Tired of the term "Optimization"

[DoPo]

No, its a little exaggerated I guess. But considering my ps3 boots in 5 seconds and my pc takes 5-10 minutes for to boot and finish loading the start up programs and Steam, I'm going to go ahead and consider the ps3 more "optimized"

That's not optimisation. That's because the PS3 stores it's OS in a non-volatile EEPROM chip, while Windows loads off a much slower hard drive. You will lose a few seconds while Windows loads drivers unique to your particular computer, which consoles have no need of, but that's it.

You're saying that my ps3's custom hardware and software and lack of fluff programs I have no need for allows it to start faster so it can run games like it was specifically designed to do but that's not opimization? If you say so

No, it really isn't. Optimisation is when you make the same code run better, you're talking about different things altogether. It's like comparing a car with high top speed to a truck with high carry limit - they aren't "optimised" for their job, it's just how they roll. Now, if you, say, make the truck go faster than the car, then that's optimisation.

Also, a proper well maintained Windows will boot in about a minute off a normal HDD, drop it to less than that on an SSD. Though it does get cluttered with extra junk which could eventually slow down the boot time, the idea is to avoid that happening. Actually streamlined Windows installation would run laps around a normal one.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

No, its a little exaggerated I guess. But considering my ps3 boots in 5 seconds and my pc takes 5-10 minutes for to boot and finish loading the start up programs and Steam, I'm going to go ahead and consider the ps3 more "optimized"

That's not optimisation. That's because the PS3 stores it's OS in a non-volatile EEPROM chip, while Windows loads off a much slower hard drive. You will lose a few seconds while Windows loads drivers unique to your particular computer, which consoles have no need of, but that's it.

You're saying that my ps3's custom hardware and software and lack of fluff programs I have no need for allows it to start faster so it can run games like it was specifically designed to do but that's not opimization? If you say so

No, it really isn't. Optimisation is when you make the same code run better, you're talking about different things altogether. It's like comparing a car with high top speed to a truck with high carry limit - they aren't "optimised" for their job, it's just how they roll. Now, if you, say, make the truck go faster than the car, then that's optimisation.

It just sounds like splitting hairs to me. The definition of optimization seems to describe the set up of a console, but I understand that in the context of computers its something different

Also, a proper well maintained Windows will boot in about a minute off a normal HDD, drop it to less than that on an SSD. Though it does get cluttered with extra junk which could eventually slow down the boot time, the idea is to avoid that happening. Actually streamlined Windows installation would run laps around a normal one.

Like I said, I edited my post too slow. I realize it was a gross exaggeration. It takes a minute or 2 to boot and few minutes after I log in for my computer to finish the start up programs so I round to about 5 minutes from the time I hit the power button to when I sit down and open a program. And I know how hardware can change that but I'm not upgrading my laptop because its not necessary. And I can use something to control when start up programs start but I don't feel like doing that. I prefer to use lighter devices like consoles or android devices because I can't help but bloat a Windows pc with programs I need for school and to get games to run. I just like things I can pick up and use

Edit: also after reading your entire post, I can see that optimization is not exaggerated at all and it is a huge deal. Learn something new every day

 

[masticina]

Now getting back to consoles as you probably read there is allot you can improve. And with consoles being made of specific hardware game developers can really optimize for it. Code for it! As time goes on and more games are made for a console more of the secrets are known to developers. And 3-4 years into a console cycle games come out that really really push the hardware as they say it. Because they now understand the hardware so they really can get out more performance.

That is why launch games in consoles many times don't look much better then last generation best. I mean if you look at the launch games for the xbox one and ps4 yeah they look better.. but you know that in 3-4 years we even get better graphics. Or more smooth gameplay, or better AI or.. it is going to happen.

Every console generation game developers have to start how to walk again it is how it goes. So yet another reason optimalisations are a great thing.

 

[irok]

Hahaha, this is an argument?, I have not heard of this before , classic. Tell me more about how your 4 year old graphics card runs better then state of the art technology because developers applied a special mixture of love and fairy dust to it, optimization is a thing yes but come on now, it will always be worse then most pcs, most gaming rigs these days already outshine the ps4 before its even on the shelves, how bad will it be halfway through its life.

 

[DoPo]

Tell me more about how your 4 year old graphics card runs better then state of the art technology because developers applied a special mixture of love and fairy dust to it

It doesn't because that's not what it is. If I write software for, say, a specific nVidia card using CUDA, you'd be hard pressed to run it on ATI even few years afterwards. But normally, games just use DirectX/OpenGL and don't really bother with it. However, look back more than a decade ago at the late 90s when video cards started becoming the norm and you'd find games that Just Won't Work unless you have The Videocard for it. True, those are examples from bad games, but examples nonetheless.

Anyway, games do not take full advantage of video cards, so it really is a matter of "newer=better"...erm, for the most part. Take a class 1 card from 4 years ago, and it's probably going to outperform a class 3-4 card from this year. But overall, if we do compare them slightly more fairly, newer=better tends to hold. And that's the thing with PC hardware - constant advance and technological achievement means that developers don't tend to explore the tech as much. Or they can't - portability and compatibility are valued, after all. Throw in Moor's Law and the premise of newer=better is confirmed more and more. But this means that in reality, PC hardware is electing for a "throw more power at it" approach, rather than being more efficient. Not enough RAM? Just buy another 4 gig stick, CPU is too slow? Eh, get a quad core. It's cheap and fast, so who cares. It's vertical scaling to match the problem which isn't necessarily bad, but it means the breadth remains untapped.