Quote from: Darren Dirt on November 20, 2006, 11:33:28 AM
lol -- Rampage: Total Destruction is hella fun with the normal NGC controls; I don't know why they redid the game for the Wii, I can imagine it would be more arduous and less fun if you got tilt your hand to do the same thing as for(i=ad;i<nauseum;i++){button-mash} ;)
Well, the Wii has four GC controller ports, so you could plug the old game in with your CG controllers ;)
As long as the game supports the NGC controller ;)
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 20, 2006, 12:03:57 PM
Well, the Wii has four GC controller ports, so you could plug the old game in with your CG controllers ;)
I was not aware of this, and I was all worried about not being able to use my wireless GameCube controllers for the GameCube games. Turns out there's a flip-open panel on the top (if you stand the Wii on it's side in the stand), where the GameCube controllers and memory cards plug in: http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/features/hardware/revknow/revknow_screen002.jpg
And yes, it depends on whether the game supports the GameCube controller. In my case, I was worried about existing GameCube games.
There's also the Classic Controller that you can buy for the Wii to play Virtual Console games with.
I know that some or all of the Wii games do not work with the GameCube controllers, but as you said for sure you can use them with GameCube games, and I am almost as sure you can use them with Virtual Console games.
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/features/hardware/revknow/revknow_screen002.jpg)
The thing is barely bigger than a DVD case (and about 3x as thick) and yet it even has convenient, out-of-the-way yet logical place for the NGC library-holders to plug in their old hardware... Such elegant design! 8)
I still like how the Xbox 360's new HD-DVD drive alone is almost twice the volume as the Wii.
Quote from: Tom on November 20, 2006, 02:19:44 PM
I still like how the Xbox 360's new HD-DVD drive alone is almost twice the volume as the Wii.
First gen full size HD-DVD equipment, with internal to external interface addaptopr board, vs miniaturized "n" generation DVD hardware that is wired directly to the main board of the host system.
It is like the difference between a PCI modem and a PCcard modem in a laptop. Or a 5 1/4 DVD drive in a PC vs the DVD drive in a laptop.
MS could have made it smaller, but it would have taken longer and cost more.
Not just DVD hardware, but one slick slot load drive, NAND flash, wireless, usb, legacy GC peripheral/card support, and the rest of the game console.
edit, besides, (afaik) there isn't THAT much different about a HD-DVD drive besides it uses a different wavelength laser diode. Its still an optical medium with the same diameter, and same basic features (it spins \o/).
With near no advancement in 4 years
Yup, none at all. Its only 2+x faster, with builtin flash, usb, wifi, plays DVD and GC media in a slot load drive, without destroying the media (try inserting a GC disk into any other slot load player, especially if it isn't exactly lined up). None at all.
edit: and its about 1/2 the size/volume of the GC.
Quote from: Shayne on November 20, 2006, 02:46:09 PM
With near no advancement in 4 years.
Correct, the unit is truly just a beefed up GameCube.. with a new way to control games, and an online component. Hardware wise the Wii is trivial.
It has to try and make up for this by it's game play and afford ability, which we will still have to wait and see.
edit: someone deleted their message. (how bout don't?)
QuoteIt does require a bit of space to add cooling for a triple core 3.2Ghz and the most modern graphics processor available (PC, or console)
Have you seen the PS3 teardown? The entire thing is mostly Heatsink. And more metal. and its not a triple core. Its a single core PPC with 7 or so specialized stream/fpu units on die.
The 360 is a 3 core PPC.
I'm not going to argue the size of the Wii to the other truly next gen consoles. Its apples to oranges. The Wii is super small, sure, but its not bringing nearly the technology to the table. If size is important to you, i'm sure you will be happy with how little it is. This was a big point when the Xbox first came out, but that didn't stop it from, i dunno, doubling the sales of the NGC.
Yeah, so its not at all advanced ::) and small hardware isn't as advanced as the more power hungry massive versions. Right. Just cause it runs at a slower clock rate, its less advanced ::)
Actually the small size of the Wii, and now seeing those doors on the side/top for the extra ports is a good reason not to buy one. People with high-end home theaters typically have an equipment rack for all their gear (may be an actual rack, or maybe just adjustable shelves, but a vertical stack of equipment either way). I don't care if you want to say that people stack it vertically because all of the components are wide and flat, or that everything is wide/flat because people stack it - it still comes back to the fact that typically people end up with these stacks.
How does the Wii fit into that? It doesn't. If you lay it flat, either the slot-load drive has to be pointed into the side of the rack and be unaccesable, or both those little doors with the ports behind have to be pointed into the side and be unaccesable. When laying flat, only 1 side (the front) should have any type of ports/slots/buttons/etc. on it, as the other 3 sides are likely hidden/covered. The exception would be the back-side for your output cables, as most people want those hidden.
I don't know why consoles lately have all been supporting this vertical-stand idea, but it does not mesh at all with every other home theater component on the market.
Heat rises.
Vertical heat-producing gadgets = more heat dissipation (sideways and off-the-top).
Quote from: Cova on November 20, 2006, 03:23:18 PM
How does the Wii fit into that? It doesn't. If you lay it flat, either the slot-load drive has to be pointed into the side of the rack and be unaccesable, or both those little doors with the ports behind have to be pointed into the side and be unaccesable. When laying flat, only 1 side (the front) should have any type of ports/slots/buttons/etc. on it, as the other 3 sides are likely hidden/covered. The exception would be the back-side for your output cables, as most people want those hidden.
I don't know why consoles lately have all been supporting this vertical-stand idea, but it does not mesh at all with every other home theater component on the market.
1. The Wii unlike the 360 (Concave top and bottom when sidways) or PS3 (Convex top) is flat on all sites, it should sit on top of or beside anything in your rack / stand.
2. You can have wireless gamecube controllers... The doors are removable from what I have read.
With the Wii dimensions being what they are it might even fit on your DVD rack.
Quote from: Lazybones on November 20, 2006, 03:56:14 PM
1. The Wii unlike the 360 (Concave top and bottom when sidways) or PS3 (Convex top) is flat on all sites, it should sit on top of or beside anything in your rack / stand.
The 360 has slightly concave top/bottom for appearance, however it doesn't restrict your ability to position it either flat or standing. In fact the 360 even has a small gyro in it so that it knows how it is possitioned - like a digital camera that automatically changes the screen to wide-mode when you turn the camera sideways, the 360 automatically changes the ring of light so that player 1 is always the top-left, player 2 top-right, etc. whether the console is standing or laying flat. The PS3 also sits flat just fine, as does the PS2 - having a round top doesn't affect sitting on the flat bottom at all. My point wasn't that any console should be able to sit on any side, it was that at a minimum they must all lay flat while maintaining full functionality in order to best integrate with other home theater equipment.
Quote2. You can have wireless gamecube controllers... The doors are removable from what I have read.
Removable doors don't help access at all to an expansion port thats deep inside an equipment rack on the side of a piece of equipment. And forcing consumers to spend extra money for wireless stuff because of poor design sounds like something Sony would say gamers don't mind doing - like playing backwards-compatible things on the PS3 without sound. And wireless doesn't address the problem of memory cards at all, which would end up even farther back in the equipment rack with the disk-slot forwards, and are commonly moved between consoles as people take their saves/characters to their friends house.
Actually the more I think about it having a full AV rack already I'd have more problems trying to accomodate something bulky like an XBox (that would certainly need its own rack) than a Wii.
(http://vger.homeip.net/images/home_theatre/six.JPG)
Note: A few things have moved around since this photo was taken (four years ago now), but things are mostly the same.
Quote from: Cova on November 20, 2006, 04:22:57 PM
My point wasn't that any console should be able to sit on any side, it was that at a minimum they must all lay flat while maintaining full functionality in order to best integrate with other home theater equipment.
Quote2. You can have wireless gamecube controllers... The doors are removable from what I have read.
Removable doors don't help access at all to an expansion port thats deep inside an equipment rack on the side of a piece of equipment. And forcing consumers to spend extra money for wireless stuff because of poor design sounds like something Sony would say gamers don't mind doing - like playing backwards-compatible things on the PS3 without sound. And wireless doesn't address the problem of memory cards at all, which would end up even farther back in the equipment rack with the disk-slot forwards, and are commonly moved between consoles as people take their saves/characters to their friends house.
"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please everybody all of the time." <-- axiom the designers of all 3 gaming consoles had to keep in mind, combined with the Orders From On High. :)
Methinks most of the current NGC owners, especially those of us with a big library of games, memory card data, and wired controllers, are for the most part *extremely* pleased with the design of the Wii. Some will surely *not* be (possibly for the reasons you mention -- aesthetics and/or geometry) but there are always gonna be folks who switch to a competitor's offering for little or big reasons, so luckily they are free to do so... The rest of us will enjoy the new offering from Nintendo. IMHO YMMV etc. etc. ;D
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 20, 2006, 04:33:01 PM
Actually the more I think about it having a full AV rack already I'd have more problems trying to accomodate something bulky like an XBox (that would certainly need its own rack) than a Wii.
What are those things on the top?
I notice you have your PS2 upright on the right side, with a little moving you could do the same with the PS3 or 360 on the opposing side.
QuoteWhat are those things on the top?
Take an even closer look, I think the bottom most device is a Beta :D
actually its hard to tell, might be a laser disk player... But knowing Mr.A, I'm going with Beta.
Quote from: Tom on November 20, 2006, 04:48:04 PM
QuoteWhat are those things on the top?
Take an even closer look, I think the bottom most device is a Beta :D
actually its hard to tell, might be a laser disk player... But knowing Mr.A, I'm going with Beta.
I'm unsure on the bottom-most device - I'd guess some type of video-tape player, could be Beta, could be VHS, an old one either way. The top shelf is actually holding 2 devies there - a pair of turn-tables (record players). And thats another example of stuff not designed for an equipment rack, both those turn-tables will be top-loading, so the lower of the 2 can't be used at all without first lifting the top one off and setting it someplace else, which could be an even bigger problem depending on the amount of slack cable and availability of nearby flat surfaces. Of the 2 middle (black) devices, I'd guess the top one is the receiver and the lower one is a DVD player.
Quote from: Shayne on November 20, 2006, 04:46:05 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 20, 2006, 04:33:01 PM
Actually the more I think about it having a full AV rack already I'd have more problems trying to accomodate something bulky like an XBox (that would certainly need its own rack) than a Wii.
What are those things on the top?
I notice you have your PS2 upright on the right side, with a little moving you could do the same with the PS3 or 360 on the opposing side.
Well, this was four years ago, I have my PS2 where my old VCR used to be along with my CD changer.
Quote from: Cova on November 20, 2006, 05:46:50 PM
Quote from: Tom on November 20, 2006, 04:48:04 PM
QuoteWhat are those things on the top?
Take an even closer look, I think the bottom most device is a Beta :D
actually its hard to tell, might be a laser disk player... But knowing Mr.A, I'm going with Beta.
I'm unsure on the bottom-most device - I'd guess some type of video-tape player, could be Beta, could be VHS, an old one either way. The top shelf is actually holding 2 devies there - a pair of turn-tables (record players). And thats another example of stuff not designed for an equipment rack, both those turn-tables will be top-loading, so the lower of the 2 can't be used at all without first lifting the top one off and setting it someplace else, which could be an even bigger problem depending on the amount of slack cable and availability of nearby flat surfaces. Of the 2 middle (black) devices, I'd guess the top one is the receiver and the lower one is a DVD player.
Uhh, ok, again, picture was taken four years ago (this was when I had to use my spare turntable for a couple of weeks). It works just fine on top. Irregardless, the point is I have this rack full of stuff I use all the time and there would not be any room for an XBox there at all (well, not without removing something else of use). I think the Wii could happily sit where the PS2 appears in this old photo or maybe even share a shelf with the PS2.
Inquiring minds want to know, is that bottom unit a beta player?
The vertical design of the Wii is more aesthetic than functional; the heat dissipation mechanism works in either direction. I see Cova's complaint about having the ports on the side if the Wii is set flat; they'd be sticking out the side. However, the Wii is so slim that most people will be able to stand it up on their TV stand next to their TV, at which point the ports will be on top and access is much easier. Honestly, the folks who designed the Wii don't expect most people to put it in an AV rack. My source: http://wii.nintendo.com/iwataasks.jsp (there's a *lot* of reading there).
Quote
we had to take into consideration where the console might be placed. Given that TVs nowadays have very little extra space around them ... we really wanted to avoid causing any more clutter around the TV, in terms of shape as well as size. For example, the Nintendo 64 can only fit in a limited number of places because of its many curved faces. One of our major design goals, therefore, was to create a device that can be placed anywhere.
Obviously, wider consoles are less likely to fit inside an entertainment unit right next to the TV, so they're more likely to be placed in an AV rack.
Quote from: Tom on November 20, 2006, 06:38:17 PM
Inquiring minds want to know, is that bottom unit a beta player?
The old one, yes. I have
a lot of Alfred Hitchcock on Beta.
LOL at the crazyness of this thread as it has gone on. Back in the old Atari days, Nintendo years, or even the Sega Saturn times, I would have never thought size mattered so much in deciding on a console. Today I am no different. I want the system that gives me the games I want to play, the features I want to use, and the enjoyment I would eventually receive if the first two are met. Given that, I bought the original XBox with the gigantic controllers, for the my first two reasons, hoping for the last. And you know what? I got what I was looking for.
If the Wii does this for you, then get one. If the PS3 does this for you, then get one. If the XBox 360 does this for you, then get one. If a PC does this for you, then get one. If a ball of string does this for you, then get one. I don't think anyone would sacrifice the first two reasons on my list for sheer reason of space considerations in your entertainment unit/component stand. That would just be silly indeed. As long as your cabling is clean, your equipment complete to your needs, and your entertainment needs met, what does it matter if the thing is as wide as your 40" TV? Hell don't even need your cabling clean if you wish :P
Again LOL!
This thread is all about the Wii form factor, how it's tiny, where the ports are, and ostensibly, the best way to park it out of the way in your entertainment room.
I can't think of any reason why a smaller form factor and better heat distribution wouldn't be better choices for a game console.
:)
I'm not convinced that a vertical position provides a better heat dissipation as the surface area and volume at which heats needs to travel are the same.
As for it being small, heck ya thats a good thing, I waited to get the DS Lite more so on the size then any of the other features. Do I wish my 360 was as small? Heck ya again. Am I willing to sacrifice what my 360 has for horsepower to get down to that size? Not a chance in hell.
I'm not convinced it NEEDS better heat dispation. Course I've never even seen one irl, so take that with a grain of salt. Just don't place it on top of something as warm as the back of my 21" CRT monitor and you'll likely be fine :P
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 20, 2006, 10:29:25 PM
I can't think of any reason why a smaller form factor and better heat distribution wouldn't be better choices for a game console.
Good ideas for a console yes, but as long as the system works, doesn't break, and performs fine, I don't think small form factor and better heat distribution have any baring on what someone will purchase when it comes to consoles. Sure they are a bonus, but if that is #1 on a person's consoles must have list, I think said people should give their head a shake. If I was buying a console for my cousins, and I based the purchase on size because I know they have a small entertainment unit (or heat cause it is cramped one).... ouch look out, if it isn't the console they wanted because they want to play Final Fantasy games, or Halo/Gears of War. And what could I possibly say to them, "Well you don't have the room or heat distribution for a PS3/XBox 360, so I got you a Wii". RUN!!!
I think the size factor of a console should never be a high priority, but a nice bonus. Its the content and features you should really look for. Yeah I know there are examples to contradict this, but plan and simple: If it doesn't entertain you first and be fun while doing it, what is the point on buying it?
Quote from: Melbosa on November 21, 2006, 08:47:00 AM
I think the size factor of a console should never be a high priority, but a nice bonus. Its the content and features you should really look for. Yeah I know there are examples to contradict this, but plan and simple: If it doesn't entertain you first and be fun while doing it, what is the point on buying it?
Exactly
Melbosa, do you really have such self-centered, ungrateful cousins? ;)
I have been the kid to get the "other console" not so fun :(
I am still the person to get the other console... or no console. :'(
Heh. My siblings and I grew up with a Coleco (i think), a Atari 2600 (I think), an NES, SNES, Game Boy (Original, still have it \o/), n64, Tam has a GC, and We'll soon both have Wii's. Well, actually, I have one already, and tam has one by proxy ;) *cough*
Hah! what a funny topic... guess I'll add my two cents
As stated in this post, the idea of deciding to purchase a console based on its size or shape is ridiculous. Of course it influences your placement or "Slickness" of your entertainment setup but hardly hinders their performance as a game console. If your rack is full, basically you will do some rearranging to make things fit, sometimes you'll have to make hard decisions, like retiring that old PS2 or XBOX to another room... or closet (backwards compatibility is accelerating these devices to the closet)
Wiring is important to me, I hate "rat?s nests" and everything has to reach. Which brings up another topic, with today?s wireless controllers, really you can place your console anywhere, and you don?t need line of sight, heck you don?t even need to be in the same room. I rarely swap discs out of my XBOX, it could sit under my couch for all I care as long as the wires reach the TV and heat is being managed (Stealth Install).
Stacking devices run into heat management problems, and most devices these days don?t have the same foot prints (wide but short DVD players, tall and bulky amps, miss shaped "gimmicky" consoles... er top loading turn tables? :P. Really, you have to almost have a space on a shelve for each device separately.
Quote from: TheDruid on November 21, 2006, 01:03:30 PM
Hah! what a funny topic... guess I'll add my two cents
As stated in this post, the idea of deciding to purchase a console based on its size or shape is ridiculous. Of course it influences your placement or "Slickness" of your entertainment setup but hardly hinders their performance as a game console. If your rack is full, basically you will do some rearranging to make things fit, sometimes you'll have to make hard decisions, like retiring that old PS2 or XBOX to another room... or closet (backwards compatibility is accelerating these devices to the closet)
Wiring is important to me, I hate "rat?s nests" and everything has to reach. Which brings up another topic, with today?s wireless controllers, really you can place your console anywhere, and you don?t need line of sight, heck you don?t even need to be in the same room. I rarely swap discs out of my XBOX, it could sit under my couch for all I care as long as the wires reach the TV and heat is being managed (Stealth Install).
Stacking devices run into heat management problems, and most devices these days don?t have the same foot prints (wide but short DVD players, tall and bulky amps, miss shaped "gimmicky" consoles... er top loading turn tables? :P. Really, you have to almost have a space on a shelve for each device separately.
All I know is this; if you had the choice between a normal sized XBox 360 and a compact version that had the same hardware specs you'd probably pick the smaller one, wouldn't you?
I mean if the only argument for a bulky console is that it needs to be big so it gets MOAR balls (graphics, hard drive, etc) I could lug my PC into my living room and plug it into an HDTV. I could "make room" for that too...
;)
You could, but then we could compare costs to go with that, as well as title availability, feature set beyond gaming. I bet nobody would say no to their favorite console being the size of a domino tile, but if size is so important get a PSOne. Its got a massive library of great games, extremely small, lots of third party accessories.
Quotewe could compare costs to go with that, as well as title availability
A PC has about the same costs as the PS3, more titles, and the availablility is STAGGERING compared to the ps3.
Not with the same horsepower as the PS3 or the Blu-Ray drive.
Id like to see somewhere that says that the PS3 can run the same exact programs so much faster than a PC can. Its so called horse power is tied up in its SPUs, which do nothing but basic floating point work, sure thats a big part of games, and some applications, but you have to totally re engineer EVERYTHING to beable to use all 8 of the buggers.
edit: Oh, and theres already BD drives out for PCs. Writers even.
Quote from: Tom on November 21, 2006, 01:36:16 PM
Id like to see somewhere that says that the PS3 can run the same exact programs so much faster than a PC can. Its so called horse power is tied up in its SPUs, which do nothing but basic floating point work, sure thats a big part of games, and some applications, but you have to totally re engineer EVERYTHING to beable to use all 8 of the buggers.
edit: Oh, and theres already BD drives out for PCs. Writers even.
you mean 7, one of them is reserved for the OS.
6 technically as the 7th has to be available to the OS at an instance notice.
Quote from: Lazybones on November 21, 2006, 01:37:48 PM
Quote from: Tom on November 21, 2006, 01:36:16 PM
Id like to see somewhere that says that the PS3 can run the same exact programs so much faster than a PC can. Its so called horse power is tied up in its SPUs, which do nothing but basic floating point work, sure thats a big part of games, and some applications, but you have to totally re engineer EVERYTHING to beable to use all 8 of the buggers.
edit: Oh, and theres already BD drives out for PCs. Writers even.
you mean 7, one of them is reserved for the OS.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 20, 2006, 10:29:25 PM
This thread is all about the Wii form factor, how it's tiny, where the ports are, and ostensibly, the best way to park it out of the way in your entertainment room.
*cough* ;)
PS: Druid, re. messes of wiring being one of the headaches of PC and console gaming: so true!
Don't make me split the thread a SECOND TIME!
<kid>Are we there yet?</kid>
Don't make your admin turn this car around!
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 21, 2006, 01:16:07 PM
All I know is this; if you had the choice between a normal sized XBox 360 and a compact version that had the same hardware specs you'd probably pick the smaller one, wouldn't you?
I mean if the only argument for a bulky console is that it needs to be big so it gets MOAR balls (graphics, hard drive, etc) I could lug my PC into my living room and plug it into an HDTV. I could "make room" for that too...
;)
Actually you bring up a good point. Would I buy the bulky version over the slim version? Well in the PS2 vs PSTwo, I "acquired" the PS2 instead of the PSTwo for the reason of feature loss due to decreased form factor. The original PS2 with the Ethernet adapter took a standard HD from a PC, where as the PSTwo had to have an external drive purchased and licensed only by Sony (<--- read expensive vs regular IDE HD for PC). So yeah, features win over form factor in my opinion every time. $$$ can be a factor too, if the Bulkier is cheaper, for the same horse power, why not spend less for same.
Do this with my PC all the time. Smaller form factor usually means more $$$, and I'd rather spend less or same amount on more power than get a shuttle box.
Quote from: Melbosa on November 21, 2006, 02:34:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 21, 2006, 01:16:07 PM
All I know is this; if you had the choice between a normal sized XBox 360 and a compact version that had the same hardware specs you'd probably pick the smaller one, wouldn't you?
I mean if the only argument for a bulky console is that it needs to be big so it gets MOAR balls (graphics, hard drive, etc) I could lug my PC into my living room and plug it into an HDTV. I could "make room" for that too...
;)
Actually you bring up a good point. Would I buy the bulky version over the slim version? Well in the PS2 vs PSTwo, I "acquired" the PS2 instead of the PSTwo for the reason of feature loss due to decreased form factor. The original PS2 with the Ethernet adapter took a standard HD from a PC, where as the PSTwo had to have an external drive purchased and licensed only by Sony (<--- read expensive vs regular IDE HD for PC). So yeah, features win over form factor in my opinion every time. $$$ can be a factor too, if the Bulkier is cheaper, for the same horse power, why not spend less for same.
Do this with my PC all the time. Smaller form factor usually means more $$$, and I'd rather spend less or same amount on more power than get a shuttle box.
Just in case you missed it. Also, you wanted to use the non-Sony HDD so you could mod your PS2 right?
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 21, 2006, 02:48:04 PM
Quote from: Melbosa on November 21, 2006, 02:34:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 21, 2006, 01:16:07 PM
All I know is this; if you had the choice between a normal sized XBox 360 and a compact version that had the same hardware specs you'd probably pick the smaller one, wouldn't you?
I mean if the only argument for a bulky console is that it needs to be big so it gets MOAR balls (graphics, hard drive, etc) I could lug my PC into my living room and plug it into an HDTV. I could "make room" for that too...
;)
Actually you bring up a good point. Would I buy the bulky version over the slim version? Well in the PS2 vs PSTwo, I "acquired" the PS2 instead of the PSTwo for the reason of feature loss due to decreased form factor. The original PS2 with the Ethernet adapter took a standard HD from a PC, where as the PSTwo had to have an external drive purchased and licensed only by Sony (<--- read expensive vs regular IDE HD for PC). So yeah, features win over form factor in my opinion every time. $$$ can be a factor too, if the Bulkier is cheaper, for the same horse power, why not spend less for same.
Do this with my PC all the time. Smaller form factor usually means more $$$, and I'd rather spend less or same amount on more power than get a shuttle box.
Just in case you missed it. Also, you wanted to use the non-Sony HDD so you could mod your PS2 right?
Just in case you missed it. :P
Yes it is true, but that was only my use for it. The HD was required for the online games with the PS2, and a cheaper solution could be found with the old console version vs the new version.
To address your comment though, yes if they were at the same spec, with no loss of features or functionality, as well as no price difference, who wouldn't buy the smaller one? But even in the PS2 to PSTwo or PS1 to PSOne battles, the older versions were for the most part always cheaper, so why would you buy the smaller version for more money then?
So yeah indeed my response originally wasn't directly specifically to your exact statement, but I was trying to explore the view point with my own examples, as very rarely would you find something in this world for the same price as a previous rendition of the same product.
So yes, I would buy the smaller version if those conditions were as described, exactly the same, save the form change.
Fair enough, next time though then just post your new POV. I find it bit confusing when you quote me and raise what I assume is a counterpoint, I will respond with a defence of my viewpoint usually.
So then, getting back to my original argument that consoles are "better" when they have a smaller form factor, for the following reasons:
- Easier to cram into existing hardware jungle.
- Portable
- Aesthetic
The counter arguments include:
- Performance sacrifices
- Form factor may not be compatible with modification
- Price-reduced re-releases are more expensive than older generation
Any additions?
You missed price, the larger version of most electronics costs less.
Quote from: Lazybones on November 21, 2006, 03:50:28 PM
You missed price, the larger version of most electronics costs less.
Whoops! Got it. Thanks!
I would probably add aesthetics to the small as well
Quote from: Lazybones on November 21, 2006, 02:03:45 PM
Don't make me split the thread a SECOND TIME!
Sorry - but I feel the need to correct technical inacuracies..,
Quote from: Shayne on November 21, 2006, 01:41:38 PM
6 technically as the 7th has to be available to the OS at an instance notice.
Subtract 1 more from it all. The Cell has 8 SPE's, however the Cell's in the PS3 have 1 disabled at manufacture to increase yields. Then lose 1 to the OS leaves 6 for games most of the time, with the OS able to take 1 more at any time, so 5 for games. I'm guessing that extra one for the OS is only for the PS3 equivalent of when you hit the guide button on the 360 while playing a game, and the UI blade appears over the game.
You may now resume your Wii form-factor discussion - I still maintain my opinion that it's poorly desgined, but then its a Nintendo product, and thinking back most of them are poorly designed. Nintendo really seems to like top-loading devices (the GC ports / mem card ports for the Wii, the disk loader on the GC, cartridge straight into the top of the SNES, door on the NES opened over the top of the console, etc) which tend to just cause me problems. You'd think a japanese company would realize that square footage is big $, and you can't stack stuff if there are ports/controls/etc. on the top/bottom.
Id like to see you come up with a better place to up the extra connecors, and keep the same form factor/size. WITHOUT an extra dongle.
Check out this (http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-NINTENDO-Wii-ULTIMATE-BUNDLE-LEGEND-OF-ZELDA-GAMES_W0QQitemZ150061699857QQihZ005QQcategoryZ62054QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) eBay offering a Wii package with some 3D glasses or something...
...
Real 3-D Headsets
Enjoy 3D Digital, Special Effects at Home!
This unit harnesses the power of 3D and brings it right into your own living room... faster than you can say WOW! After years of research, a group of scientists and engineers have finally achieved what many have considered to be the impossible: Convert a standard 2D video image into a true, holographic-like 3D projection - in real time. What this means is that you can now watch virtually all of your favorite TV shows and sporting events, your entire collection of VHS and DVD movies, your entire library of home videos and play every video game you have ever owned - and do it ALL in Real 3D!
We now offer for both our US and UK locations. Please note, all orders that ship from the US ship with a 110V power supply. All orders that are for Europe automatically ship with a 220V power supply. We recommend an NTSC supported television and DVD player over PAL and no LCD, projection or plasma screens.
How It Works:
The unit receives an ordinary video signal through a wire from your DVD, or Game console. It then sends the converted 3D Video signal through a wire to your TV set. The Converter System performs complicated mathematical algorithms which convert standard 2D video into Real 3D that can be viewed by watching your TV with the included 3D Headsets. It does this by creating separate and distinct left eye and right eye images on your TV screen and displaying those images in an alternating format. The wireless 3D headset included with this system operate by receiving an infrared signal transmitted from the converter box. The lenses of the headset open and close in sync with the televised images ensuring that your left eye sees only the left eye image and vice versa, thus producing true stereographic 3D!
3D Headset is a plug and play unit so it's easy to hook up, just like a DVD player. However, it does have several buttons that are used to enhance the 3D experience. The Input button is set for the type of signal coming into the converter (Game system, 2D Video or 3D Video). The Output button allows you to switch between seeing a 2D or 3D video image. The Phase Adjust button switches between left-eye-first or right-eye-first video viewing. The Parallax (<>) buttons are used to increase or decrease depth perception and the Program Mode button allows you to choose from 4 video source presets
^ that's news to me; anyone else hear of this before? I know there's like a more "classic" controller, and a rifle-like controller... but the 3D glasses/goggles/whatevah, didn't know about them.
LOL this thread is a perfect example of geeks gone wild. Not to put anyone down here, but it is quite humorous looking in from an outsider POV. Only geeks would debate things like this to the extent that we are, great job fellow geekers!
Now my 4 cents (already added two)
When it comes right down to it there are a few things that are important:
1) How do you load the medium into it (Top, front, Side?)
2) Where do your peripherals plug into (Top, Front, Side?, better yet wireless)
3) Where do your cables hook upto it, what cable options are available (HDMI, Optical, or mass amounts of component and RCA cables?)
Here?s something i bet no one though about, how big do you think the AC converter is for the Wii? The 360 AC Converter is probably bigger then the Wii
Really i think the 3 points above would affect my decision on positioning it more then size alone, size is an afterthought after i have satisfied all of the above.
And yes ALL things being the same, i would buy the smaller one (who wouldn?t?)