With Unreal 3 and Havok already on XBOX360 and PS3, I would be worried about trying to sell Source too.
All I read was:
Blah blah blah, Consoles are hard to develop for, blah blah blah, we can't get our technology to work on them, blah blah blah, buy our product, blah blah blah.
But for the folks who don't own the original console - why not release originals re-compiled as budget titles or bonus discs ala the WindWaker/Ocarina of time deal?
Who cares? If you love your old XBOX games that much, just keep it and play your old XBOX games on it. This feature seems to be just another "tick" for the marketdroids to put in the box.
I ask this in all seriousness. The only time I used it on my PS2 was to see if it actually worked (It did! yay!..er now I'll go play GTA3).
So is there a good reason for 90% of people to care about backward compatibility?
ps I don't own an XBOX yet so I'm trying to be objective here.
The US Government, in coperation with the Illuminati and the Tyrell coporation (a crypto-jewish religious brotherhood - linked with Al Qaeda, Twinkies, and the faked moon landings) have started SECRET experiments on slashdot readers researching INTERNET3 which will run on the brainwaves of the new intellectual-slave class.
Gray Aliens are invovled somehow.
Watch and see.
>So what is the difference between an Apple and a PC?
A whole lot. Take some deep breaths and repost when you can see straight.
PowerPC is an architecture, its not just a proprietry brand like "G5" which everyone here seems fixated with. The G5 is just an *implementation* of the PPC architecture.
This is why PowerPC has supported 64bit, way before anyone but IBM actually *implemented* it.
Also, why would IBM make up a whole new ISA just for Sony, if anyone can license PPC?
>Unless you are writing OS kernels, device drivers >or hardware controllers its hard to see why >anyone would feel the need to use raw memory >pointers in an application.
Lets see, what have I done in the last few months programming games: *Needed to get a raw memory pointer to PS2 framebuffer. *Needed to align 16byte structures in memory from a non-aligned binary file. *Optmised a matrix-math function to use GameCube paired singles FP instruction.
Games need to be optimised. No matter what all the Java-Fanboys in the world think - cutting edge games will always use pointers. We're programming at a level were we have to consider the cost of a *virtual* function call versus a regular one.
And guess what, our source code (C++) compiles and runs on XBOX/PC and PS2. And the browser I'm using to post this (Firefox) was written in C++, and runs on even more platforms...
Its a bad example anyway, rendering Quake2 on todays graphics hardware is virtually free. If you wanna impress me with how fast Java is, show me the Quake2 software renderer in Java, and compare *that* to the c++ version.
The original c/c++ source compiles and runs on several platforms. THAT SOUNDS PRETTY PORTABLE TO ME.
So why are we using Java to write games? Its not more portable as I've just pointed out. Its slower. And I'm a grown up, so I can *decide* if I want to use pointers, gotos, or multiple inhieritance. If you don't like these features in C++ THEN DONT USE THEM.
A language is *not* better or easier if it leaves useful features out!
Yeah it was easier in those days, but "those days" are never going to come back, so this whole idea has missed a fundamental point - games programming has changed. Not that LaMothe would know, he's written more clueless books and pulp articles than games.
I've been a game programmer (PC/XBOX/NGC/PS2) for around 4 years and I have used assembly language approximately... *never*.
Yes for some roles in game programming, there is a need for low-level assembly knowledge. But the biggest challenges nowdays on multi-platform, multi-million dollar projects are not shaving a few cycles off a loop. Solid software engineering skills, working as a team with various disciplines (tool design/art/QA) are far more useful to aspiring games programmers than assembly skills.
Unfortunantly even the games industry hasn't realised this yet.
No idea - just my feeble attempt to think like Steve:-)
My Guess: Bluetooth = wireless iTunes with random folks on the bus. An "I'm single and looking for man/woman/other" flag would make it a sure fire hit. Colour = it will only be seconds before someone ports MAME. Huzzah! Apple jumps in a steals the handheld market in the transition between Nintendo Gameboy and DS, Sony PSP etc.
I didn't read the cell phone article - thanks for the pointer.
This is a good time to reflect on our own mortality.
For all the whining, posing, Microsoft/Apple/Linux bashing we do; for all the work related stress we put up with and all the missed opportunities to spend time with loved ones; we only have a limited time on Earth.
The most important thing is.... ..eh who cares. I JUST WANNA PLAY DOOM 3.
And get well Steve. Take the time off to think about how great a colour iPod with bluetooth would be.
Thats an interesting point...however doesn't the step between the intermediary binary format and vendor specific code still require "compilation"?
If so, you still can't guarantee IBF code will compile to "the same result" on a different hardware implementations. ( Just ask the Java guys about this problem:-).
Granted there's less room for bad compiler design, but its there. What do you think?
Goddamn I'm sick of this Cell hype. Especially the "using your toaster to help render Tekken 17 slightly faster" crap.
The thing holding back distributed computing is NOT the freaken' CPU. Its the software. Its not that current CPU's _can't_ do distributed computing. Its NOT that no one thought to add a "DODISTRIB" instruction to current chipsets.
Sure, Cell may do it a bit faster, but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem, which is:
Distributed SOFTWARE is FREAKEN HARD.
If any app could be instantly made significantly faster just by adding an extra cpu on a network, then they would *ALL* be doing it now. Whats stopping your office network into becoming a big distributed pool for all your apps? It certainly isn't the hardware.
If Sony had come up with a software model, or a toolkit, to turn any arbitary app into a optimised distributed computation THEN I would be impressed.
My 2 year old Powerbook is doing most of this as I type. It irks me that these people don't give Apple credit for leading the way.
That said, I think raising the bar for Wintel notebook graphics hardware is a Good Thing. Dx9 Graphics minimum is gonna make my job as a games programmer so much sweeter.
Isn't power consumption going to be more of a hardware issue - I mean, Dx9 chips nowadays have how many transistors?
"...will feature an architecture based on the parallel processing Cell chip [also to be used in the PlayStation 3], and will be designed to power digital content creation for movies, television and videogames."
Sounds like a G5 to me. Maybe Microsoft should...hang on, they already did.
The GI.biz article tried to make out having same OS on DevKit is a big deal. It aint. As a console programmer, I've found DevKit OS makes very little difference to host OS. Any embedded systems programmer will tell you this is called "cross-compiling". The PS2 dev kit is actually running Linux, but most folks use Windows to develop the software.
Its kinda cool to have a new player in the workstation market however. Should give Apple a run for their money...
Power costs money and so does cooling. A more efficient supercomputer will be cheaper to run.If you can afford to supply your supercomputer with the cooling requirements of a nuclear reactor, fine.
People tend to focus on the initial outlay for a big system, forgetting that (like a car) it will have ongoing running costs.
What do you get when add an ATI graphics chip and a PowerPC processor? - thats right, the XBox 2 is a GameCube!.
But seriously folks, what does this mean for GameCube 2's "air supply". With ATI and IBM tied up (legally,financially) with exclusive tech deals with M$, how is the GameCube 2 going to retain backwards compatibility without using "second best" technology.
No where does it say "Every single document created by 2003 will be incompatible with OpenOffice.". Its just a feature. It will probably be off by default.
And if you're trying to read docs that have DRM on OpenOffice, you probably aren't supposed to be reading them anyhow.
Either way, if you don't like it, take a positive attitude and help improve OpenOffice or just put up the cash and shut up.
Slashdot Mirror
With Unreal 3 and Havok already on XBOX360 and PS3, I would be worried about trying to sell Source too.
All I read was:
Blah blah blah, Consoles are hard to develop for, blah blah blah, we can't get our technology to work on them, blah blah blah, buy our product, blah blah blah.
So on behalf of all of us here at Slashdot:
Thanks!
In Soviet Russia, the supercomputer whops you!
Fair enough.
But for the folks who don't own the original console - why not release originals re-compiled as budget titles or bonus discs ala the WindWaker/Ocarina of time deal?
Just seems dumb.
Who cares? If you love your old XBOX games that much, just keep it and play your old XBOX games on it. This feature seems to be just another "tick" for the marketdroids to put in the box.
..er now I'll go play GTA3).
I ask this in all seriousness. The only time I used it on my PS2 was to see if it actually worked (It did! yay!
So is there a good reason for 90% of people to care about backward compatibility?
ps I don't own an XBOX yet so I'm trying to be objective here.
And why is it needed? Really?
If you have a bunch of old XBOX games then surely you have an XBOX to play them on...
Duh!
Didn't you read the article? Just compile your compiler with GCC 4.0.
cheers,
j.
THIS STUFF IS REAL!!!
The US Government, in coperation with the Illuminati and the Tyrell coporation (a crypto-jewish religious brotherhood - linked with Al Qaeda, Twinkies, and the faked moon landings) have started SECRET experiments on slashdot readers researching INTERNET3 which will run on the brainwaves of the new intellectual-slave class.
Gray Aliens are invovled somehow.
Watch and see.
>So what is the difference between an Apple and a PC?
A whole lot. Take some deep breaths and repost when you can see straight.
cheers,
Justin.
PowerPC is an architecture, its not just a proprietry brand like "G5" which everyone here seems fixated with. The G5 is just an *implementation* of the PPC architecture.
This is why PowerPC has supported 64bit, way before anyone but IBM actually *implemented* it.
Also, why would IBM make up a whole new ISA just for Sony, if anyone can license PPC?
>Unless you are writing OS kernels, device drivers
>or hardware controllers its hard to see why
>anyone would feel the need to use raw memory
>pointers in an application.
Lets see, what have I done in the last few months programming games:
*Needed to get a raw memory pointer to PS2 framebuffer.
*Needed to align 16byte structures in memory from a non-aligned binary file.
*Optmised a matrix-math function to use GameCube paired singles FP instruction.
Games need to be optimised. No matter what all the Java-Fanboys in the world think - cutting edge games will always use pointers. We're programming at a level were we have to consider the cost of a *virtual* function call versus a regular one.
And guess what, our source code (C++) compiles and runs on XBOX/PC and PS2. And the browser I'm using to post this (Firefox) was written in C++, and runs on even more platforms...
Its a bad example anyway, rendering Quake2 on todays graphics hardware is virtually free. If you wanna impress me with how fast Java is, show me the Quake2 software renderer in Java, and compare *that* to the c++ version.
Why doesn't Jake2.0 support Mac OS?
The original c/c++ source compiles and runs on several platforms. THAT SOUNDS PRETTY PORTABLE TO ME.
So why are we using Java to write games?
Its not more portable as I've just pointed out.
Its slower.
And I'm a grown up, so I can *decide* if I want to use pointers, gotos, or multiple inhieritance.
If you don't like these features in C++ THEN DONT USE THEM.
A language is *not* better or easier if it leaves useful features out!
Yeah it was easier in those days, but "those days" are never going to come back, so this whole idea has missed a fundamental point - games programming has changed. Not that LaMothe would know, he's written more clueless books and pulp articles than games.
... *never*.
I've been a game programmer (PC/XBOX/NGC/PS2) for around 4 years and I have used assembly language approximately
Yes for some roles in game programming, there is a need for low-level assembly knowledge. But the biggest challenges nowdays on multi-platform, multi-million dollar projects are not shaving a few cycles off a loop. Solid software engineering skills, working as a team with various disciplines (tool design/art/QA) are far more useful to aspiring games programmers than assembly skills.
Unfortunantly even the games industry hasn't realised this yet.
And what of it?
cheers,
j.
No idea - just my feeble attempt to think like Steve :-)
My Guess:
Bluetooth = wireless iTunes with random folks on the bus. An "I'm single and looking for man/woman/other" flag would make it a sure fire hit.
Colour = it will only be seconds before someone ports MAME. Huzzah! Apple jumps in a steals the handheld market in the transition between Nintendo Gameboy and DS, Sony PSP etc.
I didn't read the cell phone article - thanks for the pointer.
j.
This is a good time to reflect on our own mortality.
..eh who cares. I JUST WANNA PLAY DOOM 3.
For all the whining, posing, Microsoft/Apple/Linux bashing we do; for all the work related stress we put up with and all the missed opportunities to spend time with loved ones; we only have a limited time on Earth.
The most important thing is....
And get well Steve. Take the time off to think about how great a colour iPod with bluetooth would be.
cheers,
Justin.
Thats an interesting point...however doesn't the step between the intermediary binary format and vendor specific code still require "compilation"?
:-).
If so, you still can't guarantee IBF code will compile to "the same result" on a different hardware implementations. ( Just ask the Java guys about this problem
Granted there's less room for bad compiler design, but its there. What do you think?
What-EVER.
Goddamn I'm sick of this Cell hype. Especially the "using your toaster to help render Tekken 17 slightly faster" crap.
The thing holding back distributed computing is NOT the freaken' CPU. Its the software. Its not that current CPU's _can't_ do distributed computing. Its NOT that no one thought to add a "DODISTRIB" instruction to current chipsets.
Sure, Cell may do it a bit faster, but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem, which is:
Distributed SOFTWARE is FREAKEN HARD.
If any app could be instantly made significantly faster just by adding an extra cpu on a network, then they would *ALL* be doing it now. Whats stopping your office network into becoming a big distributed pool for all your apps? It certainly isn't the hardware.
If Sony had come up with a software model, or a toolkit, to turn any arbitary app into a optimised distributed computation THEN I would be impressed.
My 2 year old Powerbook is doing most of this as I type. It irks me that these people don't give Apple credit for leading the way.
That said, I think raising the bar for Wintel notebook graphics hardware is a Good Thing. Dx9 Graphics minimum is gonna make my job as a games programmer so much sweeter.
Isn't power consumption going to be more of a hardware issue - I mean, Dx9 chips nowadays have how many transistors?
"...will feature an architecture based on the parallel processing Cell chip [also to be used in the PlayStation 3], and will be designed to power digital content creation for movies, television and videogames."
Sounds like a G5 to me. Maybe Microsoft should...hang on, they already did.
The GI.biz article tried to make out having same OS on DevKit is a big deal. It aint. As a console programmer, I've found DevKit OS makes very little difference to host OS. Any embedded systems programmer will tell you this is called "cross-compiling". The PS2 dev kit is actually running Linux, but most folks use Windows to develop the software.
Its kinda cool to have a new player in the workstation market however. Should give Apple a run for their money...
"I find overall AAC is superior to MP3, and that's what I have my songs as."
Thats exactly what the previous poster is saying.
"However, saying a 192 AAC == 128 MP3 is a bit faulty."
No! no! no! thats not what the poster said, you've just made that up. This is what the poster said, and you should know, because you quoted it:
"I found, for my personal preference, that 128kbps AAC was at least as good as 192kbps MP3, if not better."
Moderators, do your job and mod this foolish reply down.
Surely it just boils down to cost.
Power costs money and so does cooling. A more efficient supercomputer will be cheaper to run.If you can afford to supply your supercomputer with the cooling requirements of a nuclear reactor, fine.
People tend to focus on the initial outlay for a big system, forgetting that (like a car) it will have ongoing running costs.
What do you get when add an ATI graphics chip and a PowerPC processor? - thats right, the XBox 2 is a GameCube!.
But seriously folks, what does this mean for GameCube 2's "air supply". With ATI and IBM tied up (legally,financially) with exclusive tech deals with M$, how is the GameCube 2 going to retain backwards compatibility without using "second best" technology.
For f***'s sake people, cool down.
No where does it say "Every single document created by 2003 will be incompatible with OpenOffice.". Its just a feature. It will probably be off by default.
And if you're trying to read docs that have DRM on OpenOffice, you probably aren't supposed to be reading them anyhow.
Either way, if you don't like it, take a positive attitude and help improve OpenOffice or just put up the cash and shut up.
So, by that rationale, Microsoft created NTFS just to thwart people who were porting FAT.
And here's me thinking they'd just like to add some features to their *OWN* software. Why should they do it in a way that suits someone else?
You're being just a little paranoid, I think.
Don't worry, do like Bert the Turtle - "Duck and Cover!".