Gates: And now, Sony, you will die.

[Praxis]

We might see lower resolution videos instead of HD (I mean, with Blu-Ray you can have multiple full length SD films or a full length HD film IN ADDITION to the game...). Less special features. Etc.

FMV in games in becoming an anachronism, almost all cinema today with the exception of Final Fantasy is being done in the game engine.

As for a full length HD film on a GAME disc, I don't see what situation you would see that in.

It probably wouldn't happen, but I would love to, say, buy the Spider-Man 3 game for $60 or $70 and have the movie (which costs what, $20, on its own disk?) included on it.

Eh? The GameCube used DVD disks as well, they just spun the disks backwards to prevent piracy.

Which has what to do with this? DVD was years old at that point, not brand new.[/quote]

You were implying that Nintendo went the cheap route out. I was responding that they were using the same DVD tech.

If a hybrid format comes along, Sony will probably use that, otherwise they've already stated Blu-ray will be in it. I think it would be silly not to use next gen storage. Worse case, just use the vastly cheaper HD-DVD.

HD-DVD is cheaper from a MANUFACTURING standpoint. But that doesn't mean that Nintendo will have to pay nothing to use it if they want to put the Revolution on the market with first gen devices. Don't you know how this business works?

If they are already planning on using a next gen format, then HD-DVD is the cheapest. Read the post next time.

IF the hard drive version includes a Pentium 3 processor, yes. I wouldn't say "certain", just possible and maybe likely.

It doesn't need a Pentium III processor.

...
yeah, and my Mac can run Half-Life 2.

EDIT: It at least needs some x86 core, is what I mean.

The PS2 had a stupid design, however. Further, that is a completely screwed up arguement. How do you know that the XBox would have been more powerful than the PS2 if it had launched TWO YEARS before it actually did?

Because, if you follow the design philosophy of the Xbox, it would have had a 400 Mhz processor and a GeForce 2 GTS. This hardware is more than sufficient to kick the crap out of the PS2.

Provide proof that they could sell a system with a 400 MHz processor and a Geforce 2 ANd a hard drive *two years* before the XBox came out with a Geforce 3, for the same price.

This is a prime example of why you have no idea what you are talking about. The Xbox 360/Revolution are using custom IMPLEMENTATIONS of PC technology, not custom designs.

That's what I meant. Again, wrong wording.

And I misunderstood you above I guess, I thought you stated that the XBox 1 used off-the-shelf PC parts (remember, my knowledge of GPU is not what it should be). So I was wrong about that XBox-GameCube comparison.

But for the XBox 360 and Revolution, thats precisely what I meant. I NEVER meant that they were using brand new designs. Just customized versions of existing cards.

Idiot, it's not a new graphics core, it's a modified version of an ATI desktop core with integrated cache. You obviously have no idea on the cost differences between modifying an existing architecture and creating a brand new one.

That's PRECISELY what I meant. It's a customized version of an existing one, rather than an off the shelf part. No need to throw insults.

Only due to the fact that the GameCube had a MUCH lower price point. Yet performance was actually barely behind the XBox.

Are you forgetting the hard drive? The integrated ethernet? Dolby Digital Live? A better GPU?

By performance I was including the GPU. Dolby digital, the hard drive, and ethernet increased the cost, but like I said the difference is more than $100 because Nintendo was selling at a profit while Microsoft at a massive loss (in comparison with Sony).

I'm saying Nintendo's system was weaker because of the lower price point and selling for a profit. Nintendo went for very low build costs. I'm NOT trying to argue that Nintendo's system was in any way better.

Nintendo has NEVER subscribed to the dumping console philosophy. There is no indication of them changing this.

If you assumed the same cost for console components, then MAYBE. The X factor here is that Microsoft has proved that they don't need finished dev kits until mere weeks before the Xbox 360 launch, whcih was the same thing they did with Xbox 1. Nintendo likes to have their finished hardware done way ahead of time. So actually, the time difference may mean nothing at all.

It's a possibility. Although if it is like you say, then Nintendo would have the lower price point.

Anyway, this was what I was getting at. Can we dump all the above useless arguing about the past? My fingers are getting tired...

Microsoft making a profit means on their Xbox division as a WHOLE, not on the initial Xbox hardware sales. You're an idiot if you think Microsoft has abandoned the concept of dumping consoles.

As for the Revolution, you have no information on the CPU or GPU to show me so you have nothing to suggest it will be dumped, defying generations of Nintendo history.

No, I mean that they won't sell it for as big of a loss if they intend to make a profit.

As for the Revolution, its sort of a pointless arguement without specs eh? I doubt they dump it (at least by much), although Nintendo DID sell the GameCube for a loss for a short time at one point (back when the GameCube first dropped to $99). But I do expect the time gap will make a difference.

Ah, so now we're making the assumption that Nintendo is making a 'cheap' system, after their last one failed. Right.

They have never sold a system at a loss. Ever. That's called historical precedent.

I didn't claim they would sell it at a loss. I said that I suspect they will sell at the same price point ($300). Big difference.

And they sold the GC at a loss for a short time, as I said, though thats not really relevant.

Point 1: The XBox does NOT have a Celeron. It's a half cached P3.

A Celeron IS a half cached PIII (at least at the time it was). The only added feature the Xbox CPU has is that it doesn't have half it's caches tags disabled.

Well, I'll let you argue with Anandtech on that one.

The CPU that powers the Xbox is a Coppermine based Pentium III with only 128KB L2 cache. While this would make many think that the processor is indeed a Celeron, one of the key performance factors of the Pentium III that is lost in the Celeron core was left intact for this core. The Coppermine core was left with an 8-way set associative L2 cache instead of the 4-way set associative cache of the Celeron. Based on what we've seen with the Coppermine and Coppermine128 (Celeron) cores we estimate that the 8-way set associative L2 cache gives this particular core a 10% performance advantage over the Coppermine128 core of the Celeron.

Point 2: Right, so you expect ONE of the XBox 360 processors (3 GHz @ 2 IPC) to emulate the XBox 1 processor (733 MHz @ iirc 6 IPC). Yeah.

What the hell are these IPC numbers you are throwing around? Some sort of arbitrary scale? How exactly do you plan to measure IPC?

Instructions Per Clock.

No, I realize the difference, but read above.

Tell you what, how about we just look at the possibilities here for backwards compatibility?

1) An integrated x86 core to act as the Xbox 1 CPU and using the ATI core to emulate the functions of the nVidia GPU in the Xbox. Considering the hardware similarities, this is the easiest way.

Agreed. But this will raise the cost. And a hard drive is required.

I fully expect that the hard drive version of the XBox 360 will do exactly what you have described.

Which method would I choose? I'd go with #1 on the deluxe model and dump backward compatibility on the regular model. But we'll see in a few weeks what Microsoft has in mind.

I agree 100%.

[Master of Ossus]

Did Microsoft really sell their X-boxes at a loss? How is that legal?

[Chardok]

Did Microsoft really sell their X-boxes at a loss? How is that legal?

Well, the console market isn't exactly cornered, you know? Like the PS2 already had the market pretty much to themselves. If Microsoft was to compete they HAD to stay price competitive and offer a comparable or better product.

They did. Anyone would agree that the box is superior hardware and feature-wise to the PS2, but everyone would also agree that the Xbox library is ridiculously thin while the PS2's library is the most bloated monster ever created. I mean, come on, don't you rememebr the hype surrounding that crapfest Azurik: Rise of Perathia? Ugh... I guess what I'm trying to illustrate is: Lets say the shoe was on the other foot. let's say the Brick came out first, and lets say it had the huge library and still had the hardware it has. But the price tag is, say 300 bucks. Then sony comes out with the PS2 as it is now as well, but their machine is only 120 bucks. Then, in an effort to force sony out of the market, Microsoft knocks down it's price from 300 bucks to 100 bucks, and starts buying every license it can get it's grubby little paws on. THAT would be an obvious attempt to monopolize the market, and the SEC would likely step in as Microsoft would hold a MASSIVELY unfair advantage, and it would be using unfair trade practices.


Of course, I know nothing about economics or corporate operational/ethics law, so I'm probably completely wrong. The above is just my understanding of how an antitrust type deal would work.

[The Kernel]

It probably wouldn't happen, but I would love to, say, buy the Spider-Man 3 game for $60 or $70 and have the movie (which costs what, $20, on its own disk?) included on it.

Highly unlikely.

You were implying that Nintendo went the cheap route out. I was responding that they were using the same DVD tech.

That WAS the cheap route for the time. DVD had reached the point of not being significantly more expensive then CD at the time.

If they are already planning on using a next gen format, then HD-DVD is the cheapest. Read the post next time.

They can plan all they want, if the drive isn't availible for the proper price then it won't happen.

...
yeah, and my Mac can run Half-Life 2.

EDIT: It at least needs some x86 core, is what I mean.

Not with a fast enough CPU and a good enough emulation implementation.

Provide proof that they could sell a system with a 400 MHz processor and a Geforce 2 ANd a hard drive *two years* before the XBox came out with a Geforce 3, for the same price.

Easy, a 400 Mhz processor and a GeForce 2 GTS fit exactly the same market points in 2000 as the 733 Mhz and the NV2a did when the Xbox was released.

It's a possibility. Although if it is like you say, then Nintendo would have the lower price point.

Anyway, this was what I was getting at. Can we dump all the above useless arguing about the past? My fingers are getting tired...

Fine, so long as you accept that the Revolution might not be the Xbox 360 killer from a hardware standpoint just because of a paltry 6-9 month lead.

No, I mean that they won't sell it for as big of a loss if they intend to make a profit.

No they won't, and the lack of a hard drive on the base model will accomplish that.

As for the Revolution, its sort of a pointless arguement without specs eh? I doubt they dump it (at least by much), although Nintendo DID sell the GameCube for a loss for a short time at one point (back when the GameCube first dropped to $99). But I do expect the time gap will make a difference.

The time gap isn't all that great, especially in this day and age where CPU progress has slowed and nVidia and ATI are going with longer product cycles.

I didn't claim they would sell it at a loss. I said that I suspect they will sell at the same price point ($300). Big difference.[/quote]

Perhaps, although they are likely to stifle their success if they do that, especially if they can't secure third party support.

And they sold the GC at a loss for a short time, as I said, though thats not really relevant.

No, I'm referring to launches, not price drops, although that's interesting to note.

Well, I'll let you argue with Anandtech on that one.

Anandtech agrees with me. The only difference between the Xbox CPU and the Celeron is the 8-way set associative cache tags.

Instructions Per Clock.

Thank you Captain Obvious. I meant where are your numbers for IPC coming from? And you can't simply quantify IPC that way, if you could, everyone would do it.

Agreed. But this will raise the cost. And a hard drive is required.

Precicely the reason to make it an incentive feature on the Xbox deluxe (or whatever they will call it).

[The Kernel]

Did Microsoft really sell their X-boxes at a loss? How is that legal?

It's the same logic as selling a printer at cost or a loss and making money on the cartridges. They don't dump for the sake of dumping, it's a subsidized sales structure. Sony does the same thing and has since the PS1 days.

The reason this was started was because consoles were getting killed in respect to hardware by their PC brethren. Some consoles came out with awesome hardware like the Neo Geo, but they were ridiculously expensive at around $500-$700. Sony figured out that they could make a kickass system, sell it at a loss, then make up the money on the games and wait until the hardware was cheap enough that they could start making money off of it. It's a tried and true system.

As for how it is legal, I don't think it qualifies as true dumping because it is a serious business model, not just something designed to grab market share.

[Master of Ossus]

Well, the console market isn't exactly cornered, you know? Like the PS2 already had the market pretty much to themselves. If Microsoft was to compete they HAD to stay price competitive and offer a comparable or better product.

It makes perfect sense why a company would want to sell a console for less than what it costs them, but it's almost always illegal to sell something like that. I'm admittedly not a corporate lawyer, but I'm surprised there weren't anti-trust lawsuits over it if Microsoft was actually selling a product for less than what it cost them.

They did. Anyone would agree that the box is superior hardware and feature-wise to the PS2, but everyone would also agree that the Xbox library is ridiculously thin while the PS2's library is the most bloated monster ever created.

I understand the hardware differences between the two systems, but that doesn't make it okay to drop the price of your system to below what it costs you.

I mean, come on, don't you rememebr the hype surrounding that crapfest Azurik: Rise of Perathia?

Actually, I don't but that's okay.

Ugh... I guess what I'm trying to illustrate is: Lets say the shoe was on the other foot. let's say the Brick came out first, and lets say it had the huge library and still had the hardware it has. But the price tag is, say 300 bucks. Then sony comes out with the PS2 as it is now as well, but their machine is only 120 bucks. Then, in an effort to force sony out of the market, Microsoft knocks down it's price from 300 bucks to 100 bucks, and starts buying every license it can get it's grubby little paws on. THAT would be an obvious attempt to monopolize the market, and the SEC would likely step in as Microsoft would hold a MASSIVELY unfair advantage, and it would be using unfair trade practices.

Of course, I know nothing about economics or corporate operational/ethics law, so I'm probably completely wrong. The above is just my understanding of how an antitrust type deal would work.

Right, it makes perfect sense why a company would sell a console for less than what it costs them. I'm just surprised that it was legal, since usually such behavior is tightly regulated to prevent exactly the sort of scenario you're describing.

[Praxis]

That WAS the cheap route for the time. DVD had reached the point of not being significantly more expensive then CD at the time.

If Nintendo uses DVD, Sony uses DVD, and Microsoft uses DVD, you can't exactly say Nintendo was taking the cheap way out.

Easy, a 400 Mhz processor and a GeForce 2 GTS fit exactly the same market points in 2000 as the 733 Mhz and the NV2a did when the Xbox was released.

It's a possibility, but both the Revolution and XBox 360 appear to be following the same philosophy (modified implementations of existing PC parts), so that arguement doesn't hold in this case.

Fine, so long as you accept that the Revolution might not be the Xbox 360 killer from a hardware standpoint just because of a paltry 6-9 month lead.

Alright. It's impossible to know at this point. Perhaps after E3.

No they won't, and the lack of a hard drive on the base model will accomplish that.

True.

Perhaps, although they are likely to stifle their success if they do that, especially if they can't secure third party support.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If the Revolution DOES have all the features ascribed to it, people might consider it to be worth just as much as the XBox. Third party support will be the killer; if Nintendo gets good third party support IN ADDITION to their outstanding first party support, AND has all the features ascribed to it, it will sell.

If it doesn't get the third party support it will force people to buy a PS3 or XBox 360 just to play the major games, just like the current generation.

No, I'm referring to launches, not price drops, although that's interesting to note.

Alright, conceded.

Anandtech agrees with me. The only difference between the Xbox CPU and the Celeron is the 8-way set associative cache tags.

Which, as they say, is a feature of the Pentium 3.

Thank you Captain Obvious. I meant where are your numbers for IPC coming from? And you can't simply quantify IPC that way, if you could, everyone would do it.

The numbers for the IPC come from the official Xenon specs given to developers at GDC.

For the Pentium 3, someone on this board said they thought it was 6, but thats why I stuck an iirc on it. Might be wrong.

Precicely the reason to make it an incentive feature on the Xbox deluxe (or whatever they will call it).

Yup.

[Master of Ossus]

As for how it is legal, I don't think it qualifies as true dumping because it is a serious business model, not just something designed to grab market share.

I guess I've never seen a lawsuit over someone who had the opportunity to recoup their losses by selling tie-in products, but I've definitely seen successful suits over behavior designed to undercut someone else's market.

[Praxis]

Did Microsoft really sell their X-boxes at a loss? How is that legal?

Sony sells the PS2 at a loss, too, and make up for it in software sales.
Microsoft just sold at a bigger loss.


I wouldn't be surprised if they threw this in as extra ammo if Microsoft ever gets hit with another antitrust lawsuit over Windows. But technically, everyone but Nintendo is doing it.

[The Kernel]

As for how it is legal, I don't think it qualifies as true dumping because it is a serious business model, not just something designed to grab market share.

I guess I've never seen a lawsuit over someone who had the opportunity to recoup their losses by selling tie-in products, but I've definitely seen successful suits over behavior designed to undercut someone else's market.

I think another thing that helps is that Sony and Microsoft never tried to undercut their closest non-dumping competitor: Nintendo. Sony sold the Playstation at similar price points, they were just offering more advanced hardware for the money.

[The Kernel]

If Nintendo uses DVD, Sony uses DVD, and Microsoft uses DVD, you can't exactly say Nintendo was taking the cheap way out.

They didn't HAVE to cut corners on that design aspect. They probably will this time around since HD-DVD isn't even availible NOW.

It's a possibility, but both the Revolution and XBox 360 appear to be following the same philosophy (modified implementations of existing PC parts), so that arguement doesn't hold in this case.

Wrong, the Gamecube used PC parts as well and it was an inferior design. Why? They used CHEAPER PC parts.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If the Revolution DOES have all the features ascribed to it, people might consider it to be worth just as much as the XBox. Third party support will be the killer; if Nintendo gets good third party support IN ADDITION to their outstanding first party support, AND has all the features ascribed to it, it will sell.

If Nintendo can get good third party support then the console will sell regardless of the hardware. That's the problem with Nintendo though, they are so fucking stubborn by their own delusions of gradeur that they make poor business decisions.

If it doesn't get the third party support it will force people to buy a PS3 or XBox 360 just to play the major games, just like the current generation.

Exactly. And honestly, I don't think developers have much patience left for Nintendo. It's no secret that many of them believe that Nintendo is a better games then hardware company and they don't like the idea of Nintendo showing huge favoritism to first party titles. That's what I don't see changing, Nintendo isn't going to promote third party titles the way Microsoft and Sony do.

See, Sony and Microsoft don't care whether a popular game is third party or first party because they recognize that it will help sell the system which means more overall game sales. Nintendo doesn't want to risk hurting sales of their own titles, so they don't give the sort of marketing support that third party titles deserve. This has the tendency to piss developers and publishers off.

Nintendo is the quintisential example of a superstar athlete that doesn't understand how to play as a team. They are only interested in their own stats, and no matter how good they are, they won't succeed unless they learn that their success is dependent on them treating other members of the gaming business with respect.

Which, as they say, is a feature of the Pentium 3.

Except that the PIII doesn't have 128kb of cache. What about this don't you understand? A Celeron in those days WAS a PIII with a laser used to disable half the cache and cache tags. The only difference with the Xbox chip was that they lasered off the cache, but kept the cache tags.

The numbers for the IPC come from the official Xenon specs given to developers at GDC.

You can't use numbers like that to try to assume emulation performance. I can't even begin to describe what is wrong with this approach.

Try to get this into your head, IPC cannot be defined by any one measurement. It is an abstract concept that applies to differently to different situations and relies greatly on keeping pipelines fed with data. It's like MIPS, it doesn't really mean anything.

For the Pentium 3, someone on this board said they thought it was 6, but thats why I stuck an iirc on it. Might be wrong.

Do I even have to explain what is wrong with this?

[SirNitram]

As for how it is legal, I don't think it qualifies as true dumping because it is a serious business model, not just something designed to grab market share.

I guess I've never seen a lawsuit over someone who had the opportunity to recoup their losses by selling tie-in products, but I've definitely seen successful suits over behavior designed to undercut someone else's market.

Microsoft, be brought up on successful charges for illegal business practices? Maybe in another timeline; they've been skating untouched since the Antitrust conviction was overturned in, IIRC, Bush's ascent to power.

[Praxis]

They didn't HAVE to cut corners on that design aspect. They probably will this time around since HD-DVD isn't even availible NOW.

HD-DVD is going to be available this year, and the other consoles are launching next year, are they not?

Wrong, the Gamecube used PC parts as well and it was an inferior design. Why? They used CHEAPER PC parts.

Because, as I said, of the lower launch price.

If Nintendo can get good third party support then the console will sell regardless of the hardware. That's the problem with Nintendo though, they are so fucking stubborn by their own delusions of gradeur that they make poor business decisions.

And thats why the CEO and head of marketting have both been replaced.

Exactly. And honestly, I don't think developers have much patience left for Nintendo. It's no secret that many of them believe that Nintendo is a better games then hardware company and they don't like the idea of Nintendo showing huge favoritism to first party titles. That's what I don't see changing, Nintendo isn't going to promote third party titles the way Microsoft and Sony do.

See, Sony and Microsoft don't care whether a popular game is third party or first party because they recognize that it will help sell the system which means more overall game sales. Nintendo doesn't want to risk hurting sales of their own titles, so they don't give the sort of marketing support that third party titles deserve. This has the tendency to piss developers and publishers off.

Nintendo is the quintisential example of a superstar athlete that doesn't understand how to play as a team. They are only interested in their own stats, and no matter how good they are, they won't succeed unless they learn that their success is dependent on them treating other members of the gaming business with respect.

Hopefully the new leadership will change this.

Except that the PIII doesn't have 128kb of cache. What about this don't you understand? A Celeron in those days WAS a PIII with a laser used to disable half the cache and cache tags. The only difference with the Xbox chip was that they lasered off the cache, but kept the cache tags.

This isn't worth arguing about. As the anandtech article says, it retains some of the performance advantages of the P3.

Ugh. Okay, it's a P3/Celeron hybrid. We'll call it a Celeron then. Happy?

You can't use numbers like that to try to assume emulation performance. I can't even begin to describe what is wrong with this approach.

Try to get this into your head, IPC cannot be defined by any one measurement. It is an abstract concept that applies to differently to different situations and relies greatly on keeping pipelines fed with data. It's like MIPS, it doesn't really mean anything.

Guess it wasn't explained properly to me originally, then...but anyway, here is the specs released.

# CPU - Xenon's CPU has three 3.0 GHz PowerPC cores. Each core is capable of two instructions per cycle and has an L1 cache with 32 KB for data and 32 KB for instructions. The three cores share 1 MB of L2 cache. Alpha 2 developer kits currently have two cores instead of three.

The much shorter pipelined out-of-order and wider P3 will likely have a similar if not superior IPC, and in some case will simple OWN the PPC because of it's out-of-order nature. Learn what out-of-order execution means, it's history, etc. It's a very important aspect of a CPU.

Now, this is outside of my knowledge so I really can't argue with you very well.

HyperionX, mind joining in? Yes, I realize it is pathetic of me to call for help, but honestly, both your posts and HyperionX's are above my level, and both argue the exact opposite viewpoint. I'm not going to try to pretend to have knowledge I don't.

[Praxis]

These posts are getting too long.

Summary of my arguements:


1) I don't believe the XBox 360 can achieve backwards compatability via emulation. Including an x86 core, no problem. I'm basing this off a thread in the past where this arguement took place and HyperionX convinced me it couldn't be done (I thought it could).


Uh, thats really just about it, the rest is just nitpicks or was already settled.

[Praxis]

Anyone think there is a chance of installing Mac OS X on this system with some kind of hack? Perhaps through Mac-on-Linux?

If the XBox 360 has the capability to run Linux very well, and the Revolution does not have that possibility, I may buy both and just hack the XBox for Linux.

[Chardok]

Anyone think there is a chance of installing Mac OS X on this system with some kind of hack? Perhaps through Mac-on-Linux?

If the XBox 360 has the capability to run Linux very well, and the Revolution does not have that possibility, I may buy both and just hack the XBox for Linux.

AGAINST THE EULA! PREPARE FOR REEDUCATION!

[HyperionX]

Guess it wasn't explained properly to me originally, then...but anyway, here is the specs released.

# CPU - Xenon's CPU has three 3.0 GHz PowerPC cores. Each core is capable of two instructions per cycle and has an L1 cache with 32 KB for data and 32 KB for instructions. The three cores share 1 MB of L2 cache. Alpha 2 developer kits currently have two cores instead of three.

The much shorter pipelined out-of-order and wider P3 will likely have a similar if not superior IPC, and in some case will simple OWN the PPC because of it's out-of-order nature. Learn what out-of-order execution means, it's history, etc. It's a very important aspect of a CPU.

Now, this is outside of my knowledge so I really can't argue with you very well.

HyperionX, mind joining in? Yes, I realize it is pathetic of me to call for help, but honestly, both your posts and HyperionX's are above my level, and both argue the exact opposite viewpoint. I'm not going to try to pretend to have knowledge I don't.

I'm not exactly a genius here myself but I can say it's more or less like this:

An in-order chip has approximately half the performance of an out-of-order CPU (reference) given equivalent technology. This would imply the IPC of the PPC is half that of the P3 assuming perfectly linear scaling to clockspeed. However, there's a lot more to it than that so I'm not making any guesses and it varies too much anyways. However, emulation is pretty straightforward; it all depends on it's ability to convert single-threaded x86 instructions into single-threaded PPC instructions and then process them. Unfortunately, the fact the the PPC is designed for great multithreading makes it terrible candidate for this (It's deeply pipelined and has SMT). Plus PowerPC just suck at the integer apps in most benchmarks I've seen, which are probably going to be the most difficult to emulate, so IMO it'll never work and you'll have to be slightly crazy to even try.

[Praxis]

Anyone think there is a chance of installing Mac OS X on this system with some kind of hack? Perhaps through Mac-on-Linux?

If the XBox 360 has the capability to run Linux very well, and the Revolution does not have that possibility, I may buy both and just hack the XBox for Linux.

AGAINST THE EULA! PREPARE FOR REEDUCATION!

Doesn't it say that you can't install it on a non-Apple-marked box? What do you think the included Apple stickers are for?

Okay, just kidding. Forgot about the dang EULA. Anyone think Linux installation would even be a possibility or will Microsoft implement some kind of hardware protection?

[The Kernel]

HD-DVD is going to be available this year, and the other consoles are launching next year, are they not?

Of course, but they have to contend with the fact that HD-DVD technology is going to be expensive at first. Not because it costs a lot to produce but because of protectionism over standalone boxes.

Because, as I said, of the lower launch price.

And that they like to make money off of their hardware.

And thats why the CEO and head of marketting have both been replaced.

I've seen no evidence of a corporate culture shift which is the real problem.

Hopefully the new leadership will change this.

I would doubt it. Nintendo has yet to contend with the fact that they are not the center of the universe. If they did, they'd sell out to Microsoft the next day because it's the smartest business decision they could possibly make.

Guess it wasn't explained properly to me originally, then...but anyway, here is the specs released.

This is an extremely simplified explanation. Do I need to explain to you the complexity of determining true IPC or will you simply take my word for it?

The much shorter pipelined out-of-order and wider P3 will likely have a similar if not superior IPC, and in some case will simple OWN the PPC because of it's out-of-order nature. Learn what out-of-order execution means, it's history, etc. It's a very important aspect of a CPU.

He thinks that the PowerPC doesn't have OOO Execution? I'm sorry but:

[Chardok]

Now, now, you two, play nice or I will have to lock this thread...


[hans moleman]Ohhhhh, even my lice ignore me[/hans moleman]

[The Kernel]

I'm not exactly a genius here myself but I can say it's more or less like this:

An in-order chip has approximately half the performance of an out-of-order CPU (reference) given equivalent technology. This would imply the IPC of the PPC is half that of the P3 assuming perfectly linear scaling to clockspeed. However, there's a lot more to it than that so I'm not making any guesses and it varies too much anyways. However, emulation is pretty straightforward; it all depends on it's ability to convert single-threaded x86 instructions into single-threaded PPC instructions and then process them. Unfortunately, the fact the the PPC is designed for great multithreading makes it terrible candidate for this (It's deeply pipelined and has SMT). Plus PowerPC just suck at the integer apps in most benchmarks I've seen, which are probably going to be the most difficult to emulate, so IMO it'll never work and you'll have to be slightly crazy to even try.

Stop talking about concepts you don't even have a vague conception of. You are wrong about the PowerPC not having OOO Execution and you are also wrong about assuming 50% performance across the board (EPIC uses in order execution and is the most powerful instruction set implementation in the word at many things).

[Max]

Considering that Microsoft has had years of maturity with Xbox Live and Nintendo has no experience at all besides talk, Microsoft has the advantage going in as far as multiplayer online goes no matter how many buzzwords Nintendo throws around.

I just wanted to address this really quick, because it bugged me.

...and to nitpick...

link

NintendOnline

"Nintendo isn't giving online gaming a chance."

That is very likely the number one criticism Nintendo has received this generation. It is also the number one criticism that is absolutely wrong.

What many fail to realize is that Nintendo has in fact given online gaming a chance during just about every console generation since the original Nintendo Entertainment System. From investments to partnerships, the history of Nintendo's online escapades is one that spans over two decades and is deeper than the blue of the Pacific. Nintendo's online past also paints a picture of how the company, though it may say differently now, once strived to become a communications juggernaut like that of AOL Time Warner or MSNBC.

Famicom Network
It all began back in 1983 with the Japanese release of the Famicom (NES). It wasn't until 1987, however, when Nintendo first sponsored and arranged an "electronic golf tournament" using Famicoms and Disk Faxes - communicating over the telephone network - to test the possibilities of creating a regional network of Famicoms across Japan. This simple "test" proved to be a success.

It was but a year later in 1988, that president Hiroshi Yamauchi and Nintendo set about becoming a "communications" company and establishing its own "internet". The Nintendo Famicom would attach to an approximately $100 priced modem called a "Communications Adapter" - developed by Masayuki Uemura's R&D 2 team - and into a phone line. This connection created the "Family Computer Communications Network System".

Using a simple cartridge, the Famicom was essentially turned into an online enabled game system. When turned on, a menu screen would appear that resembled the main screen of "Super Mario Bros". Via the Famicom Network, Japanese children were given the opportunity to play video games (among others, Henk Roger's go game proved to be popular) against a child on the other side of Japan.

Nintendo's president, Hiroshi Yamauchi, believed at the time that such a network would mold the future of Nintendo. Video games, Yamauchi felt, offered a limited audience and business. On the other hand, he felt "communications" could only be bounded by outer space itself.

Nintendo had a true "Trojan Horse" on its hands. Nintendo's goal was to provide or license business and other services on its Family Computer Network. Nintendo essentially had "control" over everything - a position that gave it the ability to not only charge users for using the online service but also charge those businesses that wanted to provide product and information on the network. Had this network caught on, Nintendo would have gained its video game monopoly times two. Nintendo would have become a God and a dictator of content.

Nintendo could make commissions or fees on home banking, shopping, and airline ticketing done on the Famicom network or charge for information such as movie reviews, news, and content (all realities of our present day "Internet"). Users could even buy stamps, bet on horse races, or exercise.

That same year, Nomura Computing Center developed and operated the Nomura Securities' Famicom trading service system, which was the forerunner of the home trading service in use. In addition, over 300 banks signed up to utilize the Famicom network. Finally, the Super Mario Club was formed so that Nintendo distributors across Japan could access information about games (including reviews) online.

And the most appealing aspect of the network? Nintendo could advertise new Nintendo games and products.

There are about 4 pages to that article dealing with Nintendo's past online experiences. I didn't want to put it all on here, because that's a LOT to read... but if someone asks nicely, I might.

I just wanted to call shenanigans on that post in particular..

[The Kernel]

Hey, I never said that Nintendo had no online experience, but that they had no experience in building an online COMMUNITY, which is something they have yet to do. And honestly, their experience with online gaming has been quirky at best, very far removed from the mainstream.

[Praxis]

HD-DVD is going to be available this year, and the other consoles are launching next year, are they not?

Of course, but they have to contend with the fact that HD-DVD technology is going to be expensive at first. Not because it costs a lot to produce but because of protectionism over standalone boxes.

Alright, so we have another "maybe, maybe not" situation. Conceded.

Because, as I said, of the lower launch price.

And that they like to make money off of their hardware.

That too, but now that they no longer have a large marketshare they may settle for less profit. Who knows.

Another "maybe, maybe not" situation.

And thats why the CEO and head of marketting have both been replaced.

I've seen no evidence of a corporate culture shift which is the real problem.

Considering that a just over a year ago Nintendo was jumping around shouting, "We don't need online play! The online model is flawed! The online model isn't profitable! Who needs online anyway?" and since Reggie showed up, we've seen them shift to the point of, "We're going to take online play to a new level of community unlike ever before. The DS will get online free, and the Revolution will have build in WiFi and really great online support!"...

I'm hoping for a complete change in their thinking here...

Hopefully the new leadership will change this.

I would doubt it. Nintendo has yet to contend with the fact that they are not the center of the universe. If they did, they'd sell out to Microsoft the next day because it's the smartest business decision they could possibly make.

That last sentence is totally ridiculous.

Guess it wasn't explained properly to me originally, then...but anyway, here is the specs released.

This is an extremely simplified explanation. Do I need to explain to you the complexity of determining true IPC or will you simply take my word for it?

I'll take your word for it.

[Max]

Hey, I never said that Nintendo had no online experience, but that they had no experience in building an online COMMUNITY, which is something they have yet to do. And honestly, their experience with online gaming has been quirky at best, very far removed from the mainstream.

Umm

Considering that Microsoft has had years of maturity with Xbox Live and Nintendo has no experience at all besides talk, Microsoft has the advantage going in as far as multiplayer online goes no matter how many buzzwords Nintendo throws around.

They had the "Super Mario Club"