Slashdot Mirror
Company Sells 'Turbo' 1.4GHz Xbox
cdneng2 writes "The Inquirer has an
article about a TaiPei company that is selling a
modified Xbox running a 1.4GHz Celeron, versus the console's 733MHz
Pentium III. The firm, Friendtech is also offering an Xbox
Mod that provides S-Video, 5.1 Surround, and a hard disk upgrade
in one package." There are some pictures of the prototype on the official site, although it's unclear if the legally uncertain mod will make much practical difference to native Xbox games (Polygonmag claims "the prototype loaded data at nearly twice the speed of a retail Xbox.")
Nothing keeps my from buying a Gateway computer, repackaging it, and reselling it (provided I make it clear Gateway has nothing to do with my product and does not support it). Why should an XBox be any different?
Better than the same games on the other systems.
Some developers do create games on each system that don't run well, but that's not something you can pin on the hardware itself.
I can't say that I am not horrified by this shortcut (optimisation - it's a matter of perspective I guess). I have not developed any X games, but I had assumed that Microsoft would be smart enough to recognise the fact that one of the greatest selling powers of the PS2 was its (mostly) backwards compatability.
Your games are now basically incompatible with the X2 unless the emulation layer adequately supports the timing resolution hack or the equivalent of the Turbo boxes processor speed switch...
Just a thought...
Q.
Insert Signature Here
1. Your game is tailored for the specific console; you assume all hardware is a constant. This is relatively safe, since this was exactly how everything worked until PlayStation 2 introduced backwards compatibility in consoles. No other console has ever been backwards compatible*.
(* = We're not considering re-releases or re-designs of consoles, e.g. Intellivision I/II/III, NES, NES II, Atari 2600's and JR model. Handhelds [gameboy] doesn't count here)
2. If a console is going to come out with a new generation that claims to be backwards compatible, they need to be 100% true compatible; this means speed, etc. If they can't provide that through emulation, then they can't claim to be 100% compatible. What I mean in this is that some games might rely on the idea that their CPU is so loaded down with some operation, that the game will take a certain amount of time to do the job, and it fits the timing of the game. Having this occur any faster would be like a brief fast-foward in game time.
Of course, these are just my opinions. I prefer that games follow the correct APIs instead of doing hacks; it allows them to be usable on later iterations of machines. In the PC world, take a look at the old DOS game Alleycat, and how it was properly coded to run with any hardware (works just as well on a 4.77MHz 8086 as it does on my 2.4GHz P4-Xeon) versus how Hard Hat Mack, of the same era, is unplayable. Consider also numerous Amiga games that showed disregard for the RKM programming specs when designed for MC68000 chips, and then were unplayable on later Amiga machines.
My two cents. Take 'em or leave 'em.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
That is pretty poor programming if you ask me. It's easy enough to do a calibration during the opening title sequence or something where you aren't relying so much on hardware timers. I guess MS must have been very clear about the 733MHz never changing and the X2 emulation of original X-Box providing this downclocked timer, huh?
My guess is that you'll have a hell of a time with your games on X2.