Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games)

The Scoop on the Xbox 360's Embedded OS? 504

An anonymous reader writes "When the Xbox 360 was launched two weeks ago amid much brouhaha over its custom-designed IBM PowerPC-based CPU with 3 symmetrical cores running at 3.2GHz each, WindowsForDevices.com wondered aloud, 'What OS runs inside the Xbox 360?' Now, the website thinks it has found the answer to its question. No, it's not Linux or BSD, nor a derivative of Longhorn or Windows CE."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Scoop on the Xbox 360's Embedded OS?

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)

    by rovingeyes ( 575063 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @11:20AM (#12634751)
    I take it that you didn't even bother to RTFA. It says it has roots in windows 2000 but it is NOT windows 2000, a derivative may be but NOT windows 2000.
  • Huh. (Score:5, Informative)

    by PsychicX ( 866028 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @11:22AM (#12634770)
    All that fuss to say it's a simple derivative of NT, in its second generation of console-ness.


    That was certainly a surprise. Oh wait, no it wasn't.
  • by joeykiller ( 119489 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @11:30AM (#12634891) Journal
    ...so here's the article text:

    When the Xbox 360 was launched two weeks ago amid much brouhaha over its custom-designed IBM PowerPC-based CPU with 3 symmetrical cores running at 3.2GHz each, WindowsForDevices.com wondered aloud, "What OS runs inside the Xbox 360?"

    We offered a few alternatives and called on our readers for their ideas on the subject. Now, we think we have the answer to our question.

    But first, a bit of background.

    As we stated in our previous story on this topic, the earlier Xbox (shown at right) was based on a Pentium-family processor and was said to run a variant of Windows 2000. But the new Xbox 360 has a completely different architecture, based on a custom triple-core IBM PowerPC processor along with other specialty silicon including a custom graphics processor made by ATI, plus 512MB of system DRAM (see table of specs at the bottom of this article).

    Since neither Windows XP nor Windows CE supports the PowerPC architecture (Windows hasn't supported PowerPC architecture since Windows NT 4.0 SP3), we devised the following set of alternatives for the Xbox 360's embedded OS:
    A hitherto unpublicized port by Microsoft of Windows XP or Windows CE to the PowerPC

    A version of some off-the-shelf embedded OS, possibly even a variant of BSD Unix or #%$@& (sorry, our censors deleted the "L-word")

    A new embedded software platform developed specifically for Xbox use
    And the OS is...

    So, which is it -- choice 1, choice 2, or choice 3?

    Our readers had some interesting comments, ranging from a derivative of the "yet to be released Longhorn" to "a ported Win XP kernel" to "its own private OS that was built from the ground up for gaming." And, to no one's surprise, nobody seemed to think Microsoft would embed BSD or "#%$@&" inside its Xbox!

    We also asked fellow editor and ExtremeTech technology analyst Jason Cross (and self-described "certified geek") whether he had turned up anything about the Xbox's embedded OS while he was at E3 2005. There, we seem to have struck gold. "Yes," Cross replied, he had indeed uncovered some interesting tidbits in conversations with folks both inside and outside of Microsoft. Here's what he told us . . .

    The original Xbox ran an OS that had its roots in Windows 2000. Granted, by the time you strip out everything that is not needed in a console like the Xbox and replace some of the parts with stuff specific to that device (like the file system), and add a few pieces, it hardly resembles anything remotely like Windows 2000 at all. But you could say that's where its original roots lie, even if 95 percent of it has been cut or heavily altered.

    The Xbox 360's OS, in turn, has its roots in the OS of the original Xbox. I've been told (not by Microsoft, but by one of its hardware partners) that the Xbox absolutely positively does NOT run Linux [oops, the censors missed that one --Ed.] or Unix or some variant of that. The Xbox 360 project started with the Xbox OS the same way the Xbox project started with Windows 2000. They cut, added, and changed it in both large and small ways. It's now quite a bit different from the Xbox OS, which was itself quite a bit different from Windows 2000.

    Really, the best way to think of it is as "The Xbox 360 OS." But if you really have to think of it in Windows terms, you could say it has roots in Windows 2000 by way of the original Xbox, albeit with sweeping changes along the way.

    So there you have it: the Xbox 360 reportedly runs a second-order derivative of Windows 2000 that has been ported to the custom triple-core IBM PowerPC processor. Well, that's what we think, anyhow.

    Why does it matter?

    Bear in mind, Microsoft has big plans for the home -- plans that include media center PCs, family entertainment centers, TV set-top boxes, portable media players, mobile phones, and, of course, gaming devices.

    Considering that the Xbox 360 represents a powerful new computing platform that will be finding
  • Coral Cache (Score:3, Informative)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @11:31AM (#12634912) Journal
    Site was dead for me, so Coral Link [nyud.net].
  • Re:Heathens! (Score:3, Informative)

    by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @11:35AM (#12634964)
    And everyone else is using it, too. W2K is NT 5.0. XP is NT 5.1.
  • by JeffSh ( 71237 ) <jeffslashdot@[ ]0.org ['m0m' in gap]> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @11:37AM (#12634996)
    actually, all consoles are sold at a loss.. everyone makes the money on the software.

    Microsoft made no money from selling a single xbox.. Maybe later in the production run after component costs fall, but certainly not in the first year.
  • by MrAnnoyanceToYou ( 654053 ) <dylan AT dylanbrams DOT com> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @11:41AM (#12635045) Homepage Journal
    XBox was a 400$+ Million Loss Leader.

    Anyone else know how to spell 'monopoly'?
  • by robbieduncan ( 87240 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @12:01PM (#12635270) Homepage
    They are Apple PowerMac G5s not G4s.
  • by Alarion ( 263883 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @12:11PM (#12635367) Homepage
    and the developer gets how much of that?

    Remember, you have to figure in costs of actually bundling it all together (discs, manuals, maps, quick reference sheets, etc).

    Now figure in the publisher's share. The distributors share, the retailers share.. And the developer is left with what, $5 or $10 per box sold?

    I don't know the exact numbers, and admit I am pulling these out of my ass for illustrative purposes only.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @12:14PM (#12635399)
    Until the PS3, sony maintained complete control of the entire production line (now they're getting processors from IBM and video from nVidia). Neither the PS1 nor the PS2 were ever sold at a loss. The PS3 may or may not be sold at a loss.

    Until the most recent price wars, Nintendo never sold a unit at a loss, now each GC is sold at several dollars below cost, which is quickly repaid by the hundreds of thousands of sales in zelda and mario games.

    Sega is the only company that was unable to turn a profit on consoles, see where they are now? If the makers of the X Box didn't have billions on hand thanks to OS sales and office suites, they'd have folded even faster.
  • by Tim Browse ( 9263 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @12:14PM (#12635402)
    Well, it is pretty hacked down - for instance, the last time I checked, the Xbox didn't support DLLs, and it only allows one process.

    Also, I don't think it runs IE at all. Could be wrong, though.

    I'm not sure how thrilled the average home user would be with this OS on their PC.
  • by mbbac ( 568880 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @12:56PM (#12635970)
    The developer boxes (and demonstration boxes) are currently Power Mac G5s [apple.com], not G4s.
  • by Some Random Username ( 873177 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @01:20PM (#12636260) Journal
    The GC is still not sold at a loss, the PS3's video is from ATI, not nVidia, and Sega did make money on consoles at one point. Then they decided to release 3 or 4 consoles nobody wants per year, that is what put them where they are now.

    And slashdot sucks for putting in captchas for logged in users.
  • Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @01:24PM (#12636306)
    Apple is rumored to have MacOS on an Intel box

    Honestly, I don't know where these silly rumors come from. [apple.com]
  • by fitten ( 521191 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @01:31PM (#12636374)
    Hello McFly... *every* console since, like, the Nintendo is a loss leader. They make their money back selling development kits and licenses. The money is in the games so they discount the hardware so that people will buy the platform then the games for it.

    It's not rocket science.
  • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @01:34PM (#12636412) Journal
    Ah, jebus. They are a monopoly. In the computer OS biz. One of the (illegal) perks of being a monopoly is using your monopoly in one area to gain a monopoly in another. Maybe that was what the GP poster was talking about, hmmm? Like so:

    1. Get a monopoly in something.
    2. Sell something else at a lose using your profits from Step 1.
    3. Get a new monopoly, profit! and repeat.
  • by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @01:52PM (#12636618)
    They were G5s, not G4s. Also, the machines in question [anandtech.com].
  • Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bishop ( 4500 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @01:57PM (#12636671)
    I am sure NT has been ported to a lot more architectures

    The original version of NT was targeted at Intel's i860. There were versions of NT for MIPS, Alpha, PowerPC, and x86. I don't recall if support for MIPS and PowerPC was dropped before or after NT 4.0 was released. Later service packs only supported Alpha and x86. The NT kernel was designed from the begining to be portable.

    Despite all the bellyacheing the NT kernel was well designed and is good solid code.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @02:50PM (#12637198)
    and it's running the same custom OS as the xBox 360 will, so how does the fact that it's on Apple HARDWARE have anything to do with it?
  • by Some Random Username ( 873177 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @09:42PM (#12640931) Journal
    Nowhere does it claim that the PS2 was cheaper than a DVD player, BECAUSE ITS NOT TRUE. Just that people over 30 bought it *mostly* for movies, and that DVD players were more expensive in japan than the states. See, people bought it because it wasn't much more expensive than a DVD player they would have bought anyways, and they could still play the occasional game on it.

    And if you read the article you posted, the doom and gloom predictions were because the PS2 didn't have much for games at launch, and there were component shortages so they couldn't produce as many as they wanted. They made money on PS2s, and wanted to make more but couldn't because they couldn't make enough of them.

    And of course the 4 games is a random number that was chosen for that particular rumor, which was about the xbox. What does the article have to do with anything, it doesn't mention this rumor. People claimed various things about how much MS was losing per xbox, but the fact is they never said how much they lose, just that it loses money, therefore its a rumor.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...