7 ms·

The PlayStation2 vs. the PC (2000)

91 points by CoolGuySteve 12y ago

Aissen 12y ago
Jon Stokes used to be my favorite tech-vulgarization writer, and he always provided good analyses. I'm bummed that he stopped writing at Ars, but I hear he's doing great stuff elsewhere (but not writing as much I'm afraid).
- snarfy 12y ago
  All the people I cared about reading are gone. It's just another tech news site now. It used to be an original content site too. There is still some original content, but it's nowhere near the caliber of stuff Stokes was putting out, and some of the newer stuff has a political slant to it that I don't care for. Jon always kept it technical.
  - theandrewbailey 12y ago
    When they did their last design, it was pretty obvious. They threw out their Microsoft and open source sections, and left the Apple section. These days I sarcastically refer to Ars as an Apple blog.
    - dublinben 12y ago
      Do you remember who used to cover open source for them, and where they might be writing now? I really don't feel like Ars offers a comprehensive perspective of the industry any more.
      - theandrewbailey 12y ago
        Ryan Paul. http://seg.phault.net/ http://seg.phault.net/
    - bkeroack 12y ago
      The first time I came across Ars I read an amazingly detailed, multi-part explanation of the Itanium/IA-64 architecture (must have been Stokes). It was fascinating. A few years ago I tried to find it in the archives and failed (maybe only subscribers have access?). It's a shame they let pieces like that die.
  - incision 12y ago
    This explains everything. I hadn't frequented Ars for ages when I downloaded one of their podcasts last fall. I listened for a while before I realized the cacophony of giggling and memes wasn't pre-show foolishness - it was the whole show. Now that I know the name and look back, pretty much everything I characterized Ars with was written by Jon Stokes.
- castell 12y ago
  So true. Jon Stokes also wrote the great book "Inside the Machine: An Illustrated Introduction to Microprocessors and Computer Architecture" while he worked at Ars Technica. I have it still in my bookshelf. http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Machine-Introduction-Microprocessors-Architecture/dp/1593271042/ http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Machine-Introduction-Microproce...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Eiriksmal 12y ago
> The PS2 is such a bizarre and powerful beast that it took me many hours of poring over articles and slide presentations just to get my bearings with it > When the programmers responsible for some of the greatest console games ever made say that the PS2's learning curve is steep, you know something's up. Update this for 2006 with a s/PS2/PS3/g. I do remember articles about the Xbox and 360 touting its easy API interfaces, in stark contrast to Sony's. Why did Sony keep creating such hard-to-code-for devices and yet end up with such a monstrous install base? It's the chicken and the egg, I suppose.
- taeric 12y ago
  My impression was that they always went for highly customized devices for the tasks that games need, instead of going for highly general devices. So, yes, they were more difficult. They also had more staying power, typically.
- gillianseed 12y ago
  >Why did Sony keep creating such hard-to-code-for devices and yet end up with such a monstrous install base? I'd say it's because when the developers learned how to make the best out of the PS2/PS3 hardware, the results were better than that of the competing hardware.
  - talmand 12y ago
    Since that's a heavily subjective thing to attempt to measure I would have to say it was more than just that. Marketing, exclusives, and brand loyalty would have much to do with it.
    - kenrikm 12y ago
      NaughtyDog.. If there is one studio I would buy a console just so I could play their games it's NaughtyDog.
      - 67726e 12y ago
AdmiralAsshat 12y ago
How's it compare to the Saturn? I heard that was a nightmare to program for as well if you were doing anything 3D.
- nsxwolf 12y ago
  The one anecdote I know about the Saturn is that the programmers of the game Bug! just turned off the second CPU so they wouldn't have to deal with it. I got that from this Dave Warhol inteview by Matt Barton, comes in around 2:00 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiHhKoM3Tg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiHhKoM3Tg
  - bane 12y ago
    Matt's show is amazing. He lands interviews with some of the most legendary names in gaming. A real joy to watch.
    - nsxwolf 12y ago
      I can't believe he doesn't have a lot more subscribers and views than he does.
- gecko 12y ago
  The big thing was just that the Saturn was supposed to be a badass 2D platform, with insanely powerful hardware sprite management. When Sega belatedly realized that 3D was the next big thing, they stapled on an extra CPU to give it enough power to handle 3D...but neglected to up the RAM or the CPU bandwidth. IIRC, it wasn't even theoretically possible to fully utilize both CPUs. Very different situation than the Emotion Engine or Cell.
  - MBCook 12y ago
    That's not true, it was meant to be a 3D console from the get-go. However after they found out how powerful the Playstation was they quickly added extra power to make the console more comparable and that was where the complexity came from.
georgeecollins 12y ago
This brings back memories of working with PS2 dev boxes and reading Ars Technica. Back then it was a such a good source for this sort of information. The PS2 was an incredible pain to develop for. Sony new it would be a hit no matter what they did. They really wanted it to have unique hardware. I also think they wanted it to be a machine that developers couldn't master in a singel development cycle. The way they released information about the VMUs later I think leads credence to the idea that they wanted the second and third life cycle of the device to show successive graphic improvements.

91 points by CoolGuySteve 12y ago

Jon Stokes used to be my favorite tech-vulgarization writer, and he always provided good analyses. I'm bummed that he stopped writing at Ars, but I hear he's doing great stuff elsewhere (but not writing as much I'm afraid).

snarfy 12y ago
All the people I cared about reading are gone. It's just another tech news site now. It used to be an original content site too. There is still some original content, but it's nowhere near the caliber of stuff Stokes was putting out, and some of the newer stuff has a political slant to it that I don't care for. Jon always kept it technical.
- theandrewbailey 12y ago
  When they did their last design, it was pretty obvious. They threw out their Microsoft and open source sections, and left the Apple section. These days I sarcastically refer to Ars as an Apple blog.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    Do you remember who used to cover open source for them, and where they might be writing now? I really don't feel like Ars offers a comprehensive perspective of the industry any more.
    - theandrewbailey 12y ago
      Ryan Paul. http://seg.phault.net/ http://seg.phault.net/
  - bkeroack 12y ago
    The first time I came across Ars I read an amazingly detailed, multi-part explanation of the Itanium/IA-64 architecture (must have been Stokes). It was fascinating. A few years ago I tried to find it in the archives and failed (maybe only subscribers have access?). It's a shame they let pieces like that die.
- incision 12y ago
  This explains everything. I hadn't frequented Ars for ages when I downloaded one of their podcasts last fall. I listened for a while before I realized the cacophony of giggling and memes wasn't pre-show foolishness - it was the whole show. Now that I know the name and look back, pretty much everything I characterized Ars with was written by Jon Stokes.
castell 12y ago
So true. Jon Stokes also wrote the great book "Inside the Machine: An Illustrated Introduction to Microprocessors and Computer Architecture" while he worked at Ars Technica. I have it still in my bookshelf. http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Machine-Introduction-Microprocessors-Architecture/dp/1593271042/ http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Machine-Introduction-Microproce...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Eiriksmal 12y ago

> The PS2 is such a bizarre and powerful beast that it took me many hours of poring over articles and slide presentations just to get my bearings with it > When the programmers responsible for some of the greatest console games ever made say that the PS2's learning curve is steep, you know something's up. Update this for 2006 with a s/PS2/PS3/g. I do remember articles about the Xbox and 360 touting its easy API interfaces, in stark contrast to Sony's. Why did Sony keep creating such hard-to-code-for devices and yet end up with such a monstrous install base? It's the chicken and the egg, I suppose.

taeric 12y ago
My impression was that they always went for highly customized devices for the tasks that games need, instead of going for highly general devices. So, yes, they were more difficult. They also had more staying power, typically.
gillianseed 12y ago
>Why did Sony keep creating such hard-to-code-for devices and yet end up with such a monstrous install base? I'd say it's because when the developers learned how to make the best out of the PS2/PS3 hardware, the results were better than that of the competing hardware.
- talmand 12y ago
  Since that's a heavily subjective thing to attempt to measure I would have to say it was more than just that. Marketing, exclusives, and brand loyalty would have much to do with it.
  - kenrikm 12y ago
    NaughtyDog.. If there is one studio I would buy a console just so I could play their games it's NaughtyDog.
    - 67726e 12y ago

AdmiralAsshat 12y ago

How's it compare to the Saturn? I heard that was a nightmare to program for as well if you were doing anything 3D.

nsxwolf 12y ago
The one anecdote I know about the Saturn is that the programmers of the game Bug! just turned off the second CPU so they wouldn't have to deal with it. I got that from this Dave Warhol inteview by Matt Barton, comes in around 2:00 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiHhKoM3Tg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiHhKoM3Tg
- bane 12y ago
  Matt's show is amazing. He lands interviews with some of the most legendary names in gaming. A real joy to watch.
  - nsxwolf 12y ago
    I can't believe he doesn't have a lot more subscribers and views than he does.
gecko 12y ago
The big thing was just that the Saturn was supposed to be a badass 2D platform, with insanely powerful hardware sprite management. When Sega belatedly realized that 3D was the next big thing, they stapled on an extra CPU to give it enough power to handle 3D...but neglected to up the RAM or the CPU bandwidth. IIRC, it wasn't even theoretically possible to fully utilize both CPUs. Very different situation than the Emotion Engine or Cell.
- MBCook 12y ago
  That's not true, it was meant to be a 3D console from the get-go. However after they found out how powerful the Playstation was they quickly added extra power to make the console more comparable and that was where the complexity came from.

georgeecollins 12y ago

This brings back memories of working with PS2 dev boxes and reading Ars Technica. Back then it was a such a good source for this sort of information. The PS2 was an incredible pain to develop for. Sony new it would be a hit no matter what they did. They really wanted it to have unique hardware. I also think they wanted it to be a machine that developers couldn't master in a singel development cycle. The way they released information about the VMUs later I think leads credence to the idea that they wanted the second and third life cycle of the device to show successive graphic improvements.