Not really a whole lot of difference. If I was rebuying one I'd go for the slim because according to my friends experience it lasts longer (not a very good sample size, i know) and also because it has the modem built in. Also the PS2 fat is just too huge. I have no idea why MS and Sony decided to make their consoles so gigantic last gen.
Why exactly does the PS2 even have USB ports on it?
Not really a whole lot of difference. If I was rebuying one I'd go for the slim because according to my friends experience it lasts longer (not a very good sample size, i know) and also because it has the modem built in. Also the PS2 fat is just too huge. I have no idea why MS and Sony decided to make their consoles so gigantic last gen.
Why exactly does the PS2 even have USB ports on it?
You can use the USB ports on the fat PS2 for Code Breakers and such, but you think last gen's consoles were big? :lol:
Not really a whole lot of difference. If I was rebuying one I'd go for the slim because according to my friends experience it lasts longer (not a very good sample size, i know) and also because it has the modem built in. Also the PS2 fat is just too huge. I have no idea why MS and Sony decided to make their consoles so gigantic last gen.
Why exactly does the PS2 even have USB ports on it?
magnax1
For Guitar Hero equipments and other 3rd party products.
Not really a whole lot of difference. If I was rebuying one I'd go for the slim because according to my friends experience it lasts longer (not a very good sample size, i know) and also because it has the modem built in. Also the PS2 fat is just too huge. I have no idea why MS and Sony decided to make their consoles so gigantic last gen.
Why exactly does the PS2 even have USB ports on it?
JuggaloRandall
You can use the USB ports on the fat PS2 for Code Breakers and such, but you think last gen's consoles were big? :lol:
Well Nintendo and Microsoft seem to try to make their systems incrementally smaller, while sony has gone the complete opposite direction. Playstation 4 is going to end up being bigger then my TV.
Not really a whole lot of difference. If I was rebuying one I'd go for the slim because according to my friends experience it lasts longer (not a very good sample size, i know) and also because it has the modem built in. Also the PS2 fat is just too huge. I have no idea why MS and Sony decided to make their consoles so gigantic last gen.
Why exactly does the PS2 even have USB ports on it?
magnax1
You can use the USB ports on the fat PS2 for Code Breakers and such, but you think last gen's consoles were big? :lol:
Well Nintendo and Microsoft seem to try to make their systems incrementally smaller, while sony has gone the complete opposite direction. Playstation 4 is going to end up being bigger then my TV.
Not sure about that... the N64 was much larger than the SNES which was larger than the NES. OT: I had both versions of the PS2, and I liked the slim better. My fat was starting to have disc reading problems when the slims came out... so I traded it. I didn't have any use for the PS2 HDD either so I wasn't at a loss.
I've gone through two phats and they both died after several years. So I got a slim, so far, it works perfectly. Discs don't get scratched as badly, hardly at all in fact, it loads games much faster than the phat, and it's so much easier to bring back and forth between rooms, take along somewhere else, and isn't in the way at all. I also noticed that the disc drive wears out over time on the phat, to the point where it'll hardly even open. Since the slim has a lid instead of a sliding drive (like how the PSX has a lid), it prevents that issue. So my vote goes to the slim :D
I've been through 2 fats, on both of them the disc-drive stopped reading certain discs. I've had my slim for a few years now, and not a single problem, though. So I'd recommend a slim for sure, even though the fat looks cooler.
[QUOTE="JuggaloRandall"] You can use the USB ports on the fat PS2 for Code Breakers and such, but you think last gen's consoles were big? :lol:jshaas
Well Nintendo and Microsoft seem to try to make their systems incrementally smaller, while sony has gone the complete opposite direction. Playstation 4 is going to end up being bigger then my TV.
Not sure about that... the N64 was much larger than the SNES which was larger than the NES. OT: I had both versions of the PS2, and I liked the slim better. My fat was starting to have disc reading problems when the slims came out... so I traded it. I didn't have any use for the PS2 HDD either so I wasn't at a loss.
I thought N64 was pretty similar in size to SNES (little thinner, little wider, little shorter), and I think SNES was a bit smaller then NES, but I might be wrong.
Well Nintendo and Microsoft seem to try to make their systems incrementally smaller, while sony has gone the complete opposite direction. Playstation 4 is going to end up being bigger then my TV.
magnax1
Not sure about that... the N64 was much larger than the SNES which was larger than the NES. OT: I had both versions of the PS2, and I liked the slim better. My fat was starting to have disc reading problems when the slims came out... so I traded it. I didn't have any use for the PS2 HDD either so I wasn't at a loss.
I thought N64 was pretty similar in size to SNES (little thinner, little wider, little shorter), and I think SNES was a bit smaller then NES, but I might be wrong.
You're right. He's wrong in every aspect. The N64 is the smallest of the 3, not the largest. The NES is the largest of the 3, it is wider and taller than the SNES. And the SNES is longer than the N64. I own all 3, which sit on the same shelf so it's very easy for me to compare.
[QUOTE="jshaas"] Not sure about that... the N64 was much larger than the SNES which was larger than the NES. OT: I had both versions of the PS2, and I liked the slim better. My fat was starting to have disc reading problems when the slims came out... so I traded it. I didn't have any use for the PS2 HDD either so I wasn't at a loss.Emerald_Warrior
I thought N64 was pretty similar in size to SNES (little thinner, little wider, little shorter), and I think SNES was a bit smaller then NES, but I might be wrong.
You're right. He's wrong in every aspect. The N64 is the smallest of the 3, not the largest. The NES is the largest of the 3, it is wider and taller than the SNES. And the SNES is longer than the N64. I own all 3, which sit on the same shelf so it's very easy for me to compare.when it comes to the motherboard, the n64 is still the smallest then nes
Slim all the way it's so reliable and amazing my brother in law droped it 3 times and it still works just as good as it did the day I took it out of the box. Since I collect games tho I won't let him ever touch it or my games again lol :lol:
But then later I sold it and bought the 90000 series Slim. It's great and never overheats. :D (unlike some older Slims which didn't have a fan)
M3tr4nk0
old slims did have a fan. i had a 71000 but it died of water and i found a fan inside. the reason why they got hot was it got so much dust in the fan that air wouldnt flow
old slims did have a fan. i had a 71000 but it died of water and i found a fan inside. the reason why they got hot was it got so much dust in the fan that air wouldnt flowbigM10231
Oh, I didn't know the old ones had fans. I've never heard them spinning, so I guess they were really, really quiet. Maybe TOO quiet. :?
And all the old Slims I've seen used to get pretty hot, even when they were still new.
[QUOTE="bigM10231"]old slims did have a fan. i had a 71000 but it died of water and i found a fan inside. the reason why they got hot was it got so much dust in the fan that air wouldnt flowM3tr4nk0
Oh, I didn't know the old ones had fans. I've never heard them spinning, so I guess they were really, really quiet. Maybe TOO quiet. :?
And all the old Slims I've seen used to get pretty hot, even when they were still new.
you know that hiss sound that you hear without a disc in? thats the fan
Hardware BC is always better than software BC. In the original, fat PS2's, the "I/O" processor used to manage the USB2.0 and firewire port(s) was none other than the same MIPS processor that was the CPU for the PS1. With some fancy bootloader logic, when it came time to run a PS1 game, the bootloader/firmware would electric-off the EE and use the GS portion as the GPU, while handing control over to this chip for BC for PS1 games. Simple, but its execution was little short of brilliant.
Undocumented functionality, maximum compatibility - as we all know, nearly every PS2 game works on a hardware BC PS3 while a good chunk of said games don't work that well on the soft-BC models. Well, it was more or less the same thing when the first slim PStwo's came out. See, there was an undocumented feature in the PS2 SDK, allowing a programmer that was ABSOLUTELY SURE they weren't using the USB/firewire ports on the system, to then take control of the I/O chip and have it as a secondary co-processor to assist in crunching data for the PS2. Stuff that needed to be processed, but weren't particularly processor intensive were a perfect fit for this kind of stuff to do with it. Fast-forward to the slim, $ony removed the I/O chip at first and used software BC for the PS1 games played on it. Further, to compensate for how it would struggle then, it was overclocked. A lot of functionality that released games would expect to be handled in hardware, were instead now interpreted in software. This led to be quite a real **** situation, because not only did it mean a fairly good hunk of popular games weren't running properly from the PS1 era, but even some PS2 games that did use this functionality were having problems. GTA SA was among these high-profile games that simply didn't work right on launch PStwo's. Since they couldn't be updated via firmware (and because the v12 slims were already having random laser fry syndrome), $ony quickly released updated versions to try and remedy the issue(s).
Cost of attaining maximum functionality - with the "phat" model, the most I would need to attain everything that the system could do, is a network adapter and compatible EIDE/PATA hard drive, or score an official PS2 HDD kit even. While Sony obviously removed any place for a hard drive to simply plug in, some ingenious modders found it was still possible to restore this functionality thanks to some leftover pin-outs. Yet even with this, you're going to pay almost twice what the system costs now in order to modify it to accept a hard drive (more if you want an elegant solution, which would include a 'thicker' PStwo case to sit one inside of it).
Unlocking the so-called potential - While I can't obviously talk about them here, I do know there are certain things you can do to soft-mod a PS2, and most of which will obviously work better on the older models, assuming you can't find a modchip. And while Sony basically abandoned their own hard drive peripheral, there's been at least a few games that use it directly (and well), and some good homebrew to put it to good use. Most famous of these would be one called HDLoader (google it), which gets around the need to stress the older model's weak disc drive and optics... and enjoys the kind of faster load times and quieter operation that 360 users now get with the current NXE dashboard and hard drive. It's simply a lot more soldering work and modification needed to be done to achieve this with a slim, assuming it even works.
Yes, all slims have progressive-scan DVD playback as a "perk" over the phat models, but there were some late-edition "phat" models that too enjoyed this feature (as well as built-in IR sensor). Sadly these lose the lone firewire port, but it's out there. Honestly, I'd rather keep the port anyway. With current consoles capable of upscaling DVD's, there's no need for me to use the PS2 as a DVD player anymore.
Why exactly does the PS2 even have USB ports on it?
magnax1
Just don't get a very early slim model, is my only suggestion. Those were such garbage. As for the USB ports, there were a number of peripherals (even official ones) that used these. The only PS2 headsets and the Eye Toy all used USB, and early games before the network adapter used the firewire port for LAN networking. If my memory is correct, the revised guncon that was made for the PS2 version of Time Crisis also used the USB, as a manner of keeping visual sync since they couldn't use the video connectors that the older PS1 versions of the game used. The "storage dongles" that stored codes for Code Breakers and Action Replays also used flash drives with their software preloaded on them to store the data on there too. There's also the Guitar Hero and Rock Band peripherals, too.
slims are better in every way except it cant have an HDD but US users dont need it unless they want to play ff11
bigM10231
Um, excuse me? there are also quite a few games that did use the HDD - some just didn't explicitly state as much. SOCOM 2 for example did have an optional hard drive install for faster loading, and it was the only way to play the DLC maps that Sony had released for the game. With a 3+MB save file for the base save data, it would be prudent to have it on there as well. It was also next to impossible to play either of the RE: Outbreak games without a hard drive install. NFL 2k5 (and I think a few of the 2k5 series of sports games too, but mostly NFL) were able to install to the hard drive, and even directly save to it. You could also use the HDD tools disc that comes with the official PS2 HDD to transfer saves from your memory cards to the hard drive and back.
[QUOTE="codezer0"]"Fatty" model for a number of reasons:
Hardware BC is always better than software BC. In the original, fat PS2's, the "I/O" processor used to manage the USB2.0 and firewire port(s) was none other than the same MIPS processor that was the CPU for the PS1. With some fancy bootloader logic, when it came time to run a PS1 game, the bootloader/firmware would electric-off the EE and use the GS portion as the GPU, while handing control over to this chip for BC for PS1 games. Simple, but its execution was little short of brilliant.
Undocumented functionality, maximum compatibility - as we all know, nearly every PS2 game works on a hardware BC PS3 while a good chunk of said games don't work that well on the soft-BC models. Well, it was more or less the same thing when the first slim PStwo's came out. See, there was an undocumented feature in the PS2 SDK, allowing a programmer that was ABSOLUTELY SURE they weren't using the USB/firewire ports on the system, to then take control of the I/O chip and have it as a secondary co-processor to assist in crunching data for the PS2. Stuff that needed to be processed, but weren't particularly processor intensive were a perfect fit for this kind of stuff to do with it. Fast-forward to the slim, $ony removed the I/O chip at first and used software BC for the PS1 games played on it. Further, to compensate for how it would struggle then, it was overclocked. A lot of functionality that released games would expect to be handled in hardware, were instead now interpreted in software. This led to be quite a real **** situation, because not only did it mean a fairly good hunk of popular games weren't running properly from the PS1 era, but even some PS2 games that did use this functionality were having problems. GTA SA was among these high-profile games that simply didn't work right on launch PStwo's. Since they couldn't be updated via firmware (and because the v12 slims were already having random laser fry syndrome), $ony quickly released updated versions to try and remedy the issue(s).
Cost of attaining maximum functionality - with the "phat" model, the most I would need to attain everything that the system could do, is a network adapter and compatible EIDE/PATA hard drive, or score an official PS2 HDD kit even. While Sony obviously removed any place for a hard drive to simply plug in, some ingenious modders found it was still possible to restore this functionality thanks to some leftover pin-outs. Yet even with this, you're going to pay almost twice what the system costs now in order to modify it to accept a hard drive (more if you want an elegant solution, which would include a 'thicker' PStwo case to sit one inside of it).
Unlocking the so-called potential - While I can't obviously talk about them here, I do know there are certain things you can do to soft-mod a PS2, and most of which will obviously work better on the older models, assuming you can't find a modchip. And while Sony basically abandoned their own hard drive peripheral, there's been at least a few games that use it directly (and well), and some good homebrew to put it to good use. Most famous of these would be one called HDLoader (google it), which gets around the need to stress the older model's weak disc drive and optics... and enjoys the kind of faster load times and quieter operation that 360 users now get with the current NXE dashboard and hard drive. It's simply a lot more soldering work and modification needed to be done to achieve this with a slim, assuming it even works.
Yes, all slims have progressive-scan DVD playback as a "perk" over the phat models, but there were some late-edition "phat" models that too enjoyed this feature (as well as built-in IR sensor). Sadly these lose the lone firewire port, but it's out there. Honestly, I'd rather keep the port anyway. With current consoles capable of upscaling DVD's, there's no need for me to use the PS2 as a DVD player anymore.
Why exactly does the PS2 even have USB ports on it?
magnax1
Just don't get a very early slim model, is my only suggestion. Those were such garbage. As for the USB ports, there were a number of peripherals (even official ones) that used these. The only PS2 headsets and the Eye Toy all used USB, and early games before the network adapter used the firewire port for LAN networking. If my memory is correct, the revised guncon that was made for the PS2 version of Time Crisis also used the USB, as a manner of keeping visual sync since they couldn't use the video connectors that the older PS1 versions of the game used. The "storage dongles" that stored codes for Code Breakers and Action Replays also used flash drives with their software preloaded on them to store the data on there too. There's also the Guitar Hero and Rock Band peripherals, too.
slims are better in every way except it cant have an HDD but US users dont need it unless they want to play ff11
bigM10231
Um, excuse me? there are also quite a few games that did use the HDD - some just didn't explicitly state as much. SOCOM 2 for example did have an optional hard drive install for faster loading, and it was the only way to play the DLC maps that Sony had released for the game. With a 3+MB save file for the base save data, it would be prudent to have it on there as well. It was also next to impossible to play either of the RE: Outbreak games without a hard drive install. NFL 2k5 (and I think a few of the 2k5 series of sports games too, but mostly NFL) were able to install to the hard drive, and even directly save to it. You could also use the HDD tools disc that comes with the official PS2 HDD to transfer saves from your memory cards to the hard drive and back.the installs are optional and the 3mb can fit on a memory card and the only game that requires it is ff11
the installs are optional and the 3mb can fit on a memory card and the only game that requires it is ff11bigM10231
So **** what? It's there. If you can use it, do so. The problem with SOCOM 2 is that the DLC maps are A LOT bigger than any official memory card. 3MB is just for the default save file that it creates. And that can get bigger with the required downloaded update too. NFL 2k5 gains a ton of functionality on PS2 if you can do the optional hard drive install. At that point, the only differentiating factor between the PS2 and Xbox versions of that game on a HDD-enabled PS2 is better textures on the Xbox version. RE: Outbreak is nigh on unplayable without a hard drive to install to. The game might be still barely playable after, but it's still a lot better than waiting a **** hour to load each stage. :roll: Sony seriously should have packaged the HDD by itself for sale at a reduced price. Nobody I know wanted FF XI - they just wanted the hard drive and the tools disc it came with.
All things being equal I would probably rather the phat purely because you could turn it off with a switch on the back, whereas with the slim you have to put it on standby, unless Ive been missing something for the last three years.
All things being equal I would probably rather the phat purely because you could turn it off with a switch on the back, whereas with the slim you have to put it on standby, unless Ive been missing something for the last three years.
morphies_emu
it says to unplug it but i use a main swich. it saves tons more energy
Log in to comment