most of the games ported from 360 to ps3 and some of them have issues Similar to pc ram issues and thats what make me worried.

Nahhh, the PS3 is a beast, the RAM is fine for the forseeable future

That's probably because most developers don't optimize their code to take full advantage of the console architecture. In the case of the PS3, being the data streaming and XDR memory capabilities as well as the CPU task partitioning due to the CBE architecture.

That has always been one of the more interesting development issues regarding consoles. Since the technical specifications remain static, advances in games must be made by optimizing available resources and functions. It's seen every generation where later games continually go far beyond what the initial ones were able to accomplish.

PC development on the other hand has the convenience or crutch of being able to design games based upon hardware that is not the most common so long as they provide a reasonable amount of scalability. But it's the development for hardware on a sliding scale that leads to the common misconception that fixed console configurations are inadequate for future gaming.

programmers need to tighten up their code imo.
They get lazy on the PC, there they can put the blame on the conumer not having a powerful enough computer.
Take crysis for instance, there is no reason why it should make systems crawl as it does except for shoddy programming.
If you look in the PC forums you'll see that Crysis:Warhead the sequel will be just as good looking and run on a much less sophisticated PC.

Console programmers have only the consoles' system specs to work with.
never will you have to upgrade the RAM or Video processor on your console, although you might have to get a larger hard drive if the space is not being managed properly.

Edit: sorry just saw your post after i posted, greenmedic

O.o... nooo it's because most developers are lazy and don't put ends to running variables and then over time it get's stacked up on the systems memory, until it restates that condition. This could all happen in a matter of second or hours - It's not even that they are lazy, it just takes more script and more time, and you don't want to go over 200,000 pages of C++ everytime you have a memory leak.

Until someone devises a tool that makes this mute then it's comes with the territory of these massive games - most of the guys on the dev team don't just write the code they have to debug it also - which is the reason for so many more programmers, No one get's it right the first time.

You do realize that almost all PS3 and XBox 360 game developers use middleware which tend to have teams of experienced programmers who are entirely focused on taking advantage of the special features of the console.

The fact of the matter is that gamers want large and very detailed 3D environments that have data persist when they're not in the immediate area; and this takes massive ammounts of memory.

thats mean the extra ram for vga cards on pc is a waste.

I remember what the ps2 did with 4mb of video ram, 256mb of FAST XDR RAM, (which is faster than 360's 512mb of ram) is more than enough for the PS3 to work with.

When the devs make the CELL work around with the RSX we will see significant improvements in gaphics, even uncharted and MGS4 will look like childs play compared to future games.

There is arleady a game that exceeds all the expecations of visual presentation, and the only game that surpassed the CGI sony showed in 2005. That game is KILLZONE 2. Not even using all of the SPE's, which can be used to further improve AI, visuals, and things running on screen.

More RAM like more processing power provides more potential, more video RAM means you could potentially up the quality of textures (but more storage space is important if you want to provide diverse graphics), a faster GPU allows for better framerates and higer resolutions (amongst other advantages like being able to push more onscreen). It's a balance between more detailed graphics and higher resolution . Super high detailed graphics in a low resolution nears useless and likewise does low detail graphics in high resolution.

But I think more of an impact is actually screen size, I enjoy gaming on a large HDTV and I don't want a bigger than my current 17 inch flatscreen monitor on my desk. For HDTV gaming and multimedia a PS3 console is IMO far more convenient.

24 FPS is already fluent motion to the human eye for the techniques used in motion pictures (such as motion blur). A rock solid 30 FPS can be enough for many games, 60 FPS is better but we can't distinguish faster motion than that (don't confuse with Hz, the faster the screen updates this usually results in a more steady image, less flickering using similar technology, not better perceived motion). 120 FPS in a game thus isn't really beneficial. Also uber high screen resolutions with super high details isn't important on a small screen (like my PC monitor), for average sized HDTVs 720p/1080p is plenty of resolution. For really big expensive screens 1080p will certainly make a difference for most people.

It's common knowledge. 

Of course that doesn't explain why some developers release poor ports that are significantly worse than the originals since they weren't initially coded for the specific architecture they've been ported to.

This is also common knowledge.

Some programming teams have more experience and skill than others when it comes to optimizing code; the proof is in the games. Nobody's bullheaded enough to deny that.