Apple Joins Intel, Future Products - Why Wait?
(Page 4 of 4 )
Why wait you ask? Why not just put Yonah right away into the PowerMac? The simple explanation is a two digit number: 64. Yonah is not meant to be a 64 bit processor, and neither is Merom. Conroe, on the other hand, will include that size of internal registers, allowing it to slot right into Apple’s established 64 bit desktop line. After all the time and effort they’ve spent selling “64 bit” to get customers into the G5 based systems, it would be a marketing nightmare to go back to 32bit. Currently, the G4 based laptops are not 64 bit capable, so there’s no change there. The iMac G5 is 64 bit, but considering it’s not meant to be a performance product, I highly doubt there would be much backlash in immediately transitioning back to 32.
The PowerMac IS a mainstream production system in many academic and commercial environments, which requires bleeding edge performance. So the simple solution is to wait for Intel to create a 64 bit desktop version of the Pentium M, which exactly describes Conroe. This is why Steve Jobs said it would be a progressive changeover. Intel needs to create 65nm products based off of the Pentium M to suit Apple's needs. In the meantime, they will continue to use the G5 where appropriate, mainly in their workstation and server products (PowerMac and Xserve). To be perfectly honest, over the next year I would rather have a dual G5 box than a dual core Smithfield one anyway. The Xserve will be the last to transition over, as Intel’s server line usually is updated after all the kinks are worked out.
That one is the reason for why Jobs said it would be mostly complete by 2007, and done by the end of that year (waiting on Conroe based Xeon). The change will start in mobile and compact devices that need better performance already, and it will filter into the high-end products as Intel improves its technology.
I’m somewhat surprised that Apple is going to continue with the Xserve line at all once they transition to x86. At that point, it’s just a “me too” product, similar to the Dell, HP and others already dominant in that market. Their fancy pants operating system is more than enough by itself to sell desktop and mobile systems; the server realm is a different story. The advantage for Apple I would have thought would come from delivering dual core-dual Yonah based blades, though perhaps they feel they can be the first to do so with the first Xeon based off of Conroe.
That is how I project the changeover from an IBM PowerPC based lineup to transition to Intel x86. It’s more of a bottom to top shift. Then later on, Apple can replace its strongest products when Intel has something better than the G5 to offer. Given the time over which they plan to make the change (early 2006 to late 2007) this would make the most sense from both marketing and a product integration standpoint. It’s simply up to both Apple and Intel to deliver.
| DISCLAIMER: The content provided in this article is not warranted or guaranteed by Developer Shed, Inc. The content provided is intended for entertainment and/or educational purposes in order to introduce to the reader key ideas, concepts, and/or product reviews. As such it is incumbent upon the reader to employ real-world tactics for security and implementation of best practices. We are not liable for any negative consequences that may result from implementing any information covered in our articles or tutorials. If this is a hardware review, it is not recommended to open and/or modify your hardware. |
