According to the Financial Times, Microsoft will be switching to the PowerPC architecture for its next X-Box. If this is true, it could mean that they are planning on porting parts of windows to PPC as well (such as the elements of DirectX used in the X-Box.
X-Box 2 to use PowerPC CPUs?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
so … if I buy 1100 of these will I have the 4th fastest supercomputer in the world???
Perhaps this will create a market for non-x86 Windows systems. If game developers are writing for Windows/PPC, then desktop Windows/PPC ports won’t be difficult. Games are an important part of desktop acceptance, as is an office suite. I’m sure Microsoft has one of those they could port…
i bet before Christmas someone will have hacked OSX in to it…
OSXBox………lol
XBox and XBox 2 both run Windows CE, not Windows. Windows CE is a separate code base, and has always targeted multiple CPU architectures.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/ce.net/default.asp
Xbox does not use Windows CE. Its an xbox-customized windows 2000 kernel (Do they even have any kind of direct3D in CE?).
As for the Xbox2, there is not a single unit out (neither the complete specs), so how can it run any OS? Time travel, perhaps.
I wonder how intel feels about all this. They are in a slump in my opinion with their non-elegant 32bit offerings. The p4 is fast, but thats about it. Time for IBM and AMD to ramp up the GHZ and mow them down.
IBM is working with Sony on the processor for the PlayStation 3, and already supplies Nintendo with the processors for the Gamecube. The way things are shaping up, IBM may be supplying the processors to all three major console manufacturers.
With all 3 consoles going to the IBM PowerPC chip, it might be very easy for software companies port their game to every console.
Sandman
If it is a scaled down G5, that means MS will have to get their act together and port Virtual PC, so they can provide backwards compatibility with their XBOX games.
That’s the gist of it, that I got from reading posts at Slashdot.
The OS is a subset of Windows 2000, as remarked above, that is stored on the DVD (along with the game itself) and booted directly from that image at startup.
This is a very interesting shift for MSFT. The Windows port for Xbox2 will be substantial and could lay the groundwork for moving away from Intel in other products, possibly.
IIRC, MSFT has always resented being chained to Intel quite a lot in the past.
The caption by Eugenia for this article makes it seem like microsoft porting Windows to PPC is a big deal, when in fact it hardly matters at all. Because of it’s spiffy HAL, windows could be ported relatively easily, but it’s not like that will matter to gamers (the only people using the thing). Who cares what processor is under the hood (even if it happens to be the combination of ATI and PPC, both of which I am a huge fan…)?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the change in API, not the difference target hardware platform, is really what is the roadblock when porting (at least as far as I understand it).
Hence the reason why, with things like cygwin and OSX, you can run the same software on a PPC mac, or on an i386 windows PC.
I would think the development kits/APIs of the consoles would really be the deciding factor on how easy porting would be.
Your correct, Im wrong, what can I say, its been a long day at work.
Sandman
Since MSFT is moving towards making as much code as possible run on the .NET layer for Windows in general, it makes sense that they would look to wean themselves away from Intel and favor the best processor arch out there (G5) in a slow, gradual process towards the future.
.NET code is JIT compiled and makes different processor archs much less relevent.
It is likely be a custom design that uses RISC technology like the PPC. Is it a mistake to build a gaming system on top of a processor used by their rival – Apple (Macintosh G5)? That could produce not only bad karma, but a perception that the G5 might be a better platform for gaming.
i agree. I think this move will be very advantageous to Microsoft as it tries to eventually run its .NET thing on many platforms…this is a highly calculated move as it encroaches on its rivals, the PS2 (console/consumer) and Java (Enterprise)
Sandman (IP: —.woh.rr.com)
“With all 3 consoles going to the IBM PowerPC chip, it might be very easy for software companies port their game to every console.”
I’m guessing IBM’s assistance in the new processor would be more on the fabrication end of things. I doubt it will use the POWER ISA.
andr3w (IP: —.vc.shawcable.net)
Correct me if I am wrong, but the change in API, not the difference target hardware platform, is really what is the roadblock when porting (at least as far as I understand it).
I believe the compatibility layers most game developers have written to be cross-portable across the major consoles (and sometimes PCs) are written bare to the hardware on each system, not utilizing the SDKs provided by the manufacturers.
Were Sony to use a POWER ISA chip in their console (I’m not saying they will, just hypothetically) it would be inscentive to game developers to assembly optimize their code for the PPC ISA, as those optimizations could target all three major consoles.
Perhaps this is MS way of getting away from intel?? Perhaps MS is looking to eventually take market share away from apple…. this could be an interesting foundation… Just a guess…
But that would give MS monopoly status if apple goes down….
IMHO MS is a monopoly on x86…. sorry… just my opinion….
The PS3 won’t use any currently available processor “type”…last I read(a long time ago so forgive me if it is no longer true) but the PS3 will use a processor called the “Cell” processor…brand new designs, etc etc…
“to run Windows on a PPC would be interesting but why?”
They allready have. WinNT ran on x86, PPC, Alpha, and something else. To bring this back wouldn’t be a big deal. But it’s not like they are going to make Longhorn for G5’s. Apple and the US courts would not think highly of this.
I’m guessing IBM’s assistance in the new processor would be more on the fabrication end of things. I doubt it will use the POWER ISA.
So are you suggesting it will still have a x86 CPU? It seems as if, by what your saying, I can conclude that IBM will provide Athlon64’s, Or G4 instead of G5’s. How do you explain that when the article says,
“IBM will provide its PowerPC microprocessor technology and is expected to combine several other chips into one or two core chips for the next Xbox. This would most likely include graphics chip technology from ATI Technologies of Canada, which in August won the contract from Nvidia, of the US.”
“The PS3 won’t use any currently available processor “type”…last I read(a long time ago so forgive me if it is no longer true) but the PS3 will use a processor called the “Cell” processor…brand new designs, etc etc…”
Last I heard was that they couldnt start mass production of “The cell” until ~2007-2008, so itll proably be on the PS4.
They allready have. WinNT ran on x86, PPC, Alpha, and something else. To bring this back wouldn’t be a big deal. But it’s not like they are going to make Longhorn for G5’s. Apple and the US courts would not think highly of this.
The something else was MIPS. But anyway… yes, this is no big deal. All of today’s major OSes contain hardware abstraction layers (HALs) of some type or another. Linux runs on how many platforms? OS X (well its core Darwin, at least) runs on x86 and PPC, Solaris runs on Sparc, x86, and soon x86-64, the BSDs run on damn near everything (thanks to NetBSD), HP-UX runs on PA-RISC and Itanium, etc., etc.
Between open source, with its write once, compile anywhere software, and virtual machines/JITs such as Java and .NET, hardware lockins are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
That said, I think Java and Linux are the future of computing.
Perhaps they want to add 64bit instructions etc, which would wipe out the idea of intel. It can then emulate the XBOX1 since the 2ghz would probably at least as well as the pentium in there using emulation. AMD is having numerous problems in fab process or something aong that line. In the end a lot of AMD procs are fabbed by IBM if i’m not mistaken. Perhaps the PPC970 came from a narrowed down of options.
Interesting article on that here…
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-948493.html
It will be in the PS3 and provide 1000x the power of a PS2.
This must be pretty embarassing for Intel, espically considering the close relationshi[ they have with MSFT.
“Interesting article on that here…
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-948493.html
”
August 6, 2002, 4:00 AM PT, kind of outdated dont you think?
“It will be in the PS3 and provide 1000x the power of a PS2. ”
Pure hype
I was actually talking about the processor that Sony is collaboratively developing with IBM for the PlayStation 3, and the context was my original post. It appears you missed my original post, and thought I was talking about the one they’re developing for Microsoft…
It was FWIW. If you can find a more recent and accurate article on Cell, then please do so.
http://www.arstechnica.com/archive/news/1051077000.html
SNIPET:
“IBM has not announced when it will release the final [Cell] chip, but the Cell project was originally envisioned as taking five years, suggesting that the final product may not be ready until as late as 2007. Although Sony refuses to talk about its future plans for the chip, it does admit that the Cell chip will not be the CPU in the Playstation3, reportedly slated for release in 2005.”
WOOT WOOT I WIN!
Wrong fool. I win.
Try reading your own article…
“I’m actually fairly certain that the claim that Sony won’t use the Cell in the PS3 is not accurate. I emailed the author asking for a direct, on-the-record quote from a Sony rep for this particularly stunning revelation, but he never bothered to respond. My suspicion is that the writer heard something from someone that he thought sounded something like an indication that Sony won’t be using the Cell in the PS3, and he then reported it as fact, not knowing that if it were true it would be a major revelation.”
A bit more blunt
http://www.gamersmark.com/news/2003/04/1/2447/
EXCERT:
“Now that the PS3 will not use the Cell chip, ”
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/394/394184p1.html?fromint=1
EXCERT:
“According to the reports, Kutaragi mentions that final production of the “Cell” chip, originally thought to be used in the PlayStation 3, may not be ready until 2007. He also confirms that the CPU in the PlayStation 3 will in fact not be the Cell processor, contrary to earlier reports.”
HAHAHA I STILL WIN!
Thanks for proving my point for me (see, digging through Google for useful articles isn’t quite so trivial after all, is it Slacker?). Next time just post your link instead of whining, and maybe read your articles first too so you don’t waste our time.
Even a G5 at 2GHz would not be able to emulate a XBOX very easily. Unless most of the code is going through the graphics chip. Most emulators struggle to keep up but it all depends on what they are emulating.
Answer: Programs (ie. apps/games) can be ported to the arch in question.
Perhaps this will create a market for non-x86 Windows systems. If game developers are writing for Windows/PPC, then desktop Windows/PPC ports won’t be difficult. Games are an important part of desktop acceptance, as is an office suite. I’m sure Microsoft has one of those they could port…
Well, I wouldn’t be too terribly surprised. IBM has been aggresively optimizing Linux for the PPC, and the architecture has been (finally) showing some promise as a viable alternative to x86.
If the platform were to take off in a significant way, no doubt Microsoft would want a piece of that action. While this doesn’t exactly amount to full-blown PPC support on Microsoft’s part, it does help them to hedge their bets. Maybe Microsoft and IBM are in the process of negotiating some kind of parity for Windows with Linux as a preferred OS on the PPC platform.
Of course, that’s all speculation on my part. Who knows what’s going on behind closed doors?
you must be a slacker because the Word is EXCERPT
Microsoft will go to an IBM/ATI bundle for the xbox 2?..
Nintendo already does this…
The XBOX is known to be an easy system to port games from windows.. Windows prorammers in endless cases, and assuming that only windows/x86 exist, care nothing about endian compatibility.. this will make their life hard
looks like a marketing stunt… since now the ppc970 is the most interesting cpu around the media why not claim about using that?
a processor compling to the PowerPC specs won’t make a console from a dubious quality products seller (M$) any better.
Well.. we all know it would be very difficult, but hey, they did it (Linux) on the normal XBox when touted to be impossible. ‘What if’ they manage to run OsX onto an XBox2? If Microsoft is going again onto the ‘we loose on hardware but we gain on software’ we would probably have a decent would be Mac clone for 400-500$… not bad at all…
I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the goals at ms is make porting games from Xbox to ordinary pc harder actually…
For me it just sound like marketing screeming from MS. Thes want to make pressure on Intel/AMD and push their prices down. This is why Apple flirted with AMD. They wanted to show IBM that there is an alternative.
best FEBO
I think it was the Register that suggested that Intel was taking a loss on every processor they put in an Xbox, but did that in order to keep AMD from getting the contract. They don’t compete as directly from IBM, so if it wasn’t AMD getting the contract, they didn’t care.
That said, it makes you wonder whether IBM hopes to make money out of this deal.
As an aside (which is now longer than my main point), in terms of emulation, everyone assumes that the 970 derivative will be running at 2GHz, making emulation less than ideal. What’s the time frame on the release of the Xbox2? Based on what Apple’s saying about the 970s roadmap, it could be running at substantially higher clocks than 2GHz by release time, especially if they strip out some of the things in the 970 that don’t make sense for console use. This could make emulation of a <1GHz Pentium III a much more reasonable possibility.
JT
I love how people in this thread claim things like the G5 is the most powerful chip out there…. give me a break.
This could go in so many directions.
MS bying VirtualPC is interesting in the context of this announcement. IBM already has an Intel-emulator for PowerPC (it was built in to OS/2 for PowerPC to run Windows 3.x software) lying around. W2K would probably be a pushover to port to PowerPC. IBM does the fab work for AMD so they might be in the deal, making backwradscompatiblity that much easier.
Maybe there will be NO backwardscompatibility to Xbox?
And finally, with the money MS is throwing around in their Xbox-gambit we may be looking at an Intel chip stuck on the motherboard for backwards compatibility. What will a PIII@~700MHz cost in 3 years time you reckon?
This is a very interesting shift for MSFT. The Windows port for Xbox2 will be substantial and could lay the groundwork for moving away from Intel in other products, possibly.
*Microsoft* has been in a position to “move away” from intel for about ten years. They haven’t because a) intel offers the best bang/buck ratio on the market and b) because of the installed user base.
PPC970 possibly offers a change in the landscape with regards to (a) – although at only a few months in the top spot that’s an issue very much up for debate. (b) is something VPC can potentially help with, although the main reason behind its purchase was for virtualised servers, not backwards compatibility in future products.
IIRC, MSFT has always resented being chained to Intel quite a lot in the past.
In the distant past. They moved to rectify this potential weakness 15 years ago with NT.
The thing “chaining” Microsoft to intel isn’t their software, it’s their customers. Same thing that “chains” Apple to PPC.
On a game console? I guess it is possible, but you would have to have one helluva fast Virtual Machine to emulate x86! Also, it does make sense for Microsoft to go with IBM, not in terms of short-term product results but rather market pressure on Intel and a long term game console strategy.
Intel hasn’t exactly been shy about supporting Linux. I am sure this is a wake-up call for Intel. Somehow, Intel has had Microsoft feeding out of their hand like a broken circus animal. Microsoft isn’t going to release their 64-bit Windows desktop until the 64-bit version of Intel’s “AMD Killer” 64-bit chip is ready next year. Intel’s 64 bit desktop chip which will extend x86-64 and effectively eclipse AMD’s 64 bit instructions with their own. They are pretty much throwing AMD to the wolves. Microsoft may just be exerting some pressure back on Intel at this point.
But it is also possible MS actually sees PowerPC as better solution, in a game console the PowerPC may actually be a better processor. There aren’t exactly 30 applications running and hyperthreading isn’t going to help a game console too much. What will help is having a ton of instructions in flight with hardly any cache contention on the PowerPC platform. Multiple threads in the same process will work great on the PowerPC, context switches are cheap and the cache will remain nearly intact. Those little holes in the pipe causing delays on OOO reordering will be negligible. Seems like a good decision if they can feed it with plenty of bandwidth to avoid stalls and it looks like SIS is going to help with this….
switching to the PowerPC architecture for its next X-BoxWoo Hoo!!! Cheap BSD/Linux boxes…
The Sega Dreamcast used Windows CE, not the XBox.
i say that ’cause i own a dreamcast and it simply rocks!
seriously, SuperH has a 16-bit higher code density than powerpc
In addition to those reasons others have floated for Microsoft using a different architecture for the next XBox, and the larger implications of such a move, maybe they want yet another revenue source.
We know that with a move towards more .Net and similar abstract APIs, the underlying hardware platform becomes less important. .Net not only ported to PowerPC, but optimized for it could give Microsoft the opportunity to create a hardware reference platform utterly divorced from the x86 legacy. All of the old hardware hacks would go out the window. Microsoft isn’t going to go into the business of manufacturing and selling commodity PCs (the margins aren’t there), but they could license that platform to the likes of Dell or HP (the other option is no more Windows, and I don’t think many companies, and certainly not large ones, have the backbone to take on that challenge).