NVIDIA still on course with XBOX2 (Nvidia CEO)

http://www.clubic.com/ar/2328-1.html


for us non-french speaking people


quote:

Clubic.com: Recent rumours and persistentes indicate that you dropped
the project XBox 2. Why?

J-H H.: Normally one does not make comments on the rumours resulting
from the Web, but for this one I will make an exception. We did not
give up the project XBox 2. Our relation with Microsoft and the XBox
group is good. We continue to work narrowly with Microsoft on a
certain number of initiatives and we are always under discussion with
them about XBox 2.

I hope XBox 2 uses Nvidia and not ATI for the simple reason that there will
be less chance of backward compatibility issues.

Jonah Falcon

will the xbox2 be backward compatible?


"Jonah Falcon" wrote in message
...
I hope XBox 2 uses Nvidia and not ATI for the simple reason that there
will
be less chance of backward compatibility issues.

Jonah Falcon

In article ,
says...

"Kat" wrote in message
...
will the xbox2 be backward compatible?

Of course.

Why so sure?

--
Remove N0_SPAM_PLEAZE to email
It's a spring thing
http://www.hookeslaw.com

George wrote:
will the xbox2 be backward compatible?

Of course.

Why so sure?

I'm not as sure as Mr Falcon, but I'd say it's important to have
backwards compatibility. It helps gamers: (1) They can sell their old
console to raise cash to buy the new one without rendering all their old
games useless. (2) If the launch library is lame, they can stick to
playing their old favorites. These reasons remove some obstacles some
gamers would have to buying the new console.

--
Bart: Actually, we were just planning the father-son river rafting
trip.
Homer: Heh heh, you don't have a son.
-- People unclear on the concept, "Boy Scoutz 'N the Hood"

George wrote:
Why so sure?

I don't think anyone will update if they have to throw out their
current game collection. I know I wouldn't.

--
Bob

I'm not as sure as Mr Falcon, but I'd say it's important to have
backwards compatibility. It helps gamers: (1) They can sell their old
console to raise cash to buy the new one without rendering all their old
games useless. (2) If the launch library is lame, they can stick to
playing their old favorites. These reasons remove some obstacles some
gamers would have to buying the new console.


imo its bound to be, the xbox is essentially a PC (imo, am not trying to
start an agument if you disagree fine, what ever it is its my fave
console of all time) but the point is i would imagine the X2 to be the
same only with more ram, faster & bigger HDD & a quicker processor &
video card.

I personally think it would be a major cockup to not include some form
of support for Xbox software esp when i doubt it would be that hard to do.

I also agree that imo M$ should seriously consider marketing the X2 as
an all in 1 home entertainment system as well as a games console.


they could still charge for a dongle, but let it allow to do all the
stuff that xbmp does.

as for nvidia/ATI, the way things stand at the moment, if they can get
Xbox compatibility with an ATI card, & if they can get ATI to make some
good solid drivers, i wouldnt mind them going with ATI becasue at the
moment they are clearly the leaders in the graphics industry.

however if that changes so will my opinion.

heres hoping for a minimum of a 3GB PIV, 512mb of ram a 120GB HDD & a
graphics card quicker than owt on the market at the moment (alng with a
quiet cooling solution)

I wouldnt mind an AMD chip in there eiterh, but cooling is a problem then.

I'm not as sure as Mr Falcon, but I'd say it's important to have
backwards compatibility. It helps gamers: (1) They can sell their old
console to raise cash to buy the new one without rendering all their old
games useless. (2) If the launch library is lame, they can stick to
playing their old favorites. These reasons remove some obstacles some
gamers would have to buying the new console.

A requirement of backwards compatibility puts a constraint on development
and design. The complex nature of CPUs in PCs has been caused by backwards
compatibility requirements. The instability of Windows 95/98/ME was caused
by the desire to be backwards compatible (Windows 95 with Windows 3.1 and
Windows 98/ME with Windows 95) at all costs.

If backwards compatibility is really important should Nintendo have made
the Game Cube play SNES games? Why couldn't NES games be played on the
SNES for that matter?

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 05:09:37 -0500
Ryan E. wrote:

On 13 Aug 2003 02:35:10 -0500, tq96 wrote:

I'm not as sure as Mr Falcon, but I'd say it's important to
have backwards compatibility. It helps gamers: (1) They can sell
their old console to raise cash to buy the new one without
rendering all their old games useless. (2) If the launch library
is lame, they can stick to playing their old favorites. These
reasons remove some obstacles some gamers would have to buying the
new console.

A requirement of backwards compatibility puts a constraint on
development and design.

A lot of people said Xbox wouldn't make a good console because of its
PC architecture. This argument has largely been debunked. More often
than not, when in the right hands, multi-platform games and PS2 ports
turn out well.

The complex nature of CPUs in PCs has been caused by backwards
compatibility requirements. The instability of Windows 95/98/ME was
caused by the desire to be backwards compatible (Windows 95 with
Windows 3.1 and Windows 98/ME with Windows 95) at all costs.

Well this is crucial in the business world. I know people who still
use Netware 3, Office 95, old versions of Orcad and Autocad, etc. I
myself still use old productivity software. Small businesses often
don't have the desire to keep up with the insane trends of the PC
industry.

I don't see the original post, so I'll comment here. The notion that
backwards compatibility was the reason Windows 95 was unstable is a
crock. OS/2 runs Windows 3.x and DOS apps at least as well as 95 did
and on good hardware it is rock-stable.

As for Netware 3, it doesn't need backwards compatibility of any kind in
a Microsoft operating system. Novell has their own version of DOS that
works fine to load it on the server (that's the _only_ function DOS has
on a Novell server--it acts as the boot loader), and it works fine with
the current Novell client for XP. However sooner or later NW3 shops are
going to be forced to upgrade due to lack of support for contemporary
hardware--sooner or later one of their servers will die and they won't
be able to get a new one that NW3 will run on. Kind of a shame too--with
Netware 4 Novell lost their focus and turned it into a real mess that
gets messier with every subsequent release.

Further, Microsoft has finally decided to turn around and take
a different approach to backward-compatibility--instead of putting DOS
and Win3.x hooks into the OS, they're going to provide a virtual machine
that can then run real DOS or real Windows 3.x or real Windows 95, or
Linux, OS/2, or Novell for that matter.

If backwards compatibility is really important should Nintendo have
made the Game Cube play SNES games?

Uh, skipping over a cartridge platform of Nintendo's entirely.

Why couldn't NES games be played on the
SNES for that matter?

I thought there were plans early on for some kind of backwards
compatibility either by hardware or adapter. Believe the idea was
ditched to keep costs down and interest in current software.

Those were different times for the industry. Before the craze of
optical multimedia. Backwards compatibility today is a big plus. As
well as other value added functionality such as DVD playback. (I love
the DVD playback functionality on my Xbox and PS2).


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Mike Kay" wrote in message
...

I'm not as sure as Mr Falcon, but I'd say it's important to have
backwards compatibility. It helps gamers: (1) They can sell their old
console to raise cash to buy the new one without rendering all their old
games useless. (2) If the launch library is lame, they can stick to
playing their old favorites. These reasons remove some obstacles some
gamers would have to buying the new console.


imo its bound to be, the xbox is essentially a PC (imo, am not trying to
start an agument if you disagree fine, what ever it is its my fave
console of all time) but the point is i would imagine the X2 to be the
same only with more ram, faster & bigger HDD & a quicker processor &
video card.

With the Xbox, the developer can choose to use a version of directX or to
access the graphics chip directly. Games that take the directX route will
probably run nicely on the next lot of hardware. Any games that access the
chip directly I would think stand no chance of running on X2 if it doesn't
have a NVidia graphics chip. Hope I'm wrong though.


I personally think it would be a major cockup to not include some form
of support for Xbox software esp when i doubt it would be that hard to do.

I also agree that imo M$ should seriously consider marketing the X2 as
an all in 1 home entertainment system as well as a games console.


they could still charge for a dongle, but let it allow to do all the
stuff that xbmp does.

as for nvidia/ATI, the way things stand at the moment, if they can get
Xbox compatibility with an ATI card, & if they can get ATI to make some
good solid drivers, i wouldnt mind them going with ATI becasue at the
moment they are clearly the leaders in the graphics industry.

however if that changes so will my opinion.

heres hoping for a minimum of a 3GB PIV, 512mb of ram a 120GB HDD & a
graphics card quicker than owt on the market at the moment (alng with a
quiet cooling solution)

I wouldnt mind an AMD chip in there eiterh, but cooling is a problem then.