Enlighten me.

So far as I know the curriculum for CS is focused on software development, not hardware. While I personally had way too much EE and CE courses in conjunction with my curriculum, that's because it was in the college of engineering. I didn't care much for those courses either.

I wíll.

In Germany, back when I studied, there was a difference between university and "fachhochschule". University is more of a theoretical way of studying while "fachhochschule" focused on real-life stuff.

You could finish University without ever writing any line of code. You were taught the (mathematical) basics and theories on how "computing" works. Algorithms, boolean algebra, concepts of coding (imperative, oo, even functional).  A lot of courses were math and algorithmic design (e.g. dynamic programming, randomized algorithms) aswell as automatas (stack-oriented, turing, you know what I  mean, hopefully). You weren't trained to be a code-monkey but to know how the basics work. It is of no use to know the java-libs - this is just handwork. If you know how stuff works you can easily learn any language.

When you advanced further in later terms you could specialize in what you seem is interesting to you so I chose hardware-stuff.

I did a lot of computer-architecture courses, wrote a lot of x86- and mips-assembler and wrote my diploma-thesis on the design-flow of fpgas.

So our curriculum was very widespread to enable you later to use your knowledge on the basics so to learn very fast which special things are needed to work at a special job.

There is not such thing as computer engineering. 

A computer science degree covers a wide bearth of studies/specialties.  Ten years ago, the only thing you could get is a general computer science degree.  Now, you can get a computer science degree in programming, system applications, and networking. 

If you want to design electronic components, you get an electrical engineering degree.

Which country are you talking about?

Is fachhochschule the equivalent of graduate school, more along the lines of a Master's degree or is University just 2 years there and then the next 2 are fachhochschule? 

It sounds like a similar curriculum from the standpoint of theory, but the way it was structured here was adding the practical aspect of coding the algorithms, programs, principles, and even maths with differential equations. Every bit of theory was related back to coding, except in physics/calc and the general university required courses.

I hated MIPS, I hated assembly. That low level stuff never seemed interesting to me. One thing I regret is not taking the lab for digital logic to play with the FPGAs and such. I imagine it would have been very beneficial to seeing more than just the theory, seeing the adders and MUXs and all that.

We had close to zero practical aspects. And it was good the way it was. I (think :)) I have decent knowledge about almost everything cs has to offer. There are no things I don't know anything about - perhaps I had to look at my books again but I will come fast to deep knowledge on how things work.

Math classes were done together with mathemagicians ;) and you didn't have to calculate anything - you had to prove mathematical theorems so to show that you *understood* what you were doing.

Digital logic is a lot of fun and really deepens your knowledge on "how to put things together", especially with fpgas it is a lot of fun. Sadly, fpgas are a pita to code for, that's why they are still niche.

Also, perhaps I have to explain how exams were done. Nowadays we don't have diplomas, we have bachelors and masters. In diploma you had to finish the course by written exams, without grades. For example, you had to get three terms of successful math-courses which enabled you to take the oral exam. This was an oral exam of about an hour where you had to show that you know how the stuff you learned works. Give ideas to proofs, for example. Then you had your grade.

Fachhochschule is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fachhochschule

Here, pick one...at random...they all fit well:

https://www.google.rs/search?q=facepalm&safe=active&client=firefox-a&hs=G8Q&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=HXwOUpDZAYbetAaZloGYDg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=786

United LOL Joints of 'Merica most likely.

The US. 

The PS3 didn't explicitly have inferior RAM, it was just less versatile because it was evenly split between VRAM and system RAM, while the Xbox 360 shared the RAM and could choose how it was divided. I believe the PS3's XDR RAM was actually significantly faster, although I'm not sure if that offsets the advantage of the Xbox 360 having 10mb of eDRAM.

The GPU doesn't make a system, especially in the case of PS3 vs 360 and Cell vs Xenon.

EDIT: Forgot to say, the article forum post is terrible. Why did you even bother posting this?