Apple M1 (ARM) architecture demos
category: general [glöplog]
Quote:
and I can not do same to Apple
Only if you're talking about iOS, on MacOS you're still free to do whatever.
Quote:
VS Studio does not have any restriction, only "bad" this is not opensource
why VS Studio free - because the popularity of opensource projects and compilers
when Microsoft understand that there "no point" to make it free any longer because quality (that include performance/usability/modern platform/technology integration etc) of opensource software
then they make it "paid only" and exclusive for their PC platform
you said using ANY of their products means you accept it. And you obviously use them, so in your own words you also accept it no matter how much you try to spin it.
Quote:
Quote:and I can not do same to Apple
Only if you're talking about iOS, on MacOS you're still free to do whatever.
my conversation has a point, you talk some abstract nonsense just to flood
my point is:
1. why I can not build any of my demo(as a native application) for Apple - because I can not do it from Linux same way as mingw allow it to do with Windows exe-builds.
2. Apple block my region from using their products, login to Apple account from this region, or using any Apple device from here will result permaban for apple account. Publishing any "binary" file is not possible because it requires a valid developer certificate to launch.
as I say already Apple device is same like "gaming console" and other softh and hard locked bullshit that corporations promote, any of it is not "a demo platform".
Only option when Apple device can be called as "demo platform" is when it has jailbreak hack and installed custom OS that unlock device form Apple.
Quote:
my conversation has a point, you talk some abstract nonsense just to flood
Pot calling a kettle black, eh? ;)
Quote:
1. why I can not build any of my demo(as a native application) for Apple - because I can not do it from Linux same way as mingw allow it to do with Windows exe-builds.
By "Apple" do you mean iOS or MacOS? As stated previously, your claims simply aren't true if talking about MacOS.
Quote:
Publishing any "binary" file is not possible because it requires a valid developer certificate to launch.
Again, only true for iOS.
Quote:
Only option when Apple device can be called as "demo platform" is when it has jailbreak hack and installed custom OS that unlock device form Apple.
Again, you don't get to define what counts as a valid demo platform and what not.
@britelite
It remains the fact that the modern Apple platform, with regards to the demoscene, is not very popular. Am I wrong?
It remains the fact that the modern Apple platform, with regards to the demoscene, is not very popular. Am I wrong?
Quote:
It remains the fact that the modern Apple platform, with regards to the demoscene, is not very popular. Am I wrong?
Are you talking about iOS or MacOS, or maybe both? But no, you're not wrong, none of Apples platforms (past or present) are particularly popular as demo platforms.
@britelite
I think many sceners prefer the retro-demo-platforms, to push the limited resources to the limits.
Within this perspective the modern-demo-platforms with unlimited resources are less interesting.
I think many sceners prefer the retro-demo-platforms, to push the limited resources to the limits.
Within this perspective the modern-demo-platforms with unlimited resources are less interesting.
Quote:
@britelite
I think many sceners prefer the retro-demo-platforms, to push the limited resources to the limits.
Within this perspective the modern-demo-platforms with unlimited resources are less interesting.
What about Windows though? In most years Windows releases outnumber Amiga 3:1 and are on par with C64.
Quote:
Quote:Quote:and I can not do same to Apple
Only if you're talking about iOS, on MacOS you're still free to do whatever.
my conversation has a point, you talk some abstract nonsense just to flood
my point is: <cut>
I'm sorry my friend, but your point is just bollocks since you realize that you don't need to pay for anything to code and distribute your programs on Mac Os unless you want to distribute them in the App Store. Which is total nonsense and makes totally no difference here as I believe macos users are smart enough to launch it from the command line or .app bundle without that step being included in the loop.
I'm really sorry that Apple ignores your local market, where-ever you live. Nobody also pushes you to support the platform, but that's not an argument to stop somebody else to passionately experiment with it, even if this is just for one prod nobody but a bunch of friends can appreciate.
I anybody is just flooding, is those who use such limited arguments as yours.
And I'm ignoring nothing.. whole point I'm making here is to add some sarcasm to this nonsense talk.
and last but not least.. even if this is just another PC (by API access) ran on special ARM chip: if somebody is curious about making a demo for it.. go for it, and f*k the laments and categorization.
I'll have mine delivered in January. Happy to give it a benchmark.
/h1
@Gargaj
Interesting point, I guess the new-school is Window$ based.
But in total I guess the retro-demo-platforms have many more productions than modern.
Interesting point, I guess the new-school is Window$ based.
But in total I guess the retro-demo-platforms have many more productions than modern.
If you're saying that one specific platform is outnumbered by dozens of others combined, then yes, as unfair a comparison it may be - although it depends on the year.
This discussion drifted far away from the topic, lol. I still don't get the point. Is this about doing normal macOS coding, but don't make an universal binary and just compile for ARM?
If you make a standard demo, yep. You’d have a pretty fast CPU, and a pretty slow GPU.
If you treat it like a console or whatever and code for this machine specifically it’s pretty interesting, you have video encode and decode hardware (feedback effects with compression artefacts?), ML accelerator (style transfer?), and the GPU has some interesting differences (e.g. tile shaders and memoryless rendertargets, meaning you can do stuff that’s normally too bandwidth heavy very fast)
If you treat it like a console or whatever and code for this machine specifically it’s pretty interesting, you have video encode and decode hardware (feedback effects with compression artefacts?), ML accelerator (style transfer?), and the GPU has some interesting differences (e.g. tile shaders and memoryless rendertargets, meaning you can do stuff that’s normally too bandwidth heavy very fast)
The 2nd option makes it an interesting demo platform, but also requires a ton of time learning the platform unless you know it already. And you still get a fairly slow (by desktop standards, it’s very fast for integrated) GPU. Things might get more interesting when they release desktop hardware with a real GPU.
(Reminds me, I should get somebody to check if my new exegfx runs on m1 :)
(Reminds me, I should get somebody to check if my new exegfx runs on m1 :)
Yes, you are. You can run any executable.
Quote:
Notarization gives users more confidence that the Developer ID-signed software you distribute has been checked by Apple for malicious components.
Not sure what's that quote supposed to prove?
To clarify, I certainly don't care what executable i could run.
I care about what my users could run. And if my software gets auto quarantined by default until I'm signing it with my developer ID, even if it is free tool I'm maintaining during my free time -- it's far away from "free to do whatever" in my vocabulary. And those restrictions are getting tighter in every new MacOS release.
To clarify, I certainly don't care what executable i could run.
I care about what my users could run. And if my software gets auto quarantined by default until I'm signing it with my developer ID, even if it is free tool I'm maintaining during my free time -- it's far away from "free to do whatever" in my vocabulary. And those restrictions are getting tighter in every new MacOS release.
You should definitely do whatever makes you happy but you were saying you are not free to do whatever you want on the mac and that is just not true. You can compile, run and distribute executables without any "dev ID".
not sure i understand the context of this convo.
if your users can't run your software, it effectively means you can't distribute it - and i can't believe you don't understand it, hence you're either trolling or disagree (and i am wrong and there are actual user friendly solutions to that). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
if it's latter, could you please explain it a bit less passive aggressive?
if your users can't run your software, it effectively means you can't distribute it - and i can't believe you don't understand it, hence you're either trolling or disagree (and i am wrong and there are actual user friendly solutions to that). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
if it's latter, could you please explain it a bit less passive aggressive?
And I mean it. I'm all ears, it is big actual PITA for me.
Dude this is simple, process you provided link to is about signing the executable which is prefered process by the platform vendor and mandatory to publish/distribute in the app store.
This is the same on Windows, but similarly to Windows you don't need to sign anything or distribute via platform's app store to run software on the computer.
If you refered to IOS then it's more true as either you need jailbreaking or dev environment (paid), but on MacOS (desktop computer from apple) what you have is regular FreeBSD foundation below the UX and apps.
To code the app on it simply use clang or download whatever compiler/setup that is available (no less than on linux/windows to be frank).
Now when you compile, you get command line exe which can be distributed as you with. You can even bundle it into .app folder and zip it as such to make it easier for your friendly lamers who don't know how terminal works.
Any format binary + content you choose to distribute, you can zip and publish to scene.org and anybody else who downloads it can run it on Mac, just like on Windows and Linux.
I'm pretty sure that you haven't touched Mac in your life, otherwise you'd not write such nonsense as above and if you don't understand what's written here then either you're an idiot or trolling yourself (no offense, but this is common knowledge)
/h1
This is the same on Windows, but similarly to Windows you don't need to sign anything or distribute via platform's app store to run software on the computer.
If you refered to IOS then it's more true as either you need jailbreaking or dev environment (paid), but on MacOS (desktop computer from apple) what you have is regular FreeBSD foundation below the UX and apps.
To code the app on it simply use clang or download whatever compiler/setup that is available (no less than on linux/windows to be frank).
Now when you compile, you get command line exe which can be distributed as you with. You can even bundle it into .app folder and zip it as such to make it easier for your friendly lamers who don't know how terminal works.
Any format binary + content you choose to distribute, you can zip and publish to scene.org and anybody else who downloads it can run it on Mac, just like on Windows and Linux.
I'm pretty sure that you haven't touched Mac in your life, otherwise you'd not write such nonsense as above and if you don't understand what's written here then either you're an idiot or trolling yourself (no offense, but this is common knowledge)
/h1
Not sure why you had to write all that, but hope it was good for you.
However, after you do that all stuff on Sierra and above, your users will start to complaint that they can't run your software.
And it will be so until the software is notarized with particular developer id, but I see now - doing that would be a mistake. One just should inform them that the software works just fine, according to user hollowone on pouet net site.
However, after you do that all stuff on Sierra and above, your users will start to complaint that they can't run your software.
And it will be so until the software is notarized with particular developer id, but I see now - doing that would be a mistake. One just should inform them that the software works just fine, according to user hollowone on pouet net site.
Quote:
I think many sceners prefer the retro-demo-platforms, to push the limited resources to the limits. Within this perspective the modern-demo-platforms with unlimited resources are less interesting.
Sigh. Not only is this repeated "take" a few decades old and recycled by now, it's also not factually correct. Never was either, for that matter.
Whenever I see someone say/write "demosceners make demos to push the hardware to its limits" the internalized version looks like this:
"deMoScEnerS PuSh thE hArDwarE tO thEiR LiMitS!!111"
"deMoScEnerS PuSh thE hArDwarE tO thEiR LiMitS!!111"
(Sorry, meant Catalina, not Sierra) ^