Michael Abrash On X-Box Graphics 217
tomii writes: "This
one's tasty. Michael Abrash gives detailed information about the graphics system on Microsoft's new X-Box." Interesting information, and a pretty good 'tutorial' on graphics rendering in general. Also, a good treatise for working on fixed hardware.
Re:Sony and firewire... (Score:2)
If they can assume a disk, they'll want to "install" all sorts of stuff there, including patches, upgrades, and media that need fast access. Disks run out of space and need cleanup. And when you upgrade the console, the built-in disk with all your saved games, patches, upgrades, and media goes away. Putting a disk into the console gives us the same mess as Windows machines. I might as well buy a PC.
Keeping the disk optional means that a lot of software will be written that doesn't require a disk. It means that software developers will have an incentive to provide DVDs with bug fixes, rather than just throwing a few megabytes of bug fixes up on a web site. They may even be more careful with their releases because they can't just put up a patch. And the memory cards are still good enough for saving games.
Re:Modular abilties (Score:1)
I'll be very impressed with the first manufacturer that successfully pulls that off.
Re:Glaring omission: Programming APIs (Score:1)
Well, yes, actually.
For those who prefer OpenGL, NVIDIA will provide a fully Xbox-enhanced version.
Admittedly, the article credits the support to NVIDIA, but the support will be there. I'm very much doubting they'll make a linux port any easier than they can help it, but that's hardly a surprise. I haven't heard of any moves by Sony, Nintendo or Sega towards a Linux port, either. It is, after all, just a game console.
My favorite quote (Score:1)
Ben Cathers - president/partner
Re:X-Box Graphics? (Score:1)
Xbox on Slashdot (Score:1)
I think it would be better if everyone with positive karma had unlimited mod points. seems obvious to me. That way when I post stories from my Xbox, I know they'll get a fair shake.
please moderate up as (+1, insightful right now, in case you forget)
Re:business as usual at MS, just like PocketPC (Score:1)
<<<SNIP>>>
We have seen exactly the same thing with PocketPC/WindowsCE, and they just don't seem to learn.
I agree with your post on everything but the last
bit. It isn't Microsoft that's unable to learn - they've very effectively learned that these techniques *work*. That's why they do it over and
over again.
Will it work this time? I hope not. Time will tell.
Newsflash! (Score:1)
The CEO of the recently split Microsoft Applications Division, Gill Bates announced today that the much anticipated X-Box gaming console would no longer use a Windows/Direct-X based OS, and would instead switch to using Linux.
"Those ***damn Microsoft-OS-holes are charging us such large licence fees it would essentially double the cost of the platform," Bates said.
"Now that we're no longer tied down to that crappy OS, we're free to make sensible engineering decisions," Bates added.
This latest announcement continues the deluge of bad news the OS division of Microsoft has had since the split was finally upheld by the Supreme Court in their groundbreaking ruling a few months ago. "Time for Microsoft-OS to bend over and spread 'em for a change," read the decision.
Re:Just WHAT (Score:1)
speaking of which, who's up for porting DX8 to linux as soon as it becomes available, so we can put linux on cheap-ass Xboxen and run those nice games?
--
blue, slashdotting for SOCCERCHIX! [soccerchix.org]
Subtle spec changes... (Score:1)
The only reason I chose to talk about this is that Bill made a statement at the time (sorry, I don't recall the exacts,) that this may seem like an under-powered processor, but when combined with the new NV graphics goodies and such, there will be no need for more... well then why is it now 733?
I wonder what really drives these decisions... did the R&D folks finally "win out" with an argument that you can't do it with that proc, or as they get further into development, do they realize that their specs fell short and update them?? He had said that all their "guys" got together and made the specs for the best of everything
Anyway, I thought it was interesting that the processor that will be "more than adequate" a few months back (presumably, months before that as they were designing the original target-specs,) is now quietly (imo) being pumped up a notch.
*end of babble*
Re:Only 64MB.. (Score:1)
Re:For the record. (Score:1)
Re:That much of a performance hit? (Score:1)
If you work through the math, it's the cost of (8) lights in the scene.
Software rendering (assuming efficient) is often cumulatively more expensive than hardware, yet is not necessarily a direct multiple. HUH ? In other words, in software, you got memory, it's kinda evident you can cache a bunch of values during computation, i.e. when you calculate the surface normal (direction surface is "pointed") you can cache this and use (instead of recompute) later.
In hardware, this may be too expensive, it really may be cheaper to recompute the whole shebang every time.
OK, lets try this again. Esp since my first post was deemed so bad that the question in response to it scored higher. Don't they teach Shannon in school anymore ???-D
If you're doing it in software, you by definition have scratch memory. Your fundamental algorithm is slower, but it has scratch memory to store temporary results, which improves it's efficiency when solving roughly the same problem multiple times, i.e. multiple lights On the other hand, a hardware solution may literally be a set of transistors wired to an addressable register (variable) which results in a solution that is damn fast, but incapable of remembering temporary results (register only holds the source values, temporaries recalculated each time) so time per iteration is significantly faster, but overall time is simple linear product, not an exponentially decreasing product.
Oh damn. Lets try again. If you solve a problem slowly, but can remember and use interim value to accellerate the solution of related problems, then if you have ANY machine that can solve the problem faster for a fixed number of solutions, there is a point at which the slow solution is always the best choice, because over N calculations, the calculation savings for the cached values exceed the time of efficiently recalculating the solution from scratch.
Urrk! I've had a busy day, and my brain is seizing. If in pure software it takes me X to compute a single light and 1/2X as much time to compute each subsequent light, or I have hardware that computes any one light in 1/2X time, then obviously if I have five lights, software is much better. One light, and it's the other way around. That's the main reason grafix systems can get so damn persnicety about the number of lights in a scene.
Back to the original post and your first assertion, yup - if the number of lights you use exceeds the hardwares max, you're going to see one hell of a falloff in scene rendering speed. If the solution is hardware based (likely) and there are a finite nunber of "potential" solutions, when the solution requirement exceeds the hardware limit, there's going to be a nasty falloff in rendering rate, cause a) software has to do it, and b) nobody remembers a damn thing about earlier results,
Wow! How cathartic, for reasons I can't even explain. Yo, MSFT, methinks a little detail is the fact you're claiming a straight line path based on # lights, i.e. you don't cache a damn thing!
OK, this is enough. Everything that involves light falling on it (photons from lite, photons to your eye, everything) means you need to work thru geometry. Whole damn thing is what do you compute, what do you recall, how do those costs blend to form best algorithm. Damn nasty question, JC is bright damn fellow, but he ruled out the big outdoors to get his answer. Yes, that's a deliberately cryptic SD troll
Re:DirectX for Linux (Score:1)
Re:Modular abilties (Score:1)
Consoles typically aren't upgradable. That's fine by me. But at least usually when they ship, they're fairly high on the technology wave. By the time the Xbox actually SHIPS (late next year?), it'll be so far behind what's current, anyone who knows their consoles won't waste their time.
Re:Only 64MB.. (Score:1)
Textures will need to be mip-mapped so as not to stall the cache.
Why don't you have a go at saying that again? It just makes no sense the way you wrote it.
Abrash explains the issues (concisely, clearly) in this link at the top of the original article [ddj.com] referenced by Slashdot - it's easy to miss the link if you're skimming the article.
Re:DirectX for Linux (Score:1)
As we all know, the better technology does not necessarily win a race. (e.g., VHS and "what is BETA?")
I can't believe implementing any API would require implementing Win32 and COM. I just don't believe that is fully thinking the problem through at all.
Re:That much of a performance hit? (Score:1)
Re:One saving grace... (Score:1)
MS is using COTS hardware to speed R&D time and ultimately, time to market. For a company brand new to the gaming world, I'm worried. They're going to integrate existing hardware and software.
Granted the CPU and memory are COTS (I assume you mean Cheap Off The Shelf) hardware, but why did Microsoft pay nVIDIA $200 million [nvidia.com] - surely the GPU is a custom design, not just cobbled together?
huh? (Score:1)
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
Only 64MB.. (Score:4)
---
Re:I wonder... (Score:1)
Re:Just doesn't cut it... (Score:1)
Consoles have always relied on relatively slow CPUs and cutting-edge graphics hardware. On the NES, almost all of the graphics was performed in hardware, even to the point of the video chip fetching the graphics data directly from cartridge ROM with no chance for CPU intervention.
I guess one of my favorite examples is the Game Boy. It has (almost) the same CPU as a TI graphing calculator, but while the calculator can do simple tile graphics at best, the Game Boy can handle smooth scrolling and many sprites with no CPU intervention.
This hardware-centric design has always been the difference between a console and a PC. On a console, games were written in assembler, and they always acessed registers directly. Michael Abrash is talking about programming the Xbox like a console, which should yield very fast, efficient, and nonportable games. Microsoft, on the other hand, is throwing in lots of libraries and OS layers (Directx, WinCE) in an attempt for portability. When the developers bring their games to the Xbox, they will bring the same inefficient CPU-hungry code.
Well, that's why I think consoles and PCs need to be seperate. PCs have always been nice for games, but I still think consoles are best. Now all they need is ethernet ;-)
Re:Only 64MB.. (Score:1)
---
Re:For the record. (Score:1)
If it's dedicated, OK it might be more powerful, but will it be upgradable? That's the important thing really. And of course Micro$oft will 'forget' to release half the specification for the APIs (I hope I sound like I know what I'm talking about -- you all know what I mean, I've spent the past two days trying to figure out stuff about how NT services really work) so only their lame programmers will be able to use most of the stuff.
Maybe I'm being unfair but since Micro$oft will control everything the skilled developers will not be able to use it to its full potential.
MS Big Mistake Assumption (Score:1)
"The best thing about Xbox is that it won't change. Ever. Judging by other consoles, Xbox should have a four or five year run"
Is totally wrong. You'd think they'd realise (especially a bright fellow like Abrash) that things change faster than they used to. Cheap 3D graphics cards today blow away cheap graphics cards of just 2 years ago. By the time the XBox comes out, it's performance will be average, but even if it is ahead of the pack it will fall behind in 6-12 months and be obsolete within 24 months.
I understand MS is considering making the XBox upgradeable. A very wise move, but they'd be *much* better off focusing on making DX8 stable for many years, rather than requiring developers to code to a low level to achieve the advertised performance. But of course, this is just the sort of thing MS has shown no foresight for with DX in the past. A very good reason to program the XBox in OpenGL only.
May very well cut it, actually. (Score:2)
The X box looks like a GeForce III with a CPU and peripheral bus tacked on. In six months, it will be state of the art. In a year or so when it's released, it'll still get acceptable performance, and will be dirt cheap - and thus markettable in a console price range.
From what I can see, this looks like a good strategy. My only concern is that the article implied (didn't explicitly state) that the main graphics API would be Direct X.
Firewire and HD...ermm (Score:1)
Also, it's really the PSX2 Dev stations that boot and use Linux. Not many home users are going to be able to get one of those.
With consoles, it's all about getting games that you wouldn't, or couldn't get on a PC. MS knows this, and is trying to garner 3rd party developer support early, so they can come out with some really good titles. PSX2 came out in Japan with only a few titles that anyone really was interested in. Then again, they sold 1 million in the first weekend. Don't write off MS too quickly...the XBox will have good hardware and be easier to develop for. However, MS vs Sony (vs Nintendo, etc) is going to be a serious battle.
Re:For the record. (Score:1)
Re:X-Box Graphics? (Score:1)
How long until the logo gets hack^H^H^H^Hreplaced? Maybe someone could get the x box to run X, then it might be worth using.
Re:business as usual at MS, just like PocketPC (Score:1)
Re:The Slogan (Score:1)
If they stole it from anywhere, I'd say the Amiga. Actually, the BBC micro had a really cool sound system even before that. It showed how well you could enhance games with a good tune even though you had very little graphics and sound hardware at all
A good job at Microsoft (Score:1)
This leads me to speculate - I wonder if he realises that all the cool things he does are probably going to be used by Microsoft as more weapons in their ongoing dirty tricks campaign against anything non-Windows.
I think I would be very peeved if someone used my work for political ends rather than technical ones.
Re:Just doesn't cut it... (Score:1)
PS2 has DVD _and_ firewire? (Score:1)
Re:The Slogan (Score:1)
Re:Hey, how about this: (Score:2)
This post is intended to be serious and not just another troll post.
As of right now, I will no longer be trolling here on
To the entire Slashdot community: Please accept my apologies for being such a jackass and my assurances that it is over.
XBox and PS2 - Side by side (Score:1)
A Techincal Overview of the Emotion Engine [arstechnica.com]
I think most developers would agree, the PS2 employs a much more flexible architecture than the XBox. While the programmable shaders in DX8 are a great start, they are hardly as flexible as the generic-vector-unit approach that the PS2 employs. The XBox employs a multi-step semi-programmable T&L pipeline with three main components: The vertex shader, the texture unit, and the pixel shader. All three of these systems allow for greater flexibility than DX-compatible GPUs have offered in the past, but it's still not at the level of full pipeline programmability. With the DX8 shader API, you are given control over some aspects of the T&L pipeline, but this approach is ultimately not nearly as flexible or programmable as the PS2's multi-chip architecture. The PS2 doesn't even have a defined "pipeline" per-se; just a series of specialized chips (Emotion Engine CPU, two vector units, and the Graphics Synthesiser, as the main components) that can be utilized in whatever combination is most efficient for the given task. Initially there were reported architecture problems on the PS2 (such as bandwidth issues) but lately programmers are starting to employ new techniques (such as sending a new batch of microcode to the vector units every frame!) and getting around these assumed limitations (the recent "fix" to the aliasing issue is another example.) These techniques were missed initially because of the lack of familiarity with the PS2 and it's capabilities (such as the 2560-bit bus! ;-)
The flexibility of the PS2 comes at the high price of incredible complexity. It remains to be seen whether programmers will thrive on this flexibility as a means to push the system to limits that the hardware designers themselves couldn't imagine (as they did with the playstation 1, n64, etc) or whether developers will prefer the much more straightforward design of the XBox. The current crop of excellent dreamcast games would seem to favor the latter point of that argument.
Personally (as a game developer) I am a bit more attracted to the PS2. As I'm sure most programmers can empathize with, the lure of a complex and ultimately "hackable" design over a less flexible one, is immense. However, I can't deny the comparative ease of use of DX8 (as opposed to coding to the metal of the PS2), as well as my personal familiarity with using DX APIs. In the end, I find myself more excited by the incredible (as of yet untapped) potential of the PS2.
paulb
Abrash sucks Satan's cock (Score:2)
But, c'mon Abrash, how far can you toe the Company Line? Is this some new conspiracy between Microsoft and Dr Dobbs? Microsoft publish squat on their website and then allow the details to "leak" out to Dr Dobbs. What a cynical display! Abrash is now the hype mongerer for Microsoft, in league with Dr Dobbs. Abrash, suck Satan's cock!
Other things: Abrash's comments about "allocating memory bandwidth" either presuppose a memory controller that permits this, or else dramatically misunderstands how UMA functions in practice. I would have liked to see more details, since this is the killer or savior of any console system. But does anyone really expect a UMA console to achieve the performance figures they give? I don't, even after Abrash's "analysis".
Mind you, the new GPU architecture looks sexy. Very sexy. If only the console didn't run DirectX. I mean, what is the point of DirectX? It is an abstraction layer. You don't NEED abstraction layers in consoles. But maybe by generation 2 M$ will have wised up and given developers the documentation - the HARDWARE documentation - they need.
That's my $0.02 ;)
Re:For the record. (Score:1)
On a controlled system like a standard console, these problems can easily be caught -- there's ONE basic configuration to work with, and perhaps a few peripherals or minor upgrades.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not what's under the hood (Score:1)
Yes, Microsoft is evil, but so is Sony, and the Playstation has been one of the best consoles ever. If you think a 700Mhz processor will become outdated soon, look at the Playstation's paltry 35Mhz processor.
There is no way you can look at Final Fantasy 8, Vagrant Story, Gran Turismo, or Metal Gear Solid, and tell me that the console's hardware is what sells it or not. I bought one of these 35Mhz Playstations when I was running 450mhz in my computer at home, to play the games.
On a fixed console, there is no comparison. Talented developers can do incredible things when they don't have to worry about supporting every single popular video card and API out there. Yes, PCs will march forward into the gigahertz, but I think the X-box will still deliver some pretty impressive exclusive titles despite that.
For the record. (Score:2)
___
What about Indrema? (Score:2)
Indrema [indrema.com] has stated that their product will be ungradable, without sacrificing the consistency necessary for a console system.
If this does turn out to work, their system definitely would seem to be the best option of those out there. Has anyone seen any of these articles for it?
--
product cycles (Score:1)
It seems M$ is constantly changing the specs on those XBoxes. Last time I heard, it uses a 400Mhz PIII and NV15, (and released mid 2001) now it's been changed to 733Mhz PIII and a NV chip that's still under development. (NV20?)
I guess the only thing them XBox good for is a cheap PC running Linux ^_^
IT will be great... (Score:1)
NoNsense
alliteration! (Score:2)
Microsofts Meglomonical Mechanations.
Lookout Linux's Lackluster Lighting.
Quality Quake Quad.
Re:May very well cut it, actually. (Score:1)
What on earth could you be basing your statements on? What tangible piece of evidence would lead you to this conclusion?
The Xbox the most unadulterated case of vaporware I have ever witnessed and is all pie in the sky speculation.
___
Re:Just doesn't cut it... (Score:2)
Re:What about Indrema? (Score:1)
Oh, right, Microsoft... Never mind.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø
Re:Graphics HW isn't everything (Score:1)
Though, I've only had 2 or 3 game systems ever. Atari 5200 and Dreamcast, each the games I got I really wanted, which were few. The crap released on the console seems to be bug free or well written crap. The concept is usually where it falls short. A wider range of gamers use console games, for instance, they make Strawberry Shortcake games for young girl gamers, and probably no other group would buy it.
Re:For the record. (Score:2)
Re:Glaring omission: Programming APIs (Score:2)
I suspect that the Nintendo 64, the Dolphin, the Playstation, Dreamcast, SuperFamicom and most other consoles don't support open standards either.
Welcome to the divide. This is where you forget about it being a PC, and remember that it's a closed architecture console designed specifically for games. They can provide whatever APIs they want with it - everyone ELSE has been doing that for YEARS. At least MS's APIs are reasonably similar to those you'd experience if you'd been programming games for Windows; unlike Sony's where you have to relearn everything from scratch.
Grow up. Companies sell these things to make money, not to pander to your wishes to have "open everything".
Re:Only 64MB.. (Is still pretty low) (Score:2)
Re:X Box Clones? (Score:2)
Re:Glaring omission: Programming APIs (Score:2)
business as usual at MS, just like PocketPC (Score:5)
The fact that the PS2 doesn't have a hard disk, has FireWire instead of Ethernet, and doesn't use Intel are all good signs to me: Sony knows how to calculate with the thin margins of the consumer market; Microsoft doesn't seem to get it.
However, there is something good about the Xbox: the Xbox seems pretty well specified and PC compatible. It will almost certainly boot Linux. And Microsoft will have to wheel and deal to bring down the price, maybe even subsidize it, because the game market is price sensitive. So, for a few hundred dollars, we'll get a standardized low-end Linux box (although a PS2 with external disk may still be better).
Altogether, this is just business as usual for Microsoft. They do a precompetitive announcement years ahead of having anything real, trying to scare developers away from other platforms. They write a hardware spec that, if they could magically produce it today, would price them completely out of the market, and that will be uncompetitive by the time they get around to delivering it. And you can bet that they will mess it up with an unwieldy Windows-like UI. We already know that the APIs will be DirectX (yuck). We have seen exactly the same thing with PocketPC/WindowsCE, and they just don't seem to learn.
Re:Modular abilties (Score:5)
If it were, games would have to have performance options....too slow on your system? Too bad, turn the texture detail a little lower or spend money to buy some more RAM. Well...should I turn down texture detail and give up a little prettiness or keep the lower frame rates? How far should I turn it down? What about color depth?
This is what PC's are for. Read the article - the guy waxes ecstatic about how great it is programming for a static system. The developers get comfortable with that exact system, and the games get prettier and faster as we go due to code optimization and getting the quirks right.
There is no way in hell the PS would be as popular and household as it is now if it were upgradable. People would have stopped buying games a long time ago if they had to purchase a new GPU or something to make them look as good as they can. Consoles are meant to be as simple as possible, like, say, a VCR. Pop your new cassette/cd/dvd and hit power. Boom, it starts up, runs perfectly. It's an entertainment box for the mass market.
What you're describing is a PC. Fine, use your PC for games, add your new shiny NVidia gpu's and compile your new kernels to your heart's content, and be happy. Not everyone wants that. The typical console buyer is looking for simplicity, not figuring out settings to make the newest game run decently on your specific set of hardware.
BTW, you might say something like "well program the settings to detect what you have and run accordingly." If you plan to use cheap aftermarket PC style upgrades, you can count that out. There's no way programmers could account for the millions of possible configurations, not to mention the impossibility of predicting future developments. And if they sell parts specifically for the consoles to keep them simple, the upgrades would cost astronomical amounts of money.
There's a reason consoles have never been upgradable. The Dreamcast does this to the max extent possible - choose your 'net connection. Maybe add a newer HD to your PS to keep more saved games or something, but never, never, never let the user upgrade the console in a fashion that will allow him/her to increase performance. This just creates massive problems for PR and developers.
Re:Sony and firewire... (Score:2)
The PS2 design, having no disk in the box but a standard interface for adding an external one, is the right choice for a consumer product, IMO. It means that people can upgrade the main box without losing their data, and it lowers the cost of the main box. It also means that consumers can buy a lot of other useful external devices and keep using them when they upgrade.
The Xbox design with the disk in the Xbox and some sort of "expansion slot" and Ethernet is altogether much inferior. With Xbox, Microsoft is thinking "in the box".
As for Sony's strategy and corporate citizenship, they are a consumer products company and they make hardware. Sure, they are a big corporation, they do proprietary stuff, and sometimes even plain stupid things (e.g., memory stick). They also push proprietary standards from time to time. But so far, I don't see them trying to take over the world by attempting to put tentacles into every protocol and infrastructure known to man (we can criticize them if they ever get there). And I note that the PS2 already boots Linux and has some gcc support. I don't know where all that came from, but I suspect it involved at least some cooperation from Sony.
PlayStation 2, Xbox, and Supercomputing (Score:2)
The answer is simple: the hardware is mass produced and gives you excellent bang for the buck. And it has all the bits and pieces you need for building a supercomputer: the FireWire provides very fast networking and access to disks (perhaps based on object storage disks), and the PSX2 (*) has two vector processing units that can be useful for scientific computations. That's why people have started looking into building Beowulf-like clusters out of them.
The Xbox may or may not be interesting for the same reasons. Its hardware is more traditional (Intel processor, Ethernet, local disk) and that would make it easier to put together a Beowulf cluster out of them. On the other hand, I remain unconvinced that the Xbox can actually be produced at a price that makes it interesting to use for supercomputing. And what makes it particularly uninteresting is that it isn't going to ship in the near future.
(*) Where did that "X" in "PSX2" come from?
Warning: offtopic below. Moderate down at will. (Score:2)
Comment posting software should:
- Generate a random phrase (about 4 words) or number (about 10 digits)
- Render it to a PNG/JPEG/GIF (uncompressed, to be sure) using a random font
- Distort the image slightly, add some noise, whatever
- Show the resulting image to the user
- Require the poster to type in that same exact phrase or number
If your bot can beat this system, its output is probably worth reading.--
Re:Only 64MB.. (Score:2)
Considering Quake 3 currently can use up to 32 megs in your video card, that doesn't leave much room for much else.
Re:For the record. (Score:2)
And if this is true, why are we complaining? The Slashdot community has a history of exploiting such loss-leading hardware. The whole TiVo and I-Opener hacking exploits were well covered here. And even when there was an attempt to port NetBSD to the Dreamcast.
This seems like a nice opportunity for something fun
We'll just have to wait and see the price point for this thing. I'm waiting for the fun to begin.
Re:May very well cut it, actually. (Score:2)
Um, the _article_? The one where Abrash, a well-respected graphics programmer, describes X-box hardware in detail, giving a description that's actually pretty plausible? Describing a graphics chip that is the next logical incremental improvement over nVidia's current chips, and realistic system specs?
The Xbox the most unadulterated case of vaporware I have ever witnessed and is all pie in the sky speculation.
If Microsoft already has a contract with nVidia, it's a bit beyond the "vapour" stage. It may be suddenly killed, but barring budget death should materialize in roughly the form described.
Re:Whatever happened to beer? (Score:3)
Come on, you fantastic /. developers: figure out a way to add kill files to /. user profiles. I want to put "Whatever happened to beer" in my kill list. Splice it into the moderation system so that if a particular user is in the kill profile of more than 90% of the users who use kill profiles, that user loses karma or gets posted at a lower level.
Re:Just doesn't cut it... (Score:5)
No one will ever have a few friends over playing some action game on a 17" monitor hooked up to the computer. My friends and I have a blast playing the N64, where I just drag my controller and plug it in to the box, on a 20" TV. Plus there are few things nicer than playing Ridge Racer with my friend Carl on his 55" Hitachi.
Fact is, most PC games are single user (multiplayer through the net at best). The PC has never been a good platform for having a few people play at once - just look at how hard it is to hook up the controllers. Unless everyone happens to have an MS Sidewinder or some other controller that can be daisy chained, it's impossible. Even given that, its a pain to configure and set up to even start playing the game. Look at the N64: plug it in the TV, plug in however many controllers you want, hit power. THAT'S IT.
It doesn't matter if PC's are faster. My PC is sure as hell an order of magnitude faster than the Dreamcast, and it cost me about $1500 with a 19" monitor. Has that stopped the DC from selling? Hell no.
Read my other post: consoles are all about simplicity of hardware. People who buy and enjoy them usually want to just plug in and go. They don't want to have to read manuals and figure out how to get the damned controllers to even be recognized by the game, or tweak performance based on your current hardware. They want to plug into the TV and go.
Performance vs. PC is not an issue at all - they're totally different platforms that don't compete much. Performance vs. other consoles is what's important, and it seems like the X-box is going to kick the ass of whatever else is out there come launch time. This, MS' name, and massive developer support will make it a winner, provided they can release it on schedule at a decent price.
Sony and firewire... (Score:3)
Sony isn't pushing firewire because it's cheaper.. Ethernet is dirt cheap right now, and alot more widespread. Firewire is attractive to sony because the PSX2 is a way to get digital sony-branded storage into the home; All of their higher-end digital toys support it, from the sony vaio (mmm, my baby), their digital camcorders, and IIRC most of their products have firewire plans.
I suspect this is the reason the PSX will support hard drives - they want a way to monopolize your digital entertainment, as the kids they weaned on the PSX are now starting to make some money, and might want a camcorder for the pr0n/kids whatever. The PSX would be a good place to store all that, now, eh?
Sony isn't much better than MS, but they don't claim otherwise, either. Ever try getting vaio tech support out of 'em? And I don't want to know what kinda trade you'd have to make for the programming specs on the vaio C1 embedded camera. :)
Re:Just doesn't cut it... (Score:2)
I'm not sure if it is the "cutting-edgeness" of the specs that really matter. Think of it this way: I run a 1 GHz Athlon (thunderbird) with a 64MB Geforce 2 and 512 MB RAM. Using the Quake3 timedemos I can only keep around 45 FPS at 1280x1024. Now the X-Box for most everyones intents and purposes will never go above 640x480. Now if I take another machine, 600 PII, 128 MB RAM and the 64MB GF2. Do the same test at 640x640 and I keep around 60+ FPS.
The resolution is what determines the speed of a console machine. TV's cannot top 640x480, so if your console has a 120 MP fill rate (ala N64) then regardless of how tight the code is there will be some speed.
It's similar to the quake addict who plays at low resolutions so the only lag comes from his connection and not the hardware.
That's REAL innovation for you... (Score:2)
From the second to last paragraph of the article
Yes, boys and girls, this is the shining city on the hill brought to you by your good friends at Microsoft®: pay no attention to the rats, or to the raw sewage flowing in the streets, or the bands of armed thugs lurking in dark alleys to rob or murder innocent passersby. Without Microsoft® none of these great innovations(TM) would have been possible.
Re:DirectX for Linux (Score:2)
On the other hand, I can also beleive that parts of that are tightly tied into Win32, too...
In fact, I refuse to believe that it is otherwise, unless someone can show me that it is - Microsoft are not known for giving the competetion any way in, let alone a relatively straightforward one.
Cheers,
Tim
Re:business as usual at MS, just like PocketPC (Score:2)
For example, if your Ford Focus has a PPC processor in it that can run Linux it is inherently better than, say, my Mercedes 230 SLK which only runs the firmware Mercedes puts into the car at the factory.
But at least now you better understand the Linux Litmus Test that All Things Must Go Through.
Re:Its not what's under the hood (Score:2)
One of the reasons apparently lower-specced consoles can more than hold their own against even high-end PCs is that the architecture is designed from the ground up for running games code. PCs, by contrast, are designed to be general workhorses, and so excel at nothing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing PCs (I don't actually have a console myself), but for any given task, a machine designed specifically to perform that task is always going to beat a general purpose machine, all other things being equal.
Cheers,
Tim
PC technology is not being pushed at all (Score:2)
We just give up and support a generic subset of what's out there. We could push the two year old Voodoo 2 beyond what people expect from a GeForce 2, but there's no incentive. Crazy geeks never say "forget it, my graphics card is reliable, and I'm gonna stick with it." They'll upgrade at any cost, even if a new card is priced as much as a PlayStation 2 and has horrible drivers (as anything from nVidia does).
Expandable, then fixed, then expandable... (Score:2)
There are some lessons for Linux in here, though I don't know if they'll ever help the cause. There are many stories about how companies doing development for the original IBM PC or Apple or Atari computers used VAXen or other minicomputers for development. After all, a hulking machine with gobs of processor and storage, a real multitasking operating system, and optimizing compilers just *had* to be better for development than an 8-bit machine with 48K RAM, right? But it turned out that assemblers written for those 8-bit machines were outrunning the minicomputers by a factor of 2-10 times. Why? Because lots of the standard goop that 1970s geeks thought was necessary turned out not be so. We're coming around to that point again, as lots of people don't know their computer history.
One saving grace... (Score:3)
Having said that, I really don't care one way or the other about the PSX2, Dreamcast or the X-Box. They're interesting in an academic sense, but not much else.
The X-Box scares me. MS is using COTS hardware to speed R&D time and ultimately, time to market. For a company brand new to the gaming world, I'm worried. They're going to integrate existing hardware and software together into a package that will be a gaming console. This means there will be problems. It will crash. I really believe that it in order to have a successful, long-term gaming platform, it is worth the R&D time to build it, fro the ground up. Then your engineers know the hardware, in and out. Your programmers know the code, in and out. You're not selling a piece of hardware that's been cobbled together into some semblance of a working gaming console, you're selling a machine, designed and built to play games. When Sony introduced the PSX, industry was skeptical. At that time, it was Nintendo and Sega, the game console giants. But Sony introduced a quality machine, with the capability to run games from CDs. They had good APIs, and other solid developer support. And now the Playstation is a force, and Sega is struggling to catch up.
But no! I hear the proponents scream. The X-Box will be on known hardware - Windows only crashes because of the infinite combinations of hardware and software that it must work with! This is a good point. But MS tried this with the Palm/Pocket PC - and failed to create a solid, stable platform.
The only saving grace that I see is MS's Hardware division. Pocket PC aside, I really like MS pepherials. Their mice are unsurpassed, IMHO. Someone in this story has mentioned their "daisy-chain" joysticks. Etc, Etc, Etc. MS Hardware has had a solid history of producing good hardware. I'd like to see them involved in the X-Box development.
Unfortunately, I think that the XBox will go the way of the Palm PC, the Pocket PC, the Active Desktop, '96 "Push" technology, and a number of other Microsoft innovations.
But it will be fun to watch.
J.J.
Turning xbox into an X11 terminal would be nice. (Score:2)
Re:For the record. (Score:2)
The N64 was probably the first, it allowed you to upgrade its memory (which as it happens uses Rambus). The Dreamcast has a modem port which is completely expandable, presumably in the hope that that xDSL will become more affordable and they can sell you an upgrade to that (although AFAIK they've not even got their modem service sorted in the US; it's just gone online here in Europe).
Finally the PS2 has a USB port and has been designed so that it can be upgraded for broadband when (if) that comes about.
All of which pales into comparisson with a PC of course, but there's certainally a precident for console upgradability.
Re:Modular abilties (Score:3)
Re:nVidia OpenGL (Score:2)
In other words, nVidia is the good company when it comes to OpenGL. I'm not sure, though, who'd be the bad company (3dfx? matrox? ATI?).
Glaring omission: Programming APIs (Score:2)
Nowhere does he talk about what this means for our little pet operating system(s), and what the possible implications are. If it's running a custom architecture, it's quite likely possible that it might not be portable to the degree we'd like - for instance, to get a linux kernel on one of these fabled boxes. While I'm personally not the target market for one of these machines - I'd much rather learn all the intimate details of a nice open API like OpenGL, rather than waste my life on a propietrary piece of hardware that will be junk-ola in 5 years - This would have been most nice. And I don't think the generation has come (yet) never to see a Dot Matrix printer.. still have some of those in service around here, excellent for firewall log reporting :). (albeit in a sound dampened enclosure..)
So, we've got another microsoft product where you can bow down to BillyG or get the schlong. Anyone know which half of the micro-bells will be getting this particular evil-empire to be? Or how microsoft gets another leg up on us wanting open APIs - you think this thing is going to run OpenGL? Forget that, and forget ports to linux, too. But there will be a greeeaaat path to get stuff running on Windows 200x! :)
Anyhow, some observations. It would have been nice to hear the man himself talk about the APIs a little more, and maybe throw some weight around for us little people.
kudos
Re:Whatever happened to beer? (Score:2)
The beauty of /. is that you can read it wherever you can get web access: work, home, the library. I don't feel like trying to persuade the library system or my boss to install and maintain a slash client.
Re:Haven't seen any... (Score:2)
--
Re:Glaring omission: Programming APIs (Score:2)
Obviously the box will be running a Microsoft OS. Do you really care if you can run Linux on it? The essential question is, will it be easy to write portable apps that work on both the XBox and other platforms?
Abrash clearly stated that NVidia will be providing an OpenGL API (with extensions for the new graphics features of the hardware) for those who prefer that API. It is a pretty safe assumption that those same OpenGL extensions will be available for the PC version of that version of NVidia's hardware which will be out in the same timeframe.
So if you code for that, you will not be stuck on a dead-end platform, and it should be as easy to port from that OpenGL interface to Linux as it is (or was) to port Quake III and other OpenGL apps to Linux.
And as far as DirectX goes... everyone knows it totally sucked up to version 6 or 7. But, IIRC, I just read an interview with John Carmack where he states that DirectX is finally getting good enough to be usable... although he plans to stick with OpenGL for several good reasons.
I don't like microsoft much either, but your ignorant MS-bashing (claiming that the machine will not run OpenGL!) just makes fans of open source API's look dumb.
Read the article next time!
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Re:Whatever happened to beer? (Score:2)
Yeah, perhaps I got a bit carried away by suggesting it should get mixed up with the moderation system, which I agree works pretty well.
As for browsing at level 2, well... I have to admit. Some of the trolls are amusing.
That much of a performance hit? (Score:2)
Graphics HW isn't everything (Score:5)
Seriously though, look at what companies have done with PlayStation's crappy GPU. Even games like Road Rash on Genesis are amazing when you consider that it was running on a Z80 and a 68000. Microsoft may have the most powerful console when it comes to graphics, but if the developers aren't writng tight code, then it won't matter too much. Sony Sega and Nintendo are capable of getting the major 3rd party developers and making games for themselves, and by making their own games, they have a team who knows all the ins and outs of the system. However, the ability of the game writer to easailly port DirectX games to X-Box *may* provide MS with some good games, but look at how much crap is released for PCs that would never sell on a console. Graphics aren't everything people.
Re:May very well cut it, actually. (Score:2)
BTW, I have talked to Michael Abrash a couple of times. He is more than just a programmer (or even a very skilled programmer.)
His job at Microsoft is to MANAGE the X-Box program. He Knows What Is Going On, as far as the Xbox is concerned.
For early development and testing, they (Microsoft) are using GeForce2's, which have a similar feature set, but aren't as fast or flexible as the XBox will be, of course.
(It must suck to be 3dfx!)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Re:Just doesn't cut it... (Score:2)
Re:Sony and firewire... (Score:3)
XBox hardware... (Score:2)
When it comes out, the hardware won't be worth as much as it is today, and its possible bits of the hardware won't work in regular PCs, but I for one look forward to voiding my warranty and plundering the contents.
Crappy PC games ? (Score:2)
Well, having a couple of friends realy into the N64 scene, and thus having seen a lot of games that were made for the N64. Let me just tell you that there are far more "low cost, quick and dirty" titles on consoles that on the PC. There is a virtual infinity of crappy japanese games out there. Another example is the Dreamcast, one of the first title released on it was "Pen-Pen" (a racing games except with a peguin), which clearly would never have existed on the PC market, yet it was one of the best selling titles.
Now don't take me wrong there are numerous excellent game on consols, probably considering all the different consols more than on PCs.
I think the trick Mircosoft will run to is how to keep licensed X-Box developpers from releasing games on the PC as well. Because it's the game that sell the consol and not the other way around (I bought my Playstation just for Wipeout).
Murphy(c)
nVidia OpenGL (Score:2)
I seem to remember that nVidia is really bad with OpenGL. It seems to me that this will kind of force the hand of developers to DirectX 8. And that may or may not be a bad thing - if DirectX 8 is better tuned to the hardware, it could be better, but it probably reduces code portability.
Just doesn't cut it... (Score:4)
The PC, judging by todays rates of change will be lightyears ahead of this. Nvidia release new chipsets every 6 months and with Intel and AMD both already at 1Ghz, it's going to look like a old, slow PC in a pretty box.
Sure it will get more mass media attention than the PC, but from what I've read most of the games are going to be ports of PC games. The PC games of 2001/2002 are probably going to need a lot more power than this..
X-Box Graphics? (Score:5)
- A Microsoft logo at boot.
- A blue screen.
- A white font, no anti-aliasing necessary.
Other than that, there's not a whole lot that the card has to do. Expect maybe be replaced when a virus overwrites it's flash biosRe:For the record. (Score:2)
That, plus it'll be hardware and an OS dedicated to one task, gaming, rather than a general purpose machine with support for things that you might never need to use the machine for. And, hopefully since Microsoft will apparantly maintain full control of the hardware and the software, the machine will be a bit more reliable than what we're used to seeing come from them.
Of course that article might have contradicted everything i just speculated, but it's slashdotted, so i can't find out otherwise!
Re:The Slogan (Score:2)
Re:Interesting Product (Score:2)
The Dreamcast only has a 200MHz processor, and the N64 has a 93.75MHz processor. And the Playstation? A blazing 33.8688MHz!
Re:Whatever happened to beer? (Score:2)
Good suggestion, except...
if a particular user is in the kill profile of more than 90% of the users who use kill profiles, that user loses karma or gets posted at a lower level.
You seem to be suggesting a way to moderate w/o recieving moderator points. What's to stop me from creating 100 accounts and slapping you on 100 kill lists to get all of your posts moderated down. Leave the moderation alone--don't fix what ain't b0rked.
You could also just browse at +2. -Erik
OpenGL... (Score:2)
Now, this isn't to say Microsoft will do everything it can to "encourage" the use of Direct3D instead...
---
Re:That much of a performance hit? (Score:2)