This is what people were thinking was going to happen with the first X-Box...

Of course, an X-Box type PC doesn't make sense, since it runs on the PowerPC architecture... It'd have to be a Mac, right?

> This is what people were thinking was going to happen with the first X-Box...
>
> Of course, an X-Box type PC doesn't make sense, since it runs on the PowerPC
> architecture... It'd have to be a Mac, right?
>

No. Windows NT/2000/XP Pro and Server can run on RISC based processors.

i think that its a good idea IF they make it easy to upgrade stuff (atleast hdd, vidcard and ram)

well, MS has the source to win, they can port it to whatever architeture they want (they did to x86 64bit, but this was kinda easy..)

anyway, if they come to do that, maybe they will change back to pentium as the console processor

> Of course, an X-Box type PC doesn't make sense, since it runs on the PowerPC
> architecture... It'd have to be a Mac, right?

It could easily be a PC with an "XBox card", or a custom motherboard hosting both architectures, with shared components of course. If used just for email & browsing, the PC part won't become easily obsolete, but for all the rest I'd rather buy a true PC.

celeron 733
geforce 3
hd
dvd-rom
ethernet port
usb ports

what more do you want?

you can switch, dvd-rom, hd, cpu
add more ram, usb ports


Moon the world

> No. Windows NT/2000/XP Pro and Server can run on RISC based processors.

But they're not binary compatible with x86 CPUs, also this means MS would have to support different source trees (as if they don't have enough going on already), not to mention they'd have to get everyone to recompile their drivers for the Power architecture.

I don't think it would make sense to support Windows to other architectures.

Also this has been tried before, Windows NT was a flop on architectures other than x86 because most other platforms already had their own custom OSes. Windows on other architectures has little or no software support.

Of course this would change with .NET, but then everyone would have to port everything to .NET...

All the advantages of running Windows (backward compatibility, hardware support) would pretty much be lost.

> It could easily be a PC with an "XBox card", or a custom motherboard hosting
> both architectures, with shared components of course. If used just for email &
> browsing, the PC part won't become easily obsolete, but for all the rest I'd
> rather buy a true PC.

I was thinking about that, but then it'd just make the PC more expensive, and why not just buy a regular PC + an X-Box 2.

I guess it's just a toy for rich geeks.

> i think that its a good idea IF they make it easy to upgrade stuff (atleast hdd,
> vidcard and ram)
>
> well, MS has the source to win, they can port it to whatever architeture they
> want (they did to x86 64bit, but this was kinda easy..)

It sounds like it's just rumors and nothing more, though, it seems like it would be too complicated to make this work very well.

Plus suddenly you'd have MS doing tech support for their own PCs... It sounds like they would just be wasting a lot of time on something that doesn't bring in that much money.

> anyway, if they come to do that, maybe they will change back to pentium as the
> console processor

I don't know why they changed it to the PowerPC architecture in the first place...

> > No. Windows NT/2000/XP Pro and Server can run on RISC based processors.
>
> But they're not binary compatible with x86 CPUs, also this means MS would have
> to support different source trees (as if they don't have enough going on
> already), not to mention they'd have to get everyone to recompile their drivers
> for the Power architecture.
>
> I don't think it would make sense to support Windows to other architectures.
>
> Also this has been tried before, Windows NT was a flop on architectures other
> than x86 because most other platforms already had their own custom OSes.
> Windows on other architectures has little or no software support.
>
> Of course this would change with .NET, but then everyone would have to port
> everything to .NET...
>
> All the advantages of running Windows (backward compatibility, hardware support)
> would pretty much be lost.
>

I bet they switch back to x86 then. Watch them go Athlon64.

> celeron 733
> geforce 3
> hd
> dvd-rom
> ethernet port
> usb ports
>
> what more do you want?
>
> you can switch, dvd-rom, hd, cpu
> add more ram, usb ports
>
>
> Moon the world
>


In that respect a PS2 is also a PC

Custom 300Mhz CPU
Custom GPU "Emotion Engine"
HDD (optional)
USB Ports
Ethernet Ports (Optional)
DVD-Rom

What more do you want?

Only the CPU and GPU are different.

> In that respect a PS2 is also a PC
>
> Custom 300Mhz CPU
> Custom GPU "Emotion Engine"
> HDD (optional)
> USB Ports
> Ethernet Ports (Optional)
> DVD-Rom
>

these are customs, I'm talking about an intel celeron 733 that I could put in my pc here! With IDE drives!

and the xbox can run about anything a real pc can, it can even run win xp


Moon the world

> I bet they switch back to x86 then. Watch them go Athlon64.

I dunno why they didn't in the first place... That would've made a lot more sense than going with the PowerPC in my opinion, especially in regards to porting games to work on Windows XP, unless MS has something up their sleeve.

Maybe MS expects everyone to program on the .NET platform and not target the PowerPC directly. For the X-Box, MS forbade anyone to access the hardware directly and the SDK only let them work with the APIs that MS provided them. This is what MS would like people to do anyway on the PC! So perhaps MS is making developers build .NET code on the X-Box 2, and that will be the standard SDK. They have no reason not to.

When everyone is on .NET, and they bring their games over to Windows (or they do it the other way around, in that case doing it in .NET on PC would be beneficial as well), then that will automatically create a huge pool of .NET software, development tools, graphics tools (don't forget that the X-Box 2 SDK is just a G5 with Windows NT right now).

If the X-Box 2 is the dominant gaming platform in the next round of console wars, MS will be able to use that to leverage what happens on the PC. For example, if you make a popular game, it will be for the X-Box 2, just the way the PSX and PS2 enjoyed the most popular titles because it was the most popular system. So a lot more people are on that platform because it means they will get higher selling games. Suddenly .NET is the most supported platform because everyone uses it, and that will automatically spill over onto PC because .NET will run the same code on both platforms.

Perhaps the X-Box 2/PC is just hinting at what's to come, closed-box 100% .NET Microsoft boxes, and MS are the only providers of a .NET SDK, so like consoles, they will be able to choose who gets them? That's reaching kinda far, but I don't exactly know how far MS wants to go, or how far they can go legally. But if you can make a closed console, there's nothing saying you can't make a closed PC. Is there?

> > I bet they switch back to x86 then. Watch them go Athlon64.
>
> I dunno why they didn't in the first place... That would've made a lot more
> sense than going with the PowerPC in my opinion, especially in regards to
> porting games to work on Windows XP, unless MS has something up their sleeve.
>
> Maybe MS expects everyone to program on the .NET platform and not target the
> PowerPC directly. For the X-Box, MS forbade anyone to access the hardware
> directly and the SDK only let them work with the APIs that MS provided them.
> This is what MS would like people to do anyway on the PC! So perhaps MS is
> making developers build .NET code on the X-Box 2, and that will be the standard
> SDK. They have no reason not to.
>
> When everyone is on .NET, and they bring their games over to Windows (or they do
> it the other way around, in that case doing it in .NET on PC would be beneficial
> as well), then that will automatically create a huge pool of .NET software,
> development tools, graphics tools (don't forget that the X-Box 2 SDK is just a
> G5 with Windows NT right now).
>
> If the X-Box 2 is the dominant gaming platform in the next round of console
> wars, MS will be able to use that to leverage what happens on the PC. For
> example, if you make a popular game, it will be for the X-Box 2, just the way
> the PSX and PS2 enjoyed the most popular titles because it was the most popular
> system. So a lot more people are on that platform because it means they will
> get higher selling games. Suddenly .NET is the most supported platform because
> everyone uses it, and that will automatically spill over onto PC because .NET
> will run the same code on both platforms.
>
> Perhaps the X-Box 2/PC is just hinting at what's to come, closed-box 100% .NET
> Microsoft boxes, and MS are the only providers of a .NET SDK, so like consoles,
> they will be able to choose who gets them? That's reaching kinda far, but I
> don't exactly know how far MS wants to go, or how far they can go legally. But
> if you can make a closed console, there's nothing saying you can't make a closed
> PC. Is there?
>

Doesn't M$ own 51% of Apple? Mac OS on the Xbox 2 PC?

> Doesn't M$ own 51% of Apple?

They sold that a while ago, for a nice profit. MS bought Apple shares and kept them for 5 years as was required by the agreement but that's it.

> Mac OS on the Xbox 2 PC?

I really doubt it. It's not part of MS's vision, when have they not been in complete control of whatever they were doing, especially including the OS? And for that reason, they won't port .NET to OS X either.