Slashdot Mirror
More On IBM's Next-Gen Xbox Chipset Win
Pieroxy writes "EE Times reports further details on Microsoft's use of IBM chips in its next generation Xbox game and consumer electronics devices, dealing a blow to Intel and providing a much needed boost for IBM's lossmaking chip business." An analyst claims that "IBM is likely to modify its most advanced G5 PowerPC silicon, which is being used in Apple Computer's fastest Macintosh desktops, for the embedded market, reducing the cache and cutting power consumption", and further comments: "This is likely to heat things up at Intel, but it is competition that is healthy for the industry. It's ironic that IBM, with its roots in the computer industry, doesn't supply the processors for the main portion of the personal computer industry. Intel does." We covered IBM's initial announcement as a section-specific story earlier today.
...better than the GameCube chip.
Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
It's ironic that IBM, with its roots in the computer industry, doesn't supply the processors for the main portion of the personal computer industry. Intel does.
Wouldn't it be more like the "computer industry, with its roots in IBM," not the other way around? Though that's not entirely accurate either - maybe if it was changed to be the personal computer industry.
Are they not going to have backward compatibility? That seems like a big mistake in the game console market to me.
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
Isn't the PS4 going to use IBM?
Or did I dream that while playing my gameshpere?
Forgive me if I'm being moronic about this, but if it's based off the G5, it has a completely different instruction set. Does this mean that the modified Windows 2000 kernel used with the current XBox will be upgraded and ported to G5, or that we might see a completely different and new kernel?
SEARCHING FOR SIG
SIG NOT FOUND ERROR
READY.
Time was, when the choice of CPU meant something. If two machines used the same CPU you had a good chance of getting a speedy emulation of one using the other - for example the Mac emulators for the Amiga which were close to 100% compatible. But even though this is a Power-derived processor it doesn't seem likely anyone will be running AIX or Mac OS X on the Xbox2, or the other way round.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Uhhh, won't MS have to rewrite the whole OS, directX, etc for the XBox2? It seems that porting Windows to PowerPC may be harder than just getting a new Intel processor in there. Of course if MS does port XP to the G5, maybe the Apple guys can install something besides a real OS :)
Who thinks that IBM is going to turn around and sell these things to Aplle as the CPU for the G5 laptop?
This bodes VERY well for IBM, Apple, Microsoft, and anyone else interested in low-power-draw PowerPC systems. It sucks for Motorola, but they lost my favor years ago, and they really charge ludicrous prices for their wares.
Also, Could IBM be developing their G3+AltiVec chip for this? It seems to me that if the G3 series was dead IBM would stop working on it, but there are 750GX CPUs due soon (just a 750FX with 1MB on-die cache), and rumors of a G3 with SIMD coming down the pipe. It seems to me that if IBM bastardized some of the SIMD logic from the 970 and strapped it to the 750 they'd have a pretty decent low-power SIMD chip that Apple could market as a 'G3', 'G4' or a 'G5.'
Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic, but the G3 was the CPU best-suited for what I do, and I hope it doesn't disappear. I have little use for SIMD, and I really appreciate running a CPU without a fan strapped to it, it's just so... elegant.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Since the Xbox 2 will ostensibly be running an MS-based operating system on a non-x86 chip... ...how long before we see Longhorn running there too?
ArsTechnica
This has got to be good news for anyone dying to get a g5 Powerbook. Please please apple can I have one for christmas.
Would this be nice or what?
It seems that it would be prudent for Microsoft to announce something about backwards compatibility if they're going to make such a dramatic platform change. That's one of the greatest things for early adopters of the PS2 - they could still play their PS1 games on 'em.
One of the few competitive advantages MS has with the XBox is that games created for it take little work to port over to the PC arena. By using a PPC chip much of that ease of porting is eliminated and along with it one of the few selling points for title owners.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
It would be interesting to know exactly why they have picked an IBM chip rather than Intel or AMD. I wouldn't think the IBM (PPC?) chip would be more cost effective than the Intel/AMD but you never know...
I love the way the computing industry works.
;)
One minute Microsoft is getting its processors produced by longtime buddy Intel, and the next its shaking hands and teaming up with its once mortal enemy IBM..
Ever since the whole Windows NT business (and subsequent squabbles) I never figured Microsoft and IBM would partner on something like this.
Just remeber to keep Bill Gates and the 'ctrl+alt+del' inventor apart
Granted, they could do what PS2 does - have the old chip somewhere on the board doing "collateral" stuff when PS2 games are played, and use it for PS1 games as a full processor - but that's not very cost effective when somebody else is manufacturing your chips.
The Raven
There is no new news here. It merely references the earlier press release, then has some quotes by "an analyst". This "Doherty" guy repeatedly referenced throughout is just that: an analyst. He has no privilidged information. What he says is opinion: he is guessing.
This is interesting conjecture, but please tell me why I should at this point in time take the eetimes article any more or less seriously than just another speculation-packed post on slashdot?
So were going to have a loss-leader that runs off of a Microsoft machine that uses an IBM chip co-developed by Apple? talk about Clash of the titans....
My
... now they'll claim the XBOX 2 is a Mac because it is based on Mac hardware. "Those bastards won't let us put YellowDog on it!"
"Derp de derp."
Somebody doesn't understand that Linux runs on PowerPC...so now instead of getting a dirt-cheap Intel box (which are pretty cheap anyway), you'll be able to get a dirt-cheap G5 box. Woohoo!
This is just pure ignorance. Apparently going to Best Buy and buying a hard drive is now "piracy".
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
NOT!
I can't wait for the Morpheus II Mod-chip that lets you run OS X on the Xbox2.
Interestly enough, the reason IBM canned the personal powerpc systems was that OS2 for PPC completely blew its schedule several times over. IBM had a personal AIX edition for PPC ready but chose not to go with that. The reason. Unix would never make it as a mainstream operating system for PCs.
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
Microsoft using a (primarily) Macintosh processor for their next proprietary gaming console?
/. about KDE?
... What's next? SCO declares itself bankrupt and unfit to stand trial, releasing all code it's ever developed into the GPL???
A possible win for the "good guys" in the Do Not Call case?
An article on the front page of
RedHat announces cutting of support?
topreacher@signature.slashdot.org 1% rm -rf sig
Disregarding the fact that the statement isn't ironic, I have been wondering when IBM is going to release a new line of Intellistations using Power5 chips. Does anybody know when we might be seeing these? Or when Linux will be running on them? I think I remember hearing that some people got Linux running on them, but not 64-bit...
For all the noise that Slashdot likes to make about Apple's G5s, IBM, and Linux, I think it's rather strange that we haven't heard of any news for Linux on G5.
I leave it to you to see if that's ironic.
http://www.talknerdy.org
as mentioned in Financial Times, Microsoft will likely be using their recently acquired Virtual PC software. This software is the way mac users run windows software on PPC chips. VPC technology will allow MS to provide backwards compatibility under Intel emulation.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
wonder if this was the big deal with the Mac guy being fired by M$ for reporting that they purchased the gang of G5's..... for their xbox r&d department..
Assuming that this "next generation xbox" thing will be as hackable as the current Xbox (and the Dreamcast and the PS2, etc.) this could lead to a reasonably priced PowerPC machine to mess around with. This could be very cool. The current Xbox isn't especially competitive with a comparable low budget x86 system, but right now the only way you can mess with a G5 is to spend a couple grand on a new mac and likely once this new system comes out a cheap G5 system will still be the better part of a grand.
Wasn't one of the "Benefits" for people making games for xbox the ability to code just like they did for pc games?
perhaps they are trying to lure developers away from GCN by offering a similar cpu architecture?
... that backwards compatibility isn't part of Microsoft's game here? I suppose they could do like the PS2 did and use the original Intel processor to act as a controller or something, but somehow I doubt that'd be cost effective enough.
Emulator? Eck I hope not. Well.. maybe that wouldn't be so bad. Maybe they could do a combination emulator and wrapper. The emulator would be for the processor instructions, and the wrapper would be to send the graphics commands to the new GPU. Presumably, the difference between the two GPUs wouldn't be big enough as to prevent that from working.
Eh I dunno. Personally, I'm hoping Microsoft does something a little more interesting than just throwing next-gen hardware into a box as an upgrade. Pushing polygons around is nice, but I really like how small and cheap my GameCube is. *Hint hint*
"Derp de derp."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time IBM single-handedly designed a game console CPU was for that steaming pile known as the Atari Jaguar.
That's IBM... supplying Microsoft... with PowerPC processors... for a gaming console...?
If anyone needs me, I'll be conferring with my local pastor as to whether or not Hell has frozen over.
Emacs: for people who just never know when to
What I do see is Microsoft hedging its bets by licensing technology. Now, it can go to both Intel *and* AMD and go "if you two won't give us a better price, we'll cut you both off."
When businesses compete, the consumer wins.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
It's ironic that IBM, with its roots in the computer industry, doesn't supply the processors for the main portion of the personal computer industry. Intel does.
That's not ironic. It would be ironic if IBM declared the PC industry dead, and said that the embedded industry was all that was viable, made this processor for the embedded industry, and someone used it to revitalize the PC industry and put IBM back on top there. The fact that they are not on top of an industry that they helped start is interesting, but it's a far cry from ironic.
Not to pick nits, but misuse of the word "irony" is one of my pet peeves.
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
Intel went after Xbox originally so that AMD wouldn't get the win, but Intel still took it in the shorts, or so it is claimed, by offering a nutrageously low price to outbid AMD. Probably even at a loss given the timeframe.
Intel doesn't give a crap about PPC, as it isn't even a remote threat, what at 4% of the market. Intel could have EASILY played the same power-play and had another design win, but at the cost of lower ASPs for a niche market (compared to its $20b a year market, xbox isn't worth it).
just my $0.02.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
I doubt that IBM will power the CPU. There are a lot more chips in the XBox like sound and I/O. As I recall, there were similar rumors about Microsoft choosing AMD and we know where that ended up.
Yeah, like elleven years ago!
Yes, your clarification where you added "personal" changes everything. That statement says more about the ignorance of the one who uttered it than it does about IBM's "market" position (whatever that means).
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
"The current Xbox is based on a Pentium 3 processor running at 800 MHz or less. One problem Microsoft has faced is the conversion of Xbox systems into personal computers. By buying a heavily subsidized $200 game machine from Microsoft, and then adding a pirated disk drive, the Xbox can be used as a "poor man's PC, turning a $200 game machine into a $600 personal computer, which Microsoft doesn't like at all," Doherty said. That may have led Microsoft to the PowerPC platform developed by IBM. " So people will be booting Yellow Dog instead on Mandrake (does that make a Yellow Dog Man-Drake's best friend?)
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
microsoft are you listening?
MS isn't going to go PowerPC. Back in the day, the PowerPC port of NT was done by IBM for MS. More likely, IBM is going to be making the ATI designed video chip for Xbox. ATI probably worked out a deal where they sell MS the license to use the graphics chip design and leave the manufacturing problem to MS to work out. MS is probably just getting a deal with IBM so they can use IBM's fabs to churn out that chip for Xbox 2 and maybe other bits too.
With it's backwards compatibility with Master I & II
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
The U.S. has always been at war with terror.
We have never been at war with drugs.
We have never been at war with poverty.
We have never been at war with the Communists.
This is actually a very interesting move on MS's part. Not too long ago they purchased the premier x86 on PPC emulator. Now they are going with IBM's PPC as there next Xbox. Maybe they are ready to have a win-tel divorce and declare their independence from Intel, or maybe just shake the relationship up a bit.
If it compiles, ship it!
and not graphics ? Xbox2 will have a dedicated graphics card which will do most of the heavy work . It kind of makes me wonder why they don't use a vector processor instead a general processor for non graphics and then have the vector and graphics card combine when doing difficult rendering. Could increase the polygon by alot. Just an idea.
I forsee some wacky "CD" format that it will be a DMCA violation to publish details about.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Could you imagine if Microsoft enjoys the PowerPC platform so much that they end up porting Windows to the MORE STABLE PowerPC platform? I mean they're going to have to port their APIs and such to make this sort of move easy for the developers anyway. This would enable consumers to buy any random intel box or buy a nice IBM Box. This would rekindle the love/hate relationship that DOS encouraged. IBM would sell the machines, microsoft would supply the OS. Most of the intel systems IBM sells are for Linux these days. The PowerPC systems run AIX. IBM has been phasing out Microsoft as much as possible. But if microsoft would embrace the PowerPC platform and promote sales of IBM's more expensive hardware, I'm sure IBM would be on that band wagon.
Just a thought... alternatively, it could trash the market for Macs if hackers modify the new Xbox to run OSX.
This sort of nonsense has happened a lot, and to my posts too. Meta-moderation is NOT a valid option (although it might help a very little) because in most cases you can tell what context everything is posted in, so you can't say if a moderator was wrong is calling something redundant or even troll. But Shashdot is going down hill fast from this sort of abuse. The moderator who did this would be a good place to start.
And how is this apparently modded down multiple times as "troll"? (which also recently happened to me). The post was clearly not a troll, far from it.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I must say I absolutely didn't see that coming and if somebody had told be beforehand I probably would have chuckled.
This means a version of Windows for PowerPC and, if they use the G5, a 64 bit version of Windows.
I think the former used to exist a while ago (NT4?) and the latter is available in a more or less broken form but the fact that XBox2 would be a fixed hardware platform may allow them to make a better version.
I'm no MS fan but I can only see that as a good sign as long as they don't use the 32 bit subset of the PPC architecture, it could help them with a better 64 bit Windows which would help drive the adoption of such systems up and therefore drive the price down; which would help enlarging the 64 bit Linux userbase.
Ok, it's a lot of "if's" but at least it opens the possibility a bit wider.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
that would be stupid
I think MS may have figured out a way to leverage the fact that people like to use the Xbox as a cheap computer. Anyone care to bet that this new PPC-based Xbox will be intentionally easy to install OS X on? Thus, for the cost of the Xbox (say $300 when it first comes out) and a retail copy of OS X ($130), you could have a cheap Mac clone for less than $500, thus killing Apple's low-end ($800) hardware market.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Apple's influence is slowly but suely eating away at every niche and nook that Linux once filled. Now, when an article comes up about any type of computer on slashdot, people think first "but will it run OS X?" first, and "will it run Linux, last". Once again, Apple proves that great design, "thinking different", professional programming and a superior customer base mae all the difference in the world. King Linux is dead, long live King OS X!
Please give examples of instability in the Intel hardware.
Blar.
Not long after the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer came out, we started designing the next-generation platform. The machine was to be PowerPC-based with true 3D rendering capabilities (triangle engine, MIP-mapping, perspective-correct textures, 32-bit rendering, etc.).
The CPU was supplied by IBM. What we ended up with was the PowerPC 602, which was essentially a 603 (?) with a smaller cache and single-precision floating point operations that executed in a single cycle, which were essential for 3D gaming. The part ran at 66MHz.
It was a really nice machine. Sadly, it essentially died on the vine, as Matsushita chose not to exploit its gaming potential, relegating it instead to "kiosk" activities.
IBM also manufactured the triangle engine. It was a five layer chip -- at that time, a rather sophisticated process -- occupying 144 square millimetres.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
If i remember correctly, IBM didn't cancel PPC CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform), Apple did when they killed the mac clones. There was already a few CHRP based mac's out (Power Computer and a Motorola Starmax) and OS8 CHRP edition was about to ship. Then they bought NeXT, Steve Jobs came back, got rid of clones and effectivly killed CHRP by canceling all related projects in Apple. BeOS, NT PPC, AIX, OS/2 etc weren't going to be able to carry the platform without Apple and MacOS. With all the virtual machine and the surge of Linux we might see a comeback in an open PowerPC platform based around the G5.
...but they're not going to be porting "Windows" in any meaningful way. DirectX will have to be fiddled with - but even that will be a much simpler enterprise in this case as they won't need to port the old interfaces.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
The Financial Times has the best summary of this that I've read so far.
Mmmm.. Donuts
So what's the difference between a nextgen gamecube and a nextgen xbox? They are both an IBM CPU and an ATI graphics chip. I feel consolidation coming.
Even if it's an add-on investment for your X-2. Some people (myself included) have some serious coin wrapped up in games and observing Sony's compatibility from one generation to the next will take a bite out of X-2 sales as current X-Box owners jump ship. I mean heck, if Sony's got a better product, my brand loyalty will go right out the window if I have to start from scratch purchasing all new games again.
I guess it's liberating from one perspective, since I won't be influenced by the money I spent on my existing games, but I might be biased against Microsoft for screwing me on backwards-compatibility too.
So not only is the xbox 2 going to use a completely different graphics processor but also a totally different CPU? Isn't this going to cause some slight (but not impossible) big-endian/little-endian problems as far as the cpu is concerned. It doesn't even say anything about problems with xbox 1 games writing directly to the GPU hardware being able to run on xbox 2 graphics hardware.
I'm sure xbox 1 games will run on xbox 2 but at what speed hit and general compatibility?
The PS2 runs PS1 games so well because (if I remember things correctly) the cpu of the PS1 is basically in the PS2 as well to handle other things...
Just as with the original XBox, there were plans to use AMD chips, at least that is what most of the speculation on the internet said, up until they announced the specs and low and behold Intel had "won" the contract instead.
I could very easily see this deal with IBM as a backdoor sneaky tatic to get nVidia hardware under the hood again, especially with their cozy arrangements as of late. For that matter, AMD and IBM are also in bed so it wouldn't be surprising at all the see ATI booted and AMD/NV offering becoming the real guts of the console. IBM would be the fab for the chips and assembly for the mainboard... heck they might even just roll the whole thing and take a cool percentage.
Off the wall? Perhaps. But I think this xb0x0r war is far from over. There are no published specs and these talks of industry deals are by no means what the final product will necessarily be.
Gravely offtopic
Most embedded CPUs are not x86-based. They're not PowerPC or ARM based either. It's just that most people aren't familiar with what CPUs are out there, only what's available for PC boxes.
That said, consider that the PlayStation 1 and PlayStation 2 use MIPS processors. The Sega Saturn used a Hitachi SH-2. The Dreamcast used an SH-4. The 3DO console was ARM based. The Nintendo 64 uses a MIPS. The GameCube uses a PowerPC. The Game Boy Color is Z80 based. The Game Boy Advance uses an ARM. The Nokia N-Gage also uses an ARM.
In short, non-x86 based game consoles are the norm, not the exception. You simply can't put a super hot P4 in an embedded environment. Intel knows this. That's not the market they're after with the P4. This is basic embedded systems design.
Except that if Microsoft uses the G5 (PPC970) chip, as everyone is speculating, they'll have to tweak the Virtual PC code base to run on the G5. Why? Because the G5 silicon lacks the special "virtual little endian mode" that the Virtual PC code from Connectix relies upon for performance on the G3 and G4 chips.
Of course, a highly optimal bit of PPC assembly could be written to replace the missing mode and instructions on the G5.
Then again, Microsoft could twist IBM's arm and get them to make a custom variant of the G5 that includes this mode, and maybe chops some cache for cost conservation. I sincerely doubt that the chip IBM winds up fabbing for the next Xbox is going to be identical to the version currently shipping in Apple's G5 desktops.
Even Microsoft wants G5s
"It's ironic that IBM, with its roots in the computer industry, doesn't supply the processors for the main portion of the personal computer industry. Intel does".
Oh come on. What Intel computer can you buy that has a friggen guy come with it? IBM deals with the big boys. Internation Business Machines. I don't find their lack of presense or desire in the home PC market at all ironic.
... and furthermore
Even Microsoft wants G5s
Windows NT and its successors were designed to be portable. NT ran on x86, PPC and Alpha. 2k had a beta Alpha version that got killed near the end for reasons I do not know. XP has already been ported to IA-64. Windows CE runs on tons of different chips.
While it will require some reworking, it won't be a whole hell of a lot. Just because Windows doesn't run on PPC doesn't mean it can't fairly easily be ported to it.
Now the Xbox2 is going to be a lot slower and cost three times its current price.
IBM microelectronics make custom asics with PPC cores in them, and IBM:s chip designing is in higher level stuff than AMD so they can modify that cheaper at expense of clock speed that they get... But now at 0.9u the PPC970 is supposed to be quite tiny so what ELSE they will put in there besides the CPU core and cache? Instead of using altivec they might go something more excess like putting 16 FMACS. Which would give microsoft both superiour numbers and performance but also guarantee that other chips wouldn't be compatible with it, as they would have instructions that no one else has, and in other way their developement package might be really only way to port software for it, and the customizations might even make reverse engineering the thing without full developement package from microsoft impossible. They could offer packaging with low latency mainmemory in the package, and something like 4-8 channels to the memory chip, inside the package. And only put outside interface to graphic chip outside the package and put all the other supporting logic in the same chip with CPU. Hey IBM has LOTS of options and modifications and stuff that they could have offered for microsoft besides price point. IBM could have made point hey we offer you 4 times as much memory bandwith and 4 times as many flops as our competitors in same price if you take the reduction of other chips in the system in account. And AMD and INTEL in their highly tuned hand optimized design methologies where not able to offer something even resembling the beast that IBM could customize for microsoft, at reasonable price. IBM makes great business selling G3:s with lots of custom stuff attached to it on single chip. They might even maker HARDWARE decryption on the processor chip for instructions stream, that could mean a LOT harder modifications for it than for original xbox.
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
Since the XBox1 was (also) test grounds for future Trusted architectures, and more or less failed, parent is most probably right on target here.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
A lot of people stayed away from XBox simply because all the games are available on the PC. While Sony and Nintendo both outsold them with games that aren't. It's about being exclusive. When you're getting cheap ports from a PC game, gamers tend to dislike that.
Will it be Linux? OS X? How about OS/2?
interesting. I didn't know that. how does this pseudo little endian mode work? bit swapping in the registers? or is it done with different opcodes? surely the 64bit chip has enough registers to shift a truckload of data around.
Then again, Microsoft could twist IBM's arm and get them to make a custom variant of the G5 that includes this mode, and maybe chops some cache for cost conservation. I sincerely doubt that the chip IBM winds up fabbing for the next Xbox is going to be identical to the version currently shipping in Apple's G5 desktops.
I agree. However a dual proc G4 based Xbox would also have me in need of a towel.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
I mean heck, if Sony's got a better product, my brand loyalty will go right out the window if I have to start from scratch purchasing all new games again.
i don't get it. why would you buy an xbox2 if you weren't planning on buying any new xbox2 games? and if you already have an xbox1, what difference does it make if xbox2 is backwards compatible?
This doesn't make any sense. I thought the whole point of the xbox was that it eased console development by being nothing more then a stripped down Wintel box.
That press release was kind of vague. perhaps MS is going to use an IBM semiconductor for something besides the CPU.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Thanks.
For all who question backward compatibility. Microsoft does have an emulator for PowerPC (Apple) system. It is VirtualPC. Virtual PC doesn't currently support 3d hardware but we are not talking about a system that will be out by this Christmas. Microsoft could in time optimized the VirtualPC technology for the 64-bit G5 and add 3D support. This way they can support older games at current speeds and possibly (although not likely) use it to run the xbox operating system + directx. As an added bonus, not only can we spectulate Apple will get a lower power processor for Powerbooks but they can get a better pc emulator.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
like it is everywhere else
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Why don't they use IBM's Power5 CPU instead of the G5?
I wonder why they chose IBM chips. Is it for the better FPU and processing power/cycle or are they thinking it's better as a detriment to hacking being that it's not running on x86 architecture and therefore not as widely known. Personally, I think IBM chips are a good step seeing as that I am still an Amiga fan and still have my A500 and A1200 laying around :)
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Um i think you'll find MS gaming department is already mac based for most of it's programming and graphics in games.
if you look at books like "the new office" F Duffy that shows MS Gaming Offices and G3 Biege Box on ever desk from 3-4 years ago. or MS buying up Mac Gaming Legends Bungie for it's "halo". It pretty Clear the gaming teams at MS are pretty well tuned at porting PPC to PC. i doudt it's even an issue for them.
Indeed it maybe a good move ie. write Xbox native for PPC processor - have a known controlled platform
shorter testing times
then port to PC and even MAC 6 months on, with plenty of time for testing and config.
The Xbox using Power architecture is so that Microsoft can side-swipe Apple by bringing WIndows to Apple desktop hardware ;-)
-psy
I don't know the details of the agreement IBM is having with Apple. But, it seems IBM relies only on Apple to offer a personal computer product to the mass market (not so massive considering the pricing). I am still amazed IBM has done very few to enable third party vendors to produce hardware (motherboards, etc) for the PC market using their G serie processors.
Maybe this played a role in the decision of MS to use the chip. Since it is not easily available and hacked by the community, it will prevent their next generation X-Boxes to be as easily hacked as the first generation.
Achille Talon
Hop!
How is it ironic that the company that invented the microprocessor be the market leader in desktop computers that are based on microprocessors?
Last I checked, there's no licensing fees involvoved beyond buying the development tools. With Xbox they probably get $15 or so a game for each new release. It's vastly more profitable. They'd love to see the PC market die in favor of the XBox. What they don't want (and the reason they're being so nice to their developers) is for the Market to die in favor of the Playstation.
Even if MS is willing to let to PC game market live on (or is forced to), I think you'll find more and more developers using cross-platform API calls instead of hand written assembly. Between advances in computing power and in compilers, there's not much point to resorting to assembly anymore. The fact is, hardware has progressed faster than artists' ability to make use of it. Just check out any review of a recent high end video card for proof. They're all having trouble testing the cards because current games don't tax them at all.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Then they want to use our G5? I think I'll be headed to church this sunday as well.
I wonder if this brings up price/performance issues at IBM- I mean making chips for all three major console suppliers. I wonder how much research will be bread across product lines?
for the paragon of Jounalistic Virtue that is /. :).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How many consoles can run programs written for previous generations of their "line"? The only one that springs to mind is the PlayStation 2, and that was done to hide the fact that there weren't all that many PS2 titles at launch. While it would be nice, and it would save a few thousand cubic feet of living room space, it's probably not in their interest to do so.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
providing a much needed boost for IBM's lossmaking chip business
I thought the XBox was selling below cost... In this case, unless Microsoft foots the total bill itself, I don't see how IBM will stop losing money!
They'll get volume, no problems, but at what margin?
"The GameCube uses a PowerPC"
And we've seen Nintendo port gameboy games to the Gamecube....
So what if Microsoft's new console could run Gamecube software natively and gameboy software via emulation or somesuch? That would be quite the coup in the software wars vs. Sony.
It might also explain the RARE sale to Microsoft from Nintendo to a degree, perhaps that was simply the first step in establishing a business relationship....
that was no secret. PPC was supported through SP1.
and stop fucking lying like a god damn rug about being "at microsoft"
no one believes you, you do nothing, you know nothing and you constantly spew shit. i mean really, can you just shut the fuck up?
you are such a god damn tool idiot fucker.
piers haken, the fucking liar, strikes again.
Atari Jaguar
maudite
That may have led Microsoft to the PowerPC platform developed by IBM.
Also, Microsoft has been bothered by the relative ease with which hackers have copied games that run on Xbox consoles."
Apparently this writer doesn't realize that the problem will still exist with PPC, as there are no shortage of open source OS out there. Unless, of course, M$ decides to use a custom board and bridge, making it more console like than the current Xbox, but making it more expensive. I'm not surprised they are going with IBM, the G5 is compared to the high-end P4s and opterons, even the G4, a very inexpensive chip. It also draws far less power than the intel and amd offerings, and scales very nicely allowing 2, 4 or 8 way setups. Supporting 1GHz busses is nice too for a game machine. That console could fly... might be the first bit of M$ taintware i'd actually buy.
today is spelling optional day.
Which like java is essentially write once run anywhere. If XBoX2 runs on a version of Longhorn then the only change needed to run on a PowerPC as opposed to x86 is a new CLR.
. . . I'll be able to run Win2k on my Mac?
Touche!
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Didn't Microsoft go with ATI due to superior price, performance and lower cooling requirements?
One nVidia chip set a while back needed a god damned car exhaust tail pipe.
Now we know why they wanted Virtual PC! That way they can simply run their current code under emmulation and burn the results to ROM...seems pretty simple to me.
Essentially the XBox runs a win2k derivative kernel with DirectX slapped on top of it. Right? Everyone's making the transition to 64 bit, and Intel's hobbled a bit in that department (dot)
Since Redmond had decided to go with the PPC for XBox2 (dot) Maybe they're gonna pull something interesting. Mayhap the big spaz over that guy's G5 snaps, mebbe? (dot)
Who knows whether the dots connect?
I dunno if Redmond would really bother to get Apple folks to run Windows. But maybe this goes hand in hand with their fight in the server market. Big time Windows clustering.
I thought SONY was working with IBM on the Playstation 3?? So what's going on?
I'm not anti-microsoft. I'm anti-bullshit. Which means I'm anti-microsoft.
...thumb my nose at all the nay-sayers who kept kibitzing that Apple should move to x86. Microsoft is switching to PPC! Nyah!
Start Running Better Polls
"Compatibility with older Xbox software could be provided by emulation technology Microsoft acquired in February from Connectix, which sells Virtual PC, allowing Intel-based software to run on PowerPC chips."
If Microsoft wants to create backward compatibility between XBox and XBox2, then they must find a way to run MS Pentium code on the G5 architecture. Unfortunately, the G5 lacks the big-endian/little-endian flexibility of the previous PPC processers and this makes the x86 hard to emulate on a G5. That is why Virtual PC won't run on the G5.
But with a motivated Microsoft, we might see Windows on a G5 with the coming of XBox2 (strange thought, that!)
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
By buying a heavily subsidized $200 game machine from Microsoft, and then adding a pirated disk drive, the Xbox can be used as a "poor man's PC, turning a $200 game machine into a $600 personal computer, which Microsoft doesn't like at all," Doherty said.
That may have led Microsoft to the PowerPC platform developed by IBM.
Now Apple will be upset when the new XBox is hacked into a $200 iMac.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Microsoft could twist IBM's arm
That's something that I'd like to see.
--
$tar -xvf
there was a version of windows for ppc. perhaps microsoft in a shrewd move to ensure its continued relevance should intel fail, has maintain the os in parallel. apple is thought to have an intel version maintained along side ppc. this makes business sense, not to mention that most of the world will not be intel ia32 or 64. remember that arm based processors for paltops and cell phones, as well as other risc processors run on most portable devices, where microsoft has strong interest. the future is not the pc!
In a regular game, how much time is spent in DirectX? Lets say, for the sake of argument that it is 50% and that the DirectX code is compiled natively. Furthermore, lets assume that it runs about 4 times faster then the 800Mhz PIII.
This means that the rest of the game code, the emulated part, would have to run just a little faster than half (about 60% I believe) the speed of a PIII for the game to have the same speed on average.
It isn't perfect, but it goes to show that not all code has to be emulated. And DirectX isn't the only code that can run natively. Every call to an API that the game makes will be running native code. Also, recall that much of the DirectX code will be executed on the grafx card which never was and never (knock on wood) will be Intel.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
The Game Boy Color is Z80 based.
Your knowledge of processors is impressive, but that is an X86 processor if I ever saw one. Maybe its a very OLD X86 processor... but it still is one none the less...
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Not that I -always- suspect M$ of dirty dealing, but perhaps
M$ is just promising some biz to IBM so they disclose some info
and then M$ can indirectly lay the smack down on Apple's chip supply.
Almost everything M$ does is always to leverage Windows in some way.
Why does this make sense? Because IBM has a very 90-nm advanced process on 300-mm wafers that can spit out small -- hence cheap and fast -- dice with a very reasonable yield. And BTW, their new Fishkill factory floor in entirely under Linux!
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Nope. The Zilog z80 was a riced-out Intel 8080. The original 8086 (and 8088) was source-, but not binary-, compatible with the 8080. Google for "z80 8080" and "8086 8080" to verify.
Why do I say that? If you RTFA it says...
Here in Oz, an XboX is AUD$330. Add in the cost of a keyboard ($10) and mouse ($30), bigger RAM ($60) and it comes to $420, which is in the same range as new PCs clocking at five times the speed, starting with five times the hard disk space and built with plenty of room for expansion. I think the "turning it into a PC" effect is being overblown by Microsoft both for "poor little me" abuse/sympathy points and to subtly assert that an XboX is as powerful as a PC when it ain't (weeeelll... possibly modulo the graphic card unless you shell out for a good one).
I predict that one effect of this CPU change will be to give Linux an even wider road into the XboX market. One has to wonder whether XboX will get zero, one or two subarchitectures in the kernel tree. (-:
.
* "Piracy" is a major misnomer. So you publish a program, and it gets "pirated". Well? Nobody sails up, shoots you and your crew, pushes the bodies over the side and makes off with a multimillion dollar vessel and its cargo, do they? So it's not piracy - although it is criminally illegal copying. But wait 'till somebody publishes SLPWA's open letter to Vietnam's Science and Technology ministry.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Microsoft releases XBox 2 with a PPC 970 running at 2 ghz.
XBox hackers break the encryption and are able to run unsigned code on the PPC 970 processor.
XBox hackers use MacOnLinux to run a full-fledged Mac OS X on cheap Xbox hardware.
???
Profit!!!
Just kidding about the profit part... But who wouldn't want a 2 ghz. G5 running Mac OS X for about $300. This would be a killer workstation and would run circles around the existing Xbox 1 running Linux. Can you imagine?
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
This assumes the only reason the XBox 2 would have problems running XBox 1 games would be the different CPU. This is not the case.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" - George Orwell
my bad. 8080, 8086...
I don't read or respond to AC posts
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
Please, if you are going to quote people, REFERENCE THE QUOTE!
That quote came from Jeremy S. Anderson... (ref.)
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
SGI kind of did the same thing w/ the N64. Unfortunately it didn't pull SGI out of their downward spiral. Maybe IBM will faire better.
while some user called yamia keeps making claims that the xbox2 will not be backward compatible, i have to ask why not?
it's certainly possible, and i'm not talking emulation. last i heard, ibm had some broad cross licensing agreements with intel, and only got out of the x86 hardware business because it wasn't profitable anymore.
what happens if ibm is asked to use their dual core fabrication techniques to embed some sort of x86 processor next to that g5? it starts to sound like a ps2, doesn't it?
besides, the 700mhz celeron equivalent has dropped so much in price, it could probably be included like the ps1 processor in the ps2, at very little cost, even if it wasn't on the same dye as the chip. it would make one heck of a secondary processor, same as how the ps1 chip is used in the ps2.
microsoft isn't stupid, they've seen the headstart that sony got with the ps2, and they'd be insane to not cover every base to get ahead in the market.
they're ruthless, they're aggressive, they lie, they cheat, they steal, but they're not stupid, and it's best that nobody forget that.
Choosing the PPC for the XBOX-2 is just standard fare for Microsoft negotiations.
First Microsoft gives Intel the cold-shoulder on some technology and then Intel has to offer a lower price or lose the business.
Of course to get Intel to lower the price, Microsoft has to make the PPC option look like a real possibility.
Why would you want to develop a gaming console using the i86 instruction set. It's main redeeming value is it's backwards compatibility, but since the xbox isn't pc compatible who cares?
Follow me a bit on this one, fellows ...
:)
Let's say IBM plans to use either a modified, advanced version of the G4 or a new, far-stripped-down in terms of heat/energy G5 for this Xbox2 thing.
Now let's say that they DO need backward compatibility if they want to continue to try and compete with Sony. How could they manage this?
WinXP Embedded BUILT INTO THE CHIPSET. Or more precisely, XBOX1/WINXP Embedded in the chipset.
Okay, with me so far? Now stop and think about this:
We now have a G5-class chip that can RUN WINDOWS XP IN FULL-SPEED EMULATION.
Gee, I wonder if Apple would be interested in something that could allow users to SEAMLESSLY run full-speed Windows apps as well as their own OS X apps?
Oh, the irony of it all! All those people who wrote posts demanding OS X on Intel will now get Windows on an Apple G5! I'm LOVIN' this, let me tell you!
Sure, I might be smoking crack. But it's GOOD crack, let me tell ya!
Will this be bad for Linux? Will MS now be able to say - Hey that open source thang you're doin', couldn't you just pace down a bit? I wonder: how much is open source worth, for an already a big pocket?
Err, except that AIX has been running on PowerPC for about 7 years...
I hate to speculate but....... Going with IBM would make Intel and AMD quite unhappy. I predict Intel or AMD will make an offer Microsoft cannot refuse. Their business model looks something like this... 1. Create FUD by announcing partnership with IBM. CPU prices drop for Microsoft naturally. 2. ? 3. Yes. Profit!!!!!
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo, The Princess Bride
IBM has never supplied the processors for the "main portion of the personal computer industry" and Intel always has. How is this ironic? Did you just discover the PC industry? Do you need a history lesson?
- I am made of meat.
What do you get when add an ATI graphics chip and a PowerPC processor? - thats right, the XBox 2 is a GameCube!.
But seriously folks, what does this mean for GameCube 2's "air supply". With ATI and IBM tied up (legally,financially) with exclusive tech deals with M$, how is the GameCube 2 going to retain backwards compatibility without using "second best" technology.
"My cat's breath smells like cat food." - The Tao of Ralph Wiggum.
Now it would be scary if both the ATI (GameCube gpu) and the IBM (GameCube cpu) deal were done only to block Nintendo's source for quality chips, and that they really just put the next bigger Intel and NVidia chips into Xbox 2...
Master System compatibility required you to plug in an adapter into the MD get play Master System cards. It wasn't backwards compatible from the word go.
I have not seen someone commenting on this but I can't stop suspecting that this may also be a political move by MS. With IBM having its new strength in the Linux world could MS be trying to gain better ties with IBM for IBM's Win Servers?
30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
You see, Intel uses the "make-em cheap, make many" busines model. How much does their best CPU rake in at any given moment? $1000? $500? IBM's POWER4 CPU used in the Regatta is around $500,000 for one ceramic package (8 CPU's in one package), up to 4 can go in one system (Regatta). (Not to be confused with PowerPC, a stripped down version of the POWER line). PC's are chicken shit, take a walk in a REAL data center simoniker.
coward
1) XBox and PS2 fans: "Nintendo Sucks!"
:)
2) XBox and Nintendo fans: "PS2 Sucks!"
3) PS2 and Nintendo fans "XBox Sucks!"
It's great that I'm a IBM fan and can afford all three consoles
Good night!
So is HPC, and so is high reliability ... stuff you do on the side when you have the time and inclination.
IBM and Sony announced quite a time ago that IBM would be providing the CPU for the Playstation 3. See this BBC News article.
Just an idea that popped into mind: maybe MS is *willing* to trade development ease for piracy difficulty.
Maybe now that MS is an established player in the console scene they'll have easier time getting developers (they already have secured exclusive houses) even if the learning involves more than the previous small x86-PC to x86-Xbox step. And PPC is a well established architecture (mature, documented, lots of libraries, etc.) after all -- compare to PS2 at launch.
(And maybe even more of the game code is offloaded into the DX9/DX10 pipeline; geometry-related physics like deformation and collision detection may move completely to vertex shaders from CPU code. But this is probably a minor factor here.)
So, assuming that the move to PPC doesn't make the learning curve too steep, and assuming that MS currently loses billions or at least millions to games piracy, maybe it's worth their while to make the platform more alien to all the x86 hackers out there. (I hope I didn't alienate the hordes of PPC hackers now...) I mean, maybe the x86 compatibility has turned from a benefit into a burden for MS?
[Pardon my burst of unorganised thoughts written in a hurry; hope this is at least legible if not terribly thought-provoking. Off to lunch...]
With this processor switch the XBOX 2 has the exact same component manufacturers the GameCube had (ATI for gfx & IBM for cpu). Could this be a presage about a Nintendo takeover by M$?
6E8C 8721 B3D9 5269 5A9B 1122 00C3 C03D 99A7 1CFC
I hear a lot of talk about emulating x86 on this PPC in order to have backwards compatibility with XBox 1 games.
Remember, this is not the only viable option. Back in the days of NT4, DEC came up with FX!32 which would emulate, profile, and then selectively translate x86 code into the Alpha equivalent. I think that this approach may be quite viable given that the XBox has a HDD which could store this profiling data and translated code snippets.
For the first few runs, you notice some lag and missed frames, and then after 20 minutes of playing the game (after some profiling and translation kicks in) you're back up to full speed!
That would rock, and IBM and MS both have the brain power to pull such a thing off, no problem.
Developers care. They don't necessarily care about backward compatibility, but they care about an architecture that's already intimately familiar to them.
Then again, it won't be too difficult to get going in the PPC world. Lots of stuff and learning help already available.
Overall, for them, it's ultimately not about how good the architecture is, it's how good *they* are in it! (Or how soon they'll get good enough.)
Learning curve is what delayed PS2 titles. Luckily there was ample time before Xbox and GC.
As an aside, maybe you dismissed the "common x86 arch" benefit too easily. Xbox games aren't PC compatible, but they are the easiest to port to PC, and that saves time and money for a dev house (wanting the PC slice of the pie too). And both are crucial resources, of course.
Unwanted result from cpu change,
:'(
1) Better and faster ports of games for MAC not PCs, which may shiff the sales of personal computers to apple.
2) BSD:XB2 instead of Linux:XB1
3) Death of microsoft.
You simply can't put a super hot P4 in an embedded environment.
I agree, but it goes further than that.
Actually, you can't sensibly put a super hot P4 into a normal home user PC either, but Intel and Microsoft haven't felt the heat because the hot potato has been dumped onto the laps of end users, and they've more or less coped with the problem.
However, with Xbox, the problem is in Microsoft's lap, and I bet that they have felt the heat. For a start, a hot CPU requires a fan, and fans are noisy in a lounge hifi environment. Hot CPUs also place a lower limit on size and therefore on cost of the console, so it's inevitable that x86 has had a detrimental effect on the Xbox balance sheet. You can tell just by lifting it up that the Xbox has had much more engineering put into it than is normal for loss-leading hardware in the games industry, and part of the reason for that will inevitably be heat management.
On that basis, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if X2 replaces x86 by G5 technology. Intel (and AMD) have simply lost the thread in their current direction. Ultimately, everything wants to be "embedded", and you can't embed things that run red hot.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Because the G5 silicon lacks the special "virtual little endian mode" that the Virtual PC code from Connectix relies upon for performance on the G3 and G4 chips.
PPC chips can't run in big and little endian mode at the same time. There's no way VirtualPC uses the little endian mode of the PPC processor under MacOS. There are byte-swapping load and store PPC instructions that are no more expensive than non-swapping loads and stores, so there is no real performance hit due to byte swapping when emulating.
Take a look at the new iBooks, it's already here and being marketed as a G4. I can't find PPCXXXX listed anywhere on Apple's site right now, but I've read reports from people who've purchased one. PPC 750FX I think?
Probably just because I'd rather only have one console. If I could sell my X-Box to help pay for part of the X2 I'd do it in a minute - if it was backwards compatibile. Plus I could buy original XBOX games cheap to play on my new X2. But if they take that functionality away, I'll be just like a new consumer entering the market and I can consider the Sony console and MS console equally on its own merits. I won't be swayed by the fact that I have a thousand bucks in games sitting at home that I could play on the new console.
if Microsoft uses the G5 (PPC970) chip, as everyone is speculating, they'll have to tweak the Virtual PC code base to run on the G5.
They're going to have to do this anyway, to get VirtualPC to run on the Apple G5s.
I CAN'T REFERENCE THE QUOTE unless I can put more than 120 characters on my signature, and I'm NOT going to add the reference for every post I make. You must be very proud of yourself nonetheless. ;P
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
it's about time there's some more competition. AMD is greater than Intel in every way, but Intel is not as threatened by them as they are when IBM joins the opposition. heh heh heh. INTEL MUST BE BURNED!! freedom and quality to the people!! now if someone will put up some heavy competition against M$...
=^_^= P|-|33R |\/|3
That's right. The next one will have a translucent pastel colored package and the interface will scream gay.
Interestly enough, the reason IBM canned the personal powerpc systems was that OS2 for PPC completely blew its schedule
That's an . . . interesting claim, given that the systems weren't cancelled until after the systems running OS/2 for PPC actually shipped. Heck, if you knew the part number, you could still buy 'em from IBM's inventory for several months after the cancellation.
What actually happened is that Mr. Jobs, after his return to Apple, abandoned CHRP as part of the effort to both kill the Mac clone market and create a retail market for Mac OS. After all, it was going to be hard to charge a premium for Mac systems if you could buy a Motorola NT, IBM OS/2, Be BeOS, or other commodity CHRP box, and then make it a Mac by buying a copy of Mac OS 8 at CompUSA. Jobs, unlike the previous Apple CEOs, understood that a commodity platform was death for Apple, whether it used an x86 or PPC chip.
So CHRP had to die for Apple to make money, and Mr. Jobs efficiently killed it, after getting a deal with Motorola for PPC chips below what would be cost at the reduced volume, successfully screwing over Motorola. All hail Steve Jobs, ruthless capitalist!
Now, several years down the line this ruthless profit-making strategy on Mr. Jobs part caused trouble for Apple, since Motorola was sensibly refusing to allow itself the be bled bankrupt for the privilege of providing chips for Macs while Apple was sitting on a multibillion-dollar cash cushion. But, fortunately, IBM was going to develop a new workstation chip for itself anyway, and Apple arranged to buy some.
Since IBM already had decided it needed to make the chips anyway, the slight increase in costs by making the modifications for Apple (AltiVec) were outweighed by the advantage of the increased volume sold, especially since it made the IBM chip more attractive to the scientific market.
I sincerely doubt that the chip IBM winds up fabbing for the next Xbox is going to be identical to the version currently shipping in Apple's G5 desktops.
Think about that statement for a minute...
Suppose Microsoft's goal is to do exactly that: Include the Apple-version G5 in their gaming console. What better way to poke fun at Apple than to have, as a marketing strategy, "Yeah, their machines are so fast, we use their CPU's as toys".
Now THAT is a truly nifty (and evil) idea!
1) Anyone remember this rumor? So, the Xbox2 is going to use ATI and PPC technology, just like the Game Cube. Maybe backwards compatibility is going to be in the box, just not with the Xbox . . .
2) Now if you hack an Xbox2 to run Linux, do you get a cheap, MOL-capable G5-based machine? Wouldn't that be nice and Apple-infuriating . . .
I've seen precious little out of IBM regarding the PPC 970, period.
Regardless of what you choose to believe, the issue with Virtual PC is very real. Perhaps you take umbrage at the nomenclature for the CPU mode in question. I don't disagree that it's an idiotic PR-speak name. Regardless, there is something missing from the PowerPC 970 silicon that was in the PPC 750 (G3) and the G4 series from Motorola.
This has been discussed months ago on Slashdot. The PPC 970 isn't 100% Book-E compliant, if my memory serves correctly. It's still a PowerPC chip, but it contains some things that the other family members don't (e.g., hardware support for square root in the FPU), and omits some minor things that the other family members have.
The bottom line is, Virtual PC does not work on the G5. This problem existed before Microsoft acquired Connectix, and is trivially provable by attempting to run a recent pre-Microsoft version of Virtual PC on a G5. As I understand it, Virtual PC is the only software on the Mac that uses the little-endian hackery present in the G3 and G4 chips. That the IBM engineers responsible for the G5 chose to spend their transistor budget on other things is unsurprising.
hahah... trademark that....
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
Dude, you're arguing with the wrong person. Notice I said "virtual little endian mode" and not "little endian mode." This is the marketing speak that I am quoting verbatim from the press release that announced Virtual PC 6.x will not work with the G5. If you want to argue the point, argue with the people who wrote the press release, or the Connectix engineers that Microsoft Borg-ishly assimilated when they bought the VPC product.
The bottom line is, there is either a missing mode, or missing instructions, from the G5 processor. Something that recent versions of Virtual PC rely upon to accelerate the emulation task on PowerPC hardware. If you want to argue the specifics, argue with the engineers who actually are writing the code. Don't yell at me because I repeated something that was in a Microsoft press release.
At least one former Connectix engineer confirmed that the problem was real, and had to do with some architectural decisions that were made for the PowerPC 970 (G5). Make of that what you will.
Maybe. I don't think Microsoft would make such a left-handed compliment, however, especially since it would cast their own product in a less-than-positive light.
Especially considering that Microsoft has lofty goals for the Xbox that extend far, far beyond mere gaming applications. The Xbox is a Trojan Horse.
I know little more than what was in the press release announcing that Virtual PC would not work on Apple's new G5 computers. One Connectix engineer confirmed in a semi-public forum that there was a real problem, that it wasn't Microsoft spewing bullshit.
Others in this thread have mentioned that there are byte-swapping load/store instructions in the PowerPC architecture which reduce the cost of doing little-endian loads and stores. According to what I've read, Virtual PC uses a special mode available on the G3 and G4, and not available on the G5. Supposedly, it's the only Mac software to ever use this mode. Without disassembling the Virtual PC code myself and examining it carefully, I couldn't tell you what specifically got "lost" from the G5 silicon.
It's amazing the amount of skepticism that's greeted my single comment, even though this whole issue was hashed out months ago in Slashdot and on various Mac forums, right after the Virtual PC press release.
I've read the other posts... my POV is simply from lack of knowledge - not trying to be smart or anything.
:)
I've since read a post on MS's knowledge base, but have come to the conclusion that MS has the money to get around or fix the problem
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
I highly doubt the XB2 could run GC games natively, if for no other reason than that the discs wouldn't fit (plus, the GC has some pretty specialized hardware). Gameboy games might be a different story. The current XBox can already run GB emulators under Linux, it's only legal issues that prevent some company from releasing a GB player for XBox. The same legal issues would presumably persist with the XBox 2, but the technology is there and has been for a long time.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
All this doesn't prove that the 970 can't effectively emulate a x86 processor, nor that it doesn't have the little-endian access described in the PPC docs. Just that Connectix used it in a way they maybe shouldn't have (namely the "virtual" mode that isn't part of the PPC spec), depending on it always working that . Which just happens to be my other point in this thread.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
When the Xbox fist came out I thought to myself "Wow! It looks like I can buy a $200 PC" And so it came to pass that some crackers ported linux to the Xbox and all was good. Now I am thinking I can buy a $200 Mac.
Anyway as far as backwards compatibilty is concerned, wouldn't they also need to put in the old nVidia chip as well? I am not sure but I think the Xbox2 is going to have an ATI chip.
I'm thinking that because Microsoft aquired Virtual PC they could easily emulate a Pentium 3 running at 733 Mhz on a PowerPC G5 type chip. It's not rocket science for them to emulate. Sure emulaation is slower than the real thing but they've got a whole lot more horsepower in the new xbox so it could easily handle 733 mhz.