PS3 General Discussion

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/739/739688p1.html

Linux for PlayStation 3 Officially Announced
Terra Soft makes it official and announces release date, included software and more.
by Chris Roper

October 17, 2006 - Terra Soft today announced that it will bring its Yellow Dog Linux v5.0 to Sony's forthcoming PlayStation 3. This news makes Sony's announcement of Linux support via the console 100% official and means that users will essentially be able to turn their gaming system into a fully-functioning computer, replete with whatever applications they feel like installing, be it for entertainment or business. According to Terra Soft's website, Yellow Dog Linux v5.0 will be available in mid-November for the PlayStation 3, and then a version for Apple PowerPC systems will follow shortly thereafter.


Following the company's standard release system, v5.0 will be made available in a three-phase product rollout. At launch, users of the company's YDL.net service (which comes at a cost) will be able to download the OS to their computer and burn a bootable disc for installation on the PlayStation 3. Two weeks later, the company will offer ready-made installation discs for purchase through the site. Two weeks after that, it will be made freely available on public mirrors. In short, if you're willing to wait one month after the system's release, you'll be able to download Linux for it for free.

Yellow Dog Linux v5.0 will come with both a single-click installation mode for casual users and an advanced installer for power users. In other words, Terra Soft aims to allow even Linux novices an extremely easy entry point to the OS, while also allowing veterans the ability to customize the system to their liking.

The OS, which is based upon Fedora Core 5, will ship with the following components:
kernel 2.6.16
gcc 3.4.4 and glibc 2.4
Cell SDK 1.1
OpenOffice.org 2.0.2
FireFox 1.5.0 and Thunderbird 1.5.0

Nautilus 2.1.4
A number of "personal accessories; development tools; sound and video, Internet and networking applications" will also ship with the package, though the press release does not disclose any specifics.
Now THAT is sweet.
 
Great, can't wait to use firefox on the PS3:tup: and I am sure as hell that it'll run much faster than it is on my "next gen" intel celeron PC:sly:
 
My concern is if it will use the Cell to it's full potential, and if Sony is going to offer some good free antivirus/firewall gigs (since many people hate the PS3). And I'd like to see what Sony what Sony will do when tons of homebrew start popping up for it.
 
All it would take, would be for sony to start up a homebrew program, and embrace it.

Users send in their homebrew, it undergoes a 30 day evaluation to ensure it's not malicious...and then it's put on the net. If sony did that, they'd win this generation VERY easily.
 
All it would take, would be for sony to start up a homebrew program, and embrace it.

Users send in their homebrew, it undergoes a 30 day evaluation to ensure it's not malicious...and then it's put on the net. If sony did that, they'd win this generation VERY easily.
It wont ever happen, though. Legal nightmares would ensue if they ever did something like that.
 
Not necessarily, as long as Sony did not make a profit from home brew, it's completely voluntary, thus, as long as it's not malicious, neither Sony nor the end user could be held accountable for anything, and the person who created the HomeBrew would have volunteered it, thus he would not be due anything.
 
Not necessarily, as long as Sony did not make a profit from home brew, it's completely voluntary, thus, as long as it's not malicious, neither Sony nor the end user could be held accountable for anything, and the person who created the HomeBrew would have volunteered it, thus he would not be due anything.

How can they not make money from home brew items? The more cool features and items they have, the more people would want to purchase and use their product. Sony would make money on it.
 
All it would take, would be for sony to start up a homebrew program, and embrace it.

Users send in their homebrew, it undergoes a 30 day evaluation to ensure it's not malicious...and then it's put on the net. If sony did that, they'd win this generation VERY easily.
Does "malicious" include games on other systems (like for example, Super Mario on the NES, or Pokemon on the Gameboy)? If not, Sony would be idiots to endorse it.

And really, what homebrew, other than copyright-violating games, is going to make the PS3 the king of the next-gen? Sure, you can play Chess, but what else?

And the question is if Sony would implement it. Remember, they're the ones that keep on adding security against homebrew on their own PSP. Why should we expect anything different?
 
"Blu-ray has nothing to do with movies"

Eurogamer recently spoke with Sony president Phil Harrison about the PS3's controversial Blu-Ray adoption. While responding to criticisms of the storage technology being used primarily to push Sony's movie format war, Harrison defended: "It's got nothing to do with movies ... we need Blu-Ray to supply the kind of data that PS3 games use." Nothing to do with movies? We were under the impression your employer spearheaded the technology's acceptance? C'mon, Phil. Can't you budge just a little?

He steadfastly continues: "Already, at our launch titles, we're getting up close to the 25GB limit that we have on our Blu-Ray discs this year ... Not every game is going to fill 25 or 50GB. I completely accept that - but there will be games that require that this year, and will push that further in years to come."

That'll teach those skeptics! In related news, Xbox 360 and Wii developers have secretly been envious of Blu-Ray's added movie, I mean, game storage capacity. In case you didn't know, there has been an outcry by developers for years demanding more disc storage for games. It's reaching epidemic levels and is a big problem.

Full story here:
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/17/sony-on-blu-ray-for-ps3-its-got-nothing-to-do-with-movies/



Riggggghhhhhhhhttttt......

Hes full of BS at the moment:dunce:

It has absolutly NOTHING to do with blu-ray
 
I agree as well, as the studios that support Blu-ray have clearly indicated the significant importance of the PS3's ability to play BD movies.

However, Harrison's point on the need for more disc capacity isn't completely lost among developers. If BD games come out using more than 9GB, the point is made. Sure, developers could release multi disc SD DVD games, but I'm guessing their marketing departments have informed them they wont be as well received. After all, how many multi-disc game releases have there been for the PS2, or either Xboxes?

Now maybe most game developers wont "need" more than 9GB of disc capacity right from the get go (EA for instance) ;) , but I can certainly understand why for some, and for certain titles, they will want, and maybe even need far more than 9GB... and I hope that also translates to having some really spectacular games... but for now all we can do is speculate... and wait... :(
 
Harrison is supporting Kaz Hirai here, ofcourse in terms of PS3 using Blue-Ray there is marketing in there towards Blue-Raty as a format and movies on Blue-Ray, no doubt about it. However from Harrison and Hirai's perspective, they're looking at the blue-Ray drive for games, how it will improve and fill needs in relation to gaming. Kaz was a bit more honest when he was asked about it, he said as far as he's concerned it has nothing to do with movies it's all to do with the gaming but there are people from toher divisions using the PS3 to market movies and looking at it in that area as well.
 
Now, I remember this from an article a while back. But somone one Team Ninja was talking about putting CG movies onto a DVD and how they can quickly run out of room with all the other data that's needed for todays games.

I'm quite sure there's a good amount of compression that can be done. But it seems to me that more space is better then less. So, it looks like BD was the way to go for the future.

My biggest question is...what are the load times going to be like on the PS3? To be honest, PS2 load times aren't much better then PS1. I know it's more info and the like. But aren't the buses getting wider, memory faster and drives spinning quicker? I'm not as technolgoically knowledgable as some of the others here. But could someone shed some light on that for me?
 
My biggest question is...what are the load times going to be like on the PS3? To be honest, PS2 load times aren't much better then PS1. I know it's more info and the like. But aren't the buses getting wider, memory faster and drives spinning quicker? I'm not as technolgoically knowledgable as some of the others here. But could someone shed some light on that for me?
There are so many variables that would effect it that I imagine it would be hard to say for sure, and will certainly vary from game to game. But it should load PS2 games faster, but I imagine, just like with previous games, some will load faster than others.

There has been a lot of debate on which games will have faster load times, PS3 versions or XB versions. It was brought up in an XB thread, but here is the info I posted earlier:

Here is some more info on read times from GamePro's extensive XB360 vs PS3 vs WII comparrision:
There's been considerable controversy over the somewhat pokey data read rate of the 2x Blu-ray drive inside the PS3, leading some to suggest that the Xbox 360's 12x DVD-9 drive will actually perform faster and lead to shorter load times when compared to the PS3. As it turns out, this controversy has been overblown. The Xbox 360's DVD-9 drive slows as it reaches the inner rings of a dual-layer disc (from a top speed of 15 MB/s to a low of 4 MB/s), while the Blu-ray keeps a steady read rate (9 MB/s) under all conditions.

The impression I get from reading reviews is that the load times are not significantly faster or slower either way.
 
To be simple about it, swift, it all grows together, so load times haven't improved much.

Only if HDD caching is used will it improve a lot.

So it's just like windows and computers then? Computers today boot up about the same speed as state of the art computers 10 years ago. But our computers are many, many times faster then those of 10 years ago. But some how, windows still seems to run at about the same overall speed. [sarcasam] Amazing huh? [/sarcasm]
 
So it's just like windows and computers then? Computers today boot up about the same speed as state of the art computers 10 years ago. But our computers are many, many times faster then those of 10 years ago. But some how, windows still seems to run at about the same overall speed. [sarcasam] Amazing huh? [/sarcasm]

Windows without GPU & with GPU & memory using dual channel is completely different!!!!!!!
 
Now, I remember this from an article a while back. But somone one Team Ninja was talking about putting CG movies onto a DVD and how they can quickly run out of room with all the other data that's needed for todays games.

I'm quite sure there's a good amount of compression that can be done. But it seems to me that more space is better then less. So, it looks like BD was the way to go for the future.

My biggest question is...what are the load times going to be like on the PS3? To be honest, PS2 load times aren't much better then PS1. I know it's more info and the like. But aren't the buses getting wider, memory faster and drives spinning quicker? I'm not as technolgoically knowledgable as some of the others here. But could someone shed some light on that for me?
You should read this: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/04/ps3-to-load-games-slower-than-the-xbox-360/

It's not much of a concern for, say DVD9 sized games, but if there's going to be levels that are several gigabytes large, you'll be sitting there for a while. Of course you can use caching, but that's going to be only useful for games like Battlefield 2 or GT5, where you're using the same track/map many times over the course of the game.

So, will it improve over the PS2? It depends. If caching is in use, yes. If the game isn't very large, maybe. If the game is absurdly large, I doubt it.
 
Game size has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of loading what is in the initial draw distance, and that's really all that matters.

You could have a stage that's enormous, but only load what's immediately in the draw distance, and then cache and load everything around you from there, with out the need for long load times.

This was evident in games like God of War, where you only experience one load time during the course of the entire game.
 
Not everything is streamed though, some games need to remember where items are placed and locations of enemies isometimes over pretty vast areas ect so streaming the level becomes more complicated. In terms of levels streaming then they normally cache more than what you can see otherwise there may be delayes in the level you know walk round a corner and the game pauses until it loads whats round the corner ect. In terms of games like Metal Gear Solid everything in thecurrent area will be loaded in one go and it's likely that the connecting areas will be loaded if not completely then partially so that loading times between areas are cut down. The great thing with this kind of streamiong and caching is you can take that data while your in an area it doesn't all have to load at the loading screen. At the end of the day the loading times between levels or menus in a game largly boils down to how the games makers have coded the game.
 
Remembering on screen objects is a matter of available memory, and can directly correlate with the HDD as "virtual memory". That will not effect streaming, as the SATA HDD will be able to load the information significantly faster than the on disc data. With data being loaded from the HDD via caching, and from streaming off of the disc, you potentially have 2 different load sources, which can make gameplay significantly more immersive, however, it remains to be seen if developers will use these techniques.

What I mean by loading only the draw distance refers to the initial load only, as data for a certain redius is "cached" (can be at least) for free movement, and that radius will follow around your character, this is called smart caching. There are many types of smart caching, it just depends on how it's used.

But, you are correct, at the end of the day, it's up to the developer to make loading times shorter, not the hardware.
 
Game size has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of loading what is in the initial draw distance, and that's really all that matters.

You could have a stage that's enormous, but only load what's immediately in the draw distance, and then cache and load everything around you from there, with out the need for long load times.

This was evident in games like God of War, where you only experience one load time during the course of the entire game.

LMAO
 
Just ignore him fella's, it's no biggie if he doesn't know any better, we're not teachers, afterall, and teaching the ignorant should not be our responsibility.
 
Also in God of War the camera was fixed, so there were lots of things they didn't have to load because you couldn't move the camera and see them anyway.
 
Just ignore him fella's, it's no biggie if he doesn't know any better, we're not teachers, afterall, and teaching the ignorant should not be our responsibility.

Your last explanation is right, but it all depend of the data size & how it is manipulated. Hard Drive is not a must to cache data, it just cache faster. With today games on PC, PS3 & XBOX 360, You won't see much difference by using the hard drive to cache the data. The disk drive on the PS1 & PS2 was uberly slow. it won't be that much significant on the PS3. The 2X BluRay speed is fast enough to not have a huge need of the HDD. It has so much nothing to do with loading time.


Swift:

Today, 3:31 PM

Why would that have been reported?

Also, that doesn't totally answer my question. With the faster technology, why is it that the load times are going up and not down?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Deap
If I reply to that post it will be reported obviously.

It all depend of the game data transfered to the main memory. Take example of Dead or Alive 2 on PS2 & Dreamcast. the loading time were longer on the PS2 version. Texture were all washed out on the PS2 version. depending on how big the data is, the longer can be the loading time. Streaming is a nice way to reduce the loading time, but have an impact of the game machine performance. The PS3 can rely on more data stored to reduce the seeking time of the disk & the hard drive to cache the data.
 
Your last explanation is right, but it all depend of the data size & how it is manipulated. Hard Drive is not a must to cache data, it just cache faster. With today games on PC, PS3 & XBOX 360, You won't see much difference by using the hard drive to cache the data. The disk drive on the PS1 & PS2 was uberly slow. it won't be that much significant on the PS3. The 2X BluRay speed is fast enough to not have a huge need of the HDD. It has so much nothing to do with loading time.

Are you kidding? You'll see a HUGE difference caching data using the HDD because you no longer need to use the local memory to cache, freeing it up for other things. Are you insane? The HDD can be a HUGE advantage if developers with to use it, especially when it comes to caching. It's faster, bigger, and more effecient than memory is....you even said it yourself. It's FASTER, and BIGGER. Why is not a "must" if it's BETTER? Seriously.

And Blu-Ray may be fast, but it's not fast enough, it's in fact slower than the DVD drive in the 360, making caching something that should be implemented in many games.


Just stop...just stop while you're ahead.
 
Back