Why limit console functionality?

[jvd]

But I want to listen to my MP3 files while I am copying the Excel spreadsheet, along with a picture I just found on the web into a presentation, all the while talking on my IM.

And why wouldn't you be able to do that?

because the person above him and I said you couldn't . You couldn't multitask.

That includes copying the excel spreadsheet , with a picture he found talking on his im and then with that stuff still up play a game .

Which is what i'm able to do on my pc and what the person above said can't be done

 

[Geeforcer]

And why wouldn't you be able to do that?

I would (presumably), but it's not trivial. You'd need a robust OS providing a stable a reliable multitasking environment, something that none of the consoles have right now.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes jvd, you'd have to stop using the system as a computer and switch over to console mode. Maybe some would see that as a drag. I wouldn't. They could even provide a context switch in the OS that saves the current system state to HD, does a soft reset to play the game, and when you're finished restores the OS exactly where you left off.

 

[jvd]

sounds like alot of work to replace something that is already doing the job much better

 

[Tsmit42]

I believe SG said that you couldn't game at the same time as you do other things. He didn't say you couldn't do alot of other things at the same time when you are not gaming. If he did infer that, I ask him why couldn't it be done? But I believe he was talking about not doing anything else while gaming. If you don't want your gameplay to suffer, this is the best way to do it.

BTW, this is not a console vs PC agrument. This is expanding what a console can do. I believe ANY additional features of a console is a plus if it doesn't interfere with the pure gaming capabilities of the console. I don't see the logic behind.

Gaming > Gaming and Additional Functions.

If the Gaming is the same with none(or very slim) price added to people that doesn't want to use the adeditional functions.

 

[Tsmit42]

Yes jvd, you'd have to stop using the system as a computer and switch over to console mode. Maybe some would see that as a drag. I wouldn't. They could even provide a context switch in the OS that saves the current system state to HD, does a soft reset to play the game, and when you're finished restores the OS exactly where you left off.

Yes exactly, people like JVD and GeForceer would never have to leave console mode if they don't want to.

 

[jvd]

You just don'e see that giving people an os will invite hackers and virus creators to target it as the biggest negative you can possibly get . Well then I don't see your logic .

I don't want to get a virus that keeps the console at 80% utilization at all times becasue sony want to make make a few extra bucks by putting an os and word program on it

 

[Tsmit42]

You just don'e see that giving people an os will invite hackers and virus creators to target it as the biggest negative you can possibly get . Well then I don't see your logic .

I don't want to get a virus that keeps the console at 80% utilization at all times becasue sony want to make make a few extra bucks by putting an os and word program on it

??? I am running XP right now, with no viruses or spyware on it, and XP is the most targeted OS IN THE WORLD!!! If the OS is designed correctly, and if Sony is quick with fixes, I see no problem.

I also see no problem with people that are afriad of hackers infecting their system like you, to stay in "console" mode. However, I am willing to take that chance, like I take it everyday running XP.

 

[jvd]

your runing windows xp with no problems because of the huge sums of money ms has invest over many many years to have programs to prevent just that . And not only ms but other companys invest huge sums of money for the purpose too


1 console manufacturer will not be able to do this over night and the problems will flood faster than they will be fixed .


There is a reason why consoles haven't become anything more than consoles and thats because it would take even a greater amount of money to make it happen and its an amount large enough that if that console failed would easily whipe out the company , esp one like sony who operates at a small margen

 

[Tsmit42]

your runing windows xp with no problems because of the huge sums of money ms has invest over many many years to have programs to prevent just that . And not only ms but other companys invest huge sums of money for the purpose too


1 console manufacturer will not be able to do this over night and the problems will flood faster than they will be fixed .


There is a reason why consoles haven't become anything more than consoles and thats because it would take even a greater amount of money to make it happen and its an amount large enough that if that console failed would easily whipe out the company , esp one like sony who operates at a small margen

No, I run my XP installation virus/spyware free, because I know how to make my computer secure. What I do should be default for all Windows installations. If it was MS's doing, all of my relatives wouldn't be calling me everyday to come fix their computers.

And if you think making something secure and less hacker prone cost tons of money, look at linux, solaris, and many other free OSes. They are somewhat secure, not totally, but more secure than windows and that is with it being open source where everyone can see every exploit.

 

[Kalin]

There is a reason why consoles haven't become anything more than consoles and thats because it would take even a greater amount of money to make it happen and its an amount large enough that if that console failed would easily whipe out the company , esp one like sony who operates at a small margen

There's a Sony-branded Linux for PS2 already, I don't see them sinking because of that... It's not a huge success, but I'd contribute that to the limited amount of RAM more than anything else. You just can't put easily a snappy desktop on less than 100 megs - and that limitation is gone.

 

[karlotta]

??? I am running XP right now, with no viruses or spyware on it, and XP is the most targeted OS IN THE WORLD!!! If the OS is designed correctly, and if Sony is quick with fixes, I see no problem.

I also see no problem with people that are afriad of hackers infecting their system like you, to stay in "console" mode. However, I am willing to take that chance, like I take it everyday running XP.

How do you know your not a infected comp? You might have a Bot , and your the type of guy who helps out the hackers... I think there is no such thing as a correctly designed OS. Then you have all these "ifs". To design a new OS,and have the security it HAS to have to sell. well that woul take a few 100 million$. The way the Console generations are going is that they will hook up to a PC. Not a console geting mor PC like. Now if you say you can use Linux or some Open sorce OS then theres the open source Lic. Yeah i can see all the cheats now in online games....

 

[Geeforcer]

your runing windows xp with no problems because of the huge sums of money ms has invest over many many years to have programs to prevent just that . And not only ms but other companys invest huge sums of money for the purpose too


1 console manufacturer will not be able to do this over night and the problems will flood faster than they will be fixed .


There is a reason why consoles haven't become anything more than consoles and thats because it would take even a greater amount of money to make it happen and its an amount large enough that if that console failed would easily whipe out the company , esp one like sony who operates at a small margen

No, I run my XP installation virus/spyware free, because I know how to make my computer secure. What I do should be default for all Windows installations. If it was MS's doing, all of my relatives wouldn't be calling me everyday to come fix their computers.

And if you think making something secure and less hacker prone cost tons of money, look at linux, solaris, and many other free OSes. They are somewhat secure, not totally, but more secure than windows and that is with it being open source where everyone can see every exploit.

I would argue that the other operating systems are perceived to be more secure because of their diminutive position in the marketplace. As the user base and capabilities increase, so will the number of viruses, spyware, and the like. Everyone was raving how Firefox is inherently more secure then IE, but as userbase increased you now get weekly "Major security hole discovered in Firefox" news items on the weekly basis.

BTW, vast majority of problems I’ve seen on people computers where not due to flaws in OS and the like but die to people clicking “Yesâ€￾ on “Would you like to download and install software from Spywarz@Haxormedia.ruâ€￾ in pursuit of a cool new screensaver.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I don't think Sony Want's to sell 100M consoles to people who would only use it as a PC, atleast not for 300$ which doesn't make any profit to them, actually they would loose money and a lot of it. It's too big risk for them, what if users didn't buy games, machine like that would have to cost atleast 700-800$, and that's minimum.

 

[Geeforcer]

BTW, since I have been basically repeated myself lately, I will make one last attempt at answering the original question and call it day.

Q:

"Why limit console functionality?"

A:

Cost of adding and maintaining additional functionality = X
Revenue GAINED by adding said functionality = Y
Revenue LOST by adding said functionality = Z

Y < (X + Z)

Thank you and good day.

 

[Kalin]

I don't think Sony Want's to sell 100M consoles to people who would only use it as a PC, atleast not for 300$ which doesn't make any profit to them, actually they would loose money and a lot of it. It's too big risk for them, what if users didn't buy games, machine like that would have to cost atleast 700-800$, and that's minimum.

Agree, that this is a huge "if".

I tend to think one would find it hard to skip the opportunity to play the most impressive games in the following years, once the HW is in place, but that's just me.

 

[Tsmit42]

BTW, since I have been basically repeated myself lately, I will make one last attempt at answering the original question and call it day.

Q:

"Why limit console functionality?"

A:

Cost of adding and maintaining additional functionality = X
Revenue GAINED by adding said functionality = Y
Revenue LOST by adding said functionality = Z

Y < (X + Z)

Thank you and good day.

Ok, but what if , Y >= (x+z)?? which is very possible, especially when the console hardware becomes profitable.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I don't think Sony Want's to sell 100M consoles to people who would only use it as a PC, atleast not for 300$ which doesn't make any profit to them, actually they would loose money and a lot of it. It's too big risk for them, what if users didn't buy games, machine like that would have to cost atleast 700-800$, and that's minimum.

Agree, that this is a huge "if".

I tend to think one would find it hard to skip the opportunity to play the most impressive games in the following years, once the HW is in place, but that's just me.

There are lot's of PC users who don't play games, I bet many of them would think 300$ machine appealing, and it's not given that they would start playing just because there are games available.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Okay, here's my last post on the matter because it's really a computing hardware debate and not in the spirit of the console forum. It probably ought to be in the PC Hardware forum.

I think people see an OS on a console as turning it into a PC. I believe there is an alternative solution that doesn't mimick existing approaches. Let's take for example this software concept. If people bought PS3's for PC'ing and didn't buy games, Sony would lose a lot of money. Assuming they use an existing software model. But they could take an alternative strategy.

Sony could limit distribution to only their PS3 online service that they're creating, the same one to deliver music, movies, etc., and take alicensing cut per purchase. Development wouldn't require a fee up front, so you wouldn't alienate developers. The market, 100 M PS3's (much less to begin with) is tiny compared to PC, but the competition would be non-eixstent. If I write a PC app, I'll be competing with a dozen other contenders. If I wrote for PS3, I'd be the first of a few, so what customers there are wouldn't be shared so thin. This is one suggestion as to why software could be rendered a non-issue.

Whatever problems adding an OS would face, there are solutions. There are also no perfect solutions, only tradeoffs. It's is certainly the case that programmable hardware can be set to whatever task you want, and any machine capable of playing games is capable of doing a lot more. A console COULD function as a PC, capable of all the same multifunction multitasking skills, as the PS2 linux kit shows (though the hardware is a big limitation). If one of the consoles gains PC functionality, with their enormous power and low price, I'll not be complaining!

 

[Johnny_Physics]

May I ask why people want to segregate their electronics in two different platforms? If you have one box with CPU, RAM, storage that does games, and another box of CPU, RAM, Storage that surfs the net, writes letters, prints and stuff...and one of those boxes is far cheaper and more powerful than the other...

I don't know, for the same reason you segregate a lot of other things into two different platforms despite their similarities?