or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › XBox 2 SDK released
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

XBox 2 SDK released

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
http://theinquirer.org/?article=14407


Xbox 2 SDK released on cool Apple Power Mac G5s

It comes to pass


By Paul Dutton: zaterdag 28 februari 2004, 15:59




WE'VE JUST got word that the Software Development Kit (SDK) for Microsofts 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.

The Apple Power Mac G5 is based upon two of IBMs 64-bit Power PC processors and features ATi RADEON 9800 Pro (R350) graphics. However the R350 is believed to be an interim solution and will, in due course, be superseded by the forthcoming ATI R420.

Interestingly the SDK apparently also features an Apple logo on a side bar within the application.

What we dont yet know is whether the custom Windows NT Kernel for the 64-bit capable IBM Power PC processors is 64-bit or 32-bit.

Though as ATI is so clearly behind with even its iAMD64 device drivers for both Intel and AMD x86-64 platforms, we suspect that its 32-bit.

Let us know if you know. ยต
"Respect my authoritaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"
Reply
"Respect my authoritaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"
Reply
post #2 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by fieldor
What we dont yet know is whether the custom Windows NT Kernel for the 64-bit capable IBM Power PC processors is 64-bit or 32-bit.

Well since the machine will have considerably less than 4 GB of RAM and no hard disk, it doesn't seem to make much sense to waste memory on 8 byte pointers when 4 will do just fine. The processors are 64-bit, but don't count on ever seeing a 64-bit OS for it.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #3 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by fieldor
http://theinquirer.org/?article=14407


Xbox 2 SDK released on cool Apple Power Mac G5s

Wow, this is completely mind-boggling. Never in my live would I have expected MS to release an XBox SDK that actually uses a PowerMac. This is so strangely unideologic, completely unlike MS. Especially considering how Apple treats the Mac BU ...

This _is_ a swift kick to intels nuts too - for reasons I don't quite understand, MS does not seem to have too much faith in intels (or AMDs for that matter) capability to deliver a cool, cheap, and powerful chip.

Hell just considerably cooled, I think.
post #4 of 48
I think it's weird that Microsoft has a version of windows already running on the G5. It's like a just in case scenario. Just in case that G5 thing blows the doors off intel? That would suck having windows on the same processors as our beloved OS. Maybe the GHz was has been won? By IBM. Justice!!!!!!!!!
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #5 of 48
Quote:
This _is_ a swift kick to intels nuts too

Indeed. I believe this bodes very well for future Macs. Microsoft undoubtedly has information that we don't, and they've decided that IBM's processor roadmap is not only better than the x86 alternative, but so much better that it justifies making a major architecture switch.
post #6 of 48
Not too surprising really. MS had NT running on PowerPC processors early on - along wtih MIPS and Alpha (I actually had an Alpha at one point that ran NT 3.51). So, getting it running on a G5 should have been pretty simple, all they really needed to do was write drivers for the devices. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the kernel is still the old 3.5 kernel - I don't think the RISC versions of NT ever made it to NT 4.

Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I think it's weird that Microsoft has a version of windows already running on the G5. It's like a just in case scenario. Just in case that G5 thing blows the doors off intel? That would suck having windows on the same processors as our beloved OS. Maybe the GHz was has been won? By IBM. Justice!!!!!!!!!
The Mad Kiwi Winemaker
Reply
The Mad Kiwi Winemaker
Reply
post #7 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by 3.1416
Indeed. I believe this bodes very well for future Macs. Microsoft undoubtedly has information that we don't, and they've decided that IBM's processor roadmap is not only better than the x86 alternative, but so much better that it justifies making a major architecture switch.

while i'd love to believe this (Microsoft having more info regarding roadmap, etc) I doubt it. They may have some assurances from IBM that "the future looks good", and a more detailed view of all the various options for foundry work, i doubt IBM would be stupid enough to let any real info out to MS.

MS's choice seems to me most strongly motivated by things we all know:
1) IBM has HUGE new foundry capability
2) IBM needs to use some of that
3) IBM is clearly leading the process shift (130->90)
4) IBM leads Intel and AMD in efficiency, SMT, etc.
5) Competition will stir up innovation, which leads to increased MS sales (OS, software, and now hardware (home routers, etc.)).

Do you really think MS needs any 'extra' info to make the PowerPC choice?
====
"The Matrix is here, and it's vegan-friendly." (TM) 2004, Trinity Life Systems
Reply
====
"The Matrix is here, and it's vegan-friendly." (TM) 2004, Trinity Life Systems
Reply
post #8 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by concentricity
Do you really think MS needs any 'extra' info to make the PowerPC choice?

I am 100% positive that MS knows quite a bit more than is publicly known regarding IBM's current and upcoming PowerPC technology, fabs and process tech.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #9 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
I am 100% positive that MS knows quite a bit more than is publicly known regarding IBM's current and upcoming PowerPC technology, fabs and process tech.

100%?
====
"The Matrix is here, and it's vegan-friendly." (TM) 2004, Trinity Life Systems
Reply
====
"The Matrix is here, and it's vegan-friendly." (TM) 2004, Trinity Life Systems
Reply
post #10 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by concentricity
while i'd love to believe this (Microsoft having more info regarding roadmap, etc) I doubt it. They may have some assurances from IBM that "the future looks good", and a more detailed view of all the various options for foundry work, i doubt IBM would be stupid enough to let any real info out to MS.

You're kidding right?!?!

IBM's PPC division is in the business of SELLING CPUs... If a MAJOR client can be SOLD to make the switch to the PPC then IBM's sales force most assuredly is providing AS MUCH detail as it can to close the deal.

This specific quote really made me laugh... "They may have some assurances from IBM that "the future looks good"... "

Ummm do you really think those types of fluff answers would be accepted by a customer the caliber of Microsoft? Hell no, this isn't some keynote address this is a MAJOR business deal for BOTH parties! A PPC based XBOX II in short means a TOTAL redesign of just about everything the XBOX was. Talk about starting from square one! if changing the CPU and motherboard isn't doing just that then I don't know what is...

Trust me... Microsoft has TONS and TONS of 'REAL INFO' on the PPC line - and after all why shouldn't they? IBM's PPC group is NOT in competition with MS in any way shape or form... Oh and don't start quoting old deals gone bad between IBM and MS - DOS / Windows / OS/2 etc etc etc... That was then and this is now... unlike people a company will move on much more quickly since after all. 'business is business'.

"the future looks good"

Sorry but that cracks me up...

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #11 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by concentricity
while i'd love to believe this (Microsoft having more info regarding roadmap, etc) I doubt it. They may have some assurances from IBM that "the future looks good", and a more detailed view of all the various options for foundry work, i doubt IBM would be stupid enough to let any real info out to MS.


I have to believe it. The switch to PPC would be a major change for the XBOX, it owuld not be something done without significant consideration.

In most industries it is fairly common to get significant information about new products years in advance. The significance and accuracy of that information becomes more accurate as the release dates near. In any event the whole point of NDA is to get buy ins before a product is released. The goal being to assurre market success.
Quote:

MS's choice seems to me most strongly motivated by things we all know:
1) IBM has HUGE new foundry capability
2) IBM needs to use some of that
3) IBM is clearly leading the process shift (130->90)

I would not be surprised to find out that IBM has demoed their 60nm process to microsoft and demonstrated significant advantage with the process.
Quote:
4) IBM leads Intel and AMD in efficiency, SMT, etc.
5) Competition will stir up innovation, which leads to increased MS sales (OS, software, and now hardware (home routers, etc.)).

In this case the competition is other set top boxes. Here MS has had problems and if the rumored machines form the other manufactures materialize will have problems in the future. MS needs a platform that would be competitive, nothing from intel fills the bill and AMD is slightly behind with 90nm.

So I don't see it as stirring up the competition, more so I see it as responding to the competition. A slight difference in my mind.
Quote:

Do you really think MS needs any 'extra' info to make the PowerPC choice?

post #12 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by kiwi-in-dc
I don't think the RISC versions of NT ever made it to NT 4.

The PowerPC version made it to 4.0.
post #13 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveGee
You're kidding right?!?!

you both completely missed the point of my post...IBM (or any other company in a highly competetive marketplace where intellectual property is crucial, and easily "stolen" and reused) is only going to give up the bare minimum of details required to 'get the sale'. I was specifically responding to the assertion that MS picked IBM because MS has intimate detail of IBM's long-range processor plans. that's f-ing absurd! MS knows only what they need to know to make the decision, which, from what i explained in the list, is not much more than what we "know" either from reports or fairly mainstream rumors. Has MS seen IBM 65nm parts? Probably. But we, as consumers and "Mac heads" have heard multiple reports of these already. I seriously doubt if anyone in MS has their own hands on these, outside of possibly a hermetically sealed sample box. This is far from being intimate knowledge of IBM's long-range processor / foundry technology.

Get it?

It's easy to mock, or make light, but if you spent a little more time thinking critically about it, and paid attention to what I was specifically responding to, you might not be laughing, but rather adding something to the conversation.
====
"The Matrix is here, and it's vegan-friendly." (TM) 2004, Trinity Life Systems
Reply
====
"The Matrix is here, and it's vegan-friendly." (TM) 2004, Trinity Life Systems
Reply
post #14 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by concentricity
Blah

Wait a sec. Just what's the whole point in arguing over this? Does it make you feel any bigger knowing any more than Microsoft? It's obvious that as a partner, it knows more than you do. But even if you refuse to acknowledge that, it doesn't change a thing.
post #15 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by concentricity
I was specifically responding to the assertion that MS picked IBM because MS has intimate detail of IBM's long-range processor plans. that's f-ing absurd! MS knows only what they need to know to make the decision, which, from what i explained in the list, is not much more than what we "know" either from reports or fairly mainstream rumors.

No way, you are utterly wrong here. MS is not a chip maker, so IBM has not to fear they are going to steal their process knowledge. MS is, on the other hand, a very important customer (if they base the Box2 on PPC), possibly earning IBM hundrets of millions. You do not treat customers on that scale like they are getting information on a need-to-know basis. You have to convince them with both hard cold facts and an emotionally reassuring outlook you are better than the competition.
Heck, they are potentially more important to the chip division than IBM's own server makers and nearly as important as Apple.

MS and IBM will have had a lot of meetings where IBM has detailed _exactly_ where they are heading their efforts (Ghz, GPlops in 1, 2, 5 years), where they potential dangers and pitfalls and at which point they can offer MS which products at which projected prices in which numbers. I am pretty sure, they offered MS several different (more or less customized) solutions with an individual price degression plan as their process is further evolved.

OTOH, the MS managers surely had to sign some stiff NDAs before the IBM guys spilled the beans...
post #16 of 48
I don't think anybody on this thread is missing the point more than you. MS at this point knows as much about what IBM has up its sleeves PPC wise, as Apple did with repect to the 970 two years before the 970 was even released to market. There is simply no way for MS to make a decision to switch processors and not have this information available. Now you can fully expect that the NDA's and the relavant contracts where signed before timelines are generated, but just a NDA would have netted MS a great deal of information.

To put it bluntly MS could not have made the decision it did make without knowing IBM's long range plans and having some idea of when the products outlined by those plans would be available

Think about it a bit, if you're running a business that has a product that will require a development time measure in years, how could you make any decisions without having very specific information to base those decisions on. In a nut shell that is the whole point of having NDA's and devlopment contracts, so your product can be ready or close to ready to ship when your suppliers are ready to ship.

As to what Apple or MS has their hands on right now, it is a given that both of them have technology in house that won't see the light of day for months or years. Even with all of the obvious involment of Apple in the devlopment of the 970 it still took the may months of work before they could deliver a 970 base PowerMac after the 970 was first described in public.

The situation is the same with the fx variant. You can be reasonably sure that Apple had these before they were publicly announced by IBM. We can only hope that it is a matter of weeks and not months before we see them in desktop Macs.

It maybe isn't a matter of laughing, it might be a question of being stunned. Just how do you think products are developed and contracts won and lost? Hell even in the old metal working industry you can get tooling on test or demo. They might not call it beta but the concept is the same. Test it, give us your feedback and maybe we release it into the wild.

Feedback from potential customers can be very humbling but is required if you expect to release first class products.

Quote:
Originally posted by concentricity
you both completely missed the point of my post...IBM (or any other company in a highly competetive marketplace where intellectual property is crucial, and easily "stolen" and reused) is only going to give up the bare minimum of details required to 'get the sale'. I was specifically responding to the assertion that MS picked IBM because MS has intimate detail of IBM's long-range processor plans. that's f-ing absurd! MS knows only what they need to know to make the decision, which, from what i explained in the list, is not much more than what we "know" either from reports or fairly mainstream rumors. Has MS seen IBM 65nm parts? Probably. But we, as consumers and "Mac heads" have heard multiple reports of these already. I seriously doubt if anyone in MS has their own hands on these, outside of possibly a hermetically sealed sample box. This is far from being intimate knowledge of IBM's long-range processor / foundry technology.

Get it?

It's easy to mock, or make light, but if you spent a little more time thinking critically about it, and paid attention to what I was specifically responding to, you might not be laughing, but rather adding something to the conversation.
post #17 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
I don't think anybody on this thread is missing the point more than you.

Except yourself perhaps.
Quote:
There is simply no way for MS to make a decision to switch processors and not have this information available.

Right. And now you expect us to believe that you're privy to MS business plans? As far as you know MS is shifting to the PPC because that makes it harder to hack the XBox into a PC.
Quote:
The situation is the same with the fx variant. You can be reasonably sure that Apple had these before they were publicly announced by IBM.

You really are clueless you know that? As if IBM even had plans to develop the PPC970 before Apple came to them and said "build it." As if MS needs to know anything about IBM or its roadmaps other than they can deliver what MS wants.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #18 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
Except yourself perhaps.

Right. And now you expect us to believe that you're privy to MS business plans? As far as you know MS is shifting to the PPC because that makes it harder to hack the XBox into a PC.

You really are clueless you know that? As if IBM even had plans to develop the PPC970 before Apple came to them and said "build it." As if MS needs to know anything about IBM or its roadmaps other than they can deliver what MS wants.

well, thank you.

while i don't think MS is completely clueless, I did say MS knows more than us, but marginally.

and quite frankly, I'm AMAZED that so many, seemingly intelligent people in this thread can honestly believe that IBM needs to "spill the beans" to MS to win the XBox2 contract?! MS engineers and product managers would get all the relevant info (that you and I can get from pdf's @ IBM.com) about the different cores, SOC designs, buses, etc. MS'd get assurances that IBM could produce X on X technology, and yes, get samples of custom parts. But, that's not an inside look at their f-ing roadmap! MS isn't going to be building multiple different versions, upgrading the processors every few months, and need to know how things will continue to evolve! This is a static design job, requiring MS and IBM to put together what's wanted/needed with what IBM can or can't do.
====
"The Matrix is here, and it's vegan-friendly." (TM) 2004, Trinity Life Systems
Reply
====
"The Matrix is here, and it's vegan-friendly." (TM) 2004, Trinity Life Systems
Reply
post #19 of 48
You can be sure that MS know much more than you. MS signed for a precise chip avaliable in precise numbers at a precise date. In short they bought the chip on plans. This plans are secret, and both MS and IBM won't publish them.

As nobody here has plans about this chip, i think that Microsoft knows a much more about this chip than anybody here. Now I doubt that IBM gave info concerning their others products.
post #20 of 48
As an aspiering programmer, (dektop aps or games is still up n the air) this reafferms my plan to learn / teach myself to code on intel AND non intel boxes, and now i am interested more than ever in getting a G5 because it looks like all sides are backing ibm(again) as they have successfully spanked intel in proformance, now the question:

learn osx or get windows on a G5, or both?

i think that if a mass switch from intell does indeed lie ahead, many would take the oppritunaty to stp back and consider thier os..and this could open the floodgates to switchers, not only to mac but linux, and unix in general

and look at the mac freindly gameing trends recently, ut 2k4 goes mac linux and windows on the same day for the same price, doom 3 is doing the same thing i think.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #21 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by concentricity
well, thank you.

while i don't think MS is completely clueless, I did say MS knows more than us, but marginally.

and quite frankly, I'm AMAZED that so many, seemingly intelligent people in this thread can honestly believe that IBM needs to "spill the beans" to MS to win the XBox2 contract?! MS engineers and product managers would get all the relevant info (that you and I can get from pdf's @ IBM.com) about the different cores, SOC designs, buses, etc. MS'd get assurances that IBM could produce X on X technology, and yes, get samples of custom parts. But, that's not an inside look at their f-ing roadmap! MS isn't going to be building multiple different versions, upgrading the processors every few months, and need to know how things will continue to evolve! This is a static design job, requiring MS and IBM to put together what's wanted/needed with what IBM can or can't do.

Okay one last time without any laughs...

I have seen (previous) IBM and Motorola roadmap PDF's and PPT's - I have also seen those same documents that have additional pages tacked on to the end and were marked IBM CONFIDENTIAL (or MOT CONFIDENTIAL) NDA ONLY and trust me those 'additional pages' that are made available to NDA clients contained MUCH more information about the future of their chips / processes / designs / etc.

I have no doubt that MS know as much (or almost as much) about IBM's plans as Apple does. I said almost as much only because it would kinda bug me if MS knew AS MUCH as Apple... The cold hard truth is, MS probably does. In the end, why shouldn't they? Apple is a client and MS is a client and Sony is a client - all of them top tier customers too... Apple MAY hold a special place due to it being the FIRST top tier customer and depending on who you believe had a fair amount of say as to the design of the core (being the only top tier customer at the time why shouldn't they) but as the sands of time move - I'm more than a little fearful that Apple would hold less and less of IBM's "ear" when it comes to PPC design.

That part really bothers me...

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #22 of 48
The use of the G5 makes sense for SDK for the Xbox2 if you include the VPC technology for backward Xbox compatibility. But I still highly doubt the reliability of the Inquirer article.
post #23 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by concentricity
while i don't think MS is completely clueless, I did say MS knows more than us, but marginally.

Well I guess it comes down to your definitions of "marginally" and "long-range" then. MS is not privvy to IBM's entire roadmap, especially where there are agreements in place with other companies (i.e. Apple, Sony, Toshiba, nVidia, AMD, etc), and regarding markets Microsoft isn't interested in (i.e. the POWER server line), and beyond the expected life-cycle of the XBox 2 (several years, at least). That still leaves a lot for them to know that isn't public knowledge, and over a duration that anybody in this fast moving industry would call long-term. This is probably the most important part of IBM's planning right now because it is an area of huge sales, key technologies, and the most accurate plans & predictions (the farther out the plan/prediction, the less accurate it will be). So MS might not know IBM's entire master plan, but they do know a very big and very important chunk of it. I know they know, but I have no way to prove it to you and wouldn't be allowed to even if I could.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #24 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by vdoc
The use of the G5 makes sense for SDK for the Xbox2 if you include the VPC technology for backward Xbox compatibility. But I still highly doubt the reliability of the Inquirer article.

Forget backwards compatibility.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #25 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Forget backwards compatibility.

Dunno, you only need the emulator to be as fast as a 733 MHz PIII (what the XBox I has). The (DirectX?) API calls can probably be mapped to native API pretty easily (like Windows on Windows, which lets you run 16-bit Windows apps on 32-bit Windows OS, etc.).
post #26 of 48
Microsoft is known to have insiders everywhere I wouldn't be surprised if they did know some inside info, and what sony and IBM going with cell... microsoft knows they are about to be out of options.
_ _____________________ _
1ghz Powerbook SuperDrive yippeeee!!!!
Reply
_ _____________________ _
1ghz Powerbook SuperDrive yippeeee!!!!
Reply
post #27 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by nguyenhm16
Dunno, you only need the emulator to be as fast as a 733 MHz PIII (what the XBox I has). The (DirectX?) API calls can probably be mapped to native API pretty easily (like Windows on Windows, which lets you run 16-bit Windows apps on 32-bit Windows OS, etc.).

You dont even need to emulate the 733 pIII (actually a celeron).They could add the chip to the board and it could run legacy games.I doubt it would cost much and it wouldnt be a power or heat issue because it would only run when legacy games are played.PS2 does this.It has the ps1 processor onboard to run old games.
post #28 of 48
Does this mean that any game that is released for XBoxII with the addition of a game controller, will be able to run on the G5 I ordered yesterday?

If so, that's huge! A lot of serious game players invest big bucks on high end peecees complaining that the mac platform simply doesn't have their favourite games. If a whole new library of games all of a sudden become available to the G5...
thinking different(ly)
Reply
thinking different(ly)
Reply
post #29 of 48
I was just thinking about this and it just occurred to me... I really think microsoft does take its work seriously if they are in it enough to invest in another platform just to make a good machine. I mean it shows they are really wanting serious about their xbox platform and serious about gaming.
_ _____________________ _
1ghz Powerbook SuperDrive yippeeee!!!!
Reply
_ _____________________ _
1ghz Powerbook SuperDrive yippeeee!!!!
Reply
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by lungaretta
Does this mean that any game that is released for XBoxII with the addition of a game controller, will be able to run on the G5 I ordered yesterday?

Absolutely not. First, you arent running Windows NT. Second, just because the games are written for a console using PowerPCs does not mean you can play the games on a computer using G5s any more than you can run current Xbox games on a PC.
post #31 of 48
Uhmmm.. Dude.. Why should people buy Xbox's when they already have a PC, if you could just install the game on a normal machine?
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #32 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by kiwi-in-dc
Not too surprising really. MS had NT running on PowerPC processors early on - along wtih MIPS and Alpha (I actually had an Alpha at one point that ran NT 3.51). So, getting it running on a G5 should have been pretty simple, all they really needed to do was write drivers for the devices. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the kernel is still the old 3.5 kernel - I don't think the RISC versions of NT ever made it to NT 4.

Windows NT 4 was built for all the RISC platforms. I still have it running on Alphas.

BTW, most people don't know this, but NT 4 for PPC/Alpha/MIPS contains an emulator. You can run X86 applications seamlessly on the RISC hardwdare under NT 4.
post #33 of 48
Xbox Next using PPC chips has no effect on Apple and the Mac games market.

At best it has made a lot of die-hard x86 gamers/engineers rethink their chip loyalties. A lot of them are probably sorting out the cognitive dissonance of Macs(PPC) suck and Xbox(PPC,too) rules.

Perhaps it is the first hints of a major shift at MS to the PPC chip family. Probably not. MS trying another x86 machine crammed into a box the size of a console simply wasn't an option after the marketplace disaster of the first version.

Four years ago or so I got to work with the first Dolphin SDK at the company I was working at. It was basically some renamed OpenGL headers that you compiled against and a bunch of docs on the hardware you didn't have yet. I ran it on one of the ancient early PowerMacs that the company hadn't gotten around to throwning away yet.

Once the real hardware arrived, the early SDK Mac was disgarded for x86 boxes running the real dev tools connected up to a Dolphin development unit.

I have no direct knowledge, but I assume the Xbox SDK will follow a similar path once the first batch of usable motherboards with the new IBM chip(s) are able to be shipped off to developers.

The final SDK will most likely be a development environment running on a x86 machine with a MS OS connected by Ethernet to a development version of the Xbox Next. No Macs involved. The XBox Next hardware will most likely be running the same type of NT/Win2k kernel as the first XBox and a port of DirectX. Pretty basic stuff for a company the size of MS. Certainly nowhere near the tech level of Sony's PS3.
post #34 of 48
What intrigues me more is that the successor to the GameCube will be using the same proc and graphics as the Xbox 2. Makes you wonder what that means.
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
post #35 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by DanMacMan
What intrigues me more is that the successor to the GameCube will be using the same proc and graphics as the Xbox 2. Makes you wonder what that means.

It means Intel and AMD are pissed and IBM is very happy!

Other than that I'm not sure if anything else could be read into it... Other than maybe the 9xx line of CPUs are going to get some additional R&D funding.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #36 of 48
I seriously doubt Intel and AMD are pissed, since together they account for roughtly 90% of the computer market with their chips.

AMD is starting to do quite well in the enterprise markets with their opertrons. They are hardly pissed.

All this speculation about games coming to the Mac platform, is trash, and you know it. XBox 2 with a PPC has nothing to do with OSX and a PPC.

Unless MS plans on using an OSX Kernel and porting DirectX, its not gonna happen.

This isn't even a big deal in terms of consoles. Almost all consoles that I'm aware of usually used a custom chip. The Xbox 1 was the devation, and look what happened with that. We are back on the traditional road map.
post #37 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by DanMacMan
What intrigues me more is that the successor to the GameCube will be using the same proc and graphics as the Xbox 2. Makes you wonder what that means.

Erhh... Since when?
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #38 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Faeylyn
Windows NT 4 was built for all the RISC platforms. I still have it running on Alphas.

BTW, most people don't know this, but NT 4 for PPC/Alpha/MIPS contains an emulator. You can run X86 applications seamlessly on the RISC hardwdare under NT 4.

what most people also don't know,is that the non x86 version of NT were NOT written by microsoft.
they were written by the chip manufacturers.
NT for Powerpc was actually done by Motorola(of course, the way the license went was these companies did the hard part of coding it for the cpu's while microsoft still got the money for it(because they figured windows on these chips would increase sales)...
post #39 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by scavanger
I seriously doubt Intel and AMD are pissed, since together they account for roughtly 90% of the computer market with their chips.

AMD is starting to do quite well in the enterprise markets with their opertrons. They are hardly pissed.

All this speculation about games coming to the Mac platform, is trash, and you know it. XBox 2 with a PPC has nothing to do with OSX and a PPC.

Unless MS plans on using an OSX Kernel and porting DirectX, its not gonna happen.

This isn't even a big deal in terms of consoles. Almost all consoles that I'm aware of usually used a custom chip. The Xbox 1 was the devation, and look what happened with that. We are back on the traditional road map.

You're right on the money here. Intel might feel a little snubbed since XBox2 is high profile, but monetarily its not a big deal.

It is good for IBM, however, and for Apple as a side effect. The more places they can sell their 9xx cores into, the more money they will spend on new generations of it.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #40 of 48
While off topic would you care to elaborate a bit on "the future of their chips"?
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveGee
kay one last time without any laughs...

I have seen (previous) IBM and Motorola roadmap PDF's and PPT's - I have also seen those same documents that have additional pages tacked on to the end and were marked IBM CONFIDENTIAL (or MOT CONFIDENTIAL) NDA ONLY and trust me those 'additional pages' that are made available to NDA clients contained MUCH more information about the future of their chips / processes / designs / etc.

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › XBox 2 SDK released