Taellik wrote:Let's look at this...
1) the new "slim" PS3 costs just as much as an original "fat" PS3
2) the original "fat" PS3 could have Linux installed and run vs. a "slim" PS3 cannot run Linux ( translation - diminished functionality )
3) a "fat" PS3 gives you more value / bang for your buck vs. a "slim" PS3 gives you nothing "new" and takes existing features away
Conclusion : You have to be a fraking idiot to buy a "slim" !
Taellik
To be honest - outside of the original North American & Japanese launch PS3s,
every revision has been a disappointment.
The original 60 gig N.A. launch PS3 seems to be the closest to Ken Kutaragi's vision.
The first revision removed hardware PS2 support with a hybrid software/hardware design. Ken claimed that this was their vision all along - but then he left.
The hybrid PS2 emulation
could have been better than hardware alone - but that would have required Sony to continue to update the client. Those updates effectively ended after Ken was let go, and the first "cost reduced" PS3 was released.
Not only did this unit remove PS2 BC, but it removed the Super Audio CD support as well. Which is a real shame, since according to some of the tech journals I'd read, the PS3's Cell processor was one of the few chips fast enough to do the format justice.
According to articles like this, SACD support takes 5 SPEs. Contrast that to H.264 HD support which only uses 2.
The 40 gig N.A. unit also suffered from the loss of the 4 USB ports, the loss of the memory card readers - but at least it could run Linux.
Now we have the slim. I'm guessing Sony must be desperate to sell PS3 games - because, outside of Blu-ray movie playback - that's what this machine is geared for.
Ken Kutaragi was many things - but I did appreciate his vision, even if he didn't quite hit the heights he was aiming for. I find very little of Ken's dream in the PS3 slim.
And - that's the real shame.
Cheers,
Paul