MikeB on 17 December 2007
MikeB wrote:
I hope to see the Cell in many other kinds of products, including consumer upgrade boards for PCs.
Don't get me wrong I am perfectly happy that every PS3 comes with identical high specifications as this offers many benefits for software development. The most popular home computer was the c64, early games for example are a far cry compared to later c64 games truly tapping into the machines limited capabilities:
c64 -Forbidden Forest (1983)
link
VS.
c64 - Creatures 2 (1992)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=B6hFXpZ3QBU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0BcIjsp94uM
On the PC with ever changing specs and a (increasingly) resource draining desktop OS, you will never come close to the hardware's true potential.
On the PS3 there's so much headroom the platform can easily last for many years to come rivalling PC solutions. As the technological transition from PS2 to PS3 doesn't have to be evolutionary technically Sony was able to leapfrog current PC technology from many regards, of course being so different this brings some startup problems to the table, gaming engines suddenly need to be radically redesigned to take full advantage. Thus legacy game engines are being moved to the SPEs step by step, each step bringing huge performance gains.
I hope to see a Macintosh-like G5 platform someday with a Cell processor included with the potential of upgrading with as more Cell upgrade board (for example researchers are using multiple PS3s connected to receive a linear increase of performance gains. However I am not that much of a fan of MacOS X, BeOS (RIP, an OS inspired by AmigaOS) could have been a better fit as it's build from ground up to take advantage of mutliple CPUs: "Pervasive multi-threading architecture (operating system is divided into small threads which profit optimally from several CPUs)", early BeBox prototypes had up to 4 CPUs to work with.
Sadly on PowerPC Apple wasn't very friendly towards alternative OS providers taking Be Inc too much resources to continuosly re-engineer drivers and such, so they moved to x86 instead where they got killed by Micro$oft:
Interesting points regarding Be Inc's problems with Microsoft:
Be Inc is suing Microsoft for the destruction of its business. A damages figure isn't enumerated, but Be points out that at one stage the company was valued at over $1 billion.
But BeOS as a desktop system effectively ceased to compete for OEM attention in the New Year 2000.
Microsoft sent two U.S. managers to Japan who expressed their 'anger' with Hitachi over its arrangement with Be, and 'reminded' Hitachi of the terms of its Windows license," according to the claim.
Compaq and Gateway declined to market dual-boot 'Creativity PC' systems Be had co-developed with Intel, citing the Windows license. Even when Be offered the OEMs the operating system for free.
Be alleges that Microsoft scuppered a 1998 deal with with Compaq to produce an internet appliance after Compaq boss Eckhard Pfeiffer received a personal visit from Gates as part of a Microsoft "Digital Appliances Review.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/20/be_inc_sues_microsoft/
M$ settled with bankrupt Be Inc for a mere 20 million USD, with Microsoft admitting no wrongdoing.
Regarding Amiga, Gateway former owner of Amiga wanted to reintroduce a new Amiga system based on QNX Neutrino:
Amiga Inc's CTO stated in an interview that Gateway was scared because of Microsoft making threats. It was about Gateway losing good deals on Windows if they would go up against Microsoft. Long after this allegation Gateway got involved in the anti-trust suit against Microsoft. M$ reached a settlement paying $150 million over a 4 years period admitting no wrongdoing.
In March 2002, a Gateway marketing executive (Anthony Fama) testified before Judge Kollar-Kotelly in State of New York et al. v. Microsoft, Case No. 98-1233 (CKK), about how Microsoft used its MDA program in order to force OEMs to market Microsoft’s operating system exclusively: “Given the substantial nature of these discounts, participation in the MDA, as a practical matter, is not optional. In other words, not receiving :these discounts would put Gateway at a substantial competitive disadvantage, and Gateway has communicated that self-evident proposition to Microsoft.
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/01/antitrust-failure/
