Jump to content

133 posts in this topic

Posted

The fact that MS made the Xbox One run basically on Hyper-V makes it more future proof than anything. They can blow the whole "non-gaming" portion of the OS and do something totally new without much hassle.

 

The whole design of the One from the ingenious custom chip and architecture to the hypervisor and MS continuos support on the software end shows that MS plans for the future. Just look at the Xbox. and the stuff MS was able to do with it down the line because they left the software open and able to be upgraded while Sony, had a lot of issues and was unable to compete on several features since they never planned for future upgradeability when they made the original software and hardware. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just FYI, I did not show any lack of understanding about systemd, you simply chose to take my arguments out of context for trolling purposes, as usual. 

 

Anyway, congratulation on being the second person to actually make it on my ignore list, interestingly, I'm about to remove the other person since he seems to have grown up somewhat. 

 

There was nothing to take out of context, you flat out didn't understand the purpose of the component.

 

Like you flat out still misunderstand the definition of what "trolling" is, to remind you - it's not anyone that has an opinion contrary to yours, or shows you to be misinformed and/or ignorant.

 

As to the ignore stuff, that's cute. But we both know you never practice what you preach, like how you continually insist on "feeding" people you label as "trolls".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The whole design of the One from the ingenious custom chip and architecture to the hypervisor and MS continuos support on the software end shows that MS plans for the future. 

The same could be said for any special device like that.  The PS4 has a custom chip, same architecture, hypervisor (also used in ps3), and software that is kept up to date.   So by your logic the PS4 is also built for the future.  While yes, the XBOne (And PS4) are designed to last at least 8 years, just having customized hardware and updatable software doesn't ensure it will last that long.

 

Just look at the Xbox. and the stuff MS was able to do with it down the line because they left the software open and able to be upgraded while Sony, had a lot of issues and was unable to compete on several features since they never planned for future upgradeability when they made the original software and hardware.  

Uhm.. Sony ran into issues because the Cell processor wasn't able to do what they wanted, and it also made it tough for developers to work with.  Sony had the PSP long before the PS3.. and it got quite a few updates.   Sony used the same premise software wise for the PS3 (with way better security) meaning they knew how to do software updates, they knew how to expand software, they knew how to update features.  Their issues were hardware not software.  Also, if software really was the hold back.. they could have easily written expansions or a cleaner OS that supported the games (as long as libraries present, it's a non issue).

The 360 used a semi-familliar set of hardware (much closer to a PC than PS3) so MS Was able to write software/OS updates with much less issue than Sony.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The same could be said for any special device like that.  The PS4 has a custom chip, same architecture, hypervisor (also used in ps3), and software that is kept up to date.   So by your logic the PS4 is also built for the future.  While yes, the XBOne (And PS4) are designed to last at least 8 years, just having customized hardware and updatable software doesn't ensure it will last that long.


Notice he hasn't said that PS4 was not built for the future. Now maybe he believes that, but he never declared MS to corner the market on that. This whole topic is about the X1 being built for the future.

Clearly, both consoles are now more like pcs than ever before. Both are able to be improved software wise as they go along and both have the potential to gain advantages thanks to cloud technologies over time. Sony is ahead in some areas and MS in others, but its mostly a wash.

The only place I would argue MS has an advantage is in adapting the X1 to run Windows proper. Now that Win 8 is a core OS on the X1 and now that apps/games could be easily ported, it could lead to a serious X1 advantage over time. Sony simply is unable to match that level of connection to pcs. So being able to run a pc OS compatibility wise could mean that X1 will be able to evolve more over time.

Sony has its own advantages, such as an edge on MS to implement game streaming via Gaikai. MS may have demoed similar features behind closed doors, but Sony has a ready made system that just needs to be integrated into their platform over the coming year.


The 360 used a semi-familliar set of hardware (much closer to a PC than PS3) so MS Was able to write software/OS updates with much less issue than Sony.


Yeah, the 360 was closer to a pc than the ps3, but the X1 and ps4 are about as close as you can get to a pc without actually being one. They both have gone in and made custom changes though, so you still can't just compare apples to apples.

But from a software perspective, I think the dark horse is Windows being used on the X1. Everything else you can argue is a wash since both companies are fully capable of evolving their software over time. If MS is aggressive in rolling out cross platform support, they could leverage the OS advantage over time.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This thread is going around in circles.  Both are going to be on the market for another 7 years at least and get updates over time, who ads more or in what ways will probably differ but that's about it.  Also the notion that the XB1 isn't about gaming is silly, how many times do they have to say that they're spending big money and opening more first party studios to make games till people get the message? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I thought they were all build for the future? If not, are they built for the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1 physical Box
2 OS'
Hyper-V bridging the 2 but never letting either cross the line. (Cause hiccups with each other)
Both OS' get dedicated resources
The supposed "Media/Cable Box only" has amazing games coming out.
The Windows side stripped down to the Kernel (not bloated) with dedicated resources so that's it's got tons of headroom for app developers.
The only TRUE DirectX 11.2 with tiled resources ...

My draw to Xbox is like this. I got an awesome media box that also has awesome games coming for it.... Or, I got a an awesome video game console that does all these other crazy things with ease. See, no matter how you flip it... It's a win win
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The same could be said for any special device like that.  The PS4 has a custom chip, same architecture, hypervisor (also used in ps3), and software that is kept up to date.   So by your logic the PS4 is also built for the future.  While yes, the XBOne (And PS4) are designed to last at least 8 years, just having customized hardware and updatable software doesn't ensure it will last that long.

 

Uhm.. Sony ran into issues because the Cell processor wasn't able to do what they wanted, and it also made it tough for developers to work with.  Sony had the PSP long before the PS3.. and it got quite a few updates.   Sony used the same premise software wise for the PS3 (with way better security) meaning they knew how to do software updates, they knew how to expand software, they knew how to update features.  Their issues were hardware not software.  Also, if software really was the hold back.. they could have easily written expansions or a cleaner OS that supported the games (as long as libraries present, it's a non issue).

The 360 used a semi-familliar set of hardware (much closer to a PC than PS3) so MS Was able to write software/OS updates with much less issue than Sony.   

 

Actually Sony had serious design issues with their software preventing them from upgrading it as they should. They simply did not have any experience making a complex expandable OS like the PS3 needed, they where used to a simple static un changing console OS. Hence why there was a lot of features that never arrived properly on the PS3, some they managed to hack in but not for all games since. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.