<strong>Based on a scaled-down version of the Macintosh operating system...
Apple ... receives royalties of ... $1 per game disk.
"MODEL OF THE FUTURE.''
Pippin.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Pippin! Apple's disastrous foray into the console world! I don't know if anyone remembers this, but Apple partnered with Bandai to put out a 603-based console called the 'Pippin'...it retailed at something like $450, so of course it had no chance.
What I'm suggesting is Apple provide a framework for an PS3 online community and an easy way for the PS3 to import home movies/digital pictures/etc. Apple gets marketing for OS X, Sony gets a competitor to Xbox Live.
Sharing saved games via iSync, coordinating online play with iCal, and making game-related websites with iPhoto and a simple webpage template...I'd buy it!
The Pippin! Apple's disastrous foray into the console world! I don't know if anyone remembers this, but Apple partnered with Bandai to put out a 603-based console called the 'Pippin'...it retailed at something like $450, so of course it had no chance.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
One reason the Pippin failed was because it had no game-capable hardware. Its performance was inferior to the contemporary game machines that cost a third as much.
I doubt it will happen, but if it could connect with .Mac, then Apple would have a new large revenue stream. It would obviously have to be stripped of too much functionality to be a true computer, but enough that it could entice people to Apple's hardware.
iMovie, but no iDVD. iPhoto, but no Photoshop-ing to perfect pictures and no printer to print them, only the purchase online option. iTunes, but no CD burning. Mail & iCal, etc.
All still connected to .Mac for an extra $99 a year (with 50+ million potential subscribers) would be a good thing.
[quote]The Cell chip will be nothing like the PPC970, and will very likely not use the PowerPC instruction set at all.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]"With the PS 3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single chip"<hr></blockquote>
I think that proves point number one...unless you think the 970 will have 72 cores, only 8 of which run PPC instructions
[quote]"eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary processors."<hr></blockquote>
We'll see if those processor cores really implement all of the PowerPC instruction set. And even if they do, they're just cores. Who knows how the entire Cell chip itself will be programmed? I suspect there will be some way to address individual cores inside The Cell, in which case the programs that run on The Cell will not be using the PowerPC instruction set (since PPC instructions have no fields for specifying which processor core they'll run on).
Either way, like the "PowerPC" chip in the GameCube, The Cell will very likely support instructions that do not exist in the PowerPC ISA. We'll see if The Cell supports a superset, or if there's just a lot of overlap.
Most people on these boards worry about a 4 way 970 system working right.
72 cpus? 8 PPCs controlling all those other cpus? Yeesh, can a programmers get their head around that optimisation when they bleated about the Saturn's multichip functionality?
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. 'X' on Cell PS3? I'm not sure Apple will go for it. But it's an interesting idea. It would be a really interesting way to try and break the OS stranglehold M$ has. 55 million people/PS 2s is twice Apple's best forecast total userbase. It would be the one 'nuke' that could take them 'over the top' into mass market acceptance.
However, what about the hits? They may take a sales hit...but I don't think it would be that significant. With a PS3, you're surely reaching out into a non-Apple market there, eh?
<strong>We'll see if those processor cores really implement all of the PowerPC instruction set. And even if they do, they're just cores. Who knows how the entire Cell chip itself will be programmed? I suspect there will be some way to address individual cores inside The Cell, in which case the programs that run on The Cell will not be using the PowerPC instruction set (since PPC instructions have no fields for specifying which processor core they'll run on).
Either way, like the "PowerPC" chip in the GameCube, The Cell will very likely support instructions that do not exist in the PowerPC ISA. We'll see if The Cell supports a superset, or if there's just a lot of overlap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The most likely approach is to simply treat the 8 processor cores as an SMP machine, in which case the existing PPC or MIPS instruction set is fine. The vector processors attached to the cores will probably operate in much the same way that the PlayStation2's vector processors work -- via code and data DMA'd to them with a relatively simple kicking mechanism. The real complexity will be in how to subdivide the software so that it is multi-threaded. Very few existing games are multi-threaded in a way that divides the computing load. Current uses of threads are just to handle I/O and time critical tasks.
[quote]The most likely approach is to simply treat the 8 processor cores as an SMP machine<hr></blockquote>
Barring that, my other guess is that the hardware itself will distribute tasks to different cores (or even different Cells) as needed, with no way for the programmer to affect it at all. The idea is to just have enough computing power and bandwidth to go around...
The problem is that the conventional languages out there make it extremely difficult to segment code into discrete bits that a legion of processors can run. Threading and critical section locking were extensions added to BSD and shimmed into various languages as a more or less awkward system-specific extension. It's already enough of a black art to thread for 2 or 4 processors in a C-derived language (yes, this includes Objective-C). C was firmly established before threads existed as a concept, and its assumption that one "thread" of execution has unfettered access to logical memory has been passed along.
So, if Sony expects 8 PPCs to farm execution out to 72 processors, they must have something else planned. Either they've got a development language that implies threads and critical sections and make developers learn it, or they're going to make game developers sweat blood writing in C or C++ or assembly. This is a paradigm shift in the way programs are designed. You're not going to be able to come up with a way to split Unreal among 72 processors without touching the codebase.
My bet is the former: That IBM, and Sony, and perhaps Apple are going to bet on a new approach to program design. They'll have to move slowly, because legacy dies hard (IBM still ships machines optimized in hardware for COBOL), but if they're planning to go massively MP it's inevitable.
As to whether these are full PPCs: First of all, they could as easily be MIPS processors, and they could also be Book E. If the 8 PPCs are mostly just delegating (a very IBM like approach) then they don't have to be very powerful at all - a 4xx series would do fine, or a G3, and they would be cheap enough to put 8 in a console without breaking the bank, and cool enough to avoid setting your home entertainment center on fire.
The other 72 could be anything. The general philosophy is probably that many hands make light work, so I'd expect a combination of modestly powered CPUs and highly specialized ASICs that reach a tremendous level of power by acting efficiently in concert.
As to Apple licensing OS X, I don't understand why anyone would be interested in OS X as a console OS, simply because the great bulk of it is oriented toward being a full-blown personal computer OS. Now, if you mean Darwin, that has possibilities. It's definitely Not There Yet, but it's not so far from being there. The major holdup would be the sheer number of processors it has to run on - unless it used the 8 PPC/MIPS CPUs and ignored the rest of the hardware. Getting it to run on all 72 processors would be an interesting milestone; if I remember right, Mach supports a maximum of 24 CPUs, and I have no idea how efficiently it scales to that number.
Wow, some interesting replies from the more technically knowledgeable in the group.
If Sony is bold enough to design a console with 72 CPUs(!) and attempt a new PC design paradigm, shouldn't they be bold enough to take a shot across Microsoft's bow?
As to Apple licensing OS X, I don't understand why anyone would be interested in OS X as a console OS, simply because the great bulk of it is oriented toward being a full-blown personal computer OS. Now, if you mean Darwin, that has possibilities. It's definitely Not There Yet, but it's not so far from being there. The major holdup would be the sheer number of processors it has to run on - unless it used the 8 PPC/MIPS CPUs and ignored the rest of the hardware. Getting it to run on all 72 processors would be an interesting milestone; if I remember right, Mach supports a maximum of 24 CPUs, and I have no idea how efficiently it scales to that number.
I wasn't thinking of Mac OS X as the embedded OS for PS3. I would like to see the amazing UI promoting for Apple and connecting the PS3 to other Sony products for easy photo and video editing. I would like to see Mac OS X licensing in Sony's long term plans. We've seen Sony making moves for Linux, but Mac OS X on a PS3 would look a lot better. The iApps would definitely make it a good "digital hub."
a new language created for game development (or to address the problems of parallelization) - is VERY unlikely for mainstream use in the near term... more likely - Sony will design fast special purpose hardware, create a set of frameworks/API's that take advantage of it, and abstract the details away... game dev will be done atop the abstract frameworks/API's... in C... like normal. Sony wouldn't be so stupid as to create a new language that takes advantage of their new hardware, and shove it down everyone's throat - just to insure that no games get made for their new kit.....
Gizzmonic, so you are basically calling for the Mac OS GUI (aqua) and not the rest of the operating system. This is an interesting idea.
Apple could licience the look of OS X but not the actual operating system. Most consumers would never know the difference and Apple could say OS X is used in the PS3. Also this would allow for use of what ever programing language/method Sony comes up with. Maybe a Cocoa framework could be included also (is this possible?).
So in effect the PS3 might not be running UNIX but it would appear to be running a form OS X.
Sony gets a great looking GUI and Apple gets excellent advirtising and a steady stream of revenue.
If this proved succesful maybe Apple could then branch out and start offering the look and feel of OS X to other companies. Therefore no matter what type of digital device you pick up it would have the same controls and GUI. Maybe even release a Aqua version of Windows.
[quote]The other 72 could be anything<hr></blockquote>
I think you mean 64, and I think we can be pretty sure that they'll look a lot like VU0/1 from the PS2 (only bigger, better, faster, more, naturally ;-)
<strong>Gizzmonic, so you are basically calling for the Mac OS GUI (aqua) and not the rest of the operating system. This is an interesting idea.
If this proved succesful maybe Apple could then branch out and start offering the look and feel of OS X to other companies. Therefore no matter what type of digital device you pick up it would have the same controls and GUI. Maybe even release a Aqua version of Windows.
Well...sort of. What I'm saying is that iff the PS3 uses similar tech as the 970 or other similar PPC archs, Apple could port over Mac OS X (Darwin AND Aqua) with ease.
I'm not suggesting that it be the primary embedded OS or development OS. What I suggest is sort of a "lite" version of OS X bundled with simple development tools, iApps, and .Mac connectivity giving the PS3 an online community similar to Xbox.
I'm not suggesting that Apple should license its look and feel to anybody, and I know they wouldn't. They are very protective of that look, and don't want it representing anyone but themselves. The reason they would license/partner with Sony would be to promote the Mac platform. I wouldn't consider Apple marketing its looks to cell phones or anything like that.
"It seems like year 2005 is the estimated time the PS3 will be released in Japan. Sony and SCE will both satisfy their egos because the plans are to release two versions of the console. One is the fully featured system with all of the capabilities. The other version is going to be a stripped down machine that will basically act only as a console system. Think of the second version as PS3: Value, because that is the idea behind it, to satisfy the people who can't shell out over $400 for the system and a game. "
Sounds like the Coleco Adam revisited.
Whatever you hope this thing will be - it HAS TO BE a really good game machine. The rest of the "capabilities" should enhance and improve upon this first objective.
A "lite" version of Mac OS X with development tools seems enticing? but where will it lead to in 5 years. If Sony is successful with PS3 beyond gaming and it becomes an "alternative" Mac OS X platform, wouldn't that conflict with Apple's hardware business?
Perhaps if "lite" consisted of just the open source portions of Mac OS X - without Aqua - then the threat would be no greater than the one already posed by Linux today.
I also don't understand the purpose of running iApps on PS3. Isn't that what the Mac is for? Wouldn't Apple be better served if PS3 could rendezvous with a Mac lcoated in a home network?
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: heaven or las vegas ]</p>
Sony may create some interesting tools as alternatives to conventional C/C++ development, but the primary method for creating software for the PS3 console will be the same as for the PS2, XBox, GC. Failure to do that will strangle the PS3 and ensure that there are virtually no games created for it. Sony is also traditionally not interested in the software solutions, they simply provide the hardware and at that tend not to think about the software developers much when they design it. A key Sony executive has already said the PS3 will be "difficult to develop for", even compared to the PS2. There is also evidence that the PS3 will appear essentially as 8 PS2s in one box, which could mean an 8-way SMP system with or without shared memory (i.e. NUMA vs. only DMA transfers between the per-processor memories).
The vector processors will most likely be under application control like in the PS2, which leaves the OS to deal with only 8 "normal" processors. Due to the non-uniform memory model the OS will probably treat each processor as a seperate machine and have each keep track of its own threads, leaving the assignment of threads to processors up to the application. All of this poses new challenges to the game developer, but it isn't going to be that hard.
The 8 processors will, at the very least, be equivalent to the 64-bit MIPS processor in the current PlayStation2. They might also be PowerPCs, in which case Sony is likely to include a PS2 chip in the box like they include a PS1 in the PS2 (where it acts as the I/O + audio subsystem). Alternatively the new cores (if they aren't MIPS) might be able to emulate the PS2's MIPS processors at a fast enough rate to emulate the PS2 at full speed. This would probably only require a 1.5 GHz PowerPC with lots of cache... the PS2 spends a lot of time waiting for its memory due to the lack of cache.
[QB]Whatever you hope this thing will be - it HAS TO BE a really good game machine. The rest of the "capabilities" should enhance and improve upon this first objective.
Actually, it doesn't have to be a great game machine. The PS2 arrived as a very lackluster machine (can't do anti-aliasing properly, can't hold high-quality textures or extensive color palette), but tons of people bought it because of name recognition and to get a DVD player. The Dreamcast, Gamecube. and even the Xbox are much better tech.
The PS3 will sell on name alone as well (hopefully it will be better tech than the PS2...maybe they'll include some VRAM this time )
[b]I also don't understand the purpose of running iApps on PS3. Isn't that what the Mac is for? Wouldn't Apple be better served if PS3 could rendezvous with a Mac lcoated in a home network?
]
A "lite" version of Mac OS X with development tools seems enticing? but where will it lead to in 5 years. If Sony is successful with PS3 beyond gaming and it becomes an "alternative" Mac OS X platform, wouldn't that conflict with Apple's hardware business?
Perhaps if "lite" consisted of just the open source portions of Mac OS X - without Aqua - then the threat would be no greater than the one already posed by Linux today.
I am talking about marketing the Mac OS look-and-feel in a market that Apple will never(?) enter-the sub-$400 market. A "lite" version of the Mac OS without the ability to load 3rd party software wouldn't cannibalize much Mac sales. And the ability to use iApps would be a good way to show off the Mac OS.
The PS2 Linux kit is basically useless (without modding, you can't even run/export the code you write to another PS2!). But lots of people bought it.
A 'lite' verson of the Mac OS bundled with a .Mac membership could help Sony build an online community and it could help Apple market the Mac OS. That seems a lot more mass market than the Linux kit, and it could potentially be a lot cheaper.
Of course, if the hardware is exotic as Programmer seems to think, this point is probably moot
this runs the risk of making OS X into a "game" OS in the eyes of the consumer. That is what killed Comedore and Atari. I'm not sure that it is the best thing for Apple, though better games for their hardware wouldnt hurt their sales, the main emphesis should be on the professional and iApp software that helps to sell the hardware.
Comments
<strong>Based on a scaled-down version of the Macintosh operating system...
Apple ... receives royalties of ... $1 per game disk.
"MODEL OF THE FUTURE.''
Pippin.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Pippin! Apple's disastrous foray into the console world! I don't know if anyone remembers this, but Apple partnered with Bandai to put out a 603-based console called the 'Pippin'...it retailed at something like $450, so of course it had no chance.
What I'm suggesting is Apple provide a framework for an PS3 online community and an easy way for the PS3 to import home movies/digital pictures/etc. Apple gets marketing for OS X, Sony gets a competitor to Xbox Live.
Sharing saved games via iSync, coordinating online play with iCal, and making game-related websites with iPhoto and a simple webpage template...I'd buy it!
<strong>
The Pippin! Apple's disastrous foray into the console world! I don't know if anyone remembers this, but Apple partnered with Bandai to put out a 603-based console called the 'Pippin'...it retailed at something like $450, so of course it had no chance.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
One reason the Pippin failed was because it had no game-capable hardware. Its performance was inferior to the contemporary game machines that cost a third as much.
iMovie, but no iDVD. iPhoto, but no Photoshop-ing to perfect pictures and no printer to print them, only the purchase online option. iTunes, but no CD burning. Mail & iCal, etc.
All still connected to .Mac for an extra $99 a year (with 50+ million potential subscribers) would be a good thing.
[quote]"With the PS 3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single chip"<hr></blockquote>
I think that proves point number one...unless you think the 970 will have 72 cores, only 8 of which run PPC instructions
[quote]"eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary processors."<hr></blockquote>
We'll see if those processor cores really implement all of the PowerPC instruction set. And even if they do, they're just cores. Who knows how the entire Cell chip itself will be programmed? I suspect there will be some way to address individual cores inside The Cell, in which case the programs that run on The Cell will not be using the PowerPC instruction set (since PPC instructions have no fields for specifying which processor core they'll run on).
Either way, like the "PowerPC" chip in the GameCube, The Cell will very likely support instructions that do not exist in the PowerPC ISA. We'll see if The Cell supports a superset, or if there's just a lot of overlap.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: John ]</p>
72 cpus? 8 PPCs controlling all those other cpus? Yeesh, can a programmers get their head around that optimisation when they bleated about the Saturn's multichip functionality?
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. 'X' on Cell PS3? I'm not sure Apple will go for it. But it's an interesting idea. It would be a really interesting way to try and break the OS stranglehold M$ has. 55 million people/PS 2s is twice Apple's best forecast total userbase. It would be the one 'nuke' that could take them 'over the top' into mass market acceptance.
However, what about the hits? They may take a sales hit...but I don't think it would be that significant. With a PS3, you're surely reaching out into a non-Apple market there, eh?
<strong>We'll see if those processor cores really implement all of the PowerPC instruction set. And even if they do, they're just cores. Who knows how the entire Cell chip itself will be programmed? I suspect there will be some way to address individual cores inside The Cell, in which case the programs that run on The Cell will not be using the PowerPC instruction set (since PPC instructions have no fields for specifying which processor core they'll run on).
Either way, like the "PowerPC" chip in the GameCube, The Cell will very likely support instructions that do not exist in the PowerPC ISA. We'll see if The Cell supports a superset, or if there's just a lot of overlap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The most likely approach is to simply treat the 8 processor cores as an SMP machine, in which case the existing PPC or MIPS instruction set is fine. The vector processors attached to the cores will probably operate in much the same way that the PlayStation2's vector processors work -- via code and data DMA'd to them with a relatively simple kicking mechanism. The real complexity will be in how to subdivide the software so that it is multi-threaded. Very few existing games are multi-threaded in a way that divides the computing load. Current uses of threads are just to handle I/O and time critical tasks.
Barring that, my other guess is that the hardware itself will distribute tasks to different cores (or even different Cells) as needed, with no way for the programmer to affect it at all. The idea is to just have enough computing power and bandwidth to go around...
So, if Sony expects 8 PPCs to farm execution out to 72 processors, they must have something else planned. Either they've got a development language that implies threads and critical sections and make developers learn it, or they're going to make game developers sweat blood writing in C or C++ or assembly. This is a paradigm shift in the way programs are designed. You're not going to be able to come up with a way to split Unreal among 72 processors without touching the codebase.
My bet is the former: That IBM, and Sony, and perhaps Apple are going to bet on a new approach to program design. They'll have to move slowly, because legacy dies hard (IBM still ships machines optimized in hardware for COBOL), but if they're planning to go massively MP it's inevitable.
As to whether these are full PPCs: First of all, they could as easily be MIPS processors, and they could also be Book E. If the 8 PPCs are mostly just delegating (a very IBM like approach) then they don't have to be very powerful at all - a 4xx series would do fine, or a G3, and they would be cheap enough to put 8 in a console without breaking the bank, and cool enough to avoid setting your home entertainment center on fire.
The other 72 could be anything. The general philosophy is probably that many hands make light work, so I'd expect a combination of modestly powered CPUs and highly specialized ASICs that reach a tremendous level of power by acting efficiently in concert.
As to Apple licensing OS X, I don't understand why anyone would be interested in OS X as a console OS, simply because the great bulk of it is oriented toward being a full-blown personal computer OS. Now, if you mean Darwin, that has possibilities. It's definitely Not There Yet, but it's not so far from being there. The major holdup would be the sheer number of processors it has to run on - unless it used the 8 PPC/MIPS CPUs and ignored the rest of the hardware. Getting it to run on all 72 processors would be an interesting milestone; if I remember right, Mach supports a maximum of 24 CPUs, and I have no idea how efficiently it scales to that number.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
If Sony is bold enough to design a console with 72 CPUs(!) and attempt a new PC design paradigm, shouldn't they be bold enough to take a shot across Microsoft's bow?
As to Apple licensing OS X, I don't understand why anyone would be interested in OS X as a console OS, simply because the great bulk of it is oriented toward being a full-blown personal computer OS. Now, if you mean Darwin, that has possibilities. It's definitely Not There Yet, but it's not so far from being there. The major holdup would be the sheer number of processors it has to run on - unless it used the 8 PPC/MIPS CPUs and ignored the rest of the hardware. Getting it to run on all 72 processors would be an interesting milestone; if I remember right, Mach supports a maximum of 24 CPUs, and I have no idea how efficiently it scales to that number.
I wasn't thinking of Mac OS X as the embedded OS for PS3. I would like to see the amazing UI promoting for Apple and connecting the PS3 to other Sony products for easy photo and video editing. I would like to see Mac OS X licensing in Sony's long term plans. We've seen Sony making moves for Linux, but Mac OS X on a PS3 would look a lot better. The iApps would definitely make it a good "digital hub."
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: Gizzmonic ]</p>
Apple could licience the look of OS X but not the actual operating system. Most consumers would never know the difference and Apple could say OS X is used in the PS3. Also this would allow for use of what ever programing language/method Sony comes up with. Maybe a Cocoa framework could be included also (is this possible?).
So in effect the PS3 might not be running UNIX but it would appear to be running a form OS X.
Sony gets a great looking GUI and Apple gets excellent advirtising and a steady stream of revenue.
If this proved succesful maybe Apple could then branch out and start offering the look and feel of OS X to other companies. Therefore no matter what type of digital device you pick up it would have the same controls and GUI. Maybe even release a Aqua version of Windows.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: jante99 ]</p>
I think you mean 64, and I think we can be pretty sure that they'll look a lot like VU0/1 from the PS2 (only bigger, better, faster, more, naturally ;-)
<strong>Gizzmonic, so you are basically calling for the Mac OS GUI (aqua) and not the rest of the operating system. This is an interesting idea.
If this proved succesful maybe Apple could then branch out and start offering the look and feel of OS X to other companies. Therefore no matter what type of digital device you pick up it would have the same controls and GUI. Maybe even release a Aqua version of Windows.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: jante99 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well...sort of. What I'm saying is that iff the PS3 uses similar tech as the 970 or other similar PPC archs, Apple could port over Mac OS X (Darwin AND Aqua) with ease.
I'm not suggesting that it be the primary embedded OS or development OS. What I suggest is sort of a "lite" version of OS X bundled with simple development tools, iApps, and .Mac connectivity giving the PS3 an online community similar to Xbox.
I'm not suggesting that Apple should license its look and feel to anybody, and I know they wouldn't. They are very protective of that look, and don't want it representing anyone but themselves. The reason they would license/partner with Sony would be to promote the Mac platform. I wouldn't consider Apple marketing its looks to cell phones or anything like that.
"It seems like year 2005 is the estimated time the PS3 will be released in Japan. Sony and SCE will both satisfy their egos because the plans are to release two versions of the console. One is the fully featured system with all of the capabilities. The other version is going to be a stripped down machine that will basically act only as a console system. Think of the second version as PS3: Value, because that is the idea behind it, to satisfy the people who can't shell out over $400 for the system and a game. "
Sounds like the Coleco Adam revisited.
Whatever you hope this thing will be - it HAS TO BE a really good game machine. The rest of the "capabilities" should enhance and improve upon this first objective.
A "lite" version of Mac OS X with development tools seems enticing? but where will it lead to in 5 years. If Sony is successful with PS3 beyond gaming and it becomes an "alternative" Mac OS X platform, wouldn't that conflict with Apple's hardware business?
Perhaps if "lite" consisted of just the open source portions of Mac OS X - without Aqua - then the threat would be no greater than the one already posed by Linux today.
I also don't understand the purpose of running iApps on PS3. Isn't that what the Mac is for? Wouldn't Apple be better served if PS3 could rendezvous with a Mac lcoated in a home network?
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: heaven or las vegas ]</p>
The vector processors will most likely be under application control like in the PS2, which leaves the OS to deal with only 8 "normal" processors. Due to the non-uniform memory model the OS will probably treat each processor as a seperate machine and have each keep track of its own threads, leaving the assignment of threads to processors up to the application. All of this poses new challenges to the game developer, but it isn't going to be that hard.
The 8 processors will, at the very least, be equivalent to the 64-bit MIPS processor in the current PlayStation2. They might also be PowerPCs, in which case Sony is likely to include a PS2 chip in the box like they include a PS1 in the PS2 (where it acts as the I/O + audio subsystem). Alternatively the new cores (if they aren't MIPS) might be able to emulate the PS2's MIPS processors at a fast enough rate to emulate the PS2 at full speed. This would probably only require a 1.5 GHz PowerPC with lots of cache... the PS2 spends a lot of time waiting for its memory due to the lack of cache.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
[QB]Whatever you hope this thing will be - it HAS TO BE a really good game machine. The rest of the "capabilities" should enhance and improve upon this first objective.
Actually, it doesn't have to be a great game machine. The PS2 arrived as a very lackluster machine (can't do anti-aliasing properly, can't hold high-quality textures or extensive color palette), but tons of people bought it because of name recognition and to get a DVD player. The Dreamcast, Gamecube. and even the Xbox are much better tech.
The PS3 will sell on name alone as well (hopefully it will be better tech than the PS2...maybe they'll include some VRAM this time
[b]I also don't understand the purpose of running iApps on PS3. Isn't that what the Mac is for? Wouldn't Apple be better served if PS3 could rendezvous with a Mac lcoated in a home network?
]
A "lite" version of Mac OS X with development tools seems enticing? but where will it lead to in 5 years. If Sony is successful with PS3 beyond gaming and it becomes an "alternative" Mac OS X platform, wouldn't that conflict with Apple's hardware business?
Perhaps if "lite" consisted of just the open source portions of Mac OS X - without Aqua - then the threat would be no greater than the one already posed by Linux today.
I am talking about marketing the Mac OS look-and-feel in a market that Apple will never(?) enter-the sub-$400 market. A "lite" version of the Mac OS without the ability to load 3rd party software wouldn't cannibalize much Mac sales. And the ability to use iApps would be a good way to show off the Mac OS.
The PS2 Linux kit is basically useless (without modding, you can't even run/export the code you write to another PS2!). But lots of people bought it.
A 'lite' verson of the Mac OS bundled with a .Mac membership could help Sony build an online community and it could help Apple market the Mac OS. That seems a lot more mass market than the Linux kit, and it could potentially be a lot cheaper.
Of course, if the hardware is exotic as Programmer seems to think, this point is probably moot
Maybe on Mac OS X Lite, no Apache, no this, no that, just Rendesvous+Quartz+etc+iLife.
Would sell .Mac accounts aswell