ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

Careers

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

Support Center

TopTechTips

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows Vista

Windows XP

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

Apple/Mac

Xbox/Xbox 360

News Search

XML/RSS Newsfeeds

Pocket PC Site

FAQ's

Windows Vista

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 7

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows 7

IE 8

Hardware

Microsoft Arc Mouse (Red)

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Sponsors: Search Engine Optimisation
exterminator
lawn care
Search Engine Optimisation
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Marketing
PPC Management
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Optimisation
search engine optimisation
Cheap Web Hosting
Webanalyse
online credit card processing
Lenovo Laptops
Text Links
Business Gifts
SEO Services
SEO
Chat
Search Engine Optimization
SEO Consult
Demand Generation Software
Celebrity Autopsies
Network Software

Xbox 2 SDK released on cool Apple Power Mac G5s

Time: 19:49 EST/00:49 GMT | News Source: the inquirer | Posted By: Robert Stein

Thanks Bruce. "WE'VE JUST got word that the Software Development Kit (SDK) for Microsoft�s forthcoming Xbox 2 has now been released to Developers. As we reported earlier, IBM processors are indeed the Xbox 2 development platform of choice. The big news to us is that the XBOX 2 SDK has been seeded to developers on dual Apple Power Mac G5 systems running a custom Windows NT Kernel. "

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 25 of 66
Last Page | Next Page

The time now is 2:22:11 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By parker (1508 Posts) at 2/28/2004 7:59:37 PM

Hmmm. Will Microsoft have a 64 bit OS running on the G5 before Apple has one?

#2 By Halcyon-X12 (4936 Posts) at 2/29/2004 5:11:33 AM

Too bad they probably won't release it... But I wonder if Apple would prevent it if they tried?

#3 By parker (1508 Posts) at 2/29/2004 12:36:48 PM

I'm pretty sure they will release it. Microsft had NT4 running on the PowerPC chip. It appears it wasn't that difficult to port it to the IBM 970 and 970FX.

And Apple has nothing to say about it since IBM makes the chips. IBM already has companies building reference designs for the 970FX.

http://www.momenco.com/main/news1.html

I think people should remember that there are side benefits to having bought Connectix's intellectual property ... like being about to run Virtual PC and Virtual Server on the IBM 970 platform.

Intel has made a lot of mistakes with Itanic and Prescott. It will not surprise me to see Microsoft expand Windows onto the PowerPC platform to cover all bases. They once had NT 4 running on MIPS, Alpha, PowerPC and X86 simultanously. And they now have Windows running on AMD-64, Itanic, x86 and PowerPC.

I think Windows 2003 running on one of those big Power4 clusters, each running hundreds of Windows 2003 images in Virtual Server, would be cool.

#4 By parker (1508 Posts) at 2/29/2004 12:38:34 PM

One other thing to consider. How do you get backwards compatibility to the XBOX 1 games if you switch to PowerPC?

Simple - Virtual PC.

#5 By Byron_Hinson[AW] (2030 Posts) at 2/29/2004 2:12:14 PM

#4 - yep but MS has basically said it's very unlikely there will be any backward compatibitilty in Xbox 2 - even less chance now if they don't ship it with a hard drive too.

#6 By JWM (736 Posts) at 2/29/2004 2:17:54 PM

I hope they don't have backwards compatibility. I get bored of games after a couple weeks. I'm sure not going to want to play games made for an old system. If that was the case I'd get my Commodore 64 out of storage.

#7 By parker (1508 Posts) at 2/29/2004 2:30:44 PM

The lack of a hard drive should make no difference.

And Virtual PC on Windows is around 30MB. Not too difficult to deal with.

#8 By n4cer (2054 Posts) at 2/29/2004 2:44:49 PM

If they were to use emulation for backward compatability, they would likely only need to emulate the CPU (and possibly the BIOS and whatever security features were available). The rest of the platform, AFAIK, was addressed via XBOX's version of DirectX, so the video and sound hardware were already abstracted away. As long as the new hardware provides comparable capabilities, they shouldn't need to emulate it. For CPU emulation, they wouldn't even need VPC. They could draw from the x86 instruction emulation/translation technologies they already have in Windows which would likely be faster.

#9 By Byron_Hinson[AW] (2030 Posts) at 2/29/2004 5:33:34 PM

#7 - all Xbox games use the hard drive to cache data when the game is played, surely that would impact on it, not saying they can't get around that. Lots of Xbox only titles saved settings to the hard drive, if the xbox no longer has a hard drive - those games that have been designed to save to the drive won't be able to do it (guessing)

#10 By RedHook (878 Posts) at 2/29/2004 7:36:26 PM

It would be a significant disadvantage to MS if the Xbox 2 (Xbox Next) was not backwards compatible. One of the major factor of the popularity of PS2 was the fact that it played PS1 games.

With Halo2 scheduled to be released this year give, given a 3 year (give or take) dev cycle that would make the Halo3 available around 2007-2008. With that said Xbox2 wouldn't have a flag ship game for a long time.

Can a game console have success without a flag ship game?

Recipe for disaster.

#11 By JWM (736 Posts) at 2/29/2004 8:35:36 PM

#10 Redhook.

PS2 owners like variety. XBox owners like quality.

I don't think not having backwards compatibility will be a problem.

My main concern is that the XBox2 won't have a powerful enough graphics card.

Whoever has the most powerful system between MS and Sony I will get. Who am I kidding, I will probably get both.

#12 By parker (1508 Posts) at 2/29/2004 10:00:42 PM

#9 Flash memory or usb memory could take the place of the hard drive. Think of it as a feature.

"Save your progress on a removable USB key. Take it over to your friends house and continue the game or show off how far you made it! Keep your brother or sister from screwing up your saved games. Have your own usb key."

Costwise, that wasn't an option when the XBOX was designed. Now it is.

Throw in a 32MB or 64MB usb key with the game. Sell really big ones as an option.

#13 By JWM (736 Posts) at 2/29/2004 10:25:18 PM

The ps3 will have a 120 gig of storage included and the xbox2 32MB included. That doesn't sound good.

#14 By parker (1508 Posts) at 2/29/2004 10:58:07 PM

Yeah ... but Sony is charging 727$ for the PSX with a 160GB drive in it.

Would you pay anywhere near that to play games?

#15 By JWM (736 Posts) at 2/29/2004 10:59:30 PM

I seriously doubt Sony will be charging nearly that much for the PS3. They will make it competitive with the XBox 2.

Added: Which is unfortunate since I would be willing to pay $1000 for a high powered gaming unit. I want the best gaming experience possible. But I understand the core audience for MS and Sony couldn't afford that.

This post was edited by JWM on Sunday, February 29, 2004 at 23:02.

#16 By mooresa56 (2850 Posts) at 2/29/2004 11:36:43 PM

msft's benevolence to the mac platform continues...

#17 By chris_kabuki (1454 Posts) at 2/29/2004 11:53:26 PM

#11 "PS2 owners like variety. XBox owners like quality."

Is the XBOX your first console?

#18 By parker (1508 Posts) at 3/1/2004 1:09:43 AM

I like the idea that Apple, which chose to not port OS X to another platform, will soon be faced with Windows 2003 or Longhorn on the IBM 970 FX platform. And maybe the Power4 / Power5 platform.

#19 By JWM (736 Posts) at 3/1/2004 1:18:17 AM

#17 Yes, how did you know.

I figure XBox people like quality because the XBox has great specs but not many great games and the PS2 has 100's of average games but nothing great. The only reason I got an XBox was because of its power.

I started playing games on a ColecoVision, and then a Vic 20 and Commodore 64. After that PC games until the XBox.

#20 By Byron_Hinson[AW] (2030 Posts) at 3/1/2004 2:18:28 AM

#19 - hmmm apart from Halo and the Star Wars RPG on the xbox there isnt anything great that lights up the Xbox, but as for the PS2 - it has far far more great titles than the Xbox does. GTA, Final Fantasy, Jak and Daxter, ICO, Maximo, Silent Hill 3, Castlevania, Kingdom Hearts, Gran Turismo, Harvest Moon...the list could go on - there are far more good titles on PS2 than Xbox, even now, its a shame yeah but I still like both.

#21 By JWM (736 Posts) at 3/1/2004 3:39:21 AM

#20 I agree with you. PS2 has the games and XBox has the power. Hopefully with the next generation both with have both.

#22 By chris_kabuki (1454 Posts) at 3/1/2004 6:56:51 AM

#18 Think consoles for a second! Next you'll be telling us something about Linux.

#19 "Yes, how did you know."

I didn't want to be mean, I was quite honestly curious as to how you came to that conclusion that's all! The PS for example has 1000's of games, 99.9% of which are below par I would say (but that's just my opinion - other's would say that only 99.8% are below par) - that didn't stop PS becoming the leader. The PS2 has such a big following, due in part to the fact that it allows all the older PS games to be played on it. Gameboy Advance is the market leader due once again in part to the fact that it can play all the older GB and GBColor games. Obviously those aren't the only reasons, but they are more than enough of a reason for people to upgrade without having to start their game collections from scratch. Additionally, the Xbox, perhaps percentage wise doesn't have as many below par games as the PS2 may have, but it has plenty of very poor games and only a handful of great games let's be honest.

"I figure XBox people like quality because the XBox has great specs but not many great games"

I think you meant "but many great games" - otherwise you're going against what you originally said.

"The only reason I got an XBox was because of its power."

Well then I hope that you choose your next console based on its games not it's "power". These sorts of argument have been around for decades - I remember the old Nintendo vs Sega days of comparing how many colors they can all show on the screen (e.g. Genesis could handle 65k colors but only 256 at any one time) etc etc etc. And the truth is that all of that is MEANINGLESS. As long as the console is "powerful enough" you should pick it based on the games, for your own enjoyment down the line =) But hey, it's your money =)

#23 By sodablue (5245 Posts) at 3/1/2004 10:27:05 AM

Cool! Finally a decent operating system for the Macintosh!

#24 By JWM (736 Posts) at 3/1/2004 11:23:00 AM

#22 Here's a quick story. I played need for speed underground on the XBox and loved it. I bought a PS2 and NFSU for the online play and played it for 30 minutes and returned it. I read in reviews the PS2 graphics were just as good. After playing the XBox version I couldn't enjoy the game because the graphics were so bad. For me sometimes great gameplay in itself doesn't cut it. As guess it depends on the game though. Some games don't require great graphics.

This post was edited by JWM on Monday, March 01, 2004 at 11:23.

#25 By baarod (436 Posts) at 3/1/2004 12:10:23 PM

Just wait -- I can see Steve Job's response to this now:

"Microsoft is using their operating system monopoly power to extend their market stranglehold onto the superior hardware of the Macintosh platform. This is a blatant attempt to commoditize the fabulously successful Macintosh OS X 10.3 Panther, far and away the best operating system ever. I call for the Department of Justice to step back in and do it right this time. Computer users will not be safe from Microsoft's predation until the company is completely and utterly destroyed. Thank you. Please buy a Mac."

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 25 of 66
Last Page | Next Page

The time now is 2:22:12 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us