Would An Arm Based Psp 2 Be Good For Pandora?

[anexanhume]

I've been looking around trying to find info about a psp 2 from sony, and I found a thread on an nvidia fansite that has a lot of links. The main basically states that nvidia has another contract from sony worth more than the rsx for ps3 that is for an undisclosed product.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=107715

That comes along with this harmless link on ARM's website:

http://www.arm.com/products/licensing/licencees.html

Out of the five companies working with the cortex a9 (successor to the A8 found in the omap 3530), nvidia is one of them, but has no product announced based on this. Moreover, we know its not the apx 2500, because that uses an ARM11 core.

So, if it turns out the psp 2 uses a cortex A9 core along with custom nvidia graphcis hardware, would it actually be good for pandora (and vice versa?).

Basically, would it be easy to port the emulators to the respective machines since they are both cortex based? I don't really think either would hurt the others sales no bit, but they could help each other in that already created emulators could be ported onto the psp 2, and if more dedicated devs make stuff for the psp 2 that take a lot of coding, they could be converted back to the pandora.

Please note that this psp 2 info is only speculation, and even if correct, it may not even be out until 2010.

 

[gaterooze]

Problem #1: almost certainly the PSP2 will not be open source and therefore would need to be cracked first.

 

[Yrx]

He's asking if software would be more easily ported between the two systems, not which one would be better.

I get the feeling that it would still take a bit of effort, as the rest of the hardware would all be different.

 

[gaterooze]

He's asking if software would be more easily ported between the two systems, not which one would be better.

And how do you propose porting software to or from the PSP2 if it is not open/cracked?

 

[crazedover]

He's asking if software would be more easily ported between the two systems, not which one would be better.

And how do you propose porting software to or from the PSP2 if it is not open/cracked?

I think he means if it will be easy for developers to make their games cross platform.

 

[gaterooze]

He's asking if software would be more easily ported between the two systems, not which one would be better.

And how do you propose porting software to or from the PSP2 if it is not open/cracked?

I think he means if it will be easy for developers to make their games cross platform.


Um, no, the OP said:

QUOTE
Basically, would it be easy to port the emulators to the respective machines since they are both cortex based?

 

[Exophase]

I'd like an ARM PSP2, but isn't this kinda jumping to some major conclusions? I don't see any evidence at all, that is, nVidia being a licensee is almost a given.

 

[Yrx]

He's asking if software would be more easily ported between the two systems, not which one would be better.

And how do you propose porting software to or from the PSP2 if it is not open/cracked?

It will be cracked pretty quickly, and then there's not really anything in the way. It's not a matter of IF it's going to be cracked, just when.

 

[gaterooze]

It will be cracked pretty quickly, and then there's not really anything in the way. It's not a matter of IF it's going to be cracked, just when.

Probably -- will be amusing seeing the betting on how long it will take.

 

[StealthBagel]

Problem #1: almost certainly the PSP2 will not be open source and therefore would need to be cracked first.

Not trying to single you out here, but

OPEN SOURCE DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN RUN UNAUTHORIZED CODE ON THE SYSTEM. OPEN SOURCE MEANS THE OPERATING SYSTEM'S SOURCE CODE IS AVAILABLE.
A CLOSED-SOURCE SYSTEM CAN STILL RUN UNAUTHORIZED CODE. THE PSP IS NOT OPEN SOURCE, YET IT CAN RUN UNAUTHORIZED CODE WITH ALTERATION OF THE FIRMWARE. EVEN SO, YOU STILL CANNOT VIEW THE FIRMWARE'S SOURCE.

Just like MHz does not equal performance, ports require source code, ARM can't run x86 code, and a thousand other things that get posted everyday and somehow people do not pick up on them. it's very frustrating.

 

[anexanhume]

I'd like an ARM PSP2, but isn't this kinda jumping to some major conclusions? I don't see any evidence at all, that is, nVidia being a licensee is almost a given.

I say this because nvidia is a licensee of the A9 Cortex, but no others. So, there's a reason they started getting interested in the cortex all of the sudden. At most, it's an educated guess, but I think it makes logical sense given the other circumstances.

As for it being cracked, of course I assume it will be cracked within the first 6 months. The general rule seems to me if it can be built, it can be cracked.

I was asking my portability question from a general point of view as I don't know emulation specifics, but I know the target ISA's would be identical. How much would peripheral hardware influence that?

 

[Megamixman]

The main proc is likely to be ARM based, but the actual work is going to be done by proprietary cores or DSPs. The PSP2 will likely have a lot more processing power then the Pandora, just by the fact that Sony can use custom SoCs. Don't forget that Cell is also a likely candidate, if they make it ULV or something.

 

[greendots]

dont assume it will be able to run homebrew. Even if it is released with linux like the PS3, the graphics processor may not be accessible. It took over a year to get linux on the xbox 360 and there still isnt 3D support afaik. The same with PS3's 3D.

 

[ldesnogu]

I say this because nvidia is a licensee of the A9 Cortex, but no others. So, there's a reason they started getting interested in the cortex all of the sudden. At most, it's an educated guess, but I think it makes logical sense given the other circumstances.

nVidia has been licensing ARM cores for years.

 

[palmertech]

Normally, I am not this pessimistic. But the only reason the psp was cracked was that the very first firmware had no authentication management. The PSP "pandora battery" is not a hack-It merely replicates a Sony service battery. And the Xbox, the other popular homebrew console, was only cracked thanks to incredible negligence on Microsoft's part. Seriously, looking at the current situation with mainstream consoles, I do not think it would be a stretch at all for a PSP2 to be unable to run homebrew. Or they might take the route of the Iphone, 360 XNA, and PS3 linux-Make homebrew easy to make and good enough to satisfy a lot of people, but limit it severly. The fact that it can run homebrew of some kind removes a lot of the incentive to hack the console any further. Or...The PSP2 could be completely open. That would mess the market up!

 

[Tom`]

Normally, I am not this pessimistic. But the only reason the psp was cracked was that the very first firmware had no authentication management. The PSP "pandora battery" is not a hack-It merely replicates a Sony service battery. And the Xbox, the other popular homebrew console, was only cracked thanks to incredible negligence on Microsoft's part. Seriously, looking at the current situation with mainstream consoles, I do not think it would be a stretch at all for a PSP2 to be unable to run homebrew. Or they might take the route of the Iphone, 360 XNA, and PS3 linux-Make homebrew easy to make and good enough to satisfy a lot of people, but limit it severly. The fact that it can run homebrew of some kind removes a lot of the incentive to hack the console any further. Or...The PSP2 could be completely open. That would mess the market up!

Anything can be cracked...it's only a matter of time and how much work is put into it. Until December no one had succeeded in running code on the Wii, until Bushing, segher and tmbinc demonstrated their attack at 24c3. The main problem with Wii homebrew is that the software is highly complex, convoluted, and fragile, so very easy to brick. Bushing is working on a reliable way to unbrick (via programming the NAND directly) so once this happens (as I understand it) work will begin on firmware replacements, etc. to allow for homebrew without the Twilight exploit or signing bug. It will happen, given enough time and effort.

Of course, an open system is always preferable (an open system does mean you can run unauthorized code, by definition: if you can freely modify the code, you can execute anything you want...)

 

[chad78]

OPEN SOURCE DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN RUN UNAUTHORIZED CODE ON THE SYSTEM. OPEN SOURCE MEANS THE OPERATING SYSTEM'S SOURCE CODE IS AVAILABLE.
A CLOSED-SOURCE SYSTEM CAN STILL RUN UNAUTHORIZED CODE. THE PSP IS NOT OPEN SOURCE, YET IT CAN RUN UNAUTHORIZED CODE WITH ALTERATION OF THE FIRMWARE. EVEN SO, YOU STILL CANNOT VIEW THE FIRMWARE'S SOURCE.

h34r:

i don't really have much to add, but I am glad you made that clear. Some people seem to think that because the PSP is propritary and closed source - that you can't run emulators on it - or that its somehow very difficult to do. If I - a Mac OS X using dunderhead can do it - anybody can.

 

[palmertech]

I wholeheartedly agree. But I noted that the basic home capabilities of the PS3 have removed a lot of the incentive to try to hack it. The wii is a different story, as it has no homebrew capabilities whatsoever. That means that there is a lot of incentive to crack it. I think it likely that future consoles will have something like the XNA framework, or the Iphone SDK: Good enough for most, and removes a lot of the incentive the put in all the time and energy to crack it further. Look at the 360, nobody has manged to crack it yet. Why? Nobody cares enough about doing that, because they have XNA. EDIT: I agree with chad, but i was addressing Tom.

 

[plopperz]

I'll never understand that. I can develop software for my computer, even though my OS is closed-source. So why can't I do the same for my PSP?

 

[chad78]

Of course, an open system is always preferable (an open system does mean you can run unauthorized code, by definition: if you can freely modify the code, you can execute anything you want...)

No - open source just means that - open source - the source is open. It doesn't mean the platform is. If you hack the code to get your unauthorized app to work - how is that any different than hacking a closed system? The only difference is you have permission to do so.

Open system ≠ Open Source ≠ Open system

You can have an open system - like Mac OS X. Anyone in the world is free to write whatever software they wish to run on Mac OS X. But it is not open source. I cannot download the source code for Leopard.

But I could create a distro of OpenSolaris and lock it down so that every application on my operating system had to have a certain string of code in it before working, and I could copyright that particular code. So you would have to ask me for permission to use that code before your software would work on my OS. Now, any derivitve of OpenSolaris is, by definition, open source. I have to release the source. But my logo, my wall papers, my name - all could be copyrighted and/or trademarked. I could make it a part of my copyright protection that no one can release an OS under the name of my OS. So if you wanted to hack my code to run unsigned software - you'd have to release it under a different name. So - my open source operating system is a closed system. And by hacking my code - you've, in effect, created a new system. One that is both open source and an open system. While my OS remains closed.

I'll never understand that. I can develop software for my computer, even though my OS is closed-source. So why can't I do the same for my PSP?

Because, as I tried to explain in my last post - the openness of the source has nothing whatsoever to do with the way something works. Whether or not I release the source code has no effect whatsoever with the operation of the software. If Microsoft suddenly released Windows' code under GPL - your XP wouldn't suddenly start being more secure or stable - nor would it start running BlueFish or GNOME.

The PSP's firmware is closed source - that's true. Sony does not publish the code.

The PSP's official firmware is also a closed system. It is not designed to run unsigned code.

Windows is closed source. MS does not publish the code.

Windows is, however, an open system. It does run unsigned code.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I have brown hair. I am male. That doesn't mean all males have brown hair - nor does that mean all brown haired people are males. One has nothing to do with the other.