ATI powers Xbox2

Wouldn’t it be grand if they used something like the AMD64 chip, along with whatever ATI has up its sleaves in a couple years? That would be some serious honkin’ horsepower.

Do keep in mind that Microsoft did acquire Connectix, the folks who did the VirtualPC software for Macs. Obviously, they probably plan to use that VirtualPC stuff for Windows (probably so that when they make the jump to Itanium and full 64-bit, they’ll have full 32-bit backward compatibility in the OS, because all reports are that 32-bit code running on the 64-bit Windows sucks ass performance-wise right now).

But it shouldn’t be too hard to come up with a simple emulation layer for Xbox2, should it?

I think it’s more translation than emulation as it will most likely be a very similar architecture. It’s not going to be a leap like the PS2 was. After all they are basing it off of Windows tech.

I don’t see it happening, myself. They won’t have a large enough installed hardware base to really bother with backwards compatibility. If they were the number one console, it’d be a different story. People expect to have to upgrade these things and when your consumers are such a small part of a much larger market, it just doesn’t make sense.

Also, if anyone did code to the metal, those games are unlikely to work at all in any kind of emulation environment. And if no one is coding to the metal, they’re leaving all kinds of untapped system “power” on the table for someone else to really stun people with graphics and whatnot.

–Dave

That’s a fallacy. It all depends on how you code. Using a properly tuned API can result in tight, well executed code. It depends how well you optimize.

For Xbox (and Xbox 2 we can assume), the drivers are loaded off the DVD at run-time with the game. Each game ships the drivers that they finished making the game with and went through QA with. If there are any problems during development, they know that problem will affect everyone, and they fix it (or MS does, depending on where the problem lies). Future drivers don’t break old games because they aren’t used on old games.

It’s not an issue as it is with the PC.

Anyway, ATI’s drivers have been “good” since early this year, and in the last couple of months I’ve had more issues with NVIDIA’s drivers than ATI’s. :shock:

probably so that when they make the jump to Itanium and full 64-bit, they’ll have full 32-bit backward compatibility in the OS, because all reports are that 32-bit code running on the 64-bit Windows sucks ass performance-wise right now

I think Microsoft is going to back the AMD’s 64-bit extentions to x86 for desktop versions of Windows, and the Itanium flavors are just for servers. There will be a 64-bit Windows XP sometime late this year or early next year for the Athlon 64 / Opteron, and it should run almost all 32-bit apps with no problems or significant speed penalties. Knock on wood.

don’t see it happening, myself. They won’t have a large enough installed hardware base to really bother with backwards compatibility.


They’re at about 10 million now, and at the going rate they should have 25-30 million sold by late summer / early fall 2005 (the projected launch date for these next-gen systems). I guess whether that’s enough to consider backwards compatibility is debateable.

Personally, I don’t know anyone who honestly bought a PS2 because it could play PS1 games. I know a few people who SAID that was a reason they liked it, but they then did not purchase a single PS1 game, only PS2 stuff. I think backward compatibility is overrated. For gameboy it’s another story…it’s important that those can play recent but previous-generation games.

"If there are any problems during development, they know that problem will affect everyone, and they fix it (or MS does, depending on where the problem lies). Future drivers don’t break old games because they aren’t used on old games. "

Wonder if something like this could be used with the PC. Make Windows be able to dynamically load up the drivers that come with the game when it starts up.

That would be a good idea in some respects. That way you know the game works with the driver you ship. On the other hand it’s a throw back to the old DOS days when you needed to include a driver for every major video/sound card.

Yeah, and watch as system stability goes out the window. Hardware abstraction API’s (DX, OGL) were developed for a reason.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind one bit if Microsoft started hosting 3rd party driver downloads on their servers and integrated it into Windows Update. So everytime Windows Update runs, I automatically get the latest Catalyst drivers (or whatever).

I know it’ll probably never happen, for a number of reasons (liability issues with buggy drivers first and foremost among them). But it would be neat.

Windows Update does host drivers. I’m not sure how up to date they are, as I can always remember it telling me the latest nVidia drivers were version 29.42, when I had 30.xx+ installed.

Needless to say, I don’t trust Windows Update for drivers.

Windows Update only hosts Signed drivers. This means that the drivers survived the stability pass, and get the lil windows logo of approval.

Drivers are the #1 cause of windows crashes. And car crashes too.

Windows Upate only hosts Windows Logo Ceritied drivers. Most of the Drivers you download (both cataylst and the nvidia ones) are not Logo Certified - they seem to only get certified every 4 or so driver updates.

As to why, that’s something I don’t know - for the average person using the drivers off windows update isn’t a bad thing. For the average gamer they’re too far out of date.

Ah fuck, didn’t see bago’s reply. Oh well.

As a matter of fact, Windows Update nagged me about installing Nvidia drivers even though the same or (now) a newer WHQL certified version is already installed on the system. So Windows Update is, in fact, stupid.