Basically, the same old BS they said for the Playstation 2 (sorry to
top-post).
<xenon360> wrote in message news:UtydnRLGu7rxOjXfRVn-iw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ken Kutaragi Interview by Hiro****ge Goto - pt.1 : "We Change Computing
by
> PLAYSTATION 3"
>
> The Reason Why PLAYSTATION Is In Capitals
>
> Goto: PS3 is, if you look at just the spec, a full-spec computer. Why
did
> you make it so rich?
>
> Kutaragi: Since the beginning, we've been trying not to do a game
console
> for children, but to do a computer for entertainment that grownups
around
> the world can enjoy. We've been thinking about doing a computer
> thoroughly. Meanwhile, finally, PC has come to the dead end. So, this
> time, we want to do the next computer with partners such as IBM in an
> ensured way.
>
> What we are thinking about this time is to change computing itself
> thoroughly. We want to change the paradigm. We want to set PS3 as the
> benchmark of everything.
>
> G: Though its goal is a general computer, you took a game console as its
> form in the beginning.
>
> K: A game console... maybe. At E3, it's a game console, and its
> applications are games. We really want to do computer entertainment.
Other
> companies may call theirs game consoles, but we've been calling it as
> computer entertainment in press releases all along. It's entertainment
and
> computer as well. It's im****tant.
>
> At this '3', for the first time we made the word PlayStation all capital
> "PLAYSTATION". We named it "PlayStation" at first, as workstations were
> our dream computers. We added the "PS" logo to it as PlayStation is a
> trademark and starts with P and S. But this time we use "PLAYSTATION" in
> capitals.
>
> It's because, basically, with PC and all going to the dead end, it leads
> to nowhere if you ask whether it's a PC or a game console. I think we've
> entered the era in which you ask what is the next playstation. So
> PLAYSTATION is "The playstation". We do it for a bit of pride too.
>
> Until now, it's said "let's take functions in arcade boards or
> workstations", or in the case of Microsoft, they said they'd use a
> cutting-edge PC as a game console. But it's no more. PLAYSTATION will
> develop as PLAYSTATION.
>
> Calculations by A Cell Processor Will Produce Difference
>
> G: So PS3 is a computer and its purpose is entertainment.
>
> K: Of cource, in the beginning, it's about what's interesting as a game
> console, and as computer entertainment.
>
> In PS1, making 3D or not was the biggest differentiation factor. In
> PlayStation 2, it was the mission to bring 3D in the complete
> single-standard format - complete NTSC and PAL - in full color. This
time,
> it'll be the crucial difference from other platforms that we make it all
> computing. In the background of graphics, it does vast calculations, and
> it produces difference.
>
> G: It does various simulations such as physics simulations, and
operations
> such as AI, synthesis, in its background.
>
> K: You can't see by just a glance if it's calculated by a Cell Processor
> or not even though it can show a beautiful HD video. But, if you look at
> it carefully, calculated things and only converted things are clearly
> different. You can feel it as an awesome thing when you see it, as it's
> calculated. You can do thing you've never seen, you can enjoy contents
> themselves.
>
> In the case of other companies, the inside is the same even though its
> graphics becomes HD. They hardly calculate things. Like hardly doing
> physics and just adding a motion by a motion capture. Even though you
> can't tell by just a glance, such differences can be seen quickly.
>
> G: Do software developers understand that point?
>
> K: I think developers have an undestanding of it. At E3 demo, they tried
> to do it in real time on the spot rather than prerendering and
> precalculation. At E3, many demos do various calulations in the
> background. Also in graphics, how it moves is all done by calculations.
> Things that couldn't be calculated without huge time until now, they can
> be done on Cell (in realtime). They'll try to create games that take
> advantage of it.
>
> Also for audio, it's natural that it doesn't have an audio chip. It's
> because we calculate it (with Cell). The audio is not like how many
voices
> you have - the audio itself becomes an object.
>
> Between our demo and their demo, such contriving is the difference. They
> are different more than just the look. I think most people who attended
> the E3 press conference understood it. A certain famous journalist let
> slip a word that XBOX is 1.5 while PS is 3.5 as it was above the
> expectation, they are different like that.
>
> The Difference Between PS3 and XBOX 360 You Can't See From The Specs
>
> G: The messages are clearly different between XBOX 360 and PS3. XBOX 360
> pushed the image that they could prepare a solid game console as a
> platform. PS3 emphasized the possibility of the technologies.
>
> K: This time, Microsoft clearly profess that they are chasing
PlayStation.
> However, what they are chasing are not PLAYSTATION 3 but PlayStation 2.
> Because they don't know PS3 we are just making now. They become like
that
> as they look at PS2. The goals are different. However, most people can't
> tell the difference just by looking at the specs. We got mistaken in a
> similar way in the time of PS1. We'd been evaluated that the both were
3D,
> along with 3DO. Even though we argued that PS1 calculated 3D while 3DO
> didn't, we were said that the both were 3D and had CD-ROM, it's terrible
> like that.
>
> This time, either, they may not be able to see the difference between
PS3
> and XBOX 360 if the spec sheets are shown side by side. But, at E3, many
> people said it was good to be able to come and see it, not by the spec.
> It'll be more infected and understood when it's released.
>
> G: By PC getting to the dead end, do you mean with PC dragged by
legacies
> innovation is difficult and you can't go nowhere?
>
> K: (Current computers) can't make the most of it as a total even though
> individual devices have their performances. Various bottlenecks are
found
> when you assemble them. If you can make the most of it, you ought to be
do
> decent things if you combine 3.X Ghz Pentium 4 and boards by NVIDIA or
> ATI, but you can't.
>
> What I call total is the buses, the loads, and other factors when they
> work together. You can't know it unless you do games (that have a high
> load). We made the architecture considering all those things. For
> instance, each SPE works indepedently, and SRAM is attached there, also
> large GPR (general purpose registers) are attached too. Because of that
it
> can do huge calculations in realtime. Such an architecture is im****tant.
>
> (the excerpt of Goto's comment:
>
> This time, Playstation aims, with a will, at the post-PC,
next-generation
> computer. In PlayStation 2 it was not enough by various factors such as
> flexibility of the hardware, but in PS3 it seems he thinks he could get
an
> innovative architecture as a computer, with IBM. The "playstation" as a
> general noun suggests various form factors in the category of
playstation.
> SCE's message for games is that games can be innovative on a computer
that
> pursues computer entertainment.)
>
> http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0609/kaigai187.htm
>
> Ken Kutaragi Interview by Hiro****ge Goto - pt.2 : "Put a full-blown
Linux
> on PS3 HDD"
>
> The Age of Network Drive
>
> G: PLAYSTATION 3 doesn't have a local HDD even though it boasts that
much
> spec. Why?
>
> K: We don't put an HDD in default. It's because it runs short no matter
> how much you add it. The next thing that will come is, without a doubt,
a
> network drive. (A storage is) on a Cell server, you can access it via
the
> network from anywhere. In your home, in your friend's home, from
anywhere,
> you can see logically (the same network drive). Such a world.
>
> However, the console itself requires HDD sometimes. So this time you can
> put a 2.5 inch HDD in there, 80GB and 120GB. It's very short, but it's
for
> running an OS in a single console. Even though you have a tera-byte
> storage somewhere with a network drive, you have to have a drive in
which
> an OS can run when you get an authentication as a single computer.
>
> Put an OS To Be Seen As A Computer
>
> G: Is it that you run an OS to use it as a computer?
>
> K: What I find strange is that while we've been calling it as a computer
> all the time, in the same business world Nintendo affirms it's a toy,
it's
> a toy, to the outside world. So, even though we make supercomputer-class
> things that require an ex****t control, the offices regard it as a toy.
>
> Even PlayStation 2 is seen as a game console though we made an awesome
> chip such as EE and run Linux on it. I'd thought it might become a bit
> better as Microsoft came from the IT world. But the awkward thing is
that
> they don't say that as they don't want to break their own business. As
> they are thinking that it becomes a trouble for them if Xbox runs
Windows,
> they are insisting that XBOX is a game console. What a troublesome
thing.
>
> This time, we position it as a supercomputer. However, as there are
people
> who don't see it as a computer if it's not filed as a computer, we make
it
> run an OS. Cell can run multiple OSes simultaneously. So, to run an OS
as
> it is and to say it's a computer, it needs an HDD.
>
> So, I think we'll put Linux (on an HDD) from the beginning... as a
bonus.
> To file it as a computer.
>
> G: For an OS to be run on Cell, Linux comes to mind.
>
> K: Though Linux is also a legacy, it can be a initial lead. For Cell, an
> OS is merely an application (laugh). The kernel runs on Cell (Cell OS
> hypervisor) and it takes the style in which multiple OSes as
applications
> run on top of that (virtual machine). Linux will be put of course. If
> Linux can be put, Lindows or anything can be put.
>
> Also other PC OSs, if the vendors think they want, Windows or Tiger (Mac
> OS X 10.4), can be put on it. Perhaps even a different OS may emerge.
>
> Drive The Ecosystem By PLAYSTATION 3
>
> G: With an OS, people who write programs on it will appear. To make Cell
> succeed as a computer, an ecosystem must be run on Cell. It needs the
> establishment of an ecosystem where many people spontaneously write
> programs to impel further permeation of Cell.
>
> K: Just like Apple Computer was open back then, if PLAYSTATION 3 is
> released and becomes open, an ecosystem will be driven. When it became
> Macintosh, even though Apple didn't do everything, Adobe came and
someone
> came, the ecosystem took off. PC was like that originally. But they
> absorbed everything (into MS Windows)... Well, it may be their
aesthetic,
> but it's become uncomprehensible even what an OS is.
>
> Until now, we'd provided libraries and game makers had made things
> in-house, it's not possible anymore though. To do anything, you need a
> larger expansion. But it'll turn out like that I think. For example,
what
> surprised us is that an iTunes-syncronization software for PSP was
> released quickly. If it's evaluated as interesting, various things that
> run on it appear.
>
> G: Non-game softwares that take advantage of Cell will be released in a
> stream.
>
> K: It'll be about what kind of software on what. For instance an HD
video
> authoring software is basically the same as a non-linear authoring
system
> in TV stations. What we want to do on PS3 is a software of that level. A
> non-linear authoring system is amazing, but it'll be more amazing if you
> bring it on Cell. You can manage to do it on a PC, but on PS3 it can be
> done with ease, you'll see the difference like that. Also, various
> applications that have been on PC, for example, a photo retouching
> software. Such softwares will be released rapidly. User interfaces will
be
> interesting too. On PC, you have to wait for years from the XP UI to the
> next Longhorn. But, ours develop faster. For example, with an interface
> controlled by gestures and speech like Eye-toy, it becomes Minority
> Re****t. Of course such development will be reflected in games too.
>
> G: Will the Cell computer of that time retain the PS3 form factor?
>
> K: This form will prevail first. A keyboard can be connected, it has all
> of the interfaces required. You can do anything media and network. A
thing
> as much general as this is open.
>
> For instance, you can use everything openly with Linux, so everything is
> possible (for programmers). Also for graphics, it's the same as it has
> Shader (with its programmability).
>
> (The excerpt of Goto's comment:
> Executives at Intel and Microsoft criticized Cell with its lack of
> software ecosystem, and it seems SCE understands this point and is
taking
> concrete measures.)
>
|
