| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Xbox 2 SDK released on cool Apple Power Mac G5s | |
|
||
| Time: 19:49 EST/00:49 GMT | News Source: the inquirer | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Thanks Bruce. "WE'VE JUST got word that the Software Development Kit (SDK) for Microsoft’s forthcoming Xbox 2 has now been released to Developers. As we reported earlier, IBM processors are indeed the Xbox 2 development platform of choice. The big news to us is that the XBOX 2 SDK has been seeded to developers on dual Apple Power Mac G5 systems running a custom Windows NT Kernel. " | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 561 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
1:40:46 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 3/1/2004 9:57:08 PM |
| This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use. |
| #27 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 3/1/2004 10:05:10 PM |
|
"What parker was saying is that for MS to port NT to PPC or another platform, most of the changes they'd make are to components below and including the HAL (relatively easy port)."
No, he actually said that 2000, 2003, and XP are not NT kernel based. He said they were different kernels because of the HAL. I said the changes that have been made to the PPC line since 93-96 have been so drastic that that HAL is useless, and this SDK would have come directly from some of their most modern code. "this wouldn't be an issue because all Longhorn native apps are .NET apps" I'm not sure what you are saying. Longhorn won't be 100% written in .Net and not all apps will instantly transition to .Net. So it's not as if Longhorn turns the Window's world to 100% .Net. That isn't what you believe, is it? Ha, ha to you too. Win32 isn't disappearing with Longhorn. It's taken MS over 4 years to flush out .Net and it's still not completely there yet. They still haven't gotten more than one major product shipping with it (Windows 2003). Now you want me to believe that Microsoft is going to port all of it to PPC AND optimize it so they can get decent performance of it, and then MAINTAIN that with the rapid advances that IBM is bringing to the chip line by migrating Power4,5,6 features down to the PowerPC family? and also support another .Net framework for Power 4,5,6? Okay.... It's a pipedream but okay. I want that to happen too. Are you also suggesting that there is enough .Net code available today, tomorrow, one year from now, two years from now to make that a viable platform choice? Okay.... don't buy it, but okay... apparently you want to tie yourself to parker and jump off the hypothetical ledge... Are you also suggesting, like parker, that if that did happen Apple would die because every Mac user would erase OS X off of their G5's and install WIndows? Were you dropped on your head too or something? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, March 01, 2004 at 22:09. |
| #28 By 2459 (24.175.141.98) at 3/1/2004 11:11:38 PM |
|
"What parker was saying is that for MS to port NT to PPC or another platform, most of the changes they'd make are to components below and including the HAL (relatively easy port)."
You're right, he did. I think he doesn't consider 2k+ kernels "NT" because they don't carry the name. They're still the same family though (although there have been many kernel changes between NT 4 and Server 2k3). I'm not sure what you are saying. Longhorn won't be 100% written in .Net and not all apps will instantly transition to .Net. So it's not as if Longhorn turns the Window's world to 100% .Net. That isn't what you believe, is it? Ha, ha to you too. Win32 isn't disappearing with Longhorn. Longhorn won't be 100% .NET, but all the userland APIs will be. Longhorn-native apps means apps built to take advantage of those APIs (Avalon, WinFS, Indigo, etc. - Collectively called WinFX). These will be built using managed code. It's true that Win32/64 isn't going away, but it's basically in maintenance mode for Longhorn. It'll sit beside WinFX mainly for legacy compatability, and won't receive many updates. Longhorn will also include additional security policies that can cause unmanaged apps to break. It's taken MS over 4 years to flush out .Net and it's still not completely there yet. They still haven't gotten more than one major product shipping with it (Windows 2003). Many OEMs ship the framework pre-installed on their computers. Office SBE includes it for Outlook Business Contact Manager. Windows CE.NET includes it, as do Smartphone 2003 and Windows Mobile 2003 devices. Tablet PCs and Media Center PCs include it (MCE interface depends on it). Longhorn will depend on it (so any port of Longhorn to the PPC will have to include it). |
| #29 By 2459 (24.175.141.98) at 3/1/2004 11:12:06 PM |
|
(continued)
Now you want me to believe that Microsoft is going to port all of it to PPC AND optimize it so they can get decent performance of it, and then MAINTAIN that with the rapid advances that IBM is bringing to the chip line by migrating Power4,5,6 features down to the PowerPC family? and also support another .Net framework for Power 4,5,6? A port of Longhorn would be a lot less work than previous OSes due to WinFX being managed code. Besides HAL and possibly some kernel level components, the only thing they'd need to port are the compilers and runtime. WinFX would automatically recompile for the target platform, and the compiler would optimize the code. They could tweak some things, but the bulk of the work would be done by the compiler. They're already doing this with x86, AMD-64, and Itanium. Once they do the initial port of the runtime/compiler, support wouldn't be that difficult. The class libraries automatically cross over. Also, I forgot about this, MSR has already been doing runtime/compiler work for the PPC for the past 4 years with the Shared Source Initiative. Okay.... It's a pipedream but okay. I want that to happen too. Are you also suggesting that there is enough .Net code available today, tomorrow, one year from now, two years from now to make that a viable platform choice? Okay.... don't buy it, but okay... apparently you want to tie yourself to parker and jump off the hypothetical ledge... Are you also suggesting, like parker, that if that did happen Apple would die because every Mac user would erase OS X off of their G5's and install WIndows? Were you dropped on your head too or something? I'm suggesting that there are avenues for MS to support x86 legacy on other platforms, but that in the Longhorn timeframe (and you have ISVs already working on apps for LH now), there should be enough managed apps to fill the need even if MS didn't support legacy x86 apps on other platforms. The tools are in the hands of major devs now. By Summer, LH will hit beta, and devs will get more tools. The major MS apps are going to be managed at LH's launch or shortly after. Even Print Shop uses .NET now ( http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/CaseStudy.asp?CaseStudyID=14934 ). There are a lot of reasons Mac users wouldn't wipe OS X and only run Windows. Even if the relatively sane ones did, there'd still be the zealots that think MS is out to get them. Plus some wonldn't know how to flash their iPods :-) Seriously, even if all Mac users started using Windows instead of OS X, Apple would probably be just as content selling hardware. I've always thought they could make more money as a designer PC OEM. |
| #30 By 3 (62.252.0.4) at 3/2/2004 2:02:05 AM |
| Parker, Soda - try to be a bit nicer in your postings, its getting boring. Parker - cut out the completly off topic little comments you are making just to inflame things, refer to the Terms of Use. |
| #31 By 3 (62.252.0.4) at 3/2/2004 3:41:23 PM |
|
Final warning for both of you, if it continues we will be banning you, its bringing the site down in terms of good commenting that most users do.
Parker - as much as you like to call anyone who doesn't agree with you a Mac Zelot, you clearly are far more prejudiced in towards Microsoft than anyone anywhere is of any other operating system or company on this site, so either open your eyes a little or give it a rest, If i was so far up Apple then I doubt I would be an Microsoft MVP for Microsoft Windows software, I just have an open view on companies, you should having that sometime. Most of your comments here are clearly aimed at winding various users up, but as stated, if it continues you will be banned, as will anyone else who starts to. Sodajerk, as much as I agree with you on some points you state, the childish slagging matches have to stop otherwise the same will happen here. Everyone is free to comment, just leave out the bickering, insults, windups just because people are in disagreement This post was edited by Byron_Hinson[AW] on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 at 15:47. |
| #32 By 3 (62.252.0.4) at 3/2/2004 3:42:10 PM |
| #64 - thanks for pointing that out, I'll try to get it added on the pages in the week. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 561 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
1:40:46 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
