Modders have upgraded Xbox One's hard drive but it's not for everyone

Microsoft's Xbox One has a Samsung 500GB SATA II hard drive inside, but it's not designed to be upgraded by anyone. In fact, people who do decide to tear open the Xbox One's case to change the drive will void the console's warranty. Having said that, some modders have posted up proof that they have been able to upgrade the drive in the console to get better game loading performance.

A modder named Brian Williams (we assume he's not the NBC news anchor of the same name) posted up a YouTube video on his blog today that shows the Xbox One with a 1TB hybrid drive from Seagate, along with a 500GB SSD, again from Samsung. Both of these drives cut the load times of "Call of Duty: Ghosts" by several seconds compared to the standard drive inside the console.

Putting in a new hard drive in the Xbox One is one thing, but getting the console to recognize that a drive has more storage space to work with is something else. A person who goes by the name "Juvenal1" has posted a way to let the Xbox One make use of a drive with bigger storage space on the GitHub website, via a Linux-based tool. Once again, this is for the advanced users so proceed at your own risk.

Microsoft has already announced it plans to update the Xbox One at some point to support external hard drives via its USB ports. The console currently does not allow users to view just how much free storage space is available, but Microsoft Xbox executive Albert Penello posted word recently on the NeoGAF message board that such a feature will be added when the external hard drive support is enabled.

Source: Brian Williams and Juvenal1 on GitHub via Engadget

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft's new Surface ads go head to head with Samsung instead of Apple

Next Story

Nokia Lumia 929 leaks again in a blurry photo, coming in December

63 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

> A modder named Brian Williams (we assume he's not the NBC news anchor of the same name) posted up a YouTube video on his blog today

If only there was a way to verify this. Like, clicking the link and watching the first 4 seconds of it.

So the only way to add more space on the Xbox One is by hacking it and voiding your warranty? lol.
360 users upgraded their hard drives too and weren't getting banned but I wonder if this will change with the new gen.

Tha Bloo Monkee said,
So the only way to add more space on the Xbox One is by hacking it and voiding your warranty? lol.
360 users upgraded their hard drives too and weren't getting banned but I wonder if this will change with the new gen.

360 users didn't have to open the console, that's why the console warranty wasn't void. The HDD warranty was void on the other hand.

Simply changing your HDD probably won't get your console banned, modifying files will though.

Still a very dick move of them to make it not user-accessible.

Somebody in the forum thread brought up a good point, has anybody actually tested trying to fill it with more than 500gb to see if it actually works? Or will it just give "disk full" at 500gb?

It will never give a "disk full" message because the One is designed to automatically delete the least-used content to free up space.

How could you fill it up? It only records the last 5 minutes of video, and by the time you make enough 5 minute videos, it will automatically delete the old ones to free space. If you install enough games to fill it up, it will automatically delete the older ones to free space. No matter how hard you try and fill it, it will just delete older data to free up space.

"Still a very dick move of them to make it not user-accessible."

Really? Why? The general population don't need to modify their hard drive!

When you can use the USB ports to add additional storage space to your Xbox, why the hell would they want to open up an area where ignoramus users can screw with the device and possibly damage it, making it unbootable or require service to fix? And also piracy prevention...

I love how everyone wants everything fully open and accessible, yet whinges when something doesn't work or there's a bug in a specific circumstance that the vendor hasn't accounted for. Look at the mess that is Linux and its mobile counterpart, Android.

People are fed up with computers and devices that don't work or have issues when you want to simply use it... why do you think Apple devices are so popular? Yes, it's a walled garden, but at least they get a working product.

THE_OBSERVER said,
So what would happen if i spent the day just filling it up and not touching anything? im use it would let you know.

Probably resorts to FIFO then

bobsled said,
"Still a very dick move of them to make it not user-accessible."

Really? Why? The general population don't need to modify their hard drive!

When you can use the USB ports to add additional storage space to your Xbox, why the hell would they want to open up an area where ignoramus users can screw with the device and possibly damage it, making it unbootable or require service to fix? And also piracy prevention...

I love how everyone wants everything fully open and accessible, yet whinges when something doesn't work or there's a bug in a specific circumstance that the vendor hasn't accounted for. Look at the mess that is Linux and its mobile counterpart, Android.

People are fed up with computers and devices that don't work or have issues when you want to simply use it... why do you think Apple devices are so popular? Yes, it's a walled garden, but at least they get a working product.

Because why not? Is there ant real reason NOT to put a little door for you to change it? Why does Sony allow you to change it? Their average user won't change it either.

WTF will possibly go wrong with changing your hard drive?

mrp04 said,

Because why not? Is there ant real reason NOT to put a little door for you to change it? Why does Sony allow you to change it? Their average user won't change it either.

WTF will possibly go wrong with changing your hard drive?

With the original Xbox 360, the removable HD caused more problems for MS and users than it was worth. MS had to create a kit to transfer data and most users, and deal with tech support, and on and on.

The way the Xbox One is designed is to remove the need for a user to change the HD. Between caching online content and how it manages game installs, it becomes impossible to fill up.

The worst thing that will happen to a user is having to wait an extra minute or two for the game to start. (And considering this 'wait' time is within the 'load' time of that users deal with already on the XB360 and PS3, it is not a problem.

Also put some perspective into this... The Xbox One ships with USB 3.0 ports, so if users ever do start needing or wanting more space for some reason that MS didn't envision, they can simply allow external storage support, just as they eventually offered with the XB360. (And unlike the XB360, it won't have to be limited to 32gb.)

It seems the only reason external storage wasn't offered at launch was due to fully testing all contingencies and decisions about how to implement the usage of additional space. (Even just dealing with full time external storage versus external storage used part time, and how to deal with the security keys if the drives are used between units and on and on.)

So we are worrying about something Microsoft is going to offer at some point anyway, and the USB 3.0 interface is fast enough for content, especially with Windows managing the caching system.


I don't know how you think it will take only a minute or two to redownload a game in the 'worst case', a lot of these games are tens of gigs. Good argument for physical media as opposed to going all digital though. Gamers with large collections are going to want to use external media instead of relying only on internal storage.

Geezy said,
I don't know how you think it will take only a minute or two to redownload a game in the 'worst case', a lot of these games are tens of gigs. Good argument for physical media as opposed to going all digital though. Gamers with large collections are going to want to use external media instead of relying only on internal storage.

Well there are several things here to consider.

The first is connection speed, and a lot people have fairly fast connections, especially if they have already purchased content online.

The next thing to consider is how games on the Xbox One are designed to be streamed in as the game is played. So it pulls the core and then assets depending on what portion of the game you are accessing. This is similar to technologies used by most MMOs today that require a fairly small download to get the play going, and downloads content in the background based on what the player is doing in the game.

Priority/Core/Stub retention is also something to keep in mind, just because the Xbox One will dump the content for a game that hasn't been played in a while, it is going to dump what you have on physical media first. It is also going to retain as much of the core/stub of the game as it can, so than it will fire up rather quickly as this portion won't have to be redownloaded.

Sometimes we have to let go and trust the technology and the developers. We also have to keep in mind that if Microsoft can't pull off the design nature of the Xbox One, they will have external storage available long before users could even hit these types of potential problems.

Not having external storage available as an option at launch is different than never planning to offer it. It is why they put USB 3.0 ports in the console.

So now we're not talking about 'worst case' situations. Anyway who knows what will happen, right now each user doesn't even have enough content to fill the drive.

Mobius Enigma said,

With the original Xbox 360, the removable HD caused more problems for MS and users than it was worth. MS had to create a kit to transfer data and most users, and deal with tech support, and on and on.

The way the Xbox One is designed is to remove the need for a user to change the HD. Between caching online content and how it manages game installs, it becomes impossible to fill up.

The worst thing that will happen to a user is having to wait an extra minute or two for the game to start. (And considering this 'wait' time is within the 'load' time of that users deal with already on the XB360 and PS3, it is not a problem.

Also put some perspective into this... The Xbox One ships with USB 3.0 ports, so if users ever do start needing or wanting more space for some reason that MS didn't envision, they can simply allow external storage support, just as they eventually offered with the XB360. (And unlike the XB360, it won't have to be limited to 32gb.)

It seems the only reason external storage wasn't offered at launch was due to fully testing all contingencies and decisions about how to implement the usage of additional space. (Even just dealing with full time external storage versus external storage used part time, and how to deal with the security keys if the drives are used between units and on and on.)

So we are worrying about something Microsoft is going to offer at some point anyway, and the USB 3.0 interface is fast enough for content, especially with Windows managing the caching system.


They don't need to do any of that stuff. Just put the drive behind a flap and maybe at most allow the xbox to format it and download the OS via the internet. The PS3 and PS4 seem to manage just fine with user-replaceable drives. Are you saying Microsoft, a software company, can't figure this out?

Looking at the script on the GitHub page it looks like the disk is a standard GPT formatted disk using 5 NTFS partitions. You might even be able to do all this stuff on Windows using the built in disk management tools and then copy-pasting files from the original drive.

Personally I wouldn't do this, a software update could stop your console from booting up if it doesn't detect an authentic drive, or get your console banned in the future.

The firmware (stored in a flash module, not the HDD) loads first, and bootstraps software from the HDD, but the firmware first has to validate the HDD. This method could change in the future and cause invalid drives to be blocked. Microsoft has the incentive to block third party hardware since it could be used to circumvent DRM like what happened with the 360 and Wii, where they simply emulated the hardware authentication checks.

If you can replace the internal hard drive with another device and have it treated like the original, then you are closer to cracking the protection on that device because you know what the authenticator expects to find. I'm sure MS will want to nip this in the bud.

Edited by Geezy, Nov 30 2013, 11:12pm :

I've moved my entire Mac OS into a new Drive, wouldn't you think that the system would need to validate the drive first?

I mean, on Windows you do, because I've attempted years ago when I was a teen. The new drive wouldn't boot up because the bootsector wasn't the same. I wasn't really sure how to go about it.

Windows OS's are so stressful to be honest.

Geezy said,
The firmware (stored in a flash module, not the HDD) loads first, and bootstraps software from the HDD, but the firmware first has to validate the HDD. This method could change in the future and cause invalid drives to be blocked. Microsoft has the incentive to block third party hardware since it could be used to circumvent DRM like what happened with the 360 and Wii, where they simply emulated the hardware authentication checks.

If you can replace the internal hard drive with another device and have it treated like the original, then you are closer to cracking the protection on that device because you know what the authenticator expects to find. I'm sure MS will want to nip this in the bud.

Do you have a source on this? Where's the evidence that MS are doing any of these checks?

A standard PC doesn't tie the drive to a trusted platform module or try to lock the device with a key, so you can easily clone a drive or move data around.

While I'm sure the Xbox One does validate the contents of the drive, like the 360, it probably tries to validate the drive itself to prevent things like wasabi360 or Wode from happening to the Xbox One.

The reason Windows couldn't find your drive is because it uses the drive's UUID instead of the physical address to reference the drive. OS X just looks for "the first device on the first SATA chain" and Windows looks for the drive's unique ID i.e. "f47ac10b-58cc-4372-a567-0e02b2c3d479"

Edited by Geezy, Nov 30 2013, 11:52pm :

Hollow.Droid said,
Do you have a source on this? Where's the evidence that MS are doing any of these checks?
No, I'm making an assumption based on how any device manufacturer tends to secure any device which the user can technically replace a component with an after-market one. It's possible MS didn't include such security... but why, when it's so easy to implement, and could prevent possible attack vectors? Given that they originally wanted software to live on the hard drive and not require a physical disc for authentication, they would generally have wanted the hard drive to be as secured as possible.

Mr.XXIV said,
I mean, on Windows you do, because I've attempted years ago when I was a teen. The new drive wouldn't boot up because the bootsector wasn't the same. I wasn't really sure how to go about it.

Windows OS's are so stressful to be honest.


You probably needed to reinstall the bootloader. Windows does that for you, pop in the disc, click click done, not sure what's stressful about it. Not exactly unique to Windows either.

Yeah, but you can clone the drive (including the bootloader), but the new drive's contents will still reference the old drive's GUID, which is why you still need to reinstall the bootloader so that it will change the references.

Geezy said,
Personally I wouldn't do this, a software update could stop your console from booting up if it doesn't detect an authentic drive, or get your console banned in the future.

There's truth to those words, they did it with modified firmware and mis-match/flashed on the Xbox 360 DVD ROM drives.

Mr.XXIV said,
I've moved my entire Mac OS into a new Drive, wouldn't you think that the system would need to validate the drive first?

I mean, on Windows you do, because I've attempted years ago when I was a teen. The new drive wouldn't boot up because the bootsector wasn't the same. I wasn't really sure how to go about it.

Windows OS's are so stressful to be honest.

When you were a teen, this wasn't even entirely true. (Unless you were a teen 5 years ago and were using a GUID partition.)

However, even then if you had problems, it only took a CD and hitting the repair option to fix it.

I hate to break this to you, but moving drives on a Mac is more complicated today than it is on Windows. This is especially true if dealing with multiple boot devices in a system, as Windows 7/8 manage these without the user ever noticing.

Mobius Enigma said,

When you were a teen, this wasn't even entirely true. (Unless you were a teen 5 years ago and were using a GUID partition.)

However, even then if you had problems, it only took a CD and hitting the repair option to fix it.

I hate to break this to you, but moving drives on a Mac is more complicated today than it is on Windows. This is especially true if dealing with multiple boot devices in a system, as Windows 7/8 manage these without the user ever noticing.

I'm 20.

And I moved an entire drive in my Mac Mini the other month. I'm not into Dual Booting.

Mr.XXIV said,

I'm 20.

And I moved an entire drive in my Mac Mini the other month. I'm not into Dual Booting.

That is fine, it still doesn't make your assertion that moving drives is easier on a Mac.

I do believe you had a bad experience in the past with Windows, but things have changed, and it is important to not get caught on how things worked 5 or 10 years ago and assume they are the same just because you haven't been involved with them since then.

For example...
There are some really nice and well meaning Linux users out there that had horrible experiences with Windows 9X and moved to Linux. They still see Windows today based on those problems that went away years ago when NT became the consumer version of Windows.


My experience lies in Windows XP, during the SP2 era. I had to have been 13 or 14. I started building computers when I was 10, I'm just trying to remember and recall what happened from time to time. It was stressful.

Have you used Time Machine before? It sorta works like that for me, except I wiped the entire Mac. Only Macs that came with Mountain Lion make it easier.

I'm surprise that the difference between the OEM HDD and the SSD is not larger... Especially for the boot time. 10% is not THAT much better for the price...

I say that I'm surprise because going from HDD to SSD on my computer cut the boot time by more than half (Win8.1). Even the Fusion Drive in my iMac does a better job at booting...

I think it's largely going to depend on what is being loaded and what else is being done.
For all we know, there could be a lot of internal checks on the key software and hardware components going on when it boots up. These checks might be what's taking the longest of time to boot and no matter how fast the hard disk is will help speed this up.

Maybe later when Microsoft improves their checks and speeds up the boot time with a firmware update, we could see bigger boot time improvements with SSD.

Still, it's nice to see they've not locked down the drives to the point users can't install bigger drives.

TruckWEB said,
I'm surprise that the difference between the OEM HDD and the SSD is not larger... Especially for the boot time. 10% is not THAT much better for the price...

I say that I'm surprise because going from HDD to SSD on my computer cut the boot time by more than half (Win8.1). Even the Fusion Drive in my iMac does a better job at booting...

This is where the context of what the OS is having to load for devices and what it needs to wait on, etc is just as important as the HD speed.

For example, I have an original Acer One netbook with a slow tiny HDD (non-SSD) from 2006, and it fast boots to Windows 8.1 in less than 6 seconds, and 13 seconds for a non-fast boot.

These are numbers you normally would think a SSD would be needed to achieve, but it has to do with the chipset with being able to fast initialize devices.

One other thing to note, is the Xbox One may not be noticing the HD is SSD, thus not loading the features Windows uses to get a bigger jump in performance.

Excellent mods. I might do this once the warranty on my Xbox One runs out and MS doesn't ban these consoles.
The difference between SSD and SSHD isn't that dramatic though and because of the better price/storage ratio I'd rather opt for the latter.

love the guys that use "Linux based tools", even though they probably use windows,and the tools are readily available.

It's easier to use drives with foreign file systems, and to use raw read/write access on drives in Linux, and robust tools for these tasks already exist. You can more easily cobble together a script that does the required tasks because they are well known tools that are guaranteed to be in a default install, can all be easily called in silent mode, and can easily trigger exception handlers. It's more difficult to tie in tools that aren't standardized in Windows, they will more likely have to put together a more full featured solution for Windows that rebundles certain tools, since they can't rely on the user having them available.

The group says they're working on a Windows version.

Edited by Geezy, Nov 30 2013, 10:26pm :

Just... no. Linux whilst not being easy to use and very heavily CMD based... has tools that windows constantly wishes to slap a GUI on them just to have them as part of the Windows ecosystem... because otherwise they wouldn't exists in there.

I think it's more to do with the abstraction layers that Windows uses to try and jail processes and manage calls to direct hardware.

Arceles said,
Just... no. Linux whilst not being easy to use and very heavily CMD based... has tools that windows constantly wishes to slap a GUI on them just to have them as part of the Windows ecosystem... because otherwise they wouldn't exists in there.

Look at the script. The disk is using standard GPT and NTFS formatting. Windows can handle this stuff easily. Looks like you should be able to just copy and paste the files from the original drive to the new one.

I'm not saying Windows could never run the software, it just takes less time to write in Linux. Is there a Windows equivilant to the tool 'parted' which could be used in a script file?

Geezy said,
I'm not saying Windows could never run the software, it just takes less time to write in Linux. Is there a Windows equivilant to the tool 'parted' which could be used in a script file?

wow,really?

Yup. The script is just python, it could be run anywhere. Its dependance on Linux is in the tools 'parted' and 'mkntfs'. If there's a Windows equivilant to 'parted' which can easily be referenced in a script, then bringing the whole thing to Windows would be simple.

then why are you commenting about things you don't know anything about? diskpart has been part of windows since windows 2000. it also support scripting.

my point stands. most users,especially xbox users are running windows. why does it have to be "Linux based tools" when the stuff is built into windows anyways.

I wasn't commenting on something I didn't know anything about, I was asking a question about something I didn't know anything about. I was asking if there was a Windows equivilant to parted, because, not being a Windows user, I don't know if there is one.

As for the question of why these particular developers used Linux, perhaps we can assume that they are more familiar with it than Windows, otherwise we can assume that they would have written it for Windows.

So down to the crux of the matter now, can you help Windows users by rewriting the script using the diskpart tool, or are you just going to complain?

Geezy said,
I wasn't commenting on something I didn't know anything about, I was asking a question about something I didn't know anything about. I was asking if there was a Windows equivilant to parted, because, not being a Windows user, I don't know if there is one.

As for the question of why these particular developers used Linux, perhaps we can assume that they are more familiar with it than Windows, otherwise we can assume that they would have written it for Windows.

So down to the crux of the matter now, can you help Windows users by rewriting the script using the diskpart tool, or are you just going to complain?

that was targeted towards your initial comment about the ease of use,and robustness of Linux tools vs windows, when in fact you just admitted youre not a windows user and you don't know. windows has a ton of tools,scripting and low level functions built right in. thats what I meant with my comment.

and I wont modify the tool for windows, for the simple fact that theres no way for me to test the tool. I don't want to end up screwing up other peoples boxes. im not opening my xbox up and voiding my warranty to work on this, as I will wait for the external storage option.

You're right I didn't know such tools were available. So I guess we can just assume the developers of these tools were not familiar with Windows either. I don't think they were ignoring Windows on purpose, I know I wasn't. I did do a cursory search for "windows parted equivilant" but it didn't turn up much, maybe they had the same bad luck.

If I were writing such a tool though, I would implement it on a familiar system, and then worry about porting it over after the initial project was reasonably stable.

fair enough. but about the partition tool,anyones who formatted or does windows installs would know this tool like the back of their hand. like I said, its been part of windows since windows 2000.

I used to be a heavy Linux user back in the early 90s. up until about the early 2000s I completely gave up and dumped it,mostly because of the holier than thou attitudes that fill the community. its a huge turn off,and really, I got really annoyed by people using the whole "using Linux tools" as a means to show off that they are tech knowledgeable. that's why everytime I see it, especially in cases where it doesn't make sense, in my opinion like this particular mod, then it really irks me.

Edited by vcfan, Dec 1 2013, 1:39am :

I don't think that they're trying to show off. I think they are just less familiar with Windows, and I don't think it's fair to assume everyone knows it or grew up on it. There's holier-than-thous in every community. Just look at ActiveWin, site's full of 'em. Or it used to be before it drove everyone away with their attitude and became a ghost town.

Arceles said,
Just... no. Linux whilst not being easy to use and very heavily CMD based... has tools that windows constantly wishes to slap a GUI on them just to have them as part of the Windows ecosystem... because otherwise they wouldn't exists in there.

I could argue that Windows has a richer CLI than Linux, so this is perception, not fact.

The reason this is easier for Linux/Unix 'people' is that the entire OS is based on a textual I/O model.

In Windows, it was hard for early NT to have as rich of a CLI, as in contrast to Unix is an Object model. (Inside NT - this is one area they discuss why they did not want to use a Unix based model, as it was too limiting.)

Although early CMD in NT wasn't bad, it never had access to the foundations of NT like a CLI does on a Unix OS. This is why Microsoft put a lot of work into creating the PowerShell CLI. It is the first Object based CLI, specifically designed to work with the Object nature of NT.

PowerShell, being Object based and also having the ability to work with the older textual I/O constructs makes it one of if not the most power CLI interfaces ever designed.

In the NT-Win2k days, there were limitations of the (RE) boot environment of NT, so it became common to create a Linux boot option to work with NTFS drives beyond the provided tools.

However, this changed quite a bit in XP, and was completely changed in Vista and newer, making the use of a Linux boot environment completely unnecessary.

The 'modders' here are still stuck in 10+ year old thinking that they need Linux to create a low level boot environment. They could just as easily use any modern Windows RE/PE to get the same access. In fact, they don't even need a low level boot environment and can accomplish what they are doing inside a normal running Windows system.

So it is less about the tools/script, it is more about the boot environment and not understanding Windows.

Modders from 10 years ago creating a stripped down boot environment for a script? If you're talking about something like the ndure installers, they probably distributed Linux images because they couldn't legally distribute a Windows image?

In regards to CLI 'richness', I feel being able to treat a device as a file or character device adds a lot.

Geezy said,
I'm not saying Windows could never run the software, it just takes less time to write in Linux. Is there a Windows equivilant to the tool 'parted' which could be used in a script file?


The Xbox one is still not released in the Netherlands but this is a rough windows manual method using diskpart (http://technet.microsoft.com/e...rary/cc766465(v=ws.10).aspx)

diskpart
list disk
find the right disk number
select disk (number)
clean
convert gpt

//create the four partitions listed with the right guids
create partition primary size=n ID={GUID}
format FS=NTFS LABEL="label"
assign

Partition Label Partition GUID
"TEMP CONTENT" "A57D72B3ACA33D4B9FD62EA54441011B"
"USER CONTENT" "E0B59B865633E64B85F729323A675CC7"
"SYSTEM SUPPORT" "477A0DC9B9CCBA4C8C660459F6B85724"
"SYSTEM UPDATE" "D76A059AED324141AEB1AFB9BD5565DC"
"SYSTEM UPDATE2" "7C19B224019DF945A8E1DBBCFA161EB2"

Geezy said,
Modders from 10 years ago creating a stripped down boot environment for a script? If you're talking about something like the ndure installers, they probably distributed Linux images because they couldn't legally distribute a Windows image?

In regards to CLI 'richness', I feel being able to treat a device as a file or character device adds a lot.

Actually, they can distribute the Windows PE; however, it wouldn't even be necessary as any Windows system can boot into the PE already. (And if they are already running Linux, they don't need the Linux distribution.)

As for treating a device like a file, it adds nothing over what NT provides. With NT, you can use the Unix like constructs, or treat the devices like 'objects' and access more functionality.

If you want to seriously argue that COBOL is more advanced that C++, go for it, but the generic textual model truly is the least featured way of dealing with information, including devices.

Think about it just this context, when dealing with an unknown device, is it easier to just do raw read writes to it or would it be easier to query it as an object to see what its is, what it can do and let it show you how to communicate with it? Now remember that with NT you can do both.

It is these types of OS theory concepts where a background in information systems makes it easier to see how richer models can be beneficial, especially when dealing with highly complex systems.

The NT team at Microsoft was truly not stupid and designed NT specifically so it wouldn't be held back by generics like this from Unix. Also remember, they could have kept the Unix model and built NT around it if they wanted. Microsoft gave them complete say in the architectural design.

That's silly, there are tools to query and talk to devices, but the idea that you can implement a simple tool for a given situation without much overhead is invaluable.

Geezy said,
That's silly, there are tools to query and talk to devices, but the idea that you can implement a simple tool for a given situation without much overhead is invaluable.

There is a point where performance and efficiency favors the less simplistic model.

Contrast 100 different pieces of code all having to run the same function to manage a simplistic model interface to 100 different pieces of code not having to run that function on the complex model interface. Do you really think having to create and run the extra 100 functions is going to be faster?