The Sony PS3 thread (apparently *still* obnoxious!)

[Darkflame]

bah.
If God had wanted man to play with Linux, he would have given us GP2X's.

[Kemper_Boyd]

some sort of VM that doesn't even let you touch the cell stuff?

Not sure if it's been tested yet, people are too busy just getting things
booting and the other basics, but it does appear that the Cell SDK
from IBM with full SPE support is going to be supported on the PS3.
AFAIK YDL will ship with it so assuming people can compile some of the
demos we should have confirmation one way or the other RSN.

If it doesn't let you use the SPEs then it's fucked.

[[Feeblez]]

It's all foxes and badgers guys, foxes and badgers!



http://www.thingsthatmakeyougoaahh.com/ ... ad&fox.jpg

[tufty]

do you even know that Linux is not just running under some sort of VM that doesn't even let you touch the cell stuff?

There are reports from people who have the actual hardware that the cell version of linux, when running on the PS3, does, indeed, run on the cell processor and that it does, indeed, let you get to all the extra bits apart from one SPE that is running the hypervisor and PS3 OS, and the fact that you can only get to the GPU in framebuffer mode. I can't personally verify that because I don't have a PS3.

Standardistaiom of HW is a massive plus for this sort of app, something you you don't have on PC

So, yeah.

"Massive plus" not "you can do it better". I read it as "it will be easier to develop media box functionality given a known platform", a sentiment that I have a certain amount of sympathy for.

As for "why anyone would bother"; why would anybody bother with homebrew?

My point was more that there are adequate media player apps for Linux. People tend to write stuff of this nature when there is nothing really good available...

Or they don't like the existing solution(s) or even because they just feel like it.

I don't doubt that, should the availability of PS3 linux result in a good media box kit for the PS3, or a good MAME experience, or whatever, many people will simply take a bootable CD or usb stick with that on it, and run it, without caring that it's linux underneath. But again, that's a different audience to the ones that will buy a PS3 (at least partly) to run linux on.

Simon

[Snakey]

If it doesn't let you use the SPEs then it's fucked

Admittedly it's unlikely they wouldn't let you use that stuff. But, you know, example.

and the fact that you can only get to the GPU in framebuffer mode.

Ah, there you go, theres one verified limitation, then, and a pretty big one at that.

[HGFB]

and the fact that you can only get to the GPU in framebuffer mode.

Ah, there you go, theres one verified limitation, then, and a pretty big one at that.

Gravy mentioned that one earlier in regard to HD streaming. Low memory, limited access to the gfx card. Those cell chips had better be fast

[Snakey]

Yeah, apparently stand-alone HD-DVD players have a gig of RAM in them. They must need it for something.

I'm starting to wonder if this is the real reason why Sony are insisting on using MPEG2 for Blu-Ray. Maybe this is what's going to make their more expensive players worth the extra cash.

[Kemper_Boyd]

Err Snakey the PS3 plays Blu-ray really well without needing 1 GB.

Oh and there are lots of VC1, H.264 discs out now. I posted before
that someone ran a CEDIA demo disk with 40 Mb/s H.264 (AVC) and
it played just fine.

[Snakey]

Ok then, so why DO stand alone players have 1GB?

[benedictw]

Ok then, so why DO stand alone players have 1GB?

Perhaps its Flash for storing the preferences etc for each disc?

[DaiStation]

Ok then, so why DO stand alone players have 1GB?

Doesn't Blu Ray include a virtual machine for interactive content? Perhaps Sony have mandated a minimum usable memory size?

[Snakey]

Could well be.

The PS3 may still be the reason that MPEG2 was the only format being used for Blu-Ray (until recently if what Kemper says is correct.) Writing three highly complex codecs for an entirely new CPU is a lot of work. Maybe they weren't sure it'd be done in time. In fact maybe that's what the 2 firmware updates they've released already are all about.

[gravy]

Could well be.

The PS3 may still be the reason that MPEG2 was the only format being used for Blu-Ray (until recently if what Kemper says is correct.) Writing three highly complex codecs for an entirely new CPU is a lot of work. Maybe they weren't sure it'd be done in time. In fact maybe that's what the 2 firmware updates they've released already are all about.

Encoder availability and licensing cost implications seem to be the culprit.

Initial versions of Sony's Blu-ray Disc-authoring software only included support for MPEG-2 video, so the initial Blu-ray Discs were forced to use MPEG-2 rather than the newer codecs, VC-1 and H.264. An upgrade was subsequently released supporting the newer compression methods so the second wave of Blu-ray Disc titles were able to make use of this. The choice of codecs affects disc cost (due to related licensing/royalty payments) as well as program capacity. The two more advanced video codecs can typically achieve twice the video runtime of MPEG-2. When using MPEG-2, quality considerations would limit the publisher to around two hours of high-definition content on a single-layer (25 GB) BD-ROM.

There's quite a few VC-1 and and AVC discs out there now.

Blazing Saddles, Firewall, and Lethal Weapon. A further 6 VC-1 encoded titles, Tim Burton's Corpse Bride, Swordfish, Space Cowboys, The Fugitive, Lethal Weapon 2, and House of Wax are all VC-1

Dinosaur and Eight Below from Disney are AVC.

Based on that and that you can't call a Blu-ray player a blu-ray player unless it supports those codecs I'd say the PS3 does.

Come on Snakey, you're making a bunch of assertions about the PS3 that on examination are turning out to be false. They're also mostly negative.

I'm not a believer in "If you don't have anything nice to say then you're best saying nothing" but I do subscribe to the "If you have something negative to say make sure what you're saying is true"

PS

Java support is probably the reason stand alones have gig of mem in them

[limb_clock]

Just Say No.

[teamonkey]

It's big, ugly, has a crappy controller w/out rumble

It doesn't appear that big, it's actually quite pretty in real life (apart from the fingerprints), the controller is an improvement over the DualShock2 and you really don't miss the rumble (well I don't, but I mostly play on a PC joypad without rumble anyway).

and has no games I'm interested in...

That's a different problem.


On the blu-ray issue, maybe you don't need so much RAM if you've got enough raw CPU grunt? Some sort of cache, perhaps?