Gaming Forums => General Gaming => Topic started by: tendoboy1984 on September 22, 2012, 07:12:30 PM
Title: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 22, 2012, 07:12:30 PM
Is the new PS3 model replacing the current PS3 Slim? I hope not, cause it looks like a massive downgrade from what we currently have. The sliding, top-loading disc drive looks terribly cheap, and it pales in comparison to the smoothness of the current PS3's slot-loading drive.
The whole thing looks like a cheap, low-end DVD player. I'm surprised that Sony decided to downgrade the hardware even further just to cut costs. The damn thing doesn't even come with an HDMI cable (the Wii U does, ironically). I thought Sony had a penchant for quality products?
Typical of Sony to release an upgraded product that's inferior to its predecessor.
EDIT: Another thing I just realized, the new top-loading tray prevents people from storing the system in an entertainment center. Slot-loading drives are much more convenient and simple to use, which is why I'm glad the Wii U has one.
This is what the new PS3 Slim looks like: (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8174/8001375055_0be12360f1_z.jpg)
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 22, 2012, 07:44:59 PM
I don't believe the PS3 ever came with an HDMI cable. I know mine didn't.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 22, 2012, 07:45:07 PM
The damn thing doesn't even come with an HDMI cable
No PS3 model has ever came with an HDMI cable (as far as I know). So how is that a downgrade?
As for the slot loading drives, perhaps they are more convenient, but I don't like them because dust and **** can get in there and that can't be good for the system. When you have a lid that snaps shut it helps keep things inside clean and tidy.
Typical of Sony to release an upgraded product that's inferior to its predecessor.
That's typical of everyone. Look at the recent Wii revision with the Gamecube ports stripped out. Companies do this to shave off manufacturing costs.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: BranDonk Kong on September 22, 2012, 07:54:13 PM
The slot loading drives are prone to failure and have way too many mechanical parts. The top loaders are easier to produce and you don't have to worry about ANY gears getting stuck which will make the entire drive inoperable. Another thing is that with the front-loaders there is no way to eject a disc when the console is off, or if it gets YLOD (most of the time), power failure, etc - so if (and when) your PS3 dies, you lose the game that's in it too unless you take it apart. This is a huge blessing in my eyes. I deal with broken consoles all day and lots of times people will have a YLOD or no-power console and they have opened it and removed the disc, which will in effect COMPLETELY screw up your Blu Ray drive. It's a pain in the ass to fix a YLOD system, then go to test it and realize that the owner had taken apart the BD-ROM and fucked it all up.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: broodwars on September 22, 2012, 08:02:00 PM
The damn thing doesn't even come with an HDMI cable
No PS3 model has ever came with an HDMI cable (as far as I know). So how is that a downgrade?
I think my PS3 slim that I got a few years ago might have come with an HDMI cable, though I'm not sure.
As for the Super Slim, I don't see the point of them putting this out when people aren't exactly tripping over themselves right now to buy any of the existing consoles, but whatever. All the companies have been guilty of putting out cheaper-to-manufacture "crappy" versions of their hardware at some point or another, so I don't really care about this one. If it helps put Sony back in the black so they can continue publishing great games, fantastic. If not, I don't see them being much worse off than they already are.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 22, 2012, 08:22:58 PM
Guys, what I'm saying is that the PS3 should come with an HDMI cable as standard, since the console is built to take advantage of HDTVs. What's the point of selling an HD console with just SD cables? You aren't getting the full experience that way.
The Wii U comes with an HDMI cable, so at least Nintendo is doing something right.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 22, 2012, 08:25:30 PM
Here is a link about this new revision for those who are curious.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: BranDonk Kong on September 22, 2012, 08:30:19 PM
I do agree that they should come with HDMI cables - but keep in mind that SONY would much rather sell you a $50 cable that costs $2 to make. If they include a "no thrills" (yes, I know that HDMI is HDMI is HDMI, there is essentially no difference between a $2 and $99 cable) that costs them $1 to make, and sell 5 million consoles that include it, then they just lost $5 million. There is zero benefit to include an HDMI cable - it won't cost them any console sales, makes their over-priced cables look more valuable to uninformed customers, and will help them sell a lot more of said over-priced cables.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 22, 2012, 08:32:54 PM
Guys, what I'm saying is that the PS3 should come with an HDMI cable as standard, since the console is built to take advantage of HDTVs. What's the point of selling an HD console with just SD cables? You aren't getting the full experience that way.
Not everyone has HD TVs (even now), and apparently the point of the revision is as a budget solution for those who don't already own a PS3. What's the point of selling an HD console with just SD cables? so people who only have SD TVs can use it. They aren't going to get the full experience, but its still a workable setup, and from Sony's perspective its more money in their pocket. Let's face it if someone hasn't already purchased a PS3 at this point they probably don't own an HD tv either. Why confuse them by tossing in a cable they won't even know what to do with? This budget revision is geared for the soccer grandmas and poor people who don't have HD.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 22, 2012, 08:35:41 PM
Guys, what I'm saying is that the PS3 should come with an HDMI cable as standard, since the console is built to take advantage of HDTVs. What's the point of selling an HD console with just SD cables? You aren't getting the full experience that way.
Not everyone has HD TVs (even now), and apparently the point of the revision is as a budget solution for those who don't already own a PS3. What's the point of selling an HD console with just SD cables? so people who only have SD TVs can use it. They aren't going to get the full experience, but its still a workable setup, and from Sony's perspective its more money in their pocket. Let's face it if someone hasn't already purchased a PS3 at this point they probably don't own an HD tv either. Why confuse them by tossing in a cable they won't even know what to do with? This budget revision is geared for the soccer grandmas and poor people who don't have HD.
In that case, then Nintendo should have done the same thing with the Wii U. Have the Basic Set come with SD cables, and have the Deluxe Set come with an HDMI cable. But both bundles come with HDMI cables, meaning people without HDTVs won't be able to use it.
Those of us with HDTVs will have the best experience right out of the box, regardless of which bundle we buy. Kudos to Nintendo for being forward-thinking.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 22, 2012, 08:37:10 PM
The slot loading drives are prone to failure and have way too many mechanical parts. The top loaders are easier to produce and you don't have to worry about ANY gears getting stuck which will make the entire drive inoperable. Another thing is that with the front-loaders there is no way to eject a disc when the console is off, or if it gets YLOD (most of the time), power failure, etc - so if (and when) your PS3 dies, you lose the game that's in it too unless you take it apart. This is a huge blessing in my eyes. I deal with broken consoles all day and lots of times people will have a YLOD or no-power console and they have opened it and removed the disc, which will in effect COMPLETELY screw up your Blu Ray drive. It's a pain in the ass to fix a YLOD system, then go to test it and realize that the owner had taken apart the BD-ROM and fucked it all up.
So based on your experience, do you think all DVD/Blu-ray players, PC's, laptops, etc. should have top-loading drives instead of sliding trays and slots?
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 22, 2012, 10:08:54 PM
I have a PS3 slim which is working fine. I will, however, upgrade to this super-slim model way down the line when they're retailing for like $100 for the exact reason Brandogg mentioned. My PS3 is my DVD/Blu Ray player (it's only an occasional PS3 game player... I know...) so this would just be a newer, sturdier console for me.
I'm not terribly fond of the redesign, namely the return of the glossy finish and the lines on the top. However, my PS3 sits inside of an entertainment center and it's only seen when it's on because I keep the door open for ventilation. So, that's not an issue. Really, the only bad thing about this is the lack of a price drop, but it'll come eventually.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 22, 2012, 10:16:28 PM
I don't like the design at all. The horizontal ridges on top don't mesh well with the smooth, shiny plastic on the sides. It's like Sony tried to combine the PS2 and PS3 designs, but the end result just looks tacky.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 22, 2012, 10:20:59 PM
As long as it gets the job done, I'm okay with it. Yes, I realize that it could easily be not tacky and get the job done, but anyone disregarding the entire thing because of looks is missing out.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 22, 2012, 10:26:42 PM
As long as it gets the job done, I'm okay with it. Yes, I realize that it could easily be not tacky and get the job done, but anyone disregarding the entire thing because of looks is missing out.
The thing that bugs me is that Sony went back to the decades-old top-loading disc tray. The top of the new PS3 slides to the side, revealing a PS1/Dreamcast-style disc tray. I've always hated those types of trays, because it's much easier to just slide the disc into a slot-loading drive.
I'll keep my current PS3 Slim, until it eventually dies on me. Then I'll just buy a Wii U.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 22, 2012, 10:31:44 PM
The slot loading drives are prone to failure and have way too many mechanical parts. The top loaders are easier to produce and you don't have to worry about ANY gears getting stuck which will make the entire drive inoperable.
I like slot loading drives because it makes me feel all futuristic, but I'd take a sturdier console any day of the week.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 22, 2012, 10:35:43 PM
The best thing to do is not have any drive at all. Downloading everything to a hard drive or SSD (flash drive) is more beneficial to me, since I'll have all my content on the machine, and won't have to worry about scratched discs, broken disc drives, etc.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 22, 2012, 10:39:29 PM
That would be great and all... if Sony didn't have 6 years worth of PS3 disc based media. They tried redesigning hardware without the disc drive before with the PSP GO. It was a terrible idea then; it's a terrible idea now.
I'm hoping the generation after this next one will have card based media cheap enough to be viable. I like owning physical media and solves the problem of all the moving parts in a disc based system.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 22, 2012, 10:44:28 PM
That would be great and all... if Sony didn't have 6 years worth of PS3 disc based media. They tried redesigning hardware without the disc drive before with the PSP GO. It was a terrible idea then; it's a terrible idea now.
I'm hoping the generation after this next one will have card based media cheap enough to be viable. I like owning physical media and solves the problem of all the moving parts in a disc based system.
But cards are more expensive to make than discs, which is why only handhelds use them. Making a 30GB game for a media card will cost a LOT of money, for the company and consumer.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 22, 2012, 10:48:09 PM
But cards are more expensive to make than discs, which is why only handhelds use them. Making a 30GB game for a media card will cost a LOT of money, for the company and consumer. I quoted your post but didn't really read it.
I'm hoping the generation after this next one will have card based media cheap enough to be viable. I like owning physical media and solves the problem of all the moving parts in a disc based system.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: BranDonk Kong on September 22, 2012, 11:16:22 PM
The slot loading drives are prone to failure and have way too many mechanical parts. The top loaders are easier to produce and you don't have to worry about ANY gears getting stuck which will make the entire drive inoperable. Another thing is that with the front-loaders there is no way to eject a disc when the console is off, or if it gets YLOD (most of the time), power failure, etc - so if (and when) your PS3 dies, you lose the game that's in it too unless you take it apart. This is a huge blessing in my eyes. I deal with broken consoles all day and lots of times people will have a YLOD or no-power console and they have opened it and removed the disc, which will in effect COMPLETELY screw up your Blu Ray drive. It's a pain in the ass to fix a YLOD system, then go to test it and realize that the owner had taken apart the BD-ROM and fucked it all up.
So based on your experience, do you think all DVD/Blu-ray players, PC's, laptops, etc. should have top-loading drives instead of sliding trays and slots?
No. Actually most slot-loaders are non-problematic, but the PS3 has this massive, stupid (as in gears and "layers") drive. It's twice as thick as the Wii's DVD-ROM, but discs can be removed from the Wii DVD-ROM without causing any harm to the drive itself. Same with slot-loaders on laptops and whatnot. SONY just for some reason has always used this horrible designed BD-ROMs in every PS3 model, so to me the top-loader is a welcome change.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: ShyGuy on September 23, 2012, 01:25:10 AM
that top texture makes it look cheap.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 23, 2012, 01:31:13 AM
Yes, and the sliding door is just a thin piece of flimsy plastic. What a way to lower the quality of an otherwise top-notch console Sony. The current PS3 Slim is much better built.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 23, 2012, 06:24:47 AM
In that case, then Nintendo should have done the same thing with the Wii U.
Keep in mind Nintendo is still selling the Wii. This is their "budget" offering geared towards the soccer grandmas. They don't need to make a watered down budget Wii U as long as the Wii continues to fill that role. When we get late into the Wii U's lifecycle there will probably be a revision which strips certain things out to shave off costs. But for now there is no need thanks to the Wii. Both Wii and Wii U will coexist on the market together for at least a year or two I would assume.
The best thing to do is not have any drive at all. Downloading everything to a hard drive or SSD (flash drive) is more beneficial to me, since I'll have all my content on the machine, and won't have to worry about scratched discs, broken disc drives, etc.
Until the hard drive fails, and then you're screwed. Especially when it happens years from now after PSN is shut down and you can't get it back.
I don't worry about scratched discs and you know why? Because I don't scratch them. I only pick them up from the edges, and when they aren't in the drive they go right back into the case where they belong. There is never a moment where I place my discs in danger of being scratched.
I have a PS3 slim which is working fine. I will, however, upgrade to this super-slim model way down the line when they're retailing for like $100 for the exact reason Brandogg mentioned.
You may have to wait awhile, assuming it ever even gets that cheap... which it might not. Where its at now in price might be rock bottom and it might not get any lower than that. Everyone seems to assume eventually every console falls to $99 in price, but that may not always be the case with every console. A HDD alone adds about $50 to the system's cost, so if you ever see it happen it will be on one which uses flash storage (like the Wii U or X360 Arcade).
Such a revision might even strip out the BRD like Tendoboy suggested. You said that's a terrible idea, but most retail games are available digitally on PSN these days. If Sony stripped that out as well as the HDD and just had flash storage they can probably get the cost down to $100. Otherwise, maybe not.
People said that about the Slim too when it first came out, compared to the original Phat model. Sony doesn't do these revisions based on aesthetics. They do them to shave off manufacturing costs. So if they look cheap, that's the whole point, because they aren't going to come out with a gold plated gem encrusted model this late in the system's life.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 23, 2012, 12:26:44 PM
You may have to wait awhile, assuming it ever even gets that cheap... which it might not. Where its at now in price might be rock bottom and it might not get any lower than that. Everyone seems to assume eventually every console falls to $99 in price, but that may not always be the case with every console. A HDD alone adds about $50 to the system's cost, so if you ever see it happen it will be on one which uses flash storage (like the Wii U or X360 Arcade).
I'm prepared to wait. Like I said, this would be way down the line. I didn't put a time frame on it, but 2014/2015 might be a good time to replace my currently 3 year old PS3. Right now, my PS3 is functioning just fine. Even if Sony ceases production, they have to liquidate what's already produced. There's no guarantee that the price will drop that low, but I would bet on it. Sony likes to sell their previous generation hardware as a budget console.
And a hard disk drive does not add $50, especially not at the bulk price they're purchased at. Don't believe the hype. Sony and Microsoft are flat-out robbing people with those hard disk drive prices. If that's what you mean, then yes, the hard disk drive is driving up prices in a way. However, that's exactly how they'll be able to drop prices.
Quote
Such a revision might even strip out the BRD like Tendoboy suggested. You said that's a terrible idea, but most retail games are available digitally on PSN these days. If Sony stripped that out as well as the HDD and just had flash storage they can probably get the cost down to $100. Otherwise, maybe not.
Flash storage is significantly more expensive than a regular hard disc drive. Should Sony aim to lower the price, they wouldn't replace one of the console's least expensive parts with a vastly more expensive one. It also wouldn't make sense with the file sizes. I don't believe you can buy God of War 3 from the Playstation Store, but if you could, it'd be 35 GB (unless Sony compressed the hell out of it). Today, a 128GB solid state drive is roughly $250 (it would be less if Sony bought it in bulk for production). That will undoubtedly drop over time, but so will regular hard disk drives. Today, you can get a 1TB hard disk drive for less than $100.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 23, 2012, 12:36:13 PM
Most of Sony's 1st-party games are on the PlayStation Store, including the entire God of War series (GOW 3 and all the HD "remakes").
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 23, 2012, 12:42:43 PM
Flash storage is significantly more expensive than a regular hard disc drive. Should Sony aim to lower the price, they wouldn't replace one of the console's least expensive parts with a vastly more expensive one.
What the hell are you talking about? Flash storage is cheap per unit. That's why Nintendo is going with that in the Wii U. Microsoft has been doing it for several years now with the 4gb 360 model. If that costs more than a hard drive then why is it sold at a budget price?
Now, if you are talking about using 500gb worth of flash memory to make it on par with a 500gb hard drive then you would be right that would be ridiculously expensive. Flash memory is a LOT more expensive on a per GB basis, but on a per unit cost it is by far the cheapest way to go.
Neither does it make much sense on the Wii U (or the 4gb 360). But correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you one of those people defending Nintendo's decision to go with 8gb of flash as opposed to a proper harddrive?
Of course flash storage isn't enough for ANY console, but Nintendo doesn't seem to give a ****, so why should Sony? Just strap a tiny 8gb internal flash module into it and ship it out and let consumers deal with it. That seems to be the way to do business these days. If you don't like it you can just go out and buy an external USB hard drive. Wasn't this the line you and others gave me when I said 8gb wasn't enough? Please explain this double standard to me because I don't get it. Why would it be wrong for Sony to go this route, but if Nintendo's doing it no one complains?
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 23, 2012, 01:13:42 PM
Now, if you are talking about using 500gb worth of flash memory to make it on par with a 500gb hard drive then you would be right that would be ridiculously expensive.
Neither does it make much sense on the Wii U (or the 4gb 360). But correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you one of those people defending Nintendo's decision to go with 8gb of flash as opposed to a proper harddrive?
I was. And I still think 8GB of flash memory is more than adequate if all you're doing with that memory is using it for save files rather than entire games. Please keep in mind the type of consumer I am. I'm getting the 32GB Deluxe Wii U set because it's a better deal to me. I could deal with only 8GB of storage because I don't typically download games or DLC. I like having physical media.
Wasn't this the line you and others gave me when I said 8gb wasn't enough? Please explain this double standard to me because I don't get it. Why would it be wrong for Sony to go this route, but if Nintendo's doing it no one complains?
It's not a double standard. You were specifically talking about a potential PS3 revision without a Blu Ray drive. The Wii U has a disc drive. If there was a Wii U model that couldn't play discs, then yes, 8GB or even 32GB would be unacceptable since that wouldn't be enough space for a download only console when there are potentially 25GB+ file sizes. You'd probably only get a few games on there if you're lucky. If downloading is the primary and only delivery method of games, I don't think forcing consumers to go out an buy more memory is the best way. You would absolutely have to buy an additional external hard disc drive since even expanding via SD Card is probably not adequate either. I suppose the disconnect here is that I interpreted your potential Blu Ray-less PS3 to have a small SSD. I hope this helps.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Lithium on September 23, 2012, 10:49:30 PM
IGN uk does some unboxing
I dont think it looks as bad as some people in this thread think it is but i'll probably opt for a regular ps3 slim when i eventually get one (im waiting for the next price drop)
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 23, 2012, 10:57:42 PM
I dont think it looks as bad as some people in this thread think it is but i'll probably opt for a regular ps3 slim when i eventually get one (im waiting for the next price drop)
That slide-door disc tray thing looks terrible and flimsy. That's why I hate it. For me, having a slot-loading drive is convenient and simple, you just slide the disc in and presto.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 24, 2012, 01:15:09 AM
I dont think it looks as bad as some people in this thread think it is but i'll probably opt for a regular ps3 slim when i eventually get one (im waiting for the next price drop)
I'm biased against glossy finishes. And I don't particularly like the corrugated top because it just makes it more difficult to clean/dust. Otherwise, the look is fine. It looks like an even smaller PS3 which I'm sure is the point. The lack of an HDMI cable is odd and the only bad thing about the package. I know why it's not included; it's still lame.
That slide-door disc tray thing looks terrible and flimsy. That's why I hate it. For me, having a slot-loading drive is convenient and simple, you just slide the disc in and presto.
Duly noted. One question: do you plan on getting a super-slim PS3 ever? If not, it shouldn't matter to you what it looks like. I mean, it shouldn't really matter either way since you don't play the outer shell of the hardware, but that's beside the point.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 24, 2012, 01:47:36 AM
If the "Super Slim" PS3 was the only model available, then I wouldn't get a PS3 at all. If/when my PS3 dies, I won't be replacing it with the "Super Slim" model. I've used the PS2 Slim before and hated it; it was a piece of junk compared to the original fat PS2.
Sony always has to cut corners when they downsize their products, usually reducing the hardware quality in the process. That flimsy sliding disc tray cover is evidence of that.
Good thing Microsoft actually upgraded the Xbox 360 with the more reliable, and better looking, Slim model. I may just switch over to that.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 24, 2012, 02:15:27 AM
Sony always has to cut corners when they downsize their products, usually reducing the hardware quality in the process. That flimsy sliding disc tray cover is evidence of that.
And yet, the drive itself is sturdier. If anything, they made the PS3 better. I don't know how you're not getting this.
I hope for your sake that your precious slot-loading PS3 doesn't die so you can continue to enjoy all those games you have. I can't wrap my mind around dismissing an entire console just because it has a piece I disliked. That would be like refusing to buy a Wii because of those flimsy piece of crap bullshit GameCube slot covers (before Nintendo took it out).
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 24, 2012, 02:20:40 AM
Sony always has to cut corners when they downsize their products, usually reducing the hardware quality in the process. That flimsy sliding disc tray cover is evidence of that.
And yet, the drive itself is sturdier. If anything, they made the PS3 better. I don't know how you're not getting this.
I hope for your sake that your precious slot-loading PS3 doesn't die so you can continue to enjoy all those games you have. I can't wrap my mind around dismissing an entire console just because it has a piece I disliked. That would be like refusing to buy a Wii because of those flimsy piece of crap bullshit GameCube slot covers (before Nintendo took it out).
The flimsy disc drive cover is a big deal, because if it breaks, then the whole console is ruined.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 24, 2012, 02:31:48 AM
There's an eject button. It'll only break if you're careless or stupid about it which is true for just about everything that exists. You can break anything... unless it's made out of Dolemite, baby.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 24, 2012, 09:21:19 AM
For me, having a slot-loading drive is convenient and simple, you just slide the disc in and presto.
Until it fucks up and you can't get the disc out without breaking the system like Brandogg pointed out. Personally I don't care what a console looks like. It can look like a pile of dog **** for all I care. What I do care about is durability and reliability. A slot loader doesn't have that. It breaks easily, and dust and **** can get in there. Is this what you want to deal with just to have something that "looks cool"?
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 24, 2012, 09:50:51 AM
This conversation has gotten pointless except I want to know what Dolemite is.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Fatty The Hutt on September 24, 2012, 10:08:24 AM
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 24, 2012, 10:26:12 AM
Pointless or not, it's still on topic which is pretty impressive for a tendoboy thread. Also, I hope you guys appreciate the irony of making a pointless comment about what you consider to be a pointless discussion.
Also, my bad. I misspelled Dolomite. It's a Futurama reference. Dolomite is a fake mineral capable of withstanding lava. Fry's dog was encased in it for 1000 years and Bender is 40% Dolomite. See: Jurrassic Bark
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Fatty The Hutt on September 24, 2012, 10:37:20 AM
@adrock - I thinkl the thread has become pointless because tendoboy just keeps repeating himself and won't give up his tired observations in the face of several folks making cogent counterpoints.
And I am pretty sure the sly folks that write Futurama deliberately chose the name "dolomite" from "Dolemite" the super awesome 1975 film about a bad-ass pimp of the same name.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: oohhboy on September 24, 2012, 10:54:35 AM
I have stopped trying to correct Tendoboy. I can only smash his head in so many times to get rid of his brain cancer before I get too tried to swing. At this point I advocate outright ignoring his posts in an effort to reduce the number of man hours dealing with him.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Lithium on September 24, 2012, 11:34:28 AM
speaking of which does this forum have an ignore feature? I've been looking around and couldn't find anything.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Louieturkey on September 24, 2012, 05:51:20 PM
Today, a 128GB solid state drive is roughly $250 (it would be less if Sony bought it in bulk for production). That will undoubtedly drop over time, but so will regular hard disk drives. Today, you can get a 1TB hard disk drive for less than $100.
Actually, I think you have that wrong. The cost of a 128GB SSD is closer to $80-$140 than $250 these days. I just checked on Newegg and those are the prices I found. The last couple of weeks, I've seen deals that got them down to $60 with rebates. Unless you are getting enterprise quality SSDs, you rarely pay more than $1 per GB these days.
That doesn't change the fact that they are much more expensive than HDDs though still. 2TB drives are getting back down to below $100 again. $.05 per GB is much better than $.60-$1 per GB.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: tendoboy1984 on September 24, 2012, 08:30:21 PM
Why are those solid-state drives so expensive compared to regular hard drives? The only difference between them is that SSD's are flash-based, while hard drives have moving parts.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: ShyGuy on September 24, 2012, 08:51:40 PM
memory chips are more expensive to produce than magnetic platters.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 24, 2012, 09:45:37 PM
Flash memory is newer tech, which usually means more expensive. They've come down in price a lot over the last few years, but they're going to be more expensive than magnetic hard drives on a per GB basis for a long time.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Kytim89 on September 24, 2012, 10:37:06 PM
I have stopped trying to correct Tendoboy. I can only smash his head in so many times to get rid of his brain cancer before I get too tried to swing. At this point I advocate outright ignoring his posts in an effort to reduce the number of man hours dealing with him.
Kind of reminds me of myself in my early days on this forum. Anyway, I much prefer the PS3 slim that was released a few years ago. I find it be a lot more attractive that the older or newer model PS3s. I also look for Microsoft to come out with their own version of the super slim soon to compete with the Wii U and the new version of the PS3.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 24, 2012, 10:42:02 PM
10 years ago I bought a digital camera and then I had to buy a memory card for it, and the flash memory card I got was only 32MB. Flash media has come a long way since then. Nowadays 32GB is about the price of what 32MB was way back then.
But in those days 32MB still kinda seemed like a lot, because floppy disks were still in use and those only held a mere 1.44MB
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Kytim89 on September 24, 2012, 11:01:40 PM
10 years ago I bought a digital camera and then I had to buy a memory card for it, and the flash memory card I got was only 32MB. Flash media has come a long way since then. Nowadays 32GB is about the price of what 32MB was way back then.
But in those days 32MB still kinda seemed like a lot, because floppy disks were still in use and those only held a mere 1.44MB
I used to own a 16MB SD card and the thing could barely hold two of my iTunes songs in the AAC format. Yes, flash storage has come a long way, and I look forward to what the future has in store for it. I want flash storage to get so cheap that a 128 GB SD card costs maybe $20 or $30 dollars at retail.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 24, 2012, 11:12:41 PM
I also look for Microsoft to come out with their own version of the super slim soon to compete with the Wii U and the new version of the PS3.
I don't, not anytime soon anyway and most likely, not ever. The entire point of the of the S Model was to negate the Red Ring of Death which it did very well in fact with the XCGPU, larger fan, and the console shutting itself of if it manages to somehow get too hot. It also had some other fancy additions like more USB ports and Wi-Fi built in among other things. It was a pretty solid update. I guess Microsoft could make it smaller; there's no real reason for them to. I'm surprised Sony is even introducing a 2nd full redesign.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Adrock on September 25, 2012, 08:08:47 AM
Actually, I think you have that wrong. The cost of a 128GB SSD is closer to $80-$140 than $250 these days. I just checked on Newegg and those are the prices I found.
I didn't see this earlier. You're right. I was going mostly by memory and I didn't adjust for the time passed since the last time I read about it. I did google it and the 1st result is, ironically, newegg with a 128GB for $250, but it's sold out so it's likely old.
Quote
That doesn't change the fact that they are much more expensive than HDDs though still.
That's why I didn't spend much time researching this and verifying the prices. That post was less about the exact prices than the discrepancy between hard disk drives and solid state drives.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Louieturkey on September 25, 2012, 02:33:53 PM
Actually, I think you have that wrong. The cost of a 128GB SSD is closer to $80-$140 than $250 these days. I just checked on Newegg and those are the prices I found.
I didn't see this earlier. You're right. I was going mostly by memory and I didn't adjust for the time passed since the last time I read about it. I did google it and the 1st result is, ironically, newegg with a 128GB for $250, but it's sold out so it's likely old.
Quote
That doesn't change the fact that they are much more expensive than HDDs though still.
That's why I didn't spend much time researching this and verifying the prices. That post was less about the exact prices than the discrepancy between hard disk drives and solid state drives.
I hear you about that. I just wanted to clarify for people so that they know, SSDs are more affordable now. In fact, I'd say everyone who is building a new PC should include an SSD in their build.
If anyone wants to speed up their PC, the one that will do it better than anything else is an SSD. Put your OS and the main program files on the drive and you will see an amazing difference.
Title: Re: The PS3 "Super Slim"
Post by: Shorty McNostril on September 29, 2012, 08:55:03 PM
I have recently got another 60Gb. I''m going to raid 0 them for windows. Can't be bothered formatting right now though. Will wait for Windows 8 and do it all at once.
