My XBox 360 vs PS3 comparison (mostly technical)

[sieanr]

Nah DOS didn't kill the Amiga. Of course greatly preferring preemptive multitasking 32-bit GUI-based multimedia OSes in the 80s, I wasn't much a fan of MSDOS, although I did tinker with it and MacOS for a while under emulation. Using MacOS software on the Amiga was much cooler though, as the Amiga could emulate MacOS software through a software emulator faster than an equavalently specced genuine Mac could, all this while still alllowing for true multitasking (at the time MacOS couldn't do this).

Yet you cite the "MS FUD campaign" as part of the reason the Amiga never succeeded in America and ultimatly failed in europe. And this is actually something you posted earlier in this thread.

But hey, you still managed to post something about the Amiga that was in no way related to what I said. Good job!

You attacked me before within the Lair thread for bringing up Turrican 1 & 2 with regard to Factor 5. I liked Turrican a lot and Factor 5 is planning a PSN version for the PS3. People often talk about things using their own experiences as examples. Please cut out the cheapshots.

You claimed that Turrican lookde good on the Amiga, yet didn't "max out" the hardware.

I took issue with how you claimed a game made by one man, who let Factor 5 port his game to the Amiga, as being a great example of Factor 5s prowess. Personally, I think thats just a stupid comparison.

Please cut out unneeded blathering about the amiga.

No, just reread the whole thread and put the PS3 and XBox 360 hardware specs and advantages side by side. Then I think you don't really need PR spokesman to tell you which design is (far) more powerful for the long run.

IMO, a lot of misinformation has been addressed within this thread and some things have been clarified, for example with regard to threading. I hope this will result into fewer attacks against the PS3 and more constraint from XBox 360 fans. More hardware pushing games and price drops will come in due time!

You're the one who draws incorrect comparisons between the Cell and the Amiga.

In fact, I distinctly remember you making an argument similar to this thread before, but with out the "too long;didn't read" part. In that post the crux of your argument was an IBM document comparing the Cell to the likes of the amiga - you then claimed that this meant the PS3 was years ahead of its design like the amiga. You seemed to lap up the PR speak when it was something you wanted to hear, yet everything else is FUD.

The fact is that a lot of R&D went into designing and developing the Cell processor, thousands of manyears work, A LOT more than is the case with regard to the Xenon processor.

Even more time, money and effort went into the Core Duo archeitecture, yet it doesn't seem like you have a hard on for that chip :(

Why should I give a shit about how long a chip took to develop?

Probably for a similar reason why the Forbes article in the original post mentioned it. IMO my examples adds a wider scope and perspective to judge the PS3 situation. The Amiga was revolutionary for its time, but it took game developers a while to take advantage of the design compared to the Atari ST.

One of the Amiga's main strongpoints was that the design allowed to take a lot of workload off the main CPU. The SPEs allow to take workload off the PPE (and RSX).

Except the SPEs are dependant on the PPU for instructions. A far better analogy would be an orchestra - the SPEs are the musicians and the PPU is the director.

The Forbes article made a comparison between the PS3 and the Amiga in the most superficial terms; apparently you took it literally.