Slashdot Mirror
Xbox 2 SDK Released On Mac G5?
Espectr0 writes "The Inquirer reports rumors, courtesy anonymous sources, that Microsoft has released the Xbox 2 SDK to select videogame developers, and they are using 'dual Apple Power Mac G5 systems running a custom Windows NT Kernel.' This ties up with earlier rumors which mention that the XBox 2 will be powered by the IBM chip, and ATI will be providing the video chip." The report also notes: "Interestingly, the SDK apparently also features an Apple logo on a side bar within the application."
I think the use of the Apple G5 systems with a funny NT kernel running indicate that the XBox2 is going to have a lot more in common with the Apple G5 than the common PC. Afterall, there just aren't a lot of PC motherboards in circulation built for the IBM PowerPC chips.
Clearly, the final specs for the XBox2 aren't set in stone. So, since they can't deliver any XBox2 motherboards because they're not exactly fully designed yet, Apple's a reasonable place to turn for successful implementation of the IBM processor chips. It's likely that the Apple logo within the software was part of the price Microsoft had to pay for Apple's assitance in supplying a little help in writing that NT-on-PowerPC kernel...
Why would it mean anything. It seems its just a development environment for the Xbox, and considering that it seems the Xbox 2 will have no backwards compatibility why would this environment help in porting, when they have turned their back on intel architecture for the platform. Just because it has a NT kernel doesn't mean anything, remember NT ran on PPC as well as Alpha and Intel when NT was actually called NT.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I'm really not surprised. I mean, Apple has no stake in the videogame market, so why not help out someone (even Microsoft) and get a little bit of extra money? Microsoft would find a way to do it eventually, so its not like if Apple didn't help it would be any sort of blow against MS.
Holy Jesus, you people are misinformed.
August 6, 1997- Microsoft agreed to purchase $150 million in non-voting Apple preferred stock. Note that it was NON-VOTING stock-- so essentially this was just a goodwill investment in Apple. Microsoft was required to hold the stock for at least 3 years before selling. Another clause of this investment was that Microsoft was to continue to produce Macintosh products, including all new versions of the Microsoft Office product, for a period of five years. In exchange, Apple would make Internet Explorer the default web browser on Macs, and not sue the living hell out of Microsoft.* Microsoft has since sold all of this stock, at a nice profit, I might add. This agreement expired in August 2002, and since then MS has occasionally made noise about discontinuing Mac Office. Apple is also no longer bound to the terms of this agreement, so expect to see IE vanish from new Macs as soon as Apple's Safari browser goes 1.0.
* Strong rumors from several sources indicate that the 1997 deal was the public portion of a settlement made after Apple discovered substantial patent and/or copyright infringment by MS in Windows. Word is that there was a meeting between senior Apple and MS officials where Apple laid out the evidence and an ultimatum. Personally, I think there is some credibility to this, as Microsoft rarely if ever does anything that could be deemed 'nice,' especially to a competitor. There is, however, another school of thought that says Microsoft was only acting in their own self-interest, propping up Apple so they would have a competitor to point to when the antitrust thing really built up some steam. I question the use of the term 'propping up,' as Apple had a few billion in the bank at the time and did not need the $150M, and the government would have realized that.
I'd guess they made the choice for heat production reasons. The XBox is quite large for a game console and it still has heat problems. Using a smaller, cooler chip would help make this more of a real console. Intel is still having problems with its Prescott processor and is also currently trying to reposition itself with respect to the 64-bit transition. AMD doesn't have a low-heat CPU available either, though they're otherwise better positioned in the marketplace.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, though. Getting Windows to run on a new architecture will likely take more than a new kernel.
Also, don't forget this is from The Inquirer. Definitely not the most credible news source in the world.
They could easily port Windows NT (by that I mean the line including 2k, XP and 2003 server) to a Mac if they wanted. Windows NT was made to be portable from the start, as are most micro-kernel type OSes. NT 4 was actually available for x86, Alpha (Digital's 64-bit processor), PPC (IBM systems, not Macs) and MIPS. They moved to only x86 since sales weren't worth it on the other platforms.
The reason you don't see it for Macs is monetary and licensing. Apple wouldn't be happy with them if they tried (might even wind up in court) and there'd be no economic incentive since a large majority of Mac users use Mac to NOT use Windows. Also, software would still have to be recompiled for the new processor. So it's not like there would be a huge library of apps out there.
That was the problem with NT on the Alpha. It was NT in every way, and all the included software worked great and very fast. However, there was very little effort on the part of software companies to release Alpha versions of their apps. There was an emulator out there that allowed x86 apps to execute on Alpha, but as with all emulators it was slow. Given that speed was the allure of the Alpha, most people elected to use the cheaper x86 if NT was what they needed.