Some Question about Consoles Programing

[darkmaster]

I Thought that program 4 dc was more easy than program for other consoles (except xbox) but then i find a ps2 divx player that run full speed with synch audio /video and wit "subtitles" , i am not flaming or anything the work of bero (very impressive) but thats means that the ps2 is more easy to program than dc? what language / compiler can use for program for ps2? also this mean that the Windows CE logo in dc doesnt make us any profit if a non windows ce machine like the ps2 can play divx like a pc?


thanks and plz dont flame me

[ragnarok2040]

Whether divx can play better on ps2 or dc doesn't make it easier to program for, it just means that either the ps2 can handle divx better than the dc could, after all, it has 32 mb's of ram, and dc only has 16.

http://ps2dev.org

^-- click tutorials for tutorials on how to build a development environment
Don't click the EE gcc-3.2.2 one, use the three that are grouped together.

I have no idea what you're talking about Windows CE logo for, it has nothing to do with divx. It was just an embedded os that some games used, and not even the majority at that.

[darkmaster]

well i thought the ram issue dont make a impovement with divx because is video is streaming from the cd or the console read and storage all vid in ram i dont think so, the 32 mb ram dont make a diference in others appz like emulator the snestation runs slower that dreamsnes , i think is code optimization because we have a full speed divx player (dcmovieplayer) but doesnt support audio synch and subtitles , this is the main reason i ask about easier to program or not

i also mention the windows ce compatibily because this compatibility is suppose to make more easier program to dc because most (or all) devver can be familiarized with windows development .

[Ian Micheal]

Simple anwser PS2 has 100more MHZ do the math ram makes no speed at all for this app It is very mathimatical intensive = CPU heavy try running divx on a 200mhz cpu and thena 300mhz cpu see the change?

Thats why the PS2 wins the divx race I dont know why some people think more memory would help. If you done any coding on the dreamcast you soon discover the main cpu does not run at a constant 200mhz it drops to 169mhz underload now think how good dvix runs now on dreamcast when you know that fact!.

Thats about why 100mhz more grunt pushs the ps2 over the hard to program problem Dc is easyer to program but lacks 100mhz .

[tr0ll]

MIPS series CPUs also tend to come with a quite a bit more cache than any of the embedded SuperH chips... they came from being used almost exclusively by SGI (there were a few abortive attempts at the ARC platform, and then handhelds... as well as arcade machines), where the cache helped greatly with the scientific/supercomputing applications they were known for. And the extra 100mhz definitely helps as well. Plus the PS2 also has two vector coprocessors which if used properly can allow massive speedups to code that can use such processing (S[ingle]I[nstruction]M[ultiple]D[ata], multimedia processing like color space conversion, decompression, etc).

[Alexvrb]

The amount of memory has nothing to do with its decoding performance. The PS2 is going to be faster at decoding, software rendering or anything else CPU intensive. That includes emulators, although its still a harder target to program for in general. Anyway, getting good 3d performance out of it is a lot harder than with Dreamcast. Not that it cannot be done, although you'll have to reuse textures more, even if you swap them out multiple times every second.

[darkmaster]

thanks for ur answers

[Joe999]

Ialso this mean that the Windows CE logo in dc doesnt make us any profit if a non windows ce machine like the ps2 can play divx like a pc?

No, even were it legal to use, the Dreamcast Windows CE wouldn't be worth much. It might make programming for people used to DirectX a little easier I suppose. But the version of DirectX it uses is so out of date that even this is a rather dubious advantage. On the other hand, with KOS there are several very current open source libs available for use including SDL, and in general I've found it quite a bit easier to write for at the moment than DirectX. Just my opinion of course, but I think KOS has outdistanced the commercial development kits by a very wide margin.

[ishpeck]

On the other hand, with KOS there are several very current open source libs available for use including SDL, and in general I've found it quite a bit easier to write for at the moment than DirectX.

I agree whole-heartedly.

SDL just seemed to have a less aggressive learning curve than other libs.