Run.

umm.. no. Just no. The Dreamcast was stronger than the PS2. The Genesis was stronger than the NES/Atari.

 And the PS2 was stronger than the N64 and Saturn, but thats not really who they were competing against now was it? Genesis and SNES were the same generation machines, and the SNES was stronger. I am not certain on the Dreamcast statement, but it seems fairly self evident. I will do some research and get back to you.

 Edit: Quick search turned up a bit of evidence. The short version is the Dreamcast has a slower CPU, GPU, and less RAM than the PS2. Admittedly I don't know a lot about the architecture of the two systems, but when you are behind in every aspect on paper it would take some work to get ahead in the real world. Combine that with a cheaper launch price despite launching ahead of the PS2 and I really don't see how it can be stronger.

Actually, for a good while the NES and Genesis were directly competing with one another.  Keep in mind that the Super Nintendo was released almost two full years after the Genesis in Japan and pretty much in response to the Genesis.

 And for a good while the PS2 and N64 were competing against each other. Same with the PS1 and SNES, 360 and PS2, and a number of other combinations across various generations. That doesn't make my statement any less true though. The Genesis and SNES were the same generation, and the Genesis was weaker.

You realize that "console generations" are just artificial dividers for alike spec'd machines within similar time frames right?  It's not wrong to say the Genesis was in competition with the NES during 1988 to 1990 any more than it would be to say the 360 was in competition with the PS2 and Gamecube during its first year.

I wasn't disagreeing with your statement of spec comparison (Genesis was weaker in everything but the processor), just your statement of competition.

Different factors for different generations. TurboGrafx16 was also weaker, and i think cheaper at some point (at least against the SNES by the time it launched), but it certainly didn't do that well. NES generation was all about target marketing. NES marketed to the families, Master System to the arcade gamers, 7800 to the few remaining console gamers, and so it fell out. SNES generation was all about 3rd party support. Nintendo, Sega, Hudson, and SNK were all strong first party producers, but the strength fell to the SNES. PlayStation generation was again about 3rd party support, PlayStation 2 was all about timing, mostly. Dreamcast came out ahead of its time, and had to struggle to compete with the PlayStation and N64 for a year before it had to fight the PS2, and GameCube and Xbox came too late to provide a challenge to PS2's authority with developers. Wii generation is all about accessibility, since the level of accessibility reflects the marketshare

 Fair enough. I probably should have worded it a bit better.

SONY NEVER promised in-game Toy Story graphics on the PS2.  Microsoft did with the original Xbox and didn't suceed.  People need to stop believing this urban legend.  And Toy Story graphics on the PS3?  Ratchet & Clank Future comes the closest.  I don't know of anything else on any other system that has done this.

 http://money.cnn.com/1999/03/01/life/playstation/ CNN seems to think they did. Given this does not prove the statement was thrown out there, but it is some strong evidence of it.