I must say, I am VERY impressed with Windows XP

[Shudder]

Also, last time I checked there was supposed to be some built in pcanywhere functionality

I think that's ONLY for the PRO version, not the home version. It's something like Remote Access I believe, but who knows what MS calls it.

XP will NOT be that impressive a jump for those with 2k already. From 98/ME to XP it will be phenomenal. The same reasons everyone who fell in love with 2k when they migrated, new xp owners will find that out and finally realize what we've been saying for the last 2 years.

I'll still probably get XP though, if anything for compatibility, the new look is cool but oh well, and disabling services I won't need is nice too.

 

[CocaCola5]

Microsoft should have been a hardware company they make great hardware. Xbox is the best console ever. Just curious, anybody know if the DVD output feature on it is "progressive"?

 

[sentania]

<<

<< All in all, I give it an A >>



When it encrypts all your mp3s and wmas and videos without asking you, and when it refuses to let you play those files on another box without migrating the licenses first, I'm sure you will give it an A+. >>



huh?
I've used XP and nothing but since b4 feburary and I've never had anything like that? shut up

 

[lucidguy]

<< Xbox is the best console ever. >>



Um, hate to break it to you, buddy, but XBox is not a console. It is a PC. More specifically, it is a mid-level PC sold at lowest-level PC prices considering today's technology market. I like to say &quot;The XBox is a PC, sold at a substantial loss, subsidized by Microsoft's inability to build a proper console.&quot;

The so-called XBox is a P3-733 Intel box with a GeForce2 Pro variant, onboard sound, onboard ethernet, EIDE DVD drive, 64 Megs of RAM, 10 gig EIDE HD, 4 front panel USB ports (slightly bastardized to make it difficult for people to plug in standard USB peripherals, until amateur EE students start manufacturing USB-MSUSB adaptors) all encased in a black desktop form factor case.

The XBox is a great buy for a Linux box or a server machine. It will likely be heatsink cooled, or fan noise will be minimal, so running it 24/7 should not cause noise pollution.

Expect to see an XBox-specialized Linux distribution days after the XBox launches.

 

[CocaCola5]

<<

<< Xbox is the best console ever. >>



Um, hate to break it to you, buddy, but XBox is not a console. It is a PC. More specifically, it is a mid-level PC sold at lowest-level PC prices considering today's technology market. I like to say &quot;The XBox is a PC, sold at a substantial loss, subsidized by Microsoft's inability to build a proper console.&quot;

The so-called XBox is a P3-733 Intel box with a GeForce2 Pro variant, onboard sound, onboard ethernet, EIDE DVD drive, 64 Megs of RAM, 10 gig EIDE HD, 4 front panel USB ports (slightly bastardized to make it difficult for people to plug in standard USB peripherals, until amateur EE students start manufacturing USB-MSUSB adaptors) all encased in a black desktop form factor case.

The XBox is a great buy for a Linux box or a server machine. It will likely be heatsink cooled, or fan noise will be minimal, so running it 24/7 should not cause noise pollution.

Expect to see an XBox-specialized Linux distribution days after the XBox launches. >>





Whats the requirement for a &quot;proper console&quot;, I don't quite get what you mean by this. For sure the line between PC and console is quite thin but I think without a OS hack the Xbox is still a console.

 

[lucidguy]

Nope, XBox is running Win XP Embedded. Let me give you an idea of what that means. Win XP Embedded is to Win XP what Win98 Lite is to Win98.

A console is a specialized piece of hardware, the components of which were designed by the console manufacturer or one of its partners solely for use in that console, and cannot be purchased anywhere else.

Each and every piece in the XBox with the possible exception of the GEForce2 variant graphics card, is easily available retail to anyone.

 

[gunf1ghter]

So what makes a proper console?

If it runs games without crashing (at least any more than PS2 and Game Cube crash, and yes those crash too) and gives developers a standardized kit to work with, I think it qualifies.

The way you groan and moan about MS you'd think that they kicked your puppy or something.

 

[Shudder]

A proper console - certainly a better processor than an Intel-based one. An OS that hits hard to the core of the hardware, so basically there isn't one. Windows based OS for strictly gaming? I'd like to see that work.

Instead of actually researching and doing some real work in building a good gaming system, MS is just throwing together parts into a pretty much non-upgradable machine. It might as well be a BookPC and they can call it the XBox.

When it does get hacked, and it will since it IS using pretty much standard parts, it'll be a nice little machine to have

 

[gunf1ghter]

The PC is still the most potent gaming system ever developed.

Show me a console that can run ANYTHING like the latest generation FPS, RPG or flight sim games. console's also don't have enough horsepower to run more involved strategy games.

consoles are also restricted to crappy resolutions so that they can play on television sets.

 

[lucidguy]

<< The PC is still the most potent gaming system ever developed. >>



No one is arguing otherwise. This is a strength for the PC.

What you are arguing for is the versatility and upgradeability of Intel-based architectures. These systems can scale up easily using consumer-administered hardware upgrades, so game developers get to push the envelope regarding new technologies every 6-18 months, keeping up with advances in graphic card, sound card technology, falling prices in memory and hard disk space, and so on.

Also, seeing as how a very wide range of people have PC's and use it for gaming, we get hundreds of solitaire games, tens of RTS games, tens of fighting games, and pretty much everything in between. The gaming demographic is large enough and diverse enough and the business plans of gaming companies are various enough (with no license fees paid to anyone) to sustain this large and eclectic marketplace.

On the other hand, consoles cannot / are not supposed to be upgraded. Console programmers must try and eke out power out of the very same architecture even 4-5 years after the console was released - this is very hard to do for programmers who were brought up used to programming sloppily, because they (correctly) believe that Intel boxes never run out of power. Gamers do their regular upgrades every now and again, so all current games run smoothly regardless of how inefficiently they were written. This culture won't fly on the XBox.

Too, consoles are supposed to be directed at a very specific age group, not extending beyond a 10-year gap, to achieve market penetration. One cannot get away with targeting 10 year old kids and 60 year old grandmothers with the same machine, even if one has $500 million to blow on a giant advertising campaign. Nintendo64 targeted ages 5-15, PSX targeted ages 15-25, PS2 seems to be targeting ages 18-28. The XBox group has no idea about any of this. Having seen planned XBox games that range from Mario64 ripoffs to RPG-FTS'es to brainy RTS derivatives, I wonder if Microsoft has the first clue about targeting a specific demographic. One just does not run a console business the way one runs the Microsoft PC game publishing division. Consoles have &quot;images&quot; and &quot;reputations&quot; among the gaming public, in a way that PC game publishers do not.

The president of Nintendo said just as much in a recent interview. Bill Gates is a very smart man, and Microsoft is a very good company, he said, but Gates knows fsck-all about the console business, and he is in for a very rude awakening. Amen.

 

[gunf1ghter]

<< so game developers get to push the envelope regarding new technologies every 6-18 months >>



Well, actually many more sophisticated games are developed on 2-3 year timelines and many times they have to totally speculate on hardware capabilities



<< The gaming demographic is large enough and diverse enough and the business plans of gaming companies are various enough (with no license fees paid to anyone) >>





<< This culture won't fly on the XBox. >>



You seem to make an awful lot of statements that would be difficult to back up. I really doubt that you are privy to the inner marketing plans of any of the companies mentioned in this discussion.

MS has the most powerful marketing machine on the planet. Sony and Nintendo better pray that XBox sucks as bad as you guys say it will or they are going to lose market share.

 

[Shudder]

console's also don't have enough horsepower to run more involved strategy games.

Not true. It's just that thumb twitchers wouldn't know how to play a game that requires a bit of thinking. That and the interface (controller) isn't suited for this type, though this may change with consoles and the availability of keyboards and mouses for them.


Here's my take on the hardware issue, sloppy coding, etc. It COULD mean that programmers used to doing PC games will be racking their brains trying to actually deal with a limit for the first time. Also, it could mean that PC users will end up getting products that will probably run fairly well always on an 800mhz machine. This could be bad since they won't be that advanced, OR it could be great because companies can't slop their way through a game anymore.

 

[Maverick]

Interesting how this thread switched from talking about XP to the Xbox.
I agree with Lucid on the Xbox's flexibility, the Xbox will come out and within days (more likely weeks) there will be some sort of Linux distribution on it. They already have an OpenBSD distribution for the Dreamcast. Not only that, you'll probably see a DivX player, a Winamp clone, and a million other things that'll make the Xbox the most versatile thing in your living room.

As a gaming console though, so far it leaves a lot to be desired. Microsoft definitely needs some lessons on marketing to console gamers. They have $500 million in marketing muscle and we've yet see a single commercial or poster 6 months before the system is supposed to debut. Not only that, the final development kits haven't gone out yet. That means most of the developers will only have a few months to squash any new bugs that come up with final revision of the system. Some may not make it to the Xbox launch on Nov 8th. Still others may not make the holiday season. These things can affect Xbox initial sales. Initial sales are key to becoming a market leader. Both the dreamcast and the ps2 had tremendous amounts of initial sale. If Xbox falls short there, there's a good chance it'll flop.

I agree 100% on the niche market comments too. You can't market to all age groups and be a successful console. No 12 year old kid will want to play on a system his Dad uses too.

 

[lucidguy]

<< MS has the most powerful marketing machine on the planet. Sony and Nintendo better pray >>



Haha. This comment is so ignorant I don't know where to begin.

Let's look at the reputations of the companies you named.

Microsoft has experience and reputation in making operating system, office suites and server software. They also have a reputation for making things that crash all the time. That's pretty much the extent of their reputation.

Sony, on the other hand, has a reputation for making or distributing music, movies, TV programming, video games, inventing innovative consumer appliances (walkman, CD changers, artificially intelligent dogs, Minidisc, Compact Disc, two of the most successful consoles on the planet (PSX, PS2) and the ubiquitous 3.5'' floppy disk, all invented by Sony) and defining style and fashion in the technology age (Vaio PCs, Wega TVs).

How many people do you know who feel fashionable using Windows 2000 or IIS 5.0?

Nintendo, on the other hand, has the mindshare of hundreds of millions of kids all over the planet, thanks to cultural icons that even Joe Sixpack is familiar with. Everyone knows Mario, Luigi, Zelda, Samus, Kirby, and Pokemon. The Gameboy and derivatives thereof is the best selling console on the planet. Nintendo may not have the all-encompassing reach of Sony's media properties, but they have the most recognizable and the most profitable gaming icons - killer apps - for their consoles.

Can you name me a single gaming icon for the XBox? Except the gigantic stupid looking metallic X that shows up in all XBox presentations? And a bunch of ping-pong balls and a bunch of butterflies I guess.

Microsoft has a technologically pathetic entry into the console race, lacking the synergistic media properties of an entertainment company like Sony, lacking the gaming icons and faithful mindshare of a pure gaming company like Nintendo, lacking everything but lots of cash. In the past, Microsoft's success tactic was to put out inferior product at a lower price than a smaller competitor, and keep at it, outspending them in marketing and undercutting them at retail price until the smaller competitor could not keep up in this financial tug-of-war and either went out of business or agreed to be acquired by Microsoft.

That tactic will not work against Sony and Nintendo. These companies have much more money than the small fish Microsoft has challenged in the past. And they have more than two decades of experience in the console business, combined, compared to Microsoft's zero years.

It will take more than a Pentium box in a black desktop case to win this console war.

 

[gunf1ghter]

MS is regularly used as a textbook case of positive marketing. Their rollouts of MS Windows 95, 98, and MS Office have all done very very well.

Their penetration in almost any market they have entered has been very impressive and it's certainly not because they make the best products in a given category.

When's the last time you cracked open a marketing book or took a marketing class?

You think your knowledge of pop culture makes you qualified to discriminate on who has the superior marketing machine?

 

[Noriaki]

lucidguy, you should hardly talk about ignorant comments....I'm sorry...but Microsoft is so good at marketting that they convinced people that don't even own PCs to buy Windows 95.

MS started in the OS arena.

Now they do OS, Office Apps, Server Software, Software development suites, a lot of major PC games, etc, etc, etc.

How do you think they expanded to those other markets past their original OS market? By producing a product and marketting it well.

Any individual person may or may not be smart, and in this forum I think we have a large concentration of the savvy, but face facts, on the whole people are dumb. If you market something well enough and convince the big dumb animal that is humanity that it wants something they will buy it.

And why do you say the XBox is just a PC? How do you define it?
Becuase it has a CPU? A graphics chip? RAM? A DVD Rom? Uh....every console has such devices.
Sure in this case it resembles PC hardware....so what?
A mac is equally capable (on a hardware level) to a PC...and it uses a different form of CPU.
A PS2 has a cpu as much as an XBox does. Granted it's a better one for video games. But when has technically better every mattered for crap?

Microsoft DOS was a complete piece of crap. Compared to other OSes even in the early 80s it was a joke. But MS convinced the right people they wanted it, and BANG look where they are now.

Intel x86-ISA vs pretty much any other major CPU of now or then...The x86 sucks but won.
Look at an 8086 vs a 68000 hahahahahahahaahhaha what a joke.
There is NOTHING the 8086 does better than a 68000. But Intel was in the right place at the right time, and got their foot in the door. Look where they are now.

I could continue but I won't bother.
Technical merit counts for about as much as what you left in the toliet the last time you visited that special room.

If Microsoft does a good job of marketting the XBox and produce decent games for it, they will sell many of them.

Microsoft is FAR FAR FAR from the best Technology company in the world, but they are certainly one of the best marketting companies....ever.

You can pick apart the XBox on technical details all you want, and even get a few dozen other tech savvy people to agree with you.

But
A) Your average person isn't smart enough to know the technical limitations, nor do they give a crap.
B) Technical details matter f-all in the face of good marketting


I won't argue with you, Nintendo and Sony are big companies, and have a big headstart. And MS can't just buy out Sony like they have so many others. But you are dismissing MS far to easily.


Back to the point at hand:

<< For the people impressed with Win XP, which OS background are you coming from? I'm using Win2k and most of the impressive things I keep hearing about Win XP are already in affect for me in Win2k, without the lame embedded windowsblind deal. So are you overly impressed because you are coming from Win2k or because you are coming from Win 98? I havn't found many reasons yet for my home machine to go from Win2k to WinXP unless I want a really wacky looking shell to play around with (if infact MS even gives you the means to play around with it). >>


Win2000 is a decent desktop OS when compared to NT4...but it's still far from flawless. I'm moving from Win2k to WinXP quite happily.
Personally I like the new look (the metallic skin anyways), but if you don't turn it off. People seem to think that because Window Blinds sucked XP's skinning does to. In beta XP uses roughly 15MB more than Win2k does. When you consider that being beta it's in debug mode, I'm surprised the added foot print is so small.
You don't like skinning turn it off. 3 mouse clicks and you get the default Win2k look at feel back, it doesn't hurt you.

System Restore is admittedly a pain in the ass...but that can be turned off to.

The main reason I favour XP over 2k is the compatiblity mode tool. I've seen people run Wolfenstien 3D with sound in WinXP. When I started with Win2k I had to toss all my DOS games. Looks like I can pull them out of the closet again.

XP is going to be a solid OS. And I don't see why people hate it so much.
There are so many stupid rumours going around about it it's absurd.
MP3s? Oh dear lord, WMP can't ENCODE MP3s out of the box. You can fix that with a plug-in if you want. And it has NOTHING to do with MP3 playback.

Spyware...spyware my ass. Not only is it illegal what does it gain MS? The new activation thing is simply to try and stop people from illegally copying their software. You know when you agree to that EULA and then Violate it anyways? You are violating copyright laws. If you don't break copyright laws, the new activation has pretty much no effect on you.
When you install WinXP it takes all of 2 milliseconds to pass an Auth Key to a clearing house to activate your copy of WinXP.
You can do this as many times as you want.
You can install WinXP daily if you feel like it, when you activate duplicate Auth keys are ignored.

If you start trying to clear dozens of Auth Keys on the same PID then it disabled that PID, and you are screwed.

So MS is enforcing their copyright laws, you don't like it? Too bad, MS is a business not a charity. Learn Linux, it's a very powerful flexible OS that can do pretty much anything you should need. It needs some work in the gaming area, but even that is coming along quite nicely.

Linux is a good OS and it's free. You don't like MS's new OS? Or their activation? Don't use it, no one is holding a gun to your head.

skace: That whole thing wasn't really directed at you, just the first part after you quote. The rest is directed at all the little 12 year old kids that think they know everything and go off bashing Microsoft with information that is less than 50% fact, just becuase it's cool to do so.

Microsoft isn't infallable, look at 3dfx.
In the days of the Voodoo2 they were pretty much untouchable, look where they are now. Why are they there now? They had a decent small time competitor that came out with a good product (Linux in this case), and then 3dfx's poor managment wrapped them around a telephone pole.

Microsoft isn't going to stay in the game buy making a piece of crap OS that users can barely figure out how to use and can't do anything they want it to.

Before you start bashing WinXP get some real facts then come back.

If you want to argue the technical merits of Linux vs NT5 great! I'd love to. If you want fling FUD at NT5 and scream how great linux is becuase it's uncool to like MS, and you are to cheap to pay for their products...well then F**k off. I'm not wasting my time talking to you.

gunf1ghter: You drive an Audi A4? Nice choice if I may say so I love Audis Every since my old roommates Turbo Quaddro AWD...damn that was a sweet car, and sooooo nice inside to

 

[CocaCola5]

Actually I have taken marketing classes and don't remember anything about MS being a 800 pound gorilla in this area. The success of Windows 95, 98, etc. and all the other &quot;peripheral software products&quot; don't make MS a marketing leader. These products were essential monopoly products, they were slam dunks no matter how good or bad MS marketing was. The Xbox will be MS first test. Flashy commercials is only a small part of the marketing event, more crucial are channels of distribution(warehouse, wholesalers, retailers, buyer), etc.. Sony is very strong in this area. Its quite possible that even if Sony spends just $200 million on marketing the PS2 they could still pack the same marketing grunt that MS gets from spending $500 million because they know how to spend it more efficiently.

 

[lucidguy]

<< And why do you say the XBox is just a PC? How do you define it? >>



Take one hundred people. Ask each and every one of them this same question:

&quot;You have a black desktop case. Inside the case, you have a Pentium 3, an NVidia graphics card, obscure mobo manufactured by some obscure Far Eastern company, onboard sound, onboard ethernet, hard drive, DVD drive, 4 USB ports, and a Microsoft OS. Is this a console or a PC?&quot;

If you asked this question a year ago, I guarantee you that 100% of the respondents would say PC. You really can't find other PC parts that were more popular. The majority of PC's being sold a year ago had each and every one of those exact components. (With the exception of a black desktop case, and maybe 2 USB ports instead of 4, but they had everything else. And you could easily get a black desktop case and 4 USB ports if you wanted to.)

If you ask this question right now, everyone except the MS shills will still say PC. None of the facts have changed. MS shills will say console because the shills blindly believe every spin that comes from Redmond.

Case closed gentlemen.

 

[Noriaki]

CocaCola5:

Microsoft may being fairly monopolistic now....but when they started they weren't.

Back when MS had command line based DOS, there were Unixes with more powerful commandlines and more module kernels. MacOS was out far before Windows with a GUI.

Microsoft Word/Works? Back in the day Corel Wordperfect was the most often used Word processing package. Microsoft didn't buy Corel, they are still around. Microsoft out manuevered (sp?) them in the market, and got MS Word solidly into place.

Servers and the Internet? Unix had a 15 year headstart in networking before Microsoft produced DOS which wasn't even really network capable.

But now the Server varieties of WinNT are making inroads. Why? Good manuevering (again pardon my spelling, I'm not quite awake this morning).

I won't agrue Microsoft is fairly monopolistic now, but they havne't always been. They had to get their somehow.

 

[RM99]

I've had nothing but hassels with my version of XP most of the drivers i have tried to install don't work correctly, and i've tried both the windows 2k and 98/me drivers. Is there a trick?

 

[lucidguy]

<< But now the Server varieties of WinNT are making inroads. Why? >>



Because Windows NT steals all of its networking code from the BSD projects, which in turn are based on Unix, which in turn had a 15 year headstart in networking before Microsoft produced DOS which wasn't even really network capable.

Try running some of the executables and dll's on a Win2k or WinNT installation through &quot;strings&quot;. You will be amazed at how many comments you will find referring to code produced by the BSD projects.

Of course, this is technically &quot;legal&quot; since the only requirement for using BSD licensed code is to properly credit its authors, which Microsoft does at the very end of their manuals where nobody ever sees them. But make no mistake: The competence of the NT kernel as opposed to the 9x kernel is due in large part to well-written BSD networking code. Microsoft couldn't network its way out of a wet paper bag.

In other words, Microsoft will dis Open Source in the public sphere, but they will steal and embrace-and-extend as much Open Source software as they can legally get away with.

 

[gunf1ghter]

<< Because Windows NT steals all of its networking code from the BSD projects, which in turn are based on Unix >>



you continually prove that you are full of sh!t.

yes, there is some BSD code in windows networking. primarily in parts of the way that the tcp/ip stack optimizes. that's a far cry from NT using BSD for ALL of it's net code.

did I mention you are full of it?

 

[lucidguy]

<< yes, there is some BSD code in windows networking. primarily in parts of the way that the tcp/ip stack optimizes. that's a far cry from NT using BSD for ALL of it's net code. >>



And you know exactly what percentage of NT networking is BSD code, because you regularly get to work with Windows source code I assume?

EDIT: To clarify my point, I will also say the following. It is relatively difficult to tell what source code Microsoft has stolen, or how much of it they have stolen, because getting a look at Microsoft source code is a privilege reserved for very few people. And all of these people have signed NDAs that prevent them from talking. One has to resort to using primitive tools such as &quot;strings&quot; and even then, one cannot tell in what context the stolen code was used, or how important the stolen code is with respect to the rest of the code. One has to study the little bits and pieces of meaningful text one gets from using &quot;strings&quot; and make educated guesses based on that.

If you want to say that Microsoft has made public comments about how much BSD code is used in NT, and in what capacity, I would like to point out the following. Microsoft is a company the Chief Software Architect of which has lied on the witness stand, and was caught at it. This is a company that tried to introduce fradulent evidence to a court of law, and was caught at it. If there is a single company on this planet that you will want to think twice before believing blindly, it's a company with these accomplishments on its resume.

Open source has none of these problems. The code is there for all to see, and if anyone has any claims of wrongdoing, they can do so openly, in the public sphere, and anyone else can check and verify the veracity of these claims because the source is available to all.

 

[Noriaki]

<< Because Windows NT steals all of its networking code from the BSD projects, which in turn are based on Unix, which in turn had a 15 year headstart in networking before Microsoft produced DOS which wasn't even really network capable. >>

Once again...you completely missed the point of my post. I wans't talking about the technical merit of Microsoft product at all.

Even if I was...so what? They use BSD networking code. BSD code is free to be used by anyone. That doesn't mean only little Linux dorks that like to think they are better than everyone else becuase they compile their own kernels. It means it's free to anyone. Microsoft licenses a lot of code for their various products, in this case the licensing fees are $0...so what?

Mac OSX uses a lot more than Networking Code from BSD. Lots of places borrow code from other sources, whether it's free or you have to pay for it. Big deal.

Look at you parading linux around here....aren't you just freeloading of Linus Torvalds' work? Shouldn't you write your own OS from scratch instead of just &quot;stealing&quot; his code?

Grow up.




<< &quot;You have a black desktop case. Inside the case, you have a Pentium 3, an NVidia graphics card, obscure mobo manufactured by some obscure Far Eastern company, onboard sound, onboard ethernet, hard drive, DVD drive, 4 USB ports, and a Microsoft OS. Is this a console or a PC?&quot; >>

What possible difference does it make how anyone answers that question. So this particular console uses a PC type processor.

My calculator uses a Motorola 68000 CPU, does that it make an old generation Mac?

I realize that the XBox shares most of it's hardware with a PC, but I don't see why that's a big deal. A PC is a very versatile machine. It can do everything from text editing to 3d rendering, and all stops inbetween. So they took this generalized hardware and are using for a single specific purpose. How is that bad or wrong?

We have 20 rack mount PCs at work that are doing one task and one task only (they all run one specific job all day long, I can't tell you what exactly they do because it's confidential information, but it doesn't matter, it's the same task constantly). And frankly they aren't the best choice for it. So we are using a general purpose for this one specific task, does that make it wrong to do so? No it doesn't.

If you have a point to make then make it and stop trolling.
No one but you gives a damn if Microsoft uses PC hardware for their console.

It looks like a console, it plays games like a console, it has controllers like a console, it hooks up to your TV like a console. It's a console. No one but you cares that it resembles PC hardware.

Sorta like you. It looks like a troll, it plays word games like a troll, it likes to ignore 95% of peoples posts like a troll, and it likes to annoy people like a troll. It's a troll. Go home.

 

[lucidguy]

<< It looks like a console, it plays games like a console, it has controllers like a console, it hooks up to your TV like a console. It's a console. No one but you cares that it resembles PC hardware. >>



Microsoft will care when everyone starts buying the XBox, and putting XBox-Linux on it, and using it as a PC, or a server, or whatever else, and not buying any XBox accessories or games to go along with it.

Using Intel-compatible processors for appliance-type devices sold at a loss is a very bad idea. People buy them and use them as PCs. This is why the Netpliance I-Opener was pulled from the market. This is why the Virgin Webplayer is no longer available. This is why the Websurfer set-top box is no longer available at the bargain-basement price of $49. This is why Gateway is no longer selling its Connected Touchpad. There are many, many more examples of failures in this space.

All of these Intel-compatible devices were initially sold at a loss, and the loss was meant to be made up from license fees earned from accessories or Internet access fees or whatever else. But each and every one of those appliances were bought and turned into Linux boxes by the thousands, tens of thousands. No one needed the proprietary accessories or the proprietary Internet access. People used these devices just as one would use any old PC. Companies making these appliances either went bankrupt or suffered very heavy losses.

Microsoft will not go bankrupt, but when most everyone buys an XBox and starts using it as a cheap and relatively powerful PC (which is what it is) Microsoft will get a very rude awakening.