Will the cell take over the world????

[iddqd]

Yes, Itaniums are EPIC architecture... they can run x86 code, but with performance-hindering bridging ineffeciencies.

 

[freddiepm61]

The cost of revolutionizing all programs, and graphics cards, ram etc. would be huge.
also,the xdr ram that the cell requires will be dam expensive.
If there is a shortage for graphics card GDDR3, think how much there will be for the quantities that high end users want, and how much it will be
f

 

[Nazo]

Anyway, if Intel has a 64-bit x86 processor, just why isn't it that it's being used hardly at all? Am I missing something here?


I've been reading up on this a bit more. Anyone else find it positively frightening when quality companies like IBM and Toshiba team up with a company that coasts by on it's well known brand name? And any of you who want to tell be Sony is good, just look at all of their products. Each and every one of them is of lower quality than many of the generic brands that cost less, and anyone ever seen what they do as far as support goes? The SPINDLE broke on my PSX a few years back. I asked if there was any way they could repair it that involved just replacing the spindle rather than spending painful amounts of money for components I didn't need. The reply I got back was, and I bloody QUOTE (well, as best as I can from memory, but, the first line is wedged into my memory forever): "since the spindle is attached to the optical drive, this means the optical drive is broken as well and must be replaced." Then they went on to explain how I would need to ship my PSX to the nearest official repair station, which, btw, was in another state. How much would they charge for an optical drive? $20? $30? No, let's just say $10 for argument's sake, even though that isn't consistant with their pricing policy in the past... I would then have to spend apx $10 to get it properly packaged and shipped. They would then charge me a service fee for their time. Let's just say the service fee is $10. All to replace a little peice of plastic with a rubberband and three tiny metal balls that is probably worth maybe 50 cents I would have to spend a minimum of $30. I said screw them and bought a spindle from ebay for a bloody ripoff of $15 because it was the only thing I could find that guaranteed it would work correctly in a PSX. Well, that new spindle hasn't broken since I replaced it all those years ago. Frankly, I have to look down on a company that does that to it's customers.

I also read that the company that designed the rambus or something will be getting a slice of the profits on every chip sold. In other words, costs go up for the customers.

 

[xonik]

Anyway, if Intel has a 64-bit x86 processor, just why isn't it that it's being used hardly at all? Am I missing something here?

You're missing coherency, for one. Are you asking why Intel is not pushing its x86-64 products? Well, the lack of major OS support is one very big reason.

I've been reading up on this a bit more. Anyone else find it positively frightening when quality companies like IBM and Toshiba team up with a company that coasts by on it's well known brand name?

Nothing I say will convince you otherwise, but I'll just say that Sony's engineering department is quite competent, and Sony's high-end products are usually among the best out there. And in the age of weblogs and individual expression, very few companies can get by on name alone. Even Bose and Monster can get by because their products are merely acceptable. Sony's products can be not only acceptable, but innovative and industry-leading.

And any of you who want to tell be Sony is good, just look at all of their products. Each and every one of them is of lower quality ...

Blah, blah, blah, what you are experiencing is the marketing/customer service face of the company. Yawn. How can you be the least bit qualified to judge a company's technical expertise when you can only comment on their customer service abilities?

I also read that the company that designed the rambus or something will be getting a slice of the profits on every chip sold. In other words, costs go up for the customers.

Rambus is the company, RDRAM is the product (among other products). And you mean to say that a company will be collecting on royalties for a product? Oh, the horror! It's just a contractual agreement just like anything else. Take a hard drive, for instance. Seagate, or whoever "made" the drive has contracted out suppliers for the motors, PCB, board components, drive heads, etc. Seagate made a contractual agreement with their suppliers. Hey maybe Nidec Corporation is collecting royalties for the motor in every hard drive you buy, and even profiting from it. Wouldn't that be terrible?

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

well stated xonik. maybe it's the lack of sleep, but i found the following statement to be rather humorous

And you mean to say that a company will be collecting on royalties for a product? Oh, the horror!

and iddqd: regarding the statement you made when you quoted me, remember that it's stripped down.. there are a lot of tweaks you can make to sacrifice a bit of flexibility and performance in some areas to get much higher clock speeds. i don't think i need to make a comparison between the hammers and netburst here

 

[Nazo]

xonik, I wasn't asking why Intel isn't pushing their 64-bit processors, I was asking why next to no one is using them.

As for the royalties, my point wasn't they collect royalties. My point is, they get a certain amount PER CHIP. That means there will be a fixed cost that never goes down. It will always cost some minimal amount then probably.

As for sony's expensive high quality products, well, all I'll say is that my apex dvd player lasted 2x as long as my dad's expensive sony and it would have lasted longer had I not managed to spill a drink inside it while I had it opened borrowing the DVD drive for my computer since my dvd-rom at the time wasn't working in the computer (though it did in the apex player without a problem -- I suspect it was a power issue since I had a crappier power supply at the time.)

I CAN comment on the quality of the products themselves. I was merely making a point. If they choose to actually outright lie like that, it proves they don't particularly think highly of the customer or care much about the customer's wallet either. I have, in fact, compared directly with quite a number of sony products ranging from things such as headphones to the devices that you put those headphones into. In each case, I found a generic product that was of a higher quality.

 

[ECM]

...I'll just say that Sony's engineering department is quite competent, and Sony's high-end products are usually among the best out there. And in the age of weblogs and individual expression, very few companies can get by on name alone. Even Bose and Monster can get by because their products are merely acceptable. Sony's products can be not only acceptable, but innovative and industry-leading.

Which products, precisely, are "innovative"?

 

[xonik]

Among recent innovations, aperture grill CRT, Xbrite, and blue laser discs. Beyond these conceptual innovations, it's my understanding that Sony make the smallest laptop in its class, the smallest CD player, and arguably, the smallest hard drive MP3 player.

 

[iddqd]

Sony is very good at coming up with their own standards (such as ATRAC3 for example, or those weird square batteries) that nobody else uses. That's about it.

 

[MooCow]

Fuck Sony, all their shit has crappy reliability and SOE can fucking suck it! Overpriced proprietary memory sticks and the damn reciever for our home theater system crapped out after a week. The only good thing they made was the PS2, which by the way, is years old and the PS3 should be out by now. Sorry Sony supporters, I think they suck.

 

[iddqd]

I couldn't agree more. A few years back, I made a mistake of buying a Sony MP3 player. Never again.

 

[Nazo]

Among recent innovations, aperture grill CRT, Xbrite, and blue laser discs. Beyond these conceptual innovations, it's my understanding that Sony make the smallest laptop in its class, the smallest CD player, and arguably, the smallest hard drive MP3 player.

Smallest isn't necessarily automatically good though. Having had THE smallest mp3 player (that kazoo or whatever it was called,) I can safely say it was a real pain sometimes. That said, I must point out that blue laser discs aren't innovitave at all. Just the obvious next step. Red laser is bigger, so, you can fit more by using almost the same technology with a thinner wavelength. Duh. Remember how I said there was a generic product that was better in every category. Well, probably someone can name something better for each of those, but, in this area, I can definitely say that there is indeed something better in the generic zone because I've been waiting with baited breath for them to hurry up and complete it (ok, I'm starting to wonder if they really will now, but, if they don't, someone else will.) FMDs. That's short for Flourescent Multilayer Discs. 100GB in first generation, more promised to follow. Who needs the old two layer discs? Blue laser is just about the highest density you're going to get.

Just thought it proves a good point there. The other things, I don't know much about having not had much to do with them. I can say that "smallest cd player" is a bit subjective though. I used to have this nice little MP3 cd player that used mini cds. Smaller and thinner than any full sized cd player I'd ever had and still fit 3+ hours (210MB.) Cost me $75 or so. It's still in service as one of my other family members.

Oh, and smaller isn't always better. Ok, I haven't used one of sony's laptops, but, I can safely say it's a pain in the rear just using any ordinary laptop keyboard. Toshiba makes about the only ones that don't hurt my hands pretty quickly, and even those get to me after a while. I don't have big hands...

PS2 isn't a very good argument btw. It wasn't THAT great to begin with. There were actually a few things the dreamcast could beat it at. Gamecube and X-box are actually better. More than anything else, people like me are buying PS2s for the fact that the best companies all choose to make games for it, some almost exclusively. More because Sony is a big name that has been in the console business a good while though. Gamecube has a (well earned) reputation as a kid's console, and X-box... Er, need I even say it?

I don't know how much I like the idea of PS3 using that. One of the reviews talking about the cell technology rather explicitely said that the cell processor wouldn't be so great for things like gaming. Apparently where they excel is at what the reviewer referred to as "mindless repetitive processes such as graphics processing." Ok, that means better graphics, but, other things such as AI will be limiting it a lot, forcing it down to almost single processor level at times.

Well, my attitude is, let's wait and see, but, let's not get overwhelmed by all the hype that it's a revolutionary thing to take over the world of electronics just yet.

 

[7718]

obviously, since we all use emotion engines in our current pc's the next gen sony cpu will be used for everything. the emotion engine is like 400 times more powerfull than a pentium4 cpu right? sony is really good at spinning the pr wheels, something amd has never been good at. Of course the cell cpu is much better than the emotion engine, but still i'm sure its being totally overblown of its real capabilites. the next gen console wars will start with consoles being a bit ahead of current pcs , then after a few months/product cycles pcs will once again whoopass on console specs. of course the arguments will wage on for years in forums.

 

[Lazn_Work]

I am suprised no one has linked to the Ars article about the Cell.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-1.ars?63388

Basically this CPU is optimized for a totally different way of computing, and the 4ghz means nothing, it is a very stripped down PPC core, the core does less per clock than a Prescott.

If you are doing SP vector calulations the Cell will be unmatched.. but most of what normal computers do is not SP vectors, the Cell is almost more of a programmable GPU than a CPU.

==>Lazn

 

[iddqd]

In that case it could make wicked renderfarms. Er, consoles. Stuff.

 

[Nazo]

Last I checked, consoles weren't 100% graphics... *sigh* You subscribe to the same belief so many companies have fallen into it seems. What makes a game good isn't necessarily how great it's multimedia alone is...

I don't buy squaresoft games anymore (since FF8) due to this very thing. 100% multimedia. I prefer something that has actual gameplay value on my consoles thank you very much.

You see, this will be great for stuff like the rendering, yes. But, all the more complex stuff will be severely limited. Now, it should be better than current consoles mind you, I'm just saying don't expect it to mean everything will be ultrapowerful.


You know, I had a thought. If this is so great for graphics and that sort of thing, instead of making it a CPU, why not make it a GPU? Isn't that where it will clearly excel? Just imagine what would happen if you stuck one of those things on a video card... Let the real cpu do cpu things, let that thing take all rendering limitations away from the cpu... I mean, the only limitations I can imagine with current technologies would be more in how much memory you put on the video card. What's more, make this thing into a gpu instead of trying to replace the x86 cpu and the only people who get mad are the two companies that aren't exactly trying very hard as it is, nvidia and ati. Both are just sitting there raising and lowering clocks more than anything else right now. Frankly, they could stand to put up with a little competition right now...

 

[xonik]

Um, it's quite clear you don't know much about GPUs. It's well known by GPU developers that a modern GPU like the NV40 is several times (20x and beyond) faster than any x86 CPU right now. In fact, NVIDIA GPUs are being used for specialized supercomputing tasks right now. GPUs are in fact highly parallel processors as it is. Take the NV40, which includes 16 "fragment processors," capable of about 50 gigaflops. There are also C compilers intended to use the GPU as a secondary processor for general purpose tasks. Massively parallel designs for graphics is not a new idea, which also means that the Cell is not off base with its concepts.

Source:
http://www.eet.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=55300904 (see links at the page as well)

 

[koss]

meh, haven't been around long enough. So then what's an ALU?

Arithmetic and Logic Unit: basically a part of major core of CPU that performs calculation (integer) and logic (boolean) operations. The rest of CPU are control path, registers, caches, pipelining and etc..

 

[Nazo]

I didn't say GPU vs CPU. Question is, would the newer cell design be a better thing for a graphics card than a cpu and, could it actually be better than current GPUs. Maybe you're happy with the current situation, but, I for one would like to see nVidia and ATI get off their rear ends and get back to work on something other than converting back and forth between PCI and AGP.

And was sony planning on putting everything on one cell cpu? Surely they aren't that dumb, right? At least, it used to be that consoles all used a bunch of different processors for each thing. Hopefully at least they are smart enough to not make one processor do everything... If that one cell chip has to do graphics, audio, physics, etc all at once, it will end up just terrible... Anybody know just what exactly they are planning on doing with that? All the reviews just made it sound like they thought sticking one of those things in there would solve all their problems.

 

[iddqd]

AFAIK, PS3 will have four Cells in one unit for the client hardware. Server hardware will have 24 Cells?

 

[Lazn_Work]

You know, I had a thought. If this is so great for graphics and that sort of thing, instead of making it a CPU, why not make it a GPU?

It would not make the best GPU either... Just like putting the memory controller onto a athlon CPU makes the A64 better in some ways than the previous athlon, a job that was formerly the job of the northbride, putting a bunch of simple SP vector calulators onto a PPC CPU makes the Cell better than the Power 5 in some ways.

But there are always trade offs. Adding all those SPU's add loads of complexity and die size to the CPU. To make up some of the difference they dumbed down the main PPC part of the CPU.

If you had an unlimited transistor budget and did not have to worry about yeild or die size, you would put the entire comptuer into one chip, everything.. CPU, GPU, RAM, Soundcard, even a huge flash storage area (forget hard drives) but that is not economically feasable.

So instead we have interconnects like AGP, PCI, PCI-E, Memory Bus, Hypertransport, etc. etc. but none of these are as fast as internal chip communications. (some internal communications use these protocols, but never mind that) In the best of worlds the only IO pins a comptuer would need would be Monitor out, Keyboard and Mouse in.. (I guess some kind of network would be nice too, but you get my drift)

Edit: It is also an issue of right tool for the job. You would not take your kid to school in a 18 wheeler, nor try to carry 40 tons on a motorcycle, in the same way, you would not use the Cell as a GP computer, it will be good for consoles, and scientific workstaions.. But it is not likely to catch on in the general computing world.

==>Lazn

 

[Decelerate]

Smallest isn't necessarily automatically good though. Having had THE smallest mp3 player (that kazoo or whatever it was called,) I can safely say it was a real pain sometimes.

If they're the smallest, they're the smallest. period. Why do companies boast that they have the smallest this and that all the time? Innovation. Whether you like it or not is not a factor.

That said, I must point out that blue laser discs aren't innovitave at all. Just the obvious next step. Red laser is bigger, so, you can fit more by using almost the same technology with a thinner wavelength. Duh. Remember how I said there was a generic product that was better in every category. Well, probably someone can name something better for each of those, but, in this area, I can definitely say that there is indeed something better in the generic zone because I've been waiting with baited breath for them to hurry up and complete it (ok, I'm starting to wonder if they really will now, but, if they don't, someone else will.) FMDs. That's short for Flourescent Multilayer Discs. 100GB in first generation, more promised to follow. Who needs the old two layer discs? Blue laser is just about the highest density you're going to get.

Blue laser the next step? Tell that to the HD-DVD consortium(sp?). As for FMD, they're dead afaik. It will take a while before anyone bothers to revive that tech.

The other things, I don't know much about having not had much to do with them. I can say that "smallest cd player" is a bit subjective though. I used to have this nice little MP3 cd player that used mini cds. Smaller and thinner than any full sized cd player I'd ever had and still fit 3+ hours (210MB.) Cost me $75 or so. It's still in service as one of my other family members.

Mini CD != CD. iirc Iriver has the smallest/thinnest cd player, and Sony tails it.


Bah, all you seem to have a very big bias against Sony in particular, for reasons I don't care to know. Sony, like many other companies, is a behemoth. They make good stuff and crappy stuff. If all you buy is one end of the spectrum then you don't have a clear picture of the company.

For example, go buy a Qualia (Sony's flagship brand) and compare it to the rest of the product's respective industry. Very competitive.


All in all, if Sony is what you make it out to be, they wouldn't be what they are today. They're far from perfect, but they're far from junk either.

 

[Nazo]

Sometimes you don't have to make the best product to be big. Didn't think it needed to be said, but, well, since it does, take a look at microsoft windows. The only actual advantage it has over any other os is that it's so idiot proof that it makes doing advanced things a real pain in the rear if you DO know what you are doing. I mean, geez, it even defaults to hiding from you what extention a file has and you're supposed to know everything from a little icon...

That said, my point about the smallest mp3 player wasn't a matter of innovation. It is, well, what I said before. Smaller isn't necessarily better. Has it occured to you that, instead of making the whole player smaller, you might make the technology fit into a smaller area making it possible to add other things or to add more protective layers or something. When the device starts to get so small it's hard to control, they've gone too far. Notice that RCA now pushes the Lyra and no longer the Kazoo (or whatever it was.) The Lyra is perfect sized. They did precicely what I was just saying with that. Same technology, device designed to actually be useful to the customer. Reminds me of a show I saw once where they joked about the cellphone designs getting so small. The person pulled out a tiny little thing about the size of a chip and someone bumped them, knocking the little chip sized thing out of their fingers and into their mouth.

And when I said blue laser was the next step, I didn't mean for DVD standards, I meant for optical media. It just makes sense. Infrared has a wavelength too big to make it noticably more dense, so, use a higher frequency laser. Which part of this is not obvious? Sorry, I refuse to call that innovative because even I thought of it a long time ago, and I know next to nothing about manufacturing a media.

BTW, a mini-cd is a cd. Perhaps you mistook me to mean mini-disc? I was just making a point with a joke while I was at it. It was a smaller, higher tech cd player after all (it even would play mini audio cds should one actually want to make a 24-minute cd rather than spending a few minutes to make some encodes and get 3+ hours.)

And Lazn_Work, while I will agree that part of why we split things up is the fact we can't fit infinite amounts of things into one chip, I must point out that another part is because it allows us the ability to use different technologies more optomized for the intended purpose as well as the ability to upgrade. As I'm sure all those people stuck with integrated graphics on a board with no AGP will tell you, building stuff in SUCKS. Even if you could find a way to squeeze a GFFX 6800 Ultra OC onto a MB (lol, yeah right) it may well be that the person would want to use the same CPU/MB for long enough for that to be outdated. If you look at more realistic situations where about the best onboard is the Radeon 9800 (are they up to pro yet) then it's already beginning to show it's limits even today. And if you only have PCI (not express) to upgrade your video, about the best you will hope to find is a 5700LE (at least, when I was helping my friend stuck with no AGP and some crappy intel accelerator that runs UT slowly that was the best I could find.) Well, let me just put it this way. Have you ever tried software 3D? Run 3dMark05 lately? Even an Athlon 64 4000+ is going to do that a little worse than a decent video card. Even split up with multiple cores you run into the problem that one thing is going to have to wait on another too often. Oh, and let's not forget, 3dmark is designed to test graphics, not CPU. It's not constantly running ai checks, calculating physics, or anything else along those lines beyond just a few very basics.

 

[Triple B]

If they're the smallest, they're the smallest. period. Why do companies boast that they have the smallest this and that all the time? Innovation. Whether you like it or not is not a factor..

Smaller is not innovative. It's exactly what you said. The smallest. Period. No comma in there. Innovative would be -- well, the post above referenced that subject, changing the technology and adding to it to make it better. Give me a vibrating heated car seat with a built in fellatiator installed, THAT'S innovation. (And yes, I know, that's not a real word)

As for the subject of the Cell taking over, I can't offer any input on that. But I'd like to throw this out there being a gamer who loathes the fact that the PS2, being the inferior product of this generation (and the previous! Dreamcast is better!) of consoles, is doing well... will the new Nintendo be left by the wayside? It will wind up being a better machine yet again, simple to code for with a better first party lineup of titles. Yet the PS2 beat the Cube down. Why? Name recognition. There is a very sad sector of the consumer community that thinks a name is everything. Amazingly enough, in the case of the MS Xbox, they would have been right. That thing is the bomb. The point is, when will people wake up and stop buying hype and start buying superior products? As for the big N being a kiddy-based system, I think it's safe to say that Resident Evil 4 stopped that cold.

 

[xonik]

You just can't see the big picture, can you?

That said, my point about the smallest mp3 player wasn't a matter of innovation.

How isn't it? If it weren't an innovative step, then anyone could have made an MP3 player that small, without R&D. But of course that's not the case. The engineers had to design smaller components that were never used before. They had to innovate in order to reach that design goal.

It is, well, what I said before. Smaller isn't necessarily better. Has it occured to you that, instead of making the whole player smaller, you might make the technology fit into a smaller area making it possible to add other things or to add more protective layers or something. When the device starts to get so small it's hard to control, they've gone too far. Notice that RCA now pushes the Lyra and no longer the Kazoo (or whatever it was.) The Lyra is perfect sized. They did precicely what I was just saying with that. Same technology, device designed to actually be useful to the customer. Reminds me of a show I saw once where they joked about the cellphone designs getting so small. The person pulled out a tiny little thing about the size of a chip and someone bumped them, knocking the little chip sized thing out of their fingers and into their mouth.

You sure ramble a lot. Anyways, you miss the whole point about small devices. I don't give two shits about your experience with small devices--that's not what we're discussing. We're talking about the design challenges that come with designing new and innovative devices.

And when I said blue laser was the next step, I didn't mean for DVD standards, I meant for optical media. It just makes sense. Infrared has a wavelength too big to make it noticably more dense, so, use a higher frequency laser. Which part of this is not obvious? Sorry, I refuse to call that innovative because even I thought of it a long time ago, and I know next to nothing about manufacturing a media.

Wow, so when someone comes up with a time machine, we can't call it innovative because little old me already thought of it? Since you don't even know how the media is manufactured, who are you to judge how difficult such a media would be to manufacture to acceptable yields? All sorts of inventions--the rocket engine, the tiltrotor, the airborne laser--have been easy concepts to imagine, but extremely difficult to implement, yet I would consider all three of these innovations.

BTW, a mini-cd is a cd. Perhaps you mistook me to mean mini-disc? I was just making a point with a joke while I was at it. It was a smaller, higher tech cd player after all (it even would play mini audio cds should one actually want to make a 24-minute cd rather than spending a few minutes to make some encodes and get 3+ hours.)

 

[Nazo]

You just can't see the big picture, can you?How isn't it? If it weren't an innovative step, then anyone could have made an MP3 player that small, without R&D.

When did I say no R&D? Please do quote the exact time and place I said that. No, what I have said is that making technology smaller is innovative, making the product itself smaller is not necessarily. There's a difference, but, you are bound up purely looking at the surface of the product. If I set my RCA Kazoo (assuming it weren't dead) next to a MuVo, the Kazoo is smaller by a bit, yet, the MuVo holds 2x the kazoo's max space (with an expensive memory card plugged in) and you can plug the MuVo into a USB port as a flash drive. So, because it's smaller by that bit, the Kazoo is better?

Wow, so when someone comes up with a time machine, we can't call it innovative because little old me already thought of it?

Blue laser isn't innovative because there is basically no REAL new technology or anything. It's just the simple obvious next step. Like the idea of a MP3 CD player. Stick some mp3s on a cd and you have 700MB in a $35 (walmart) player. That's innovative? Maybe your definition is a little looser than mine, but, I require that they actually invent something instead of connecting CD audio players with the already existing MP3 decoding capabilities of any other MP3 player. The only way you could call it innovative was the fact that the first people to do it were... well, the first people to do it. Given time, any decent company would have come up with it.

Now, the reason I call FMD innovative and not blue laser is because, while FMD might be close to the same idea of "just one step further" they got smart about it and tried to come up with a new way to do things. And that they did. They realized the old system of just reflecting the laser isn't good enough and they came up with a better system no one else had even seemed to think of. The thing is, everyone has heard of the people behind DVDs, but, who has heard of the people behind FMDs? I mean, as much interest as I've had in them, even I can't recall the name of the company.... What was it, 3d something? Unfortunately, as has been discussed, brand recognition is a painful fact of life. Why is the PS2 still doing so well? As has been mentioned, XBox and Gamecube have better capabilities... The graphics are subpar, the sound is stereo in almost every case -- need I go on? Companies know sony, so they make games for PS2. Not so hard going from designing games for a PSX to designing them for a PS2 either. Yes, it's newer and more powerful, but, they are similar enough in the actual way they work that the PS2 can even play PSX games... In other words, the PS2 does not have better support due to being a better system than the XBox or the Gamecube...

Since you don't even know how the media is manufactured, who are you to judge how difficult such a media would be to manufacture to acceptable yields?

I said I don't know all about it. I know enough of how it works to understand the problems and how easily it was to come up with the idea of increasing the frequency of the laser. Probably the biggest problem lay in making the machines to create discs of such a high density. Perhaps those machines are, in fact, innovative, but, that means the machines are, not the discs.

 

[xonik]

When did I say no R&D? Please do quote the exact time and place I said that.

You didn't. That's not the point. What you did say was that making the smallest product on the market was trivial,

Has it occured to you that, instead of making the whole player smaller, you might make the technology fit into a smaller area making it possible to add other things or to add more protective layers or something. When the device starts to get so small it's hard to control, they've gone too far. [...] Same technology, device designed to actually be useful to the customer.

It's not that easy to just make a device that small, yet you say it is.

No, what I have said is that making technology smaller is innovative, making the product itself smaller is not necessarily.

How do you define technology? Anyways, it takes ingenuity and a real integration of technologies to make an innovative product. Take the Sony VAIO PCG-X505 notebook. They had to integrate an extremely small motherboard, a very slim battery, a very slim keyboard, and still meet performance and usability requirements. The fact that they shrunk the motherboard to only a couple of square inches (http://www.dynamism.com/x505/keyboard.gif) is innovative alone. Look beyond the dimensions and realize the design challenges that were accomplished with the shrinking process, and you'll see how products like these are innovative.

So, because it's smaller by that bit, the Kazoo is better?

Well, let's see where this whole stupid discussion started. It started with me saying that products that break size barriers are innovative. I don't care about your Kazoo or whatever, so stop putting words in my mouth and try to stay on task, okay?

Blue laser isn't innovative because there is basically no REAL new technology or anything. It's just the simple obvious next step.

So you consider only revolutionary steps to be innovations. Interesting. Most people would disagree (as would the dictionary definition), but okay, I see where you're coming from now.

I require that they actually invent something instead of connecting CD audio players with the already existing MP3 decoding capabilities of any other MP3 player. The only way you could call it innovative was the fact that the first people to do it were... well, the first people to do it. Given time, any decent company would have come up with it.

I'm sorry but that's no different than red laser to blue laser. The Redbook standard for CD audio defines the way that CD players read and decode PCM-encoded audio discs. The MP3 specification is merely another form of encoding and compression, which piggybacks on the CD filesystem. So really, CD audio and MP3 audio are just two different approaches to the same thing. Likewise, the progression from red laser to blue laser is merely evolutionary as well, but I consider both evolutions to be innovations in their own right.

Unfortunately, as has been discussed, brand recognition is a painful fact of life.

If the technology was ready, surely a bigger company with more R&D money would have picked them up.

Why is the PS2 still doing so well? As has been mentioned, XBox and Gamecube have better capabilities... The graphics are subpar, the sound is stereo in almost every case -- need I go on? Companies know sony, so they make games for PS2. Not so hard going from designing games for a PSX to designing them for a PS2 either. Yes, it's newer and more powerful, but, they are similar enough in the actual way they work that the PS2 can even play PSX games... In other words, the PS2 does not have better support due to being a better system than the XBox or the Gamecube...

The PS2 is doing so well because a majority of people find its games--not the console hardware--to be better. And isn't that the whole point? The quality, variety and enjoyability of games are in my opinion the number one priority when selecting a console. It looks like most console owners seem to agree.

Perhaps those machines are, in fact, innovative, but, that means the machines are, not the discs.

Okay, but who went through the research and trial and error to make the production of the discs feasible? Sony, Philips, et al.

Semantics are fun.

 

[Nazo]

Take the Sony VAIO PCG-X505 notebook. They had to integrate an extremely small motherboard, a very slim battery, a very slim keyboard, and still meet performance and usability requirements.

Actually someone kind of beat them to that idea. PDAs. Same idea, larger scale so they could get more power and such into it. I guess you could call it a little of a innovation to combine the two ideas, but, I wouldn't go around shouting about what an incredible idea it is.

It started with me saying that products that break size barriers are innovative. I don't care about your Kazoo or whatever, so stop putting words in my mouth and try to stay on task, okay?

My points was simply this: if size alone were innovative, the kazoo is better than all those other mp3 players out there. Innovation is based more on the simple technological trend that has been going on for decades (centuries if you count machines) where they make things smaller and more efficient. Innovation is going beyond trends and such.

The PS2 is doing so well because a majority of people find its games--not the console hardware--to be better. And isn't that the whole point?

Yes. It is. In other words, sony made a worse product that sells more because of brandname in essense. Everything it does could be done better elsewhere (just imagine if sega hadn't caved and made a dreamcast 2? Sega really knows what they are doing when it comes to making hardware and could design circles around sony in the console world if they knew what they were doing outside of the hardware/software part of making a console...)

who went through the research and trial and error to make the production of the discs feasible? Sony, Philips, et al.

So? Why does it matter that those people did it versus some generic company? They had the money and a lot of the technology already in place, it was logical that someone such as them would be first to come up with it. Had they not thought of it, easily someone else would have. I don't know about you, but, if I hear they are working on something like that and I'm part of the way through coming up with such a thing myself, I'd be looking very seriously into finding a way to change what I've been working on to something else because how can you compete with them?

 

[xonik]

Actually someone kind of beat them to that idea. PDAs. Same idea, larger scale so they could get more power and such into it. I guess you could call it a little of a innovation to combine the two ideas, but, I wouldn't go around shouting about what an incredible idea it is.

It's not the idea. Like I said earlier, my idea to build a time machine is useless. It's the execution and the creative engineering needed to make it work. A PDA is of no comparison because the thermal and power demands of a notebook-class processor are much higher. Because of this, much more care was necessary in the design. Beyond that, a notebook motherboard has more features and is much more complex than that of a PDA. To fit all the stuff they fit into what was essentially a PDA motherboard was quite an accomplishment.

My points was simply this: if size alone were innovative, the kazoo is better than all those other mp3 players out there. Innovation is based more on the simple technological trend that has been going on for decades (centuries if you count machines) where they make things smaller and more efficient. Innovation is going beyond trends and such.

So, by your logic, holographic discs will not be innovative, because the trend for greater storage density has gone on for decades.

Yes. It is. In other words, sony made a worse product that sells more because of brandname in essense.

Worse how? Slower hardware? It's all about the games, my friend. Games are what matters in consoles, not the hardware used to make them run.

Everything it does could be done better elsewhere (just imagine if sega hadn't caved and made a dreamcast 2? Sega really knows what they are doing when it comes to making hardware and could design circles around sony in the console world if they knew what they were doing outside of the hardware/software part of making a console...)

Uh oh, now how are you going to back up the claim that Sega's design department was/is more competent than Sony's? I don't know how you could show evidence besides using the tired and unreliable clockspeed vs. performance paradigm.

So? Why does it matter that those people did it versus some generic company? They had the money and a lot of the technology already in place, it was logical that someone such as them would be first to come up with it. Had they not thought of it, easily someone else would have.

So they did it FIRST. That's what innovation is all about.

 

[PrkChpXprss]

<stupid post>
I don't think the cell will take over the world, but maybe it's successor.. or it's successor's successor:

Cell gives way to 2nd gen processor, codenamed Tissue. Everyone raves about how great Tissue is and how much more work it can do than Cell, and even the mighty x86. Everyone buys Tissue. After making money hand over fist, Sony continues its work and releases it's 3rd gen cell architecture -- the Organ. Now Organ is a mighty technological triumph indeed. All people flock to Organ, and by now, the scientific community has migrated systems from the now archaic x86 to the Organ processor. Some scientists put many Organs together, ultimately forming the world's first multi Organ(ic) computer. People are amazed. multi-organic computer begins to learn, becomes intelligent, sentient, and ultimately takes over the world by exterminating the very individuals responsible for creating it.

Ok, so yes, the Cell will take over the world.

</stupid post>

 

[Lazn_Work]

<stupid post>
I don't think the cell will take over the world, but maybe it's successor.. or it's successor's successor:

Cell gives way to 2nd gen processor, codenamed Tissue. Everyone raves about how great Tissue is and how much more work it can do than Cell, and even the mighty x86. Everyone buys Tissue. After making money hand over fist, Sony continues its work and releases it's 3rd gen cell architecture -- the Organ. Now Organ is a mighty technological triumph indeed. All people flock to Organ, and by now, the scientific community has migrated systems from the now archaic x86 to the Organ processor. Some scientists put many Organs together, ultimately forming the world's first multi Organ(ic) computer. People are amazed. multi-organic computer begins to learn, becomes intelligent, sentient, and ultimately takes over the world by exterminating the very individuals responsible for creating it.

Ok, so yes, the Cell will take over the world.

</stupid post>

don't forget the network connecting them will be called SkyNet.

==>Lazn

 

[Nazo]

A PDA is of no comparison because the thermal and power demands of a notebook-class processor are much higher. Because of this, much more care was necessary in the design.

I don't deny this. I am saying it's another logical next step type thing. Something in between PDAs and normal laptops...

So, by your logic, holographic discs will not be innovative, because the trend for greater storage density has gone on for decades.

I'm sorry, what? Holographic? Frankly, if they find a way to TRULY project an image into three dimensions in the meaning of the term holographic, yes, that would be innovative, because currently it's not only NOT the next step, it's not even physically possible by known means (excluding some cheap obvious attempt, I'm talking about the real thing.) Are you perhaps meaning the FMD idea? It's NOT just higher density. It's finding a whole new way to work with the laser to remove the limitation on the number of layers. I suppose it's inevitable someone would have thought of it eventually, but, I'm going to call it innovative because it involves doing new things in new ways instead of just simply improving the old (like the way DVD improved on CD just by increasing density and managing -- just barely to get a second layer.)

Worse how? Slower hardware? It's all about the games, my friend. Games are what matters in consoles, not the hardware used to make them run.

Ah, but, you forgot something HORRIBLY important. Sony doesn't make too many games at all. Slap sony's name on an xbox, and suddenly you have better games on the xbox. In other words, sony is making a worse product, just using their big name in the console industry to coast through.

Uh oh, now how are you going to back up the claim that Sega's design department was/is more competent than Sony's? I don't know how you could show evidence besides using the tired and unreliable clockspeed vs. performance paradigm.

Buy a dreamcast. They cost something like $20 if you can find one. I didn't say they were innovative just because they made a better product, it was a comment about the quality of sony's products versus the competition.

 

[xonik]

I don't deny this. I am saying it's another logical next step type thing. Something in between PDAs and normal laptops...

Oh no, it's a bonafide laptop in terms of computing power, but they shrunk it down. That's the accomplishment.

I'm sorry, what? Holographic? Frankly, if they find a way to TRULY project an image into three dimensions in the meaning of the term holographic, yes, that would be innovative, because currently it's not only NOT the next step, it's not even physically possible by known means (excluding some cheap obvious attempt, I'm talking about the real thing.)

Oh, I thought that's what you were talking about,

http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/storage/story/0,10801,99464,00.html?SKC=data-99464

Are you perhaps meaning the FMD idea? It's NOT just higher density. It's finding a whole new way to work with the laser to remove the limitation on the number of layers. I suppose it's inevitable someone would have thought of it eventually, but, I'm going to call it innovative because it involves doing new things in new ways instead of just simply improving the old (like the way DVD improved on CD just by increasing density and managing -- just barely to get a second layer.)

Okay, neither of us denies the innovation of FMD. It is blue laser that this tired debate is about.

Ah, but, you forgot something HORRIBLY important. Sony doesn't make too many games at all. Slap sony's name on an xbox, and suddenly you have better games on the xbox. In other words, sony is making a worse product, just using their big name in the console industry to coast through.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not a console company makes games for their console, just as I would expect with a computer. The quality of the software/games is more important. Also, how do you figure that Sony makes a worse product?


Buy a dreamcast. They cost something like $20 if you can find one. I didn't say they were innovative just because they made a better product, it was a comment about the quality of sony's products versus the competition.[/QUOTE]

 

[Clownboat]

I don't think AMD or Intel have any reason to be concerned. If anyone else besides them knew how to make the most powerful desktop chips, they wouldn't be the only big players in the market.

Clearly, Cell is not the kind of thing you're going to be seeing in OEM systems from Dell and Gateway, which is how AMD and Intel make a lot of their money. Not only is it geared toward very specific types of performance, but I imagine that it would be prohibitively expensive as a desktop chip.

how do you figure that Sony makes a worse product?

I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth the X-Box (and GameCube) is said to be significantly more powerful and easier to program for than the PS2. If you don't believe me, wait till RE4 comes out for PS2 and look at it side-by-side with the GameCube build.

In addition, most of Sony's products (especially any that include lasers, or any moving parts for that matter) are unreliable, non-durable, and have a history of mechanical failure. We're already seeing this with their newest invention, the PSP. To say Sony is a slipshod manufacturer is not exactly considered an "opinion" anymore; it's historically documented.

 

[iddqd]

Yeah, the MP3 player is made out of soft aluminum. What kind of an idiot would make that design decision? Fuck, even plastic is less prone to scratches and dents than that shit.

 

[Nazo]

Wow, I couldn't have said it better...

BTW, the RE4 build will probably be highly optomized, so it will be a little hard to tell. Probably lower resolution textures, a few less polygons here and there, etc. If they do it right, it should be hard for us to actually tell short of directly catching a still from the exact same moment in the actual rendered part of the game (instead of the pre-rendered stuff.) At least, with a big game like this they should put the full effort in. A cheap game conversion might be really obvious though.

Cell will have to start out as the underdog unless it can REALLY prove it's worth. Intel is blowing just as much money on PR as that group can hope to do and companies tend to like to stick to tried and true stuff they know they can rely on rather than jumping into some unknown risky gamble. It's just business. A few will probably try it, but, most will be too afraid to risk it.

The point is moot if it doesn't prove itself to actually be better, and I currently have my doubts.

Now, I still say that I can definitely see the cell taking over in more specialized areas such as CAD/CG and so on.

 

[xonik]

I don't think AMD or Intel have any reason to be concerned. If anyone else besides them knew how to make the most powerful desktop chips, they wouldn't be the only big players in the market.

We'll see. Remember that IBM is involved in this project too, and they make some very good server processors.

I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth the X-Box (and GameCube) is said to be significantly more powerful and easier to program for than the PS2.

Apparently that hasn't stopped the developers from making some great games.

In addition, most of Sony's products (especially any that include lasers, or any moving parts for that matter) are unreliable, non-durable, and have a history of mechanical failure. We're already seeing this with their newest invention, the PSP. To say Sony is a slipshod manufacturer is not exactly considered an "opinion" anymore; it's historically documented.

It probably is. However, with more PS2s out there than any other current-generation console, I'd expect that.

Yeah, the MP3 player is made out of soft aluminum. What kind of an idiot would make that design decision? Fuck, even plastic is less prone to scratches and dents than that shit.

Chemistry 101--aluminum, when exposed to oxygen, forms a protective layer of aluminum oxide, which is much more difficult to scratch than aluminum in a vacuum.

 

[Nazo]

Apparently that hasn't stopped the developers from making some great games.

Xbox is made by a company who has never been in the console industry before and who has very little gaming experience before it. Gamecube is... Well, after the nintendo 64 (don't you DARE try to tell me that peice of junk was worthy, they really screwed up on that one...) people haven't exactly been flocking to it, and mostly you really do see family safe games such as starfox/etc. IMO, RE is just with the assumption a few parents would like to play and they already have teh system for their kid or something. Plus, there are admittedly a few people with a gamecube who aren't children just because there are a few rare good things.

However, unlike X-Box, PS2 had a predecessor that very nearly completely dominated the market for a long time. Sega was the only one who came up with decent competition, and, well, suffice to say they screwed up. Many people even just upgraded because of the promise to play most PSX games so they get the best of both worlds (let's not forget the fast disc speed and texture smoothing abilities.) That way they had the ability to play PS2 games in the future. X-box and gamecube both smoke the PS2 in actual capabilities. In fact, Dreamcast, while actually a little worse than people have been saying, can beat the PS2 at many things (no, not all, it's not all better, but, remember it was made well before the PS2.)

So, who would you choose? Really, I want to know. Remember, if you choose wrong, you loose a LOT of money.

Chemistry 101--aluminum, when exposed to oxygen, forms a protective layer of aluminum oxide, which is much more difficult to scratch than aluminum in a vacuum.

Er, I looked that up. Nope, you must be remembering wrong or something, because I have seen aluminum heatsinks that I could scratch with just about anything, including a knife. Unless the charts I looked up are wrong (feel free to find better ones, google isn't working with me on this one and keeps giving me jewlers) Aluminum Oxide (AL2O3) is a 9 on moh's scale. Can't scratch that easily.... I mean, seriously, about the only thing you might have around the house likely to scratch it if that were true would be sandpaper (made with the cheap synthetic diamond dust.) According to the tables I read, a steel knife would be somewhere in the area of 6 or so, depending on how much carbon is mixed in of course. Anyway, chances are against it being pure aluminum. More likely than anything else it's an aluminum alloy. I think that it's supposed to be pretty unrealistic to try to make pure aluminum.

 

[cell_491]

...instructions have to be carefully ordered to work well (think nv30 here)

this is exactly how this is goin down in fact you can already see it in the pc market now. games are becoming almost completely GPU dependent just like consoles are...the cell processor is nothing more than a gpu that doubles as a cpu and i doubt it will be anymore powerful than what were already seeing in the current pc enviroment i doubt itll have nearly as much power as people are anticipating (think dreamcast) i dont see how sony could possibly sell a console at $400 or so thats has $5000 worth of parts and technology in it...it just wont happen. i can only speculate but i bet that it wont even be as powerful as our current gen mediocre gaming pc (somewhere in the range of a 2.4ghz p4 and a 6600gt). as far as cell processor technology comin to pcs i HIGHLY doubt it i do however believe that pcs will eventually split into to categories gaming and business the business branch will evolve into a mainboard only with built in cpu and a built in gpu that handles very minimum graphics (think mini itx on crack) and the gaming pc genre will develop into a mainboard that has no cpu at all it will have a built in monitor port but no video card or memory there will be internal graphics processors that will connect to the motherboard kinda like giant memory chips and youll be able to easily scale it by adding or removing the chips these chips will use the memory directly...basically cutting out the cpu and FSB completely because it will all be controlled by the GPU. if you think these ideas are a result of a late night CRACK benge then you just wait cause i bet you ill be right...

 

[Nazo]

You mean a console?

Nope. A PC will always be a PC. CPU, MB, and semi-seperate gfx (this includes integrated chips, I just mean not CPU doing all the gfx work) are a must. Do what you suggest and you have a console, not a PC. It's useless for non-gaming. I should point out that even consoles have to do a bit of the general purpose PC type stuff though. How do you plan to calculate physics, ai, sound, etc in addition to the graphics all at the same time on one chip without it having to be a general purpose, well... CPU....

No one wants to buy a "PC" that isn't actually a PC, but, is some kind of glorified console. We buy a PC so we can do things besides gaming. Downloads, videos, etc.