Consensus is that the first ARM devices will be 13.3-inch MacBook Pro and a new redesigned 24" iMac, based mostly on Ming Chi Kuo's report from just before WWDC2020.

https://9to5mac.com/guides/ming-chi-kuo/

A 3 chip solution was very common for that era. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northbridge_(computing)

The only unusual thing here is that the GPU and Northbridge are the same chip.

HP also was a leader in device ergonomics. Their devices were pretty and easy to use, as well as reliable.

I don't think anyone had offices. It was all cubicles. (I worked at HP Labs in the 80's and met both Bill and Dave a couple of times.)

One cool thing HP had was "lab stock" cabinets on every floor that were full of free-for-experimentation ICs and other components. I think it's likely that the Apple I and Apple II computers were designed using components taken from those lab stock cabinets. (The story is that Steve W. tried to get HP interested in producing the Apple computers, but they just wouldn't go for it.)

I'd be careful about giving too much credit to the original ARM design. In retrospect, like many early RISC designs, it was over-optimised for its original application. Most of the unique/novel features of the original ARM architecture turned out to be bad ideas in the long run. Most of them were later removed from the architecture, or persist only in backwards compatibility modes.

ARM is ubiquitous today more due to business models and historical accident than to inherent superiority of the design. (See also x86.)

That's interesting! Clearly that's what happened to packing the PSW into the PC†, but what other features are you thinking of?

† though there are an awful lot of ARM processors out there today that have less than 64 MiB of program memory and need their interrupts to be fast, so I'd argue it might be a reasonable idea for many applications today if it didn't involve breaking toolchain compatibility in a subtle way

Register renaming was IBM 360/91 1967

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasulo_algorithm

Thank you!

The main reason Google launches popular products by invitation only is to manage server load. Otherwise you get situations like the Pokemon Go launch, where the service was unreliable for the first few months.

Pokémon Go was mostly fine. I didn’t play it beyond a few months. Nor did most people I know.

Pokemon Go was an absolute nightmare at least for a few months.

I'd love to read some articles on what they had to do to fix it.

Unreliable because too many people want to use it is the goal :)

It was a dig at Palmer Luckey, who wrote a scathing review of the MLP.

https://palmerluckey.com/magic-leap-is-a-tragic-heap/

One of the early pop-culture mentions of googol was Peanuts, 23rd Jan 1963

http://www.peanuts.com/search/?pubdate=&sort_by=bydate&seaso...

He was a fellow at Atari too, without helping them very much. Alan's a great guy, a great speaker, and he made fundamental contributions to OO with Smalltalk. But probably his single biggest contribution was that he funded the creation the Alto out of his group's budget. (So as a VC rather than a scientist or manager.)

Have you read the mini-Msft blog? The big problem for msft employees is the up-or-out review system. If you don't make partner, the review process seems designed to kick you out of the company.

Given that less than 1% of employees are partner level or higher, this idea is numerically ludicrous. To the best of my knowledge, the "up or out" thing ends at the "senior" level -- well before partner -- assuming it even still exists in the new system.

The posts from "Mini" are always interesting; the comments much-less-so, and recent ones consistently seem to devolve into immigrant-bashing.