PS3 firmware 2.80 avaiiable

[patsu]

I was talking about that specific situation in a browser since we're talking about browsers. Like in a forum thread where people post a lot of high resolution photos usually of women and some people post about how it made their browsers lock up or have severe performance problems.

Yes, I am talking about IE running in a 512Mb XP and a 800Mb Vista, plus other things like Visual Studio. They all work fine. Slow yes, but no crash. In fact, I am running hulu in the 800Mb Vista VM now (with VS compiling in the background)


And I have just tried hulu 480p in my office ("Merlin"). This time with enterprise network. There is zero choppiness on the PS3.

 

[vazel]

I am not saying just running it on low RAM would cause it to crash. I remember forum threads dedicated to posting a lot of high resolution photos usually of women and some people post about how it made their browsers lock up or have severe performance problems. It just affected the browser.

 

[patsu]

Are you intentionally obtuse? I am not saying just running it on 512MB would cause it to crash. And not crash the entire PC. Just make the browser lock up.

The browser is still running hulu as we speak. No PC or browser crash. *Nothing* crashed or locked up. Give Microsoft some credits here. The GUI is still active. The framerate suffers because it's running in a VM, plus disk accesses due to the compiling Visual Studio is doing.

I remember forum threads dedicated to posting a lot of high resolution photos usually of women and some people post about how it made their browsers lock up or have severe performance problems. Specifically in that situation.

How long ago was that ? Is XP and Vista today that unstable ? Those people may have tons of malware running on their Windows specifically in that situation.

Sure.

If I watch it in SD mode, the entire Merlin episode downloads within 10 seconds. If it's 480p, not long after (I didn't bother to measure but it felt like 30 seconds max). The movie just plays. We should be fine here. Even the abrupt advertisement came in with no lag. This is all on the PS3.

 

[vazel]

 

[vazel]

...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No, the web browser does not run alone. It has to share 256MB XDR with the main OS screen.

The main OS screen takes up at most, 2 1080p framebuffers, 16 MBs. A browser window will take up some MBs depending on window depth, worst case doubled if the images are stored and embedded on the fly and the whole page is full of images. A long page could be 10,000 pixels x I dunno, 1000 pixels wide? The page certainly isn't a native 1920 pixels across, but I can't remember how much margin there is. So something like 10 million pixels, 40 MBs. As the browser doesn't multitask with high demand applications, 512MBsould be plenty. eeePCs can browse the web with similar resources to hand.

This is why the virtual memory update was done but even the firmware developer admits this is not a cure all. Have you tried loading up a web page with a lot of high resolution pictures on a PC with only 512MB RAM?

I had no problem browsing the web on a Windows 2000 PC with 512 MBs. And that was with Windows bloat! If I fire up a browser now and load some long, graphics heavy page, I use up 80 MBs according to Task Manager (IE8, WinXP). Any issues with PS3's browser can't be a fault of lack of RAM, instead being an issue with implementation.

Listen to yourself! You've been arguing for HOURS because you feel you have to dispell undue concerns? I think the only reason I'm continuing is to see how long you'll go.

Well, one would expect any debate to either go on until both sides reach consensus, or one party decides to agree to disagree and bows out of the discussion. Ego can come into it, but isn't de facto the reason to keep on with one's point and I can't say I've noticed any attempt at one-upmanship here. As I don't use the browser nor have access to Hulu, I'm in no position to contribute either way, other than the above

 

[vazel]

The main OS screen takes up at most, 2 1080p framebuffers, 16 MBs. A browser window will take up some MBs depending on window depth, worst case doubled if the images are stored and embedded on the fly and the whole page is full of images. A long page could be 10,000 pixels x I dunno, 1000 pixels wide? The page certainly isn't a native 1920 pixels across, but I can't remember how much margin there is. So something like 10 million pixels, 40 MBs. As the browser doesn't multitask with high demand applications, 512MBsould be plenty. eeePCs can browse the web with similar resources to hand.

The browser only has access to the main 256MB RAM. Memory problems with the PS3 browser have been a recognized problem even from the PS3 firmware developers. Streaming videos would sometimes cause out of memory errors. Speedtest.net was a surefire way to cause 'out of memory' errors. That's why virtual memory was implemented but even then the developers admitted it didn't completely solve the issue since vm is very slow.

And why are you talking about graphical elements only? (The framebuffer would go in the GDDR3). There's code and stuff there too you know and RAM it sets aside for its own purposes all of which the browser has to share with. Again, remember I'm talking about the main XMB screen not game mode XMB.

I had no problem browsing the web on a Windows 2000 PC with 512 MBs. And that was with Windows bloat! If I fire up a browser now and load some long, graphics heavy page, I use up 80 MBs according to Task Manager (IE8, WinXP). Any issues with PS3's browser can't be a fault of lack of RAM, instead being an issue with implementation.

Again, I was only talking about a specific situation of high RAM usage inside a browser(I'm talking a lot of very high resolution photos per page). And I'm not sure how much RAM or what OS they were using, I said 512MB but it could've been 256MB. But let's just drop that already.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The browser only has access to the main 256MB RAM.

I was not aware of this. I can't see any particular why Sony would limit their browser to the XDR. Unless I suppose if it's entirely driven by the SPU, but even then there's no partcular reason to as it's a standalone app. I guess this is a security measure?

Memory problems with the PS3 browser have been a recognized problem even from the PS3 firmware developers.

I'm not denying that But I wouldn't attribute it to low RAM per se, rather how the RAM is used. Although I haven't really followed where this fits in with the overall argument. If it's 'Browser is slow and remains slow with 2.80 and cannot get faster because of RAM limits' then I disagree, but if it's an aside point, I guess it bares little relation to FW 2.80

And why are you talking about graphical elements only? (The framebuffer would go in the GDDR3)

Then it hasn't got only 256 MBs for the browser I speak of graphical elements because that's the chief consumer of memory for a browser. HTML is KBs. Fonts are KBs. Interface is KBs unless woefully inefficient. Flash can take a fair bit, but I class that as graphical element. Point being, the browser itself can operate within the 256 MBs, assuming most of that is available. The DS can browse with a tiddly RAM, just to indicate how small a browser can be and still run.

But as said above, I'm just arguing a point here, rather than the whole argument. What exactly is the issue with the browser and the amount of RAM? That Sony can't get a good browser experience due to hardware limits? That they haven't got a good browser experience yet but we live in hopes? That the PS3 browser architecture cannot handle video streams due to software short-comings? It started with you and Patsu disgreeing as to stuttering on Hulu, which without some proper metric isn't a good place to start an argument with a high chance of an intelligent outcome!

 

[vazel]

I'm not denying that But I wouldn't attribute it to low RAM per se, rather how the RAM is used. Although I haven't really followed where this fits in with the overall argument. If it's 'Browser is slow and remains slow with 2.80 and cannot get faster because of RAM limits' then I disagree, but if it's an aside point, I guess it bares little relation to FW 2.80

Yes it is because of low ram. Remember the browser doesn't get all that 256MB all to itself, it has to share with the rest of the main XMB with custom themes and whatever else. The developers cited the 256MB as a limitation and that's why they added virtual memory. They admitted virtual memory wasn't an ideal solution because it's slow.

Then it hasn't got only 256 MBs for the browser I speak of graphical elements because that's the chief consumer of memory for a browser. HTML is KBs. Fonts are KBs. Interface is KBs unless woefully inefficient. Flash can take a fair bit, but I class that as graphical element. Point being, the browser itself can operate within the 256 MBs, assuming most of that is available. The DS can browse with a tiddly RAM, just to indicate how small a browser can be and still run.

Yes we do know that the browser is limited to the main 256MB which it has to share with other elements from the main XMB. All the graphical elements of a web page go in main ram just like in a pc. I would not underestimate how much RAM a browser can use. Right now Chrome is using slightly over 70MB for one web page(Variety.com) and that's a browser with the stated goal of being slim.

Regardless of how everything breaks down in memory usage what we do know is the developers themselves have talked about memory being an issue for the browser.

But as said above, I'm just arguing a point here, rather than the whole argument. What exactly is the issue with the browser and the amount of RAM? That Sony can't get a good browser experience due to hardware limits? That they haven't got a good browser experience yet but we live in hopes? That the PS3 browser architecture cannot handle video streams due to software short-comings? It started with you and Patsu disgreeing as to stuttering on Hulu, which without some proper metric isn't a good place to start an argument with a high chance of an intelligent outcome!

Yes what started all of this was that hulu videos run choppy(specifically hulu's 480p mode). It's well known among PS3 enthusiasts that use the browser that hulu does not run well. I didn't even point to RAM as the definitive cause! I only suggested it as a possible reason because of past 'out of memory' issues on sites with flash, I also suggested it could be the browser/flash needed more optimization. But somehow this turned into a big thing. It was two internet egos that kept a shitstorm going for no good reason. It's not the first time something like this has happened between me and patsu.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Hulu works just fine for me at 480p. I use it ALL the time. I watch The Daily Show, Family Guy, Naruto Shippuden, etc. on a regular basis (in 480p). I haven't had choppiness or anything of the sort for a LONG time now.

I would suggest taking another look at your setup. I'm wireless to a 802.11n Linksys router. My connection speed is 8Mb/s. Good luck.

 

[vazel]

Hulu works just fine for me at 480p. I use it ALL the time. I watch The Daily Show, Family Guy, Naruto Shippuden, etc. on a regular basis (in 480p). I haven't had choppiness or anything of the sort for a LONG time now.

I would suggest taking another look at your setup. I'm wireless to a 802.11n Linksys router. My connection speed is 8Mb/s. Good luck.

You can run hulu 480p in fullscreen? I have a 10Mbps connection. I have read several reports from today of hulu still being choppy for them like it has always been. Are you sure it's smooth, some people don't notice some framerate problems. Try watching House or Mental in 480p.

Edit: It's not smooth for me over wifi or ethernet. But then again even the developers admitted that moving h.264 flash video to its own spu would not get rid of dropped frames...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

We need to define smooth. The occassional frame drop, of the order of 1 or 2 every second? Framerates of 5 a second or less? Random multiple frame drops among smooth regular full framerate video? Frequent pauses of a third to half a second, every minute or so?

Without this clarification, we can be talking at cross-purposes, with different people reporting different experiences using the same terms.

 

[vazel]

It looks like some lucky people do get to play hulu with smooth performance(or at least with very minor frame drops). Because the performance I see on mine with 480p is noticeably choppy and I can't imagine anyone having a threshold where they don't notice that. But it's also obvious from posts from other forums that the bad hulu performance I see on my ps3 is widespread.

Edit: Nah on second thought I can see how some would not notice the choppyness. I mean we have the firmware developers saying they can't get rid of dropped frames from h.264 flash videos so it ends there. But whatever I give up on this if you're happy with hulu's performance on ps3 then good for you.

Playback of H.264 content from within Flash is handled through an independent process on an SPU. Processing different aspects of the web browser independently has the characteristic of making it easier to improve frame rates. While I’d stop short of saying we will eliminate all dropped frames in the future, this can be considered a strength unique to the PS3.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13352207&postcount=1703

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Just finished watching Origins - Spirits of the Past (1:34:41 Anime) via Hulu at 480p. The ads stuttered and the first few seconds after the ads, but that's all I could notice.

 

[assurdum]

I just tried watching the Soul Caliber IV comparison video on Eurogamer. It works fine here.

I'm talking about screens shots comparison, not works anymore in the ps3 browser. Time ago yes.

 

[patsu]

Aye, I see it now. The JavaScript comparison DIV layer doesn't pop-up in front anymore (It went behind, or closed itself).

Just finished watching Origins - Spirits of the Past (1:34:41 Anime) via Hulu at 480p. The ads stuttered and the first few seconds after the ads, but that's all I could notice.

I watched 6 TV episodes on Hulu at 480p from my office. The ads played fine too. It froze after the 2nd episode but stayed active for the rest of the day (8 hours continuous use altogether). For Home use, I'd stick to SD resolution for a more consistent experience.



EDIT: Regarding PSN problems... For UK Sky Broadband users, at least they found the cause of a recent problem:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sky-broadband-apologises-for-psn-problems

"Our network management system mistakenly classified PlayStation 3 traffic in a way which meant some customers using their consoles to access the internet may have had their speeds reduced, in line with our network management policy for Sky Broadband Connect," Sky told our sister site Eurogamer in a statement.

"This was a mistake and resulted from a systems error, for which we apologise. Our team is working on fixing this as a matter of urgency. All other Sky Broadband users are unaffected, as there are no traffic management policies in place for our on-network broadband services."

 

[Graham]

Well 2.80 has fixed the internet connection so that's good. I was worried my system was faulty as I want to sell it.

It hadn't been able to connect to the wireless for more than a few seconds or wired network at all. It had been insisting there was no cable plugged in, or instantly disconnecting from wireless when another PC was near it (if it even found the AP in the first place). This was using the same router I'd always used, and it seems only started with the previous firmware.

It was starting to drive me up the wall. Managed to get it to stay connected to wireless long enough to download the firmware.

 

[Phil]

I'm amazed that you guys talk of 480p supposedly running smooth through the PS3 webbrowser when I can't even get YouTube (regardless the quality) smooth enough. Truthfully, I think the situation has become a lot better since about 3 updates ago because since then, the content usually stays within lipsynch - but it's still a far cry away from being smooth.

I also think it is very evident that the web-browser is NOT an independant app and does share a lot of resources with the OS. After all, you can browse and do all sorts of things while surfing. Also the way the app starts indicates it's as much as part of the OS as it is when you do slideshows or look at images, listen to music etc. I also remember reading that the simplistic virtual keyboard takes up a lot more resources than one would be willing to believe. If you add all those things together and perhaps not see the web-browser as the most possible efficient piece of code, I can see memory issues being a problem.

 

[Silent]

I've just installed it now and personally the thing that strikes me most right now is that the web browser seems quite a bit faster again.

Unfortunately the browser still is crappy. Freezing, pages that not completely get displayed (lack of memory ?) and rendering bugs.

I like the fact that I can check some things online without booting my computer, but the state of the browser doesn't make it a great experience.

 

[Arwin]

Well, it's clear that different people have different experiences. I stand by my point though. I've browsed most of the evening last night including watching a lot of video, and have had no lock-ups, and everything worked great, was really fast, etc.. Heck even Eurogamer didn't crash the browser this time (but it looks like they've recently got an upgrade, they have an interesting new comments system). And the Eurogamer front page was completely done and on screen in like 2-3 seconds.

Maybe there's a difference for people who've upgraded their harddrives? Could it be that the virtual memory efficiency has improved and that people with larger and therefore probably faster harddrives notice this more? I know that patsu and I have upgraded harddrives.