I have been playing with my XBox (sounds a little funny, huh) and I have been saving games to the hard drive daily. Let's say I don't want to keep using that game that I saved and to preserve space on the system I would like to delete it from the hard drive. The game itself allows for this but doesn't allow for routine maintenance of the hard drive such as defragging. I know the defrag doesn't do all that muich to help the system all the time but after saving 21 seasons of NFL Fever 2002, you never know where it will leave you. Just a question and I hope to have a reasonable answer. Thanks again.

LinuXbox™ hits the streets ------- Open source games platform 'to rival Xbox'

TOP MICROSOFT EXECUTIVES were openly weeping earlier today as an open source rival to its much vaunted Xbox gaming platform was announced.
The LinuXbox™ will run a wide range of three games including Penguin Raider, Harry Potter and the Penguin's Stone and the ever-popular Choose mount points, allocate disk space and format for ext3.

The games will make extensive use of monochrome ASCII text display technology to improve performance: "We're keeping well clear of DirectX, SSE2 and 3Dnow and sticking with proven VGA technology to boost performance," says LinuXbox™ marketing supremo hAxx0R486.

The games are currently under development by the Linux Collective and are expected to be functionally complete by Q2, 2057. "They won't actually be finished of course," added the spokesman. "It's part of the attractiveness of open source software that there's never a finished product, but we confidently expect the splash screens to be finalised in the next decade or two.

"This will really give Microsoft and Sony something to worry about. We confidently expect to see the runaway success of Linux on the desktop matched by LinuXbox™ in the gaming arena. Our market predictions show we'll have a market penetration well in excess of 0.0000000001 per cent by the middle of the century."

Bob Esponjaaa!!!
Sponge Bob SquarePants

Oh Please.... Can't you Linux Geeks give it a rest...

When I found out that Obi-Wan wasn't going to be release don the PC because it wasn't up to Lucas Arts stanards, then I see its going to be released on the X-square, I realized the X-square wasn't going to be that good.

Also, most PC titles will be ported to the X-square, which means I get them FIRST on my PC, while everyone else waits for Quake 4 or Doom 3.

Seriously, the X-square is not worth ditching your PS2, PS2 and Nintendo have a lot of good games that only exist on the consoles, the X-square does not (and probably will not since its so tied to a PC).

Anyways, its your money to burn, but I think x-square isn't really worth it if you have a computer - get a game system with GAMES made for it.

I'm afraid you just don't get it.

i've got a ps2, i've had it since it came out, and i love it. i can play ps1 games, ps2 games, dvds, cds, pretty much everything. the graphics and game play are great, sound is awesome (optical output). why should i buy an xbox? i know the processing capabilities seem to be much faster, and it seems to have more potential, but is it really worth it to sell my ps2 and buy an xbox? i mean, if i had the money, i'd definitely go out and get one right now. but, and i'm talking to people who have played both, is it worth the switch?

While I think the X-Box is a FAR superior system, in every aspect other than wealth of games, if you do not have the money, then don't do it. I mean, you already obviously have your old PSOne games, and now PS2 games on it, you obviously have lot of money invested into the thing... now if you could sell it and get all your money back and be able to replace those games that you enjoy so much, then sure, switching over would be great.

I sold my PS2 for two reasons:
1) I did not have a big library of PS1 or PS2 games so I didn't have any real "ties" to it.
2) It's too expensive to maintain 2 console systems. (all the games, all the peripherals, so on)

That said there were four reasons the Xbox was pushing the PS2 out of my entertainment center:
1) Support for Hi Definition Letterbox TVs. I have a 55" 16x9 Mitsubishi TV that supports up to 1080i signals. So does the Xbox.
2) Support for 5.1 Dolby Digital sound both in Games and in DVDs. I have an Integra reciever and a decent speaker setup. PS2 only support DD and DTS playing DVDs, I want it in my games too.
3) Greater DVD playback support. PS2 has some problems with a fair amount of titles. Not to mention it's features as a DVD player aren't that impressive (no zoom or other treats found on common players.) While the Xbox does mandate the purchase of an extra component to playback DVDs it is only $30 and does have all the stuff my standalone DVD player has. Which frees that player up to go to my bedroom and I don't have redundant equipment in my entertainment center.
4) Raw power. I love graphics and sound and right now Xbox is king of both categories. DOA3 and Halo are two of the best games I've ever played. Considering they are 1st generation games for the system imagine what is to come.

I wasn't displeased with my PS2, but with my current setup I wanted to maximize my other equipment when I play games and the Xbox is able to do that for me. My opinion may change once the PS3 is released, but I've got some time before I have to worry about that.

Does that sound a stupid statement?????

Does it really matter????

I sold my PS2 about 3 months ago (kinda regret it now) I have yet to get an Xbox, (not relased i the UK yet)

The point is that both on paper are excellent machines, and the truth is that in 18 months time both will pale in comparision to the next gen consoles, there will always be progress the will always be the argument that "mine is better than yours" but do you guys have to spend your enitre lives b****ing about it.

I used to own an Amiga and the argument in the playground was how it compared to an Atari ST, I look back now and laugh, they were both great machines which both had there advantages and disadvantages. The Amgia was better for games but if you were serious about music you'd own an ST.

What im trying to get at is that this kind of talk should be left to the kids in the playground (the ones who'll buy the Gamecube)lets just except the fact that both are great machines.......for the time being!

Can I play Tradewars on it? (HAHA) You know, if they actually release XBox MAME, I'm going to have to get an XBox :-( This sucks.

I am reading through this and I realise how little people actualy seem to know!
Someone mentioned that DirectX is a dream to program for. It is an uter b****, but then again in comparison to the PS2 it is easy. With the PS2, you have to worry about three main processors. Two of which share the graphics load. Don't even get me started on the memory management. Why do you think it has taken so long to get the truly graphicaly impressive games out (Metal Gear Solid 2, Final Fantasy X).
The XBox is easier to program for however, as there is one processor and one GPU to deal with. Developers are USED to direct hex, but it is not easy to program for.
Someone mentioned about processors... a 485MHz possibly being faster than a 733MHz. It is true that a 1.6GHz Athlon can outperform a 2GHz P4, but not by a significant margin. As regards the gamecube I couldn't say fer sure unless you compared two of the same game against each other I don't think you can truly say which is more powerful.
The whole console bashing really does go too far though. I own a Gameboy, NES, Master System, Mega Drive, SNES, Saturn, Playstation, N64, Dreamcast, Playstation 2, and a Gameboy Advance. I can say that each and every one of them have class, unforgettable games which i still play to this day: Shining Force 2, Chrono Trigger, Zelda 64, Grandia 2, just to name a few.
I will be getting an XBox as soon as I can afford it. I might even get a gamecube. But if I can't afford either one, I'm not going to start bashing them.

I think the XBox is a well developed system - not sure if it is a castrated PC or a powerful console. The reason for the extensive resources - time, money, development, PR, etc., is becuase MS can't risk failure in this arena or it will never be taken seriously as a game developer or platform provider leaving Sony and Nintendo capturing the market in their own ways. If MS fails, they lose on a valuable segment that will always give them money the PC arena can't provide. Lets not forget that MS, Sony, and Nintendo get a cut from every game produced as part of the licencing agreement. For them to pave the way for the NEXT console's success, they have to do well now and get the largest market share. But in typical fashion - no matter what industry - you always put out a great product if you are entering the market to get the market share but skimp on the next design once you have the market. I suspect that the XBox 2 won't be as good as the first just because if MS does do well, they won't have the need to put more effort into capturing more market share and if it doesn't do well, they will not be taken seriously.

I had the PS2 and sold it. I'm not bashing it, it was fun, but Xbox seriously blows the competition away.

I'm running it on a 55" HD letterbox TV with a Dolby Digital system and it's utilizing everything to it's full potential. What other system is offering that up right now? No one, so quit guessing.

I got Halo, DOA3, TH2x and all run in 480p on an HD system which blows away 480i on a big screen. The hardware in the Xbox certainly utilizes it's abilities. There's no distance drawing in the backgrounds at all. Everything that can be in sight is in sight in the background. No trees popping up in the distance, cars appearing from down the street. If it's there you can see it. The DD 5.1 sound in Halo is the best gaming sound I've heard ever. DOA is the most breathtaking game I've ever seen, and it's been through at least 20 hours of play since thursday with me and my friends and still hasn't started to get old. Great gameplay, physics and controls. Tony Hawk (1 and 2) has never looked so good as it does in 2x. It still isn't TH3 but it looks as good.

Keeping in mind these are 1st generation titles and there are 30 titles being launched between now and Xmas Microsoft has done a solid job releasing a system that has amazing features, utilizes the latest home entertainment hardware (HDTV and DD sound) and has some of the most awesome games for a very competitive price.

Say what you want about Microsoft, this letter won't stop you. Just look at what other companies are giving you for your same dollar and see who's scamming who.

Good call. I second that!

Dreamcast:
Not much to say here. It was by far Sega's best product. The few times I played on it, I was impressed. They still have a problem with lack of colors, but it was much improved this time. They also beat the PS2 in release date, but they knew when PS2 came they'd die. They didn't promote it enough. But since Microsoft owns a large chunk of Sega nowadays, it makes sense that they decided to stop making consoles and just make Xbox games ;)

Gamecube:
Nintendo has always pumped out good products, and usually things (like Gameboy advances) that other companies were/are afraid to try. Problem with GC: If you have seen the specs of it compared to PS2 and xbox, it is in the middle on a few features, beating PS2 on a couple things, but then everything else is WAY behind the other's standards. Another problem Nintendo has, that they've only recently tried to break away from, is that most of their games are aimed for "kiddies". G.. not PG+ It has one advantage over the other systems (expecially Xbox): the controller is designed well and small.

PS2:
I have only played on it once, but everyone I know that has one loves it, and the fact that their beloved PS1 games will run on it is its main attraction. Playstation has come out on top so far, and is still on top. It has very good games and use of colors (especially compared to Sega products, which I love). PS is also the only surviving CD-based gaming console. The rest have died. But unfortunately, they are slowing losing SquareSoft for the games. We'll see if they can keep up the great games, which is their main advantage. They will probably be the xbox's only remaining competitor.

xbox:
MS has never been much for TV advertising, but they have done a great job at stealing big game makers (yes stealing) to create games for this. And they have done many game and console commercials lately. I have been excited about the xbox for over a year now, and even attended an open forum here on campus with some of the xbox developers. It has a very impressive slew of standard features and the best GPU by far of any of them. My only concern is its packaging of win2k, but I think this will make it much easier for them to convert the gaming console into much much more (which could be bad)... Price is its only downside (and it's bulky size/weight and slender cables), but worth the $$ probably.

Unless I am mistaken, the GC's controller is the same design as X-Box's, except that the X-Box controller is much more smooth, and fits better into the hand.

I don't see why people have such a hard time with the X-Box controller, I think it feels great, TONS better than Playstation's.

Finally, the X-Box costs exactly the same as PS2, you make it sound like it costs so much more, but it doesn't.

You would really have to hold both controllers to tell. After holding the GC controller (which seems to meld with your hand -- VERY well designed), the Xbox feels about as comfortable and ergonomic as a cinder block. The GC even beats the PS2 controller hands down (which I also think is more comfortable than the Xbox controller)... there is a HUGE difference here.

and no, the xbox controller isn't the same design as the gamecube one -- they're actually very very different.

Well, if you want to argue, they are all very similar. But, yes, the GC is much different. It is not as fat and the joy buttons extend towards the center on these extruding circles. Xbox just filled the whole middle in instead of cutting the "extra" out. I can't say from experience which is better because I have not held either one. But for all consoles, there are tons of 3rd parties that have already released controllers, with many different shapes. Pick one you like :D

And I didn't mean to make it sound like PS2 was cheaper than Xbox. I know it is the same cost. PS2 really does need to consider a slight price drop.

I agree -- no way am I shelling out $300 for a PS2. $250 or $200, maybe (Need to fit the Gamecube into the budget first =).. anything below $200 and I'd snatch one up immediately.

I shelled out $300 for a Playstation 2 and I don't regret it. I can play my library of PS1 games with slightly improved graphics and DVDs along with PS2 games(or more like game Gran Tourismo is nothing short of incredible) and I love my Gamecube(I still haven't gotten the millenium falcon) but I would never sell my PS2. As for the Xbox its just not worth it for me. Microsoft has gone through the trouble of trying to offer gaming alternatives to whats available on the PS2. But I don't know anyone who would prefer Fever over Madden, or Gotham of GTA3(no real comparison here) Halo over Metal Gear Solid 2, DOA3 over the slew of more balanced and deeper fighting games on the PS2. There really isn't much to compare- the one XBOX game I have played and I liked was Halo, I liked it so much I will buy it next year when its released on the PC.

Ummm... it's impossible for your PS1 games to look better on your PS2. They may be able to have higher framerates (but I doubt that), but it DEFINATLY can not look any better.

The PS2 can do texture smoothing on PS1 games. There's also an option to use the extra speed of the cd drive. In most cases, it's not that obvious, but it's there. He's likely referring to that.

Interesting.

Somewhat, yes.
But I do get a kick out of non-technical friends of mine that are completely amazed by the improvements. They would say that a game looks *SO* much better on PS2, that it's incredible! Of course, they are also *extremely* impressed at the Nintendo emulator for Dreamcast, and at how many NES roms fit onto a 80 minute compact disc. (btw, 379 roms, taking about 1/6th of the cd).

it's all about the demographics!
xbox's main competitor is ps2 not gamecube. gamecube has the pokemon generation locked down. xbox's target audience is the 20-somethings.

the hardware is almost a non-issue. i think the added features of the xbox will be underused. and anything that can be made for the xbox can be made for the ps2 and gamecube with comparable or even better graphics.

as for the games... we'll just have to wait and see. square's decision not to develop for the xbox is a huge blow. if xbox falls, it will be due largely in part to square's decision.

Maybe you should learn something about the hardware?

You can create a game with MUCH better graphics than those on PS2. So far, I've not seen any games on GC that even look nearly as good as things like Gothem Racing, NFL Fever, or Halo.

You obviously haven't seen Rogue Squadron 2 or Star Fox Adventures (which all screenshots that are out are of a 30% complete game).

Again, one of the major differences between the Xbox/GC/PS2 is that the GC can easily sustain 60 fps with extremely minimal drops to 30 at the lowest.. the PS2/Xbox can't do this =)

Oh, and compare NFL Fever to Madden 2002 on the GC.

mhmmm, a game that's still in development. How about comparing those games to say, Unreal2, which is still in development (however, probably further along in the cycle).

And I have seen a screen of RS2, some of it was ok, like the flames, but others were just nasty looking.

My point exactly. This game that is still in development for GC (Star Fox Adventures) looks amazing, and runs at a constant 60 fps.

No, it doesn't look amazing, yet.
And no, YOU haven't played it, so therefore, YOU don't know that it runs at 60fps.

thanks for letting me know which games i haven't played yet. i could have swore i did at e3.. i guess i didn't. thanks for the info.

hrm, but something that Xbox has that the other competing consoles don't have, is support for full HDTV resolutions! Yes, GC has HDTV 'support' but that's nothing but a nice 640x480 just like standard NTSC. So, Xbox can have MUCH nicer graphics than the other consoles. However, like you said, it may not be able to sustain a reasonable frame rate! Who knows?

I think the most important thing people have to realize is that what determines the success of a console system is the GAMES. The QUALITY of the games and the developers.

The XBox may very well be a mighty powerful system, but if it has sh*tty games or it's a b*tch to develop for, nobody is going to buy it, and it'll flop.

Take for example some of the best consoles around -- NES and SNES. NES has been around for over 20 years (I think -- 1979, right?) and still has some of the best, most fun games ever. The SNES has also braved the test of time.

Truth is, nowadays games lack originality -- most games are cookie-cutter copies of eachother with no real innovative gameplay or anything. This is where I believe Nintendo will surpass as they have ALWAYS been the ones to bring out original, AWESOME games (along with Sega).

We'll see how this console war ends up. I'm not putting any money on the XBox at all -- my bets are on the PS2 and Gamecube (which, btw, should be interesting -- many developers have already dropped Sony and are bringing exclusive games to the GC, ie: Capcom and Namco).

We'll see.

NES was around in '85-'86

Xbox difficult to develop for?? Do you know what API the xbox uses...DirectX...which is by far the EASIEST out of all consoles to use. Everybody knows how to make a directx game for the PC, and if you know that you could make a game for the xbox. I could probably make some simple xbox games now...it'd take me years to make the same game for the PS2 (which is still the hardest to develop for at this point).

No good xbox games? I've been playing Halo and NFL Fever 2002 for almost a week non stop, and my girlfriend and little brothers love Fuzion Frenzy...DOA3 which I haven't played is supposed to be awesome. These are just launch titles (3 out of what...15??), and there's lots of good games coming out for it in the near future. To me it looks like Xbox will win the console war (there shouldn't be a war...can't all consoles just live in peace?!), they got most of the good developers making games for them...GC's big advantage is exclusive games that nintendo makes and does a good job with, ps2's only advantage is that it's been out for a year...and sony's desperate announcement that PS3 is on the way is another blow tot he PS2.

But...we'll see what will happen.

Actually, I think Nintendo got started in the 1890's when they made card, board, and small wooden games in Japan. They switched to electronic games in the late 70's by developing games for other console systems (Atari). I remember reading this in a Business Week article I think.

Very interesting info. Of course the gentleperson who posted said that NES (or Nintendo Entertainment System) was from 1985 which is accurate (August to be specific).

He did say *IF*. And there always will be a war between consoles just as there is with Operating Systems etc etc, people get far too emotional, religious and fanatical about these things.

I don't understand the argument that because it is XBOX that a game will not be good. MS does not make all the games for its console. What makes you think that EA would make a crappy version of its game on XBOX and make a good one for PS2. Thats insane. Everyone is in it for the money, and its on the Developers to make the game great. XBOX just gives you the tools and power to make the game do what you want.

The argument that because it's on the Xbox the game will suck was never made.

What I am saying is that, just like any other console, _if_ the games suck, the system will flop.

I don't disagree that the Xbox is a powerful system, but I have played the games and I have read sooooo many articles on every system -- I consider myself pretty well educated on the subject.

What I have read is that the Xbox, though powerful, still has trouble sustaining framerate. As far as aesthetics go, it looks disgusting compared to the sleek PS2 and the teeny GC. As far as ergonomics go, the controller sucks.. especially when compared to the GC controller. The controller feels clunky and uncomfortable, and I can't imagine myself holding it for more than an thirty minutes at the most without having to put it down or take one hand off the controller...

I'm also bothered with people saying that the Xbox is this monster of a powerful machine -- that simply isn't true. Most people judge by just the hardware (ie: they read 750 mhz compared to Gamecube's 485 and PS2's 300 and they assume it's more powerful). Reminder people -- mHz is a VERY poor measurement of power. What's going to be faster, a system that does 1000 instructions 750 times per second, or one that does 2000 instructions 485 times per second (I know that's not what mHz are exactly -- just an example). It all depends on the architecture of the processor, what it does, etc. The processor in the Xbox is just a glorified PIII, whereas the processor in the GC and PS2 is one made exclusively for games and nothing but games (esp. the GC), and do instructions that games need...see what I'm getting at?

Another point is that Sony already has a HUGE customer base -- everyone knows Sony, and anyone who knows anything about anything knows what a Playstation is. Think about this -- an unknowing parent goes into Toys R Us to buy a system for their kids.. what are they going to buy? Sony Playstation 2 with its walls of games behind it, the Nintendo Gamecube (everyone also knows Nintendo), or the Microsoft Xbox, the newbie...

Yes, they started by making trading cards actually...

"The processor in the Xbox is just a glorified PIII, whereas the processor in the GC and PS2 is one made exclusively for games and nothing but games (esp. the GC), and do instructions that games need...see what I'm getting at?"

Uhhh... The processor in the Gamecube is a PowerPC chip, like the ones used in Power Macintoshes. The version used in the GC may have some tweaks, but it's definitely not from a line of processors that are made exclusively for games.

I can't believe people actually think the PS2 looks "sleek". I personally think it looks like something that was designed by IBM or HP in the 80's/early 90's.

The P3 is all-purpose, but what you don't seem to realize is, ALL of them have all-purpose processors, and ALL of them have a GPU (which is designed JUST for gaming). PS2 has the "emotion engine", Gamecube has a varient of ATi's Radeon 8500, and the X-Box has a varient of nVidia's GF3.

PowerPC _architecture_ (RISC), not exclusively a PowerPC chip.

I haven't read anywhere that the GPU's in the systems are variants of anything.. but yes, the Xbox's GPU was developed by Nvidia and the GC's was made by ATI...

As far as I know they are proprietary GPU's made exclusively for these consoles, not variants of existing GPU's...

Well let me tell you now then, they are varients of the PC counterparts.

Well, let me point you over to an article since you seem to rely so heavily on articles rather then your own personal experience. I assume you're familiar with Anandtech so you know the validity of this article...

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1561

hah! actually, they're not dude. read a bit more before you start posting incorrect information with such affirmation.

sooo why are you telling me to read this? i knew all of this already =) this article is just stating that the xbox cpu is a derivative of a Coppermine..

from the article Niro posted:

"Months ago NVIDIA told us that it was the nForce design that won them Xbox; the PC derivative came afterwards. It was no surprise then to find out that the nForce chipset could work just as fine as a Pentium III solution or an Athlon solution. Of course us PC users get to see nForce paired with an Athlon, but because of Microsoft's licensing of the P6 bus from Intel the world is able to see the Pentium III on the nForce platform as well.

The chipset behind the Xbox does veer slightly from the nForce 420-D design for the PC. The Integrated Graphics Processor (IGP) still functions as the effective North Bridge for the platform however it features a much more powerful graphics core than the PC's nForce IGP. Whereas the nForce IGP on the PC features a GeForce2 MX (NV11) core, the Xbox IGP features a custom designed core internally known as the NV2A. You can take the codename to mean that the integrated graphics offers performance and features somewhere in-between the currently available NV20 (GeForce3) core and the upcoming NV25 core."

Again, before you start posting incorrect information with such affirmation, do some research first.

HA! That article proves it.

Well actually I should of posted that in reply to your earlier post...

"I'm also bothered with people saying that the Xbox is this monster of a powerful machine -- that simply isn't true. Most people judge by just the hardware (ie: they read 750 mhz compared to Gamecube's 485 and PS2's 300 and they assume it's more powerful). Reminder people -- mHz is a VERY poor measurement of power. What's going to be faster, a system that does 1000 instructions 750 times per second, or one that does 2000 instructions 485 times per second (I know that's not what mHz are exactly -- just an example). It all depends on the architecture of the processor, what it does, etc. The processor in the Xbox is just a glorified PIII, whereas the processor in the GC and PS2 is one made exclusively for games and nothing but games (esp. the GC), and do instructions that games need...see what I'm getting at?"

You were trying to say that the main processor in the Xbox sucks basically...and all you were comparing is the main processor, you didn't take into account anything else (like the GPU). I was just tryin to prove a point that the Xbox IS more powerfull then Sony's "dedicated gaming processor". ;)

-Niro

I don't give a rats a** which is more powerful...all I know is that I have never seen a PS2 game stutter and bog down as much as I've seen the XBox demo units in various department stores, while doing relatively simple non-graphics-intensive tasks. If simply seeing the game stutter from showing hockey players trotting out onto the ice, no thanks, I'll pass. Score one up for more powerful hardware. :P

Interesting, everything was smooth for me on the demos.

can you not read? or are you just stupid?

"Months ago NVIDIA told us that it was the nForce design that won them Xbox; the PC derivative came afterwards."

"Whereas the nForce IGP on the PC features a GeForce2 MX (NV11) core, the Xbox IGP features a custom designed core internally known as the NV2A."

yup.

It's custom designed, sure, but it's based on the Geforce3.... the Itel processor in it is also custom designed.

When's service pack one coming out ? there must be a beta of it around as m$ have a trend of making service packs before they release OS's....

How will the xBOX be any different.

Sorry, this thing is ridiculous. I wouldn't buy it; I'd hock it if I was given one.

Only GemeCube integrates with Game Boy Advance, that's a pretty powerful card Nintendo has that neither Sony or Microsoft do.

And it becomes what? A $100 controller? It's hardly a real selling point. Ahh...just another MS basher with no substance.

Actually the gba is an incredible little machine. Such power has neverr been packed into that tiny of a device. The thing is smaller than a hard drive, after all.
It can quite easily entertain people on it's own. If I had the pocket change, I'd snap one up immediately. The X-Box, however , is another story entirely. I can't and won't bring myself to buy another computer, no matter how it's promoted, and especially since it's made by Microsoft. I shudder to think of a Microsoft computer: built, sold, and supported by Microsoft.
May the world never know a console industry being dominated by Microsoft!

On November 18th, 2001 at 10:13PM ET, "Canuck" said...

"Actually the gba is an incredible little machine. Such power has neverr been packed into that tiny of a device. The thing is smaller than a hard drive, after all."

Never been packed into a device that small? How about Pocket PC 2002? Heck, people are impressed with Quake 1 on my Pocket PC. I have yet to see GBA do anything that requires that kind of power.

Later,
Neb

Actually the GBA/GC connectivity is a wonderful idea.

Picture this: A football game.. two people playing, each has their own respective GBA attached to the GC. When choosing plays you choose on your GBA so your opponent can't see what you choose.

Or a third person adventure where the GBA has the first person view.

Etc. etc. etc. -- the possibilities are endless.

VERY good idea, Nintendo. Thumbs up.

I still think that the Sega Nomad had exact the same power as the GBA , not to mention 6 years ago.

Wow, the critics are out in full force, and reviving a very old battle: Which is more powerful, Genesis or SNES?
First, I wouldn't consider a Genesis to be exceptionally powerful. By comparing the Nomad and GBA directly, the GBA leads by a large amount, not only by chip-to-chip, but simultaneous colors, screen resolution, audio processing and quality, software selection, and most notibly, battery life. Even with recent efforts to illuminate the gba with white leds, the gba outlasts the nomad by at least 5x with standard batteries.
The Nomad was a valiant effort, but the gba has an extremely successful father to rely on.
I'd like to add more, but I gotta go.

Hm..gba ~$100
Pocket PC ~$300-400 minimum.

One is designed for games, has tons of titles. You mention *1* game for the Pocket PC. Quit being an idiot. Sheesh.

What the hell are you talking about?

Btw, there are tons of games for PPC, including such things as Pocket Quake.

The Sega Master System was the best!

Damn striaght. Nothing will ever top Michael Jackson's Moonwalker!

OMG

I .. I .. I .. I think I've heard them all now.

heh heh

"Picture this: A football game.. two people playing, each has their own respective GBA attached to the GC. When choosing plays you choose on your GBA so your opponent can't see what you choose."

It's been done already, with the VMU (Visual Memory Unit) on the Dreamcast.

The VMU on the DC just shows a neat little animation on the screen while you play.. there's no interactivity between the VMU and the user/game while you're playing, like you can do with the GBA.

No, actually it will allow you to download games from one to the other. For example, Zelda on GBA and Zelda on GC can talk to one another, and you can open up secrets in one with the other. In sports games you can have your own screen to secretly set up plays, the potential is endless. You can keep your brutally handicapped PC, and keep sucking the Microsoft tool. Have at it.

Yes, and we all know how useful the Dreamcast thingy is as a portable games machine. IT ISN'T, especially compared to
GBA. Whatever.

If you think the PocketPC has ANY chance whatsoever against GBA as a games machine, you're totally batty.

PocketPC is a piece of garbage compared to GBA for games, period. It's a piece of garbage anyway, although it looks kind of neat, unless you want to pay $400 for a gloried Palm (and I hate Palms) that has a comparatively lousy game selection to the GBA.

Prove otherwise, and try to use some sales numbers. I'll bet there's already more GBAs sold in the world than PocketPCs, and the GBA just came out a few months ago.

FURTHER, last I heard PocketPCs didn't have anything to do with Xbox, so it's not even comparable to GBA/GC.

Sorry for the hostile last sentence above. I do take my Microsoft loathing pretty seriously. I do not hate all of their products, though I do hate this one.

Luckily, though, I think Nintendo will do far better than Xbox, and I'm glad. Microsoft could really have pushed Xbox as an Internet appliance, and made it run PC stuff, too. That would have scared me. Say, Xbox with a keyboard, mouse, and controller for $300 with a free six months of MSN? They could have made a slaughterhouse of the market, and, mysteriously, didn't.

I don't think they dare compete against their OEMs, honestly. Enable PC software and you have a PC. That's got to be why Xbox doesn't run PC stuff. I can think of no other reason whatsoever they didn't try and use the Windows advantage.

Who said anything about PPC being a game machine? It's not, it's a productivity machine, plain and simple.

BTW, how does the PPC suck? It's far better than anything else on the market, that's for sure.

These devices that you are naming aren't meant for games, why are you trying to put them in the gaming category? Now THAT'S stupid.

oh come on people! who is really going to use the GBA as a CONTROLLER?! what a pathetic idea, it has what, 0 analog controls, an A and a B button, an L and an R button, start and select?! HOW are you going to control any decent games with that? You may be able to select your plays, but controlling ur players after that will be impossible. BAD idea. Substanceless too. Also, very few developers would take it into consideration to program games to use that function.

try again nintendo. nice console, bad add-on

it's not meant to be used as a controller. the GBA is an extra screen basically -- you'd still have your controller plugged in to use.

OK. Lets see... 5 years or so wait for Halo. Damn well worth it.

3 years wait fro Xbox, yup worth it too.

This system is AWESOME! It owns.

My friends and I had 4 Xbox's networked togeather 2 players per Xbox playing Halo on 52 inch TV's. DROOL that was some fun stuff!

Microsoft is losing money on the sconsole, but they mak ei tup on the accessories and the games! So dont complain about the cost, its a flippin computer for christ sake!

now what necessarily constitutes a computer? if you mean it is a PC, then they should get the **** out of being proprietary and give me my Halo the way it was SUPPOSED to be.

if ya ask me, All microsoft cares about is more money, I ain't rushing out to buy the X-box

WOW, it must the only company that does, all the rest just give products away, right?

On November 17th, 2001 at 10:16AM ET, "speedyracer24" posted the following example of his infinite wisdom...

"if ya ask me, All microsoft cares about is more money, I ain't rushing out to buy the X-box"

Brilliant observation. Regardless of wether or not Xbox sinks or swims, MS put forth a first class effort in developing the ideal console for developers and gamers. It's hardware is the most spectacular around.

People don't always buy the best product though. And they're the ones who ultimately decide if we live in a world where Sony and Nintendo dictate what we need.

Later,
Neb

"It's hardware is the most spectacular around"

What are you basing this on? Big numbers? Ooh, 750 mHz, this MUST mean it can do more cause it has a big number.

It's been proven that, just comparing the XBox to the Gamecube, the Gamecube can push as good as, if not better, graphics than the XBox. Not only that, but it can do this while sustaining constant 60 fps. I've heard/read/SEEN that yes, the XBox has nice graphics, but it has a very hard time sustaining frame rate.. sometimes dropping below 20. That's just garbage, in my opinion.

XBox, yes powerful, YES just a PC that sits under your TV (a pretty a$sy one at that), NO not thought out well at all. I'm not interested in the least in owning one, and probably never will.

Uhm..what do you base these "facts" on? Can you show me some links from reputable gaming sites?

Obviously a machine that has a 733mhz process and a high end video card can potentially outperform one with less hardware muscle. Note the operative word "potentially". If game developers do a s***ty coding job, obviously it could underperform.

XBox is not well thought out, either? Yeah, Microsoft blows $2 billion on something they really don't think much about. Heh.

Check out cube.ign.com, xbox.ign.com, ps2.ign.com -- should have everything you need there.

As for the comments on the power of the consoles, read my post above. Again, just by looking at numbers doesn't mean anything -- what's going to be faster, a processor that does 1000 instructions 750 times per cycle or one that does 2000 instructions 500 times per cycle? The math is pretty simple here.. the "slower" processor is actually doing a LOT more than the "faster" one -- don't you remember these debates when the first Pentium's came out and AMD/Cyrix's processors? (ie: P133's being faster than Cyrix/AMD's 166/200's, for example) =)

And as far as how much money they put into it, that doesn't mean anything either. Nintendo and Sony (especially Nintendo) have YEARS of experience with this stuff, and they know exactly what they're doing. Microsoft had to spend TONS on R&D that Nintendo/Sony don't need to cause they're new to the game. That number is just a number thrown out by Microsoft to *wow* consumers (and it seems like it did what they wanted to), same as Pentium III, DirectX, and the 750 mHz processor -- names and terms that consumers recognize and it will grab their attention -- "Ooh, 750.. close to 1000.. it's a big number, so it MUST mean it's better.. whee!" Doesn't really mean much when it comes down to it. Again, it all comes down to the GAMES and what the system can do, not what's on paper...

"It's been proven that, just comparing the XBox to the Gamecube, the Gamecube can push as good as, if not better, graphics than the XBox. Not only that, but it can do this while sustaining constant 60 fps. I've heard/read/SEEN that yes, the XBox has nice graphics, but it has a very hard time sustaining frame rate.. sometimes dropping below 20. That's just garbage, in my opinion."

That's one hell of a load of B.S. How can you make a blanket statement like that? Who has "proven" that the GC can do graphics just as good as the Xbox? Some guy that writes for "cube.ign.com"? (Like I'd trust him?)

Your postings give a strong indication that you're just pro-GC (or pro-Nintendo) and anti-Xbox. Do you really think that a Gamecube can do 60fps under all circumstances? I don't think games like Rogue Squadron 2 are pushing as many polygons as you seem to think they are.

All this talk is academic, though. The launch games are, well, launch games. We'll see which system hits the wall first.

I apologize for the blanket statement and reiterate -- Comparing launch titles, Nintendo's perform VERY strong graphically with no hitches compared to the Xbox's.

I have read about and seen/played the Xbox launch games, and I have noticed the drop in framerate at times to the point where it gets "choppy". I've also read about and played the GC launch games, and have noticed nothing like that.

As far as "proving" that graphics are better, of course that can't be done -- BUT, the games on the GC do look as good as if not better than the Xbox games as far as polygons/framerate/textures.

I apologize if I seem to be pro-GC anti-XB.. I'm not. I'm not pro or anti anything as far as systems go.. they're all great! It just bothers me when people talk sh*t about the Gamecube without even really knowing anything about it, and they glorify the Xbox for the same reason.. I'm just mentioning lots of points about the GC that lots of people don't know =) Ie: many people have posted that the GC and Nintendo is all about kid games -- not true. The N64 WAS originally aimed at a younger audience, but the GC is definitely not. I could mention that Capcom is re-doing the entire RE series on the GC, including two exclusives (Biohazard [RE:0]) and the last in the series. If you haven't seen anything on this game, I highly recommend you check it out -- cube.ign.com.

The articles on ign are actually very un-biased.

Of course the GC can't push 60 fps under all circumstances.. again, I'm sorry I made it seem like that's what I was saying. I was referring to launch titles and what I have seen so far... though RL2 does push something like 12m textured/bumpmapped polys with full lighting effects and volumetric fog @ 60fps.. if I could find the article with the exact numbers, I'd post it.

And yes, they are just launch games. Time will tell, and we will see which system hits the wall first.

learn your s***, dude. The X-Box is running a standard 32-bit CISC processor designed by intel, much like the thing in your computer that lets you post this wisdom. The GC on the other hand is running a RISC processor, which despite being only in the 400-range, is capable of doing far more floating point operations per second because of the way it is designed. Benchmarks released by the company designing a processor mean s***. That is why you look at tests online to see which is truly more powerful. different companies have different standards for benchmarking their numbers. You need to look at the arbitrary third-party tests, or conduct your own to see which is truly faster. open your eyes, learn, and stop being naive.
-Ragnar

PS - the same applies to macs and PCs, if you're interested in seeing the difference between RISC and CISC. check it out, it's interesting.

CISC? I was given the impression that we all went RISC way back around 486 time!

*sigh* Just because it's RISC doesn't mean it's better, or faster. In fact, Intel and AMD chips have a partial RISC based architecture.

I've had the XBox now for about 24 hours. I think its what you would think of when you imagine the perfect system. I've been playing the following games:

Halo - Excellent single player, MP split screen isn't that great. Controls are hard to get used to. Think of it as Half Life taken to the next level.

Project Gotham - If you're into racing games, this is for you. Amazing, amazing graphics. Personally I'm not into racing, but I still enjoy this one

Tony Hawks 2x - Make this a must buy if you don't already own it for another system. Otherwise its the same, don't waste your money.

NFL Fever 2002 - This is one of my favorites, and I usually never, ever buy sports games. Simply amazing graphics, great gameplay.

Dead or Alive 3 - Tekken taken to the next level. This one will appeal to most people I think. Definitely a must buy if you're into Tekken type games

I'm trying to get my hands on Star Wars, let me know if its good =)

All in all the XBox is very promising.

What's really awesome is, you can network X-Boxen together and play Halo that way, on seaparate systems, instead of having the split screen (I hate that too)

Mostly kiddie games. Xbox has been released with more hit games then the N64 has over all its years on the shelves

Back this up.

I strongly disagree.

The XBox launch titles do not impress me _at_all_.

Star Wars is not a kiddie game, and Luigi's Mansion kicks ass. If you want porn and smut, GO BUY A GD VIDEO. Jesus.

The game cube is 200 not 100. You got it wrong.

The article says its 100 USD cheaper then the XBOX and Playstation 2 not for the retail price of $100.00.

TOP MICROSOFT EXECUTIVES were openly weeping earlier today as an open source rival to its much vaunted Xbox gaming platform was announced.
The LinuXbox™ will run a wide range of three games including Penguin Raider, Harry Potter and the Penguin's Stone and the ever-popular Choose mount points, allocate disk space and format for ext3.

The games will make extensive use of monochrome ASCII text display technology to improve performance: "We're keeping well clear of DirectX, SSE2 and 3Dnow and sticking with proven VGA technology to boost performance," says LinuXbox™ marketing supremo hAxx0R486.

The games are currently under development by the Linux Collective and are expected to be functionally complete by Q2, 2057. "They won't actually be finished of course," added the spokesman. "It's part of the attractiveness of open source software that there's never a finished product, but we confidently expect the splash screens to be finalised in the next decade or two.

"This will really give Microsoft and Sony something to worry about. We confidently expect to see the runaway success of Linux on the desktop matched by LinuXbox™ in the gaming arena. Our market predictions show we'll have a market penetration well in excess of 0.0000000001 per cent by the middle of the century."

I guess u don't like linux then? Can't wait to play with the xbox myself. Would like to see what ms can actually poduce if they put effort into it, and with the nvidia graphics...

Now THATS one of the funniest things I've read in a long time...nice job!! (Of course fewt will have something to say about this)....

you more right then you think, http://www.tuxboxproject.com/

I used to hate ms before but I'm starting to believe they "can" put together a product if they want to. Haven't had the pleasure of playing the xbox yet though...

lol... omfg!!!! that had me in tears... post more,more,more!!!

PS I hope you don't mind I copied to my desktop (1280x1024 in case you were wondering)

heh heh

more like what they can BUY and then release with their name on it.

Yeah dude, wonder if anyone talked to them

I Wonder Why no one goes out and buys a PC !?!?!?

What a Concept !

bottom line is that the pc is the most versital gaming machine. Its versatility does impead game optimization since there are so many differnt variables(os,hardware,drivers, ect). I like console games but i always came back to the pc. Easily upgradeable and easy to copy games. Aslo tons of periferals and the keyboard/mouse combo just cant be beat for some games. Consoles are slowly turning into pc's anyway. The only difference consoles work on tv's but with the new flat tv's comming out u wont be able to tell if ur game is running of a pc or console.