12

Right now, it looks like and are roughly identical in coverage; most questions mention both. Should one tag become a synonym for the other, or should exist to specifically cover the M1 chip itself (and not, say, the M2, or M1Z, or whatever comes next) and covers questions about ARM Macs more generally?

1
  • It seems like the second conclusion you came to would be sensible that way if someone is saying something about an M1 Mac which they need help with, versus an Apple silicon compatability question you've got two options and these will need definitions and some steering I suspect. – unknowndomain Nov 23 '20 at 2:43
15

Why do we even need an M1 tag to begin with?

The M1 is just the name of this particular chip - it's like saying "i7" or "i5" and we don't have tags for these. We don't even have a tag for "Intel" though we do have one for and (synonym).

I think we should continue doing what we've done and tag the architecture and not the chip.

the only significant step you might need to take is to recompile your code for the arm64 architecture.

Emphasis mine

I also think that before we start creating tags we should research how Apple references their hardware, use that as the tag and then create synonyms that help folks find the appropriate and correct nomenclature.

9
  • 2
    I agree that it would be technically correct to have a arm64 tag. I'm not so sure (end) users would find this tag though, the terms they are used to are "Apple Silicon" and (currently) "M1". – nohillside Nov 23 '20 at 13:44
  • 2
    As I said, have the arm64 tag and point M1 And Apple Silicon synonyms to it so they learn what the correct terminology is – Allan Nov 23 '20 at 15:34
  • 3
    We use the tag bonjour, not zeroconf. I wish Apple would just call ARM processors ARM but if they're not going to use that name... – Wowfunhappy Nov 24 '20 at 15:47
  • arm64 could refer to Iphones etc. So not a useful tag (plus we ought to have a ppc tag for consistency - oh wait is that OSX or Macos 9 etc.. and powerpc shows that you need an os tag as well ) Architecture tags are not sufficent and I think on this site not the correct way. The tags we are discussing are for macOS on intel and macOS on Apple Silicon - just a short way to say that. I believe that we don't like meta tags so having to express the idea as two tags is not good – mmmmmm Nov 27 '20 at 12:34
  • We have never referenced the CPU in iPhones and iPads @mmmmmm. We already have a ppc ; it’s a synonym as I stated. “arm64” is how Apple references the chip in its documentation and as for MacOS 7/8/9, OSX, macOS, you’re conflating two different things - you can have a question about the hardware and not be required to tie it to an OS because it’s strictly a hardware issue. – Allan Nov 27 '20 at 14:26
  • The issue is that Apple silicon is not purely hardware. The questions are re macos on arm. Which is why an cpu tag is not that useful here – mmmmmm Nov 27 '20 at 14:53
  • Apple Silicon is not purely hardware.” Huh? I’m not certain you’re referencing the terms accurately as this statement makes no sense. “The questions are re macos on arm.” All of the questions are limited to macOS on Arm? There isn’t the possibility it’s simply a macOS issue or an issue solely related to the Arm processors? In other words, you’re saying there’s no hardware questions about arm Macs that’s unrelated to the OS? Can you cite examples of this using other architectures? – Allan Nov 27 '20 at 16:20
  • Apple uses both terms, "Apple Silicon" and "M1" (see for instance support.apple.com/en-us/HT211983 and support.apple.com/en-us/HT210999), not sure whether this is intentional or just different editors using different terms. – nohillside Nov 28 '20 at 15:52
  • 4
    @Allan The issue is that arm64 could refer to iPhone or macOS. Apple Silicon is macOS only so Apple Silicon makes much more sense to me as a tag – mmmmmm Dec 1 '20 at 10:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .