Google + browser + console = PC substitute?

[patsu]

Why does every 3 years someone tries to reinvent WebTV like its revolutionary idea. People can walk into Walmart and get $300 web surfing PC.

It happens with any "next-wave" technology. We have been talking about VoD, 3G applications, speech recognition, blah blah every now and then until:
* Technical problems are solved
* Market is ready
* Business model is proven

This time WebTV gets subsumed under PS3, which justifies for PS3's high price incidentally.

And forget little johnny playin MGS4, what if dad wants to watch monday night football and the wife needs to get some work done on the 'computer'?

Scooby, this is a contention of space rather than PS3. You should be able to watch the TV (with zero PS3 involvement), and then hook up the PS3 to another monitor to work. Or if you want to, VNC or file serve it to another PC.

In many cases, a Windows PC will suffer the same use case problems as a so-called "All-in-one" PS3 due to (i) contention for keyboard, screen and mouse; and (ii) setup difficulties. Does this also mean that a Windows PC is as "useless" as a PS3 ?

An all-in-one machine doesn't mean that it MUST serve all the family members all the times. It can:
* Serve all the needs of just 1 family member (good enough !)
* Pool the needs of the entire family so they can free up their individual workstations for other uses
* Spread a common need (like web browsing) over more nodes for pervasiveness. e.g., The other day my laptop blue-screen'ed every 3-5 minutes due to a IP-SEC VPN software conflict (NDIS filter problem ). I had to fight for my wife's laptop to read B3D forums. Now if PS3 also provide a secondary web browsing function, one of us could use PS3 also.

 

[one]

No the point is a PC generally gets heavy usage by all members of a household. His post began with "Until people have multiple HDtvs and PS3s it will not work for the average family"

Fair enough. But I assume most early adopters of PS3 are not average families, but single males who have a job and disposable income. For such demographic the sharing use scenario is not common.

 

[SPM]

Ahem. The very first successful internet virus was a Unix worm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm

A worm and a virus are two completely different things. A worm exploits a bug in a program (usually in a service exposed to the Internet). A virus exploits flaws in the design of the security model. A worm can never infect that machine again once it has been patched. A virus vulnerability cannot be patched out. A virus that could infect Windows 2, 3 or 4 years ago can still infect Windows. The only way to keep a virus out is to install a virus scanner to catch it if the virus comes back - take the virus scanner away and your computer will be re-infected the same as it was initially.

No viruses have ever spread successfully on Unix, Linux, or OSX (all are Unix variants) although many attempts have been made to write viruses for them.

As far as worms are concerned, in theory, since bugs are programming mistakes, they can can occur in any operating system. In practice however, Windows is far more vulnerable to serious worm attacks than Unix or Linux. The reason is that because of the security flaws that allow viruses to attack Windows machines, it is far easier to automate attacks on Windows machines, whereas with Unix/Linux, most exploits require manual cracking which can only be carried out on a small number of machines.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

By using your games console as a replacement for the PC, it basically means it will be tied up a much of the time doing stuff like checking email, surfing the web, or chatting.

I don't think anyone's suggesting you throw out your current PC to use a PS3 instead So PS3, or any other console-box solution, is always going to be in addition to existing PC solutions. The choice then isn't one of using only PC or console in your house, but one of 'which new item do I add to my existing collection of computing and entertainment hardwares?'

Shifty - It's not that I'm against options. I just like to be realistic about the portion of consumers that will actually be interested in these options.

That's really something nobody knows without a proper questionnaire. We all have our ideas of the average family buying such products, but where they'll be headed in future is anyone's guess. Having to buy an HDTV to use productivity features is asking a great deal. But people are going to be bying these TVs anyway just to watch TV. The fact they can add a 'computer' onto it and have the infamous Little Jonny doing his homework on the downstairs TV while Little Sally is doing hers on the PC the family already owned, is a bonus. A bonus they would lack if the 'computer' attached could only play games, meaning they need to buy another PC to run on that HDTV

Why should any of these people go with an option that is not only more expensive, but offers less functionality than what they are already using?

That's the question. Possible reasons include :

Better implementation of features - software that's more friendly, less buggy, in generally different than what's possible on PC.

Better strengths - if your primarily want to play games, with a bit of productivity on the side, a gaming-orientated platform would be a good option.

Affordable utility - These console solutions will be down to a few hundred dollars in a few years. If you've scrimped and saved for an HDTV, a cheap box to use it for gaming and productivity is better than one box for playing movies, another for games, and a third for productivity.

Space saving - If your a family in a tiddly appartment, with a flat-screen TV on the wall, a box attached to that to act as computing instead of a separate desk unit may be a choice you'd like.

Security Paranoia - I know people who have switched to Mac's for fear of viruses and a belief Macs are immune. They've had to buy all their software again, but they've done it.

I'm sure there's more reasons as well. It all depends who you are, your lifestyle, income and preferences, as to whether you'd find a console-box solution better than a standard Windows PC, in most cases as a secondary platform as most people have a PC already.

 

[Arwin]

Ehm, that doesn't quite sound correct. You might want to read up on some stuff here:

http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/docid/1999041209131106

Sure, Unix has a better security model in the sense that everything is locked down more by default. But the main saving grace for all non-Windows system is simply that there aren't enough people using them.

Who knows if PS3 Linux becomes successful, eh?

 

[SPM]

By using your games console as a replacement for the PC, it basically means it will be tied up a much of the time doing stuff like checking email, surfing the web, or chatting.

It's not comparable to fighting over TV channels, the TV is a dedicated maching that only serves one purpose. We're talking about all-in-one machines here, which means you have one machine doing a variety of different tasks, and in the end you would have much more conflict over who gets to do what when.

Shifty - It's not that I'm against options. I just like to be realistic about the portion of consumers that will actually be interested in these options. As soon as you say "oh just buy a 2nd ps3 and a 16:9 flatscreen"...you just lost the vast majority of consumers. The vast majority of consumers have PC's already as well. Why should any of these people go with an option that is not only more expensive, but offers less functionality than what they are already using?

For many people one console with Internet PC features may be enough, but who said anything about getting rid of the PC you already have or buying an extra console? If you already have a PC, by all means continue to use it. If you have a console use it to do PC stuff as well. If you need another console or PC, then go and buy one if you want. It is all about extra choice and extra flexibility. Using a games console to do PC stuff, and if necessary getting an LCD display for the console as well instead of hogging the TV. Using a games console in this manner will help solve the problems of PC hogging not make it worse.

Also who says you have to use the PS3? Why not the Xbox360 or Wii if Microsoft/Nintendo allow it. With a USB interface you can add hard drive storage if you need to. A browser, browser plugins and print subsystem can also run from flash memory either internal or on a USB key.

 

[SPM]

Ehm, that doesn't quite sound correct. You might want to read up on some stuff here:

http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/docid/1999041209131106

Sure, Unix has a better security model in the sense that everything is locked down more by default. But the main saving grace for all non-Windows system is simply that there aren't enough people using them.

Who knows if PS3 Linux becomes successful, eh?

That is what Microsoft says in it's PR, however in you consider production Internet servers (as opposed to home PCs with services on the Internet), then there are more Unix/Linux/BSD machines exposed to the Internet than Windows servers (>60% of Internet domains are hosted on Unix/Linux/BSD). What is more, the most exposed machines are Linux/BSD which are used as routers and firewalls behind which Windows servers sit.

Production Windows servers (ignoring home PCs) are targeted disproportionately to their numbers, and the reason for that is simple - Windows is easier to exploit with automated attacks.

 

[scooby_dooby]

For many people one console with Internet PC features may be enough, but who said anything about getting rid of the PC you already have or buying an extra console? If you already have a PC, by all means continue to use it. If you have a console use it to do PC stuff as well. If you need another console or PC, then go and buy one if you want. It is all about extra choice and extra flexibility. Using a games console to do PC stuff, and if necessary getting an LCD display for the console as well instead of hogging the TV. Using a games console in this manner will help solve the problems of PC hogging not make it worse.

Like I said I have nothing against options. I just have a problem with the sentiment that 'many' people will find this functionality useful. If by 'many' you mean a tiny fraction of the overall consumer base then I agree

 

[slider]

As per usual I'm diving into a thread then leaving just as quickly. Apologies if someone's already rambled on like this...

If my PS3 (or 360 for that matter - when/if I get it onto Live!) was to offer a simple browser to check out email & various websites I'd easily choose that over my desktop PC. For a start the PC's in my bedroom. I dunno why. Secondly it's quite a beefy machine. For a lot of the tasks I use it for it seems like overkill. Gadget/tech freak slider got the better of sensible slider.

As scooby notes though, I dunno what percentage that'll be compared to overall internet users - whatever number is put to that stat.

But if we assume that this gen does expand the console market - let's say to a not unreasonable 200 million-ish, and of those 200mil, maybe, half are able & do go "online" it'd be a massive increase over last gen (i.e. Xbox, GC and PS2) however you cut it. All journey's start with a single step!

 

[Powderkeg]

I think the idea of using a game console to replace the PC for basic functions will be about as successful as WebTV.

 

[Arwin]

That is what Microsoft says in it's PR, however in you consider production Internet servers (as opposed to home PCs with services on the Internet), then there are more Unix/Linux/BSD machines exposed to the Internet than Windows servers (>60% of Internet domains are hosted on Unix/Linux/BSD). What is more, the most exposed machines are Linux/BSD which are used as routers and firewalls behind which Windows servers sit.

Production Windows servers (ignoring home PCs) are targeted disproportionately to their numbers, and the reason for that is simple - Windows is easier to exploit with automated attacks.

So now we're suddenly just covering servers? According to US-CERT, 5189 software leaks were reported last year, and the majority were in Linux/Unix.

You may want to consider that because Windows has been so consistently under attack for such a long period of time, it may actually have evolved beyond the relatively untested Linux/Unix machines.

Just from personal experience, and looking at forums alone, it's clear to me that in the last years a lot of Linux/Unix based forums have been hacked.

The PSP, by the way, is also based on Unix/Linux afaik. Totally unhackable, eh?

Anyway, considering that we browse more than we watch TV these days, everyone will have at least one browser in the near future, and that leaves a lot of room for devices like consoles offering such functionality. If I get a nice, big screen with a high-res (1080p), and I can share it for games, movies, browsing, reading my email, chatting, it might just work. Heck, I'll get two soon enough - I have two PS2s also ... I even have two PSPs, but I have one only for developing purposes, just having some fun with that, learning to code in C and for other platforms than PC.

Certainly, the PS3 would be better at it than any of my PCs at the moment.

 

[SPM]

So now we're suddenly just covering servers? According to US-CERT, 5189 software leaks were reported last year, and the majority were in Linux/Unix.

If you look carefully at the CERT reports, rather than just the MS PR, you will notice a number of things. First the same vulnerabilities are counted numerous times - once for RedHat, once for SuSE, once for Debian etc. Second the bugs for Linux cover everything bundled in a distro for example GIMP, MySQL etc. whereas Windows vulnerabilities only cover what is part of core Windows - ie. it doesn't include Photoshop or MS SQL server vulnerabilities. Third, the severity of the Linux bug fixes are much less than those on Windows. This is because in Open Source development fixes are issued frequently and for the slightest issue.

You may want to consider that because Windows has been so consistently under attack for such a long period of time, it may actually have evolved beyond the relatively untested Linux/Unix machines.

I think the key phrase here is that Windows has been so consistently and successfully attacked for such a long time. Linux/Unix machines are hardly untested. Unix was developed as a network OS right from the start, while Windows developed from a standalone desktop and networking was a relatively recent recent add-on. Unix and Unix variants have been the premier network OS for about 30 years, and Linux/BSD are used in the most hostile network environments - routers, firewalls, DNS servers etc, Windows isn't - Unix/Linux are hardly untested as a secure network OS - it Windows that is untested in this field. Where Windows is tested is as a standalone desktop for which it is fine. It is when it is networked you have problems.

Just from personal experience, and looking at forums alone, it's clear to me that in the last years a lot of Linux/Unix based forums have been hacked.

If you don't configure your system properly, or if you fail to update software for security holes, any system will be vulnerable. The difference as I said is that with Windows hacking can be easily automated while with Linux, it has to be done by hand by an experienced hacker. This is why the major worm attacks hit Windows. Two facts just to put things into perspective - During the last two major worm attacks, Microsoft switched some of it's key servers to Linux to keep the www.microsoft.com site up. Symantec tested the time it takes to hack the latest Windows and Linux OSes after they are left unpatched and connected to the Internet with no firewall. They are on record as saying that Windows is hacked on average within an hour (by a worm), and Linux within 3 months on average (these are manual hacks since very few worms affect Linux).

The PSP, by the way, is also based on Unix/Linux afaik. Totally unhackable, eh?

Depends on how you configure it. I doubt if security is a priority on the PSP. Most firewalls and routers are embedded Linux OSes, and they are configured to be pretty secure.

Anyway, considering that we browse more than we watch TV these days, everyone will have at least one browser in the near future, and that leaves a lot of room for devices like consoles offering such functionality. If I get a nice, big screen with a high-res (1080p), and I can share it for games, movies, browsing, reading my email, chatting, it might just work. Heck, I'll get two soon enough - I have two PS2s also ... I even have two PSPs, but I have one only for developing purposes, just having some fun with that, learning to code in C and for other platforms than PC. Certainly, the PS3 would be better at it than any of my PCs at the moment.

I don't see why the browsing function shouldn't be part of a console. It is cheap to add on the functionality, a lot of people are going to go online anyway, so why not?

 

[ector]

Small correction:

"Unix was developed as a network OS right from the start"

This is completely false. Go read up on your Unix history again. Sure, it was designed as a multi-user OS, but certainly not a networking OS.

 

[Sis]

During the last two major worm attacks, Microsoft switched some of it's key servers to Linux to keep the www.microsoft.com site up.

You mean when they used Akamai for website distribution?

Symantec tested the time it takes to hack the latest Windows and Linux OSes after they are left unpatched and connected to the Internet with no firewall. They are on record as saying that Windows is hacked on average within an hour (by a worm), and Linux within 3 months on average (these are manual hacks since very few worms affect Linux).

This doesn't actually say anything. If the majority of viruses and worms target Windows because of Microsoft's market share, then it shouldn't be a surprise when the system with the majority of viruses and worms can't survive a honeypot test longer than an hour.

I lend a lot of credence to the market share argument, but I also agree that the ease of automating things on Windows surely makes it a better target, along with the flawed default user rights configuration. To which I find your sentence here highly ironic given your view of Microsoft security:

If you don't configure your system properly, or if you fail to update software for security holes, any system will be vulnerable.

 

[aaaaa00]

A worm and a virus are two completely different things. A worm exploits a bug in a program (usually in a service exposed to the Internet). A virus exploits flaws in the design of the security model. A worm can never infect that machine again once it has been patched. A virus vulnerability cannot be patched out. A virus that could infect Windows 2, 3 or 4 years ago can still infect Windows. The only way to keep a virus out is to install a virus scanner to catch it if the virus comes back - take the virus scanner away and your computer will be re-infected the same as it was initially.

A virus is a self-replicating program that spreads by inserting itself into other program executables and running when they run.

This kind of thing is increasingly rare on the internet. The fact that OSes can now multitask and run a vast variety of services without user interaction renders the need to run by inserting yourself into another program executable much less necessary.

(I am ignoring macro and email viruses because they have more to do with vulnerabilities in a particular application than the OS itself. I am also ignoring boot-sector and MBR viruses because they've pretty much died as no one swaps floppies any more.)

These days, what most people call "viruses" are really trojans, worms, or malware in general.

A trojan is a program that says it does one thing, but really does something else. There is no real defense for a trojan on any normal OS, since the program asks for permission nicely and pretends to be something that is trustworthy enough for the user to authorize.

An example would be Sony's CD Rootkit, which claims it is a media player, but installs a rootkit. Since users would generally trust that Sony wouldn't screw their computers, they will give it admin privs when it asks for them.

A worm is a self-replicating program that does not need another program's executable file to spread itself. The vast majority of what people call "viruses" today are actually worms.

A rootkit is a piece of software that tries to conceal itself from the user and may try to grant a 3rd party elevated privileges without the consent of the user of the machine.

Spyware is a piece of software that tries to allow a 3rd party to monitor or control a computer without the user's consent.

Malware is simply software that contains any or all of the above elements.

The reason is that because of the security flaws that allow viruses to attack Windows machines, it is far easier to automate attacks on Windows machines, whereas with Unix/Linux, most exploits require manual cracking which can only be carried out on a small number of machines.

Vulnerabilities in apache, php, sendmail, all sorts of Unix services have been targetted by automatic attacks before. This is absolutely 100% no different than the SQL Slammer, Sasser, Code Red, or any of the other non-email internet worms that have attacked Windows over the years.

The only difference is that because Windows is so widespread, chances are good that a worm randomly scanning IPs will find another unpatched Windows machine to infect.

 

[cthellis42]

One key would have to be the easy ability to centralize your mail and media downloads. If a program is easy enough, people are more likely to pick up whatever's most convenient and plug away at it (for instance, if you're watching a show and want to check IMDB, why get up and go to your computer if you can just pause it and check from where you're sitting?), but the general consumer gets SERIOUSLY confused when their files are located in different places and they're trying to find the right thing.

Basically, any console with an email client would have to be set at default to never remove mail from the server (so the PC would still be the central synching device) and--in fact--prompt them to check their PC's settings if they want to synch both, and any file saving would either have to default to the user's PC or have EXTREMELY large and easily-recognizable promps to let them know exactly what's going on.


The PS3 specifically is an unknown quantity until we see more from its' software offerings, but even then it's still not going to have enough convenience (IMHO) because of its' lack of media ins/outs. Without the ability to have other devices passing through the PS3 (specifically, the cable box, and moreso the PVR's people are used to, since I don't yet see the PS3 up to the task) and its' ability to recognize, control, and enhance said devices, you'll end up with a mess of removes, having to change video modes... Things that general consumers just don't want to deal with.

There's a chance a complex enough remote/kbd setup could control it all from one or two devices automatically, but again--more complexity means LESS people wanting to deal with it. (And for me it's a "I'll believe it when I see it" to all those "multi-device" remotes actually being understood by the general public. No one has gotten close yet.)

 

[elementOfpower]

I'm against using console as a general purpose PC because I don't think they are designed for it. In addition, it will complicate the consoles unnecessarily, making them vulnerable to all sorts of PC-related problems

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y.

I own both a high-end PC and an Xbox 360. One of my favorite things about my 360 is that I can just hit the power-switch and be gaming on it within seconds, whereas on a PC I have to--

1) Install the game
2) Look for a patch
3) If I find said patch, download it, then install it.
4) Adjust my utility graphics settings
5) Adjust my in-game graphics settings
6) Test the game out on the current driver (because many games have issues with certain drivers. Battlefield 2 would'nt play on the 6.4 ATi Catalyst, for example.)
7) If the game doesn't work on that driver well, erase current driver and run driver-cleaner to uninstall all old files.
8) Reboot windows.
9) Reinstall new driver.
10)Re-map all the graphics settings I had before since the new update will erase the profiles I had.
11) Start game.

Even though I love my PC, the above just gets to be tedious sometimes, and it's nice to have a kick-butt videogame machine where you can just pop the disc in and hit the power switch without having to worry about anything else and be gaming within seconds.

I would never, EVER want consoles to be prone to the same issues a PC is prone to when it comes to gaming. I personally don't like the direction Sony's headed in with the PS3; I think consoles/PC's should be kept separate and not merged into one.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

None of those issues should apply to playing games on a console, and few apply to running application software. Drivers aren't an issue on closed hardware (unless you're accessing arbitary peripherals which games won't). The OS for gaming should also be isolated from the OS for other tasks, so no matter what hacks and viruses occur, your gaming should be safe and robust. It would be an amazingly stupid design if that isn't the case.

 

[TheChefO]

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y.

I own both a high-end PC and an Xbox 360. One of my favorite things about my 360 is that I can just hit the power-switch and be gaming on it within seconds, whereas on a PC I have to--

1) Install the game
2) Look for a patch
3) If I find said patch, download it, then install it.
4) Adjust my utility graphics settings
5) Adjust my in-game graphics settings
6) Test the game out on the current driver (because many games have issues with certain drivers. Battlefield 2 would'nt play on the 6.4 ATi Catalyst, for example.)
7) If the game doesn't work on that driver well, erase current driver and run driver-cleaner to uninstall all old files.
8) Reboot windows.
9) Reinstall new driver.
10)Re-map all the graphics settings I had before since the new update will erase the profiles I had.
11) Start game.

Even though I love my PC, the above just gets to be tedious sometimes, and it's nice to have a kick-butt videogame machine where you can just pop the disc in and hit the power switch without having to worry about anything else and be gaming within seconds.

I would never, EVER want consoles to be prone to the same issues a PC is prone to when it comes to gaming. I personally don't like the direction Sony's headed in with the PS3; I think consoles/PC's should be kept separate and not merged into one.

Agreed 100%! Although to me perfection would be the console-pc that does for pc apps what consoles do for games. ie: turn key operation for everything. With these closed box systems there is a real opportunity for a home pc replacement that gets rid of the hassles of everyday pc's. While this would never replace the pc, it would do the job for most people I think. Having Sony lead this initiative (for real this time hopefully) I think would be a great thing.

 

[patsu]

None of those issues should apply to playing games on a console, and few apply to running application software. Drivers aren't an issue on closed hardware (unless you're accessing arbitary peripherals which games won't). The OS for gaming should also be isolated from the OS for other tasks, so no matter what hacks and viruses occur, your gaming should be safe and robust. It would be an amazingly stupid design if that isn't the case.

It's a fine line Sony treads. We don't have all the answers from them yet.

* By default, the firmware upgrade procedure should be as silent and automatic as possible (compared to PSP). Not sure how this can be coordinate better with the PS3 Linux app development side of things.

* The game patching process should be fully automated too. Instead of manual search, download, patch and run in some PC games.

* At this moment, we also do not know how the Linux run-time will affect (or not affect) the PS3 game run-time. e.g., whether you can keep a Linux process always running in the background. You could argue either way. A stricter approach is probably safer to guarantee a consistent experience, but the Linux folks probably want to do as much as possible.

The flip side is console developers may be able to take advantage of some PC traits. Like whether it's possible to reduce game download size using the HDD (See the Prey thread about console game download size more than double the PC game download size).