How small solid state HD could the PS3 have?

how about increase BRD speed and not make HDD compulsory after all i thought blu ray reading + seek time was not good enough that they put HDD didn't they???

or do ps3 need HDD for runnning XMB as well? i must be missing something here

 

The harddrive is primarily for the multimedia stuff and downloads.

 

and caching of game data.

 

Of course I know all that! I own a 360 as I just mentioned.

What I am saying is if 360, PS3 could have somehow finagled in a 3.5" to a decent form factor, you could have lets say, probably a 500GB HDD for MS extortion price of $180 instead of a 120GB.

BTW I do think HDD adds to the size of the console. PS3 could have been a lot smaller I think. The components do not seem to require that much space. But there is a HDD in there.. you're telling me with no HDD, Sony couldn't have engineered something a bit smaller? (Maybe not too much, as you have a big hot Blu-Ray board in there and internal power supply). But later on, for sure.

BTW mass storage devices DO INDEED add a lot of cost. Ram and the HDD were said to be the two most expensive components in the final days of the Xbox 1.

 

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4908

What is a "big hot Blu-Ray board"? It looks to me that most of the space is cooling, power and the BD drive (which is the same size as a DVD drive). It's not like MS saved any space excluding the HD from the 360 core, the space is just empty (like the original PS2).

 

I dont know, I had thought the early Blu_Ray boards were pretty big and hot. If I was wrong I was wrong.

And on 360 core, yeah but they still had to design with enough space on the side to bolt on the HDD. Not that it probably made a vast difference to size this time. But maybe in the future it will be an issue.

 

In addition to what inefficient said further up, I'll just add that the PS2 had a slot for a large 3.5" harddrive and that didn't impact its size much... Not compared to the Xbox anyway.

 

....