The Inquirer reports that Microsoft released the Xbox 2 SDK for the Apple Power Mac G5s, but no one knows as of yet if it runs natively or via VirtualPC or if it is 64bit or not.
XBox 2 SDK for Apple G5’s with cutom NT kernel
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
That all 3(nintendo, playstation, xbox) consoles are moving (or already running on) the powerpc architecture… Actually, depending on Nintendo’s next chip, they may all be IBM’s own powerpc chips… Very cool, and also a good boom for Apple which may see more development kits for the gaming systems!
There’s another way to look at this. At its core, XBox is essentially the Windows XP Embedded Kernel. Obviously, if MS has ported that kernel to Power Mac, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch for MS to port normal desktop Windows to Macs.
It would be truly amusing to see the reaction of Mac devotees if Microsoft did that — and Apple’s OS was shoved into the background in favor of Windows.
How long will it be before they get Linux running on Xbox2? And if xbox2 really does has a G5 chip in it, I would wonder if you would be able to run Mac OS X on MacOnLinux, on Linux, on the xbox2.
Eh, I can dream, can’t I 🙂
I thought playstation 2 ran on a types of mips? If ps3 moves to a powerpc proccessor then won’t have backwards compatibility.
I paid good money for my G5 to not be in the windows envrioment
If it’s as fast as they say it’s going to be then they may be able to get away with emulation. The next Xbox isn’t going to have a hard drive according to rumors. That’s strange considering all of the talk about convergence.
“It would be truly amusing to see the reaction of Mac devotees if Microsoft did that — and Apple’s OS was shoved into the background in favor of Windows.”
Well foobar I don’t see that happening given that most Mac users buy a Mac because its NOT Windows yet is Windows compatible via file exchange or program emulation. The point is most Mac user DON’T want Windows to begin with so I don’t see your point.
What is really amusing is that we may see more console games ported to the G5 and ATI being more aggressive with driver updates on the Mac side.
I see this as an overall win for the Mac and IBM’s PowerPC 970.
“ATI being more aggressive with driver updates on the Mac side. ” That would be good news for all because MacOSX is based on BSD and BSD is a cousin of Linux. Maybe we’ll see better driver development for Linux as a result. It’d be ironic if Microsoft’s decision to go with IBM chips benefitted Linux and espeically Linux gaming.
The only problem about your post is that it’s harder to support multiple OSes than it is to support multiple processors because compilers can handle most of that now anyway. The port would be a massive effort unless MS releases a version of Windows that runs on the PowerPC.
Can we get some real confirmation on this?
XBOX 2 is going to be a big failer just like XBOX now? Heck they are dead last in sales and are losing ~$200 per console that they sell.
Right now I have all 3 but consider my GC and XBOX as dead weight.
I wouldn’t get too excited about this. There’s no way that MS is going to target PowerPC for desktop PCs anytime soon. Game consoles tend to be more proprietary.
>>> Well foobar I don’t see that happening given that most Mac users buy a Mac because its NOT Windows yet is Windows compatible via file exchange or program emulation. The point is most Mac user DON’T want Windows to begin with so I don’t see your point. <<<
I think his point might be more related to PowerPC platform being a very good alternative to the generic PC.
Consider this scenario:
Longhorn being the great-grandmother of bloatware, MS has no choice but to port the NT kernel & the rest of OS to the (powerful) PowerPC G5 architecture (Its being written in .Net, so it shouldnt be too difficult to do this) to get good performance. VirtualPC software is installed as a subsystem on top of the custom NT kernel. This new OS is not only able to run the new windows (lets call them Win64-PPC) programs that are written for that platform, but it is also able to run all the x86 stuff and maintain full backward compatibility with Win32-x86.
x86-emulation on powerpc is easy, but vice-versa is quite difficult, however, using the same virtualization approach, they are then able to run OSX/OSX-like OS in a virtual environment, and this the new OS is able to run most of the existing OSX software out there.
This new platform then makes a big splash in the corporate world, since it gives enormous processing power, while maintaining full backward compability with not one, but
Checkmate: Intel, AMD!
This came out so twisted … damn! I should be writing for theInquirer
That all 3(nintendo, playstation, xbox) consoles are moving (or already running on) the powerpc architecture
Neither the Emotion Engine, the processor of the PlayStation 2, or the Cell processor, which will power the PlayStation 3, are PowerPC processors. Sony is collaboratively developing the Cell processor with IBM (amoung others), but it will implement a proprietary ISA.
Except that the G5 is not really appreciably more powerful than x86 chips, especially on integer code (which is that Longhorn and .NET are reliant on). So that’s a really far-fetched idea.
I thought the cell was going to have a powerpc core in it. Is that not the case?
I thought the cell was going to have a powerpc core in it. Is that not the case?
No rumors surrounding the Cell processor which I have ever read have mentioned anything about its architecture being PowerPC based, and given Sony’s requirements for the processor, such as dynamic reconfigurability, the PowerPC ISA seems an unlikely choice.
“Heck they are dead last in sales and are losing ~$200 per console that they sell.”
Microsoft isnt the only one that loses money off of the console it sells. Nintendo and Sony are in the same boat. The real money is acutally made from the games that are sold.
I thought the cell was going to have a powerpc core in it. Is that not the case?
That’s my understanding as well but it’s only used as a control processor.
given Sony’s requirements for the processor, such as dynamic reconfigurability,
I can’t see it, they could have just bought that in whereas what thay are developing is taking years and they’d have no advantage from re-configurable logic.
Nintendo and Sony are in the same boat. The real money is acutally made from the games that are sold
I don’t believe a word of this:
Nintendo are said to be making ship loads from the GC and that makes sense if you have a some understanding of the hardware business (I do).
Not sure about the PS2 but I can’t see them making at loss at their -massive- volumes. In fact according to Sony they only lower prices when thay can afford to.
Microsoft isnt the only one that loses money off of the console it sells. Nintendo and Sony are in the same boat.
Typically console systems initially sell for a loss until eventually volume manufacture decreases the cost to the point that the hardware becomes profitable, at which point it becomes desirable to lower the price of the system to remain competative. This was the case for the Playstation 2, which eventually saw profitability, but not for the XBox, partly because it uses a number of components from 3rd party manufacturers which did not see a decrease from their initial negotiated prices.
The Gamecube, however, sold for a profit from day one.
I think you’ll find people mostly buy Macs because they run Mac OS X instead of Windows, if people wanted to run Windows they could just get a Dell so I doubt that Windows will be any more of a threat if it gets ported over to the G5 processors.
since the last pricedrop the cube also sells at a loss.
But its something in the area cube+1 game and they are even.
nothing compared to microsofts 200+ per box.
I still hope that the shareholders will put an and to the xbox-disaster before it gets into the 2nd round.
>>> Except that the G5 is not really appreciably more powerful than x86 chips, especially on integer code (which is that Longhorn and .NET are reliant on). So that’s a really far-fetched idea.<<<
… which is exactly why I think I could write for a site like the Inquirer
Ignore the statements about console profitability from the majors (Microsoft excluded). The “consoles don’t make mone” is/was a myth pushed by Nintendo and Sony back in the day to make the barrier to entry in the console world seem higher.
If you run the numbers you can see it’s possible to do. But numbnuts keep repeating this statement as if it was a fact, so they never try, and there you go – propaganda has become conventional wisdom.
<
Except that the G5 is not really appreciably more powerful than x86 chips
>
Until IBM adds some more POWER5 goodness to it, it won’t be. Right now the G5 is about at parity with the higher P4/lower xeons.
Funny, MS actually had nt4 running on ppc (and for sale) but shelved it almost immediately. I think it only ran on some Motorola machines that were impossible to actually purchase.
“If you run the numbers you can see it’s possible to do.”
If you only do this for the hardware you are right.
But don’t forget that your lokal dealer earns ~30% of the price, and you have to pay for marketing, service and developement.
As you are from the US (at least your isp is
) you probably don’t know what happend during the XBox-Launch in europe.
To put it short: a pricedrop from 470€ to 300€ after a view hours. And you can trust me, none of the retailers sold it with loss.
Well foobar I don’t see that happening given that most Mac users buy a Mac because its NOT Windows yet is Windows compatible via file exchange or program emulation. The point is most Mac user DON’T want Windows to begin with so I don’t see your point.
True, it’s probably not going to be marketed any time soon, *but* there already was a port of NT to PPC. It already did happen. I thought everyone knew that.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Feb97/PowerPr.asp
“True, it’s probably not going to be marketed any time soon, *but* there already was a port of NT to PPC. It already did happen. I thought everyone knew that.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Feb97/PowerPr.asp“
Thats old news, and MS idea was to cover itself in case CHRP gained traction. You can’t run NT4 PPC on Macs. I also don’t know a single Mac user that bought a Mac with the hope that “someday” it will run Windows. Foobars idea was just odd.
I have read better articles on this before, but this is what I could find now: http://www.red-mercury.com/mmceo/mmceo_current.html
Last I heard (and this was a while ago) Sony was on about the 11th revision of the PS2, each time making the hardware cheaper to build. Sony was selling at a loss on the first revision, but that didn’t last long.
Nintendo, from what I have heard, came into the market selling at a profit, and has stayed there. They are doing much better than MS is, whatever gaming magazines would like to believe.
None of this matters, because MS could afford to undercut both Sony and Nintendo any time they please.
You actually brought up a very good point. Virtual PC was a very good purchase. It give MicroSoft flexibility in case they want to ditch x86 (or just blackmail Intel a little more).
Nintendo were the only company to steadfastly refuse to sell their hardware at a loss, but this did change with the GC (i.e. it was sold at a loss at launch). It is the standard console business practise of making the money back on the software, and selling the hardware cheaply to get an installed user base.
Once ported to the ppc for the xbox, i wonder if ms will release a mac version, then i can play AOM with other pcs on the lan 😉
To summarize this thread;
1) No consoles sell at a loss.
2) Only the Xbox sells at a loss.
3) The Playstation 2 and the Xbox both sell at a loss.
4) The Gamecube has sold at a loss since day one.
5) All consoles sell at a loss for a while.
6) All consoles have always sold at a loss.
Always nice to see hearsay passing as fact. Welcome to Slashdot.
http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2003/10/even_microsoft_.h…
From what i’ve heard the PPC in the Xbox2 isn’t giong to be the 970 like the G5’s are, actually IBM is making yet another modifide version of the PowerPC to meet Microsofts needs, using the 90nm technology they have already.
I think since most sites say the Xbox 2 will have 3 of these PPC chips each of which does HyperThreading like the newer P4’s giving you another 3 virtual cores, that MS is giong to due a setup like what Sony did with the PS2 and is going to do with the Cell in the PS3.
That is , they will break up each individual chip and have each doing specific tasks, much like the Emotion Enguine in the PS2 which has 2 VU’s, each doing different tasks.
I think if it’s really going to be 3 chips, that one will do what the P3 in the first Xbox does now, while the other 2 are left to due large graphics specific number crunching to help the ATi R420 core etc. Really complex things i expect, and we are talking about DX10 so who knows what these new games are going to be like.
Sony’s Cell chip is much the same as that each chip works on it’s own but also communicates with the other cell’s like in your body. We’re talking big time multi-processing going on here.
One thing is for sure, If MS is shipping out SDK’s now, then they are way ahead of the others, last I heard Sony’s hit some snags with the Cell, and it’s going to take longer to make/finish.
One reson the GC sells for so cheap is because it’s using IBM and ATi chips, which is what the Xbox2 is in the end, so this should help MS lower costs if they make the right kind of deals, and since everything will be using 90nm technology which is cheaper to make it only helps things more.
I expect MS is trying to pull a Sony and ship the Xbox 2 way ahead of the others, specially the PS3, remember the PS2 has such a large game library because it’s had almost a whole year head start which helps big time, what are you going to buy when there is only one new generation console in stores?
MS might only want to ship a development environment for the G5, not a full version of Windows. Using different architectures for the XBox and Windows PC’s prevents XBox hackers from installing Windows on an XBox. If MS released a full version of Windows for G5, then maybe it would become easy to install Windows on an XBox.. which would not be good for MS..?
I for one am sick and tired of the Apple bias on this site. The only reason that Microsoft would choose not to port to the PowerPC is that it barely makes 2-3% of all PC sales figures. Don’t think for a moment if I craze of PowerPC technology took to the market that Microsoft wouldn’t have a port to that platform in less then six months.
Windows NT, like OSX, is a very portable platform. When NT4 was out it was avaible for x86-Alpha-MIPS-PowerPC. It did not however run on a Mac out of the box, but rather on some more specialized PowerPC hardware. It however, wouldn’t have taken much to build a version for the 603 or 604.
The problem is that like I stated earlier the market is just to low to even consider doing a serious port on the PowerPC. To this day x86 is still cheaper to produce and roughly still as fast due to the heavy weights of the industry being behind it. (Intel and AMD)
What’s the extent of the NT port to PPC.
– If it included WindowsXP Professional it might be very interesting.
But, to get Windows Applications to run on PPC would require a Recompile with the PPC architecture as the target. Just like Linux.
So, even if Microsoft Ported XP, we’d still need Virtual PC to run all the x86 executables.
Just like Linux.
Linux requires a recompile to PPC.
And all the application bundles require a recompile also.
I think most companies that write Windows application code wouldn’t have a clue how to do this. Windows is the starter system for programmers, IMHO.
I’m not trying to start a flame war here. But, to be realistic, I’d say 5 out of 100 windows programmers knows anything about any Other OS on the planet.
Also, I think Microsoft sells a cross-compiler but it’s at least $1000 bucks.
XBox 2 SDK for Apple G5’s with cutom NT kernel
can Eugenia fix the headline? I think it’s Custom not cutom
well , it sound strange to me, infact to boot on a mac, os needs a special rom owend by apple. so they can have licensed it to ms or maybe ms has made a virtual ppc to run her nt kernel.
anyway is interesting to see ms sell ppc hardware because they can close hardware to other sistem (linux in primis) with a similar sistem than apple.
on other side that is usefull for mac gaming because we can see finally a good optimization for ppc so very better performance in porting
sorry for bad english
>well , it sound strange to me, infact to boot on a mac,os
>needs a special rom owend by apple. so they can have
>licensed it to ms or maybe ms has made a virtual ppc to
>run her nt kernel.
Back in the days of System 7 there was a special ROM, however this went to software in Mac OS 8 to allow Apple to use the CHRP hardware platform, the same platform Microsoft built the PPC version of NT for.
The ROM didn’t stop people from booting other OS’s (such as BeOS) it was purely for containing the Macintosh Toolbox, a collection of frequently used functions. This was done mainly for the extra speed, but also partly to stop anyone from running the Macintosh System on other 68k or early PPC hardware, such as Amiga, unless they went to the trouble of adding software emulation of this ROM.
… You know what the sad thing will be…
The fact that more than 80% of the games made for the PS2 DON’T use the emotion engine!!!
For them to keep on trying (and now MS to Copy in a way) the way the console inards are organized, and finally work, seems silly… considering that less than 20% of the games for the PS2 uses its Vector units properly… (which is the emotion engine’s strengh…)
Either by lazines or pure dificulty… or be it time constrains, many of the technological advancements that come out don’t get utilized to their fullest…
Oh well… Hipers Hearts Heats Hot and then… BOOM… ATARY… ——- Flat line… line up that…