[zer0zzz]

It’s interesting because the whole M# line started with a smart phone and built a pc out of that. As a result it has some unfortunate restrictions that aren’t there when you build a machine out of capable yet pretty clunky intel hardware. I don’t doubt there are similar tradeoffs in the WoS world but I’m not aware of what they are specifically.

The restriction I am most annoyed with these days is the lack of external GPU passthrough. I’m not even sure the asahi Linux folks have gotten that working yet.

So folks are probably just happy they’re not having to deal with as many compromises and tradeoffs (they get to have their PC that works almost just like a smartphone but does more things their intel machine could now). That’s totally understandable.

[justsomehnguy]

> As a result it has some unfortunate restrictions

Ah, yes, "poor Apple couldn't find a way".

Except it did for the more pricey models.

[_ph_]

Well, yes. By using the bigger CPUs, which have more cores, more gpus and more IO hardware on chip.

[justsomehnguy]

> which have more cores

Nonsense, Celeron 600, 1c/1t CPU from 25 years ago could drive multiple monitors just fine.

> more gpus

Nonsense, you just need more VRAM and guess what? DVMT was a thing 15 years ago.

> and more IO hardware on chip.

If you can use the external monitor with the either USB port then you have all the IO needed. Nonsense.

[zer0zzz]

Nope: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/27191/i...

You needed an agp video card of some kind. You're making a false comparison. Once again they clearly made tradeoffs to get the best balance for product experience, cost, and their own supply chain considerations (for entry level laptops, tablets, phones).

[justsomehnguy]

> You needed an agp video card of some kind

You needed a video card of some kind. You can stick multiple PCI cards in one PC just fine, alongside one AGP card. And this is the time when the usual gaming video card had a whooping 32-64Mb of RAM. There is absolutely no reason a computer can be limited in amount of displays it can drive. And if 20+ y/o PCs could drive multiple monitors there is no reason the top notch tech company couldn't do that.

> You're making a false comparison

No, you are just trying to justify the greedy corporation habits.

> Once again they clearly made tradeoffs

No, they segmented their products and their fanbois are not only drunk their koolaid but eagerly defend it too.

[zer0zzz]

> No, you are just trying to justify the greedy corporation habits.

You're really showing off your ignorance here, and you're assuming a lot around my defending of greed etc. My view's on Apple's pricing are pretty irrelevant here, and I have nothing to say for or against them because I frankly don't care and don't know the logistics behind them.

All the times I've worked on projects that involve shipping an operating system, hardware, etc I've found that there are a lot of tradeoffs especially when you're doing something a little bit different. This is the case with M# silicon and also the case with Windows on Snapdragon systems.

They aren't starting with expandable hardware built for running desktop PCs, they (apple, Qualcomm) are starting with highly integrated SoCs that have some really narrow goals around power and battery life. Their systems are more designed for running phones and tablets than for entry level laptops.

> No, they segmented their products and their fanbois are not only drunk their koolaid but eagerly defend it too.

Don't like it? Don't buy one. But fact is, their more narrow model for how a PC can be built is selling really well and very few regular people miss their second monitor because of it.

[_ph_]

Your post is nonsense. I was talking about the Apple Silicon chips. Which combine all the logic on one chip. That means, they are limited in the capacities by what is put on that corresponding chip. Apple chose to put 2 display outputs on the smaller chips, and more on the larger ones. That is a conscious choice trading off chip area with other capabilities. Could they have done differently? Sure. Does it make sense? Yes. For the people, who need or want more compute power and more capabilities, they have two different chip offerings in the laptops, the Pro and the Max. And in the Mac Studio the Ultra, which are two Max and consequently raise the IO capability even further.

And I have certainly not talked about any other platform, which usually uses multi-chip approaches.

[zer0zzz]

Exactly right. I think some of my points got garbled in all this back and forth: that their conscious choice makes A LOT of sense when you take into account that they want their smaller chips to share supply chain with iPads, Vision Pro etc.

[zer0zzz]

No ones saying “poor apple.” The pricier models don’t run the same soc. With the air you’re getting the same constraints as an iPad. They made tradeoffs.