Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Xbox 360 adds 1080p Support 349

jayintune writes "2old2play has received news from the TGS (Tokyo Game Show) that Microsoft plans on releasing an update that will enable 1080p support on their Xbox 360 console. From the article, "users can expect 1080p upscaling immediately on current games and DVDs while native 1080p on compatible HD DVD titles." What could this mean for Sony now that MS has 1080p as well?" Now honestly, show of hands: who has their console (not PC!) connected to a display device capable of 1080p? Who plans on buying a device capable of 1080p?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Xbox 360 adds 1080p Support

Comments Filter:
  • 2nd question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @08:31AM (#16145063)
    Why wasn't this turned on by default?!
    • 3rd question (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gormanly ( 134067 )

      Do either the Xbox 360 Component HD AV Cable [] or Xbox 360 VGA HD AV Cable [] support 1080p ?

      My guess is they don't - they certainly don't list it on the product pages in the links - so 360 owners will need to pony up for another cable, one capable of the 124MHz signalling needed to do 1080p/60 (so spec'd at ~350MHz).

      Another question is, what about 1080p movies (if Microsoft sell a lot of the HD DVD add-on drives)? There's no HDCP path on the 360, so either the movie studios forget all about their latest copy

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Both the VGA cable and the Component cable do support 1080p. The only issue is that most of the 1080p TVs sold do not support 1080p over component. There are some [] exceptions [], but generally they don't. But there's a lot more TVs that accept VGA and DVI, which will handle 1080p fine.

        This still doesn't answer the ICT question of course, so we should assume that ICT protected movies wont work. It sucks, but the less DRM support around, the better.

      • There's no HDCP path on the 360, so either the movie studios forget all about their latest copy-protection scheme and don't set the ICT flag on the discs (sh'yeah, right) ...

        They'll probably surprise us one day. I mean, they've got to figure out eventually that copy protection isn't worth the mess it makes, right?

      • HD AV cables support 1080p, the standard is analog your TV just has to know how to sync the signal. Its the digital interfaces which are bandwidth limited.

        As for the show of hands:
        I have a 54" HD DLP Television and I am enjoying the 360s HD output quite a lot. These TVs are no longer in the 5000 dollar range. I got the most vivid one in it's class for way under $2000. I mean you can get a 40" one with only 2 inputs at walmart for under $800. At this price it costs less than my 35" CRT low def television did
  • more importantly... (Score:5, Informative)

    by maynard ( 3337 ) <j.maynard.gelina ... minus cat> on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @08:34AM (#16145077) Journal
    Is that 1080p/24, 1080p/30, or 1080p/60? Because 1080p/30 has the same bandwidth requirements as 1080i/60 (duh). I haven't seen from either Sony or MS any technical specs which indicate real 1080p/60 support, even over hdmi.
    • by gatzke ( 2977 )

      Is there any way to check this on a monitor? I am currently looking into a 37" 1080p Westinghouse monitor (around $1500) but it would be nice to know if it does these 1080p versions. I am guessing the LCD sync rate can easily handle 24,30, and 60, but you never know.

      How do you check this on a source? Do people publish this info? I have not seen much of it.

      Where is a good source for X info for LCD screens? They have VGA inputs, but for linux/mythtv I think you may need a modeline to make it all pretty..
      • by interiot ( 50685 )
        I'm typing this on a 37" Westy as well... great display. CNET says it'll do 1080p/60 [], and there's a "system info" menu that mentions the vertical frequency.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mitchskin ( 226035 )
        I've got the Westinghouse LVM-37w3 hooked up to a PC over DVI, and it works great. It's doing 1920x1080 @ 60hz; when I watch DVDs the computer is doing the 24fps->60fps conversion. This does introduce some judder; it seems like the LCD ought to be able to do 24hz or a multiple thereof but I don't know how to do it.

        The judder, by the way, is only rarely noticeable and is pretty much the same everywhere else AFAIK, but it would be nice to get rid of it. The software infrastructure for detecting the fr
        • by gatzke ( 2977 )

          Thanks for the useful info. Sounds like it could hold most frames in 24 fps signal for two frames, but 1/4 of the frames are held for three frames, to give 60 fps. Or do they actually process the frames and interpolate the signal to fill gaps I wonder.

          Do the DVD players figure this crap out? Do they run both 24fps and 30 fps? The output to my analog tv is the same no matter, I assume.

          If you rip it to HD, can you reencode a 24fps to 30 or 60 fps? It still judders, I assume...

          Anybody got a suggestion on
          • by Malc ( 1751 )
            It's called 3-2 pulldown, or something like that. It applies in NTSC regions. For PAL regions, DVDs run something like 4% faster at 25fps with no 3-2 pulldown.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by conigs ( 866121 )

              3:2 Pulldown is correct. The way it works is that when you have a 24fps source, and need to get it to traditional video (roughly 30fps/60 fields*), you have to repeate frames.

              Here's how it works. Four film frames have to fit into 5 video fields/frames. Let's label these film frames A, B, C, and D. We'll use numbers for the video fields. So what you have is:

              1.AA 2.BB 3.BC 4.CD 5.DD

              Now for a 60 FRAME output, it's a little easier:

              1.A 2.A 3.B 4.B 5.B 6.C 7.C 8.D 9.D 10.D

              So, getting a 24fps source t

  • Raises Hand (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aesiamun ( 862627 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @08:34AM (#16145078) Homepage Journal
    I have my 360 hooked up to my 50" Grand Vega 1080p. I honestly haven't experienced anything where I can compare 720p to 1080p when it comes to games, but if the difference is as good as it is with Video, i'll be happy!
  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @08:34AM (#16145082) Journal
    Now honestly, show of hands: who has their console (not PC!) connected to a display device capable of 1080p? Who plans on buying a device capable of 1080p?
    I agree with you. Most of the time, I'm a good little consumer and prefer all the options possible on whatever I buy. A console is no different. And 1080p entices me. I'm not willing to pay two or three times more for this functionality but I would certainly enjoy knowing that if ever displays capable of this resolution drop in price, I can take advantage of them.

    The primary problems is that games for consoles usually are only made for that console for about 3~4 years. So the price drop on 1080p displays has to drop in that time frame to give me a bit of time to enjoy it.

    A secondary problem I see is that consoles are consoles. They're supposed to be a standardized unit in which I can assure myself that everyone is having the same playing experience. This seems to no longer be true with the different models of Xbox360 or PS3 they are planning. And, frankly, it turns me off a bit. Is it a good thing that consoles are becoming more like computers? And if it is, why aren't we just buying a special USB controller from these companies and running everything on our computers?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LoudMusic ( 199347 )
      The primary problems is that games for consoles usually are only made for that console for about 3~4 years. So the price drop on 1080p displays has to drop in that time frame to give me a bit of time to enjoy it.

      I was going to make my own parent post but you pretty much summed it up already so I'm just going to bandwagon.

      A secondary problem I see is that consoles are consoles. They're supposed to be a standardized unit in which I can assure myself that everyone is having the same playing experience. This se
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Zach978 ( 98911 )
        I dunno, maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like an idea worth kicking around.

        I think you're crazy. PC's are more expensive than consoles, and they have windows, so just release the game for windows. You don't have to reboot the box, you can Alt-Tab and get on ICQ or IM, or check your email. You can click on content on a website that will launch the game right then (ie., a replay, a new map, a server to play on). People like consoles becuase they are cheap, they can get the games at blockbuster, they ALWAY w
      • Your looking at the problem the wrong way. The PC is not going to make the console obsolete, it's the other way around!
        People can have a laptop and a console. The two combined will give you everything you need that a current PC can offer you. Don't forget that the Wii is going to support web browsing.

        I've always bought desktop PCs because I'm into gaming, but since I got my 360, I felt it was too costly to keep my PC up to date. And I just can't be bothered to play games at my desk anymore. Instead, I'm goi
  • Fancy but no more (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eebra82 ( 907996 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @08:34AM (#16145083) Homepage
    While I do think that 1080p is a great thing, I doubt it is going to make people go crazy about it simply because 1080p is still a few years away from major distribution.

    Some people will already be on 1080p and a few already are, but any sane company would go for the masses, not the less than 1 percent cake of people who are looking for top notch hardware.

    I am definitely waiting for 1080p as my next TV replacement, but anything above $2,000 is just not gonna do it for me, so I'll wait a little longer and stick to 720p, which is also very nice.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by timeOday ( 582209 )
      It is just Microsoft stealing bragging rights from Sony. One less way for Sony to argue the PS3 is worth the high price.
  • by Criffer ( 842645 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @08:41AM (#16145114)
    Who plans on buying a device capable of 1080p?

    Me. Just as soon as I can find one without Digital Compatibility Prevention [].
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ldhertert ( 833408 )
      The 360 1080p is not over HDCP, it's over component.
      • by Criffer ( 842645 )
        Yes, but that's not the point. I want a TV capable of native 1080p, with digital inputs (even if they're not used on the 360), and without any Draconian Restrictions on Media [].
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Palshife ( 60519 )
          Color me confused, but any TV you buy is free of these draconian measures. HDMI is an interconnect. HDCP is a protocol that may or may not be in use over that link. On top of that, HDMI is DVI.

          Check out Westinghouse's selection of 1080p monitors. They have no tuners, which makes them trend-agnostic when it comes to that can of worms. They support all the HD resolutions and they have HDMI and DVI connections in addition to all the component, s-video and composite you could neeed. The digital ports are able t
          • by Criffer ( 842645 )

            if your point is that you wont buy any device that has the ability to use HDCP, that's a different story

            That is exactly my point. HDCP should be boycotted, and I will not buy any equipment which subscribes to such draconian measures. That means no players, no consoles, no screens, no scalers, no tuners, and no mixers which have the ability to either encode or decode HDCP.

            Whether it uses DVI or HDMI or HD-SDI is irrelevant. HDMI is actually quite a good cabling specification (although given that HD-SDI (with

  • (Raises hand!) (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nweaver ( 113078 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @08:41AM (#16145119) Homepage
    The next TV I buy, when the dinky current one gives up the ghost whenever, WILL be 1080p.

    Why? Because the true 1080p, rear projection, 50" TVs are not much more expensive than a 1080i TV, but I plan on hooking up a Mac Mini or similar computer output, thus I'd want all the pixels when displaying text etc on the big screen.
    • Re:(Raises hand!) (Score:4, Informative)

      by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @08:53AM (#16145189) Homepage
      In that case what you should be looking is the supported res and if it is supported on the DVI (or analogue VGA) inputs. These are quite different from the HD ones. For example, recent JVC LT26 LCD tvs support HD 1080p, but their native panel resolution is actually 1366x768. Frankly, I have no idea what is the supported frequency and resolution on the VGA input as it is not written anywhere.
  • My LCD monitor does 1080p just fine. What would have happened up until now if I plugged an XBox 360 into it?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by mattsday ( 909414 )
      Assuming you'd used the VGA input, you'd simply select the best resolution in the xbox dashboard (currently 1360x768 or 1280x1024 highest)


      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Blakey Rat ( 99501 )
        Just FYI, 1280x1024 is a bad choice because, while it's supported by Microsoft, a lot of game developers don't correctly adapt to the strange 1.25:1 aspect ratio and so games will have a tendency to either have black bars or be squished strangely. The dashboard, and all Microsoft-developed games will work correctly, as they test for that, but anything else is kind of a gamble.
  • Show of hands? Sure, I'll bite, I'm on of em. I have a 1080p set on it's way, and so do a lot of other people. Although a little pricey (but coming down all the time), every one of the highend Sony Bravia LCD's (40", 46", and soon-to-be 52") all support it. Lots of other manufacturers are chugging them out too. Don't be so quick to think Microsoft wasted their time on this. This is quite possibly the best reason for people who are buying new TV's now to get the XBOX360 instead of waiting for the PS3.
    • I don't know about others, but my first 760 TV was purchased because I purchased an XBox and of course wanted the nicest display possible for it. The day I purchase a 1080p capable XBox, I will of course also purchase the nicest display possible for it. The console is neither the most important nor the most expensive portion of the gaming system in my mind.
  • Well (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @08:44AM (#16145135) Homepage Journal
    This is all great from Microsoft, but the TV's really need to start catching up. In the UK there are barely any true HD units out, the rest just replicate it even when branded as HD, which means that not only will this not help our gaming, but it will be pretty much redundant for most of the life of the console thanks to the saturation of HDTV in the UK being so slow. I think Microsoft definitely need to think about their target markets more and how technology is improving there, because it is all well and good making the console excellent for those who can run it on top-notch hardware - but that is bound to be a small percentage of those who buy the console.
  • It works well. Surprisingly well. In fact *some* games will play at any native resolution, it seems. For example, DOA4 and Prey both seem quite happy at a nice 4:3 1024x768 (I have mine hooked up to a rather pathetic, ancient LCD monitor that cost far too much, many years back). Anyway, the point being that while there aren't that many people with 1080p HDTVs, I'm sure there's a lot of people who will be happy that they can hook up their monitors, and pick 1080p-scale resolutions (not that they couldn't al
  • Doesn't this kinda defeat the purpose of a console? That is, an unchanging hardware-platform that works with all the games. Now we have models with and without hard-drive, with and without 1080p...
    • by Ant P. ( 974313 )
      So how is this any worse than the current state of the XBox360, where consoles may or may not have 720p?
  • by ironwill96 ( 736883 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @08:53AM (#16145188) Homepage Journal
    I recently bought a 50" Samsung DLP TV that has full 1080p support (no upconversion cheating etc). However, I have my 360 set on 720p instead of 1080i even because the 360 is NOT very good at upconverting signals into 1080 anything. I suspect their 1080p upconversion will be the same. My tv is much better at upconverting 720p to 1080p than the 360 is at upconverting from 720p to 1080i. This is especially noticeable on my NBA 2k6 game where the 360 upconversion is much more grainy and aliased looking than the one my TV does. I'm guessing that those of us with 1080p TVs will have to wait 4-5 years until the "next-generation" of consoles comes out that actually fully support it. Many of the games don't look really nice on my TV because it is large enough to magnify any flaws in the graphics and makes most games look more aliased since there just isnt enough resolution being pushed to the TV to look smooth.
    • That's because 720p is more information-rich than 1080i. Your xBox is actually downconverting the signal in that case. Seriously. 1080i has the same information content that 540p has, and its smoother to boot, so its really no wonder that your TV shows a better image converting from 720p. 1080p should be just fine.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by conigs ( 866121 )

        I see this argument all the time. I have to disagree with you. Let's look at the actual resolution for each signal.

        720p: 1280x720

        1080i: 1920x540 (for all practical purposes)

        1080p: 1920x1080

        Now, let's figure this out in terms of that oh-so-popular megapixel:

        720p: .9MP (921,600)

        1080i: 1MP (1,036,800)

        1080p: 2MP (2,073,600)

        So while a 1080i signal may not contain as much vertical resolution, the horizontal resolution is still much greater, producing 115,200 more pixels than 720p.

        Each signal has it's own

    • by ivan256 ( 17499 )
      The real question is why does the 360 need to 'upconvert'? PCs have been displaying resolutions that high at those framerates for over a decade. The graphics chip in a 360 is very similar to a PC graphics chip. Why is there a problem?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MikeBabcock ( 65886 )
        The point is that there's no guarantee anyone will design the games to work at 1080p at all (it would be too slow perhaps?). That said, they'll upconvert your 720p or 1080i games to 1080p so they look "right" on a 1080p digital display.

        Upconversion is not the same as original content. Digg has an uneducated comment about how upconversion of DVDs makes high definition movie content less attractive (on the future PS3) -- upconverted DVDs don't look anywhere near as good as true HD original content. I watch
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by rsk ( 119464 )
      A lot of folks out there don't understand the differences between I (interlaced) and P (progressive), which they shouldn't, it's too detailed, but for folks that do it's easier to understand why outputting 720p on a 1080p set is going to look better then interlacing the signal then asking the TV to deinterlace it.

      Also a lot of folks with new HD stuff don't give their TV scalers enough credit, these things are good, most of them excellent, especially in the big-brand sets. So doing what you are doing is defi
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      That is because it is inherently more difficult to de-interlace than to upconvert.

      You have to remember that when you have an interlaced signal, the two interlaced frames are not from the same time frame. With CRT's it is not a big deal as your eyes and brain fill in the difference nicely (between scans). But when you have to convert it to a digital display, it becomes a very difficult problem.

      Once you have 1080P, it will look superior to 720P since you are skipping at least one additional upconverting s

  • Heck, everyone I know who owns a hi-def only has 720p capable TV's and they've paid their thousands of dollars on them. Haven't seen too many 40+ inch 1080p TV's that sit under $2000. I really would love to have one, but I can easily live without.
  • I am cheap (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NekoXP ( 67564 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @08:58AM (#16145213) Homepage
    I have a CRT HDTV. It's big, bright and clear and fun but a little fuzzy if you want to do PC stuff on it. Playing movies and games though is a fucking dream.

    It supports a bewildering choice of resolutions; not because it's got them all, but because it's so few. 480i. 480p. 1080i. It was sooo cheap (less than $300 at Thanksgiving last year)

    I don't see why I would want 1080p; the 1080i mode is rock solid stable and has nice contrast. What I want is 720i or 720p support on my fucking TV, so I can buy a games console that runs in there or knock my PC resolution down to a readable level :(
  • Does the 360 even have the fill rate available to do 1080p with a decent amount of textures and effects?
  • I have what I guess you could consider a first gen Hi-Def TV. Its a 52 inch rear projection Hitachi(not to be confused with those new LCD rear projections). It supports both 1080i and 540p. My hi-def cable box outputs 1080i for some channels and it looks crystal clear and my progressive scan DVD player which outputs 480p which is just as good to my eyes. However most channels, VHS players, and older DVD players all output 480i which does look like total crap (well, the DVD at 480i still blows away regu
  • Me! I was waiting for nice 1080p games to go for it !
  • Now honestly, show of hands: who has their console (not PC!) connected to a display device capable of 1080p? Who plans on buying a device capable of 1080p?

    Here, let me rephrase:

    720P should be enough for everybody!


  • Slashdot worthy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @09:12AM (#16145311)
    I'm like reading the summary and it's being positive about adding 1800p on Microsoft X360 adding 1800p no fuzz and no special requirements. Whaaa? Is this Slashdot or what?

    And then this tagged on comment: "Now honestly, show of hands: who has their console (not PC!) connected to a display device capable of 1080p? Who plans on buying a device capable of 1080p?"

    Yeaa! Let's laugh at Microsoft for adding 1800p and we don't have any! Muhaha!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Blakey Rat ( 99501 )
      You have to twist words a lot to make this sound like a bad thing.

      "Microsoft adds compelling feature for free to all Xbox 360 owners! ... somehow this is... uh... bad. Because maybe not a lot of people can use it yet? Yeah, let's go with that."
  • "Who plans on buying a device capable of 1080p?"

    I've decided to hold off on getting an HDTV until I can get my hands on a set that meets the following qualifications:
    1. 1080p, 30 Hz (since it doesn't look like anybody will be producing content for anything better, I'd be able to use it for whatever I want for the life of the television)
    2. CRT (bulletproof compared to plasma and LCD)
    3. Under 40" (I have no desire to get a television I myself could fit inside of.)

    Of course, such a television does not exist and pro

  • by aaronots ( 997327 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @09:17AM (#16145336)
    I have serious doubts that true 1080p is really practical in this generation of consoles. The reason being, the more resolution you push the higher the bandwidth and the higher the memory cost. I think developers that produce 1080p games will really be producing 720p games and letting the console up-sample. And that ultimately does little for quality. Lets look as some numbers

    On a console running at 1080p you have 1920x1080 pixels x8 bits (for non floating point HDR) That means 15.8 meg per frame buffer. A game typically has multiple buffers it renders to (especially for post processing effects) so there is almost 32meg consumed just so you can display an image. If you are using true floating point HDR one of those buffers would be 32meg.
    If you are rendering at 720p a frame buffer is 7 meg for 8bit and 14 for 32bit float HDR.

    There is also an impact on fill rate. The 1080p requires more than twice the fill rate. That means (when fill-rate bound) the frame rate must be cut in half or the effects being used must be reduces.
    On the PS3 with a practical fill rate of 15GB/s to local video memory, you can overdraw a 1080p scene at 60fps only 16 times. That has a serious impact on use of particle effects, multi-pass rendering, and post processing. At 720p that overdraw rate increases to 36 times.

    On an xbox360 the eDRAM affords a greater fill rate (64GB/s) so it could better handle the demands of 1080p but it has to contend with the 10Meg limit on the eDRAM. This means a 1080p scene would require a 4 pass tiled rendering and a 2 pass for scene post processing.

    So basically I don't think we will even see true 1080p games without those games reducing their visuals significantly. I would rather have a slick looking 720p at 60fps than a 1080p that looks last generation.
    • by Ant P. ( 974313 )
      Uh... the XBox360 uses 8 bit colour? What?
    • 1920x1080 pixels x8 bits (for non floating point HDR) That means 15.8 meg per frame buffer

      Your math here is off in a couple of ways. First, that would be 15.8 megabits, not megabytes. That comes out to about 2 megabytes. Next, that's per 8-bit color channel. For your primary display, you are gonna need 3 of those for RGB (6MB), if not a 4th for alpha or even just memory alignment (8MB). For the backbuffer, you'll need another 8MB buffer, plus probably a 32bit depth buffer (another 8MB). So 8MB for the front
  • by James Lewis ( 641198 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2006 @09:29AM (#16145404)
    Actually, if you really want 1080p on the cheap (like I did) you can get it for a bit over $1000 by building your own LCD projector. Just use a laptop WUXGA screen. I've done this and am very happy with the results. When comparing it to a commercial projector there are downsides: size of the projector, light distribution isn't totally even (or as bright), colors aren't perfectly reproduced, contrast isn't as great. However, for the price it can't be beat IMHO. Those drawbacks aren't anything I actually notice when watching a movie, it feels just like I'm in a theater . I learned how to do it at the lumenlab forums:
  • I literally JUST bought a TV that supports 1080P. I bought a HD tv specifically with the 360 in mind. [It helps that my old 25 inch sony from 1995 just died over the weekend, and that best buy had a 10% sale, and that circut city matched prices 110%]

    Glad I spent the extra $500 for a 1080p over a 720p set.
  • It has TV-compatible inputs too.

    But I would never buy a Microsoft product, so I'll have to consider the PS3.
  • Now honestly, show of hands: who has their console (not PC!) connected to a display device capable of 1080p?

    Me. I have an *87 series Samsung 50" DLP and enjoy it very much.
  • I have a Sony KDF-E50A10 TV with a native resolution of 1280 x 720, so I don't care about 1080i/p because my TV can't display anything 1080 natively. But for others with higher resolution HDTvs, is it even possible to accept a 1080p signal over a component connection? It was my understanding that 1080p is only offically supported on TVs with an HDMI connection, and even then only on TVs that support HDMI 1.2. Before everyone jizzes in their pants over 1080p, is it even possible for their TV to accept a 1080
  • Now honestly, show of hands: who has their console (not PC!) connected to a display device capable of 1080p? Who plans on buying a device capable of 1080p?

    Criminy, CmdrTaco, please let Zonk do the game-related posts. Even if he doesn't know the difference between Xbox Live and Xbox Live Arcade.

    But what's the deal with this flamebait? Is the point to this hypothetical (I assume) question to point out that both Sony and Microsoft's support of 1080p is pointless because not a lot of people have televisions t
  • That the Xbox360 has a video scaling chip in it. This means that most games are sill rendered at 720p, but are then scaled up to 1080i or whatever output resolution you have specified in your console settings. This is the same scaling technology that newer cable boxes use.

    What does this REALLY mean?

    Well, first off it means that Microsoft will finally be releasing an HDMI cable for the Xbox360, which many, many people have requested. People who do not use the HDMI hookup will not be able to take advantage of
  • apparently the HD-DVD drive will launch in japan on Nov. 22 [] for about $180USD.

    I find this odd for several reasons. a) There is no "Xmas shopping craze" in japan. b) they'll miss out on said craze in North America.

    The only reason why I can see them doing this is because they're getting really desperate to get some units out in japan. Selling 1000 consoles a week just isn't going to cut it, and they know that. Well, you gotta give them some credit for being persistant. Not many companies can fail so badly in

"The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected." -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972