1. Do you think assets aren't duplicated on DVD to limit the random access requirements?

2. The is an OPTION.

3. You forgot about the 3rd option.  That's to create a proper streaming engine.

Example: Oblivion had it's assets duplicated on the PS3 version.  The result was that the PS3 version of Oblivion loaded at around twice the speed of the X360 version.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/775/775711p3.html

"Even if you have the latest Xbox patch installed, this newest port holds an advantage with its quicker loading times (which are almost twice as fast as the 360's), fewer framerate hitches, sharper textures, a better draw distance, and a brighter overall picture."

Exactly!  I don't know why it's so hard for him to understand that.

@ Mike, The games you like to list exist in tunnels essentially. You go in one direction and you have limited scope.

The games which require installs tend to be nothing like the games which do not, do you catch the difference?

GTA IV, Open world, install.

Uncharted, Tunnel fantastic, no install.

COD IV, Tunnel fantastic, no install.

Obivion came out a year after the 360 version and it still required an install.

For whatever reason, the practical response from developers creating open world type multi-platform games is to require installs. If they weren't required then they wouldn't be mandatory.

@ Squilliam

Of course the benefits of installs are usually bigger for open world games, but we haven't seen many open world games from our first party developers yet. I guess Infamous may be one of the first, we will see how this is handled.

However I want to point out that in no way do I see a mandatory install as a bad thing per se. If infamous can be a better game with a small part of the data installed on the harddrive, then I applaud this. The default harddrive is there to take advantage of, a couple of minutes install for a more impressive game can IMO be worth it.

@Squillam, Burnout Paradise is Open World and requires no install on PS3

Way to go guys, you unleashed the mikeb. I knew this would happen when I saw the op. I tried to warn you, all well

I've disproved your lame theories many times before mate then you either run away from the discussion or no doubt as you'll do now hit the report button in a effort to hide the fact you lost the debate.  Mandatory install are never a positive for the Bluray drive and given all almost the entire 360 catalogue could be installed to the HDD with and benefit form the super quick access times its certainly not a selling point for the PS3.

It doesn't matter how many times you replicate data onto your bluray drive, that only decreases seak time, in terms of pure reading throughput the DVD drive is faster.  You can band around all the averages claims you like but you cannot hide from the fact that the data that needs streaming fastest will be stored in the fastest areas and as such will be read from the disk quicker than with a 2X Bluray drive.  Putting replications of data on a Bluray drive will not increase its throughput and organising the image better helps less than on the 360 because of the fact it reads consistantly across the entire disk. 

I see you and Mike moved the goal posts across to trying to proclaim the advantages of HDD installations now, do we take it you've lost this argument and are now making excuses for the lesser performance of the Bluray drive in the PS3.

OMG I never new dat! Plz post more of ur amazin insight!!!!11one11!eleven!!1!

You would like people to believe that, wouldn't you?  EVERYTHING you have talked about has already been debunked in the past page or two.  You sound like a broken record with incorrect info.  Smart people already understand that HDD installations have advantages.  And, your "lesser performance of the Blu-ray drive" argument is...wrong.  Data is packed closer together on Blu-ray.  That decreases seek times over the same amount of data, etc, etc.  Worst case scenario, on a DL-DVD worth of data, Blu-ray drive and DVD drive in these consoles are even.  Just re-read the information presented to you and just refuse to accept the science (like normal).

BTW, what's the average seek time on finding disc two to put in the X360?

 No you've yet to explain how the throughput of the faster DVD drive in the 360 when data is organised for maximum speed is worse than the slower Bluray drive.  The topic we're discussing isn't HDD installations (which the 360 can do better anyway) nor is capacity a advantage or disadvantage.  Stop trying to get away from the simple fact the Bluray drive reads data slower than the 360.  Thats fact and you've not provided evidence to the contrary.  By the way I have no games in my 360 collection that are on 2 disks, plus again your pathetic fanboy attempts to move the topic off course have failed again.

Does the Bluray drive read data faster than the 360 in real world terms.  The vast amount of developers that require mandatory installations say no. 

Finally I never debunked the value of HDD installations, I just told you they were not relevant to the debate.  Also as I said before the 360 can install all game data to the HDD and run faster.  Using Oblivion as an example is rubbish and you know it, that game had a complete engine overall.  Remind me how Bioshock does on the PS3.