS, then it is quickly going to get bogged down. One recent review series I looked at compared the M1 to a slew of common games. The only one it shined at was Minecraft. The latest Tombraider, it was achieving a frame rate of around 16, less than a third of the previous generation systems could achieve.

Myself, I am not a gamer, but it does show the difference between raw power, and power with streamlined code. Myself, I am more likely to be doing video or sound editing, applications where just pure raw power is most important.

And since I have been using the Adobe suite for 2 decades, I am not about to dump those for a "streamlined" program made by somebody else for the M1. Of course, I for the same reason am not dumping my desktop for a laptop. Once again, does not matter how powerful the laptop CPU is, it will still never compete with that of a desktop. Same with GPU performance.

AM not being anti here at all, but neither am I being a fanboi. Just comparing apples to apples, and not apples to oranges.

That's mainly because development of RISC was basically abandoned.

Actually, most processors today are RISC, or a RISC-CISC hybrid. AMD had been based on RISC for over a decade now.

But it largely does not matter much because CPU power can make up for any bloat in the code. We are way beyond the era of Alpha Vs. x86.

Back when AMD first started producing 64-bit Athlon processors, Intel had gone to sleep and they had nothing comparable. Even Dell had to start selling AMD systems.

Dell was locked into an exclusive agreement with Intel for years. That was one of the main reasons they bought Alienware. So they could sell an AMD system, yet still remain Intel exclusive.

And yes, the "normal CPU" industry has stagnated. Of course, that is because they have moved so far beyond what most people would ever want or need that it simply is not profitable anymore. Once the systems went multi-core 64 bit, they surpassed what most people needed.

Hell, my aunt still uses a computer she got in 2007. And it does everything she could ever need from it. The push to upgrade every 2-3 years is gone, most people simply do not need the power of systems today.

But move to the professional world, oh there you still see where faster and more powerful still drives the industry. But the home market for "full computers" has been shrinking for years. That is why less is being put into that segment, they see the money is back in the corporate world, where it was 40 years ago.

I have watched this industry shift and slide for decades now. Unless somebody is a high end gamer or serious poweruser, computers have largely passed them by because they provide far more power than is needed for the cost.

Yes, the Dodge Ram 3500 may well be the most powerful truck. But the Toyota Tacoma meets the needs of 90% of the people. ARM processors never intend to be the best, simply the best for the majority. But if you need the power of that 3500, the Tacoma will not even come close.

That is all I am saying. Especially since there are so many other things at play in computers today. I myself laugh when I see most benchmarks comparing the M1 compare it to "it's class", which means laptops. Once again, apples and oranges. Just as most of the code they run for the tests. X86 code runs around the same on both, the M1 only jumps out when running code streamlined for it (of which there is not much out).

Is it? The article I read gave the impression that Apple was using it to decrease its compatibility with non-Apple systems.

A full Intel compatibility layer called Rosetta 2 allows all current Mac software to run.

The main purpose was to get away from Intel.

The one 'missing' thing so far is the ability to run Windows natively on the hardware, but given there's an ARM version of Windows, that may happen soon.

but given there's an ARM version of Windows

I'm way out of my depth here but I got the impression Apple specifically wanted ARM incompatibility.

AJ

I'm way out of my depth here but I got the impression Apple specifically wanted ARM incompatibility.

Apple specifically wanted to get away from Intel and their slow progress on mobile chips.

See these articles, for example:

Former Intel engineer sheds light on Apple's decision to design its own chips

Intel's latest delay shows exactly why Apple was right to ditch the company and make its own chips

This has been known in the Mac community for some time. It's the same basic reason Apple moved away from the PowerPC chips (no good, low-power, fast mobile processor that ran cool enough).

[[Edited to fix links]]

Thx. Fixed that. Failed to wipe out the pre-filled 'http' in the link field.

Is it feasible that Apple also wanted to discourage the tech-savvy from installing more open versions of Linux on their hardware?

AJ

I have my doubts as to whether that would apply to Linux software

Rosetta2 understand Mac binaries and can translate those. It can translate any Mac app built for x86 to arm instructions to run on MacOS. The original Rosetta translated PowerPC binaries to x86 binaries.

Rosetta2 can't understand windows binaries nor linux binaries. So if something doesn't run on the Mac without any additional help, like a virtual machine or full windows install like boot camp, then it won't run under Rosetta.

For linux software, the Mac has Xcode and it has a mode to compile linux software to run on the Mac (apache and php come to mind). So if you used to do the compile through Xcode thing on Intel Macs, then you should be able to do that on Arm Macs and you'll end up with Arm binaries for the linux software.

ETA: Follow up on the migration to M1, well, old hardware (like 'Promise pegasus disk arrays') which needs a kernel extension, doesn't work at all. Waiting for updated support from the manufacturer. Firefox doesn't really run. It opens, loads few pages and then subsequent urls don't load at all.

a Mac running on ARM will supposedly be able to run software written for Intel hardware, I have my doubts as to whether that would apply to Linux software.

Not just 'supposedly' - it's been demonstrated. Apple did this the last time they did a processor transition from PowerPC to x86, so they have quite a bit of experience. But this only applies to x86 code compiled for the Mac, not general x86 binaries.

As for open-source software, you'd need to compile an ARM binary for the Mac for it to run. Some things will likely compile and run without change; other things will need to be adapted to the ARM architecture.

One important note - Big Sur introduces more restrictions on what can and can't be loaded into 'kernel space' on your Mac. There are a couple of options, one of which includes turning off 'System Integrity Protection', the other is getting updated drivers. And turning off SIP may not work, depending on circumstances.

Fundamentally, it's a trade-off between security and flexibility. For me, the trade-off works. For others, YMMV.

Is it feasible that Apple also wanted to discourage the tech-savvy from installing more open versions of Linux on their hardware?

The price of the OS and updates are built into the price of the hardware. Apple already has 100% of the revenue they're going to get from the hardware once you take possession of it.

I'm a Mac user, but I can't imagine buying a new Mac for the express purpose of putting Linux on it. That's not to say someone won't do that, only it makes no sense to me to do that. For me, a dedicated Linux laptop would be something a lot cheaper than a Macbook Pro!

I'm a big Linux user on servers, but for me, the Mac is the best Unix-like device for day-to-day operation. YMMV, of course.

I'm a Mac user, but I can't imagine buying a new Mac for the express purpose of putting Linux on it.

I'm getting mixed messages about whether M1 is hot shit or not. :-(

AJ

Will you please not compare MacOS to Linux, it's an insult to the freedom of Linux ;)

Unix-like (with its heritage from BSD/Mach/Darwin)

So, Mac OS is Linux's kinky (being into bondage and all that) cousin?

Yea, pretty much. They want to Domme everybody, and keep everybody bowing down to the altar of Jobs. And if they decide to push an upgrade on you, better be prepared to replace half of your software.

Trust me, it's a lot of fun when you are working from home at a Mac shop, and suddenly you are the only one that can work because you have an x86 next to you, and everybody but you had critical software break because Apple pushed another patch that broke something you use to TELNET into remote systems with. Happened more than once.

And more than once the boss had to come in and hand us each the credit card so we could buy the new version of a program. Because the old version does not work with the newest patch to the OS, so we all gotta buy it all over again.

One of the other guys in my department even submitted a memo saying they should buy us all a Pi, so the next time that happened at least we could use those until we got it all working again.

Isn't Apple's dirty little secret that under the hood, Mac OS is a Linux fork?

Mac OS is BSD via Darwin via NeXTSTEP - 1989.

Linux - 1991.

Two different paths.

And that proves they didn't replace everything under the hood with a Linux for in the 2000s how? :)

They didn't. As someone who started on AT&T v7 (before System III and System V), used BSD, and use Linux on servers and MacOS on desktops, I do have some expertise in this area.

My Mac:

% uname -a
Darwin Rockhopper.local 20.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 20.2.0: Tue Nov 10 21:14:14 PST 2020; root:xnu-7195.60.70.111.1~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64

My Linux server:

$ uname -a
Linux host.penguintopia.net 4.14.203-156.332.amzn2.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Oct 30 19:19:33 UTC 2020 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Isn't Apple's dirty little secret that under the hood, Mac OS is a Linux fork?

I would only say "yes", because pretty much today "Linux" is really just a generic name for any "UNIX like OS that is not actually UNIX".

"Linux" today is pretty much a generic term, like Kleenex. Does not really matter if Linus made it or not. I even love seeing how bent out of shape people get when I mention the most common form of a "UNIX clone OS" in the 1980's through the mid-1990's. Or the stupefied look on the faces of some that it was actually made by MicroSoft.

when I mention the most common form of a "UNIX clone OS" in the 1980's

Xenix

Ran that on x86 machines in 1983. Had the unfortunate experience of running SCO Unix after that.

Xenix

Ran that on x86 machines in 1983. Had the unfortunate experience of running SCO Unix after that.

Yep.

I have played with so many variants by now I can hardly remember some of them. Everything from Red Hat and Lindows, to Mac, SCO, Solaris, and many others.

Here's Linus Torvalds' take on using the M1 Mac for Linux. Don't.

Actually what he said was 'I wish'.

To install a new system on the Mac the firmware needs to be able to work with it. For a secure system like the Mac, Apple would need to do one of two things for these laptops to run linux: they have to compile the Kernel themselves (as well as provide full linux drivers for their hardware), signing it with their own security keys, or provide their keys and full spec of their hardware to Linus so that he can write drivers and sign the kernel himself.

The first option is wishful thinking. Why would Apple put up such effort while they have their own secure and very capable system that exceeds linux on everything but "Freedom"?

The second option is ridiculous to even suggest. A company should never ever give access to its signing authority to anybody else. Anybody that knows anything about security knows that.

The computer world is a free market. If somebody doesn't provide what you want, then you don't/can't buy from them. If a company sees a lucrative market, then they'll target it.

So what Linus needs to do is convince Apple that if they were to help him remove MacOS and install linux on their laptops, that the gain in market share would justify the effort financially. What is the market share of Linux in personal computers these days? How many more laptops would Apple sell if they put up the effort?

Exceeds on everything?

Technically? yes. If it can run the vast majority of Linux software, can run linux itself in a virtual machine, has its own industry leading user experience, has a reliable and trusted application distribution/update channel, then yes, it technically exceeds linux.

For me neither of the two are reasonable options because they both lack severely on several of my personal requirements.

I agree. Nothing is suitable for all and each of us has their own preferences and requirements.

However, when I hear from Linux people it's always this undefined 'personal requirement'. Enlighten me please, I seem to be missing something.

What can you do on Linux that can't be done on the Mac? What is the allure of linux for you, other than 'freedom'?

Or maybe the question should be 'what chases you away from the Mac and attracts you in linux?' I'm genuinely curious.

Technically? yes. If it can run the vast majority of Linux software, can run linux itself in a virtual machine

Then it does not "Run Linux". In short, it is emulating. And that is not the same thing.

Hey, I can run anything from System/360 and a TI/99 on my X86. But do not confuse that with my x86 "running the software". They are not the same thing, they are not even close.

The difference is, actual professionals can split out the hype and fanboi-ism from the reality. And if there is one thing I have learned in over 40 years of watching the industry, it is that the more I see something hyped like that, the more it ultimately is not what it seems to be.

Especially when buzzwords like "Secure System" are thrown around. Of course, most of us actually call that "locking it down like a bank vault inside of a bunker, placed inside of a high security military base". Me, I want what I run to be my choice, not dictated down to me from the "Gods of Computers".

Kinda like their touted "protection from virus and exploits". It has been shown over and over again that it is just as vulnerable as any other OS. But at around 10% of the marketplace, hackers simply do not care enough to bother. Might as well create exploits for Google Chrome.

Why put in that much work for 10%, when the same amount of work gets you 75%+ of the computers?

Feel the burn!

Not really, am being accurate. And I was actually talking the OS, not the browser.

When a program or OS is not the major one in use, hackers simply have little interest in trying to exploit it. They want the "most bang for the buck", and that means going after the biggest one. Mac, the 1,001 flavors of UNIX, and all the other are small potatoes compared to the massive Microsoft juggernaut, so that is what they all want to exploit.

It has not a damned thing to do with which is best, or most vulnerable. Hackers are simply lazy, and want to reach the largest number of systems they can with the least amount of work. Many simply do not realize that and claim things that are not real.

Then it does not "Run Linux". In short, it is emulating. And that is not the same thing.

Virtual Machine is not emulation. On the Mac, using Xcode, you can compile most linux software. Using Macports and home-brew you can install a huge library of Linux/Unix software. I would call that running the software.

Kinda like their touted "protection from virus and exploits". It has been shown over and over again that it is just as vulnerable as any other OS. But at around 10% of the marketplace, hackers simply do not care enough to bother.

Their protection from viruses works as advertised. When was the last world wide devastating exploit of Macs? Exactly.

Exploits, well the best ones are always kept secret by their wielders, so we will never truly know.

The bit about hackers not caring enough to care is bullshit. Mac users are the most coveted targets for their financials. Hacking a Mac is easily worth hacking ten windows machines.

As for your previous skepticism about the claimed performance:

Apple Silicon M1: Black. Magic. Fuckery.

Buy my elephant repellent. It must work, there are no elephants in my yard.

On the Mac it's more like come live in this country, the country is surrounded by a very hardened anti-elephant fence. No need for repellant.

On a serious note, when when was the last provable attempt to exploit Macs that was blocked by Apple's security software?

The last that made it to the Mac-sphere news was back in 2016.

Mac security (gatekeeper and XProtect) are updated regularly and they block things before they had a chance to spread much.

Nothing is perfect. Apple's security system has been doing a very good job of keeping malware to a non-issue status.

Exploiting security hole in various unix-based open-source systems: roughly as challenging as fishing in a rainbarrel...using dynamite.
Exploiting security hole in Mac - not quite as easy, but nobody's ever gonna notice.
Exploiting security hole in Windoze - may not be all that impressive, but at least everyone will know what you did.

Actually, the actual flaws are huge. I have been tracking for well over a decade the number of "Zero Day Exploits" in that OS, and they often go unresolved for months or even years.

But because the user base is so small, neither the hackers nor Apple really give a crap. Because almost no hackers are interested in going after such a small percentage of the marketplace.

And that is what keeps the 1,001 flavors of Linux-UNIX safe as well. Develop an exploit for Red Hat, great. But odds are it will not work on Mint, or Ubuntu, or any of the other variants. So why even bother?

Almost anything can be hacked and exploited. Hell, Stuxnet proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt. But how many hackers would want to create a virus-worm-exploit that only affects a limited thing such as a German created control system, designed to only affect centrifuges?

I could probably get together a team, and we could design an exploit that only affected systems that used water jets to carve into rocks to make monuments and the like so every date to be carved instead blasted dirty words into the rock. But why? So we could prank a few hundred such systems?

But the same amount of work could be used to create an exploit in Windows to allow us to inset a keylogger and steal things that we can actually use to make money. And even if we only get a few thousand between discovering the exploit and it is patched, we could get some actual money from selling that on the dark web.

And exploiting the UNIX clones can actually be very easy. If anything, this is the group that is the sloppiest about updating their software. They are not any more safe by design, it is just that by themselves any one version is maybe 1% of the industry, and that is what makes them "safe" more than anything else.

Yeah, like fishing in a rainbarrel, using dynamite. It's easy enough that anyone trying to brag about a hack would get laughed at.

Once again, not really true. The vulnerabilities are known and many.

https://www.guru99.com/hacking-linux-systems.html

The difference is that most who hack any of the UNIX like systems are generally targeting a specific server, not simply throwing out random bits of code hoping that they might catch somebody through a worm or trojan.

If you want to get into the XYZABC.ORG server to dig in and find some of their files, then knowing they use the Grapefruit fork of the Orange OS can let you find exploits you can use specifically to target them. Commonly through some indirect off-site hack. Several years ago we routinely had to watch for a day or so when we had a new remote system set up with a fixed IP address, as within hours there would be hundreds or thousands of Chinese IP addresses trying to brute-force their way into it.

The joke was on them, as that was always directly into a gateway device only for use with VOIP. But the number of attempts still bogged down the connection so we simply started to block any attempts from China via bulk IP address blocking.

In a great many of the "Doxing" type hacks where individuals or organizations are trying to uncover information, targeted exploits on known vulnerabilities are actually common. These are rarely talked about, as companies and organizations almost never want to talk about what exploits their systems use, or even admit they had a penetration in the first place.

Once again, an area I have first hand knowledge of. I was part of the WCPC (Western Cyber Protection Center) back when it was still known as WIOC (Western Information Operations Center). Part of the US Army dedicated to cyber defense.

The "script kiddies" never really worried us, we were largely immune to such antics. But it was those that did their research and did specific targeting that was always a threat. Of course, this is an area that does not involve such things as virus or worms, but actual attempts at penetration against specific systems, using different techniques to learn what hardware and software were in place.

This was actually very common in the early days (mid-late 1990's). There was a famous one back then when a crew managed to hack into the public NASA website and defaced it with basically a tag stating that they ruled the world. Done because they did the homework to find out what the server that was being used, then setting up their own and discovering the exploits available to get into it.

Today however, spearfishing is still the preferred method. The DNC knows all about that.

Virtual Machine is not emulation.

Yes, it is.

If it runs on top of another operating system, and relies upon that OS to operate it is emulation. Granted, VMWare is different than say MAME, but it is still emulation. You are not using the original hardware or direct software, but using it inside of another program. But it indeed is still emulation.

Unless you are going to the extreme of setting up multiple drives and partitions, and running it entirely on it's own without any bit of the original OS running (say a multiple boot X86 with a Red Hat, DOS 6, and Windows 9X partitions).

You can try to spin it all you want, but it is still emulation.

The last "world-wide exploit of Macs"? Who cares? They are 10% of the marketplace, no hackers care enough to even try. It is just not worth their time when the same amount of work will strike 60%+ of the computers in use.

And yes, I do remember back when Mac virus were a major issue. This was in the mid-1990's, the last time that they were ever a major factor in the computer industry. At Hughes we were constantly battling them, and it seemed like nothing we did could stop them. That was one of several reasons (primarily the disastrous 7200) that caused them to fall out of use in most corporations.

You seem to have the mistaken belief I am "anti-Mac" for some reason. I actually was a Mac Tech for many years, and my first move from small computer stores to the Corporate world was as a Mac specialist. But that does not make me blind to their flaws (then or now), nor try to make them out to be anything other than what they are.

So, while I could afford to buy an M1 just for kicks and giggles, I'm not about to drop 7 grand for the full package.

You know that's not a real thing, right? You don't NEED a $5000 monitor. You may want it, but you are not obligated to buy it.

I'm using my M1 with my old monitor, which is normal res. Yes, I bought a thunderbolt dock because I have way too many peripherals to attach. 2 Printers, 2 scanners, CD/DVD drive, USB Array, Thunderbolt Array (doesn't work), two ethernet networks.

It displays as usual on my old decrepit 34" monitor and it only cost around $2000 CAD (16GB ram, 1TB ssd) including the dock.

For writers, you won't need more than the basic set up at $700 and whatever monitor/keyboard/mouse you had before.

There's no way this is going to make any difference in anything I do.

There you go. You don't need it, you don't buy it.

You just saved yourself $700.

Congratulations! Have a well earned drink.

I've had an interest in Spirituality/Religion/Psychology, and the occult for almost my entire life. Neouro-theology was added a little over a decade ago. So I look at almost everything, lol.

The program in question is the Orphalese Tarot program. A tidy little Tarot program that I am fond of. Linux users don't tend to read their cards, lol

I wonder what program that might be since it's very, very rare that there is no alternative for Linux.

With the added advantage of being open-source, and some of them being better than the closed-source tools they replace.

How is profit measured

As DS says, the profit is after all of the operating costs are paid. However, it's crazy to look at profit as a percentage of revenue only. In any retail sales business the key figure to keep in mind is the mark-up value, and for most grocery items that can vary from 25 percent of purchase price to 50 percent of the list purchase price. Thus something they buy which is listed for $1.00 will sell with a retail price of anywhere between $1.25 to $1.50, based on what the item is. In some case they will buy for below list and still sell at the normal retail price. The bigger the retail operation the more stock they sell, and the bigger discounts they get.

In a retail operation where the revenue is $10,000,000 over the year a 0.5% profit is still $50,000. So when you have s business like Walmart with a revenue in the billions they still get a huge profit, it just seems small compared to their revenue. However, the reverse is true of a small operation, and that's why most small Mom and Pop businesses have to work on a 30 to 40% profit to make it worth their while - keep in mind in those operations the profit is before they get any money in their own pocket as few pay themselves a salary as an operating cost.

Will the new Mac Mini accomodate all of that?

What parts do you need? It has:

2x Thunderbolt/USB4 ports

2x USB-A ports

HDMI 2.0

Gigabit Ethernet

You can get a thunderbolt dock with just about any combination of ports from OWC. They offer multiple combinations of:

Thunderbolt 3

Thunderbolt 2/Thunderbolt

USB 3 (10Gb/s) Type-C

USB 3 (10Gb/s) Type-A

USB 3 (5Gb/s) Type-C

USB 3 (5Gb/s) Type-A

eSATA

FireWire

10 Gigabit Ethernet

Gigabit Ethernet

Mini DisplayPort

DisplayPort

HDMI

microSD Card Reader

SD Card Reader

CFast Card Reader

And you could, of course, add a serial port via USB.

On my desktop, I have three printers, a large flat-bed scanner, an external CD/DVD player, a back-up drive and an external drive that will read floppy disks. Will the new Mac Mini accomodate all of that?

The likely answer is, sort of. Unless any of those devices are really ancient then they'll all use USB cables with a rectangular end of about half an inch by an eight of an inch which plugs into the computer. So that means you have 7 devices. USB 3 has blue plastic in the end and the earlier versions of USB have black or white. I doubt you'll use all 7 at once, so a USB hub will do for what you want, so buy something like the unit below:

https://www.pccasegear.com/products/49807/simplecom-ch372p-7-port-usb-3-0-ultra-slim-aluminium-hub

That is a 7 port USB hub using the higher speed USB 3. That way you can plug everything into the hub and only use one of the highspeed USB ports on the Mac to leave the others open for new hardware.

Thanks, but I don't understand any of your answer. I understand the two-step process (1) plug it in and (2) turn it on. Does your list mean the answer to my question is "Yes"?

The short answer is 'yes', with a caveat - what kind of ports you need. If you need more than two USB-A ports, then you would need a USB hub of some sort.

You can't abdicate responsibility completely.

The problem for him is the answer was too technical. Most people have no idea what the difference between USB-A and USB C is, let alone the speeds. Many don't know the difference between a Display Port and HDMI, let alone a mini-display port.

In your car analogy it was like giving the guy the Brake Horse Power and engine cylinder size when all he needed to know was how many people does it seat.

The problem for him is the answer was too technical. Most people have no idea what the difference between USB-A and USB C is, let alone the speeds. Many don't know the difference between a Display Port and HDMI, let alone a mini-display port.

While true to an extent, I don't know the specifics of your extant hardware. And you'll need to know at least what connectors it uses if you buy any kind of new computer.

That said, the naming conventions chosen by the USB and Thunderbolt marketing droids are enough to drive a man (or woman) to drink.

Four of the M1's cores are faster than the fastest desktop i9 macs.

One fun thing is that the M1 can run translated x86 faster than an i9 can!

And what exactly do those lines mean? Now all that much.

An 80386-40 was faster than an 80486-33, but that did not mean it was more powerful. The relationship between just raw speed and power broke down decades ago, which is why most do not really rely upon that anymore.

And as you said, "translated code". Most code is not translated. And a huge amount will never be translated to work with this chip. And many others will, but users will have to buy it once again. For a whopping 1% improvement, maybe.

I also am a veteran, and one thing I learned long ago is to not just rush off on what the first impressions of almost anything are. Myself, I follow quite a few tech sources. And quite a few are raving like this is the Second Coming. Yet others are like "Meh". And quite a few that run video streams are all going "Ugh".

And interesting comparison, the Pentium M. Yes, a laptop CPU. Based off of a heavily modified Pentium III core, which actually did have excellent performance. When compared to other mobile processors. It was roughly on par with the 4M, but was still nowhere near what a P4 could do.

As I said, apples and oranges.

Oh, and those "benchmarks" for M1 compared to i9? Check again. I have looked at many, and you need to read carefully. They beat the i9 sure, the single-core model. And once again, an i9 10980hk.

That is a laptop CPU. So once again, not really a surprise. But turn on all the cores of the i9, and it beat the M1. And I am sure it will beat the pants off of some i9 processors. Just as the top of the line 486 processors beat most early Pentium processors. But to be accurate, you have to say exactly what is being compared, and how.

Running a multi-core CPU against any single core is like, the point is? The multi-core laptop i9 still whipped the M1. And a top end mobile i9 is still only a mid-range desktop i9.

Oh, hell! To be honest, if all you do is a bit of word processing and surfing the web, you can buy a Raspberry Pi 3, scrounge a usb keyboard and a bottom end monitor and be on-line for under $200. One of the Raspberry packages includes Noobs, a Linux collection with a pretty decent WYSIWYG interface, and OpenOffice is free for the asking.

And in this I completely agree 100%. That is really all most people really need anymore. I simply do not try and confuse one with the other.

And in this I completely agree 100%. That is really all most people really need anymore. I simply do not try and confuse one with the other.

Yet the same mentality pervades the selection of computers as does the selection of, for instance, transportation. You don't NEED a jacked-up 4-wheel-drive pickup truck to navigate between the apartment and the front door of Wal-Mart...

Yet the same mentality pervades the selection of computers as does the selection of, for instance, transportation.

But computers for home has actually been falling for years.

Sales have fallen from a high of over 150 million per year in 2010, to less than 100 million per year today. Tablets and phones have rapidly taken over mush of the area that computers once held, as have consoles for gaming.

I for one gave up gaming on my PC almost a decade ago. When game companies started to demand I get $300 graphics cards every 2 years to play a game my 7 year old console can play just fine, I simply had enough. These are the stats for Fallout 76, which is not even a very high end game:

Requires 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 7/8.1/10
Processor: Intel Core i7-4790 3.6 GHz / AMD Ryzen 5 1500X 3.5 GHz
Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 970 4GB / AMD R9 290X 4GB
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Storage: 60 GB of free disk space

I simply checked out of PC gaming, they can have it. But that is a fairly small percentage of the market really, most people simply moved on to other solutions.

As an irrational and transcendental number, it will continue infinitely without repetition or pattern.

And yet it's a very poor source of random digits!

AJ

Also, we can celebrate Tau ever day because every day is Tau Day.

No, that's a load of bull because it's a Tau ruse ;-)

AJ