Z
Zackman
R420 said:
This was one of your rare interesting cut n' pastes. Too bad you had to post
it three times, you stupid tit.
-Z-
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
This was one of your rare interesting cut n' pastes. Too bad you had to post
it three times, you stupid tit.
-Z-
R
R420
Xbox 2 will most likely in November 2005.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/523/523583p1.html?fromint=1
Xbox 2 in 2005
Could Revolution be more powerful?
June 15, 2004 - It appears that Microsoft, which launched Xbox in late
2001 after Sony's PlayStation 2 and Nintendo's GameCube consoles, will
be the first company to unleash its next-generation home console. The
tentatively codenamed "Xbox 2," set to receive a name revision before
its release because Microsoft doesn't want consumers to assume it's
inferior to PlayStation 3 based on end numerals, hasn't yet been given
an official release date. But just because Microsoft isn't yet talking
doesn't mean developers working on early "Xbox 2" development setups
are so keen to keep quiet.
A major software company already prototyping software for Microsoft's
"Xbox 2" told IGN today that the publisher "definitely aims to launch
the console in North America for Christmas 2005." A November time
frame was given. A European release will follow in 2006, said the
source.
IGN contacted another software firm currently working working on "Xbox
2" software, who seconded the news. "Let's put it this way: a lot of
developers crunching to get their games ready for a 2005 launch will
be really pissed if Microsoft doesn't get it out by then."
Microsoft has moved quicker than Nintendo and Sony to get development
studios preliminary next-generation prototyping hardware, another
indication that the company hopes to get the jump on its competitors.
The "Xbox 2" will use PowerPC based architecture similar to the
chipset powering Apple's G5 computers. That being the case,
Microsoft's early "Xbox 2" development kits have been little more than
modified Apple G5 systems pre-packed with "Xbox 2" emulation software.
"I heard [Apple CEO] Steve Jobs found it pretty ironic and funny that
Microsoft has been shipping Apple systems to developers," one studio
source joked to IGN on the subject.
Multiple software houses involved with "Xbox 2" development stand by
rumors the console will not feature a hard drive, which would suggest
that it might also not be backward compatible with current Xbox
software. "Microsoft needs to make money with this system and so it's
going a pretty conservative route," an insider explained, adding, "but
that doesn't mean the system is not powerful because it is."
Microsoft is hoping that consumers, drunk on hit Xbox games like Halo
and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, will be eager to step into
the next-generation of home consoles with the successor. "It's hoping
the early arrival will not hurt it, but help it," said a development
source. "It doesn't want to be another Sega Dreamcast, in other words.
It wants to be a Sega Genesis."
Presented with this information, a spokesperson for Microsoft said
that the company "does not comment on rumors or speculation."
The downside to launching "Xbox 2" in 2005, say insiders, is that it
puts Microsoft in the position of being the first next-generation
console to market, which historically also means it could be the least
powerful of the three from a technical standpoint.
Preliminary tech specs for Nintendo's Revolution (of which there are
some half a dozen different versions, apparently) illustrate a console
that is as powerful as "Xbox 2" in most respects. In fact, IBM and
ATI, the two hardware makers responsible for the guts of "Xbox 2," are
developing Revolution. Given another year development time, Nintendo's
console could actually ship in 2006 as the more capable of the two
hardware platforms.
Meanwhile, IBM and Sony are developing Cell, a proprietary, powerful
new architecture that will be used in PlayStation 3. Some developers
believe that Sony could delay the arrival of its next-generation
console to as late as 2007 in order to create a Trojan horse for its
budding Blu-Ray DVD technology, which promises to deliver
high-definition DVDs into the living rooms of consumers, replacing
current DVD-players.
Sony's Blu-Ray technology has one formidable hurdle to overcome:
HD-DVD. This alternative format, backed by such electronics giants as
NEC and Toshiba and recently approved by the DVD Forum, is positioned
to give Ble-Ray a run for its money. But HD-DVD could be squashed in
the same way that DVD squashed DivX if Sony were to include Blu-Ray
DVD-playback in PlayStation 3, instantly turning millions of
gameplayers into Blue-Ray supporters.
Doing so would also give Sony a clear selling point over Microsoft's
"Xbox 2" as the only console that could play true high-definition DVD
out of the box.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/523/523583p1.html?fromint=1
Xbox 2 in 2005
Could Revolution be more powerful?
June 15, 2004 - It appears that Microsoft, which launched Xbox in late
2001 after Sony's PlayStation 2 and Nintendo's GameCube consoles, will
be the first company to unleash its next-generation home console. The
tentatively codenamed "Xbox 2," set to receive a name revision before
its release because Microsoft doesn't want consumers to assume it's
inferior to PlayStation 3 based on end numerals, hasn't yet been given
an official release date. But just because Microsoft isn't yet talking
doesn't mean developers working on early "Xbox 2" development setups
are so keen to keep quiet.
A major software company already prototyping software for Microsoft's
"Xbox 2" told IGN today that the publisher "definitely aims to launch
the console in North America for Christmas 2005." A November time
frame was given. A European release will follow in 2006, said the
source.
IGN contacted another software firm currently working working on "Xbox
2" software, who seconded the news. "Let's put it this way: a lot of
developers crunching to get their games ready for a 2005 launch will
be really pissed if Microsoft doesn't get it out by then."
Microsoft has moved quicker than Nintendo and Sony to get development
studios preliminary next-generation prototyping hardware, another
indication that the company hopes to get the jump on its competitors.
The "Xbox 2" will use PowerPC based architecture similar to the
chipset powering Apple's G5 computers. That being the case,
Microsoft's early "Xbox 2" development kits have been little more than
modified Apple G5 systems pre-packed with "Xbox 2" emulation software.
"I heard [Apple CEO] Steve Jobs found it pretty ironic and funny that
Microsoft has been shipping Apple systems to developers," one studio
source joked to IGN on the subject.
Multiple software houses involved with "Xbox 2" development stand by
rumors the console will not feature a hard drive, which would suggest
that it might also not be backward compatible with current Xbox
software. "Microsoft needs to make money with this system and so it's
going a pretty conservative route," an insider explained, adding, "but
that doesn't mean the system is not powerful because it is."
Microsoft is hoping that consumers, drunk on hit Xbox games like Halo
and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, will be eager to step into
the next-generation of home consoles with the successor. "It's hoping
the early arrival will not hurt it, but help it," said a development
source. "It doesn't want to be another Sega Dreamcast, in other words.
It wants to be a Sega Genesis."
Presented with this information, a spokesperson for Microsoft said
that the company "does not comment on rumors or speculation."
The downside to launching "Xbox 2" in 2005, say insiders, is that it
puts Microsoft in the position of being the first next-generation
console to market, which historically also means it could be the least
powerful of the three from a technical standpoint.
Preliminary tech specs for Nintendo's Revolution (of which there are
some half a dozen different versions, apparently) illustrate a console
that is as powerful as "Xbox 2" in most respects. In fact, IBM and
ATI, the two hardware makers responsible for the guts of "Xbox 2," are
developing Revolution. Given another year development time, Nintendo's
console could actually ship in 2006 as the more capable of the two
hardware platforms.
Meanwhile, IBM and Sony are developing Cell, a proprietary, powerful
new architecture that will be used in PlayStation 3. Some developers
believe that Sony could delay the arrival of its next-generation
console to as late as 2007 in order to create a Trojan horse for its
budding Blu-Ray DVD technology, which promises to deliver
high-definition DVDs into the living rooms of consumers, replacing
current DVD-players.
Sony's Blu-Ray technology has one formidable hurdle to overcome:
HD-DVD. This alternative format, backed by such electronics giants as
NEC and Toshiba and recently approved by the DVD Forum, is positioned
to give Ble-Ray a run for its money. But HD-DVD could be squashed in
the same way that DVD squashed DivX if Sony were to include Blu-Ray
DVD-playback in PlayStation 3, instantly turning millions of
gameplayers into Blue-Ray supporters.
Doing so would also give Sony a clear selling point over Microsoft's
"Xbox 2" as the only console that could play true high-definition DVD
out of the box.
X
xibxang
R420 was thrown off the bouncy castle for wearing running shoes. In
[SNIP]
I'm curious. Once Xbox2 is finally out, will you start spouting random
pish about Xbox3?
they said:Xbox 2 will most likely in November 2005.
[SNIP]
I'm curious. Once Xbox2 is finally out, will you start spouting random
pish about Xbox3?
J
John Lewis
Xbox 2 will most likely in November 2005.
Microsoft is hoping that consumers, drunk on hit Xbox games like Halo
and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, will be eager to step into
the next-generation of home consoles with the successor. "It's hoping
the early arrival will not hurt it, but help it," said a development
source. "It doesn't want to be another Sega Dreamcast, in other words.
It wants to be a Sega Genesis."
Yes, and won't the consumers be so pleased when they find that their
Xbox copies of Halo2 and KOTOR2 ( both releasing in the next few
months ) won't run on the new machine !! Hopefully MS will ship
a lossless control and I/O changeover box, including all cables FREE
with every Xbox 2, so that either console can be used at the flick of
a single switch.
MS are stupid arrogant idiots. The complete break from Intel/nVidia
will come back to bite them big-time. Economic implementation
of 100% backward software compatibility in a timely manner is
impossible, and I am absolutely certain MS will not even
attempt it, but you can expect the MS Marketing department
to cloud the backward-compatibility issue as long as possible.
John Lewis
R
Robert P Holley
Yes, and won't the consumers be so pleased when they find that their
Xbox copies of Halo2 and KOTOR2 ( both releasing in the next few
months ) won't run on the new machine !! Hopefully MS will ship
a lossless control and I/O changeover box, including all cables FREE
with every Xbox 2, so that either console can be used at the flick of
a single switch.
MS are stupid arrogant idiots. The complete break from Intel/nVidia
will come back to bite them big-time. Economic implementation
of 100% backward software compatibility in a timely manner is
impossible, and I am absolutely certain MS will not even
attempt it, but you can expect the MS Marketing department
to cloud the backward-compatibility issue as long as possible.
Let me ask you this, is backwards compatibility *that* important of a
feature?
Sure, marketing-wise its a great tool and it sounds like an awesome
feature on paper, but in the real world is it used that often? I say
no.
Most people buying a next-gen system will be doing so for the next-gen
games. I guess if Xbox2 is going to have a crappy launch library then
maybe backwards compatibility would be a more used feature early on,
but after a while no one cares that the PS2 can play PS1 games.
R
Robert Redelmeier
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert P Holley said:Let me ask you this, is backwards compatibility *that*
important of a feature?
Always an important question for any development. It generally
turns on the value of the installed base versus prospective sales.
And this is mostly driven by the size of technology advance.
For all the hype, I see nothing revolutionary in next gen
consoles. Just "push more pixels" evolution.
but after a while no one cares that the PS2 can play PS1 games.
Except those who like those PS1 games. More important is
the message it sends to current and prospective users:
"buy whatever you want now, it'll run on our future machines".
The profitability of game systems is not in the hardware but
in the software licences. Mfrs don't want to slow the sales
of titles. It hurts them and the game.soft houses.
-- Robert
K
K Williams
Robert said:In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert P Holley
Always an important question for any development. It generally
turns on the value of the installed base versus prospective sales.
And this is mostly driven by the size of technology advance.
If only... If next year's system is announced to be incompatible
with this years, this years hardware, as well as software, is
toast. People will wait. If people have the belief that all is
well, most will spend a few bucks on your's today, rather than jump
ship to the competitor who promises compatability.
Breaking backwards compatability is not different than corporate
suicide.
For all the hype, I see nothing revolutionary in next gen
consoles. Just "push more pixels" evolution.
Well, Robert, what do you want? A $100 supercomputer? ...and yes,
I know the answer. ;-)
Except those who like those PS1 games. More important is
the message it sends to current and prospective users:
"buy whatever you want now, it'll run on our future machines".
More importantly, doing otherwise says: "buy the other guy's system
now, because we're going out of business".
The profitability of game systems is not in the hardware but
in the software licences. Mfrs don't want to slow the sales
of titles. It hurts them and the game.soft houses.
They cannot afford to slow the sale of hardware either. If one
doesn't "buy in" to my system today, I have much diminished chance
of suck^h^h^h^hconvincing them to come back tomorrow.