Apple Silicon

Agreed, Justin. The web app definitely is nice complement to the iPad app. I just wish resource citations could be copied. Would be great if resources could be downloaded locally, too. 

All that to say... I want a more robust iPad app!

Keep in mind that the processor in question is an iPad processor. I have one in my iPad Pro. It is likely the processor in a Macbook Pro would be much better even if based on the same tech as the A12Z processor. The Mac Mini they are currently "selling" to devs is a little underpowered. It is likely Apple created a quick and dirty system that can get developers up and running quickly. One should not take it as gospel (see what I did there) that Apple Silicon will not perform well running x86 code. If the old Rosetta is anything to go by, it should run great!

I guess it all depends on what you have and when you decide to upgrade I am running a 2014 Macbook Pro and Logos still runs great. I also have a Lenovo 12 inch machine with an i7 processor specifically for portability and it runs Logos very well. It's kind of the reason I would love to have desktop Logos running on an iPad. I love the portability of the Lenovo. And when I travel its much lighter. But only having 1 device is the ultimate! But one would have at 5 years to upgrade and if one buys the last Intel Mac that Apple sells in two years time you could probably extend that to seven years. 

Rosetta (the original one) was supporting in Mac operating systems for five years. If the same or better holds true, that's a fair amount of time for either a change in OS for us (going to Windows) or for Logos to support Arm64 natively. At the end of the day, its just speculation on our part until Faithlife and/or Bob gives us the official word! As a developer, I suspect it would be a fascinating project. 

So I think one should not get too crazy and abandon ship JUST yet. Even if worst comes to worst and Faithlife sunsets Mac support, there is still that other operating system. I know it borders on sacrilege to even think about it (I am a huge Mac fan and earn my bread and butter by it!) but if worst comes to worst we still have options! And you have 5 years to cushion the blow and save up for your wonderful new Windows laptop! 😲

But let's just wait for the official word and in the meantime keep using the software we love to minister to the saints and grow as believers! 

Regarding the concern over what happens to intel Macs after the shift to ARM, I thought this article makes a good point: Bootcamp still works and the Mac hardware is likely to last a long time. Yes it’s not ideal for those who don’t want to shift from the macOS, but it’s a possibility. Thoughts?

edit and it would help if I added the link 🤦‍♂️ https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-life-for-obsolete-intel-macs-great-windows-or-linux-machines-for-years-to-come/

Except Bootcamp won't work on the ARM Macs. All BootCamp does is allow you to install Windows on the same harddrive as Mac and dual boot. Windows is still running on the bare Intel processor. While there is a Windows written for ARM the uptake of it is very low, because Windows doesn't have a Rosetta equivalent so if the Windows app is not written for ARM it won't run! 

Sure you COULD run Windows in Parallels or VirtualBox but unless those apps are running native on ARM you would be running a virtual machine through Rosetta 2 and then emulating the Intel processor. Logos would not run well under those circumstances! If it would run at all. It would be better to run Logos directly under Rosetta 2!

If you keep your old Mac around and you buy one soon before the last one is sold, you should be fine for a while. But eventually Apple will stop supporting your Mac with OS upgrades and you will be stuck. And as Logos moves on your software will lag behind. You won't be able to upgrade to the latest software. And of course your machine will get slower and slower as well, every time you upgrade. For example, my 2014 Macbook Pro runs great for now but I can't use the new SideCar feature with my iPad as my Mac is too old! In a few years time my Mac probably won't work anymore. I sold my previous Mac to my sister and she used it for a year or two and the discrete graphics card stopped working. It could not be repaired and she had to buy a new machine!

So one can take a gamble, but you might get left out in the cold. Eventually. But you might get quite a few years out of your machine and your Logos installation before that happens. Or it could be sooner. Only God knows for sure! Which is why ultimately we trust in Him alone!

Except Bootcamp won't work on the ARM Macs.

David is talking about current Macs being able to still be used into the future. 

or drop support for Mac altogether. 

Kicking to the curb tens of thousands of lifelong costumers who have invested (and will continue to invest) millions of dollars into Logos software? I can't see that happening.

Regarding the concern over what happens to intel Macs after the shift to ARM, ...

Anticipating Apple to support Intel Macs for years after Apple stops selling them:

• 2001 Dec: terminal 9.2.2 release of mac OS 9 Classic => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Mac_OS 
• 2006 Jan-May: Intel Mac models introduced => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_models_grouped_by_CPU_type
• 2006 Aug: Power PC Macs discontinued => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_models_grouped_by_CPU_type 
• 2007 Oct: OS X 10.5 Leopard => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard is final OS X for Power PC Mac
• 2009 Aug: OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard only runs on Intel CPU's
• 2009 Sep: Support ends for OS X 10.4 Tiger => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Tiger
• 2011 Jun: Apple ends support for OS X 10.5 Leopard (nearly 5 years after Apple stopped selling Power PC Mac models)

Note: OS X 10.4 Tiger could run mac OS 9 "Classic" applications on G4 Mac Mini => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Mini with Apple Support for almost eight years after 9.2.2 release. End of Apple Support meant any new issues would not be fixed, but older hardware could continue to run older software until hardware failed (similar to existing Libronix 3.0g being usable offline after security updates on Faithlife servers cut off online usability about a year before Faithlife shutdown Libronix servers).

Another thought is using Apple Trade-In toward an Apple Silicon Mac => https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in OR OWC Trade-In, used Macs and Tablets => https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Apple_Systems/Used/Macs_and_Tablets while Apple is still selling Intel Macs.

Keep Smiling [:)] 

Except Bootcamp won't work on the ARM Macs.

David is talking about current Macs being able to still be used into the future. 

That’s right. The current Intel Macs. I thought that those who were worried about their current hardware investment once ARM became the new normal 🙂

Regarding the concern over what happens to intel Macs after the shift to ARM, ...

Anticipating Apple to support Intel Macs for years after Apple stops selling them:

• 2001 Dec: terminal 9.2.2 release of mac OS 9 Classic => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Mac_OS 
• 2006 Jan-May: Intel Mac models introduced => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_models_grouped_by_CPU_type
• 2006 Aug: Power PC Macs discontinued => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_models_grouped_by_CPU_type 
• 2007 Oct: OS X 10.5 Leopard => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard is final OS X for Power PC Mac
• 2009 Aug: OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard only runs on Intel CPU's
• 2009 Sep: Support ends for OS X 10.4 Tiger => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Tiger
• 2011 Jun: Apple ends support for OS X 10.5 Leopard (nearly 5 years after Apple stopped selling Power PC Mac models)

Note: OS X 10.4 Tiger could run mac OS 9 "Classic" applications on G4 Mac Mini => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Mini with Apple Support for almost eight years after 9.2.2 release. End of Apple Support meant any new issues would not be fixed, but older hardware could continue to run older software until hardware failed (similar to existing Libronix 3.0g being usable offline after security updates on Faithlife servers cut off online usability about a year before Faithlife shutdown Libronix servers).

Another thought is using Apple Trade-In toward an Apple Silicon Mac => https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in OR OWC Trade-In, used Macs and Tablets => https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Apple_Systems/Used/Macs_and_Tablets while Apple is still selling Intel Macs.

Keep Smiling  

Yes, I’m not posting this out of alarmism. I’m just saying that even in a worst case scenario, the current hardware wouldn’t be junk

I still remember when my G4 Mac died. I was so mad that I needed to get a new Mac. That's when Logos 4 debuted. L4 wouldn't have run on the G4.

God always have everything worked out before we do.

or drop support for Mac altogether. 

Kicking to the curb tens of thousands of lifelong costumers who have invested (and will continue to invest) millions of dollars into Logos software? I can't see that happening.

No, I don't either. Out of context, it might seem like that is what I said. In context, I was replying to someone who said that he didn't think FL would develop the main Logos app for ARM. My answer was that they would have to do so... "or drop support for Mac altogether." And that is true.

If you look in your 'About Logos' menu item you can see all the licensing details of frameworks used to build Logos. It's a good place to get a feel for how complex a port to apple silicon might be. Apple have been issuing patches to some open source frameworks where necessary, mono being an example. My guess is it will be non-trivial in the sense that it will take some quite clever tweaks but I doubt any substantial rewrites unless I'm missing something. My personal opinion / estimate is that Logos will be 'native' on apple silicon very soon.

If you look in your 'About Logos' menu item you can see all the licensing details of frameworks used to build Logos. It's a good place to get a feel for how complex a port to apple silicon might be. Apple have been issuing patches to some open source frameworks where necessary, mono being an example. My guess is it will be non-trivial in the sense that it will take some quite clever tweaks but I doubt any substantial rewrites unless I'm missing something. My personal opinion / estimate is that Logos will be 'native' on apple silicon very soon.

I like your take on it, John. I hope you're right!

Any thoughts on Apple Silicon now? Apple recently announced an event scheduled for November 10. Its very likely they will debut new MacBooks that contain the new chips.

I’d like to know the official response to this too.

My educated guess:

• in the end they will support it
• it takes time, tons of time for complicated applications, and Logos is complicated (a lot of dependencies, such as the speech to audio)
• it should be less complicated then Adobe CC, as they uses some very old API on Mac (while probably not a lot). But, Logos probably has less budget than Adobe
• it will run on day 1, via Rosetta 2, not ideal, but it will run
• its iPadOS version will also run on day 1, which is interesting. Now you have a single device that can both run the mobile and desktop versions (and the web version). So you can choose depending on applications (light reading, intensive study…)

Logos users should not purchase one of these computers if they intend to use Logos on it until after FL has made official comments. They will need to have a device in hand to test first. 

Logos users should not purchase one of these computers if they intend to use Logos on it until after FL has made official comments. They will need to have a device in hand to test first. 

I think we actually need to hear about the new macOS compatibility first which should be forthcoming any day now. I expect that will be no problem at all. 

If you are really happy with your Intel Mac, you probably want to hold off on the first-gen Apple Silicon. The typical experience puts much better performance on the iteration of Apple hardware. 

I think we actually need to hear about the new macOS compatibility first

I had issues to begin with (continual crashes), but it seems pretty stable now. I would not encourage people to update, however, until FL gives the thumbs up. 

Any ETA on Logos on Apple Silicon? I’m putting together a list of apps updated for Apple Silicon.

Any ETA on Logos on Apple Silicon? I’m putting together a list of apps updated for Apple Silicon.

I assume you mean native, not emulated.

See Phil's most recent response: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/196433/1136254.aspx#1136254 

(Logos unofficially runs under emulation, with some minor styling issues.)

Any ETA on Logos on Apple Silicon? I’m putting together a list of apps updated for Apple Silicon.

I assume you mean native, not emulated.

See Phil's most recent response: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/196433/1136254.aspx#1136254 

(Logos unofficially runs under emulation, with some minor styling issues.)

Great. Thanks!

Any ETA on Logos on Apple Silicon? I’m putting together a list of apps updated for Apple Silicon.

 you may find this useful: https://www.stclairsoft.com/Go64/index.html

Is this the sort of thing that should go for vote on feedback boards to possibly speed things up, I honestly don't know.  But I'd vote for that[:D]

Is this the sort of thing that should go for vote on feedback boards to possibly speed things up

Nope. Several reasons: 

• FL will have to do this at some point if they want to continue support for Mac. They have indicated that they plan to do so. It isn't an optional thing we would like to have happen... it is an important one which doesn't <need> to happen now but will be necessary in the future. 
• FL is able to run reports on the specific devices which have installed their apps... so they will know how many users are on Apple Silicon
• Right now, and for a while, the number of apple silicon users will be small. Very small. It will probably be several years at the earliest until the number of silicon users matches the number of intel users. The number of requests WILL be small. I only hedge that bet because the use of FeedBear is new and if a bunch of us run over there, we might move the needle... but only until others start using it. 

There is no problem in creating a request on Feed Bear, it just isn't necessary, nor is it likely to "speed things up." 

I wonder if FL has any to track the number of users who have checked into Assurance?  I have.  I've used Logos since version 1.6.  I'm in no hurry to change programs, but I will be getting a new Mac next year.  Oak Tree has already said that Assurance runs now under Rosetta2 and that they are working on supporting the M1 natively.  Is there a reason why FL can't make the same statement?  It sure would make me feel better.

Phil said they would like to provide native support for M1 at https://community.logos.com/forums/p/196329/1135550.aspx#1135550 

There is no problem in creating a request on Feed Bear, it just isn't necessary, nor is it likely to "speed things up."

Voting is more likely to speed things up than not voting.

FL does change priorities for what to work on based on feedback.

I’d encourage people to take advantage of the feedback system FL has provided, even to vote for something that FL will be doing.

Requests also provide useful feedback to us. We can see when a request we’ve voted on moves to “planned,” or to “in production.”

Is there a reason why FL can't make the same statement?

I don't remember when or where... it may have been by email! However, I do know that FL intends to continue support for Mac. That would require a move to supporting the M1 natively... but not necessarily soon. It could be in 6 months, but it should be sometime BEFORE Apple drops support for Rosetta2. 

Here's a thought. You can read right on these forums that Logos 9 currently runs on Rosetta like an i9 Intel machine Mac. Are you actually going to see a tangible improvement in native? There's already an improvement on Big Sur and L9 is already an improvement over L8. 

Would it be right for FL to hold up improving Logos 9 for everyone to speed up performance tables for a few? I would much rather see FL do what they are doing already. L9 appears to be working pretty good without any fanfare from FL. That's why I use Logos. I know FL is on it for the future without me even asking.

Voting is more likely to speed things up than not voting.

...or not. A dearth of people voting on it compared to other items might scare them away. [:O] [:P]

I am only half kidding. I think it is neither going to hurt OR help the cause. Voting on other things is more important... especially on things which arent destined to happen anyway. 

I currently run Logos 9 on macOS 11 Big Sur on two 2019 Intel-based Macs and it runs very well on both of them.

• 27-inch iMac with Retina 5K display, 3.6GHz 8-core 9th-generation Intel Core i9 processor w/Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz, 16GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory, Radeon Pro 580X with 8GB of GDDR5 memory, 1TB SSD storage

• 15-inch MacBook Pro, 2.3GHz 8-core 9th-generation Intel Core i9 processor w/Turbo Boost up to 4.8GHz, 16GB 2400MHz DDR4 memory, Radeon Pro 560X with 4GB of GDDR5 memory, 1TB SSD storage

I just ordered the following Apple Silicon MacBook, and I'm hoping that the performance of Logos 9 under Rosetta is as fast as my existing Intel Macs.

• 13-inch MacBook Pro, Apple M1 chip with 8-core CPU and 8-core GP and 16-core Neural Engine, 16GB unified memory, 1TB SSD storage

If it does, I can wait a bit for FaithLife to provide a universal Logos 9 app that contains both Intel x86 and Apple Silicon (M1) code.

I’m putting together a list of apps updated for Apple Silicon.

Found this site today: https://doesitarm.com/

I’m putting together a list of apps updated for Apple Silicon.

Found this site today: https://doesitarm.com/

Great! Added it to my list. My list is here:

https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/ongoing-list-of-mac-apps-updated-for-universal-apple-silicon-support/#post-2313222

. My list is here:

https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/ongoing-list-of-mac-apps-updated-for-universal-apple-silicon-support/#post-2313222 

Nathan, adding a space after a web address will make it active.

In case you missed it, https://community.logos.com/forums/t/196476.aspx

. My list is here:

https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/ongoing-list-of-mac-apps-updated-for-universal-apple-silicon-support/#post-2313222 

Nathan, adding a space after a web address will make it active.

Thanks. I thought I did, but I guess I hit Post too quickly. :-)

A nice summary of the Apple M1 Macs (with several review videos and benchmarking) is available at:

https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/17/apple-m1-mac-reviews/ 

I’d recommend https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested/

in which it was said

The performance of the new M1 in this “maximum performance” design with a small fan is outstandingly good. The M1 undisputedly outperforms the core performance of everything Intel has to offer, and battles it with AMD’s new Zen3, winning some, losing some. And in the mobile space in particular, there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent in either ST or MT performance – at least within the same power budgets.

What’s really important for the general public and Apple’s success is the fact that the performance of the M1 doesn’t feel any different than if  you were using a very high-end Intel or AMD CPU. Apple achieving this in-house with their own design is a paradigm shift, and in the future will allow them to achieve a certain level of software-hardware vertical integration that just hasn’t been seen before and isn’t achieved yet by anybody else.

My summary:

- M1 bare metal is very fast comparing to competition

- M1 running x86 (Rosetta 2) is in most cases beating all Apple Intel Macs. This is the kind of perf. you Should look at for Logos now as native doesn’t exist yet.

- if you just push raw power (ie FLOPS), M1 and competitions are more similar. But for mixed workload M1 is usually faster. My personal take is that it is due to the unified memory on the die itself. IIRC I have never seen anyone else in the industry outing 16 GB of memory on the die where the CPU, GPU, tensor cores etc resides. They all shared the same memory and with vertical integration they can avoid unnecessary copy between them. This is a huge performance booster. My bet is that it would benefits the kind of workload Logos does.

TL;DR: running Logos now (via Rosetta 2) should have not much worse experience from Intel Mac. If one day Logos for Apple Silicon is released natively it should have a noticeable boost.

My personal take is that it is due to the unified memory on the die itself.

Beginning to suspect this may be the single strongest move in what is looking to be a great design.

TL;DR: running Logos now (via Rosetta 2) should have not much worse experience from Intel Mac. If one day Logos for Apple Silicon is released natively it should have a noticeable boost.

Mostly agree, and that has been my experience so far (m1 mbair 16MB / 1TB, mbp 16 32 GB / 2TB, iMac 27, high specs).

However I'm tending to suspect that for an app like verbum/logos, the biggest gain from going native will be lower power consumption. YMMV though, especially if they  implement significant machine learning / adaptive techniques.

My personal take is that it is due to the unified memory on the die itself.

Beginning to suspect this may be the single strongest move in what is looking to be a great design.

TL;DR: running Logos now (via Rosetta 2) should have not much worse experience from Intel Mac. If one day Logos for Apple Silicon is released natively it should have a noticeable boost.

Mostly agree, and that has been my experience so far (m1 mbair 16MB / 1TB, mbp 16 32 GB / 2TB, iMac 27, high specs).

However I'm tending to suspect that for an app like verbum/logos, the biggest gain from going native will be lower power consumption. YMMV though, especially if they  implement significant machine learning / adaptive techniques.

memory on die is a compromise in another way. I wouldn’t be surprised in the future Mac Pro level Apple silicon to have another hierarchical memory, like a smaller 16GB on die and another 128GB out there. (Hard to imagine putting all 128GB or even 256 on it, or may be more clever interconnect, soldered memory on board.)

memory on die is a compromise in another way. I wouldn’t be surprised in the future Mac Pro level Apple silicon to have another hierarchical memory, like a smaller 16GB on die and another 128GB out there. (Hard to imagine putting all 128GB or even 256 on it, or may be more clever interconnect, soldered memory on board.)

But with Apple's new way of utilizing RAM, 128GB may never again be necessary. They might hit 32GB with the larger MacBook and Pro, and find that it's just not necessary to increase the amount. 

For example, I'm on my 4th Subaru Outback. My first was a 4-cylinder, and it was really underpowered, so #2 and #3 were six-cylinder. When I bought my new one this past February I was told that Subaru doesn't have a 6-cylinder Outback any longer, BUT they have 4-cylinder turbo. I get better mileage than with the 6-cylinder, and when I put my foot down it jumps pretty quick. 

But for Pro you can’t say it wont be needed. I have datasets that couldnt fit in 128GB memory.

for Pro, you could imagine someone processing gigapixel photos or larger, with multiple layers, etc. just for those to fit in memory could easily exhaust whatever amount of RAM you have. Basically if you give people enough amount of RAM, they can always has a problem that can exhaust it.

Unified memory allows you to avoid unnecessary copy. Say if you have a chunk of memory from the CPU, and you want to put them to the GPU for further processing, that memory is then needed to copy from your main memory to the GPU‘s memory. This not only is a waste of memory space, and is also a bottleneck for latency. Unified memory kills those 2 birds in 1 stone. (For non compute intensive program, like Logos most of the time, memory latency is the biggest bottleneck. Some you cannot avoid, but some others can be avoided by not having to copy.)

by the way, memory for CPU and for GPU has different requirements, one opt for random access another for throughput more. Having unified memory means you can’t choose the best RAM for the task needed. So there’s always Compromised.

also by the way, avoiding copy is not new either, famously some gaming console is doing it for years IIRC. but here Apple put them on die to lower the latency perhaps also power consumption.

Alright guys check this video "M1 Mac Mini & M1 MacBook Air powering Six external monitors" !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq_FyjcAULA  

Just when the wallet is ready to come out:

https://www.tomsguide.com/uk/news/macbook-pro-16-inch-m1x-chip-just-leaked-and-its-game-over-for-intel 

Now that it is March 2021, hoping for some further news on Logos for Apple Silicon M1, beyond them advising that Logos runs on Rosetta 2. It'd be nice to hear that FL/Logos is working on a Universal app that'll run native on M1.

It'd be nice to hear that FL/Logos is working on a Universal app that'll run native on M1.

Please Vote => Native Support for Apple Silicon Processors currently has 40 votes with Status of "Planned"

Caveat: new feedback needs a separate login so please vote => Add the feedback website to the Faithlife SSO system currently has 12 votes.

FYI: Apple is offering Refurbished M1 Mac models => https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished/mac/2020

Keep Smiling [:)]

I didn't take the time to read deeply into the story, but this week at MacRumors there was a link that said the newest beta OS update had language that said something along the lines of Rosetta 2 would not work in certain countries. The top few comments speculated it was something about gov and exports. others said it was maybe placeholder text. But if true, that sounds like a abrupt way to make the transition process smooth. 

It'd be nice to hear that FL/Logos is working on a Universal app that'll run native on M1.

We'll be moving to .NET 6 later this year (the first preview was released a couple of weeks ago), which brings native M1 support: "The new Apple M1 Arm64 chips received a lot of industry fanfare earlier this year. Apple Silicon support is a key deliverable of .NET 6."

It'd be nice to hear that FL/Logos is working on a Universal app that'll run native on M1.

We'll be moving to .NET 6 later this year (the first preview was released a couple of weeks ago), which brings native M1 support: "The new Apple M1 Arm64 chips received a lot of industry fanfare earlier this year. Apple Silicon support is a key deliverable of .NET 6."

Thanks Phil, for this update. Another interesting quote from the page linked:

.NET 6 will be will be released in November 2021, and will be supported for three years...

The platform matrix has been significantly expanded compared to .NET 5.

The additions are:

• Android.
• iOS.
• Mac and Mac Catalyst, for x64 and Apple Silicon “M1”.
• Windows Arm64 (specifically Windows Desktop).