Every time the subject of installs is brought up, comparisons of disc access speeds get brought up for comparison. It's a running joke by the ignorant. I'll tell you why.
Do you know the history of installs on consoles? First, what is an "install"? An "install" is a dedicated cache, correct? The first mainstream console to cache games was none other than the original Microsoft Xbox. The original Xbox had like a 13GB HDD, and, if you ever poked into the file and directory structure of that drive, you will see that it used some of that hard drive space to cache game data.
Now, next question, what kind of media did the original Xbox use? The correct answer is DVD5 and, on rare occasion, DVD9. That's right, DVD5 and DVD9 were considered slow enough to warrant disk caching (installs) on the original Xbox, a process Microsoft "pioneered" on mainstream gaming consoles.
The ONLY reason why the Xbox 360 does NOT have installs or caching is because they farked up and created a SKU that did not have a hard drive standard. The access speeds and all that bullshit is just PR spin to try to cover up that deficiency.
Next time some ignorant gamer brings up the disc speed comparisons again as an explanation why the Xbox 360 doesn't do installs, laugh in their face. Then explain the history to them of caching/installs on consoles. Then bring up the horrible nightmare that is Mass Effect as an example of how poorly even DVD performs by itself. Mention this to the halfwits at Penny Arcade as well.
Let me summarize all this now:
The original Xbox was a DVD system and it still had hard drive caching. In fact, it started hard drive caching on consoles. Not being able to support caching/installs is actually a step backwards now in the evolution of the disc-based console. The only reason the Xbox 360 doesn't continue what its predecessor started is because Microsoft invented the lame Core package. If all Xbox 360's had a hard drive, they'd be caching and installing DVD's all the same.
