Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Microsoft's X-Box Specs Revealed 312

Some information about Microsoft's rumored X-Box console has been leaked. Features are said to include a DVD drive, a 56K modem, a windows derived OS, a 1GHz CPU, 64 MB memory and 4 GB of HD space. Nintendonext has the scoop. All that, a possible $149 price tag.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's X-Box Specs Revealed

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    They're calling it Windows Power now, or Windows Mini-ME if you prefer.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Console gamers simply have never and most likely will never put up with a crashing console system. My NES only started crashing after 7 years of use... hardware prolly all crusty and dusty on the inside. My SNES never crashed, ever. My N64 doesn't crash. My Playstation doesn't crash. Can Microsoft's X-Box do the same? If it is going to have an OS based on the Windows operating systems, then I am not very confident in the stability of this system. Console gamers won't buy it.
  • No, I wouldn't. Linux, though far better than Windows, has its share of problems as well, and calling attention to them in a reasonable way is not flameworthy. Besides, it's perfectly reasonable to poke fun at software one does not like; it helps relieve the stress of having to put up with it.


  • While in many instances this is the application's fault, have you ever clicked the details button when the "Illegal Operation" box comes up? Quite often, you'll see some Windows system DLL in there. It could be functions being misused by the application... or it could be a buggy library.

    In addition, not all illegal page faults and GPFs happen in userspace. The kernel can follow bad pointers too, giving that lovely blue and white screen we all know and hate.

    In any case, the hostility is quite unwarranted. Anonymity is not an excuse for being an asshole, despite what some around here seem to think.


  • 64 megs dosen't seem to be enough these days. 128 seems to be the minimum to be usefull. Abeit with a smaller overhead it could work out.
  • Consoles work on the principle of standardized hardware running a single application. When one has standardized hardware and an application that has the whole system to itself, there is far less of a need for an operating system. Therefore, Microsoft, an operating system company, putting out a console is working out an exercise in futility here. Sure, it may be easier to port Windows apps, but console software developers are used to doing things like going from one console to another anyway.

    Microsoft might win developers over only on the greater freedom to port software over to the system and low to possibly non-existant licensing fees (if they haven't gone this route, they are doomed). Conventional consoles require manufacturer approval for a licence to write software on that platform and get a certain amount of money per game sold. Consoles work on the give away the razor, sell the blades theory of economics.

    Eventually there will be a console based on the PC economic model that might take off. If it runs an operating system, it will be probably Linux, due to the zero cost of the operating system (and in the console market, every dollar you shave off the price helps). Either that or there's going to be some lawsuit that opens up software development on conventional platforms and the console economic model is broken anyway.

    But Microsoft trying to get into the console market is going to be a great bomb, I predict.
  • I stopped reading the article after reading why they feel the need to include a 4GB drive... For PATCHES.
    I don't know about you, but like hell I'm going to buy a console based gaming system that will need to download patches for games.
    Typical Microsoft nature. Step 1: Release product as fast as possible. Step 2: Release a flurry of patches to make product work.
  • That price is unreasonable for any release date prior to 2002 or 2003. Perhaps they plan on selling a monthly service along with it, sort of like WebTV. That way they can screw you over a longer period of time.
  • Welcome to The Slashdot Zone. Time has a certain fluidity here unseen in the outside world. Be careful how you log out, you may find yourself living in a different time zone than that in which you started, despite no change in geography. On your next visit to "the zone" you may find comments that were posted before the story and replies to those comments that were posted even earlier. Some stories disappear without warning, others only show up in the rearview mirror.
  • The price tag claim of $149 either means they plan to release this in 3rd quarter of the year 2005, or they are just plain making this up. Any two of those components that are supposed to be in the unit would cost more than the $149.

    I strongly suspect someone at the news agency mistook a joke or jest as being an actual scoop.
  • Not to be rude, but you're out of your mind. Yes, hardware in consoles is sold at a loss. But at maybe a $100 loss per unit, not $500ish. I mean, come on, a 1ghz machine with a DVD drive and 64 megs of RAM for $150? I want some of what their sources are on.

    It's bullshit. There's no way it can happen in any sort of short term.
  • ...luckily though that's what we've come to expect so it will fly off the e-shelves like free crack. That is of course if it ever actually exists. Basically a TV remote control that costs $150.
  • I'm really not sure why this has got everyone up in arms, apart from the obvious microsoft reference. The specs are impressive but nobody buys a fancy new system to play pong, the real selling point is what games it can play,

    ..that being said I think that the killer app for this thing would most likely be a linux port ;)
    - MbM
  • The article says that the X box will support "up to 1GHz CPU". Does that mean that it will be released with a slower CPU, but can be upgraded? That seems like the most feasible route, but hardly the best. Upgrades have a horrible track record in the console industry as most consumers simply can't be bothered to buy the upgrade. The whole point of having a console is so that you've got a box that is identical to everyone else's, and so that you can play ANY game ever made for that system (anyone remember the Sega 32X? wonder why?).

    If this isn't the case, I'd certainly like to see how they're gonna give me a 1GHz CPU in a box for ~ $149.
  • >Actually, console game developers have always paid licensing fees.

    Yes, I know, but you missed my point. MS currently does not charge developers, game developers included, a license fee for producing windows software.

    If they start doing it for the X-Box, then they'll either have one platform (X-Box) with licensing fees and one (PC) without, or they'll have to change the Windows PC platform to have a license fee, too.

    I don't think either of those scenarios is likely to succeed in making developers happy and MS rich(er).
  • I think your estimate of $750 cost is low for those specs. It's supposed to have a new GeForce card, too.

    Regardless, if the price is true (sounds like rumor/FUD) then MS will be selling this box at a significant loss in the hopes that it will get that money back, either from online subscriptions to MSN or software licensing.

    I highly doubt game vendors are going to jump for option number two since they don't have to pay MS to release programs for Windows. And they probably wouldn't be thrilled about pouring more of their own money into licenses from an increasingly competitive game developer like MS.

    So I guess MS is going to tie this into WebTV/MSN and generate revenue from subscriptions.

    But subsidizing ventures like this is exactly why MS is losing a billion dollars a year in WebTV. Ouch.
  • Ummm... licensing what?

    Game developers are not going to take too kindly to paying license fees on an MS console if they're not paying them to develop on an MS PC.

    MS is going to raise a hellstorm if they start to charge a bounty on every Windows product sold.
  • It's a set top box meant for playing video games. Yhe OS that developers will target will be the one that ships on the machine. That will be whatever variant of Windows is on the machine. Ripping Windows out and installing Linux on it... You'll end up with a paperweight... Sure, maybe you'll be able to telnet using your TV as a monitor... But really. At this point in time, Windows beats Linux hands town in terms of game availability, features offered for developers, and just the sheer number of developers.
  • Seems very likely that the Windows Derived OS will be WindowsCE 3. It supports most of the Win32 API, Java, Internet, iRDA, etc. not a bad OS, if you dont mind slow IO. The current range of handheld devices (esp the HP 620LX) are very unstable, so if that is what this X Box is to be like, then, no way do i want a piece of it
  • Actually the "cut off their air supply" argument won't work in console games, because MS has no beachhead, no lock on OS licenses to leverage control over standards and resulting dominance of software through insider API hooks. Console games are so stable, in part, because they are so immutable: data is locked on carts or compact discs, and the OS is locked away on ROMs and ASICs. Hard drives imply rewritten data, which means instability (leaving aside the fragility of a console with a hard drive in it, being played by highly caffeinated sub-teen boys). And if Bill wants to start selling "service packs" and pushing upgrades down modem lines, his box will be one unstable bastard.

    M$ has never been able to compete on quality, and that's all they'll have to sell. I think their experience in the console game market will mirror their failure in the handheld arena.

  • 2) X-Box WON'T wipe Sony out... what a joke. That's like saying "Yamaha's making a new motorbike that goes 20mph faster than any other bike - all the other bike companies will go out of business!".

    Is it?

    Or is it like saying that Nintendo will never wipe Atari out?

  • Assuming the article contents are true, I think that the only thing by which this could be better than a Playstation 2 is the ability to play movies.
    There is no mention about graphic cards, and for a PC-like architecture they matter - a lot.
    The only processors Microsoft could work with are x86's and maybe StrongARMs, and I don't think they fare very well when compared to the PS2's.
    64 megs of ram are a ridiculous amount, and the 4Gigs HDD is acceptable only for very specific purposes, like a "slow-ram"/swap area and high score tables.

    I'll wait for more specs, but I'm absolutely unimpressed for now.
  • How random. Why are you responding to yourself with an answer?

    Anyway, MS will watch their steps a lot more now. They just had this monopoly trial remember? They definately don't want to screw up again.

  • Yah, I read that too. It smacked of fanboy, "my system is better than yours", crap. It sounded like it was written by Jeff K. [].

  • All it looks like to me is a computer that uses your television as a monitor. It doesn't look any more impressive than the PSX2 or Dolphin. In fact, it looks inferior.

    Does anyone know when the first service pack will be available for it? ;-)
  • My guess is we'll achieve that in 1-2 years when enough games are ported to Linux. By that time XFree 4 will be truely stable, 3D audio will be defined by Creative & Aureal and Crusoe processors might be interesting for a Linux console.
  • "If I can buy this rather than a Playstation 2, a DVD player, and a "set top box", then I will"

    The Playstation 2 will allow you to play DVDs and surf the web. What's so different with this?
  • Ever have windows crash in safe mode? I haven't. That's what this will run in, a permanent safe mode, because it's all standard overly-tested drivers.

    No, but of course I don't generally run Windows in safe mode 100% of the time ... more like 5% of the time when something incredibly screwy happens (mind you, pretty screwy things happen all the time, but not always "Safe-Mode (TM)" worthy screwy things -- follow?).

    Who knows what Windows crash stats would look like for safe-mode....

  • Perhaps you don't understand the concept of corporate sales, my boy. It costs Microsoft $300 per box, and they turn around and sell it for $150. Their cash reserves let them do this -- flood the market with cheap consoles to shove Sony and Sega out of a lucretive market. Makes sense to me.

    Probably the first man is Slashdot history to respond to himself,

    Bowie J. Poag
    Project Manager, PROPAGANDA For Linux ( [])
  • >Let's face it, M$ is gonna need some serious >expertise if they want to pull this off. Their >onlook on Operating Systems right now is, as long >as
    > it's stable enough, it'll fly. >They also have a tendency to rush a production >and issue bugs afterwards.

    actually, I think that a console could have a much more rushed OS. Why? Because much of the system could be on a game's cd/DVD. I might be wrong, but Dreamcast can do this --load WINCE off of a game disc.
    therefore, the OS could be modified at the drop of the hat for new programs...

  • Played Doom 1.0 (with the 0.9 operating system?)
  • The specs say a 4GB hard drive.
  • selling at a loss is called dumping and is illegal, at least in the U.S. The claims about Sony not making a profit off of the Playstation don't say that Sony was selling at a loss, just very near cost, and that any profit was made off the sale of games.

    If MS were to try to sell a piece of hardware at a significant loss (and if the specs are at all reliable the loss would be quite significant) then they would be in even deeper doo-doo than they are already with the web-browser business.

    By my (admittedly under informed) calculations, a box matching Nintendo Next's specs would cost almost $150 for parts alone, without the processor. Clever bookkeeping may be able to assign assembly, packaging and marketing costs away, but it would be very hard to cover up the raw parts costs.

  • What CPU is going to be out in the next six months (they'll need some lead time on the engineering) that will run at 1GHz and will cost less than $100? Something from Intel: unlikely due to cost. Something from IBM or Motorola: unlikely due to speed. Something from AMD: possible, but if they could do it I would think we would have heard more hype than this. I'm not inclined to believe a gaming rag, even on a good day, but this is just silly.
  • I really hope you copied and pasted this off USENET and didn't write it special for the occasion. I saw somebody copy/paste a Visual Basic help file earlier today, but this was way funnier. I say, If you're going to troll, troll huge.

    -ODB Jr.
  • I believe the rumor you're referring to was the development environment for the system, not the system OS itself.
  • The PS2 figures are also basically vertex counts. Which is one of the reasons the figures are so inflated (75 million pps, anyone?). Still, a real-world 12 million pps is probably within the realms of possibility for PS2.
  • Curse Extrans! I'm going back to HTML!
  • This may have been true in the past, but things are different now. Prior to today, you never would have worried too much about how your gaming console interacts with the Internet. Perhaps now is the time that we will see this change.

    The X-Box could even go that step further and be a total media solution. Imagine for that low price, you can:

    1) Shop on the Internet
    2) Watch DVD movies (perhaps interactive titles.. think Starship Troopers where you can help blast the bugs!)
    3) Download stuff from the net

    We need to leave the old console paradigm behind, and open up to the possibilities of combining digital tools into compact devices. If I can buy this rather than a Playstation 2, a DVD player, and a "set top box", then I will. Hell, I bet this thing will store MP3/WMA as well, so I can ditch the CD stacker on the stereo too ....
  • ...Linux....Beowulf....


  • >>Ever have windows crash in safe mode? I haven't.

    I have. Repeatedly.
  • Naw. If Microsoft's history is any indication, by the time this thing is released, prople will be donating 1Ghz Processors and 4Gb hard Drives to charity.
  • It is my opinion that I do not believe the X-Box will have the ability to change operating systems or even buy another console with any *nix installed on it. Since this is a product of Microsoft, you can very well expect it to be secure in the sense of modifying a thing such as the console operating system. I mean, can you even change the OS of those little hand held computers that have Windows CE installed? Hrmm, those hand held computers aren't made by Microsoft (I think) but even so I don't believe you can change the OS. So I wouldn't expect the immediate ability to do so with the X-Box.

    That's just my opinion, If I had more facts on the console OS, I'd ... well, you wouldn't need me. You would figure that stuff out before I could :)

  • Actually, they probably will release it under $200, as Sega, Sony, and Nintendo have all learned that anything over that price point won't sell well in America. Every console out there is sold at a loss for the hardware vendor. They then license the technology to software providers, and make the money back that way. Sega loses an estimated $100 per Dreamcast sold, and makes it back when you've purchased your third game. I'm sure MS is looking to have a platform that they can control - unlike the PC.
  • So what if they lose $500 on each one. They can make it up in volume.

    As far as a Linux port, it will probably be running before any version of WinCE, it will be more stable, use less resources, etc, etc.
  • oh for the love of Kosh, it was a *joke* people.


    You know, juxtaposition of absurdities, make you giggle, ha ha?
  • I'll repeat what I said above - it's a joke.

    The concept of "humour" seems to be rapidly draining from Slashdot...
  • "Yes! I'm on the final level of Quake: Rehash! I'm about to squash this wonderfully 3D-rendered, semi-AI-controlled final opponent. And the screen theme is pretty."

    "Now, to step forward..."

    *presses up*

    ---WARNING! - This program has performed an illegal operation. It will now be shut down. It is recommended that you reboot your system.---

    "AUGH...well, at least I saved the game..."

    ---WARNING! - Cannot open save game file. File corruption. Please contact Microsoft Technical Support for details.

    Press F1 to continue---

    *sound of console being tossed out window and crashing on cement*

    sorry, couldn't resist:)
  • Forget about a 1 GHZ processor. It is too expensive and would drive the retail price of what will be a "set-top" box wayyyy too high.
  • then you haven't read their 'Why dolphin is better than PS2' article
  • For $149, you could build up a respectable render farm or anything else that requires massive amounts of parallel processing power. Someone's bound to mention "beowulf cluster!" at some point in these comments (lame as it is to mention it), and, for once, they'll be making some sense.

    Other uses:
    $149 kickass webserver.
    $149 kickass Samba server.
    $149 kickass MP3 jukebox (and mp3 encoder).
    $149 kickass FTP server.
    $149 kickass IRC server.
    $149 kickass proxy server.
    (This is assuming the machine's running some form of UNIX, as a headless Windows box is about as useful as a bag of mud.)

    You get my point.

    - A.P.

    "One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

  • "with 300MHz Celerons still at 75$ "

    Where do you buy your CPUs? Perhaps you were talking Canadian or Australian dollars!

    With that budget you could do much better:

    Boxed Celeron 433 @ $71 =163 []

    OEM Celeron 466 @ $78 =839 []
  • Even Microsoft can't take that much of a loss on the hardware. Yeah, you can take some loss and make it up with the licensing (Sony's done it for years with the PSX). But not that much. The chips alone are going to cost more than that, never mind the DVD drive and various other peripherals. Yeah, eventually the prices are going to drop, but by the time they drop to the point where the $175 price isn't outright suicidal, the gaming companies will be selling better systems for less money.

    Remember the lesson Pippin taught us: computer companies should stick to computers, and let console companies take care of the console business. Sony seems to be the notable exception to this rule, but if I'm not mistaken they made the PSX before they got into the computer business. MS can't count on having Sony's kind of luck, particularly with that target price.

    By the way, what're they going to call the OS, "Windows X"? How much more rip-off can you get? Thanks, but no thanks, M$; I want a console that doesn't bluescreen everytime I play.
  • I have. It takes some doing but when Windows get's seriusly messed up it will crash in safe mode. I guse you wold only see that if you repair broken Windows all the time. BTW : fdisk -> format -> setup fixes eaven those Windows setups that are bad enogh to crash in safe mode. So much for "hardware problems". ( Except one that had a genuine memory error and woldn't even run DOOM reliably. ( A 32 bit memory bug of some sort ).
  • Microsoft has the money to deploy these at a fair loss, and still make it back from licensing fees

    That's the one thing they'll never do. For all his faults, Bill Gates knows that having unhindered development is the road to success. He's argued the point on many occasions, and from what I've heard, they plan to do the same for the X-Box. They'll just release the box, and a development kit and let anyone develop for it. No official submission, no licensing fees. Just find yourself a publisher and/or distribution deal and away you go. That is what's going to kill Sega, Sony and Nintendo, not the technical superiority of the box (in fact, they don't even need to be technically superior).

  • this could be a StrongArm machine. Chances are, though, that it's another Hitachi brain

    Yep. PIII/Athlon are too big, too expensive, and do too much. A games console doesn't need one. What it needs is a good media processing chip. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest they may be using a Nuon []. It has all the attributes needed [] for a good games console, and in particular, should be priced very cheaply.

  • Never mind the "up to 1GHz" processor's speed, think of the box as a space heater. Think of the power supply.

    Put the box under your desk in the wintertime to toast your toes.
  • Hey, the only thing that makes or breaks a console is the games. Specs don't count for anything (look at 3DO or the Jaguar) it's all in the games.
  • Console games are NOT meant to be run on off the shelf parts, this thing /will/ flop. When you're playing games on your TV you want a dedicated graphics rendering engine and you just plain want speed and perty pictures. Now, with that out of the way let me say that the line /is/ starting to blur, but i don't know....the "X-Box" sounds an awfully lot like what it's name implies....a pipe dream.

    But that's just my opinion ;)
  • Maybe they're experts at everything and that is what leads them to like Linux. I'm sure they think that they are. (like there's anybody at this site that doesn't think of themselves that way)
  • So I guess MS is going to tie this into WebTV/MSN and generate revenue from subscriptions.

    I agree. $149 isn't the "real" price. First of all, We know that this product won't be on the market for a long time. Maybe even a year or 2. I think Microsoft is betting on the fact that those specs will be commodity parts by that time, and won't be expensive to use. 2nd, you know that Microsoft will have rebates, and MSN deals to lower the price. I think that that when it's out, it'll be closer to the $600 range. But after the rebates, promotional "coupons", and your 3 year contract to the MSN "gaming service", you'll be able to get it at the slick price of $149.

  • "up to 1 Gz" priced "as low as" $149

    Those are the key words.

    The low end model, $149, model will probably ship with a much slower CPU, 32 megs of RAM, and maybe a slower DVD drive...

    Sega sells their boxes at a loss and makes up the difference quite nicely collecting royalties from developers. Microsofts got a hoard of cash, so they can absorb short term losses in order to push this thing out the door, if they wanted to.

    But remember... When looking at computer ads, car ads, etc... "starting at" never means the model their displaying. It's the little brother to that model.
  • I was thinking the same thing. $149 is close to free... and we all know what it means to get a free pc... you have to pay for something.

  • ... add Ethernet, and instant LAN party! Let's see: Remove Windoze and make it a dedicated Q3A server (or a Freeciv [] server, for that matter ;) ).

    But otherwise does this mean my game console could be infected by Word macro viruses?

  • I'd hardly think of a harddrive as an asset to a gaming console. What's it good for? An internet cache?

    For a pure gaming machine I'd agree, however, who said this was going to only be a gaming machine? I'd say that Microsoft is more likely to go after the elusive set-top box market. It's where all the future consoles are trying to be at some point down the road.

    If it really does come out in 2001 with a 1GHZ cpu, I'd think it'd cost WAY more than $150 with those specs.

    Remember, consoles are always loss leader (as meantioned in other posts). The $150 is cheap for the hardware, but so is the price for any gaming console you buy. Plus, you have too look at the time line of this thing. Right now it's rediculous, when it's finally released, it may not be so bad.

    NTSC (that's those TV thingies) are more like 378x200 something. If you do the math, it take rediculously less power to drive the same number of polygons around at that resolution.

    Until HDTV becomes prominent. I guarentee that this thing comes HDTV ready which means it will be pushing at higher resolutions. And over engineered? I hardly think anyone would argue that that would be a bad thing (for the price).

    So maybe MS is thinking about a PC replacement?

    Like I said, MS wants to take over the future set-top box market. The X-Box is there way to do that. PC functionality in your living room. It plays games, and DVD's and lets you surf the Web and who knows what else. It's been a lot of companies goal for a long time now, and everyone has failed thus far (3D0, Phillips, etc). At this price, with this power, and with this brand recogniton, MS may just have the power to pull this out.

    With that said, I think they're in for a big shocker. The games business is notoriously cutthrought and they'll have to go up against companies that have HUGE market share (Sony) and ones that are even more propriatary and greedy than MS themselves (Nintendo). They really better have thier shit together if they want to win this war (I'd place my money on Sony this time around).

  • Maximum comment lenght for Anonymous cowards.. OR atleast in the comment lenght to show part of preferences.. let me select a different lenght for AC or normal!?>>! how bout it>
  • Windows is entirely capable of self-corrupting that badly. I've had 95 delete its copy of GDI.EXE - and there wasn't a virus anywhere near the system, we did check.

  • The pther reason is resolution. No TV will clear 800*600 (though PAL turns out up to 768*576 IIRC) so you don't have to worry about turning out anything higher than that. It looks better than tht resolution on your monirot as the TV's blurrier.

    Lower the resolution and the frame rate or polygon count can be boosted, it's that simple.

  • Please, not Mini-ME...

    I've heard that used (admittedly by a rather sad looking individual) as a euphemism for male genitalia. Not a lot better than wince, really...

  • Well... they've been making hardware for a while (MS Mouse, Keyboard, Joystick), of course my Sidewinder 3D Pro joystick stopped working as soon as I connected it to my new Athlon 600 running Windows 98...
    ... it also no longer works on my old PII 266 Win95 machine now either.

    I figure this is just a sign of things to come.
  • Selling at a loss <i>can</i> be against the law - if there is just an intent to harm a competitor, in much the same way that swinging a hammer can be against the law - if there is an intent to hit someone in the head.

    Selling at a loss is a common practice. Ever hear of a "loss leader"? Grocery stores love to advertise a few grossly under-priced items (often with purchase limits), and then rack up the bucks when people fill the cart.

    While people talk about companies attacking the competition, doing something with the purpose of harming a competitor is generally not allowed. Since intent can be hard to prove, this generally means a company can't do something that harms a competitor but provides no direct benefit. Predatory pricing is just one example of this. This doesn't mean that a company is obligated to avoid harming competitors (what meaning could "compete" have?), just that it can't go out of its way to cause harm.

    If MS intends to put Sega, Nintendo, and Sony out of the game console business by taking large losses for several years, and thereby gain a monopolistic position from which to reap huge profits, they will face legal action.

    (IANAL, and I am disgusted by legally enforced monopolies on certain types of speech)
  • The scary thing is, I've seen games crash on the Dreamcast.

    I work in a software store, and we have a demo system running near the register (so we can shoo away the "all day" demo'ers.) Every so often, a game would freeze. We've replaced the system and the games a few times.

    Mind you it doesn't happen so much that it's a problem. Perhaps once in two weeks. After being on for a few hours.

    But still...
  • by / ( 33804 )
    There's one conceivable reason why they'd put a hard drive in one of these things. Can anyone say: bundling WebTV []? They wouldn't be leveraging a monopoly in either market, so there wouldn't even be a potential antitrust suit. Woe be unto the consumer who buys one of these things.
  • Finally, if they need a 1 GHz processor to work this thing, then they're doing something wrong. The PS2 achieves 25M pps with only a dedicated 266 processor. A 1 GHz processor sounds like infinitely more than what's needed to power a cutting-edge gaming platform at this time.

    Mhz are one of the most meaningless speed measurements these days, *especially* when referring to console processors.

    The PS2 has a 300MHz processor, but what is hidden is that fact that it has 2 additional 300MHz vector coprocessors, creating a total of about 12 floating point accumulators and 6 dividers that can be used simultaneously, yielding (yet another meaningless statistic) 6.2Gigaflops. However, since VU0 and VU1 are heavily optimized for vector processing (as opposed to dividing by 0), the majority of the 6.2 billion floating point operations can be utilized in the average case. Add to that the Emotion Engine's fully 128-bit design, and you've got a processor that can outrun any intel processor up to ~1.5Ghz, and a memory bus that can actually supply needed data when it is needed. Granted, a Willamette 1500 would be able to do integer operations much faster than the Emotion Engine, making it a better general-purpose CPU; however, for gaming and signal processing integer operations are minimally important, making the EE a much better processor for multimedia purposes.

    What MS has forgotten is that the PC platform is a terrible architecture for gaming. Everything about it is just mere upgrades on 20 year-old technology. Maybe Microsoft has something really sneaky up their sleeves, such as using a 1Ghz SH-4 (Dreamcast processor) and a custom-designed bus to an optimized GeForce 256 processor. That could (theoretically) approach PS2 level performance, but I'm not going to give MS that much credit.

  • $75 for a 300mhz Celeron? I got my 400mhz Celeron for $55...oh well.

    Also, did they necessarily say Intel? I'm sure someone like AMD would love a nice bulk order...maybe even Cyrix's reincarnation (what company is that again?)
  • I've noticed a LOT of posts regarding when they'll be able to do this...
    The answer: Within a year.

    Almost every (if not every) console is sold at a loss. The hardware isn't where the money is, it's the licensing. Microsoft has the money to deploy these at a fair loss, and still make it back from licensing fees, and boom, they still make a profit off of the whole deal...and possibly control of another market.
  • A 1Ghz WHAT though.

    Nowhere do they say what CPU it is. While any standard 1Ghz cpu (Athlon, P3/Coppermine, etc.) are hella-expensive, doesn't mean they couldn't have some alternative running at 1Ghz for much cheaper...of course it also doesn't mean they're fast at all.
  • OK, sorry, but: WRONG, BZZZT, you're going home with our special matching Slashdot tie and blazer badge set, that's yours, no-one can take that away from you, you've been a very special contestant, Good Night!
    The Dreamcast runs either with a set of Sega libraries, or a cut down version of Windows CE. Sega Rally used an early version of Windows CE, but it has been much improved since then.
    While it is true that the Playstation doesn't have much need for a full OS, it's not that much of a statement. The Playstation has no MMU. It has 2MB of main RAM. Its only networking capability is through a dodgy serial link.
    Modern consoles are a whole lot more complicated. While it is great fun playing with your MMU and writing TCP/IP stacks, we game programmers have better things to do, like writing games. I'm not an OS programmer, nor do I want to be one, but many people are and I defer to them.
    Another thing you're missing is that while the Playstation OS fits in 32K, the libraries you use to access the hardware are not included in that amount. You sacrifice your 0x1f8000 bytes according to your needs. The actual overhead of Windows CE is not as large as some have made it out to be, and compared to using the Sega libraries, you gain a lot of functionality.
    Of course, I don't expect everyone to flock to it, because many game developers are still too busy trying to prove how studly they are at poking hardware. It's such a pity, because everyone spends a couple of years falling into the same traps.
    Step 1: Plug in your shiny new dev kit
    Step 2: Read the docs saying, "Don't do X to the hardware! It will be slow!"
    Step 3: Watch the mailing list as punters from 15 different game companies flood the mailing lists with, "How can I do X to the hardware, in asm, by poking it directly?"
  • bug free games?

    got tony hawk? create a new game and save it. kill power and load saved game. when selecting skater equipment, look at your wheels. do you see wheels? if you do, hit up once. you should now see no wheels. select this equipment, b00m crash.

    I own 2 psx games and I dont make a habit of looking for bugs, but I would imagine there are a lot more than this one.
  • Just a reminder, Microsoft runs each Business Unit already as a separate business, trust or anti-trust. The HBU (hardware biz unit) has none of the issues that WOBU (windows office biz unit) has, or that the OS BUs have.

    The hardware guys are accustomed to making products that are expensive to revise, can't be patched in the field, and need to run under fairly rigorous use without crashing.

    When a product can be released patched, from a business perspective, why shouldn't it be released and patched?

    (MS Hardware is not MS Software =anagram> Oh wow! Drat! Mainframe's stress)
  • Timna would be a MUCH better choice.

    Timna is optimized for low cost, but Transmeta is optimized for low power, not low cost. For example, the morphing software alone requires 16 MB to operate, so that adds a cost of 16 MB extra.

    Samsung recently announced a "disposable PC", sub-$200, sounds fairly similar to this, and was based on Timna.
  • What the article actually says:
    -could cost as low as $149
    -Up to 1 GHz CPU

    Which of course says absolutely nothing at all.
  • You forgot the that price probably includes you agreeing to a five year stretch with MSN.

    To be honest, at this point in time, I can't imagine MS selling a computer at any price without such strings attached.


  • People seem very concerned with the power that the 1Ghz processor presents. However, IMHO, the real potential market changing spec. here is the "Windows-based OS".

    Why?...think about this: currently, many, if not most, computer and video games developers create games for one platform with the intention of later porting it to other platforms. Naturally, the game developer wants their game available on the greatest number of different platforms to increase market audience reached over-all by their game. A good example of this "intended" development especially comes with the sports games. A beautiful example is the current Tomb Raider series: after Tomb Raider I, all the Tomb Raiders were planned with both the PC and console in mind.

    Now how does this matter with the X-Box? Well, as previously mentioned, most developers develop first for one platform, release on that platform, wait for a period of saturation on that platform while they port to another, then release on their secondary platform. This porting costs money and time. Now what if, they only had to write the game once to reach both the console and PC markets? Would they choose to do that and save the money?...of course!

    So here's where the X-Box's potential as a real market changer lies: if MS's "Windows-based OS" supports DirectX as an API to create games for the X-Box, a near port-less possibility to creating games for multiple platforms simulatenously now exists that game developers are going to leap at to use...

    Now I'm not saying this is by any stretch a good thing...actually, I think it's a dangerous thing...but I can see why the X-Box might succeed...

  • The PS2 achieves 25M pps with only a dedicated 266 processor.

    I know this wasn't the main point of your thread, but there is a lot of misleading in that statement. Yes, the PS2 uses a 300 MHz chip to do massive graphics, but it is a 128 bit chip, not a 32 or even a 64. It also has an 150 MHz "graphics synthesizer". M$ would need a fast 32 bit CPU to keep up, particularly running Windows CE.

    For some more information about the PS2 to use for comparison, I suggest IGN's PS2 FAQ []. For additional info about the PS2 including other information, try [].

    B. Elgin

  • What are you talking about?

    The Dreamcast is more or less "off the shelf" (SH4, NEC 3D accelerator) parts and its doing fine.

    Current mid-Range PC hardware is as (or mroe) powerful as a current consoles (including Dreamcast). The comparable PC, sans monitor, of course, would be about $500 retail. Streamline and standardize the case, streamline the hardware (surface mount stuff, stamp the HW out in an automated fashion, forget about standard PC-style expandability and upgradibility) and you're down into console price territory.

    The reason AAA games on the Dreamcast look better than most current PC games is on the PC, you don't know what video card, sound card, etc the user is using, so you have to be fairly generic, unless you want to optimize for all potential configurations (hah hah! not likely!). Once everything is standard, companies will know what to expect, and the XBox specific distribution of these games can be fully hardware optimized.

  • Few people will buy just an X-Box, they will buy several games as well (duh). Add up all the revenue over the life of a games console, subtract the bill of materials over the same period, and MS can make a profit overall. Or take a loss and derail the PSX2 bandwagon. Go stick some figures into Excel ^H^H^H^H^H StarOffice. As I've said before, that's the problem (we) Linux and Open Source games advocates have to address, how to subsidise the hardware.
  • OK, three points:

    1) 56K Modem? This has GOT to be a made up stat as any game hardware company (besides SEGA) would be retarded not to include broadband (Cable, DSL, etc.) ability in their console, especially when the average console life span is around 4 years or so (easily taking us into mainstream broadband access timeframe). Forget your "MSN subscription for life" arguments - any new console MUST offer broadband capabilities.

    2) X-Box WON'T wipe Sony out... what a joke. That's like saying "Yamaha's making a new motorbike that goes 20mph faster than any other bike - all the other bike companies will go out of business!". Microsoft dominates the PC s/w market because it got in early and Apple stumbled big time. The game industry is much more mature and companies like Sony, Nintendo and Sega are FAR more entrenched in terms of market share. MS will eat a big portion of that pie perhaps, but not enough to put Sony out of the game business.

    3) MS would again be retarded to attempt to offer multiple models of the X-Box at different price points (i.e. base model for $149, deluxe model for $250, etc.). This is misinformed speculation as releasing multiple models fractures your install base, meaning developers can't count on a common platform spec (the same problem that doomed the SEGA 32X and that currently plaques PC land).

  • bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit bull shit

    I am just guessing but I think steak doesnt think the X-Box is viable...

    A nice, well written, constructive criticism would probably be better, but hey what the hell...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @12:51PM (#1270761)

    ..because MS's Games operation think it sucks and actually fought *NOT* to have WinCE on it. Also, because "WinCE" is fast becoming a dirty word
    among Dreamcast developers.

    Hmm. It might actually have a decent operating system, and be from MS. Interesting in itself.

    (Posting anon for a reason).

  • by jelwell ( 2152 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @12:48PM (#1270762)
    $149 hmmm. Taking a look at that last article [] about the 1.5Ghz Intel chips priced around a small yugo! Well, Microsoft must be shooting to release these X-Boxes when the Intel price drops to 45$. Using the current trends, with 300MHz Celerons still at 75$ The X-Box should be out sometime in 2004. I'm not waiting that long.
    Joseph Elwell.
  • by MoNsTeR ( 4403 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @06:07PM (#1270763)
    Here's a copy of a post I made on this same story that appeared on the Shugashack:

    (disclaimer: I am very biased here, being a PSX owner and long-time MS hater)

    OK, now that we know(?) something concrete about the X-Box,let's compare it to its obvious competitor, the PS2:
    - CPU: the X-Box may get "up to 1GHz" cpu, but its quite likely that the PS2's 300MHz chip will beat it out. We already know that the X-Box will be x86-based, which means we have an idea of how that "up to 1GHz" can perform. As various developers who already have development systems have pointed out, the strength of the "Emotion Engine" (blah, lame name) is its vector units. For comparison, 2 of the Athlon's FP units are also vector units,
    responsible for executing MMX and 3DNow instructions. The Emotion Engine has 10(!) *dedicated* vector units. Also, x86 cpus are 32bit, the EE is 128bit.
    - RAM: At first, it looks like the X-Box wins here, with 64MB over the PS2's 32MB. But it doesn't say what type is in the X-Box. We know that the PS2's 32MB is Rambus (whether that's good or not is open to debate)... More on the RAM in the OS section...
    - OS: "Windows Derived OS"? That's reason enough to stay as far away from this thing as possible. And as at least one other poster has noted, how much of that 64MB is this OS going to take up? Judging from what Epic has said about porting Unreal to the PS2, writing PS2 software is like
    using Glide: you're basically "coding to the metal". Programming for Windows and DirectX on the other hand, involves many layers of abstraction
    and results in many cycles being wasted in intermediary software.
    - modem: same as PS2
    - other I/O: no info on the X-Box, but the PS2 will have IEEE1394, USB, and PCMCIA, and MS had better match that
    - DVD: same as PS2
    - hard drive: OK, this is the big deal. Some ppl may look at this and say, "hey! the PS2 doesn't have an HDD at all! this r00lz!" Wrong. The PS2 will get by with 8MB memory cards, very similar to what the PSX has now. Sure it's not 4GB, but it costs a hell of a lot less too. But more important than the fact that it shouldn't need an HD is what having one enables. If you follow the link and read the blurb, it says "it also has a 4GB hard drive, which will allow you to download patches" OH SHIT. What is arguably THE best characteristic
    that consoles have over PC's? Stability. Console games never get patched, because they're shipped on read-only media. This naturally forces developers to make their games bug-free, and it works. With the opportunity given to developers to release crap now and patch it later, like PC devs do, they'll use it. Watch out.
    - upgradability: I've got the sinking feeling that the X-Box will be upgradeable. Fanatic PC gamers/console haters don't realize this, but upgradeability is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it allows the platform to evolve, on the other hand it *requires* the platform to evolve. Compare the PC to the PSX. Can a PC from 5+ years ago run Quake 3? No. But is a PSX game of today as far advanced past those of 5 years ago as Quake 3 is? Not really. So the technology level of a console's games stays pretty much constant for its lifespan. The upside here is that you've made your one-time hardware expenditure, and that's it! When I buy a PS2 for $200 (which IS the price it'll launch at, every console in recent memory has launched at that price, and Sony's not dumb enough to break that streak), that $200 will likely be the only money I spend on PS2 hardware for as long as I own the thing (other than memory cards, a 2nd controller, etc). However, if I buy even a $500 PC now, to play current games in a year or two I'll need to shovel more hundreds of dollars into it.
    I'm guessing that the X-Box will fall somewhere between these two extremes.
    - games: The other obvious advantage the PS2 has is games. One, there are already hundreds of PSX games that will play on it. Two, there are already many developers working on games for it. Three, several developers have contracts with Sony, most
    notably SquareSoft, so we know they'll be putting their games out on the PS2. As for the X-Box, who knows?

    However, I will not deny the possibility that the X-Box could succeed. Microsoft has produced at least three good products (EDIT.COM, the original Natural KB, the Sidewinder pad), plus a few others that are decent but not stellar (Publisher, various mice). So I'll concede the possibility that the X-Box could mark another good product. We'll only know for sure when the thing actually comes out. Until then, however, I will remain VERY skeptical.

    Now for some stuff I've thought of since then:
    - video: Holy crap, the PS2's advertised triangle and fill rates are insane (although I forget what they are, 75MTriangles/s comes to mind...)
    And all that with only 4MB of video ram! 4MB, that according to, is linked to the gfx chip by a 2560-bit bus! Now, even if that's a typo, and is supposed to be 256 bits, it's still twice the width of any current PC video bus (unless you count the G400's dual 128 bit buses).
    - CPU: there were a lot of people on the 'shack who concluded that since the X-Box will have a 1GHz cpu, and the PS2 will only have a 300MHz cpu, that the X-Box will be significantly faster. Now, for some perspective on this, compare the GeForce to the Voodoo3. The former has a clock speed of 120MHz, the latter, up to 183MHz. Which is faster? That's right, the GeForce. Architectural superiority will put the PS2 on top.
    - price: the fact that this article projected a $149 launch price is indicative of one of two things, either:
    1. this report is bogus, entirely rumor, totally worthless. or...
    2. Microsoft is going to be selling these things at a loss (or very *slim* margin) in order to put the hurt on Sony.
    The reasoning behind this is, as I said above, that $200 is basically THE customary launch price. The SNES, PSX, and Dreamcast all hit the market sporting $199.99. Although EB is pre-ordering PS2's for $239, so it may be that inflation is catching up with us ;) [and in light of that price, the X-Box launching at $150 is made that much less likely]

  • by .pentai. ( 37595 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @12:51PM (#1270764) Homepage
    Consider for a second if you will, the fact that Microsoft blames crashes on faulty drivers. Now consider the fact that since consoles are (or atleast are supposed to be) standardized hardware, meaning that all drivers should be release-worthy, in that they only have to be tested in one configuration.

    This kills their excuse, but also the reasoning. They're right when they say the majority of faults is in drivers, and while a driver shouldn't necessarily be able to kill everything, hey it happens. Ever have windows crash in safe mode? I haven't. That's what this will run in, a permanent safe mode, because it's all standard overly-tested drivers.

    You may not like the products, but MS is far from a stupid company, and they know what they're going up against, and what they have to do to win.

    All of this said, I'm sure it will be a nice console, and I'll probably have one, alongside my Dolphin, PS2, and DC (and yet I never play games...I just enjoy wasting the money).

    Plus...for people into console dev, such as myself, this will probably be a fun toy to play with.
  • by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @12:59PM (#1270765)
    Intel has nothing to do with it. Or at least their mainstream CPUs don't; this could be a StrongArm machine. Chances are, though, that it's another Hitachi brain.

    As for the pricing, all games boxen are sold as loss leaders. MICROS~1's only reason for pushing this thing would be to make a major assault on the games publishing business, which is where the money is. Expect to see some loss leaders there for the first generation or two, since Redmond can "cut off the air supply" to Sony, Sega, and Nintendo for as long as it takes to drive them out of business. After that, of course, the story changes. (When Win3.1 came out, DOS was priced over $100 and MS threw in Windows for small change -- unless you were buying DR-DOS.)
  • by Cy Guy ( 56083 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @01:06PM (#1270766) Homepage Journal
    The only way I can see a 1 Ghz machine coming out next year at that price point is if it requires you to sign-up with a specific Internet provider.

    If that is valued currently at $400 for 3 years, then they real cost of the box is $550, which I can believe. Hopefully it will be broadband access at no more than $22/month by that point.

  • by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2000 @04:29AM (#1270767) Homepage Journal
    NTSC (that's those TV thingies) are more like 378x200 something. If you do the math, it take rediculously less power to drive the same number of polygons around at that resolution
    First, NTSC has a vertical rez of 525 lines, and a horizontal rez of about 350 lines if you are going over RF (e.g. tuned to channel 3 via a modulator) or 400 lines over composite video. If you go to YC (seperate lumanace and chromanance), you get about 450 lines.

    Second, in most modern rendering chipsets the fill rate (the rate at which pixels can be put into polygons) is grossly higher than it needs to be: it is the polygon rate (the time to compute the position of each polygon) that is limited. Therefor, increasing or decreasing the resolution will have almost no effect on the frame rate, as the system will be limited by how many polygons it can cram onscreen, not how many pixels.

    Lastly, remember that the X-Box will be running DirectX on Windows CE (Control Everything). The intent is to make it very easy to port from the console to the desktop (as long as the desktop has broken glass for an OS, not rotten fruit, flightless waterfowl, or satanic influences ;^) )

    Lastly, for something like this to sell, the BOM (Bill of Materials, the cost of the parts to make it) would have to be about $75 for it to sell at $150 (the rest is eaten up with manufacturing cost, NRE (non-recurring engineering costs), shipping, stocking, returns (my box just gives me this funky blue screen, I want a new one) etc.) This is even if the whole thing sells at a loss. MS wants to dominate the game market: they sell this as a loss-leader, they get all the hot games made for DirectX, they get all the game programmers indoctrinated into The MicroSoft Way Of Doing Things and they kill all competition. They almost managed this without a game console: look at how many games are DirectX rather than OpenGL. However, today, game companies are starting to realise that if they want to make Mac ports (or Linux/BSD ports, or console ports) they had best program for OpenGL. Case in point: Aliens Vs. Predator is being ported to OpenGL so that they can make a Mac version. Hopefully, the folks at Activision are learning a lesson from this and will do all future games in OpenGL.

  • by Krodge ( 148232 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @04:02PM (#1270768)
    I'm beginning to think that some of the people here need to take a basic economics class, or at least learn a tiny bit about how products are sold.

    Probably around the time that this X-Box comes out 1.0 ghz chips will go for around 300-400 dollars at the most. I predict around 200-300 dollars. The thing is it doesn't cost Intel or AMD 200-300 dollars to produce the chip. It costs more like 50 dollars, which they sell to vendors for $100 which then sell to us for $200-$300.

    This means that Microsoft will probably be able to get the chip for around $100 or $150 at the most, and the HD will be around $20 (4gb harddrive in two years will be tiny) 56k modems will be like 10 dollars and the RAM will be like $20 so it will only cost around from $150-200 to produce is my prediction. So M$ takes a loss, but make it up with game licenses as mentioned in other posts.

  • by Enoch Root ( 57473 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @12:58PM (#1270769)
    Let's face it, M$ is gonna need some serious expertise if they want to pull this off. Their onlook on Operating Systems right now is, as long as it's stable enough, it'll fly. They also have a tendency to rush a production and issue bugs afterwards.

    Did you ever hear about the PSX needing upgrades and service packs? No, because the idea is to release the platform spotless from the start. The 4 GB hard drive is worth nothing; it's not a feature, it's a way to circumvent future bugs M$ know they're gonna get. Who wants to connect to the Internet and download service packs for your platform? That's gonna hurt the X-Box's reputation immensely.

    Incidentally, did anyone notice how M$ and Nintendo always explain their performance by comparing it to the PS2? 'We'll be faster than the PS2'. Hmm. It's just funny how the PS2 is already a standard, a full month before its Japanese release.

    Finally, if they need a 1 GHz processor to work this thing, then they're doing something wrong. The PS2 achieves 25M pps with only a dedicated 266 processor. A 1 GHz processor sounds like infinitely more than what's needed to power a cutting-edge gaming platform at this time.

    This is gonna bomb. M$ is not ready for this.

  • by nft ( 12680 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @01:38PM (#1270770)
    I'd hardly think of a harddrive as an asset to a gaming console. What's it good for? An internet cache? I've got dsl, and I load database driven sites. New games? Let 'em stay on the server. When I connect to the server, I'm playing version 1.2.7 automatically without having to patch it.

    Playstion games look better now than five years ago when the PS first came out. Why? Because the programmers got better. Why? Because they weren't wasting time trying to integrate COM 2.0, or Direct X 12a, or whatever MS trys to sove down developers throuts. PS programmers just focus on the task at hand.

    So a winders based platform means Joey down the street can develop his own games. You think Joey won't need to replace DLL's? That's one of the reasons why winders crashes. And yup, harddrives will help that problem manifest.

    Next, let's talk about the price. If(the nintendo site didn't state any sources for their info, mind you) it really does come out in 2001 with a 1GHZ cpu, I'd think it'd cost WAY more than $150 with those specs.

    If there was a 1ghz cpu to be had for under $400, that'd kill the PC industry all together. Think about it. Way more power than you need, in a $150 box? Where's the space to squeeze in a $40(or whatever...) winders licence? They'd be killing themselves!

    Lastly, comparing a console to computer hardware is the old apples/oranges argument. PC gamers buy athlon 800's and GeForces to be able to run 3d games with 5000-10000 on-screen polygons at 1280x1024x32bit color. NTSC (that's those TV thingies) are more like 378x200 something. If you do the math, it take rediculously less power to drive the same number of polygons around at that resolution. The propossed x-boxen would have idle CPU cycles, which means it was over engineered, which means it costs too much to build regaurdless of the price. : )

    So maybe MS is thinking about a PC replacement? That kind of power would run winders NT pretty well, but it seems a little light for winders2k. That much hardware could drive a real monitor just fine. It'd also run Linux pretty well, and I'd guess it will about 4 months if it ever comes out, which it won't.

    The whole thing is just so rediculous...

  • by m3000 ( 46427 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @01:07PM (#1270771)
    This is not a flame or some stupid AC, but a valid warning. Anyone who follows Nintendo news will relieze that Nintendo Next is the "tabloids" of videogame reporting. They've mislead SOOOO many people with their bogus stories. I HIGHLY doubt anything they said in the article is true, or if it is, they sure as hell just heard it from rumors or unconfirmed reports. I'd take this article with a HUGE grain of salt. Story after story they "broke" has proven to be just based off of rumors or have been very misleading. I can't believe Slashdot would even post anything from somewhere as unreliable as NN.

    So to sum it up, I wouldn't trust anything you read in the article, especially since none of the major gaming sites have had anything new on the X-Box at all.

"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault