<strong>this runs the risk of making OS X into a "game" OS in the eyes of the consumer. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. The games would be interfaced through Sony, but only iLife would be available through the OS X. Two distinct environments within one machine with two distince purposes. It might be confusing, but even the average Joe would see the differences.
As for the PS2 being underpowered when it arrived, I think you're wrong. It was (and no offense intended to any PROGRAMMERs around here) just poorly utilized from the onset. Programmers were writing for a traditional archetecture but the machine's strengths couldn't be harnessed in such a fashion.
<strong>Programmers were writing for a traditional archetecture but the machine's strengths couldn't be harnessed in such a fashion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not trying to step on any toes, but I can't see any possibility of this happening, no way, no how, uh uh.
Apart from that fact that Sony are heavily into promoting and reaping the monetary rewards from their x86 line of computers and laptops (so why create an internal competitor), apart from the fact that having an IBM powerPC derived processor in gamecube didn't make that any closer to tie-ups with the mac than this does, despite the fact that apple never liked clones, so a $200 dollar mini mac is not likely to make Steve smile, apart from the fact that if it was possible, every piece of software you use would need to be recompiled, apart from all that, there's one small problem.
Data released on the design direction of the PS3 so far says that, yes, there will probably be a PowerPC derived processor in it, but all it'll do is control what code to send to what PE (processing element) - so the PPC doesn't even crunch the code. Check ArsTechnica for the sketchy info. The PS3 architecture is genius (or madness), much like the PS2 architecture was so radical that developers had initial trouble (Hell, Sony had trouble explaining it.).
Soo... Putting MacOSX on PS3 would be about as easy as running it on a Cisco switch (also PowerPC based). For all that effort, where's the benefit - where's the reason? Sony can run Linux on a PS2 because it doesn't conflict with their Vaio range, it'll only ever be bought by geeks and developers who want to explore the hardware - hardly the Vaio demographic, it doesn't even compare to running Linux as a GUI on a PC. MacOSX on PS3 would be a different beast - Sony would see it as taking focus from the Vaio range, and Apple would see it as a half price headless iMac clone.
Doesn't look too positive does it?
Now, if Sony decided that the next devkits for developing PS3 titles was based on OSX, that would be techincally more feasible, but they are pretty happy with their x86/Linux dev kits at the moment, and it's hardly likely to help them sell more of their x86 boxes.
At the end of the day, we own macs so putting OSX on PS3 wouldn't help us Mac users, it would be aimed at putting OSX in more homes. OSX on PS3 is a technical curiosity and might increase installed user base if it was simple to do, priced right and marketed well. But it looks so unlikely from a technical, political and economic point of view that it'll just be added to the rumor graveyard.
<strong>What if Sony started offering a custom version of Mac OS X with the PS3? (similar to the PS2 Linux kit, except I assume that the PS3 will have a hard drive and ethernet, making the cost for the custom version of Mac OS X much cheaper). This OS X version would not have the ability to load 3rd party software or read anything but audio CDs, so it wouldn't be much of a replacement for an actual Mac OS X computer.
I don't know about the Sony/Apple alliance...the Clie is barely compatible. But on the other hand, the Ericsson is the ONLY cell phone compatible with iSync.
<strong>...and the better PS2 games out right now, are downright impressive! "Underpowered" is highly reliant on the observer and the context.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, let's look at it this way, since you guys want to get so technical. The PS2 has jack for VRAM, which means it can't hold high quality textures for very long. Look at Phantasy Star Online on the Dreamcast! Texture quality is better than any PS2 game out there.
The lack of VRAM also prevents a lot of different colors from being displayed at once. That's why most PS2 games look like Quake 1: everything is green, grey, and brown. See Gauntlet, GTA3, Time Splitters, Twisted Metal, etc. The PS2 also can't do proper anti-aliasing without a huge speed hit, so most developers 'cheat' by making everything blurry. Play GT3 or Time Splitters 2 for a couple of hours and you'll see what I mean...it's total glaucoma city.
The PS2 (and the new PS3) seems to have been designed to act as a node to a massive parallel computer. Why this approach for a game machine?
You might say that "developers aren't used to this radical approach." But let's go to the real world for a second and look at the results. Why does Soul Calibur, which came out for Dreamcast in 1999, look better than any PS2 game out there? Compare Dead or Alive 2 for Dreamcast to any version on PS2 and you'll see what developers have to work with.
What benefits does the design approach give to gamers? State of Emergency uses the parallel technique to make 120 or so characters move around at once, each following their own path. SSX uses one of the PS2's 50-odd auxiliary CPUs to do DTS encoding in software. Both of these things are pretty damn cool, but they don't seem as important as anti-aliasing.
Developers will design for the PS2 and PS3 in spite of its goofy hardware because of market penetration. And people will buy great games like GTA3 despite the fact that characters look blurry, chunky, and flat. Apple needs to 'get an in' to this market!
Check out this interview with Sony's CEO, where he compares Jobs to the "father of the Playstation", Ken Kutaragi:
Well, let's look at it this way, since you guys want to get so technical. The PS2 has jack for VRAM, which means it can't hold high quality textures for very long. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But because of insane (for the time) bandwidth the VRAM doesn't need to hold textures for very long.
I think one problem is that programmers are too used to storing all of their textures in VRAM and forgetting about them. Only swapping at level changes or whenever. With the PS2, there should be a constant stream of data moving into the VRAM.
Obviously if Sony had just put 8 MB of VRAM in there instead of 4, the programmers could have continued to be lazy and the graphics would have 'looked' better. I'd rather they push the developers to 'think different' actually, even if it means more failures along the way.
Interesting interview you linked to. I'm glad to hear Sony & Apple are in communication. Personally I do think Apple should license OS X for the PS3 if it's at all possible. It's a self contained piece of hardware and couldn't migrate to other products and computers. But it has (or will have) market penetration like the Mac never will. Once users see how useful the OS is, they'll ultimately upgrade their home computers and migrate towards the Mac.
The PS2 has jack for VRAM, which means it can't hold high quality textures for very long....
The lack of VRAM also prevents a lot of different colors from being displayed at once...
The PS2 (and the new PS3) seems to have been designed to act as a node to a massive parallel computer. Why this approach for a game machine?
Why does Soul Calibur, which came out for Dreamcast in 1999, look better than any PS2 game out there? Compare Dead or Alive 2 for Dreamcast to any version on PS2 and you'll see what developers have to work with.
...SSX uses one of the PS2's 50-odd auxiliary CPUs...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The PS2 doesn't need a lot of texture memory because its high bandwidth DMA engine can stream textures through quite efficiently. Having only 32 megs of main RAM and various kinds of overhead, and the lack of real texture compression are typically the limiting factor for textures (aside from the standard "lazy/inept programmer" problem).
The PS2 supports 32-bit colour just like the other consoles. Any percieved "lack of colours" is either a result of the poor DAC, or bad colour choices by the artists on the product.
The PS2 isn't really multi-processor like the PS3 will be. There is one processor, 2 vector processors, an I/O processor and a pair of audio chips which have limited programmability. That's only 6 processors and all of them have a fairly well defined role in life. The PS3 will (apparently) have 8 general purpose processors with 8 adjunct general purpose vector processors each, and probably some additional support processors (like maybe a whole PS2 for emulation purposes). The PS2 is also only clocked at 300 MHz and has very little cache, plus high latency memory. It is only slightly younger than the Dreamcast, and is quite a bit older than XBox & GameCube. Performance-wise it fits in precisely where you'd expect it to based on age.
Obviously if Sony had just put 8 MB of VRAM in there instead of 4, the programmers could have continued to be lazy and the graphics would have 'looked' better. I'd rather they push the developers to 'think different' actually, even if it means more failures along the way.
A machine that can't do anti-aliasing without taking a huge hit doesn't seem 'different.' It seems more, "what the hell were they thinking?" And that's the feeling I get when I hear about the planned architecture of the PS3. Ultimately it's mostly hype, as the PS2's "emotion engine" has largely turned out to be.
A more paranoid type might say that Sony is making the hardware so goofy as to encourage developers NOT to port to other architectures.
Interesting interview you linked to. I'm glad to hear Sony & Apple are in communication. Personally I do think Apple should license OS X for the PS3 if it's at all possible. It's a self contained piece of hardware and couldn't migrate to other products and computers. But it has (or will have) market penetration like the Mac never will. Once users see how useful the OS is, they'll ultimately upgrade their home computers and migrate towards the Mac.
I totally agree. It would be much more fun than the Linux kit (although the Linux kit is damn cool). Of course, Sony and Apple are the two most paranoid companies about their "look and feel" (besides maybe nintendo) so who knows if they'll ever get together?
<strong>Obviously if Sony had just put 8 MB of VRAM in there instead of 4, the programmers could have continued to be lazy and the graphics would have 'looked' better. I'd rather they push the developers to 'think different' actually, even if it means more failures along the way.
A machine that can't do anti-aliasing without taking a huge hit doesn't seem 'different.' It seems more, "what the hell were they thinking?" And that's the feeling I get when I hear about the planned architecture of the PS3. Ultimately it's mostly hype, as the PS2's "emotion engine" has largely turned out to be.
A more paranoid type might say that Sony is making the hardware so goofy as to encourage developers NOT to port to other architectures.
Interesting interview you linked to. I'm glad to hear Sony & Apple are in communication. Personally I do think Apple should license OS X for the PS3 if it's at all possible. It's a self contained piece of hardware and couldn't migrate to other products and computers. But it has (or will have) market penetration like the Mac never will. Once users see how useful the OS is, they'll ultimately upgrade their home computers and migrate towards the Mac.
I totally agree. It would be much more fun than the Linux kit (although the Linux kit is damn cool). Of course, Sony and Apple are the two most paranoid companies about their "look and feel" (besides maybe nintendo) so who knows if they'll ever get together?
A better route for Apple would be for Sony to use a custom version of Darwin for the PS3, and have Apple build the Dev kit for the programmers. Sony gets an Open source OS for the PS3 which they can customize to fit the hardware, and Apple gets more developers working on their hardware/software. A pleasent side effect for Apple would be easier proting of PS3 games to OS X, so Apple finally gets an edge on the Wintel systems in the gaming arena....I know it is wishfull thinking but sometimes wishes do come true
<strong>A machine that can't do anti-aliasing without taking a huge hit doesn't seem 'different.' It seems more, "what the hell were they thinking?" And that's the feeling I get when I hear about the planned architecture of the PS3. Ultimately it's mostly hype, as the PS2's "emotion engine" has largely turned out to be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The details of the graphics hardware for the PS3 haven't been released or even hinted at yet. PS2 was designed at a time when no consumer-level hardware could do anti-aliasing, and now the static nature of console platforms and their early entry into the market hampers their technical ability. But that early entry gave them a far, far larger market compared to XBox/GameCube, so it was a good decision. I suspect we can count on the PS3's graphics hardware to match contemporary consumer-level PC hardware at the time it was frozen... probably late 2003 levels.
The details of the graphics hardware for the PS3 haven't been released or even hinted at yet. PS2 was designed at a time when no consumer-level hardware could do anti-aliasing, and now the static nature of console platforms and their early entry into the market hampers their technical ability. But that early entry gave them a far, far larger market compared to XBox/GameCube, so it was a good decision.</strong>
I guess you forgot about the Dreamcast...tile based rendering, anti-aliasing, twice the VRAM of the PS2, and even today, better texture quality and colors. Designed in 1997, released in 1998 (in Japan)...It also came with a 56k modem, had online play in 1999, and broadband play by 2000.
It was the earliest entry in the current console generation, and actually it did quite well in the US and Europe (7 million units in the US, not sure for Europe). But SEGA had already run itself aground after years of 'console upgrade' stuff, the Saturn fiasco, and terrible management in SEGA USA (which continues to this day, I might add).
The early lead didn't help SEGA. (It's never helped a console get an advantage, with the possible exception of the Genesis.) They were thrashed by PS2 hype. PS2 propaganda promised a whole new gaming experience, and obviously they haven't delivered. Marketing and the integrated DVD allowed Sony to bust the Dreamcast...
I guess you forgot about the Dreamcast...tile based rendering, anti-aliasing, twice the VRAM of the PS2, and even today, better texture quality and colors. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Somehow I knew this was going to turn into a console pissing contest.
Amount of VRAM = nothing.
Texture quality = whatever the programmers want to do.
Anti-aliasing = PS2 can do it, and after the speed hit it's still faster than the Dreamcast.
So, I still think Apple should release a OS X kit for the PS3 if possible.
[quote] So, I still think Apple should release a OS X kit for the PS3 if possible.
<hr></blockquote>
Well, when a Sony honcho says in an interview that they and Apple have been communicating. Interesting. When they say: Mac and Playstation play together?
Well, very intriguing to say the least.
But like Moki says, 'Don't hold yer breath'.
If, IF, the Sony and 970 Macs have common PPC architecture...then it would be interesting if Macs could have dibs on Sony PS3 games (Sony branded, least ways...) exclusively in return for Mac OS X licensing on the PS3?
How else is Apple going to double their user tripple their user base in a mere couple of years?
I think Steve Jobs should seriously rethink his position as minority maverick.
This and 'Palladium' could be Apple's biggest window of opportunity to reach mass market appeal for the rest of the life time of the company.
Comments
<strong>this runs the risk of making OS X into a "game" OS in the eyes of the consumer. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. The games would be interfaced through Sony, but only iLife would be available through the OS X. Two distinct environments within one machine with two distince purposes. It might be confusing, but even the average Joe would see the differences.
As for the PS2 being underpowered when it arrived, I think you're wrong. It was (and no offense intended to any PROGRAMMERs around here) just poorly utilized from the onset. Programmers were writing for a traditional archetecture but the machine's strengths couldn't be harnessed in such a fashion.
<strong>Programmers were writing for a traditional archetecture but the machine's strengths couldn't be harnessed in such a fashion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not all 1st generation PS2 games sucked, either.
<strong>...and the better PS2 games out right now, are downright impressive! </strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you mean impressive! Oh wait, we're not in AO, we can agree here....
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,909693,00.html"; target="_blank">Here</a> is a semi-on topic link about the future of Apple products as consumer electronic devices. Very generic though.
Apart from that fact that Sony are heavily into promoting and reaping the monetary rewards from their x86 line of computers and laptops (so why create an internal competitor), apart from the fact that having an IBM powerPC derived processor in gamecube didn't make that any closer to tie-ups with the mac than this does, despite the fact that apple never liked clones, so a $200 dollar mini mac is not likely to make Steve smile, apart from the fact that if it was possible, every piece of software you use would need to be recompiled, apart from all that, there's one small problem.
Data released on the design direction of the PS3 so far says that, yes, there will probably be a PowerPC derived processor in it, but all it'll do is control what code to send to what PE (processing element) - so the PPC doesn't even crunch the code. Check ArsTechnica for the sketchy info. The PS3 architecture is genius (or madness), much like the PS2 architecture was so radical that developers had initial trouble (Hell, Sony had trouble explaining it.).
Soo... Putting MacOSX on PS3 would be about as easy as running it on a Cisco switch (also PowerPC based). For all that effort, where's the benefit - where's the reason? Sony can run Linux on a PS2 because it doesn't conflict with their Vaio range, it'll only ever be bought by geeks and developers who want to explore the hardware - hardly the Vaio demographic, it doesn't even compare to running Linux as a GUI on a PC. MacOSX on PS3 would be a different beast - Sony would see it as taking focus from the Vaio range, and Apple would see it as a half price headless iMac clone.
Doesn't look too positive does it?
Now, if Sony decided that the next devkits for developing PS3 titles was based on OSX, that would be techincally more feasible, but they are pretty happy with their x86/Linux dev kits at the moment, and it's hardly likely to help them sell more of their x86 boxes.
At the end of the day, we own macs so putting OSX on PS3 wouldn't help us Mac users, it would be aimed at putting OSX in more homes. OSX on PS3 is a technical curiosity and might increase installed user base if it was simple to do, priced right and marketed well. But it looks so unlikely from a technical, political and economic point of view that it'll just be added to the rumor graveyard.
<strong>What if Sony started offering a custom version of Mac OS X with the PS3? (similar to the PS2 Linux kit, except I assume that the PS3 will have a hard drive and ethernet, making the cost for the custom version of Mac OS X much cheaper). This OS X version would not have the ability to load 3rd party software or read anything but audio CDs, so it wouldn't be much of a replacement for an actual Mac OS X computer.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't hold your breath.
<a href="http://www.macminute.com"; target="_blank">http://www.macminute.com</a>;
Sony and Apple in mutual cooperation?
...and what's this?
Sony want Steve and one of their 'Steve' like guys to work together to see how the Mac and the Playstation can play together...
Hmmm. Nahhhh. Can't be...can it?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>...and the better PS2 games out right now, are downright impressive! "Underpowered" is highly reliant on the observer and the context.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, let's look at it this way, since you guys want to get so technical. The PS2 has jack for VRAM, which means it can't hold high quality textures for very long. Look at Phantasy Star Online on the Dreamcast! Texture quality is better than any PS2 game out there.
The lack of VRAM also prevents a lot of different colors from being displayed at once. That's why most PS2 games look like Quake 1: everything is green, grey, and brown. See Gauntlet, GTA3, Time Splitters, Twisted Metal, etc. The PS2 also can't do proper anti-aliasing without a huge speed hit, so most developers 'cheat' by making everything blurry. Play GT3 or Time Splitters 2 for a couple of hours and you'll see what I mean...it's total glaucoma city.
The PS2 (and the new PS3) seems to have been designed to act as a node to a massive parallel computer. Why this approach for a game machine?
You might say that "developers aren't used to this radical approach." But let's go to the real world for a second and look at the results. Why does Soul Calibur, which came out for Dreamcast in 1999, look better than any PS2 game out there? Compare Dead or Alive 2 for Dreamcast to any version on PS2 and you'll see what developers have to work with.
What benefits does the design approach give to gamers? State of Emergency uses the parallel technique to make 120 or so characters move around at once, each following their own path. SSX uses one of the PS2's 50-odd auxiliary CPUs to do DTS encoding in software. Both of these things are pretty damn cool, but they don't seem as important as anti-aliasing.
Developers will design for the PS2 and PS3 in spite of its goofy hardware because of market penetration. And people will buy great games like GTA3 despite the fact that characters look blurry, chunky, and flat. Apple needs to 'get an in' to this market!
Check out this interview with Sony's CEO, where he compares Jobs to the "father of the Playstation", Ken Kutaragi:
<a href="http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=258_0_2_0_C"; target="_blank">http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=258_0_2_0_C</a>;
<strong>
Well, let's look at it this way, since you guys want to get so technical. The PS2 has jack for VRAM, which means it can't hold high quality textures for very long. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But because of insane (for the time) bandwidth the VRAM doesn't need to hold textures for very long.
I think one problem is that programmers are too used to storing all of their textures in VRAM and forgetting about them. Only swapping at level changes or whenever. With the PS2, there should be a constant stream of data moving into the VRAM.
Obviously if Sony had just put 8 MB of VRAM in there instead of 4, the programmers could have continued to be lazy and the graphics would have 'looked' better. I'd rather they push the developers to 'think different' actually, even if it means more failures along the way.
Interesting interview you linked to. I'm glad to hear Sony & Apple are in communication. Personally I do think Apple should license OS X for the PS3 if it's at all possible. It's a self contained piece of hardware and couldn't migrate to other products and computers. But it has (or will have) market penetration like the Mac never will. Once users see how useful the OS is, they'll ultimately upgrade their home computers and migrate towards the Mac.
<strong>
The PS2 has jack for VRAM, which means it can't hold high quality textures for very long....
The lack of VRAM also prevents a lot of different colors from being displayed at once...
The PS2 (and the new PS3) seems to have been designed to act as a node to a massive parallel computer. Why this approach for a game machine?
Why does Soul Calibur, which came out for Dreamcast in 1999, look better than any PS2 game out there? Compare Dead or Alive 2 for Dreamcast to any version on PS2 and you'll see what developers have to work with.
...SSX uses one of the PS2's 50-odd auxiliary CPUs...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The PS2 doesn't need a lot of texture memory because its high bandwidth DMA engine can stream textures through quite efficiently. Having only 32 megs of main RAM and various kinds of overhead, and the lack of real texture compression are typically the limiting factor for textures (aside from the standard "lazy/inept programmer" problem).
The PS2 supports 32-bit colour just like the other consoles. Any percieved "lack of colours" is either a result of the poor DAC, or bad colour choices by the artists on the product.
The PS2 isn't really multi-processor like the PS3 will be. There is one processor, 2 vector processors, an I/O processor and a pair of audio chips which have limited programmability. That's only 6 processors and all of them have a fairly well defined role in life. The PS3 will (apparently) have 8 general purpose processors with 8 adjunct general purpose vector processors each, and probably some additional support processors (like maybe a whole PS2 for emulation purposes). The PS2 is also only clocked at 300 MHz and has very little cache, plus high latency memory. It is only slightly younger than the Dreamcast, and is quite a bit older than XBox & GameCube. Performance-wise it fits in precisely where you'd expect it to based on age.
A machine that can't do anti-aliasing without taking a huge hit doesn't seem 'different.' It seems more, "what the hell were they thinking?" And that's the feeling I get when I hear about the planned architecture of the PS3. Ultimately it's mostly hype, as the PS2's "emotion engine" has largely turned out to be.
A more paranoid type might say that Sony is making the hardware so goofy as to encourage developers NOT to port to other architectures.
Interesting interview you linked to. I'm glad to hear Sony & Apple are in communication. Personally I do think Apple should license OS X for the PS3 if it's at all possible. It's a self contained piece of hardware and couldn't migrate to other products and computers. But it has (or will have) market penetration like the Mac never will. Once users see how useful the OS is, they'll ultimately upgrade their home computers and migrate towards the Mac.
I totally agree. It would be much more fun than the Linux kit (although the Linux kit is damn cool). Of course, Sony and Apple are the two most paranoid companies about their "look and feel" (besides maybe nintendo) so who knows if they'll ever get together?
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Gizzmonic ]</p>
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Stratosfear ]</p>
<strong>Obviously if Sony had just put 8 MB of VRAM in there instead of 4, the programmers could have continued to be lazy and the graphics would have 'looked' better. I'd rather they push the developers to 'think different' actually, even if it means more failures along the way.
A machine that can't do anti-aliasing without taking a huge hit doesn't seem 'different.' It seems more, "what the hell were they thinking?" And that's the feeling I get when I hear about the planned architecture of the PS3. Ultimately it's mostly hype, as the PS2's "emotion engine" has largely turned out to be.
A more paranoid type might say that Sony is making the hardware so goofy as to encourage developers NOT to port to other architectures.
Interesting interview you linked to. I'm glad to hear Sony & Apple are in communication. Personally I do think Apple should license OS X for the PS3 if it's at all possible. It's a self contained piece of hardware and couldn't migrate to other products and computers. But it has (or will have) market penetration like the Mac never will. Once users see how useful the OS is, they'll ultimately upgrade their home computers and migrate towards the Mac.
I totally agree. It would be much more fun than the Linux kit (although the Linux kit is damn cool). Of course, Sony and Apple are the two most paranoid companies about their "look and feel" (besides maybe nintendo) so who knows if they'll ever get together?
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Gizzmonic ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
A better route for Apple would be for Sony to use a custom version of Darwin for the PS3, and have Apple build the Dev kit for the programmers. Sony gets an Open source OS for the PS3 which they can customize to fit the hardware, and Apple gets more developers working on their hardware/software. A pleasent side effect for Apple would be easier proting of PS3 games to OS X, so Apple finally gets an edge on the Wintel systems in the gaming arena....I know it is wishfull thinking but sometimes wishes do come true
<img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>A machine that can't do anti-aliasing without taking a huge hit doesn't seem 'different.' It seems more, "what the hell were they thinking?" And that's the feeling I get when I hear about the planned architecture of the PS3. Ultimately it's mostly hype, as the PS2's "emotion engine" has largely turned out to be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The details of the graphics hardware for the PS3 haven't been released or even hinted at yet. PS2 was designed at a time when no consumer-level hardware could do anti-aliasing, and now the static nature of console platforms and their early entry into the market hampers their technical ability. But that early entry gave them a far, far larger market compared to XBox/GameCube, so it was a good decision. I suspect we can count on the PS3's graphics hardware to match contemporary consumer-level PC hardware at the time it was frozen... probably late 2003 levels.
<strong>
The details of the graphics hardware for the PS3 haven't been released or even hinted at yet. PS2 was designed at a time when no consumer-level hardware could do anti-aliasing, and now the static nature of console platforms and their early entry into the market hampers their technical ability. But that early entry gave them a far, far larger market compared to XBox/GameCube, so it was a good decision.</strong>
I guess you forgot about the Dreamcast...tile based rendering, anti-aliasing, twice the VRAM of the PS2, and even today, better texture quality and colors. Designed in 1997, released in 1998 (in Japan)...It also came with a 56k modem, had online play in 1999, and broadband play by 2000.
It was the earliest entry in the current console generation, and actually it did quite well in the US and Europe (7 million units in the US, not sure for Europe). But SEGA had already run itself aground after years of 'console upgrade' stuff, the Saturn fiasco, and terrible management in SEGA USA (which continues to this day, I might add).
The early lead didn't help SEGA. (It's never helped a console get an advantage, with the possible exception of the Genesis.) They were thrashed by PS2 hype. PS2 propaganda promised a whole new gaming experience, and obviously they haven't delivered. Marketing and the integrated DVD allowed Sony to bust the Dreamcast...
<strong>
I guess you forgot about the Dreamcast...tile based rendering, anti-aliasing, twice the VRAM of the PS2, and even today, better texture quality and colors. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Somehow I knew this was going to turn into a console pissing contest.
Amount of VRAM = nothing.
Texture quality = whatever the programmers want to do.
Anti-aliasing = PS2 can do it, and after the speed hit it's still faster than the Dreamcast.
So, I still think Apple should release a OS X kit for the PS3 if possible.
<hr></blockquote>
Well, when a Sony honcho says in an interview that they and Apple have been communicating. Interesting. When they say: Mac and Playstation play together?
Well, very intriguing to say the least.
But like Moki says, 'Don't hold yer breath'.
If, IF, the Sony and 970 Macs have common PPC architecture...then it would be interesting if Macs could have dibs on Sony PS3 games (Sony branded, least ways...) exclusively in return for Mac OS X licensing on the PS3?
How else is Apple going to double their user tripple their user base in a mere couple of years?
I think Steve Jobs should seriously rethink his position as minority maverick.
This and 'Palladium' could be Apple's biggest window of opportunity to reach mass market appeal for the rest of the life time of the company.
Steve. Learn to play nice. There's a good boy...
Lemon Bon Bon
Just a huge leap in speculation on your part with no trace of any connectoin whatsoever.
Many products use powerpc chips that doesn't mean anything at all.