Next pandora (competition model)

[fusion_power]

And my personal opinion: don't use a to fast CPU, this easily leads to even less optimized Software. I have the feeling as fast a Device is as less does optimizing happen. For example when I compare my old GP2X and my Pandora, there are some things that just run on the GP2X better when comparing the MHz. Like CPS2 Emulation and stuff. GP2X may had the better Emulators for it where Pandora has to use the slow MAME and alot of OC to make it run good. But you can be sure that a CPS2 Emulator really was optimized when allowing full Speed Emulation including qsound with only 266MHz OC.


So more important would be a chip architecture that really makes it easy for Devs to code/port thei stuff. And this also includes good Driver suppot. I realy wonder why this is still that complicated these days. The Companies sit on their drivers like the Chicken over the Eggs.


I see it coming, one day there is a need for an entire new open source Chip architecture.

 

[diligentcircle]

And my personal opinion: don't use a to fast CPU, this easily leads to even less optimized Software.

So? That's historically always happened; as it becomes easier to make programs and games fast enough, developers spend less time optimizing and more time actually developing the software. This is perfectly natural and there's no reason to refuse to make the CPU faster to prevent it (it's silly, even).


Now, it's a legitimate concern when talking about upgrading the original Pandora, since it could result in programs that only work at a decent speed on the upgraded version, but we're talking about a Pandora 2 here.

 

[Prometheus]

^ It still is a shame when capabilities simply never get used as a result, though.


I look at the amazing tricks and things that were squeezed out of older hardware, and it's kind of sad to know that almost nobody does that sort of thing anymore.


Whilst I wouldn't argue against improved hardware myself, I can understand where Fusion_Power is coming from.

 

[Mr Rob]

And another thing to remember, too, is that we have control. Typical smartphones or tablets may have a faster processor, yes. But really the problem these devices run into is [insert mobile carrier here] installs all sorts of garbage on top of the system that'll eat resources. Multiple applications checking/running updates and usage statistics being constantly polled on the devices is what's really slowing it down, which interestingly enough is one of the things that hurts the Android platform. Apple has full and complete control over what carriers do. Google? Not so much.


So better hardware would be good for us, there are many applications that could use more CPU speed. As long as we don't waste that CPU on other things, we'd be good to go.

 

[diligentcircle]

^ It still is a shame when capabilities simply never get used as a result, though.


I look at the amazing tricks and things that were squeezed out of older hardware, and it's kind of sad to know that almost nobody does that sort of thing anymore.


Whilst I wouldn't argue against improved hardware myself, I can understand where Fusion_Power is coming from.

Thing is, though, how is a faster CPU (resulting in the increased likelyhood that programmers will be lazy) worse than a slower CPU (resulting in the increased workload on programmers from optimizations needed, as well as less being possible)? In both cases, the programs that don't need the faster CPU will run at full speed, but in the latter case, just to force the programmers working on the simple programs to not be lazy, the programmers working on particularly expensive (resource-wise) programmers have to pay for it by working even harder on optimizations. Point is, while a faster CPU does not a good Pandora make, refusing to use a faster CPU just to force programmers to not be lazy is just silly.

 

[Exophase]

Most of the emulators on Pandora are ports of GP2X emulators, and two of the most popular ones have a lot of current generation optimizations for them.. I don't buy the reasoning that no one puts any effort into making stuff fast anymore.

 

[Prometheus]

^ I was talking about my perception of computing in general, there. I should have been clearer about that - sorry!

 

[craigix]

Most of the emulators on Pandora are ports of GP2X emulators, and two of the most popular ones have a lot of current generation optimizations for them.. I don't buy the reasoning that no one puts any effort into making stuff fast anymore.

I agree, most of the Pandora emulators are very well optimised. Some more optimised than they ever were on the GP2X range.


I'd think that any Pandora2 would have the most powerful SoC we could get our hands on.

 

[Binky]

I think we know what people want now, and any Pandora2 functions won't change anything, so all the inputs will be there (well, maybe not the microphone).

Yay for back compatibility! I'd leave to microphone in there, as there must be some uses for it, and I don't imagine they're very expensive.


Are we likely to see any more input devices in a P2?

My initial opinion on making an LED set of buttons is that it would be expensive and an Achilles heel, imagine units being returned because one LED stopped working, this is something we're trying to avoid with the Pandora2 talks - each return costs us about £38.

One think the clamshell design brings is thoughness, its an edge against products which are half cased in touchscreen.

The Pandora2 might be a ZX81 to the Pandora ZX80, I don't know. I do know that the design will be far more clever, in a way more complex but in another way far far more simple. Less is more.

The concept of giving a mini-laptop gaming controls, while definitely a good idea, is pretty simple. Making it more complicated and simpler at the same time will be impressive.

Before any P2 work starts though me and MWeston are working on another product which needs to be completed. We do read your suggestions and enjoy gathering a general overview of what you want.

Lets have a game of guess the geeky gadget!


or not?

I'd think that any Pandora2 would have the most powerful SoC we could get our hands on.

And if we make good use of it, that's a huge amount of pocket potential!

 

[sukhi2011]

You guys are confused why are talking about smartphones and tablets,the p1 is a mini laptop,which totally different what them items aren't and let's not copy any one ideas,we need p2 to be an original console only.


We all need agree on the design and what the specs should be and features it should be,i think we got enough ideas now craig should look at them,which one can be used in this console,if you lot keep bringing up random ideas,it will get really confusing,now decide what machine should have inside the bonnet,i think we just need console have these following things rest of them,it's upto you:


screen size 5" hd screen or something close to that


ram/cpu (let's start commenting on this,how much ram and cpu it should have)


3d graphics (do we really need this,maybe 2 options 3d onscreen and with special glasses,so person has an option to choose,not like 3ds only on screen)


video card (must good one which can do good 3d graphics,opengl driver,shader 1.0/2.0/3.0 capable)


Sound card (A card which can support 2.1,5.1,7.1 channel input and turn p2 into home theatre experience)


camera (we need still image and video recorder but we need good one not low megapixels or without hd)


design (need a nice disign and should be sci-fi or futuristic ones)


rest should be previous p1 all features and keyboard with gaming controls,more usb high speed ports at the sides or back inc. s-video,composite,hdmi,dvi at the back,these features will make p2 complete console.

 

[Binky]

Thinking about the exact hardware is probably not realistic now, as P2 design won't happen for a little while yet, at the moment, we are just talking about what it should/could do.


There isn't a problem with picking ideas off the rest of the electronics industry, as long as we check that they are good ones, is there?


I think 3D display is an unnecessary gimmick, which would add more to the price than it did to the product.


High res. camera(s) would be useless without high grade, expensive optics to match, although a small camera could have uses.


Aesthetic design is probably for the last stage of development.


I agree that we should build on the great sound hardware in the P1, but keep in mind that this isn't just a media player. In my opinion, adding broadcast radio receivers somewhere would add more for the average user than just complicated sound hardware.


RAM and CPU clock speed/cores are certain to be gobbled up by software of the future. As Craig said, we will probably get the best available, which won't match whatever Apple & co use (on paper), but will be more than good enough.


Working 3D graphics hardware will be important for the next generation of games.


I would like a physically bigger screen, although the current pixel density is good.


We probably should only provide one, license free (and widely used) video out connector, from there the user can by their own adapters.


Given that that the Pandora is a niche product with an eye to emulation, it depends on being able to play games/applications that were designed for the mainstream. There are also some good uses to which a touchscreen can be put. While I am all for innovation, I think a more touchscreen-centric configuration (via hinges etc!) might be worth considering.


Random ideas are good, because some of those will turn out to be awesome innovations


I once read somewhere, that no-one cares about super-HD-3D-Upmteen_channel_stereo television if they are watching good content... -_-

 

[Exophase]

I hope the microphone is kept for DS emulation.

 

[Binky]

I hope the microphone is kept for DS emulation.

You mean the P2 is going to have two screens!


I'm only joking, but realisticaly, the DS has played a big part in recent handheld gaming, someone will want to emulate it at sometime. Possibly the P2 should designed to allow comfortable touchscreen access for this purpose?

 

[diligentcircle]

I hope the microphone is kept for DS emulation.

Well, unless the P2 is something like 12x faster than the P1, DS emulation will still be impossible. In any case, I can't think of many DS games that actually use the microphone. The only ones that come to mind are a minigame in NSMB and Spectrobes, and in both of those cases the use is simple enough for it to be put to a button (it's just like the microphone on the Famicom's second controller, really).


Side note: Spectrobes is a fun game, but I HATE the way it forces you to use the microphone. You need to make significant noise for it to work, and it's just embarrassing "singing" (*cough* moaning *cough*) to to what it needs to do... get new spectrobes, IIRC. It would be so much better if that just wasn't there. Point: any way a handheld system uses a crappy microphone (or heck, even a good microphone) is just going to be a stupid novelty that adds extra noise. Bad idea in practice. Best to leave microphones to games like Mario Party that are multiplayer and can actually have a proper use for them.

 

[Binky]

What about using the P2 as a VoIP speakerphone? Maybe remote listening to find out when you left your Pandora?

 

[diligentcircle]

What about using the P2 as a VoIP speakerphone? Maybe remote listening to find out when you left your Pandora?

Ah yes, I'm thinking too much about games. Yeah, you're right.

 

[Caine]

I hope the microphone is kept for DS emulation.

Well, unless the P2 is something like 12x faster than the P1, DS emulation will still be impossible.

Somebody lecturing Exophase about emulation possibility. Time to get some popcorn


I also hope the microphone will be kept. For DS emulation or to use the Pandora as voice recorder, etc.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm only joking, but realisticaly, the DS has played a big part in recent handheld gaming, someone will want to emulate it at sometime. Possibly the P2 should designed to allow comfortable touchscreen access for this purpose?

A "big part"? It's only the best-selling console of all time.


I agree, though, it is definitely something to consider.

In any case, I can't think of many DS games that actually use the microphone. The only ones that come to mind are a minigame in NSMB and Spectrobes, and in both of those cases the use is simple enough for it to be put to a button (it's just like the microphone on the Famicom's second controller, really).

You aren't aware of some of the DS' system-sellers, then?


For example, Nintendogs uses it to teach your dogs their names, and commands. It takes multiple recordings of this and can detect your intonation (it's exactly like training a real dog, to that end ). And it's used in Brain Training for speech-based tests.


Just a couple of very big-selling examples... A microphone is certainly a nice thing to have for other reasons, but if you seriously think that only two games out of several hundred for the DS use it, then you are quite mistaken.

 

[diligentcircle]

You aren't aware of some of the DS' system-sellers, then?

That be the problem, then. I never buy those games. Any time I want to buy a new system, it's not because of some stupid features, it's because of some awesome game. Like Super Mario 3D Land, which makes me interested in the 3DS for the first time.

 

[DaMummy]

while it may have been used badly imo, both Zelda games on the ds used the Mic, spirit tracks a whole lot more