I actually think the guy is pretty bright, but comes from a different time and school of thought. System design is heading more and more toward specialized processors (which is actually were it came from) and if developers don't start getting used to it they will be left behind. Even in the PC world people are already pushing for separate graphics, physics and general processors. The x86 mhz craze made developers lazy, it's an obvious thing to anyone that was programming more than 20 years ago. Anyone that has written assembly or machine code would realize that the majority of the work done by a processor is Integer or FP work (actually all binary but that is beside the point) so having 6+ high speed vector/matrix processors to work with is far more effective than 1+ single operand processors. Graphics are not the only things that benefit from vector calculations.
Personally I would love to get my hands of a cell processor for development purposes (a PS3/linux combination is gonna be as close as I get for a while) so I can be prepaired for the massive parallel development that will be necessary in the near future.
Ok, rant over, return to your hemming and hawing (not direct to anyone specific).
the user's have no idea what they want...and my users are engineers (!) who don't want to pay for 'engineered' software.
You can't have it both ways. Either the don't know what they want or they don't want engineers. And they are paying to cost of software designed and built using engineering principles, they just aren't getting it. Admittedly I only have anecdotal evidence, but experience has shown me that well engineered software, like all products, cost less than hap hazard development over a long enough time frame. In you example you have spent 5 years and have yet to actually deliver a working version of what your users want/need (I don't consider software with 2900 bugs to be complete). I don't know this one hundred percent but I would guess that had your project been run using solid engineering principles it would have been completed, bug free, to the exacting specifications signed of by your users, or at least your clients, in less than half the time and requiring less than one full time employee (not developer or engineer) to maintain it. But that is generally what happens when you have software that "...never crashes [or]...needs to be rebooted."
I wish. And if anyone knows how to get one of those jobs please let me know, I would love to get paid for posting on forums and blogs.
You will notice I said the PS2 is slightly under powered graphically when compared to it's competitors. I say slightly because it doesn't have hardware accelerated bump mapping and requires developers to utilize it's pixel pipeline more than the usual architectures do. But the PS2 has always had better polygon counts (as in Jak 3) and lighting effects (Shadow of the Colossus) and some of the prettiest games in existence (Okami, and GT4 come to mind). As usual graphic capability is very subject and I am willing to concede a slight lead to the PS2s competitors. Interestingly enough it is the PS2s lack of graphical prowess that shows of the power of the core CPU (including it's associated Vector Units). The General Purpose VUs in the PS2 are capable on handling more calculations than any of the other systems, making it capable of better AI and other, no graphical, system logic (I'm not saying that the games utilize this, just a potential) while also picking up the slack where normally a GPU would be working. This effectively gives the developer a heck of a lot more flexibility as to where they want to apply the systems processes (yes it is possible to use a GPU for general purpose computing but it is more difficult and rarely done).
But all of this is completely off topic and I expect it to be modified as so. I'm just trying to get people to stop believing that particular fallacy. (And yes I prefere higher poly counts to texture maps since I always feel they more accurately represent the world they are emulating. texture maps are more of a facade than anything substantial.)
the PS2 has significantly less hardware than the Xbox or gamecube.
Why do people keep repeating this fallacy? This has been argued and shown time and time again that at worst the PS2 was slightly less powerful than it's competitors (Based on practical graphics capability) or considerably more powerful (based on specialized scientific algorithms).
More to the point, you can't judge Sony's success with the PS2 based on a simple list of effects. There were many reasons the PS2 was as successful as it was, including their excellent marketing to the general public. To say it was the games or the built in DVD player or anyone one of those things misses the point that it was an entire package plus the market recognition they built in the previous generation, which they still have to this day. Heck you can't even down play the brand name. "PlayStation" just sounds like a game system, unlike "XBox" or "Wii" which could really be anything. I'm not trying to support sony or anything, as I think the Wii is looking like it has lots of potential, just saying that there were hundreds or more factors in Sony's previous success.
Building codes are formalizations of things that have failed
The problem with software is that regardless of the countless failures companies are not making the necessary changes to avoid those same failures in the future, and consumers are putting up with it. You will notice that there are very few start up software companies that survive, but those that due tend to use more standard engineering practices (you can use slashdots favorite Frog Creek as an example if you would like)
Your house probably would be. Who knows, they might have done that anyway.
Actually my house is built of Block, which is both more expensive to build and more durable than the standard Wood Framed house, and far above the minimum requirements for the building code of when it was built (other than the lack of GFI sockets it meets todays more stringent codes). There are shoddy constructed houses out there, but a fair number of people prefer something that will last.
And so long as MS offers a $40 OS that is compatible with what you already have, noone will buy that OS, so you will pay $200,000 instead of $200.
This must be why everyone has changed over to using the many free operating systems that support everything they need (word processing, email and web browsing for the majority of the populous).
It still stands that software sucks because of lack of real engineering practices, and regardless of people being cheap or not, no one has but up an argument against that. People may have given reasons why we don't use solid engineering practices, valid or not, but that still doesn't debunk the idea that it is the lack of these processes that are the reasons behind shitty software.
So I guess what you are saying is that the pyramids, of egypt and central america, as well as the great wall of china, the temples of rome and all the other durable ancient structures where built the way they were because of building codes. Or maybe the cathedrals and castles of europe, and the Sky Scrappers of the modern world. I'm sure that if it weren't for building codes the Petronas Towers would have been built from match sticks and bubble gum.
Somethings in the world were built for longevity, and I think the same principles could be applied to software to improve the quality as well as the cost effectiveness. Personally I would like to see companies held responsible for faulty software, same as a car manufacture would be if their automobiles failed to perform as advertised. There are no laws, at least in the US, that states an auto manufacturer has to warranty their products for 3+ years, yet they all do. This is because we expect more from manufacturers of physical products and I happen to thing we should demand the same from software.
I know I would easily pay 5 times what I have on my current OS if someone could offer an alternative guaranteed not to crash, ever. That, even though my current OS has never crashed on me an probably never will (obviously I don't run Windows).
But people aren't willing to wait or pay for engineered software.
People wouldn't know if they are willing to spent that on engineered software because they have never been exposed to it. Large corporations on the other hand have been exposed to engineered software and the successful ones do pay for it. There was a time when people lived in ramshackle homes built out of what ever materials they could find lying around, but in time that changed to more robust building practices that worked out for the long term. And the argument that software changes to fast for that to be true in this field is invalid as Unix, in it's many flavors, has shown longevity, as have many other software projects such as Office suits. And just as a good framed building can be remodeled and updated at a fraction of the original building cost, the same could be done with software if it was engineered correctly. This approach that I am talking about is not entirely unique and aspects of it are used by some of the more successful companies, such as Apple's OS X. But there are thousands of software projects out there, such as the one I am currently stuck working on, that are slapped together with no for thought or engineering process, causing them to need to be replaced and rebuilt every couple years rather than updated and enhanced.
I'm not saying the cost won't go up, but I would bet that it wouldn't go up by much, and they you would definitely get more value for your money. I know I have wasted countless hours dealing with software bugs that I should not need to, and I value my time very highly, and assume others do as well.
I think you are getting at the point but in a bit of a backward way. The problem is that somewhere along the line the idea of Software Engineering was thrown out the window and replaced with ( or reverted too, depending on how you look at it) software development. If you apply the principles of Engineering to software you end up with far more stable and durable products. If we built buildings like we build software there would be millions of people dying from "unforeseen bugs" or rooms that could not be accessed because the "interface" was not clearly defined (of course you would go back and put the door in by severing an important support beam causing massive loss of structural integrity, but I think you get the point.)
Excuses like;
There is no such thing as "all the requirements." The only thing you can count on in software development is that the requirements will change
and;
The end users have no idea what to expect or what they want. They may think they want X, but they really want Y after seeing what X looks like.
are the exact reason software sucks. Not because these things are true, because they certainly are not, but because we are not applying logical engineering principles to the problem.
Halo not running on Playstation hardware is due to technical issues
Halo not running on PS Hardware is due to licensing issues not technical issues. There are no technical issues stopping Bungie from compiling Halo for PS. Allowing Bungie to compile halo for PS would be outside the MS license agreement with them. Bungie would be foolish to not create and sell halo for PS if they could. On the other hand MS would be foolish to let them since they can license it exclusively.
Apple itunes music not playing on anything other than an ipod or itunes
Apple Itunes downloads will run on any hardware that has software that supports the FairPlay DRM system, not just iTunes and iPod. The fact that no one else has chosen to license this technology is not the fault of apple. You do realize this is no different than DVD, which requires a Philips License to create a player for.
Though the whole premise of this thread is incorrect since LG is expected to announce a dual player (BluRay and HD-DVD) at CES next week.
The whole point of this is that no creature can take it.
The problem lies in what this research can lead to. Once you know what DNA sequences are incompatible with life, therefor killing anything that has this particular sequence, you could design a virus, probably a retrovirus, which could contain an RNA sequence which when reverse transcription to a host cell takes place causes one of these incompatible sequences in the Host cell. This could even be designed so that it would only produce the incompatible sequence if the host cell contained a specific sequence before transcription, ultimately leading to "designer viruses" that could target specific portions of the population with not possibility of a cure.
Mind you I don't hold a PhD in genetics so my description may not be technically right, but the premiss is certainly there and this kind of research definitely has negative potential.
Because artists make SO MUCH on sales in this country...
Lets say you work on something, anything, it really doesn't mater, for a significant amount of your time, again the specifics don't mater. Now lets say you will sell 1 million of these things and you have been given two offers, one is 0.00 (what ever currency unit you would like) per unit and the other is.01 per unit. Any rational human being is going to take the 0.01 over the 0.00 making 10,000.00 instead of 0.00. So sure the artist in the US only make a fraction of what a person actually pays for the album, but that is infinitely more than they make from the allofmp3.com sales. Never mind the fact that any artist that is making that small of an amount from their label made an agreement with them for that amount. NO ONE in the US has ever been legally forced to accept a specific royalty for their artistic work without a prior agreement being made.
I'd rather pirate the track and give the artist the buck directly. If only there were a way to do that...
Speak as someone who does try to do this when purchasing used media I can tell you it's not hard. Most artist will accept cash, cashiers checks, money orders and personal checks. And yes checks sent to them by way of there label should be forward to them, though I try to had it to them in person when I meet them. Oh and if you really want to their are plenty of artists that don't distribute through a label or have a label that takes a smaller cut, just look around, and they tend to be the better artists to boot.
I would like to know how low cost replication is going to end poverty. My assumption is that it will be the same way that all other technological advancements ended poverty. In other words, they have not. Take a look at the poverty levels in countries that do not have copyright or patent laws. I'm all for the eradication of poverty, but I don't see capitalism without protection of creative rights will somehow do it. Removal of protection laws like copyright and patent, within a capitalist society, would only force much higher secrecy and less actual production and advancement. In the case you suggest it would require, before someone released this nano-tech replication system they would need to make sure that it could not be used to replicate itself or be modified to allow it to be replicated, which would add extensively to the time and cost of production. I could get into the whys behind that but I think any intelligent human would understand.
Most of what you wrote is just the usual ratings of someone who was the benefit of another person's hard work without that person receiving compensation for the work.
there's only one Star Wars, and if that's the movie I'm looking for, I have no "choice" in the matter.
No Shit. Just like if you want a Ford, Viagra or any other specific product you have to no "choice", since you already made you "choice" when you chose that product. Oddly enough you don't often hear someone arguing that they should be able to make copies of Impalas to distribute how they see fit (or to make a back up even). But if you notice if you want to make your own products in the same genre you can and administer the rights to it however you want. Make you own space opera if you don't like the way Lucas distributes his.
Until very recently, artists who wanted distribution had no option but to agree to the terms set by these companies.
Another complete lie. Sure when the printing press was first in use people had to follow what ever rules the press owner want to impose on the use of their machine, but seriously that is not what I would consider recent. Not only that there have always been plenty of reproduction and distribution organizations willing to do their particular part with no control or anything other than how something is reproduced or distributed, having nothing to do with how you administer the rights. Just let me know and I can list numerous artists that have independently distributed their own works. Just take Ani Di Franco as an example of someone who set up their own distribution and rights management, include statements about the "necessity" of "copyright infringement" right on her released works.
Personally, I'd love to say "fuck you" to the RIAA and MPAA and simply go to different artists, as you say - but they control 90% of all the "art" that's created...
I think you meant to say "a fraction of a percent of all the 'art' that's created..." Open your eyes and ears and look around, the majority of all art created has no connection with either AA, by unique content, not volume of reproduction, since reproduction and distribution is something the AAs are good at. The fact that you falsely believe that the AAs control 90% of all "art" is a sign of the AAs marketing and has nothing to do with copyright law, or DRM.
So there needs to be a retroactive changes to copyright law.
There is no reason to change or remove a law that can easily be nullified by artists specific licensing. Having the copyright law actually gives our society the greatest amount of freedom by allowing people to determine how free their hard work is.
Consumers have no choice when purchasing the artistic efforts which represent the vast bulk of contemporary culture, artists have no choice if they want wide distribution, anyone attempting to break the stranglehold risks imprisonment.
I get so sick of reading this particular lie, time and time again. Consumers have plenty of choice when it comes to artistic works. The fact that you can't obtain freely works that th artist did not release freely has nothing to do with a particular industry "stranglehold" but instead with an artists right to maintain or relinquish control of their creations. If you don't like the way an artist choses to license their work then chose a different artist. If the consumer makes this change then business will need to change their model to survive.
If you think it is really as bad as you say, and if their are others that think like you, pool your resources to create a for of media distribution that can not be restricted and promote it's use. The RIAA and Microsoft, just as a couple examples, did not become the organizations the are overnight. Have some long term goals and work towards them. The world could probably use a new idea or two. (please not the paradox that to maintain that the system remains open and free that someone must maintain the rights to how the system itself works)
Capitalist are so stupid sometimes. They have to tools they need to make change, and tout it as the only effective way to do so, yet can't take the time or apply the effort necessary to do so.
While the graphical quality of console games does improve over their lifespan, in the past they have generally not keep pace with PC games.
They have in terms of cost. In 5 years the PS3 will cost less than $200 while a $200 PC may not even exist let alone play the current games. But my point had nothing to do with that. It had to do with the fact that in 5 years to play a game of the quality of what is coming out on the consoles at that time will take alot more cost, most likely the investment of an entirely new system over what you can purchase today.
In five years, you probably want to replace that Playstation 3 with the Playstation 4
5 years is less than the sony lifecycle of a console which is around 6 - 8 years. Even the other manufactures try to achive a 5 year cycle. So yes, after 5 years you will need to upgrade, but you have a full five years before you will have to upgrade to get the latest and greatest games.
Optimization is still mandatory for general purpose computers
Optimization on any platform is target toward the average system in that category. For a game console that average stays the same over the 5+ year life cycle so all games target the same minimum and recomended hardware. General purpose computers average hardware increases monthly, with faster CPUs, GPUs, Memory, Bus, etc, being released regularly. After about 2 years what was once average no longer meets minimum requirements for top of the line games (yes some producers still make games that run on 10 year hardware but they are few and far between). Your example of Sanity is a classic illustration of this effect being taken a bit to far. The game was designed for hardware either did not exists, or was not reasonably priced, by the time the game was release. This happens fairly regularly in the General purpose world, but never (or very very rarely) in the console world.
the way the PS3 is doing, in 5 years sony will have cut their losses in console gaming and their remaining staff will be making games for the next nintendo and microsoft systems
Because that's what buisnesses do when they are selling products faster than they can produce them and produce the best selling console, not only currently, but of all time (The PS 2). It'll take more than a month and a few post on nerd centric sites to bring down the PS line.
First of all I never said you couldn't put together a resonable game machine for 3 times the cost of a PS3, just not a comparable one. Even the one you just mentioned has less media capacity, Slower bus speeds, less total processing cores, etc.
Interesting Idea using the Physics processor (which is basically a GPU dedicated to physics instead of graphics), but could you supply a list of games designed to use that physics processor?
Now what we need to do is take your cheap game rig (which looks like it will be around $1500 complete) hook it up to an HD TV and then in 5 years compare to quality of games that will run on it vs. the games that will run on the PS3. In 5 years modern games won't even run on the machine you are talking about building, yet PS3 games always will. Games will become more and more optimized for the PS3 hardware where as in the general purpose computer realm developers will expect more powerful machines to be purchased so no need to optimize.
Anything you can do on a PS3 can be done on a core2duo + 8800GS + 2gb ram homebrew rig.
Except play PS 2 or 3 Games or Program a Cell Processor, but I'm probably just being picky. (Heck without a $750 blu ray drive on the homebrew rig you can't even view Blu Ray movies).
To be perfectly honest, other than where specific software is concerned (i.e. specific OS), I can't see what you can do on your homebrew rig that you can't do on a PS3 (even your homebrew rig will have limitations on software, unless you have yours somehow runing Amiga OS 4).
I'm just saying making a comparable machine will cost you far more than a PS3 cost and when you are talking about a machine to play games and only games, the PS3 is a fraction of the cost of a comparable general purpose computer.
I would also bet it's possible to overclock a Cell Proceesor as well, just might take more work.
I'm not going to try and say the PS3 is the the most powerful machine on the planet or anything like that, but it is still a better deal, cost to power ratio, than a PC.
It's trivial to build a $1000 gaming computer that is significantly better than a PS3. Get an 8800GTS, a cheap Core Duo processor and mobo, 2GB of RAM, and a cheapo 160GB hard drive and you're in business.
It is trivial if you are not trying to build a comparable machine. Taking from your example and making it even comparable you end up getting a far more expensive machine than you are talking about. You can't use a "cheap Core Duo" since you are looking to compete with a multi core 3.2 ghz processor (hard to get an exact comparison) so go with a 3.2 Ghz Core 2 Extreme which will run around $950, tack on atleast another $200 (you would probably end up higher for a decent board) for the mother board and another $100 for a case and cooling system (I'm being generous here). Now add $200 or more for video (the closest thing I could find was a geforce 7900 128m which is clocked 50mhz less than the PS3s). So at this point you are looking at over $1500 (with me saving you over $300 on the video card) and we haven't even touch on input, storage, memory or drives (the $750 in blu-ray drive).
In the end I guess it depends on what you mean by "significantly better." Your set up does include a graphics processor that can handle higher resolutions as well as more polygons, mappings and transformations, but has a siginificantly slower CPU, which is important for Physics, AI and other game mechanics. Your set up also includes no way to play any games on it, let alone actualy getting the games there. These little things (Keyboard, mouse, Other controlle, Network adapter (wired and wireless), High density Media Drive) all add up to significantly more money that you think.
Comparing Apple to Microsoft and stating that apple could be competitive in the generic PC OS world, is a little short sighted, and off the mark. One of the aspects that people like about Apple products is that they work, out of the box, 100% of the time. When you turn on a Macintosh, for example, and install the OS (assuming you wanted to install a different version than it came with) you don't have to go searching for drivers and you don't have to worry about hardware compatibility issues. This is because Macs only run on a small subset of possible hardware that has been tested to work with their software.
It would be foolish for Apple to release OS X for generic hardware. OS X has remained stable and secure over the years because of Apples complete control over the hardware. You just can't do that when it is expected to run on any hardware.
Now if they wanted to release an API that could be used to develope software that could then run on any OS that supports the API, that would be another story. Then those that like the stability that comes with a OS hardware package could continue with Mac, and someone else could create an OS for generic hardware that ran the same exact applications (without out the need for seperate and/or conditional compilation).
Last I checked the GH Controller is not compatible with with PS3 even with the USB adapter. has something to do with having to press some special button at start up (for PS1 and PS2 games), that the GH controller does not have. You can rad about it on ign. I haven't yet found anyone listing a hack for this yet, but I am sure there will be one soon enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, it's obvious that Carmack is an idiot.
Ok now that I have that out of the way.
I actually think the guy is pretty bright, but comes from a different time and school of thought. System design is heading more and more toward specialized processors (which is actually were it came from) and if developers don't start getting used to it they will be left behind. Even in the PC world people are already pushing for separate graphics, physics and general processors. The x86 mhz craze made developers lazy, it's an obvious thing to anyone that was programming more than 20 years ago. Anyone that has written assembly or machine code would realize that the majority of the work done by a processor is Integer or FP work (actually all binary but that is beside the point) so having 6+ high speed vector/matrix processors to work with is far more effective than 1+ single operand processors. Graphics are not the only things that benefit from vector calculations.
Personally I would love to get my hands of a cell processor for development purposes (a PS3/linux combination is gonna be as close as I get for a while) so I can be prepaired for the massive parallel development that will be necessary in the near future.
Ok, rant over, return to your hemming and hawing (not direct to anyone specific).
You will notice I said the PS2 is slightly under powered graphically when compared to it's competitors. I say slightly because it doesn't have hardware accelerated bump mapping and requires developers to utilize it's pixel pipeline more than the usual architectures do. But the PS2 has always had better polygon counts (as in Jak 3) and lighting effects (Shadow of the Colossus) and some of the prettiest games in existence (Okami, and GT4 come to mind). As usual graphic capability is very subject and I am willing to concede a slight lead to the PS2s competitors. Interestingly enough it is the PS2s lack of graphical prowess that shows of the power of the core CPU (including it's associated Vector Units). The General Purpose VUs in the PS2 are capable on handling more calculations than any of the other systems, making it capable of better AI and other, no graphical, system logic (I'm not saying that the games utilize this, just a potential) while also picking up the slack where normally a GPU would be working. This effectively gives the developer a heck of a lot more flexibility as to where they want to apply the systems processes (yes it is possible to use a GPU for general purpose computing but it is more difficult and rarely done).
But all of this is completely off topic and I expect it to be modified as so. I'm just trying to get people to stop believing that particular fallacy. (And yes I prefere higher poly counts to texture maps since I always feel they more accurately represent the world they are emulating. texture maps are more of a facade than anything substantial.)
More to the point, you can't judge Sony's success with the PS2 based on a simple list of effects. There were many reasons the PS2 was as successful as it was, including their excellent marketing to the general public. To say it was the games or the built in DVD player or anyone one of those things misses the point that it was an entire package plus the market recognition they built in the previous generation, which they still have to this day. Heck you can't even down play the brand name. "PlayStation" just sounds like a game system, unlike "XBox" or "Wii" which could really be anything. I'm not trying to support sony or anything, as I think the Wii is looking like it has lots of potential, just saying that there were hundreds or more factors in Sony's previous success.
It still stands that software sucks because of lack of real engineering practices, and regardless of people being cheap or not, no one has but up an argument against that. People may have given reasons why we don't use solid engineering practices, valid or not, but that still doesn't debunk the idea that it is the lack of these processes that are the reasons behind shitty software.
So I guess what you are saying is that the pyramids, of egypt and central america, as well as the great wall of china, the temples of rome and all the other durable ancient structures where built the way they were because of building codes. Or maybe the cathedrals and castles of europe, and the Sky Scrappers of the modern world. I'm sure that if it weren't for building codes the Petronas Towers would have been built from match sticks and bubble gum.
Somethings in the world were built for longevity, and I think the same principles could be applied to software to improve the quality as well as the cost effectiveness. Personally I would like to see companies held responsible for faulty software, same as a car manufacture would be if their automobiles failed to perform as advertised. There are no laws, at least in the US, that states an auto manufacturer has to warranty their products for 3+ years, yet they all do. This is because we expect more from manufacturers of physical products and I happen to thing we should demand the same from software.
I know I would easily pay 5 times what I have on my current OS if someone could offer an alternative guaranteed not to crash, ever. That, even though my current OS has never crashed on me an probably never will (obviously I don't run Windows).
I'm not saying the cost won't go up, but I would bet that it wouldn't go up by much, and they you would definitely get more value for your money. I know I have wasted countless hours dealing with software bugs that I should not need to, and I value my time very highly, and assume others do as well.
Excuses like; and; are the exact reason software sucks. Not because these things are true, because they certainly are not, but because we are not applying logical engineering principles to the problem.
Though the whole premise of this thread is incorrect since LG is expected to announce a dual player (BluRay and HD-DVD) at CES next week.
Mind you I don't hold a PhD in genetics so my description may not be technically right, but the premiss is certainly there and this kind of research definitely has negative potential.
If you think it is really as bad as you say, and if their are others that think like you, pool your resources to create a for of media distribution that can not be restricted and promote it's use. The RIAA and Microsoft, just as a couple examples, did not become the organizations the are overnight. Have some long term goals and work towards them. The world could probably use a new idea or two. (please not the paradox that to maintain that the system remains open and free that someone must maintain the rights to how the system itself works)
Capitalist are so stupid sometimes. They have to tools they need to make change, and tout it as the only effective way to do so, yet can't take the time or apply the effort necessary to do so.
First of all I never said you couldn't put together a resonable game machine for 3 times the cost of a PS3, just not a comparable one. Even the one you just mentioned has less media capacity, Slower bus speeds, less total processing cores, etc.
Interesting Idea using the Physics processor (which is basically a GPU dedicated to physics instead of graphics), but could you supply a list of games designed to use that physics processor?
Now what we need to do is take your cheap game rig (which looks like it will be around $1500 complete) hook it up to an HD TV and then in 5 years compare to quality of games that will run on it vs. the games that will run on the PS3. In 5 years modern games won't even run on the machine you are talking about building, yet PS3 games always will. Games will become more and more optimized for the PS3 hardware where as in the general purpose computer realm developers will expect more powerful machines to be purchased so no need to optimize.
To be perfectly honest, other than where specific software is concerned (i.e. specific OS), I can't see what you can do on your homebrew rig that you can't do on a PS3 (even your homebrew rig will have limitations on software, unless you have yours somehow runing Amiga OS 4).
I'm just saying making a comparable machine will cost you far more than a PS3 cost and when you are talking about a machine to play games and only games, the PS3 is a fraction of the cost of a comparable general purpose computer.
I would also bet it's possible to overclock a Cell Proceesor as well, just might take more work.
In the end I guess it depends on what you mean by "significantly better." Your set up does include a graphics processor that can handle higher resolutions as well as more polygons, mappings and transformations, but has a siginificantly slower CPU, which is important for Physics, AI and other game mechanics. Your set up also includes no way to play any games on it, let alone actualy getting the games there. These little things (Keyboard, mouse, Other controlle, Network adapter (wired and wireless), High density Media Drive) all add up to significantly more money that you think.
Comparing Apple to Microsoft and stating that apple could be competitive in the generic PC OS world, is a little short sighted, and off the mark. One of the aspects that people like about Apple products is that they work, out of the box, 100% of the time. When you turn on a Macintosh, for example, and install the OS (assuming you wanted to install a different version than it came with) you don't have to go searching for drivers and you don't have to worry about hardware compatibility issues. This is because Macs only run on a small subset of possible hardware that has been tested to work with their software.
It would be foolish for Apple to release OS X for generic hardware. OS X has remained stable and secure over the years because of Apples complete control over the hardware. You just can't do that when it is expected to run on any hardware.
Now if they wanted to release an API that could be used to develope software that could then run on any OS that supports the API, that would be another story. Then those that like the stability that comes with a OS hardware package could continue with Mac, and someone else could create an OS for generic hardware that ran the same exact applications (without out the need for seperate and/or conditional compilation).
Last I checked the GH Controller is not compatible with with PS3 even with the USB adapter. has something to do with having to press some special button at start up (for PS1 and PS2 games), that the GH controller does not have. You can rad about it on ign. I haven't yet found anyone listing a hack for this yet, but I am sure there will be one soon enough.