Has Sony got plans to morph the PS3 technology into a full..

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

See:-

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/09/news_6127219.html

What is to really stop Sony taking just one more step beyond the
article and morphing the PS3 hardware architecture and silicon into
something we know and love, a full-blown desktop Personal Computer,
(with expansion-slots, SATA ports etc ) but with powerful multimedia
capability, and an immediate target port for PS3 games ? Putting
Lindows on it, and then encouraging a few of the key multimedia Mac
(and PC) developers to climb on board ? The powerful multi-threading
capability is a huge benefit for real-time multimedia applications
such as music programs, video animation and real-time video editors. I
can visualize some Mac developers chomping at the bit should Sony
suggest making a full-blown multi-media PC. nVidia would have no
trouble extending the PS3 peripheral hardware to provide the customary
I/O and expansion-slots expected of a PC.

The above article hints at the bigger ideas under Sony's hat. The
Commodore-Amiga of the early 21st century, but with the hardware
power needed for today's applications. Anybody intimately familiar
with the C-A and its applications will relate immediately to the
parallels between the C-A and Sony's hinted vision of the PS3. Might
even break the OS hammer-locks of M$$ and Apple in a key growth
area (multi-media) while fusing PCs and entertainment hardware. The
suggested use of Linux may already be sending shivers up and
down certain corporate spines.

One might expect similar suggestions for the Xbox360. However,
unlike Sony, M$$ has its vast current PC software base to protect.

In the late 1980's, I did not see M$$ hurrying to embrace the
Commodore-Amiga windowed- UI, multitasking OS, and A/V multi-media
capability, when the PC was DOS with home-made UIs, 16-color
and pip-squeak audio -- so why should M$ get off its rich backside
now ?? Just make a game-console to bring in some bucks
while pretending you competing are in the home entertainment
business and then get back to the pee-cee's where all the gravy is...

John Lewis
21 answers Last reply
More about sony plans morph technology full
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Headers trimmed.

    john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:

    >http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/09/news_6127219.html
    >
    >What is to really stop Sony taking just one more step beyond the
    >article and morphing the PS3 hardware architecture and silicon into
    >something we know and love, a full-blown desktop Personal Computer,
    >(with expansion-slots, SATA ports etc ) but with powerful multimedia
    >capability, and an immediate target port for PS3 games ? Putting

    Because there is no business case for it.

    The article says nothing that isn't already well-known, that the X360 and
    PS3 will be positioned as a MMC device, which is a step up from a purely
    video game console, but still is not do-everything devices that you are
    envisioning. The notion that the PS3 *can* run OS'es/apps isn't the same
    thing as that it *will* run those software. The speaker in the interview
    makes no affirmation, but as with all good PR flacks, makes no denials
    either. The "mystery" helps to build the hype for the launch.

    PC gaming is being marginalized because of console gaming. That's not
    news. (As an aside, it has a deja vu feel to read some of the 'why don't
    they make more/better PC games' complaints here, that's virtually identical
    to what the Mac gaming forums carried a decade ago.) However, functions
    that are PC staples, such as internet access and productivity applications,
    will not be bettered by an alternate platform any time soon. There are
    many reasons for such: one is the wealth of apps available. The software
    usage cycle is much longer than the hardware cycle, if only because of the
    required learning curve involved. Another is the ergonomic factor.
    Imagine sitting on your sofa trying to read a normal web page on a 720p or
    1080i HDTV 6 feet away, and balancing a keyboard in your lap and futzing
    with a pointing device at the same time. Contrast this with use for a $400
    desktop or $800 laptop (current prices). This is not to say that the
    "console" platform won't subsume these functions as well in it future
    incarnations, but it won't be the PS3/X360 generation.

    >Lindows on it, and then encouraging a few of the key multimedia Mac
    >(and PC) developers to climb on board ? The powerful multi-threading
    >capability is a huge benefit for real-time multimedia applications

    It's rather naive to cite CPU capability as a potential for anything,
    especially when such a CPU has yet to exist. There have been many superior
    architecture to the x86, but it's not tech alone that determine their
    success or failure.

    >The above article hints at the bigger ideas under Sony's hat. The

    I think you would do well to be better read, and perhaps seek out better
    sources for the tech industry news. GSpot is at last check not exactly an
    authoritative source for future tech trends.

    >suggested use of Linux may already be sending shivers up and
    >down certain corporate spines.

    hahah. Sorry for the chuckle. :)
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:01:58 -0700, Bip <bop@comcast.net> wrote:

    >Headers trimmed.
    >
    >john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/09/news_6127219.html
    >>
    >>What is to really stop Sony taking just one more step beyond the
    >>article and morphing the PS3 hardware architecture and silicon into
    >>something we know and love, a full-blown desktop Personal Computer,
    >>(with expansion-slots, SATA ports etc ) but with powerful multimedia
    >>capability, and an immediate target port for PS3 games ? Putting
    >
    >Because there is no business case for it.
    >
    >The article says nothing that isn't already well-known, that the X360 and
    >PS3 will be positioned as a MMC device, which is a step up from a purely
    >video game console, but still is not do-everything devices that you are
    >envisioning. The notion that the PS3 *can* run OS'es/apps isn't the same
    >thing as that it *will* run those software.

    Read more carefully. I was not referring to the PS3 Playstation.
    I was referring to a full-fledged computer based on the PS3
    architecture. So the rest of your blurb about HDTVs etc
    is meaningless. And you apparently are not sufficiently familiar
    with professional multimedia applications that run on the Mac or the
    PC to realise that the hardware architecture of either ( especially
    the PC ) is sub-optimal for these applications. The PS3
    architecture is far closer.

    John Lewis
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    I'd buy it in a second ... for $300 you get a full PC with that much
    power? Can't beat that.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    John Lewis wrote:

    > Read more carefully. I was not referring to the PS3 Playstation.
    > I was referring to a full-fledged computer based on the PS3
    > architecture. So the rest of your blurb about HDTVs etc
    > is meaningless. And you apparently are not sufficiently familiar
    > with professional multimedia applications that run on the Mac or the
    > PC to realise that the hardware architecture of either ( especially
    > the PC ) is sub-optimal for these applications.

    BS. For what multimedia applications the available PCs and Macs aren't
    fast enough? Did You ever work with Softimage on a modern dual XEON or
    Opteron system? Or edit HD video on a Dual G5 Powermac with Finalcut Pro
    HD?

    > The PS3
    > architecture is far closer.

    Really? So please provide application benchmarks that show how far
    closer the architecture of a gaming console is...

    Benjamin
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:51:07 +0200, "Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de>
    wrote:

    >John Lewis wrote:
    >
    >> Read more carefully. I was not referring to the PS3 Playstation.
    >> I was referring to a full-fledged computer based on the PS3
    >> architecture. So the rest of your blurb about HDTVs etc
    >> is meaningless. And you apparently are not sufficiently familiar
    >> with professional multimedia applications that run on the Mac or the
    >> PC to realise that the hardware architecture of either ( especially
    >> the PC ) is sub-optimal for these applications.
    >
    >BS. For what multimedia applications the available PCs and Macs aren't
    >fast enough? Did You ever work with Softimage on a modern dual XEON or
    >Opteron system? Or edit HD video on a Dual G5 Powermac with Finalcut Pro
    >HD?
    >

    You have just proved the point that I was making.

    Can you identify the one software feature that the above systems have
    in common with the PS3 ? Which is exactly the reason these systems are
    much faster than any current desktop, even if that desktop could clock

    4 times faster. And why the PS3 architecture would address such
    applications at a much higher-performance per $$ than either
    of the systems you have mentioned.

    >> The PS3
    >> architecture is far closer.
    >
    >Really? So please provide application benchmarks that show how far
    >closer the architecture of a gaming console is...
    >

    Go back in history to the Commodore Amiga and fully understand its
    hardware architecture and the architecture of its OS compared to the
    PC in those days. ( Remember the the C-A was a true computer, and
    looked like one too, but was also the PREMIER home gaming machine of
    its day ) Then step forward 15 years and compare the PS3 architecture
    to that of the current PC. There are very interesting software and
    hardware parallels... The C-A was far superior to the Mac in handling
    multimedia applications, and the PC was nowhere in sight. Pity
    Commodore did not listen to the Amiga community in terms of going
    after the Mac multimedia business. They chose to attempt to take on
    the PC with business applications, where the Amiga had zero
    architectural advantage and the PC had too much traction already.
    Commodore lost and went bankrupt.

    John Lewis

    >Benjamin
    >
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:20:52 GMT, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis)
    wrote:

    >http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/09/news_6127219.html
    >
    >What is to really stop Sony taking just one more step beyond the
    >article and morphing the PS3 hardware architecture and silicon into
    >something we know and love, a full-blown desktop Personal Computer,

    One question: why do you think it would fly, when Commodore Amiga
    didn't? Not to mention that the software base of Windows PC is today
    even more transcendent that what the DOS PC software base was in Amiga
    days.

    Simply put: what would a PS3-PC have to offer over a x86-PC? Really?
    You can already run Linux on PCs, and someday the multimedia
    capabilities of x86-PC will outpace PS3-PC once again, just like it
    did for Amiga after a few years.

    Moreover, I bet a PS3-PC would also cost much more than a similar
    x86-PC due to more HW manufacturers, more competition, higher volumes
    etc.

    >(with expansion-slots, SATA ports etc ) but with powerful multimedia
    >capability, and an immediate target port for PS3 games ? Putting

    I hope you are not suggesting people would buy an expensive PS3-PC for
    playing PS3 games, when they can play them on a cheap PS3.

    I think Creative Labs or someone else tried to make a "console on a PC
    card" for PCs (a 3DO card), but it failed miserably.

    >Lindows on it, and then encouraging a few of the key multimedia Mac
    >(and PC) developers to climb on board ? The powerful multi-threading
    >capability is a huge benefit for real-time multimedia applications
    >such as music programs, video animation and real-time video editors. I

    Niche markets. They didn't keep Amiga nor AtariST afloat, and after
    awhile even PC surpassed both in those areas. Catch-22: there won't be
    many music/animation programs for PS3-PC because people are not yet
    buying it for that purpose, which means even less people would buy it
    for that purpose, etc.

    >The above article hints at the bigger ideas under Sony's hat. The
    >Commodore-Amiga of the early 21st century, but with the hardware
    >power needed for today's applications. Anybody intimately familiar
    >with the C-A and its applications will relate immediately to the
    >parallels between the C-A and Sony's hinted vision of the PS3. Might

    Me too. And as you might recall, Amiga failed after awhile. And today
    a new PS3-Amiga would have even less chance against the mammoth that
    Intel-Windows has become.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:44:04 -0700, Joe62
    <jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:

    >I'd buy it in a second ... for $300 you get a full PC with that much
    >power? Can't beat that.

    LOL! I think it would probably cost more than $6000. Since it is not
    really a viable market for PS3 games because people play them on real
    PS3 instead, Sony would not subsidize its price by the game sales.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:19:52 GMT, jussi <jussi@hopmail.com> wrote:

    >On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:44:04 -0700, Joe62
    ><jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:
    >
    >>I'd buy it in a second ... for $300 you get a full PC with that much
    >>power? Can't beat that.
    >
    >LOL! I think it would probably cost more than $6000.

    More like $600 plus peripherals and apps software.

    Consider again the Commodore Amiga 1200, Find a picture of one.
    Google it. $500 for a full-fledged computer including hard-disk,
    windowed UI, multi-tasking OS, full-stereo audio, 256 color,
    circa 1992.....

    Dead easy to add memory and PC-style peripherals including. PCIe
    expansion slots to the PS3, considering that nVidia is Sony's key
    hardware partner. Run under Linux with open-architecture like
    the Commodore-Amiga and a vast sea of multimedia developers
    would be flocking. The Commodore-Amiga and its OS were fully
    documented for third-party applications. 3 ROM-Kernel
    manuals ( Includes, Libraries, Devices ) 1 Hardware Manual.

    John Lewis


    >Since it is not
    >really a viable market for PS3 games because people play them on real
    >PS3 instead, Sony would not subsidize its price by the game sales.
    >
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:57:46 GMT, jussi <jussi@hopmail.com> wrote:

    >>
    >Me too. And as you might recall, Amiga failed after awhile.

    Commodore made the fatal mistake of not going after the Mac instead
    of the PC. They hired a failed IBM exec as CEO who then executed
    the fatal mistake, in spite of the shouts from the using Amiga
    community. Did you know that NewTek's Video Toaster was the
    highest selling desktop video editor/effects-unit of the 1990's? It
    sold somewhere around 60,000 units at ~ $1500 a pop.
    Target computer-- Commodore-Amiga.

    >a new PS3-Amiga would have even less chance against the mammoth that
    >Intel-Windows has become.

    Nope - not in multimedia. M$$ has been revising its multimedia
    (er) "strategy" every few weeks.... And Intel's architectures are
    optimized for massive data-handling, not multimedia. There are big
    chinks in the armor....... And a freely-available, very suitable,
    highly-reliable OS.

    John Lewis
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 05:43:24 GMT, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis)
    wrote:

    >>LOL! I think it would probably cost more than $6000.
    >
    >More like $600 plus peripherals and apps software.
    >
    >Consider again the Commodore Amiga 1200, Find a picture of one.
    >Google it. $500 for a full-fledged computer including hard-disk,
    >windowed UI, multi-tasking OS, full-stereo audio, 256 color,
    >circa 1992.....

    Amiga was already dying in 1992. See how much the desktop Amigas
    comparable to PCs of the time cost. New A4000 with fast CPUs etc.

    I don't know where you get the wrong idea that a full-fledged desktop
    PS3-PC would cost mere $600, when similar desktop PCs with much more
    competition and much higher volumes cost more than that. Sony would
    still need to get profit from their PS3-PC sales.

    Now, if you made the PS3-PC a fully integrated system like Amiga 500
    or A1200 (which would be cheaper), then it certainly would die off in
    a few years when PCs overshadow their capabilities. Just like Amigas
    died off when PCs overshadowed them with newer video cards, faster
    CPUs etc. Smaller Amigas could not keep up with their non-upgradeable/
    non-interchangeable and rigid architecture, nor the bigger Amigas with
    their ultra-expensive video cards etc., which you could get for PC for
    half the price, or less.

    >Dead easy to add memory and PC-style peripherals including. PCIe
    >expansion slots to the PS3, considering that nVidia is Sony's key
    >hardware partner. Run under Linux with open-architecture like
    >the Commodore-Amiga and a vast sea of multimedia developers
    >would be flocking.

    Why would they be flocking to it? The users are still on other
    platforms. They make software for the platforms where the paying
    customers are. Look at the PC vs console gaming argument, for example.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 05:58:15 GMT, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis)
    wrote:

    >>Me too. And as you might recall, Amiga failed after awhile.
    >
    >Commodore made the fatal mistake of not going after the Mac instead
    >of the PC.

    Hindsight.

    Maybe they went after PC because they already foresaw Mac was becoming
    a niche machine, and there was not enough money in the "Mac pie" to
    live on?

    How about AtariST, why did it fail? It went after the Mac pie with its
    MIDI sequencer and desktop publishing software, yet it died off even
    faster than Amiga?

    >Did you know that NewTek's Video Toaster was the
    >highest selling desktop video editor/effects-unit of the 1990's? It
    >sold somewhere around 60,000 units at ~ $1500 a pop.
    >Target computer-- Commodore-Amiga.

    Did it make Amiga a successful and viable desktop PC? No. It had a few
    years as low-cost video animation machine, that's all.

    >>a new PS3-Amiga would have even less chance against the mammoth that
    >>Intel-Windows has become.
    >
    >Nope - not in multimedia. M$$ has been revising its multimedia
    >(er) "strategy" every few weeks.... And Intel's architectures are
    >optimized for massive data-handling, not multimedia.

    This discussion already took place with Nintendo64 and PS2. Yeah,
    their architecture is so much better suited for "multimedia" than the
    archaic PC with its ancient 8-bit ISA slots and CGA graphics cards...
    yet it didn't take long for this "archaic" PC architecture to stomp
    them completely.

    I bet this same discussion will take place also with PS4, and PS5...
    ("But this time it will be different!")
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    jussi <jussi@hopmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > I don't know where you get the wrong idea that a full-fledged desktop
    > PS3-PC would cost mere $600, when similar desktop PCs with much more
    > competition and much higher volumes cost more than that. Sony would
    > still need to get profit from their PS3-PC sales.

    Name me a single desktop PC model with "much higher volumes", please.

    5000 OEMs each buying 5000 units of something can't push the prices down
    as far as a single OEM buying 25 million units. The Sony PS3 business
    is lucrative even if the HW manufacturer only makes a tiny tiny amount
    per unit, and similar for Sony itself -- they can work with smaller
    margins due to the sheer number of sales.

    Compare that to a PC manufacturer who may hope for a sale of 5000 units,
    but has no guarantees. He might have to stop production after a
    thousand machines, while there's still a couple of thousand machines in
    the pipeline, and sell the rest cheap. This potential loss has to be
    factored in in the original price. With Sony, there's little chance of
    premature market saturation happening, but even if it does, the number
    of completed sales on which to distribute the losses will still be
    really high, to the point that it's a negligible factor in the price.

    --
    *Art
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:58:39 GMT, jussi <jussi@hopmail.com> wrote:

    >On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 05:58:15 GMT, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis)
    >wrote:
    >
    >>>Me too. And as you might recall, Amiga failed after awhile.
    >>
    >>Commodore made the fatal mistake of not going after the Mac instead
    >>of the PC.
    >
    >Hindsight.
    >

    Foresight, actually. You did not witness the outcry from the Amiga
    user groups when the chase-IBM strategy was anounced...

    >Maybe they went after PC because they already foresaw Mac was becoming
    >a niche machine,

    Niche machine. Sure but it has survived and prospered in that niche.

    > and there was not enough money in the "Mac pie" to
    >live on?
    >

    There was, but short-sighted management with greedy eyes and no
    knowledge of the underlying technology grabbed for more, like the
    monkey with his hand stuck in the cookie-jar. Remember,
    C-A was headed up by a failed executive from IBM.

    >How about AtariST, why did it fail? It went after the Mac pie with its
    >MIDI sequencer and desktop publishing software, yet it died off even
    >faster than Amiga?
    >
    No hardware or software advantage over the Mac. The Amiga had
    the custom A/V hardware and the genuine multi-tasking OS.

    >>Did you know that NewTek's Video Toaster was the
    >>highest selling desktop video editor/effects-unit of the 1990's? It
    >>sold somewhere around 60,000 units at ~ $1500 a pop.
    >>Target computer-- Commodore-Amiga.
    >
    >Did it make Amiga a successful and viable desktop PC? No. It had a few
    >years as low-cost video animation machine, that's all.
    >
    >>>a new PS3-Amiga would have even less chance against the mammoth that
    >>>Intel-Windows has become.
    >>
    >>Nope - not in multimedia. M$$ has been revising its multimedia
    >>(er) "strategy" every few weeks.... And Intel's architectures are
    >>optimized for massive data-handling, not multimedia.
    >
    >This discussion already took place with Nintendo64 and PS2. Yeah,
    >their architecture is so much better suited for "multimedia" than the
    >archaic PC with its ancient 8-bit ISA slots and CGA graphics cards...
    >yet it didn't take long for this "archaic" PC architecture to stomp
    >them completely.
    >
    >I bet this same discussion will take place also with PS4, and PS5...
    >("But this time it will be different!")
    >

    Time will tell...... Sony will not give up as easily as you...
    they will endeavor to maximize their return on the PS3 silicon
    investment and that endeavor will not stop with the PS3. The PS3
    hardware will be a loss-leader for at least the first year. Sony is
    betting on making PS3 pay its way with $$ return on the software,
    not the hardware.

    If I were Sony, I sure would be looking elsewhere for opportunity for
    positive returns on the hardware technology, as was strongly hinted
    in that news article. Remember that the PS3 hardware when available
    will be a more powerful processor of multimedia applications than
    a dual-core desktop PC. It does need storage peripherals, I/O
    interfaces and extra memory, to support these apps., plus some
    future-expansion space. Trivially easy for nVidia to provide the
    required silicon to support these functions.

    John Lewis
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    John Lewis wrote:

    > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:57:46 GMT, jussi <jussi@hopmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>>
    >>Me too. And as you might recall, Amiga failed after awhile.
    >
    > Commodore made the fatal mistake of not going after the Mac instead
    > of the PC. They hired a failed IBM exec as CEO who then executed
    > the fatal mistake, in spite of the shouts from the using Amiga
    > community. Did you know that NewTek's Video Toaster was the
    > highest selling desktop video editor/effects-unit of the 1990's? It
    > sold somewhere around 60,000 units at ~ $1500 a pop.
    > Target computer-- Commodore-Amiga.
    >
    >>a new PS3-Amiga would have even less chance against the mammoth that
    >>Intel-Windows has become.
    >
    > Nope - not in multimedia. M$$ has been revising its multimedia
    > (er) "strategy" every few weeks.... And Intel's architectures are
    > optimized for massive data-handling, not multimedia. There are big
    > chinks in the armor....... And a freely-available, very suitable,
    > highly-reliable OS.

    Uh, what "optimizations" do you think are needed for multimedia? The simple
    fact is that CPU performance is far beyond what is needed for this and
    they're getting faster. There doesn't seem to be anything that
    "multimedia-optimized" architecture can bring to the show.

    Further, Microsoft's is not the only OS available for Intel.


    >
    > John Lewis
    >>

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Arthur Hagen wrote:

    > jussi <jussi@hopmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> I don't know where you get the wrong idea that a full-fledged desktop
    >> PS3-PC would cost mere $600, when similar desktop PCs with much more
    >> competition and much higher volumes cost more than that. Sony would
    >> still need to get profit from their PS3-PC sales.
    >
    > Name me a single desktop PC model with "much higher volumes", please.
    >
    > 5000 OEMs each buying 5000 units of something can't push the prices down
    > as far as a single OEM buying 25 million units. The Sony PS3 business
    > is lucrative even if the HW manufacturer only makes a tiny tiny amount
    > per unit, and similar for Sony itself -- they can work with smaller
    > margins due to the sheer number of sales.
    >
    > Compare that to a PC manufacturer who may hope for a sale of 5000 units,

    Gee, that must mean that Dell charges a million bucks a shot for each of
    their PCs. That's the only way I can think of that they could make 50
    billion dollars a year off of 5000 units.

    Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but Dell makes almost as much money
    selling mostly Intel-based computers as Sony does selling _everything_,
    electronics, games, movies, the whole nine yards. Sony's game division's
    sales are well under a quarter of Dell's. And Dell is not the largest
    player in the PC market--HP is about twice Dell's size and a good deal
    larger than Sony. Among the Taiwanese, ASUS alone has sales approximately
    twice those of the Sony game division. Total PC sales are over 100 million
    units a year vs about 15 million for the Sony Playstation.

    So your scenario of a "PC manufacturer who may hope for a sale of 5000
    units" isn't realistic at all.

    > but has no guarantees. He might have to stop production after a
    > thousand machines, while there's still a couple of thousand machines in
    > the pipeline, and sell the rest cheap. This potential loss has to be
    > factored in in the original price. With Sony, there's little chance of
    > premature market saturation happening, but even if it does, the number
    > of completed sales on which to distribute the losses will still be
    > really high, to the point that it's a negligible factor in the price.

    Yeah, right, they're going to get better economies of scale with 10% of the
    volume. Sure they will.

    So if Sony can make computers so cheap why aren't their PCs the cheapest on
    the market? Why were their PDAs so expensive?

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
    > Arthur Hagen wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Name me a single desktop PC model with "much higher volumes", please.
    >>
    >> 5000 OEMs each buying 5000 units of something can't push the prices
    >> down as far as a single OEM buying 25 million units. The Sony PS3
    >> business is lucrative even if the HW manufacturer only makes a tiny
    >> tiny amount per unit, and similar for Sony itself -- they can work
    >> with smaller margins due to the sheer number of sales.
    >>
    >> Compare that to a PC manufacturer who may hope for a sale of 5000
    >> units,
    >
    > Gee, that must mean that Dell charges a million bucks a shot for each
    > of their PCs. That's the only way I can think of that they could
    > make 50 billion dollars a year off of 5000 units.

    Think, please. Perhaps they sell 5000 units of 5000 different models?
    (Or perhaps more like 50000 units of 500 different models? Dell is
    *big*, and also lets the customers customize (to a certain extent) their
    models.)

    > Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but Dell makes almost as much
    > money selling mostly Intel-based computers as Sony does selling
    > _everything_, electronics, games, movies, the whole nine yards.

    It must have escaped my notice, yes. In 2004, Sony's consolidated sales
    and operating revenue was about 65.5 billion USD. Dell had a combined
    sales and operating revenue of 12.5 billion USD the same year. That's
    "almost as much" now?

    Sources:
    http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/
    http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/corp/pressoffice/en/2004/2005_02_10_rr_000?c=us&l=en&s=corp


    > Sony's game division's sales are well under a quarter of Dell's. And
    > Dell is not the largest player in the PC market--HP is about twice
    > Dell's size and a good deal larger than Sony. Among the Taiwanese,
    > ASUS alone has sales approximately twice those of the Sony game
    > division. Total PC sales are over 100 million units a year vs about
    > 15 million for the Sony Playstation.
    >
    > So your scenario of a "PC manufacturer who may hope for a sale of 5000
    > units" isn't realistic at all.

    Yes, it is, because the PC models aren't all identical. There's dozens
    if not hundreds of different CPU models and chipsets. You don't get a
    better deal on Intel 855 chipsets just because you've ordered a bunch of
    nForce, ALI, SiS and ATI chipsets. The Sony PS3 doesn't have that
    problem, as it's all the same exact model with the same components.

    >> but has no guarantees. He might have to stop production after a
    >> thousand machines, while there's still a couple of thousand machines
    >> in the pipeline, and sell the rest cheap. This potential loss has
    >> to be factored in in the original price. With Sony, there's little
    >> chance of premature market saturation happening, but even if it
    >> does, the number of completed sales on which to distribute the
    >> losses will still be really high, to the point that it's a
    >> negligible factor in the price.
    >
    > Yeah, right, they're going to get better economies of scale with 10%
    > of the volume. Sure they will.
    >
    > So if Sony can make computers so cheap why aren't their PCs the
    > cheapest on the market? Why were their PDAs so expensive?

    Have you understood nothing of what you read? Sales *volume*. They
    don't sell as many of a single PC model as they do a games console.
    They *can't* do that, because a PC model is outdated by the time it hits
    the market, whereas a games console has a life span of several years, as
    well as no compatible competition. If you want to play PS3 games, you
    *have* to get a Sony PS3, which drives sales up. If you want to play a
    PC game, you don't *have* to buy a specific HP model with a specific CPU
    or chipset. The manufacturers have to compete not only on price, but on
    features -- meaning that their models only have a shelf lifespan of a
    few short months, meaning there's no large volume discounts, and the
    unsold/discounted models have to be factored into the original price.

    --
    *Art
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:19:31 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:


    >Uh, what "optimizations" do you think are needed for multimedia? The simple
    >fact is that CPU performance is far beyond what is needed for this and
    >they're getting faster. There doesn't seem to be anything that
    >"multimedia-optimized" architecture can bring to the show.
    >

    Native parallel-processing and multithreading. Read the details on the

    Cell processor.

    Some day take a little time to study a desktop video/audio editor
    running on a single-core (HT or not) Intel processor and note the
    events that cause thumbs to be twiddled waiting for updates whether
    or not little hour-glasses appear on the screen. In multimedia
    manipulation, many opportunities exist for background
    parallel-processing. All the professional multimedia desktop tools
    support multi-processing systems and RECOMMEND as many
    processors as possible -- only because it permits speed-up through
    parallel-processing with concurrent threads, not because any processor
    is anywhere near being computationally overloaded during an editing
    session...! The back-end encoding to MPEG or other
    compressed-standards is indeed computationally very intensive, but
    that job can also be readily split-up between parallel processing
    nodes.

    With the advent of low-cost high-quality digital cameras, many many
    people are getting into desktop video. Not many can afford to pay out
    the thousands of dollars for a current 3 or 4-processor system. Intel
    would be very happy of course. ( As for Intel's pathetic dual-core
    exercises-- anybody got a quiet cheap reliable refrigeration unit ??.

    The market for a low-cost desktop PC optimized for very high
    performance on multimedia applications is potentially large and
    getting larger. I think that Sony may have got the message since
    multimedia is their core hardware business.

    Time will tell....

    John Lewis

    >Further, Microsoft's is not the only OS available for Intel.
    >
    >
    >>
    >> John Lewis
    >>>
    >
    >--
    >--John
    >to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    >(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    That would kick ass! A Lindows system. No more f'ing Microsoft garbage!

    --
    there is no .sig
    "John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:42ace0fd.20640741@news.verizon.net...
    >
    > See:-
    >
    > http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/09/news_6127219.html
    >
    > What is to really stop Sony taking just one more step beyond the
    > article and morphing the PS3 hardware architecture and silicon into
    > something we know and love, a full-blown desktop Personal Computer,
    > (with expansion-slots, SATA ports etc ) but with powerful multimedia
    > capability, and an immediate target port for PS3 games ? Putting
    > Lindows on it, and then encouraging a few of the key multimedia Mac
    > (and PC) developers to climb on board ? The powerful multi-threading
    > capability is a huge benefit for real-time multimedia applications
    > such as music programs, video animation and real-time video editors. I
    > can visualize some Mac developers chomping at the bit should Sony
    > suggest making a full-blown multi-media PC. nVidia would have no
    > trouble extending the PS3 peripheral hardware to provide the customary
    > I/O and expansion-slots expected of a PC.
    >
    > The above article hints at the bigger ideas under Sony's hat. The
    > Commodore-Amiga of the early 21st century, but with the hardware
    > power needed for today's applications. Anybody intimately familiar
    > with the C-A and its applications will relate immediately to the
    > parallels between the C-A and Sony's hinted vision of the PS3. Might
    > even break the OS hammer-locks of M$$ and Apple in a key growth
    > area (multi-media) while fusing PCs and entertainment hardware. The
    > suggested use of Linux may already be sending shivers up and
    > down certain corporate spines.
    >
    > One might expect similar suggestions for the Xbox360. However,
    > unlike Sony, M$$ has its vast current PC software base to protect.
    >
    > In the late 1980's, I did not see M$$ hurrying to embrace the
    > Commodore-Amiga windowed- UI, multitasking OS, and A/V multi-media
    > capability, when the PC was DOS with home-made UIs, 16-color
    > and pip-squeak audio -- so why should M$ get off its rich backside
    > now ?? Just make a game-console to bring in some bucks
    > while pretending you competing are in the home entertainment
    > business and then get back to the pee-cee's where all the gravy is...
    >
    > John Lewis
    >
    >
    >
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Doug wrote:

    > That would kick ass! A Lindows system. No more f'ing Microsoft garbage!

    Except that Lindows only works on x86 hardware, it runs a very limited range
    of applications, and it works better with Microsoft DLLs.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    I forgot, Lindows is meant to run MS garbage. I had thought, or was hoping,
    that maybe they were going to run these games as Linux-native apps.

    Just out of curiosity, the only 3d API Linux supports is OpenGL right? It's
    too bad more games developers don't take a chance on Linux.

    --
    there is no .sig
    "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:d8qa68412e6@news1.newsguy.com...
    > Doug wrote:
    >
    >> That would kick ass! A Lindows system. No more f'ing Microsoft garbage!
    >
    > Except that Lindows only works on x86 hardware, it runs a very limited
    > range
    > of applications, and it works better with Microsoft DLLs.
    >
    > --
    > --John
    > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:36:09 GMT, "Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote:

    >I forgot, Lindows is meant to run MS garbage. I had thought, or was hoping,
    >that maybe they were going to run these games as Linux-native apps.
    >

    Sorry for using Lindows as an example. I meant a decent windowed GUI
    based on whatever OS Sony might decide to use. Running programs
    compiled for M$$ machines was not part of my thinking.

    Adobe, for one, would only be too delighted to jump on board if a
    truly $-viable multi-media hardware platform showed up, since M$$
    is now about to release directly competitive products,

    John Lewis


    >Just out of curiosity, the only 3d API Linux supports is OpenGL right? It's
    >too bad more games developers don't take a chance on Linux.
    >
    >--
    >there is no .sig
    >"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
    >news:d8qa68412e6@news1.newsguy.com...
    >> Doug wrote:
    >>
    >>> That would kick ass! A Lindows system. No more f'ing Microsoft garbage!
    >>
    >> Except that Lindows only works on x86 hardware, it runs a very limited
    >> range
    >> of applications, and it works better with Microsoft DLLs.
    >>
    >> --
    >> --John
    >> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming PlayStation Games Sony Video Games