You are making shit up now aren't you?
I said it was a nightmare to try to emulate or port games to. It was something that developers had to put up with, and hated how needlessly unique it was for little reason. Now Sony doesn't want to do that because it costs money.
The Jaguar CPU is basically what a tablet can do now. It only looks amazing because the PS3 was done on 2005 tech, something tablets NOW outclass. However, APUs are not as good as a dedicated card, which puts too much cost into production.
If you are trying to argue, try to keep up.
And yes, it will be outdated. the only reason the PS3 stayed around is because Sony didn't want to dump more money into consoles. Because consoles only started making profit around 4 years ago, it doesn't make business sense to bankrupt yourself again just when you start making money. Which is why they wanted to do a cheap console now.
For the love of... (one Google search later). Oh gee. Looky here. Info on the Jaguar CPU:
"Last but not least, there's that custom AMD processor to discuss, and here's where we need to be extremely careful about jumping to conclusions: with a custom design, there's no telling exactly how powerful the processor might be, or how much developers might get out of it. Still, we can draw a few parallels: we actually saw a quad-core Jaguar processor at CES, inside AMD's Temash reference design. Contrary to what you might believe, Jaguar actually isn't a beefy CPU; AMD's selling the tiny cores in chips designed for low-end laptops and tablets. And yet, with floating-point performance of 1.84 teraflops and a next-gen Radeon architecture, the GPU will likely have more power than a 1.76 teraflop AMD Radeon HD 7850, a mid-range graphics card for gaming computers."
Oh and here's that common tablet you were talking about: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/7/3848868/amd-temash-hands-on-windows-gaming-on-a-1080p-tablet
A fucking experimental tablet pc designed for gaming shown a few months ago.
And as I keep trying to say, the whole point in buying a console is because its an accessible method of gaming for a reasonable price. And it only looks amazing because ps3 is 2005 tech? Do you think I've never seen a high graphics game before? Good looks good. Games don't become ugly because they aren't the best of the best. Its. Not. About. The best. Specs. Sony (and Microsoft) didn't want to "dump money" into a console because updates allowed for software optimization that extended the life of this console cycle. It was fun while it lasted but the gap between console and pc has gotten too big.
And you think I'm making shit up? The operating system wasn't what made it hard to develop for the ps3 which is why I was confused by your nonsense. It was the cell processor which was some kind of 7 core with a weird set up that made it "better" but a ***** to design for. Yeah they hated it but they figured it out
EDIT EDIT EDIT: Ohhhhhhhhhh. I get it now. After looking over your previous posts, I see you don't know what an OS is and have gotten it confused with CPU architecture. Well, allow me to enlighten you FOR FREEEEEEEE (its normally my job). An operating system is kind of like the main framework for a computer. All the programs on a device and its user interface are controlled by the OS. Computer OS's like Windows, Linux, and Mac OS typically use a lot more resources than a specialized device like a game console. Unfortunately, games need a lot of resources and an OS like Windows just can't give up some of its resources but a game console can focus all its attention on games which is handy. Sony didn't use a cpu architecture that was similar to a pc because "they couldn't afford a special one". They did it because they want games to be developed more easily for there console because having more games makes their device more attractive to customers