This thread is still highly active? Wow...
Anyways, for reference (someone was asking for a link earlier), here's a link where John Carmack discusses what he thinks of the 360 and PS3 development tools: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3156329
While searching for this I also ran across a few other articles where he says the PS3 has more potential power but he prefers working with the 360's more familiar architecture: http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8578
In another interview he also said that he was disappointed with the CPU's in both systems but was impressed by their graphical capabilities: (http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/51600/john-carmack-on-xbox-360-and-ps3-theyre-slower-than-a-modern-pc/)
I don't think he's a fanboy to anyone. He's just stating his opinion as a (keyword here) PC game developer.
@MikeB
The point NJ5 is trying to make in your response to Fumanchu's post is that you deliberately ignore anything negative that Gabe says about the PS3 but then flip 100% and say he's absolutely right when he talks about the 360 and Vista. No one will take you seriously when you've shown this totally obvious bias towards one side.
< sarcasm ]
The hard-drive point you made actually got me thinking. Perhaps MS was trying to screw Sony initially by not including a hard drive in all 360's. That way, multiplat games had to take "not being able to rely on a hard drive" into consideration while battling with the slower read speed of Blu Ray. Initially in the generation 3rd party developers were also hesitant to put too much effort into the PS3 because of "poor tools" (according to John Carmack and some others stated in this thread) so they didn't implement installs in the PS3 either, eventually leading to slightly/significantly (depending on which camp you take base at) inferior PS3 ports.
</ sarcasm ]
