| 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 |
 |
Microsoft moves into chip world with Xbox | |
|
||
| Time: 08:37 EST/13:37 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
There's a multibillion dollar company moving into the chip business: Microsoft. According to sources, the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant will more actively participate in the design of the brains for the next version of its Xbox gaming console, tentatively called Xbox Next. By switching from using relatively standard parts to more customized silicon, the company can better optimize its game console, due in 2005. At the same time, the move potentially gives the company a toehold in a completely new market. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 223 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:35:12 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1868 (141.133.157.195) at 11/10/2003 9:47:48 AM |
|
This post was edited by Zeo01 on Monday, November 10, 2003 at 09:55. |
| #2 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 11/10/2003 2:34:36 PM |
|
mOO, MS denied the relationship that Phoenix leaked out.
But... this article seems very overblown. The only thing different that I can see, from the little info available, from this relationship and others is that it is IBM. But are we to believe that MS hasn't worked closely with Intel in the design of instruction sets... Their work with ATI and Nvidia to improve GPU acceleration of DX... Because what distinguishes this from previous work with chip makers? It sounds to me like the primary input on MS's part is to prevent the PowerPC core design from performing like any other PPC. That's about it. After all, won't a great deal of the processing be performed by the GPU? The chip is almost certainly going to be a rather standard PPC with various technologies, instructions not useful to a console stripped out. And then maybe a few additional instructions added. But MS using it as a chip to power other devices? How? They switched in order to keep the internals a secret and locked down. Most other MS products they need to have open. This needs to be locked down. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, November 10, 2003 at 14:37. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/10/2003 2:58:12 PM |
|
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't thinking about switching for power consumption and heat concerns, and ultimately cost.
It's interesting. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Microsoft's main concern with the XBox is not turning it into a general purpose computer because that would impact the OEM bottom lines that MS needs as partners. |
| #4 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 11/10/2003 8:56:33 PM |
|
Theories for MS becoming "Switchers":
1. power consumption and heat concerns What power consumption and heat concerns? The current Box has an underpowered x86 in it; a fast but improved, modern Mobile Celeron will do just fine--it's faster and cooler. Does the XBox get THAT hot? Is power such a concern since it's plugged into the wall and not a portable unit? Is the Cell going to be that powerful that a competing x86 is going to draw that much power and dissipate that much heat? 2. cost even if IBM is aggressively pricing this chip, it will require a whole new design process and cannot possibly be cheaper than any x86 variant unless MS has many, many, many more uses for this PPC chip. I do not expect the volume to be there even if MS has additional uses for the chip. 3. preventing it from being a general purpose computer/prevent it from loading Linux most definitely a side effect. PPC linuxes are numerous but driver support is lacking. Should seriously impinge hackers efforts. No PPC Windows exists at all. 4. Intel has hit an inevitable wall Can't imagine this is the case. Remember a console can make do with much less power than a standard computer. MS would run into issues in their core business before they would in an ancillary market that loses money. Any acknowledgement of such a benefit of the PPC architecture is not going to sit well with Intel or AMD. It's going to be used against them, etc... Now I can imagine that the Cell and GameCube2 chips are more capable than any x86 derivative available--however, this is not to say that MS is recognizing a wall to Intel's plan and is actually migrating to PPC now after bailing on the original plan so many years ago. This would mean the migration is isolated to the console market. Now let's consider some problems: 1. backward compatibility. Possibly achieved through emulation; however, this seems less than desirable, and MS still anticipates a long time before enabling VPC for the G5s and its derivatives. 2. ease of development/porting to x86 PCs. Even if emulation is available as an option, there is going to need to be a break here. One would imagine that you would develop directly to the strengths of the processor. Backporting from a PPC derivative to the x86 world is not going to be as easy as before. 3. cost. If MS is going to keep making vendors compete on cost and selecting the vendor based on cost, they are in for trouble (in my humble opinion). Who wants to know their customer is willing to pursue entirely new architectures with each generation jsut to play off the vendors and get a cheaper deal? So why? 1. Maybe there is a plan for a Mobile XHandheld that requires less power dissipation. And would be another application of this new chip. 2. Maybe MS is concerned about keeping up with Sony and the Cell chip. Alligning with IBM's technologies and initiatives can be a good idea. 3. Maybe MS is working on a broader strategy not yet apparent. Just some thoughts. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, November 10, 2003 at 21:02. |
| #5 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 11/10/2003 9:17:53 PM |
|
No PPC Windows exists at all.
Windows NT 4 (and probably below). Also, Windows CE probably supports PPC. **dropped after v3** This post was edited by n4cer on Monday, November 10, 2003 at 21:22. |
| #6 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 11/10/2003 9:28:22 PM |
|
oh come on, enforcer. How specific do I need to be?
No CURRENT Windows. No Windows WORTH RUNNING. No Windows on a CURRENT PPC CHIP (it ran on 601s to 604s, i.e. even before the first G3... PPCs have changed quite a bit since 95). Jeez, I would love that one: if MS not only used a PPC derivative but actually used the 10 year old and krufty NT port... that would be fabulous. ...or I guess the other theory is that IBM is going to strip out a decade of development to bring the 980 down to a 603? That would be a good one... use an existing OS but run it on a chip 10x slower than the current processor? By the way, it was NT 3.51 and 4.0. Only those two versions. And, yes, CE which is also now defunct runs on various embedded PPCs. However, this chip is not going to be very similar to these embedded PPCs. The PPCs that CE runs on are much closer to 601s than they are to G3s, G4s, or G5s. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, November 10, 2003 at 21:47. |
| #7 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 11/10/2003 9:36:55 PM |
|
parker - AMD still isn't a serious threat to Intel.
sodajerk - "Does the XBox get THAT hot? Is power such a concern since it's plugged into the wall and not a portable unit?" Yes, the XBox get's fairly warm. It also has a fan, which makes it noisy. If they had a processor with less heat, they could retool the box in a way to not require a fan, this would cut down on size and noise. If it consumed less power, this means a similar reduction in the size of the power supply, which again reduces overall size and cost. Of course you'd know this if you'd actually ever played with an XBox or knew anything about it. But then that hasn't stopped you from bashing it endlessly because it's a Microsoft product. |
| #8 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 11/10/2003 9:42:23 PM |
|
soda, of course, I've played an XBox. My question is asked in broader context (and was pretty much f'in rhetorical)--does it get so hot that the issues you raise are more important to solve than the problems faced by DESIGNING A NEW CHIP, INTRODUCING A NEW ABI TO PROGRAM AGAINST, EMBITTERING INTEL, WORKING WITH A NEW CHIP MAN., ETC...
It also raises the question of whether or not you think that Pentium Mobiles and Mobile Celerons are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to accomodate these very issues... But, sure, if you want to think that heat, power, size, noise is more a driving factor than what I've proffered... yeah... run with your theory... it's a great theory... Brilliant theory. I'm converted. FAIRLY WARM. Huge issue. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, November 10, 2003 at 21:45. |
| #9 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 11/10/2003 10:30:25 PM |
|
As parker has said, NT is highly portable and wouldn't be much trouble to get running on other CPUs.
Who cares about embittering Intel? Intel wasn't the only consideration for the first XBOX. Price and production capacity were major reasons for them being chosen the first time. As long as they've had support from other CPU vendors, MS has had no problems running on non-Intel platforms. With Longhorn and .NET around, I expect the supported CPU count to rise again as it'll be much less trouble supporting apps across platforms now. |
| #10 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 11/10/2003 10:38:15 PM |
|
Haven't you noticed that Steve Jobs and Apple never compare the G5 to the Opteron or FX-51, even though they are faster?
:-) It's because they're (Opteron and FX-51) faster that they (Apple) don't compare. There are regular Athlons and Xeons that are also faster, but Apple didn't use numbers from those systems. Of course, this is to be expected since it'd be foolish to say, "Buy us, we're slower!!!" :-D Though it was also foolish for Apple to try and claim the title of "fastest desktop computer" when it was never true. :-) This post was edited by n4cer on Monday, November 10, 2003 at 22:41. |
| #11 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 11/11/2003 12:03:27 AM |
|
parker - "Intel, among those in the know, is seen as the "value processor" manufacturer. Those interested in thehigh end or 64bit desktop development want AMD. Not P4's or Itaniums. "
Uh huh. Keep dreaming parker. http://www.unisys.com/products/es7000__servers/hardware/orion__430.htm 64-bit isn't for the desktop, it's for servers. Find me something comparable to the ES7000 using Opterons and I'll take your argument seriously that Itanium is in trouble. Until then, it's a fairy tale, like Linux on the desktop and a 10% marketshare for Apple. |
| #12 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 11/11/2003 12:17:15 AM |
|
parker, the Brits didn't take kindly to Apple's claims it seems :)
Apple G5 Ads Banned In UK http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/11/10/2047209.shtml?tid=107&tid=126&tid=181&tid=187 |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/11/2003 10:38:19 AM |
|
parker - "64bits is for anyone who wants it. Segregating users is the Intel mantra. Thats old."
I was talking about the market where these things sell, not some sort of segregation. Sheesh, how childish can you get? "Why waste money on old technology like the P4?" Because it's more reliable than the crap motherboards you have to buy for AMD processors. And that is why I won't ever buy an AMD processor again, 64-bit or otherwise. |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/11/2003 4:13:23 PM |
|
parker, put down the crack pipe.
|
| #15 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 11/11/2003 9:04:40 PM |
|
parker, I always insult your dumb@ss no matter what, dipsh!t. You should know you're a freakin retard who can't get anything right when BOTH sodas think you're wrong.
At least monkeyboy can be funny (sometimes). Your just an idiot repeating the same stupid sh!t over and over and over again. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 at 21:56. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 223 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:35:12 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
