If, if microsoft are using g5 towers for the xbox dev kits then what OS are they running on them? Or are they just using OSx...? btw some pictures of what the dev kits are meant to be, http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/8096/Xbox-360-Development-Kit-Spotted/ Paulo
You know for a fact? I didn't know PPC secretly contained IA-32 instructions Like stedster said, I know that Windows NT for PPC, a 10 year old inhouse project that consumers have no access to, could be configured to run on PPC hardware including Macintoshes
yeah you can run windows on virtualPC but i only asked the question cos i thought that would be such a waste of resources... So NT PPC is very old and never leaked? Tried looking on google for all of 30seconds and nothing did stand out much.
from what i've heard, it's running a custom windows kernel (like the xbox) modified to run on PPC architecture. not sure what kernel it's based on though...xbox was based on the win2000 kernel.
NT PPC has been maintained as a separate code tree since at least v3.5. It was shipped to retail for awhile (wasn't a separate SKU, simply a separate installer on the CD, used the same key), back when CHRP was all the rage. I've got a few versions of it around here. Retail NT PPC will not install on Macintosh hardware due to the Apple ROM. You needed to have non-Apple PPC hardware to use it without trickery. -hl718
what boring pics... if they showed the inside of the box, that would be awesome... I doupt the PowerPC970's can be as big as they are in a retail g5 workstation... must me the slim version found in the new iMac.
Id guess its just NT PPC as was shipped a few years back, but updated to win 2k kernel (XP still runs on practically the same kernel). Probably custom ROM though, might be a little deal with apple there...
I like intel ^__^, their processors run cool enough for a cheap quiet fan and they encode my videos like BAM ^__^
Compared to AMD, for a home system builder they suck. AMD is faster, cheaper, and about the same heat.
Ever since the Prescott core came out people can't say that... Prescott is not cool, it produces far too much heat. Still, I go with Intel, despite the cost, as in my experience they are more reliable. *waits for the screams of anguish from the AMD owners*
AAAAAAAArrrgh.....Theres your 1st scream of anguish. But i really do find AMD make generally better value processors. I've never noticed any problems with processor unreliability in the AMD systems, but then again, once most people have one bad experience with a manufacturer they never return to them... e.g. i have very few hard disk manufacturers i will buy from
I wasn't really saying that for just PCs - I'm just saying how MS have bogged off to IBM along with Nintendo for their new consoles' CPUs. The Pentium III variant in the first xbox was what made it different from the other consoles - it was relatively easy to port PC games, namely FPSs, and consequently it was easy enough to port xbox games to the PC too. It was great for homebrew stuff too, of course! On the subject of PC CPUs, Intel have a bit of catching up to do at the moment. Athlon64s are generally cheaper and faster than P4s at the moment, and their Cool & Quiet system (which allows the Athlon64s to down clock to 800MHz when under little load) is really helping the power consumption/heat "crisis" of CPUs these days (especially in the case of laptops) - Intel's similar implementation is ass compared to AMD's. And I've also heard absolutely nothing regarding AMD being less reliable than Intel - I never really hear much about CPUs being unreliable at all! I was going to say it's more chipsets than anything else that can be dodgy, but even VIA are making stable stuff these days! Oh yeah, and AAAAaararararrggh!
^_^ Keep 'em coming Better value, maybe. They're certainly cheaper on a £-performance scale. But every AMD I've used (and that's no small amount, I've owned several and almost all my friends own them) has felt slightly flaky in comparison to a more expensive Intel system. I'm tempted to put it down to the increased likelyhood of cheaper components in AMD-based systems (if you choose AMD for price you're likely to be skimping on other things as well)... either way I do happily pay extra for a slower machine on the offchance that stability will be increased. That does sound kind of dumb when I play it back in my head. It was (and I am fundamentally certain of this) the case a few years back. Maybe it's changed, but I've used a few Athlon 64s and they were not what I'd consider "stable". It's not just the CPU, obviously - the associated tech has to be up to scratch, and compatibility here is an important issue too.
Zilog: well I think it's about time x86 got ousted from its - imho - undeserved position. To me, it doesn't seem right that they can stay on top using an architecture that's on life support - in that they go to great lenghts to work around the limitations of their ISA instead of starting over. If only the Itanium wouldn't have such an awful price-performance ratio on non-FP tasks Intel should shift their focus to it (but who am I to say, lol).
