Microsoft leaks details on XBOX 2

[joe smith]

instance, look like a steaming pile of dogshit on the PS2 if there's all

this raw processing power under the hood?

Easy: if you actually do anything, force multipliers begin to kick in.
Example: You want two texture channels: fine, it's possible, but then
fillrate is halved because the primitives have to be filled twice. The
ingenious design for combining colors seeks it's match, considering OpenGL
introduced standard feature-set for alpha blending (nearly?) decade earlier.
Enable something on PS2 and the performance dives. It doesn't take too many
features to cut the fillrate (for example) to 1/8 th of the peak performance
(marketing figure).

Not to mention the hardware is notoriously hard-to-program for, which some
people actually brag about. Go figure.

 

[joe smith]

Launching the XBox2 (or XBox Next, or whatever) first gives Microsoft

a HUGE advantage! It lets them get a large installed base of
customers out there before Sony even gets out the door. Developers

Shouldn't that give a HUGE advantage to the ATARI 2600?

 

[Bao H. Lammy]

Shouldn't that give a HUGE advantage to the ATARI 2600?

It did in the 2600's time. Its main competitor was never able to
catch up*, even with much superior games and hardware. Granted,
being first isn't the only factor, but an important one.

* Intellivision

 

[Tony Hill]

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.)

Actually I was thinking more of a port of the Windows-esk operating
system used on the current XBox. However their previous experience
with WinNT for PPC could come in handy with this port.

As for the drivers, they would be rather problematic, though a very
simplified and dumbed down version should suffice.

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

Just going from the article that said game-platform testing was being
done on PowerMac G5 systems. I don't know if it's true or not, for
all I know the author of the article could have been full of shit. I
was just presenting a hypothesis for what they MIGHT use G5 systems
for in regards to the XBox2.

I'm quite certain that MS does indeed have several Powermac G5 systems
in use for their Mac software. They are, after all, one of the
largest developers of Mac software in the world.

 

[Tony Hill]

Shouldn't that give a HUGE advantage to the ATARI 2600?

Sure did. How many XBox did Microsoft sell in the 1980s and 1990s?
(err, current XBox's that is, not counting the previous Microsoft
invention that also happened to be named "x-box" :> ). The promise
that Microsoft would release a WAY more powerful console 20 years
later did absolutely NOTHING to deter sales of the 2600.

 

[chrisv]

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.

I bought the optional component video cable for my kid's Gamecube, and
some of the games support prograssive-scanning anamorphic output, so
it fits nice on my 16:9 projector. Works nice for the side-by-side
games...

 

[Eric R.]

While it does seem like a slightly odd move, I always found that
including a hard drive on the XBox in the first place was a really odd
move. Hard drives are incredibly unreliable at the best of times, and
they're only going to get worse if some kid tosses his XBox around
while bringing it over to a friends house. Having 512MB or 1GB of
disk-on-chip type flash memory seems like a better idea to me, and it
probably won't be much different in price by 2005.

It's a big step backwards. The HDD is one of the xbox's most useful
features and it was probably the most siginificant factor influencing
my choice of the xbox over the PS2.

Going from the usefulness of the HDD back to one lousy Gig of flash
memory would be moronic. That is just the kind of thing that would
make me want to just wait for the PS3.

-Eric

 

[xTenn]

It's a big step backwards. The HDD is one of the xbox's most useful
features and it was probably the most siginificant factor influencing
my choice of the xbox over the PS2.

Going from the usefulness of the HDD back to one lousy Gig of flash
memory would be moronic. That is just the kind of thing that would
make me want to just wait for the PS3.

-Eric

Quick question, Eric - outside of custom music (Which is not supported by
the majority of games, BTW. Not to mention that soundtracks agruably
should be part of the game inherent design and is part of what you pay for
when you purchase a newer game), how does a HDD make the gaming experience
better? This is assuming that the flash memory can download updates, levels
and of course game saves.

The funtionality of gaming (which should be the focus of the XBox, IMHO)
does not require massive amounts of storage beyond that of the game media.

I guess my hope is that they focus on GAMING, not wacky
it-can-do-a-lot-of-things-but-darn-I-can't-play-because-it-is-recording
devices that get more complex and expensive than stand alone components.

In my view, XBox = Gaming. Give me a trillion pixels with Dolby 7.1 that
talented game developers can craft for first and foremost. The rest is
already on the market, getting cheaper all the time.

..02, mostly venting, not at anyone in particular.

 

[BL]

Agreed. Leave the decisions about recording music and video to the person
doing the recording. I have an Audiotron already. I use Tivo already. I
have an HTPC than can fill in the blanks (i.e. JPG slideshows, WM9 HD, music
serving beyond what the Audiotron can do) already. Xbox is a console and
only a console in my mind. I even have the DVD playback kit and haven't
ever used it. I have a DVD player already (actually 3 of 'em).

Inclusion of a hard drive in my mind is not essential for the console of the
next generation. Wireless Ethernet connectivity is essential. As is the
next generation of audio/video connections (e.g. HDMI and DVI). Putting
more non-gaming related features into the console, while providing value to
those who do not already own such capable devices, is asking the
exclusive-use customer to subsidize the selling of the console to multi-use
customers. No thanks. Give them the *option* for hard drives, DVD
players/burners, etc. just don't force me to pay for it too. IMHO, of
course.

-BL

 

[J. Clarke]

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

Flash is good for only a limited number of writes. In that regard it is
_not_ "more durable than mechanical storage".

 

[J. Clarke]

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

Isn't that a compiler issue?

 

[xTenn]

Flash is good for only a limited number of writes. In that regard it is
_not_ "more durable than mechanical storage".

Granted, to properly use Flash memory you need to erase before a write, but
these type of manipulationas pale in comparison to the mechanical movements
of reading a simple file. I could throw out the MTBF for a typical compact
flash card (1,000,000 hours) in this comparison, but more importantly is
the number of erase cycles for typical flash (1,000,000 ), which does show
that flash has a set use.

There are limitations - I still would not in any way suggest using flash
memory as a swap drive for windows (I pity the hard drives that do this
every day - they can hit many, many writes in a short time for this
half-a**ed but necessary use ), but we are talking about the mechanics of
storage only.

So, in short, I agree about the limited number of writes in certain
conditions, but for game consoles I can't see a problem.

A side note - I have accidently had a 512m memory card go through the wash
TWICE - I still use it today. I don't think I would try that with an
average 2.5 hard drive.

( Don't get me wrong - I am still completely impressed with the quality of
the average 2.5 hard drive - it can stand many Gs of force (IIRC 200 active,
800 inactive typical) and the price keeps coming down. And to add to this
are new Active Protection drives that autopark the heads when freefall is
detected, and it is all wonderfully cool, ESPECIALLY considering where it
all started.... But I can't see the lack of one of these in a console to be
detrimental if sufficeint storage space (with a higher MTBF) is to be had
otherwise. )

P.S. - I ignored your followup location - the microsoft server does not
support alt.video.games.xbox. Hopefully you may still see this...

 

[McCrack]

Well, now Apple develops apps for Windows (iTunes)...but they are
competitors in the OS market (if you give Apple enough respect to say they
are competitive).

Yea, and I expect they have a few PC's kicking around too. Darwin is
being developed to work on PC's too.

 

[Dr.z3n]

Agreed. Leave the decisions about recording music and video to the person

You two tits are amazing. Being able to rip music to a hdd and have in-game
playback (required for racing games IMO) is what convinced some of us to
purchase Xbox in the first place. Is there *anything* MS could do that you
guys wouldn't happily pay *more* for?

Dr.z3n

 

[BL]

person


You two tits are amazing. Being able to rip music to a hdd and have in-game
playback (required for racing games IMO) is what convinced some of us to
purchase Xbox in the first place. Is there *anything* MS could do that you
guys wouldn't happily pay *more* for?

Dr.z3n

Great tits think alike, I guess. I just don't like the economics of
building in stuff that should be optional. And I believe xTenn prefaced his
mini-rant with "outside of custom soundtracks."

Hmm, can I think of something MS could build-in that I would agree was worth
paying more money for? How about wireless controllers, wireless ethernet
bridge, power button on each controller, multi-disc changer (since I only
actively play 5 or so games), blah, blah and other stuff related to
*gaming*, not recording Will and Grace or ripping CDs of Limp Bizkit.

To each his own, z3n.

-BL

 

[Nil Einne]

Somebody might want to fill Tony in on a little something called the
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. At the very least, you're going to get people

Except that Xbox Next is not the DreamCast and altho it wont initially
have the brand name of the PS3, it will have much more then the
DreamCast did

who will wait to make their decision on which console to buy after both have
launched, which negates any advantage of going first.

Because people had a good idea the PS2 was going to be a lot better
and it had a lot better brand name. The PS2 wasn't changed much in
response to the DreamCast and 6 months is not enough time to make even
relatively minor changes to a console as you seem to think based on
other posts. Of course, one will be stupid to think that Sony and MS
have no idea what each other is doing. Sony of course will have some
advantage not in that they can change the console when MS is about to
release theirs but in that they will still be finalisaing theirs while
MS has finalised their so they can make some minor changes if
necessary (major changes will still be impossible). Also of course,
this is a continuum, since Sony will continually be designed their
console mostly after MS.

A three month launch lead might do MS some good, especially if they launched
before Xmas 2005 and the PS3 came out in 2006. That would give them a decent
little head start. But they would NEED to back that up with some AAA titles
right out of the gate. If people don't decide they NEED to have an Xbox 2,
they'll just sit on the fence until the PS3 comes out.

Agreed to some extent. But if they have a no of AAA titles, people are
going to get it even if the PS3 is 6 months or 12 months away.
Especially if the PS3 isn't going to be much better.

Of course, people might wait if they think the PS3 is gonna be a lot
better. But if it is, it'll be because Sony had more time to make and
because they could afford to include more expensive (at the time) tech
because they knew it would be cheap enough when released. Not so much
because they waited to see what MS did

 

[Nil Einne]

Well, now Apple develops apps for Windows (iTunes)...but they are
competitors in the OS market (if you give Apple enough respect to say they
are competitive).

Microsoft more or less owns Apple so know they aren't

BTW, those aren't Apple processors. They are IBM ones. I repeat they
are made by IBM for whoever wants them. Apple is probably the primary
vendor at the moment but others do in fact use them. I suspect they
were a good choice since MS needs them as cheap (wuth low power
consumption and heat output) as possible. They don't need to perform
that well as long as they're cheap... Intel and AMD processor may beat
the crap out of the IBM ones being used in terms of performance but
they cost to much, use too much power and output too much heat

 

[Nil Einne]

Actually I was thinking more of a port of the Windows-esk operating
system used on the current XBox. However their previous experience
with WinNT for PPC could come in handy with this port.

As for the drivers, they would be rather problematic, though a very
simplified and dumbed down version should suffice.

WindowsCE already supports PPCs...

Just going from the article that said game-platform testing was being
done on PowerMac G5 systems. I don't know if it's true or not, for
all I know the author of the article could have been full of shit. I
was just presenting a hypothesis for what they MIGHT use G5 systems
for in regards to the XBox2.

I'm quite certain that MS does indeed have several Powermac G5 systems
in use for their Mac software. They are, after all, one of the
largest developers of Mac software in the world.

Yep and they also more or less own Apple so I'm sure they must have
some interest.

Actually, I'm wondering if they're using the PowerMac G5s to try and
help them get Xbox games working on the Xbox2. It'll be the best
system to develop Virtual Xbox on until the Xbox Next is ready for
that purpose.

 

[Nil Einne]

While I'm sure ATI profits from MS remember the goal is to lower the price
and knowing MS they'll renegociate to hell and back just like they did
Nvidia

Well it depend. If ATI tries to give MS a pumped up PC oriented GPU
then, yes they might have a problem. But if, as they have done before
and as other console GPU developers do, they give them a console
oriented GPU then I suspect things will be different.

 

[Nil Einne]

Actually, I'm wondering if they're using the PowerMac G5s to try and
help them get Xbox games working on the Xbox2. It'll be the best
system to develop Virtual Xbox on until the Xbox Next is ready for
that purpose.

Actually, they will probably be used for developing games etc as well.
I had originally thought they must be running MacOS but this doesn't
really make sense on second thought. Likely they are running WindowsCE
and are the best working models Microsoft has of Xbox Next at the
moment.