Micro$oft has learned from Sony...
- Thread starter Evolution.
- 101 comments
- 3,212 views
- 30
MachOne
actually its quite the contrary! lets go down the list...
1. ps2 was not the first dvd machine to be able to be put on its side, ever seen a external cdrw!...so can i say that ps2 copied the PC market? its called functionallity, sony saw it with cdrw's and bill sees it as hey thats kewl lets do that too....and just to let you know the xbox can go sideways, its just not designed to do it....
2. Memory slots, actually when the box was being designed, the first prototypes called for it on the box itself, but having four controllers and still trying to put 4 mem card slots, and make the unit 'small' enough, they opted to put it on the controller, which is quite nice because i dont have to get up and down to switch cards....then again with a HD i only have one Mem card and have used it a total, a total of 4 times!!! my ps2 has 8 full mem cards, do you know how much 'extra' cash that has cost me, and you call ms money whores...
3. Backwards compatibility, you do know MS has got BWC with the 360 right? all the top games or thier platinum series are gartunteed to work with the 360 and with that they hope the not so popular games will also work as well, then again the ps2 wasnt perfect neither!!! not EVERY game worked on the ps2 from ps1 just the popular majority!!!!
4. Online? you dare to even compare a nonexistent service to a service that has been honored by the gods themselves? where is the ps2's buddy list saved? on your mem card??? or how about network updates? or how about individual game fees (if you didnt use the pc to rig it like xlink etc)....how about downloadable content to a nonexistent harddrive....dude you cant compare 2 companies on a point when one company doesnt even have it!!!
now after this lets go to what $ony HAS LEARNED and hasnt FROM MS!
1. HD, sony still doesnt have a HD out the box, although it will support one from sizes of 20-80gb via notebook size hd, so sony has still yet to learn the value of downloadble content and custom soundtracks, something the 360 has just expanded on even further!
2. controllers, ps1 had 2 controllers, even when the dreamcast had 4, the ps2 still only came with 2, the box had 4, so what does sony do? have support for up to the oddest number of 7, and uses BLUETOOTH, how ORIGINAL, ms at least hybrid their wireless tech which is alot better than Bluetooth just for your info
3. Online, sony has yet to give us online support, but build the ps3 with online capabilities, so i guess they learned halfway, but think of the money they would have to spend to even get half of what xbox live has to offer, sony doesnt have cash out their buts, in fact they are in the red and cant afford big losses, they are scared buddy
4. Video card, they tried to put 4 cells in the ps3, 3 of them were supposed to run graphics apps, but when they realized the cell did horrible job, or at least not up to spec, they went crying to nvidia who just had a fallout with MS, and asked them to build them something, this shows greatly about no Huge RnD in the videocard arena because there is NOTHING innovative about it. But at least they learned from MS about video cards....
5. Memory, the xbox had a huge 64mb advantage over the ps2's measle 4+, so what do they do? add a arcitechure from the pc world!, two pools of 256MB or 512 total...they learned a good lesson on this even though i prefer UMA in a console
6. A actual general purpose processor, they found huge advantages in the general purpose cpu, they included a G5 varient in theirs as well, although less advanced as the 360s it will be responsible for all the 'general' game code
in the end your mute points which didnt even exist to begin with are out shown by the fact that Sony actually has borrowed and learned more from MS than MS has with sony. And as far as originality goes this gen, the cup has been handed to MS by a whole football field for thier 'original' ideas coming this next Gen....if you dont know what they are plz ask for you can see their ideas full speed...
and just to let you know, Sony isnt a saint either, they have not only lost every format war, leading them to BORROW from others, but it shows hugely that they have no idea on how to represent a product without completely bashing another company, and it shows the biggest this time around, kuritagi talks so much trash he should be a professional wrestler on tv!
MS aint a saint, but windows has not stood by idle wither, linux is trying to play catchup, microsofts whole idea is make things SIMPLER, if this involves sucking three ideas into one and market it then they let them because 100 dollars for XP imo is to little, if you knew even half the power of it you would know 100 is a measle penalty, and in a new system its almost included free! you know where games would be without MS windows? let me put some light on it, DOS 6.0
- 30
tha_con
and yet you even forget the 'money' hogs sonys are too!
HD? nope had to buy one with only one game fully supporting it! yea way to spend 80+
Network Adaptor for ethernet? $40
Remoter Controll? $16
MemCards? not one ps2 owner has less than 2memcards thats 50 bills there!
online? 6bills a month for ONE GAME (ea games example) so lets say 5 games are online thats 30 a MONTH for each game!!!! thats 360 a year!!!! holy crap!
so lets try this, a one year price tag for the best PS2 had to offer to the Box's best.
5 games for each system $250 bills
PS2. $149, HD $80, network $40, Remote $16, Memcards $50, 5games playable for a year paid for $360,
Box. $149, HD free, Network free, Remote $30, Memcards no need but will buy one to make it fair $25, 5games playable for a year $60 bills
ps2 total $949
Box total $514
holy crap to get the best of both systems i will pay almost two times MORE than i did for my box, and in the end even though i dont have online for my ps2 it still COSTED MORE...
yea ms is the money whore in the console market not sony because sony is like linux and is all about user experiences and not money making and are just little angels! yea give me a break
Evolution.
(Banned)
- 3,722
elitewolverine
There.My responses again are in red for you.Your points were null and void.
Evolution.
(Banned)
- 3,722
elitewolverine
There you go.I answered for Con,to save him the hassle of aruging.
- 30,043
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
Mach one, while I agree with most of what you said, you kept referring to Sony going for small size with the PS2, that was not the case. The PS2 could have easilly had a HDD fitted internally, did you never notice that removable cover at the back with a huge empty space, thats for the HDD to slot inside the PS2. The main reason the PS2 didn't come with one built in was because it came out a year or so before the XB and games didn't really need a HDD then, it was MS witht he XB that made people want a HDD, if they never put one in that no one would be arguing about the importance of a HDD. The other thing is controller ports, yes theres space for 2 more. Other than thoes two things, I agree with the rest of what you said. And elitewolverine, BOTH companies are money whores, both are large multi-national business that survive by taking the public's money, it's called business.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Don't tell me he didn't know about that?
The HDD must be terrible for saves. I frequentley take my card around mates houses. Also the argument about having 4+ memory cards is rediculous. Anyone who is that devoted to PS2 would have a MaxDrive/Sharkport/Xport. They would have to have plenty of cash to be stupid enough to not open their eyes and look at the alternatives. I did after one card.
- 738
MachOne
thats a good thing though... i was reading OPM and the PS3 design people said they might not make it backwards compatible b/c software cant be too much advanced like trying to play a computer game from like 94' on windows XP it doesnt work because XP is too advanced for the game so to play the game you'd have to use like Win98' or lower...sooo basicly what they said was it would limit the power of what PS3 could be....does that all make sense? so microsoft is doing us a favor
- 30,043
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
Thats BS, the PS3 IS backwards compatible. You can make games from 94 run on XP even if XP is too advanced for them. It's not difficult to emulate or create a program thats simpler and less advanced to run the older games fine within the newer OS.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
live4speed
That's about it last time I checked. You guys must understand that when you put backwards compatibility on a system, it's running on an emulator. Just like you can run a Genesis, SNES, Playstation, N64 and other systems on your PC. So, with smart engineering, you don't have to "limit" the power of your new stuff. It's not like DOS that was chocked by the 640K rule.
- 10,687
- Everywhere
Swift
Well not all 'backwards compatability' is emulated. I believe the PS2's ability to run PS1 games is based on a single chip that does everything the PS1 was capable of. Similar situation with older Win32 code running on newer 2000 / XP machines - the OS is actually told to use the older binaries from previous versions of Windows when requested for libraries to run the older apps.
True emulation comes in when you're asking, for example, an IBM processor to run code writen for an Intel processor or visa versa.
elitewolverine
I won't even begin to pick this post to shreds, you missed my entire point. Don't justify other things through false interpretation.
Understand what I wrote and then reply, but this was no where near the arguement I laid down. It was in left field, so to speak.
Thanks.
Evolution.
(Banned)
- 3,722
tha_con
Don't worry,I took care of it
OH and I didn't know the espansion slot was where an HDD was supposed to go
- 738
last i read ps3 developers were thinking of not making it backwards compatible because it limits its overall capibilities because ps2 had to be able to read ps1 format and ps2 so they could use a whole new faster better format sooo Xbox 360 can use a better faster more compacted format than xbox1 .....it all makes sense in a round-about way
- 30,043
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
Making a console backwards compatible does not in ANY way limit the overall performance, it doesn't even have to effect the size of the console or it's contents. I'm calling whatever source that said that as BS, besides Sony knows how important backwards compatibility is to gamers so to turn around and take that away could be harmful.
- 30
for mach one:
1. just because it was the first 'console' doesnt mean that ms copied sony, that was my point, it was like claiming sony copied cdrw's for crying out loud!
2. actually the size of the ps2 can 'have' a hard drive, considering that notebook harddrives were readily available, but they didnt see the necissity to put one in, probably for cost or probably because they didnt see it as need, remember the ps2 according to them was a supercomputer, one that didnt need a HD, yes sony does have a very nice PR machine
3. BWC is for popular games, since most games run off many of the same engines, a game that was not so popular running same engine will be able to run on the 360 considering its older brother can....360 will support everygame in the platinum hits section, thats the most popular titles. And no 95% did not work with the ps2, in fact its probably closer to 80 or less. just like you said, hardware/software issues, dont you think its the same for 360? considering many games use nvidia specific code where the ps series is completely proprietary
4. online rosters? not bad but consider that one download of mechassult would take up 2-3 mem cards of a ps2, thats the kind of downloads we are talking about....and yes ps2 has a "service" but it was not SONY's it was the developers SERVICE not SONY'S....it was up to EA to keep the servers running not SONY, its the complete opposite to a point with LIVE. and yes trying to compare sonys service to MS is like trying to compare a yugo to a ferrari!
5. you make a entire thread on what ms 'learned' from sony, yet all of them were so mute they were actually dumb yes dumb, sony is playing catchup with the ps3, it shows huge, MS is only playing catchup in sales not console, they had the superior console this war granted it was a year ahead, then again it used parts from the same year as the ps3 so its all good...and in actuallity the ps2 is theoretically 6x powerfull than the box
6. controllers, yes the ps3 uses bluetooth for their console, which can support up to 8 devices, 1 host (ps3), 7 controllers, yes 7!!! but in the end the ms wireless is of better tech
7. yes sony is in the red so to speek, they are almost like ford in terms of in the red, they have huge money but they dont have it like MS in terms of being able to blow it around.....do research on sonys money
8. VideoCards....yes the original design of the ps3 called for 4cell chips, 3 of which were supposed to run the graphics, sony had no intent of a seperate videocard, but when the flops rating was less than a actual highend card they scrapped the idea knowing that wouldnt cut it, thats a good thing, they turned down nvidia at the beginning of their project, then went back when the cellcard fell threw....read up on its development....and they saw what a seperate card could do in graphics ps2 vs box
9. Memory, how did they learn? sony was so full of them they actually thought games didnt need big memory pools as long as you kept the stream of data flowing but in games thats not always the case, you get many branchpredicting code that isnt streaming, this is where they learned memory is needed, they saw that hugely in the mem capacity compared to the box's that was a huge grip from developers...so yes they learned from MS
10. the ps systems have never had a general purpose cpu, they learned that having one has huge advantages in non streaming data, and even more so in highend games, they have put on in the ps3 directly for this matter, yes they learned
11. sony doesnt talk crap about microsoft? how about, "ms is of no competition to us" or how about "the xbox brings nothing new to gaming" or how about "its not xbox2 or 360 its xbox 1.5, and our ps3 is ps3.5" yea thats trash talk buddy
the xp was directed towards con i believe
and now for everyone....or even you i believe answered the next post considering you do that whole red thing
the ps2 was not designed for a HD yes, but it was designed to support one, so to bring it up to a xbox spec hardware yes you need to purchase it, and not eveyone had ethernet on the ps2, so yes they have to purchase one.
remote control? well yes, the box has the advantage that you can sit farther than the controller lets you and is on par with the boxs controller...
and the box only cost 149.99 buddy and that is with a bundle, but i will give you the benefit of the doubt and even give you the ps2's price drop of 129.99
the ps2 only costed 149 after the boxs launch at title launch it was 249.99 i gave current day prices but forgot the current ps2 price drop....
and yes games on the ps2 did cost monthly, EA had a monthly fee for some games
and in reality sony had a SOE fee of 21.99 a MONTH!!! far worse than 50 a year http://www.gameinfowire.com/news.asp?nid=2351
and yes you have maxdrive, but that still brings the mem cards even past 50 considering its 30 for the drive and 25 for the memcard! i saved you 5 buddy but lets have it your way!
so your total is
ps2 after one year 129.99, 5games 250, mem/maxdrive 55bills, ethernet 40 (they didnt all come with one and for the bundle you still pay more for the system) and yes harddrive the box has one $80, and online at $22/month($244)
ps2 $799!!!
still more than the box's full blown package!
point being everyone knocking ms for being money whores yet forget all about the system they love being money whores even more so!!!
crap and you wanted the link for no HDD?? oh man read and weap buddy
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0609/kaigai187.htm
"As for PLAYSTATION 3, although they are that much specifications, the local HDD has not been recorded with default. Why being?
< Ken Kutaragi> The HDD does not place with default. When you say, why, however much placing, it is not enough, because. Next already not to be wrong network drive. (Storage) being a Cell server, it can access from anywhere via network. At in your own house and, being wherever, logical, (the same network drive) are visible at the house of the friend. Such world.
With saying, there are times which are not attached to either the substance and taking the HDD say. Therefore, this time, the 80GB or the 120GB enters to be able to insert 2.5 inch HDD. It is not enough at all however, with, because it is necessary to send the OS as a single unit. With network drive, this way (the server with respect to network) the tera- byte (storage) being attached, calling calling and from the る, when taking the certification of the computer as a single unit, the drive which the OS runs becomes necessary"
there you go no HDD out of the box for PS3, happy?
1. just because it was the first 'console' doesnt mean that ms copied sony, that was my point, it was like claiming sony copied cdrw's for crying out loud!
2. actually the size of the ps2 can 'have' a hard drive, considering that notebook harddrives were readily available, but they didnt see the necissity to put one in, probably for cost or probably because they didnt see it as need, remember the ps2 according to them was a supercomputer, one that didnt need a HD, yes sony does have a very nice PR machine
3. BWC is for popular games, since most games run off many of the same engines, a game that was not so popular running same engine will be able to run on the 360 considering its older brother can....360 will support everygame in the platinum hits section, thats the most popular titles. And no 95% did not work with the ps2, in fact its probably closer to 80 or less. just like you said, hardware/software issues, dont you think its the same for 360? considering many games use nvidia specific code where the ps series is completely proprietary
4. online rosters? not bad but consider that one download of mechassult would take up 2-3 mem cards of a ps2, thats the kind of downloads we are talking about....and yes ps2 has a "service" but it was not SONY's it was the developers SERVICE not SONY'S....it was up to EA to keep the servers running not SONY, its the complete opposite to a point with LIVE. and yes trying to compare sonys service to MS is like trying to compare a yugo to a ferrari!
5. you make a entire thread on what ms 'learned' from sony, yet all of them were so mute they were actually dumb yes dumb, sony is playing catchup with the ps3, it shows huge, MS is only playing catchup in sales not console, they had the superior console this war granted it was a year ahead, then again it used parts from the same year as the ps3 so its all good...and in actuallity the ps2 is theoretically 6x powerfull than the box
6. controllers, yes the ps3 uses bluetooth for their console, which can support up to 8 devices, 1 host (ps3), 7 controllers, yes 7!!! but in the end the ms wireless is of better tech
7. yes sony is in the red so to speek, they are almost like ford in terms of in the red, they have huge money but they dont have it like MS in terms of being able to blow it around.....do research on sonys money
8. VideoCards....yes the original design of the ps3 called for 4cell chips, 3 of which were supposed to run the graphics, sony had no intent of a seperate videocard, but when the flops rating was less than a actual highend card they scrapped the idea knowing that wouldnt cut it, thats a good thing, they turned down nvidia at the beginning of their project, then went back when the cellcard fell threw....read up on its development....and they saw what a seperate card could do in graphics ps2 vs box
9. Memory, how did they learn? sony was so full of them they actually thought games didnt need big memory pools as long as you kept the stream of data flowing but in games thats not always the case, you get many branchpredicting code that isnt streaming, this is where they learned memory is needed, they saw that hugely in the mem capacity compared to the box's that was a huge grip from developers...so yes they learned from MS
10. the ps systems have never had a general purpose cpu, they learned that having one has huge advantages in non streaming data, and even more so in highend games, they have put on in the ps3 directly for this matter, yes they learned
11. sony doesnt talk crap about microsoft? how about, "ms is of no competition to us" or how about "the xbox brings nothing new to gaming" or how about "its not xbox2 or 360 its xbox 1.5, and our ps3 is ps3.5" yea thats trash talk buddy
the xp was directed towards con i believe
and now for everyone....or even you i believe answered the next post considering you do that whole red thing
the ps2 was not designed for a HD yes, but it was designed to support one, so to bring it up to a xbox spec hardware yes you need to purchase it, and not eveyone had ethernet on the ps2, so yes they have to purchase one.
remote control? well yes, the box has the advantage that you can sit farther than the controller lets you and is on par with the boxs controller...
and the box only cost 149.99 buddy and that is with a bundle, but i will give you the benefit of the doubt and even give you the ps2's price drop of 129.99
the ps2 only costed 149 after the boxs launch at title launch it was 249.99 i gave current day prices but forgot the current ps2 price drop....
and yes games on the ps2 did cost monthly, EA had a monthly fee for some games
and in reality sony had a SOE fee of 21.99 a MONTH!!! far worse than 50 a year http://www.gameinfowire.com/news.asp?nid=2351
and yes you have maxdrive, but that still brings the mem cards even past 50 considering its 30 for the drive and 25 for the memcard! i saved you 5 buddy but lets have it your way!
so your total is
ps2 after one year 129.99, 5games 250, mem/maxdrive 55bills, ethernet 40 (they didnt all come with one and for the bundle you still pay more for the system) and yes harddrive the box has one $80, and online at $22/month($244)
ps2 $799!!!
still more than the box's full blown package!
point being everyone knocking ms for being money whores yet forget all about the system they love being money whores even more so!!!
crap and you wanted the link for no HDD?? oh man read and weap buddy
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0609/kaigai187.htm
"As for PLAYSTATION 3, although they are that much specifications, the local HDD has not been recorded with default. Why being?
< Ken Kutaragi> The HDD does not place with default. When you say, why, however much placing, it is not enough, because. Next already not to be wrong network drive. (Storage) being a Cell server, it can access from anywhere via network. At in your own house and, being wherever, logical, (the same network drive) are visible at the house of the friend. Such world.
With saying, there are times which are not attached to either the substance and taking the HDD say. Therefore, this time, the 80GB or the 120GB enters to be able to insert 2.5 inch HDD. It is not enough at all however, with, because it is necessary to send the OS as a single unit. With network drive, this way (the server with respect to network) the tera- byte (storage) being attached, calling calling and from the る, when taking the certification of the computer as a single unit, the drive which the OS runs becomes necessary"
there you go no HDD out of the box for PS3, happy?
- 30
one last thing for mach one, nvidia cant keep up with the cell? LOL dude do some research on the cell and you will see that it is not more powerfull than the nvidia going in it, its actually superior to the CELL in everyway in terms of producing graphics...
and in the end the 2tflops rating is because sony stated that 1.8 of it is because of the card...yea they are the ones trying to playcatchup on the system
do you know anything about the ps3's cell architecture? or about nvidias design into the ps3? (even though much is still unknown)
i have no need to learn about the ps3's design or nvidias design, for one ive already read on every technical analysis about the darn thing to date, all of them, including the ones that knock the 360 and cell for not being that powerfull or that the cell is going to run like a snail in heavy AI apps...
but then again if anything its the gpu in the 360 that is going to have to work hard, not because ps3>360 but because of this one word "Proceduralsynthesis" learn it well for its the next big thing in graphics next to unified shaders
and in the end the 2tflops rating is because sony stated that 1.8 of it is because of the card...yea they are the ones trying to playcatchup on the system
do you know anything about the ps3's cell architecture? or about nvidias design into the ps3? (even though much is still unknown)
i have no need to learn about the ps3's design or nvidias design, for one ive already read on every technical analysis about the darn thing to date, all of them, including the ones that knock the 360 and cell for not being that powerfull or that the cell is going to run like a snail in heavy AI apps...
but then again if anything its the gpu in the 360 that is going to have to work hard, not because ps3>360 but because of this one word "Proceduralsynthesis" learn it well for its the next big thing in graphics next to unified shaders
elitewolverine
I'm going to judge by your poor english that you have no clue what you are talking about in reference to windows XP. It is in no way "revolutionary" nor is it "powerful". Windows XP is a very simple tool, and without Windows, games would still be where they are now. There are many other operating systems out, and had windows not stolen the spot light, technology would have advanced with or without it. It's funny that you assume without windows we'd still be using DOS, when in fact Apple had the first GUI for an OS, yet microsoft took the idea. So with that said, you COULD say with out Apple there would be no Windows. Think before you speak, it's a great tool in debate.
On another note, XP is not a huge upgrade from any other previous operating system. Basically it is a hybrid between the consumer Windows ME, which was full of bugs, but had mass appeal due to simplicity (not "simpler", as you so eloquently put it) and combined that with the function of Windows 2000 Professional. This created a hybrid OS that had the best of both worlds, but there was hardly anything new to the package, and therefore, any user with Windows 2K Pro, had no reason to upgrade, until MS started to push the OS so hard that Windows 2K was put into the shadows.
So, if you even know "half of the power" of windows 2K, you would know that Windows XP is overpriced, as it is only a minor upgrade in comparison to previous Windows OS's.
Welcome
elitewolverine
Hm.. do you have a list of these incompatible games?
I've done some digging on this in the past, and again just now. I was only able to find a list containing nine games. Nine games that were incompatible.
Now, let's say that number is inaccurate.. that there are TEN TIMES as many incompatible games.. ninety games that don't work on PS2. That comes to just over 1%. ONE PERCENT.
And the list had only nine. Out of over seven thousand titles. Your numbers are flawed. If only eighty percent of games worked, that would be over 1,500 games that don't work on PS2. Sorry to say, that AIN'T the case.
As for the hard drive argument... Kutaragi's statements were merely explaining why a hard drive was not being permanently installed, a la Xbox. Why he decided to go with a removable drive instead. There is NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER that the PS3 will not, in fact, have it bundled in. If you read that article again (preferably one with a better translation), and then read some of his other interviews, you'll see that when Kutaragi uses the word "equip" (i.e. "we chose not to equip the HDD"), he's referring to actual installed components. Bluetooth is "equipped"... RSX is "equipped".. HDD is not. Because it's REMOVABLE. The "equipped" components are not.
- 1,015
tha_conI'm going to judge by your poor english that you have no clue what you are talking about in reference to windows XP. It is in no way "revolutionary" nor is it "powerful". Windows XP is a very simple tool, and without Windows, games would still be where they are now. There are many other operating systems out, and had windows not stolen the spot light, technology would have advanced with or without it. It's funny that you assume without windows we'd still be using DOS, when in fact Apple had the first GUI for an OS, yet microsoft took the idea. So with that said, you COULD say with out Apple there would be no Windows. Think before you speak, it's a great tool in debate.
On another note, XP is not a huge upgrade from any other previous operating system. Basically it is a hybrid between the consumer Windows ME, which was full of bugs, but had mass appeal due to simplicity (not "simpler", as you so eloquently put it) and combined that with the function of Windows 2000 Professional. This created a hybrid OS that had the best of both worlds, but there was hardly anything new to the package, and therefore, any user with Windows 2K Pro, had no reason to upgrade, until MS started to push the OS so hard that Windows 2K was put into the shadows.
So, if you even know "half of the power" of windows 2K, you would know that Windows XP is overpriced, as it is only a minor upgrade in comparison to previous Windows OS's.
Welcome
windows 2k > everything. and when people say DOS, we instantly think of MSDos, when there were variants to it, including Apples Version (i would go find out its name but the books all the way upstairs and im lazy)
and XP is a huge upgrade if you have, say, windows 98. ughh..god i hated 98. but XP is way too graphically dependant for its own good unless you set everything back to Ugly-o Classic mode
- 30
windows xp just moderately better than me? dude you do know that its entirely different structure dont you? 16bit vs 32bit example...
plus windows me was forced into production because of gamer company influence, after the massive success of windows 2k, microsoft never wanted a 16bit system again, but gamers loved the 16bit code at the era, made things very simple in terms. Windows even stated that after so many months they would no longer support ME.
ME was a hugely successfull gaming OS, but was horrible for anything else.
and yes i know that apple had the first gui, did you know that Mercedes had the first car? who gives a crap, ford makes more than Merc. Thats just like apple vs microsoft....but in the end in current day microsoft supports apple!, they actually give apple millions a year for them not to go under so microsoft doesnt get hit with antitrust lawsuits.
point being you cannot fault a company that takes many ideas and puts it in one product.
during the DOS days, i gamers had to code and support select hardware, opengl and directx changed the way games were made, just like windows changed the way OS were designed. Cant fault them on that. Of course you will find holes in the most widely used system! thats only natural, but when a indepent contracted hacker was released on OSX and XP Pro and Redhat, XP had the least holes out of all the systems designed!!!! people use it the most and hence will report more bugs! just like a bug report from a honda or ford compared to a merc bug report.
you migh not like microsoft for being so, money flamboyant, but then again has $ony done any better? They had a monopoly on the console department and many other departments for that matter, but no one faults them. Guess because their products dont affect a household like windows system would. And $ony has used many bad tatics to get their way just like microsoft uses money. Which is worse money or trash talk its up to you either way they are not saints!
as for ps2 games ps1 thing. Actually i have a list of 34 out of 900, so yea still not 10%, but you guys are thinking that of that other percent that worked many did occasionally have errors when playing with the texture smoothing and fast loading enabled. But you guys also are thinking that xbox will only have a handfull of games that will work, when its quite opposite. MS has stated that their goal is to have complete compatibility, whether this be live downloads or out of the box, either way they are working on it. and considering they are supporting the most widely played games what is so wrong with that. How many of you actually play GT1 as much as you play GT4? or do you still play 20hrs a day playing mario brothers? Its nice for when a system launches but halfway threw its life it really doesnt matter.
but we can agree on this i hope, Sony has learned more from MS in consoles this round than MS from Sony. All MS had to learn was promoting its system better, and they found that having a first launch is very key if you have good PR to follow. Granted their PR needs work they in no way looked at sony and said oh man our console is week how can we fix it, they said instead our sales our dropping with the most powerfull system how can we PR it more
plus windows me was forced into production because of gamer company influence, after the massive success of windows 2k, microsoft never wanted a 16bit system again, but gamers loved the 16bit code at the era, made things very simple in terms. Windows even stated that after so many months they would no longer support ME.
ME was a hugely successfull gaming OS, but was horrible for anything else.
and yes i know that apple had the first gui, did you know that Mercedes had the first car? who gives a crap, ford makes more than Merc. Thats just like apple vs microsoft....but in the end in current day microsoft supports apple!, they actually give apple millions a year for them not to go under so microsoft doesnt get hit with antitrust lawsuits.
point being you cannot fault a company that takes many ideas and puts it in one product.
during the DOS days, i gamers had to code and support select hardware, opengl and directx changed the way games were made, just like windows changed the way OS were designed. Cant fault them on that. Of course you will find holes in the most widely used system! thats only natural, but when a indepent contracted hacker was released on OSX and XP Pro and Redhat, XP had the least holes out of all the systems designed!!!! people use it the most and hence will report more bugs! just like a bug report from a honda or ford compared to a merc bug report.
you migh not like microsoft for being so, money flamboyant, but then again has $ony done any better? They had a monopoly on the console department and many other departments for that matter, but no one faults them. Guess because their products dont affect a household like windows system would. And $ony has used many bad tatics to get their way just like microsoft uses money. Which is worse money or trash talk its up to you either way they are not saints!
as for ps2 games ps1 thing. Actually i have a list of 34 out of 900, so yea still not 10%, but you guys are thinking that of that other percent that worked many did occasionally have errors when playing with the texture smoothing and fast loading enabled. But you guys also are thinking that xbox will only have a handfull of games that will work, when its quite opposite. MS has stated that their goal is to have complete compatibility, whether this be live downloads or out of the box, either way they are working on it. and considering they are supporting the most widely played games what is so wrong with that. How many of you actually play GT1 as much as you play GT4? or do you still play 20hrs a day playing mario brothers? Its nice for when a system launches but halfway threw its life it really doesnt matter.
but we can agree on this i hope, Sony has learned more from MS in consoles this round than MS from Sony. All MS had to learn was promoting its system better, and they found that having a first launch is very key if you have good PR to follow. Granted their PR needs work they in no way looked at sony and said oh man our console is week how can we fix it, they said instead our sales our dropping with the most powerfull system how can we PR it more
elitewolverine
Your numbers are still flawed. There are over seven thousand titles for Playstation. That number is direct from Sony, they list a PS1 library of "over 7,700 titles". So if 34 games don't work, that's less than half of one percent (roughly 0.44%).
Bothering with the "enhanced" features doesn't count, either.. that's a feature of the backwards compatiblity, not a requirement. In fact, I rarely use them myself.
- 456
Both companies want your money, both companies talk trash, both companies want you to believe you cant live without their products.
If any of the consoles has a major flaw it wont be because it is technically inferior, it will be because the vision of the company failed to predict what the people want. They both have major r&d departments and huge pockets to make their vision happen. Is up to the consumers to decide whether they like that particular vision or not.
It just doesnt make sense to identify oneself with a corporation. Corporations are created to make money the fact that they provide you with stuff you want/need is a byproduct.
If any of the consoles has a major flaw it wont be because it is technically inferior, it will be because the vision of the company failed to predict what the people want. They both have major r&d departments and huge pockets to make their vision happen. Is up to the consumers to decide whether they like that particular vision or not.
It just doesnt make sense to identify oneself with a corporation. Corporations are created to make money the fact that they provide you with stuff you want/need is a byproduct.
Similar threads
