Microsoft leaks details on XBOX 2

[Zackman]

Right, and the PS2 already has more raw power than the Xbox since the
VU's can be used in any configuration

EE+VU0+VU1 = over 1 Gflop real world performance.

Xbox Pentium III/Celeron = only 35Mflops real world performance.

Like every other Sony fanboi who has pulled this argument out of his ass, I
ask you this: If that's the case, then why do almost all Xbox games look
better than their counterpart PS2 games? You can spout numbers all you want,
but if the real world results don't back them up, then who cares? Not to
mention the scarcity of progressive scan or 5.1 games on the PS2.

And if the PS2 is so mighty, why is it used as the lowest common denominator
system when creating cross-platform titles? Why does Splinter Cell, for
instance, look like a steaming pile of dogshit on the PS2 if there's all
this raw processing power under the hood?

-Z-

 

[xTenn]

Wot no H/D????? Bummer

Why bother when solid state (flash, even) memory is getting cheaper and is
more durable that mechanical storage?

 

[xTenn]

Right, and the PS2 already has more raw power than the Xbox since the VU's
can be used in any configuration

EE+VU0+VU1 = over 1 Gflop real world performance.

Xbox Pentium III/Celeron = only 35Mflops real world performance.

Taken from http://arrakis.ncsa.uiuc.edu

Why do you add in the EE+VU0+VU1 in the PS2, yet ignore the video processor
in the XBox for comparison? Only a nutjob would fail to realize that the
Intel processor in the XBox handles only the more mundane tasks in a video
game...

 

[George]

Why bother when solid state (flash, even) memory is getting cheaper and is
more durable that mechanical storage?

Well solid state stuff while coming down in price is still hugely expensive
compared to a hard drive.

 

[Dirk]

Why do you add in the EE+VU0+VU1 in the PS2, yet ignore the video processor
in the XBox for comparison? Only a nutjob would fail to realize that the
Intel processor in the XBox handles only the more mundane tasks in a video
game...

A nutjob, or a troll. In either case, you'd be better off ignoring
the post... I mean, by his logic, one PS2 has performance equal to
a cluster of about six 3GHz Pentium systems... ;-)

 

[xTenn]

Well solid state stuff while coming down in price is still hugely expensive
compared to a hard drive.

Granted, you will not have 100 gigs of storage at the price of a Xbox2.

But don't think it will be the same price as retail flash memory, either.

 

[xTenn]

and

Granted, you will not have 100 gigs of storage at the price of a Xbox2.

But don't think it will be the same price as retail flash memory, either.

Of course, it still would have only enough storage to support video gaming,
not music and video.

 

[Jordan Lund]

They would really set the cat amongst the pigeons if they could make an xbox
that played PS2 games...

Didn't they buy out the company that made the PS1 emulator for PC and
Mac? Not Bleem... the other one...

- Jordan

 

[Bagpuss]

Right, and the PS2 already has more raw power than the Xbox since the VU's
can be used in any configuration

EE+VU0+VU1 = over 1 Gflop real world performance.

Xbox Pentium III/Celeron = only 35Mflops real world performance.

Taken from http://arrakis.ncsa.uiuc.edu

YOu are a bit of a thick **** then arn't you. So what about the XBox
GPU or doesn't that count. Tell us about how good the PS2 is a full
screen AA.

On top of that doing a=0; a=a+1; jmp -1 a billion times doesn't make a
good game.

 

[Bagpuss]

All MS needs to do is give away Dead or Alive The Ultimate ****ing
Tournament and they will do just fine.
Tits can make a tremendous improvement in sales.

So how long have you been working in marketing as a sales improvemnt
feature?

 

[Nate Edel]

Dreamcast. Say what you will about Sega having pissed off fans or not having
a large enough marketing budget, but the Dreamcast had great games and some
very innovative (for the time) ideas -- VMU, online play, etc. But they
launched before the juggernaut that was the PS2, and most people simply
decided to wait for the PS2.

Many of us bought both -- and the Dreamcast was (better than, but) a lot
closer to the N64 in terms of graphics quality and apparant processing
power.

All you had to do was see DOA 2 (Dreamcast) and DOA 2SE (PS2) next to each
other to see that it was really obvious.

 

[Nate Edel]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 13:01:30 -0700, Sir William wrote
A little ironic perhaps, except that they almost certainly are not
running MacOS. Most likely they're running PPC Windows, which has
existed in the past and likely will come to light again (if only in
the back rooms of Redmond).

I doubt it, actually; I don't see much reason to believe they'd spend the
time and effort (and thus $) to bring WinNT 4 PowerPC up to date for Windows
2000/XP... let alone adding the driver support to run on G5s from Apple
(WinNT 4 PPC ran on hardware that wasn't that similar to Mac hardware, and
while there's been some convergence, drivers for Apple's chipsets wouldn't
be that trivial of a task.)

In fact, my guess is that the Macs are more likely being used to develop
and test the OS for the XBox2 rather than the games.

Any particular reason to think they're being used for XBox2 at all, rather
than just the Mac version of Office?

 

[John]

Didn't they buy out the company that made the PS1 emulator for PC and
Mac? Not Bleem... the other one...

Microsoft acquired Connectix for their Virtual PC software. At one
point this company did make Virtual Game Station which allowed you to
play PS1 games on the Mac. It went to court, there was long proceedings
and eventually Sony bought the right to develop/distribute it and
surprise surprise that was the last we heard of it.

 

[ammonton]

I doubt it, actually; I don't see much reason to believe they'd spend
the time and effort (and thus $) to bring WinNT 4 PowerPC up to date
for Windows 2000/XP... let alone adding the driver support to run on
G5s from Apple

The G5 CPU is purely big-endian, and Microsoft have not yet released a
single big-endian version of Windows.

-a

 

[Bao H. Lammy]

Of course, it still would have only enough storage to support video gaming,
not music and video.

How about this? No hard drive, but ability for you to add
a hard drive into an expansion bay? Those who don't care
can use the onboard 2GB or whatever of flash memory that
they decide to include. (Ideally, you should be able to drop
in any cheap IDE drive, but I think that will never happen.)

Many people with Xboxes never come close to using the
8GB drive space as they only use it for game saves.

I hope they don't go back to the memory card crap one has
to deal with on other consoles as the only method for saves.

 

[Walt]

I kind-of see it another way.

IMHO, it would be foolhardy to introduce any game box in 2005
which could not successfully and easily ride through the NTSC-to-
HDTV conversion coming just a year later in 2006.

Families who like new electronic "gadgets" (no dis intended), the
types who's parents would buy one of the first XBOX 2 units, would
probably have at least one HDTV by then.

I hope XBOX 2 has a DVI 1080i output.

 

[Jordan Lund]

Fatal error. Xbox2 launches first, Sony looks at it, Sony says "PS3 will
have this and this and this that makes it better than Xbox2, not to mention
Grand Theft Auto 5" and nobody buys Xbox2, a la the Dreamcast.

Is anyone going to be dumb enough to believe Sony's hype machine this
time around? I mean, wasn't waiting a year for GT3 last time
punishment enough?

- Jordan

 

[Jan Panteltje]

I kind-of see it another way.

IMHO, it would be foolhardy to introduce any game box in 2005
which could not successfully and easily ride through the NTSC-to-
HDTV conversion coming just a year later in 2006.

Families who like new electronic "gadgets" (no dis intended), the
types who's parents would buy one of the first XBOX 2 units, would
probably have at least one HDTV by then.

I hope XBOX 2 has a DVI 1080i output.

eeh, numbers, Europe no HDTV, most kids no HDTV,
so if 2000 have HDTV (for example) then those 2000 HDTV users
will have to pay for that feature IN ALL BOXES.
Better leave it for the next version.
But OK, its MS, why not let them do it ;-).

 

[RusH]

(e-mail address removed) (Nate Edel) wrote in

Many of us bought both -- and the Dreamcast was (better than,
but) a lot closer to the N64 in terms of graphics quality and
apparant processing power.

rofl now thats funny

All you had to do was see DOA 2 (Dreamcast) and DOA 2SE (PS2)
next to each other to see that it was really obvious.

or compare Dreamcast games to GameCube games ... some are better on
the DC


Pozdrawiam.

 

[George]

(e-mail address removed) (Nate Edel) wrote in


rofl now thats funny


or compare Dreamcast games to GameCube games ... some are better on
the DC

Funny enough when I play Monkey Ball I think it would have made a great
Dreamcast game. Wonder was it originally in development for the DC?