>macOS is the best example for actual architecture migrations
Eh, they did 2 migrations while supporting at most 2 architectures concurrently. Nothing compared to Linux which is maintained for x86, POWER, ARM, s390x, MIPS etc concurrently
Eh, they did 2 migrations while supporting at most 2 architectures concurrently. Nothing compared to Linux which is maintained for x86, POWER, ARM, s390x, MIPS etc concurrently
As others have pointed out macOS allowed migration including existing binaries. They have done 3 of these migrations. 68k to PowerPC, PowerPC to x86, and x86 to ARM. Each time, users were allowed to bring along existing binaries and keep using them and each time the binaries from the previous system generally ran as fast or faster on the new system. As far as I am aware, Linux has never done anything like this.
A large part of why the binaries ran well on macOS migrations is that each time the migration came with a substantial processor speed increase. This meant that emulated/translated binaries were able to roughly match their previous performance, while native binaries for the new architecture were significantly faster. On Linux, however, the most common reason for cross-architecture tech these days is running x86 binaries on something like a Raspberry Pi, which means a slower processor on top of the translation layer - so non-native apps see a huge drop in performance.