Quote:
Originally Posted by PGPfan
Actually, it isn't entirely true. The difference lies in the fact that the Cell proc architecture is allegedly massively parallel in it's core. Nobody up until now saw much need to create really advanced multi-threaded applications (mainframes not withstanding). MS has like 92% of all PC's as a customer base and even they aren't doing more than just scratching the surface of parallel proc developement environments.
|
Given, this latest generation of consoles is new territory, and the PS3 will be the pinacle, good or bad, for "wierd" technology. Especially given that the Cell is quite different from normal multi-cpu-ness. It's more like a graphics card in many ways, and those are notoriously hard to program for, or at least were before HLSL.
Quote:
Now enter Sony. This company has NO EXPERIENCE in creating developement platforms (this has always been MS's strongsuit). Now they have to create one (and it better be VERY good if they expect to utilize the proc. power). Then, they have to figure out a way to compel developers to spend the time to learn their (read proprietary and not very good) IDE then try to learn the best ways to 'really' leverage all that cpu. It's just not going to happen.
|
And the talk of relatively large scale developer defections from Sony is proof. Like I said, I was playing devils advocate. I think the 360 is the better machine on a number of levels, but Sony is big enough, and the PS is a powerfull enough brand name to bring in a good deal of developer support even if it is hard.
Quote:
MS made the Xbox easy because you are still dealing with known processor entities (Xbox1=x86, Xbox2=PowerPC), unlike the PS3.
|
Agreed, one of the things IMO, that makes it better.
Quote:
The problem I have is that MS has chosen to alienate a significant share of the market by forcing the resolution 'strangle hold' (I forget the acronym for it) that will make most current displays obsolete when Vista comes around.
|
I've got a good idea what you're talking about, but I think you're completely wrong on this. There's no indication that Vista will require a new display to run. Or a new display to play current media. What will be required is HDCP for next-gen connent, specifically HD-DVD/Blu-ray/CableCard.
Quote:
It's just not a necessary consession that they had to make to Hollywood.
|
If you think content companies would ever approve the playback of those media on a non-HDCP PC, you're diluding yourself. This is a forced concession, not one MS volunteered for. Look no further than DVD-A or SACD. DVD-A requires a special soundcard for playback, and SACD is impossible. Next-gen video would be the same way without PVP-OPM.
Quote:
I have little trouble with the idea of preventing copying over the web, however most of the DRM solutions (Microsoft's included) go way above and beyond that.
|
That's not MS' fault.
Quote:
That's the price Sony is paying for a decade of incredible miss-management and it's STILL continuing.
|
Sony is screwed on many levels.
Quote:
I wish it were that way. As you know, I used to work there and it isn't nearly as altruistic as it may seem. The only motivating force for business there- Power (first and foremost) and Money (second, or co-first priority) regardless of who you have to go through.
-PGPfan
|
I don't disagree, and I hate to make it sound like I think MS is the greatest thing ever, I don't. I don't like PVP-OPM or WM-RM. And I don't for a second think that MS is doing things out of any altruistic motivation. However as I've said in other threads, in the case of media, MS's interest and our interest are parallel. It is in our interest to have media as interoperable and open as possible, and it's likewise for MS. We like to rip CDs, DVDs, stream around the house, build PVRs, record TV. All that sells OS's, and that's what MS does.
It's in MS' best interest to have as much media available and open as possible. That's why they've fought hard for Mandatory Managed Copy (and won it) on both HD-DVD and Blu-ray.
It just so happens that the best way for MS to sell OS's, regarding media, is to support and fight for the things we want to be able to do. Unfortunately, as powerful as MS is, they must concede some things, so they offer DRM so the content providers will allow PC playback.