x-box didnt live up to hype, PS2 still the best

Originally posted by Watchdog
Yes, the xbox has older archetecture, but it is more powerful.  Just because it\'s newer technologically speaking, does not mean that it is more powerful.

Go to IGN, pick up any magazine, go anywhere and at some point they probably did a spec comparison.  In the points that matter like RAM, fill rate, poly pushing power, bandwidth, the xbox is ahead and often by a fair margin.  When you start looking at the GPU\'s vertex shaders and onboard anti alaising, the gap becomes even larger.

You wanted a link?  So I looked over a few of my usual review suspects and low and behold the first one garnered a pretty solid hit.  These guy know their sh!t.

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/ps2tech/

They also covered the xbox:

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/xboxtech/default.asp

This debate is ridiculous.  Suggesting that the PS2 is more or as powerful as the xbox/GC is foolish.

I would say the Emotion Engine is a newer MIPS designed Embedded processor. I think it is more powerful than that Intel 733MHz processor inside the XBox.

 
The technology behind both CPU\'s is old, no matter what the story may be. Intel has its own sorry poor azz performance bottleneck problems with its poor azz floating point unit. So I would say Mr MIPS beats good ol’ Intel in Raw floating point performance

Yes, but you probably know that CPU speed is not as important as it once was.  It used to be that CPU was the only thing that mattered, that changed once 3D graphics became the standard.

Heretic, shut up; you\'re talking out of your ass.  I never once said the PS2 was maxxed out.  I did say that the PS2 will not be able to match the xbox in terms of graphics.  

There are no "leanings" in that article.  They went through the hardware fairly, pointing out weaknesses in both pieces of hardware.  Perhaps if you understood the concepts you could appreciate that.

Can i do an example?

Do you remember the KiroII vs. GeForce2?
If you read specs you can think that GeForce2 should destroy in all games KiroII.
But was not.
What was the trick?
GeForce2 use brute force to solve his poly/bandw problem, KiroII was designed with different HW arch.  to solve the same problem with less power needing.

Yes... GeForce2 had T&L... had DDR... had more clock speed etc..
but at the and different design with less money had the same result. (not in all games... but remember who lead the market).

I don\'t know if the kyro will have a future... but this was in some kind the same situation with XBox and PS2.

HW design is TOTALY different... where XBox can use the brute force (numbers you read on that specs) maybe PS2 can use other optimization ways (embedded with that system).

You can easly understand concept on XBox \'cause it\'s very VERY similar at PC world (directX included...)... PS2 it\'s too new to be fully understood reading some article.

IMO

Yeah I remember KiroII vs. GeForce2.  And looking at the KiroII, it is easy to see why it performs as it does.  It still doesn\'t  offer performance ofa  GF2, but it comes close.

The PS2 and xbox are a different story.

thank you Heretic. I did notice that biasnes in the article, but didn\'t think it was too revelent. Now that this is getting into one big performance debate, it is though. And yes, you\'re absolutely right: they say that they don\'t know a lot about the \'GS\', but then still review it and make unfair assumptions about it having huge bottlenecks. Not quite right in my eyes.

Newer technology, but the principles and concepts are still largely the same: push those polys through the pipe. Given that, the bandwidth and ram are not where they should be to match the xbox.

That\'s exactly where most people go wrong. The princible of streaming technics is the exact oposit of having a lot of memory. Streaming cuts down memory, but requires higher bandwidth. By saying this Watchdog, you proved once again that your knowledge is very poor.

But your PC argument is not invalid. Many devs have stated that they were rushed to get their games out. Also, let\'s not forget that many devs are not familiar coding for a PC (ever play a Sega game?--they are pretty bad). And most importantly, the xbox isn\'t simply PC cards shoved into a motherboard. The archetecture is streamlined and integrated--it is a complete shift of focus. It would like to see Id\'s first xbox game--that would be a good indication of what the xbox is capable of.

Of course it is valid. Read the above points again. They even admit to be huge supporters of the PC scene. Can we expect an unbiased article from them? And no, Watchdog, the X-Box is much more like a PC than you would like to admit. The only difference is that it has a UMA and that there are only 64 MB available. The Pentium is pretty much the same: slow and weak for 3D calculations, yet it has to be involved if anything wants to be shown on screen. Streamlined architecture? 6.4 GB/s for everything? Don\'t forget it\'s using a UMA. The other thing is memory efficiency (I know what Microsoft stated, but can this source be trusted?). I also heard from a developer at Electronic Arts that X-Box supposedly has a remarkable lower pixelfillrate than what Microsoft has posted - and lower than PS2 too. Since I can\'t necesserally prove this by an article confirming this, I\'ll leave it up to you what you want to think about this.

The more time devs spend with any machine the better they understand it: shortcuts will be found, nuances will be discovered--let\'s not forget that most consoles were, for all intents and purposes PCish. The xbox is no different. Optimization of code alone can make the difference from a stuttering frame rate to a smooth one. PC like or not the xbox is a new piece of hardware that cannot be completely explored this quickly.

Of course, but the improvements won\'t be as high as what we can expect with PS2. X-Box is already getting most of its potential on screen with current 1st generation games. The improvement won\'t be that big, since its a

• PC similar architecture
• DirectX support
• unlike PCs, fixed platform
• copy data to ram, then work with them (PC/PSX/Dreamcast way of programming)

Eventhough, the Xbox is supposed to be 3 to 4 times more powerful - current games are mearly, if even, better than current PS2 games in terms of graphics that are still improving drastically. Why is PS2 so different than a PC/Xbox/Dreamcast/PSX system?

• High bandwidths, low memory -> max. performance high use of bandwidth to keep memory usage down.
• parallel processing unit. -> using both VU parallel is very hard.
• development on PS2 -> Pretty "raw" in comparasment to PC development
• Streaming techniques -> latency problem
• Vector unit programming

The other thing that is drastically different on the X-Box from the PS2 is the general process of processing data. Since the data is stored in the Xbox\'s RAM first, CPU/GPU can request this data over the bus at any time. On PS2 it works a little different. Since you only have 32 MB of RAM and 4 MB of VRAM (especially the 4 MB of VRAM is critical), you need to copy, process, delete on the fly. You can\'t just copy all your data onto the RAM and call them once you feel like it, it has to be done on the move, or else you block up the whole bandwidth and the whole process comes to stop. Therefore X-Box developers don\'t really have to worry about latency, where as PS2 developers do, since data needs to get to its destination exactly at the right time (when it is needed) so that it can be deleted and swapped with new data really really fast. PSX, Dreamcast, Xbox - they all use the PC way of processing its data, in comparasment to the PS2 way that is totally new and unique. Debate what you want about, but developers know how to develop on Xbox since it\'s nothing new. Hell, even the developers state that it\'s a dream to develop on! And here you are and say that developers don\'t know how to develop on PC? LOL. Yes, Xbox can be optimized, but not to that extend as we will see on PS2. The performance analyser will take on a big role in this case, since it shows exactly how much the bandwidth and CPU/GPU usage is.

So Watchdog, I am still waiting for your answer on the following question:
If Xbox is so easy to develop for (and developers admit it), why aren\'t 1st generation games already blowing away PS2? It should, no matter how hard you try to make development on Xbox seem. It isn\'t.

It\'s the idea that should be considered.
There is NOT only one way to have a result (same or SIMILAR).

You can use brute force when you have the numbers and tricks and optimization in the cases you don\'t have enough of it.

An hw architecture can have different wrong points and weak ones. If you don\'t desing correctly your software you can go at 10 fps also on the more power hw never built.

Also in PC or XBox games programmers use tricks and specific optimization for their code... for example compressed textures...etc.

But... i repeat... there is not only a way to obtain similar result. You can listen at a original 16 song CD and, in the same way i can use 1/10 of the CD space to listen the same 16 songs in MP3 format. I change the HW and the "architecture", my MP3 sound is not perfect as your 44Khz 16bit stereo sound... but the result is so similar that i don\'t feel the difference.

You can use different way to produce graphics effect... if you have enough power to produce "live-like" effect... well done... but if i can have the same effect using "tricks" i\'ll see the same effects without having that power.

Here i use the word "trick" but can be also different optimization for different hardware.

Last thing: here i\'m not saying "this" is better than "that"...

Sorry sammer, but your analogy with music makes no sense--they are two completely different things.

seven, you are most welcome and I return your thanks tenfold. In my first reply I had considered just offering the advice not to waste too much time playing Watchdog\'s game along with a few on topic comments. After reading those links Watchdog gave to try and back his claims I felt compelled to join in instead but there is only so much that can be done when the one you\'re trying to reason with is playing stupid.

One last try...

Originally posted by Watchdog
Sigh.  You\'re an ass [edit: member name]

I don\'t truly understand the PS2 archetecture, but many people do and they have spoken in favour of the xbox.  I do however understand xbox hardware.  

I\'ve seen spec sheets, and maxxed out, the PS2 can\'t touch the xbox or GC

Watchdog admits a lack of understanding yet relies on spec sheets for determining what the PS2 "maxxed out" can do vs xbox or GC. Who is the Watchdog to be calling anyone "ass"? It\'s clear who is talking out theirs and it ain\'t me.

Just for emphasis I\'ll re-quote the comments of some of those non-biased :rolleyes: authors Watchdog relies on who do understand the PS2 architecture:

"Everyone pointed and laughed at the PlayStation 2 for using RDRAM and having a paltry 4MB framebuffer, but when we saw Gran Turismo 3, ICO, and Metal Gear Solid 2, all we could do is point and gasp."

Seeing is believing. That\'s why I\'m willing to give xbox another year or two to live up to the hype (hey look, I got back on topic ) and have a chance to show it can\'t be touched graphically by the PS2, even though I have seen no real reason at this point to think it will be able to.

You say it\'s bias because it goes against your views.  It\'s a common theme around here.

That\'s not where I go wrong.  Texture memory is a problem and bandwidth, streamed or not, is just as vital to the PS2 as it is to the xbox.  Also the streaming capabilities do not seem to be as efficient as Sony led on.  6.4 GB/s is plenty for the xbox--you are wrong.  Pentium is not slow and of course it\'s weak for 3d, that\'s what the Nvida is for!  UMA is a strength, not a weakness, get your facts straight.  It gives devs the ability to chose where and how to use it.  Sure it could use virtual RAM (for instance), but the strengths of the box out weight the rest.

I also heard from a developer at Electronic Arts that X-Box supposedly has a remarkable higher pixelfillrate than what Microsoft has posted - and way higher than PS2 too. Since I can\'t necesserally prove this by an article confirming this, I\'ll leave it up to you what you want to think about this.

The above means nothing to anyone.  Get my point.  My friend Sally who works for Acclaim said the xbox can prepare a 4 course meal, but I can\'t verify this.

_____________________________________
Of course, but the improvements won\'t be as high as what we can expect with PS2. X-Box is already getting most of its potential on screen with current 1st generation games. The improvement won\'t be that big, since its a

PC similar architecture

DirectX support

unlike PCs, fixed platform

copy data to ram, then work with them (PC/PSX/Dreamcast way of programming)
___________________________________

How do you know this?  You are talking out of your ass as usual.  Brute Force and Project Ego are already looking beyond the launch games and they are still early in development.  The genesis and snes were old (as you say) technology too, but the graphics were a quantum leap ahead of its launch titles.  Just because it is PC-like, does not negate the dev learning curve.  Most rational people concede that the PS2 cannot match the xbox\'s graphics, you however, are not a rational person.

I would not say that the PS2 is improving drastically in terms of graphics.  There are better looking games coming out now, but I do not see a drastic improvement over, say, Tekken.  Just because there are some nice looking games out does not mean anything.  This could just as easily be attributed to better artistry, better programmers, smarter people.  It\'s probably a combination of those things plus people are working their way through the PS2.  It is not any one factor.

The xbox\'s data doesn\'t have to travel over a bus--it\'s all integrated.  You are talking about PC developing, again, get your facts straight before you shoot your mouth off.

With the xbox there is no AGP bottleneck, the XGPU is fully  programmable with pixel shaders vertex shaders, and the OS kernal has been trimmed down to almost nothing. Equating the xbox as nothing more than a PC in disguise is ignorance.

Again, just because the PS2 is unique doean\'t mean it is better.  
______________________
If Xbox is so easy to develop for (and developers admit it), why aren\'t 1st generation games already blowing away PS2? It should, no matter how hard you try to make development on Xbox seem. It isn\'t.
_______________________

I\'ve answered this question already, but I guess reading is a weak point for you. Developers have said that the snes, genesis, gameboy, psx were all easy to develop for.  Did the games for each of these systems get better as time wore on?  Absolutely.  All these systems were also very PC-like in terms of how data is stored and manipulated within the hardware.  This whole xbox=pc debate wouldn\'t even exist if this was Sega\'s machine and not MS\'s.  Programmers have barely touched the xbox\'s programmable chip.  The games already look better than PS2\'s and this is their first try.  With every system there is a learning curve, the xbox is no different.

woah, hold it there Watchdog. Now you are going too far.

That\'s not where I go wrong. Texture memory is a problem and bandwidth, streamed or not, is just as vital to the PS2 as it is to the xbox. Also the streaming capabilities do not seem to be as efficient as Sony led on. 6.4 GB/s is plenty for the xbox--you are wrong. Pentium is not slow and of course it\'s weak for 3d, that\'s what the Nvida is for! UMA is a strength, not a weakness, get your facts straight. It gives devs the ability to chose where and how to use it. Sure it could use virtual RAM (for instance), but the strengths of the box out weight the rest.

I usually don\'t get personal Watchdog, but you my friend (trying very hard to stay polite), have absolutely no idea. I should have took Heretic\'s advice and left this debate, because devoting my time to a technical "no-body" is simply a waste. It would be lame on my side to just leave it at that though, so I will give it one last try - so please pay good attention. You won\'t have it repeated from me a second time.

This time, I will use some quotes out of an article posted and written by ArsTechnica (well know source for technical reference on PC hardware):

The major difference between static apps and dynamic apps are their bandwidth needs. Since a static app can drop all its instructions and data into a cache without worrying too much about needing to fetch some more anytime soon, systems designed for such applications feature large caches connected by relatively low bandwidth pipes. Dynamic apps, on the other hand, can make do with smaller caches, but since they transfer so much data they need much more bandwidth between them.

Pay good attention to the highlighted stuff (making it easier for you to follow).

Incase it hasn\'t sunk in yet, read the following:

Here\'s a goofy example to help you visualize what I\'m talking about: imagine a series of large buckets, connected by pipes to a main tank, with a cow lapping water out of each bucket. Since cows don\'t drink too fast, the pipes don\'t have to be too large to keep the buckets full and the cows happy. Now imagine that same setup, except with elephants on the other end instead of cows. The elephants are sucking water out so fast that you\'ve got to do something drastic to keep them happy. One option would be to enlarge the pipes just a little (*cough* AGP *cough*), and stick insanely large buckets on the ends of them (*cough* 64MB GeForce *cough*). You then fill the buckets up to the top every morning, leave the water on all day, and pray to God that the elephants don\'t get too thirsty. This only works to a certain extent though, because a really thirsty elephant would still end up draining the bucket faster than you can fill it. And what happens when the elephants have kids, and the kids are even thirstier? You\'re only delaying the inevitable with this solution, because the problem isn\'t with the buckets, it\'s with the pipes (assuming an infinite supply of water). A better approach would be to just ditch the buckets altogether and make the pipes really, really large. You\'d also want to stick some pans on the ends of the pipes as a place to collect the water before it gets consumed, but the pans don\'t have to be that big because the water isn\'t staying in them very long.

Take into consideration that this is just explaining what streaming is and what its advantage is. Since the Xbox isn\'t limited through a AGP it doesn\'t quite apply here - although the Xbox isn\'t used for streaming technics (UMA with only 6.4 GB/s make streaming useless).

The PS2\'s approach is causing developers to rethink how they move data inside the machine. In a comment in the /. thread about my PS2 article, one ex-PS2 developer noted that the VU caches are too small to store a whole model or 32-bit texture, so programmers were pulling their hair out trying to figure out how to deal with the size limitation. He pointed out that one group that had had PS2 development units for a while took the strategy of constantly downloading textures and models into the VU and processors, instead of downloading them once, caching them, and working on them inside the cache. This approach was running the 10-channel DMAC at 90% capacity! This kind of aggressive use of bandwidth resources is exactly the kind of thing PS2 developers will have to do. Between the RAMBUS memory banks, the 10-channel DMAC and the 128-bit internal data bus, the PS2 has bandwidth to burn--what it doesn\'t have is internal cache. Currently, developers are thinking in terms of 3D cards with large on-board memory that can cache large models and textures, and modestly sized L1 and L2 caches for storing code and data.

The PS2 is the exact opposite, though. There\'s memory-to-processor bandwidth out the wazoo. The RIMMS are the cache, and the available bandwidth is such that you can get away with storing everything there and downloading it on the fly. So with the PS2, code and data have to be constantly streamed over the wide internal buses in order arrive at the functional units right when they\'re needed. Of course, then the trick is scheduling the memory transfers so that you always have what you need on hand and latency doesn\'t kill you.

The above explains pretty nicely what advantage you have with streaming techniques and where the problem lyes for the developers. The above also explains, why bandwidth is a key factor to keep memory low (or in other words, why we can afford little memory if the bandwidth are big enough). I hope you were able to get that into your skull Watchdog. I honestly can\'t go lower than that.

How do you know this? You are talking out of your ass as usual. Brute Force and Project Ego are already looking beyond the launch games and they are still early in development. The genesis and snes were old (as you say) technology too, but the graphics were a quantum leap ahead of its launch titles. Just because it is PC-like, does not negate the dev learning curve. Most rational people concede that the PS2 cannot match the xbox\'s graphics, you however, are not a rational person.

LOL. So basically, everyone who doesn\'t share your opinion is not being rational? No, unlike you I have some technical understanding on the stuff I post. Too bad it seems to be too high for your understanding. I\'ve seen Project Ego and it does not wow me after seing FFX in action and other games. And again, you\'re putting words in my mouth that I never said. I never said Xbox won\'t improve, I said Xbox won\'t improve by as much as the PS2 will. How does ProjectEgo look so much better than DoA3? We can make a poll if you want - just to see what the other members think of how much the graphics leap is between those 2 games. By Xbox being PC-like, it already has a big advantage over the PS2. I posted above why it has an advantage:

PC-like architecture: FACT
DirectX support: FACT
Unlike PC\'s fixed platform: FACT
copy data to RAM, then work with them: FACT

Genesis/SNES: You might not be aware of this, but I will point this out none-the-less: What is old now, wasn\'t old back then. If you honestly think that todays developers haven\'t made a leap in knowledge and development techniques since then, then you\'re nothing but a little moron leaving in a dreamworld. Wake up Watchdog, you\'re points are getting pretty lame.

I would not say that the PS2 is improving drastically in terms of graphics. There are better looking games coming out now, but I do not see a drastic improvement over, say, Tekken. Just because there are some nice looking games out does not mean anything. This could just as easily be attributed to better artistry, better programmers, smarter people. It\'s probably a combination of those things plus people are working their way through the PS2. It is not any one factor.

I know VF4 isn\'t out yet, but if you have seen the direct feed from TGS and played the arcade version (PS2 version is arcade perfect as it seems), then you will notice quite a big difference in a) Polygon count, b) no prerendered backgrounds, c) texture detail and d) lightning and visual effects. You can also compare the never released GT2000 to the finalized version of GT3 which also features a big leap in those areas. Other games that look much more impressive are: Balders Gate: Dark Aliance, Final Fantasy X, MGS2, WRC, Burnout, Ace Combat 4 and others. I could point out every aspect that improved by a great margin in these games, but I think I will leave it at that for now.

With the xbox there is no AGP bottleneck, the XGPU is fully programmable with pixel shaders vertex shaders, and the OS kernal has been trimmed down to almost nothing. Equating the xbox as nothing more than a PC in disguise is ignorance.

Of course it having no AGP bottleneck, programmable GPU and strippped down Win2000 kernel does make it a PC. :rolleyes:
Are we going to debate again about how PCish the Xbox is? Please, check the articles you posted and read for yourself. By the way; first you refer to the Xbox as being PC-like but than say \'bla bla bla\' does not make it a PC in disguice? Make up your mind.  I never said the Xbox is a PC in disguice. It is enough PC-like to have a huge advantage for developers over the newely designed PS2. FACT (also confirmed by developers).

The xbox\'s data doesn\'t have to travel over a bus--it\'s all integrated. You are talking about PC developing, again, get your facts straight before you shoot your mouth off.

Oh of course not.. the Xbox is one big "CPU/GPU with onboard 64 MB of memory chip" It doesn\'t need a bus for data to travel! :rolleyes:
LOL this is getting better by the reply. I\'m pissing my pants, it\'s so funny watching you talk about something while having absolutely no idea. Serious question: do you know what a bus is and why it is needed?

Again, just because the PS2 is unique doean\'t mean it is better.

Well, might not be better, but good enough to keep up with 1 1/2 years newer released hardware as it seems.

I\'ve answered this question already, but I guess reading is a weak point for you. Developers have said that the snes, genesis, gameboy, psx were all easy to develop for. Did the games for each of these systems get better as time wore on? Absolutely. All these systems were also very PC-like in terms of how data is stored and manipulated within the hardware. This whole xbox=pc debate wouldn\'t even exist if this was Sega\'s machine and not MS\'s. Programmers have barely touched the xbox\'s programmable chip. The games already look better than PS2\'s and this is their first try. With every system there is a learning curve, the xbox is no different.

I obviously asked again, since your answer was and is still insufficiant. SNES, Genesis, yes they were easy, but it was also a big challenge since games with graphics like that were getting more in. With PSX, a new era started, the era of 3D graphics which was totally new for developers, so there was lots of improvement to make. Now that we look back, that was 7 years ago and where do we stand today? 3D graphics aren\'t new anymore and Xbox isn\'t doing anything new that PC\'s haven\'t been doing the last one or two years. Unlike in those days, there is a fair share of knowledge where 3d graphics are concern. Comparing Xbox with PSX/Genesis/SNES is just like comparing the improvements made on a Excel programm today with one made in the early days of PC development. BTW: the Xbox games arguably look better. At this point, only DoA3 looks a step ahead, although VF4 will settle that again. I won\'t take anyother games into consideration of which we haven\'t seen any good video in-game footage.

PS:  If your replies or IQ don\'t improve drastically with your next answer, consider this being my last reply in this debate to you.

Actually, I do understand hardware, I can read a technical manual without getting lost, and I\'m a computer consultant for the University of Windsor Ontario.  So making that assumption makes you wrong yet again.

Your water bucket analogy, while colourful, is of absolutely no relevance.  I understand how the PS2 manages data, but thanks just the same.

All that stuff is theory, and theory and real world are two completely different things.  Yes I realize that streaming somewhat makes up for PS2\'s lack of memory, but if Sony were given another chance I\'m pretty sure they would do it differently.  And again, implying that more memory would hamper or not help the PS2 is completely ridiculous.  The PS2 would benefit greatly with more memory streaming or not.  That there shows your ignorance not mine.  The PS2 archetecture is not unlike the Saturn\'s--they both were relatively speaking, potentially powerful systems, that required programming trickery and acumen.  The more straight forward system (PSX) won that round and had better performance and better games.  This isn\'t necessarily how it\'ll turn out this time, but the funny thing about history is that it often repeats itself.  But even given the best circumstances, the PS2 doesn\'t have the horsepower that the xbox has.  That shouldn\'t even be argued about.

_______________
Genesis/SNES: You might not be aware of this, but I will point this out none-the-less: What is old now, wasn\'t old back then. If you honestly think that todays developers haven\'t made a leap in knowledge and development techniques since then, then you\'re nothing but a little moron leaving in a dreamworld. Wake up Watchdog, you\'re points are getting pretty lame.
_______________

Yes, reading comprehension isn\'t a strong suit for you is it?  Apart from that, you are wrong anyway.  The genesis and snes did not have revolutionary hardware for their respective generations.  It was basically the same hardware/techniques that PCs had/used.  So, yes infact, it wasn\'t "new" (what a ridiculous point to raise in the first place).  Programmers were as good then as they are now (many would argue better actually).  Implying that today\'s programmers are inherently better equiped to make games is ludicrus.  Programmers of that age have been working with sprites and pixels and were just as well versed as today\'s programmers are working with polys and triangles.  It\'s not that programmers and artists learned how to make prettier graphics and it was the programmers personal deficiencies that held the first generation of games back, it was the learning curve of the hardware.  You obviously are stretching the truth quite far to make a point.

And all that nonsense of how certain games have improved is just that: nonsense.  I could point you towards early revs of Halo and you would see an vast improvement too.  What would we have proved then?  I\'m not sure are you?  Probably that both systems will improve.  The only difference is that smaller publishing houses that don\'t have the resources to spill into long difficult dev cycles will be able to make their games shine more easily on the xbox or GC (we have forgetten about the GC, but my argument is the same for the little purple box).  

I have no doubt that EA and Square and some Sony 1st party houses will be able to make nice looking games, but the smaller companies will struggle.  But, to level the playing field, EA and Square, on xbox hardware would make games that look and preform better than PS2 games if they developed from the xbox hardware up (so that discounts EA\'s rushed Madden 2002, etc).

Yes the xbox is PC like, but it is not a PC in a box and that is the big diference here.  You take directx out of the box and it is no more like a PC than the PSX is.  THERE IS STILL A LEARNING CURVE.

Yes VF4 looks good, and I\'ll probably pick it up.  BG:DA looks good too and that game will probably find it\'s way into my library.  Unless, they are being realeased for xbox too, then I\'ll wait and get the better bersion.

Actually, I do understand hardware, I can read a technical manual without getting lost, and I\'m a computer consultant for the University of Windsor Ontario. So making that assumption makes you wrong yet again.

How someone with some technical understanding can post something like this:
The xbox\'s data doesn\'t have to travel over a bus--it\'s all integrated.
is really beyond my understanding. You have a lot to learn.

and btw: in case you haven\'t noticed, VB Code allows QUOTES. Please use them, it\'s getting annoying.

I can say that because it\'s true--there is no bus between the cpu and graphics board.  They address each other through high-speed memory.  Similarily, there is no agp bus or northbridge in the way further distancing itself from PCs and speeding the unit up considerably.

You insult my intelligence, then call me names on the account of your mistake.  Looks like I\'ll be ending this deiscussion on the account of your limited knowledge of hardware.

BTW, I\'ll do quotes any way I feel like.

Originally posted by Ryu


I\'d like to see a real-time movie of Yeager, is there one available?

Yes there is... check out http://www.teamxbox.com and they might have it.  Its been around for a couple of weeks.