The perfect WWDC 2008

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 71
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,274member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    Well the full power mac with 2 cpus will need 6 dimms to get the max ram use.



    Also with the 3 channel set up will make 4 dimm systems bad so 1 cpu mac system better have 6 ram slots. With 2 x16 and 1 x4 pci-e slot.



    It all depends on the speed you want to run your DIMMS at. With three channels, you can get much more memory, but it runs at 1,333 GHz (bus speed). With two channels you get less memory, but it runs at 1,600 GHz (bus speed).



    I wonder how Apple would go here. Raising memory bus speeds has proven to make little difference on most software. On the other hand, thats a lot of memory either way.



    The only thing about memory here with Nehalen is that Intel is allowing DDR 3 for the first time. But it is going to use DDR 3 1,300 GHz memory, which is the speed where DDR 3 makes a faster memory subsystem over DDR 2. But we know that DDR3 is already up beyond 2,000 speeds. I'd like to see faster memory making a difference.
  • Reply 62 of 71
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,274member
    Another thing to add to the iPhone announcements about carriers atthe conference



    I just received this from Forbes:



    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/...partner=alerts
  • Reply 63 of 71
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    One more thing....



    Apple MVNO + .mac = MOBILE ME.



    remember that nifty data center?



    APPLE will allow ATT to subsidize phones and Apple will purchase the airtime from ATT and other partners enabling worldwide locked phones at a stable price no more need for unlocking.



    boom!
  • Reply 64 of 71
    gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xflare View Post


    WWDC will be 100% iPhone/iPhone SDK and nothing else.



    Hehe.

    The problem with that prediction is that it ignores the whole Mac developer side of things.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    As we're talking about possible entries at the ADC, I would like to, again, present the possibility of Nehalem Mac Pro's making a showing.



    Interesting, I love reading stuff I hadn't thought of that make absolute sense (once pointed out!)



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TednDi View Post


    Apple MVNO + .mac = MOBILE ME.

    remember that nifty data center?



    APPLE will allow ATT to subsidize phones and Apple will purchase the airtime from ATT and other partners enabling worldwide locked phones at a stable price no more need for unlocking.



    While a worldwide MVNO (mobile virtual network operator) would be intriguing, I think it'd be far too difficult to organise.



    If we're going to talk 'grand plans', what if every online Mac (with a wireless chip) and Airport device became a wireless access point for ANY apple devices? I guess that's a "wireless virtual network operator"). So if someone has an iMac in their home and I am nearby with my laptop or iPod Touch, it logs into MobileMe via the iMac and accesses the internet.



    Or on a phone related note - it would be very interesting if Apple was an early entrant into wireless VoIP phones which roam onto mobile networks and then back onto VoIP. The way BT do it in the UK is the phone logs into a wireless access point when it can and then connects (via voip) to a virtual cell-tower. So you actually use your home or office internet connection to make and receive calls rather than the cell network. Early IMS demonstrations even allowed your phone to recognise (via bluetooth) when you were returning to your computer and let you flick your call to the computer .
  • Reply 65 of 71
    gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,399member
    Since it's the DEVELOPER conference...

    I'm going to predict that the app store is open for ALL Macintosh applications.



    In fact, Apple will insist that

    1) all macintosh applications be available via the store

    2) all applications store their configuration and installation data on .Mac/MobileMe

    3) apps be licensed to 1 or more users, rather than to a machine

    Apps can still be sold elsewhere and Apple won't take 30% of sales price.



    You won't just synchronise Dashboard apps with the .Mac service - you'll synchronise whole applications. If you go to a new machine it'll have to download the application again from the store, then use .Mac to insert your configuration information.
  • Reply 66 of 71
    apps like cs3 and games are to big for a on line store do realy want to down a 4-5gb + app also some people only 1.5 meg dsl and other on cable have low 5-40gb download caps.
  • Reply 67 of 71
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,274member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    apps like cs3 and games are to big for a on line store do realy want to down a 4-5gb + app also some people only 1.5 meg dsl and other on cable have low 5-40gb download caps.



    I don't think Greg was serious about Apple "insisting" on this.



    You weren't, were you Greg?
  • Reply 68 of 71
    gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    apps like cs3 and games are to big for a on line store do realy want to down a 4-5gb + app also some people only 1.5 meg dsl and other on cable have low 5-40gb download caps.



    Yeah I realised that as I wrote it... some apps are simply too big for people to do this. Apple could handle it - they routinely rent multi gigabyte HD movies - but for the big apps many users couldn't handle it.



    That's not to say that the App store couldn't simply switch across to the Apple Online Store and courier the purchase to a user.



    (I suppose that a "MobileMe" service which syncs your apps via .Mac, could warn that some apps may not be synced since they are too large (or require an iPod Classic for initial sync). But it could confuse people.)
  • Reply 69 of 71
    gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I don't think Greg was serious about Apple "insisting" on this.



    You weren't, were you Greg?



    Kind of. It's total guess work on my "prediction" of course, but I like to make a specific guess rather than a vague "apple will do something no one expects with their app store" - which is much easier to be right on, but a much weaker prediction to start with.



    :-)



    I was certainly serious about Apple considering a new way of handling regular Mac applications, linked to what they're doing with the iPhone App Store.



    So in my prediction, for now and for fun, I'll say yes to "insisting" each of those things (knowing full well I will likely be entirely wrong).



    Apple charges $5 to download a huge movie, they can afford to download huge games etc, even if it warns about size first (or tells you that a courier would be quicker).

    (I'll also stick to them insisting app config data is syncable via .Mac, and to enable synchronising users across their machines the license will have to be by user rather than by machine).



    (edit: of course some companies will stick to doing it how they've always done it - Apple can insist all it wants to no effect. My prediction is that Apple's new system won't accept 'half' memberships. )
  • Reply 70 of 71
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post


    Hehe.

    The problem with that prediction is that it ignores the whole Mac developer side of things.







    Interesting, I love reading stuff I hadn't thought of that make absolute sense (once pointed out!)







    While a worldwide MVNO (mobile virtual network operator) would be intriguing, I think it'd be far too difficult to organise.



    If we're going to talk 'grand plans', what if every online Mac (with a wireless chip) and Airport device became a wireless access point for ANY apple devices? I guess that's a "wireless virtual network operator"). So if someone has an iMac in their home and I am nearby with my laptop or iPod Touch, it logs into MobileMe via the iMac and accesses the internet.



    Or on a phone related note - it would be very interesting if Apple was an early entrant into wireless VoIP phones which roam onto mobile networks and then back onto VoIP. The way BT do it in the UK is the phone logs into a wireless access point when it can and then connects (via voip) to a virtual cell-tower. So you actually use your home or office internet connection to make and receive calls rather than the cell network. Early IMS demonstrations even allowed your phone to recognise (via bluetooth) when you were returning to your computer and let you flick your call to the computer .





    I see your point and that reminds me... Wasn't Steve J. interested in FON?



    That sounds pretty close to your idea.



    http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...rship-with-fon





    I wonder....
  • Reply 71 of 71
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by icfireball View Post


    802.11n isn't important for the iPhone at all. No internet service provided through wireless is fast enough to utilize the speed of 802.11n and better range isn't an helpful since BOTH the router and the receiver has to be 802.11n in order for the range to be increased.



    My AEBS increased my range with my MBP even though I have an older G card vs the D-Link I had before. The D-Link I keep as a secondary G network.



    Eh...the advantage of 802.11N on the iPhone is you can ditch G support for faster speed on your network without keeping an old G router around.
Sign In or Register to comment.