Comments on: Ballmer: Xbox 'can take Sony'

Microsoft CEO discusses Longhorn concerns, IBM comparisons and Sony gaming bets.

XBox could benefit Sony

Just to pick up on the article's headline: Microsoft entered the games console race to protect its so-called Windows monopoly - ironically the true legacy of the XBox may be to help Sony establish a monopoly of its own, by weakening Nintendo, leaving Sony as the only console maker of note after Microsoft withdraws from the race.

To understand Microsoft's motivation, and why they are wasting so much money on the XBox, one has to place oneself in the shoes of a Science Fiction writer, and consider how the future may pan out...

A safe bet is that whatever the shape of things to come, the internet will probably be at the centre of it. In the home of the future Dad will be logged into his company intranet, putting the finishing touches to the a presentation he has to deliver to the board tomorrow; Mom is writing an email to Aunt Dotty in Australia; the twins are playing Duke Nukem 23 on-line against a dozen other players; while the eldest child has just started to word process her History assignment homework.

That's five computers, in one household!

You can see the problem with this brave new world - either we fill our homes with PC's, or the entire family has to queue up to take turns. But hold on ... most families don't require bleeding edge technology ... Mom's email could easily be handled by a Windows 95/98 level machine, the video game could be handled by a games console plugged into a TV, and even the History homework does not require a state-of-the-art word processor. Only Dad really needs a 'true PC'.

So what the home of the future needs is one powerful PC in the 'den' (as Bill Gates often refers to it) for the real power-hungry applications, and numerous smaller devices which are cheap, space efficient, and good enough to run basic applications. Sound familiar? The games console is cheap, it plugs right into the omnipresent domestic television set, and it has enough processing power to run applications from circa five to ten years ago.

Swap your current TV set for a modern high resolution one, throw in a wireless keyboard and mouse - and ta-dar, the Ford Model T of computing! It ain't pretty, but it's cheap, easy to run, and gets you from A to B.

Problem is... IT DOESN'T RUN WINDOWS!!!

Ken Auletta's book "World War 3.0" (as quoted in Microsoft's anti-trust appeal) mentions an episode in which Microsoft suggested to Sony that the Playstation 2 come equipped with Windows. Sony turned them down, preferring to stick with Linux. Shortly after this Microsoft announced their plans to create the XBox - which ran, yup you guessed it, Windows!

The clock is ticking. If the games console is to truly become the internet/computing portal for the masses, will it happen this generation, or the next one? And when (if!) it does happen, will it be on Sony's watch, or will Microsoft be able to take command of the market before the revolution may happen? It is this uncertainty which is at the heart of Microsoft's XBox strategy.

However, MS become convinced that this brave new world, as outlined above, is not the way forward, then they will drop the XBox like a stone. To Microsoft the XBox is a cunning piece of corporate hedge betting to protect their core Windows monopoly from invasion via the back door. And just like all their other hedged bets, they will drop the technology as soon as they realise it isn't a threat.

But if they DO drop out, what will be the aftermath of their little venture into games console hardware? Nintendo will be severely weakened - it could even go under or withdraw altogether (what with the PSP set to challenge their only remaining strong market - the handheld!) leaving Sony the only superpower in the console market.

A brand new monopoly created as a result of Microsoft's attempt to protect their own! Just what the world needs. (Not!)

[David Arbogast]

You think too hard

Not that your sci-fi philosophy doesn't have merit, but I really think you are reaching too far. Microsoft has invested a tremendous amount of resources in 3D graphics, user-interface design, and programming APIs for game developers. When most game-players prefer to sit on the couch and play a game, rather than sit in the den in from of a 17" computer monitor, it only makes sense for Microsoft to put their technology on a console platform. First and foremost, they are protecting their investments by keeping the resulting technology in popular places. The money lost on XBox is a drop in the bucket compared to what they would experience if their supporting technology falls out of favor. I can see a scenario where Sony licenses Microsoft technology for game development, and Microsoft no longer needs a console. But since Sony feels threatened by MS, that will probably never happen. Thus, the need for a MS console.

you don't know MS

If you think for a second that Microsoft will ever be willing to give up the Xbox, you are wrong. They will beat Sony, in time. It might take the Xbox2 or the Xbox4, but Microsoft won't give up until it happens. Sony better be ready for that kind of persistence, because Novell and Netscape weren't.

Watever

My friend looks like you live in an old world, and secondly you lack business sense.

[il2rb]

MS ain't dropping Xbox anytime soon...

Interesting conspiracy theories, but the fact of the matter is that MS is going to drop the Xbox platform anytime soon. They have spent far too much money, blood, sweat and tears to just give up. Unless something drastic changes in the future, MS has already nearly finished the design of Xbox 2 and is already in the early stages of Xbox 3 development (initial specs).

Unlike some of MS' other adventures like WebTV, they really see the value in the Xbox and it is a great market for them to be in. The Xbox brought a fresh new look and prespective to the game console industry. And I'm VERY glad they entered that arena. I was getting tired of these console companies getting away with murder. Each new console required all new gear. Horrible backwards compatibility, if any (hardware and software). Lack of standards or the use of standards already available. Lack of a timely release schedule.

Now that MS is in the game, it has put a LOT of pressure on Sony to deliver a top quality product and to advance their offering considerably. If MS hadn't come out with the Xbox, we'd still be doing things Sony's way, which is running on extremely outdated hardware, saving our games onto small capacity memory cards, poor resolution, no compatibility with industry standards, and a new console once every 10 years.

This is one area where I must say, Thank you Microsoft!

il2rb...

Burt I salute You

Burt I salute you! First I will tackle the belief in earlier replies that Microsoft is the breathe of fresh air that the gaming industry truly needed. Xbox live was not the true innovation john seems to believe involving network gaming in the console industry. It has been around since the days of Sega where it introduced network gaming for the genesis game console. I can still recall when I myself played Street Fighter 2 across analog phone lines against other remote players, which also kept track of stats and user profiles. Other forms of network gaming was available for Saturn, Dreamcast and I truly believe there were different iterations of network gaming even before that for other earlier console devices. Why did this fail, well some reasons are; the gaming industry was much smaller then, there was very little marketing push and information wasn?t as prevalent as it is today, where today?s consumer can go online, lookup gaming information and have discussions outside of the realm of neighboring friends. Simply, the market was not ready for it.

The technological innovation that an internal hard drive and some anti-aliasing (not everyone has high definition or large TV?s) is miniscule compared to innovative jump from 2D to 3D Sony had taken with the first iteration of the Playstation game console. So far was their jump ahead that in one single generation they severely damaged both console leaders at the time Nintendo and Sega, to become the market leader (with a little help from then Squaresoft). If anyone remembers Sega?s initial design for the Sega Saturn was to develop a CD based version of its 32X enhanced genesis console (Remember the 32X add-on that plug into the top of the genesis). Once word got out of what the specs were of Sony?s dream machine, Sega ripped up all blueprints of their doomed system to make another ?doomed? system with two processors. Nintendo on the other hand entirely skipped the 32-bit generation, producing a consumer expensive (game cartridges) 64-bit system years after Sony?s and Sega?s releases. I will not leave out Neo Geo and Atari Jaguar by simply saying they were much too far ahead of the technology curve and much too expensive for regular Joe and Jane Schmos and their kids.

Also to back up Burt, doesn?t anyone remember that the doomed Dreamcast, even though a wonderful piece of machinery, ran on a version of Windows CE. I mean this really is the point that Micro?soft? wants to push their ?soft?ware into every piece of hardware available to man. Why not game develop, why not produce hardware and why just license software? Developing a game whether be it good or from a movie or having a big marketing push, will never see a day in every console made for that platform. Why can I say that, well simply go to your local game store and look at the diversity of the man, woman, teenager and children playing videogames, you can also look at the game display that only pays at most a couple of games itself. How do you make guaranteed money in software on every console sold. Well port over a simplified version of your operating system you?ve already created, include the programmer friendly DirectX API?s you?ve already created for PC gaming and then license it to every single piece of gaming hardware. Voila you are making money on every piece of hardware with very little effort compared to designing a videogame OS from scratch, no marketing dollars wasted and having your business?s fate determined by each videogame?s success. Success meaning money wise, because there has been many an innovated game developed that has failed in the consumer market. Now onto Developing hardware, well in short Sony makes money off of game licenses like HP makes money off of printer ink sales. So why not make licensing money off of console makers to use your software who in turn will make money from licensing game developers to use their software on the console maker?s hardware.

XBox could benefit Sony

Just to pick up on the article's headline: Microsoft entered the games console race to protect its so-called Windows monopoly - ironically the true legacy of the XBox may be to help Sony establish a monopoly of its own, by weakening Nintendo, leaving Sony as the only console maker of note after Microsoft withdraws from the race.

To understand Microsoft's motivation, and why they are wasting so much money on the XBox, one has to place oneself in the shoes of a Science Fiction writer, and consider how the future may pan out...

A safe bet is that whatever the shape of things to come, the internet will probably be at the centre of it. In the home of the future Dad will be logged into his company intranet, putting the finishing touches to the a presentation he has to deliver to the board tomorrow; Mom is writing an email to Aunt Dotty in Australia; the twins are playing Duke Nukem 23 on-line against a dozen other players; while the eldest child has just started to word process her History assignment homework.

That's five computers, in one household!

You can see the problem with this brave new world - either we fill our homes with PC's, or the entire family has to queue up to take turns. But hold on ... most families don't require bleeding edge technology ... Mom's email could easily be handled by a Windows 95/98 level machine, the video game could be handled by a games console plugged into a TV, and even the History homework does not require a state-of-the-art word processor. Only Dad really needs a 'true PC'.

So what the home of the future needs is one powerful PC in the 'den' (as Bill Gates often refers to it) for the real power-hungry applications, and numerous smaller devices which are cheap, space efficient, and good enough to run basic applications. Sound familiar? The games console is cheap, it plugs right into the omnipresent domestic television set, and it has enough processing power to run applications from circa five to ten years ago.

Swap your current TV set for a modern high resolution one, throw in a wireless keyboard and mouse - and ta-dar, the Ford Model T of computing! It ain't pretty, but it's cheap, easy to run, and gets you from A to B.

Problem is... IT DOESN'T RUN WINDOWS!!!

Ken Auletta's book "World War 3.0" (as quoted in Microsoft's anti-trust appeal) mentions an episode in which Microsoft suggested to Sony that the Playstation 2 come equipped with Windows. Sony turned them down, preferring to stick with Linux. Shortly after this Microsoft announced their plans to create the XBox - which ran, yup you guessed it, Windows!

The clock is ticking. If the games console is to truly become the internet/computing portal for the masses, will it happen this generation, or the next one? And when (if!) it does happen, will it be on Sony's watch, or will Microsoft be able to take command of the market before the revolution may happen? It is this uncertainty which is at the heart of Microsoft's XBox strategy.

However, MS become convinced that this brave new world, as outlined above, is not the way forward, then they will drop the XBox like a stone. To Microsoft the XBox is a cunning piece of corporate hedge betting to protect their core Windows monopoly from invasion via the back door. And just like all their other hedged bets, they will drop the technology as soon as they realise it isn't a threat.

But if they DO drop out, what will be the aftermath of their little venture into games console hardware? Nintendo will be severely weakened - it could even go under or withdraw altogether (what with the PSP set to challenge their only remaining strong market - the handheld!) leaving Sony the only superpower in the console market.

A brand new monopoly created as a result of Microsoft's attempt to protect their own! Just what the world needs. (Not!)

[David Arbogast]

You think too hard

Not that your sci-fi philosophy doesn't have merit, but I really think you are reaching too far. Microsoft has invested a tremendous amount of resources in 3D graphics, user-interface design, and programming APIs for game developers. When most game-players prefer to sit on the couch and play a game, rather than sit in the den in from of a 17" computer monitor, it only makes sense for Microsoft to put their technology on a console platform. First and foremost, they are protecting their investments by keeping the resulting technology in popular places. The money lost on XBox is a drop in the bucket compared to what they would experience if their supporting technology falls out of favor. I can see a scenario where Sony licenses Microsoft technology for game development, and Microsoft no longer needs a console. But since Sony feels threatened by MS, that will probably never happen. Thus, the need for a MS console.

you don't know MS

If you think for a second that Microsoft will ever be willing to give up the Xbox, you are wrong. They will beat Sony, in time. It might take the Xbox2 or the Xbox4, but Microsoft won't give up until it happens. Sony better be ready for that kind of persistence, because Novell and Netscape weren't.

Watever

My friend looks like you live in an old world, and secondly you lack business sense.

[il2rb]

MS ain't dropping Xbox anytime soon...

Interesting conspiracy theories, but the fact of the matter is that MS is going to drop the Xbox platform anytime soon. They have spent far too much money, blood, sweat and tears to just give up. Unless something drastic changes in the future, MS has already nearly finished the design of Xbox 2 and is already in the early stages of Xbox 3 development (initial specs).

Unlike some of MS' other adventures like WebTV, they really see the value in the Xbox and it is a great market for them to be in. The Xbox brought a fresh new look and prespective to the game console industry. And I'm VERY glad they entered that arena. I was getting tired of these console companies getting away with murder. Each new console required all new gear. Horrible backwards compatibility, if any (hardware and software). Lack of standards or the use of standards already available. Lack of a timely release schedule.

Now that MS is in the game, it has put a LOT of pressure on Sony to deliver a top quality product and to advance their offering considerably. If MS hadn't come out with the Xbox, we'd still be doing things Sony's way, which is running on extremely outdated hardware, saving our games onto small capacity memory cards, poor resolution, no compatibility with industry standards, and a new console once every 10 years.

This is one area where I must say, Thank you Microsoft!

il2rb...

Burt I salute You

Burt I salute you! First I will tackle the belief in earlier replies that Microsoft is the breathe of fresh air that the gaming industry truly needed. Xbox live was not the true innovation john seems to believe involving network gaming in the console industry. It has been around since the days of Sega where it introduced network gaming for the genesis game console. I can still recall when I myself played Street Fighter 2 across analog phone lines against other remote players, which also kept track of stats and user profiles. Other forms of network gaming was available for Saturn, Dreamcast and I truly believe there were different iterations of network gaming even before that for other earlier console devices. Why did this fail, well some reasons are; the gaming industry was much smaller then, there was very little marketing push and information wasn?t as prevalent as it is today, where today?s consumer can go online, lookup gaming information and have discussions outside of the realm of neighboring friends. Simply, the market was not ready for it.

The technological innovation that an internal hard drive and some anti-aliasing (not everyone has high definition or large TV?s) is miniscule compared to innovative jump from 2D to 3D Sony had taken with the first iteration of the Playstation game console. So far was their jump ahead that in one single generation they severely damaged both console leaders at the time Nintendo and Sega, to become the market leader (with a little help from then Squaresoft). If anyone remembers Sega?s initial design for the Sega Saturn was to develop a CD based version of its 32X enhanced genesis console (Remember the 32X add-on that plug into the top of the genesis). Once word got out of what the specs were of Sony?s dream machine, Sega ripped up all blueprints of their doomed system to make another ?doomed? system with two processors. Nintendo on the other hand entirely skipped the 32-bit generation, producing a consumer expensive (game cartridges) 64-bit system years after Sony?s and Sega?s releases. I will not leave out Neo Geo and Atari Jaguar by simply saying they were much too far ahead of the technology curve and much too expensive for regular Joe and Jane Schmos and their kids.

Also to back up Burt, doesn?t anyone remember that the doomed Dreamcast, even though a wonderful piece of machinery, ran on a version of Windows CE. I mean this really is the point that Micro?soft? wants to push their ?soft?ware into every piece of hardware available to man. Why not game develop, why not produce hardware and why just license software? Developing a game whether be it good or from a movie or having a big marketing push, will never see a day in every console made for that platform. Why can I say that, well simply go to your local game store and look at the diversity of the man, woman, teenager and children playing videogames, you can also look at the game display that only pays at most a couple of games itself. How do you make guaranteed money in software on every console sold. Well port over a simplified version of your operating system you?ve already created, include the programmer friendly DirectX API?s you?ve already created for PC gaming and then license it to every single piece of gaming hardware. Voila you are making money on every piece of hardware with very little effort compared to designing a videogame OS from scratch, no marketing dollars wasted and having your business?s fate determined by each videogame?s success. Success meaning money wise, because there has been many an innovated game developed that has failed in the consumer market. Now onto Developing hardware, well in short Sony makes money off of game licenses like HP makes money off of printer ink sales. So why not make licensing money off of console makers to use your software who in turn will make money from licensing game developers to use their software on the console maker?s hardware.

IBM's core franchise was a software-based franchise

I like how Steve Ballmer forgot to mention how the European business software market is dominated by IBM and Linux. Not to mention the findings of the various European court systems have ruled against Microsoft. Anyone can paint a pretty picture. However, the truth is known by looking at the numbers and the facts. Don't get me wrong, Microsoft is not "evil" as most will attest. They just believe that they are above the law because they are Microsoft.

[gc1961]

IBM/Linux "dominates" Europe.... really?

Please state your facts that back up this assertion?

Sure there have been one or two large very public Linux wins, specifically in government agencies, but can you cite broad market statistics to back your claim? I don't think these exist.

[A.Sinic]

Huh?

Asside from a few high-publicity cases (some of which are just announcements), Linux is no further in Europe than in the US. It's making progress, but don't exagerate from the Munich thing. One reason for this is the relative difficulty in localising for different languages. In many cases, companies talk about doing Linux mostly as a lever on negotiating their MS contracts. Fair enough.

IBM's core franchise was a software-based franchise

I like how Steve Ballmer forgot to mention how the European business software market is dominated by IBM and Linux. Not to mention the findings of the various European court systems have ruled against Microsoft. Anyone can paint a pretty picture. However, the truth is known by looking at the numbers and the facts. Don't get me wrong, Microsoft is not "evil" as most will attest. They just believe that they are above the law because they are Microsoft.

[gc1961]

IBM/Linux "dominates" Europe.... really?

Please state your facts that back up this assertion?

Sure there have been one or two large very public Linux wins, specifically in government agencies, but can you cite broad market statistics to back your claim? I don't think these exist.

[A.Sinic]

Huh?

Asside from a few high-publicity cases (some of which are just announcements), Linux is no further in Europe than in the US. It's making progress, but don't exagerate from the Munich thing. One reason for this is the relative difficulty in localising for different languages. In many cases, companies talk about doing Linux mostly as a lever on negotiating their MS contracts. Fair enough.

longhorn

Did anybody else find it telling that Balmer wouldn't talk about
longhorn's schedule? There's no way that thing is coming in
2006 and if it does, it's not going to be half of what they've
promised.

[David Arbogast]

Brilliant

What fabulous insight you have. Your facts and figures are simply irrefutable. Truely, you have a dizzying intellect.

FYI

Longhorn is not like LINUX where people steal codes from OS like SCO-UNIX, AIX, and embedded in the OS. Longhorn is complete redesigned OS, and takes time to make sure it is compatible with older technologies, etc. Microsoft is investing more money in Longlorn than all the companies together invest money in dumb technology like LINUX

[il2rb]

Longhorn is coming....

I assure you Longhorn is coming and will make it in 2006, unless some unforeseen catastrophe occurs.

Yes, some minor features will be cut, or trimmed, or modified slightly, but it will be worth it. The real technological advancements in Longhorn will still make it to the final product, although maybe not as ambitious as everyone wanted originally.

This is true with every software product developed at every software company I've worked at. It's the reality of software development. Eventually you've got to ship a product. To do that you have to eventually say, yes there are some kewl new things we could add. There are kewl new technologies we'd love to see in the product, but you know what, we've got to ship this thing so lets stop adding and freeze the feature set. Then when things slide (due to unforeseen events like the renewed security focus on software) then features have to be trimmed or cut.

Don't worry. Longhorn will be a VERY kewl OS. It will have some revolutionary new technology. And most importantly, it will ship and ship within a reasonable timeframe. The team is VERY focused on making that happen. It's a must.

longhorn

Did anybody else find it telling that Balmer wouldn't talk about
longhorn's schedule? There's no way that thing is coming in
2006 and if it does, it's not going to be half of what they've
promised.

[David Arbogast]

Brilliant

What fabulous insight you have. Your facts and figures are simply irrefutable. Truely, you have a dizzying intellect.

FYI

Longhorn is not like LINUX where people steal codes from OS like SCO-UNIX, AIX, and embedded in the OS. Longhorn is complete redesigned OS, and takes time to make sure it is compatible with older technologies, etc. Microsoft is investing more money in Longlorn than all the companies together invest money in dumb technology like LINUX

[il2rb]

Longhorn is coming....

I assure you Longhorn is coming and will make it in 2006, unless some unforeseen catastrophe occurs.

Yes, some minor features will be cut, or trimmed, or modified slightly, but it will be worth it. The real technological advancements in Longhorn will still make it to the final product, although maybe not as ambitious as everyone wanted originally.

This is true with every software product developed at every software company I've worked at. It's the reality of software development. Eventually you've got to ship a product. To do that you have to eventually say, yes there are some kewl new things we could add. There are kewl new technologies we'd love to see in the product, but you know what, we've got to ship this thing so lets stop adding and freeze the feature set. Then when things slide (due to unforeseen events like the renewed security focus on software) then features have to be trimmed or cut.

Don't worry. Longhorn will be a VERY kewl OS. It will have some revolutionary new technology. And most importantly, it will ship and ship within a reasonable timeframe. The team is VERY focused on making that happen. It's a must.

[David Arbogast]

Sure I do

Microsoft is first and foremost a software company. If a majority of other console makers licensed Microsoft technology for their console, Microsoft would quit producing their own hardware. Study Microsoft's history with hardware. The only develop it to demonstrate their technology and seed the market. Then they return to their core business. XBox is Microsoft's way of supporting their core business. If other companies were doing that, they wouldn't have to.

[David Arbogast]

Sure I do

Microsoft is first and foremost a software company. If a majority of other console makers licensed Microsoft technology for their console, Microsoft would quit producing their own hardware. Study Microsoft's history with hardware. The only develop it to demonstrate their technology and seed the market. Then they return to their core business. XBox is Microsoft's way of supporting their core business. If other companies were doing that, they wouldn't have to.

[mgarfein]

Sony's strategy

I think MS is on the losing end with the XBOX.
Sony is creating a consumer electronics platform for the Cell chip. We're talking TVs, stereos, set top boxes, PS3...etc..., all being able to interact with each other and increase overall power and funtionality. Also, Toshiba will be there with Sony from the start offering more consumer choice. So, why would I buy a stand alone only XBOX when I can buy a PS3 that can also act as a component into a powerful multifunctional entertainment system?

And don't forget IBM

Add to this that Cell is IBM's big ticket into mainstream computing, you've actually got an unbelievably large force pushing the PS£ next-gen technology along. This would have happened without MS or XB, as Sony have always wanted a consolidated platform for all media. Companies have long known convergence was the future. MS talked about it years ago and had the plan of an MS based PC in every home for every function.

Where MS lose out is hardware. They know nothing about it, whereas IBM are experts and Sony haven't done too badly either. If Sony can come up with a decent OS for PS3/Cell (Linux based according to articles) then they'll win over the convergence market hands-down

[A.Sinic]

Why indeed?

"So, why would I buy a stand alone only XBOX when I can buy a PS3 that can also act as a component into a powerful multifunctional entertainment system?"

How about this?
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/mediacenter/evaluation/devices/xboxextenderkit.mspx

[mgarfein]

Sony's strategy

I think MS is on the losing end with the XBOX.
Sony is creating a consumer electronics platform for the Cell chip. We're talking TVs, stereos, set top boxes, PS3...etc..., all being able to interact with each other and increase overall power and funtionality. Also, Toshiba will be there with Sony from the start offering more consumer choice. So, why would I buy a stand alone only XBOX when I can buy a PS3 that can also act as a component into a powerful multifunctional entertainment system?

And don't forget IBM

Add to this that Cell is IBM's big ticket into mainstream computing, you've actually got an unbelievably large force pushing the PS£ next-gen technology along. This would have happened without MS or XB, as Sony have always wanted a consolidated platform for all media. Companies have long known convergence was the future. MS talked about it years ago and had the plan of an MS based PC in every home for every function.

Where MS lose out is hardware. They know nothing about it, whereas IBM are experts and Sony haven't done too badly either. If Sony can come up with a decent OS for PS3/Cell (Linux based according to articles) then they'll win over the convergence market hands-down

[A.Sinic]

Why indeed?

"So, why would I buy a stand alone only XBOX when I can buy a PS3 that can also act as a component into a powerful multifunctional entertainment system?"

How about this?
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/mediacenter/evaluation/devices/xboxextenderkit.mspx

[cjohn17]

Balmer's in denial...

What dufus.

[cjohn17]

Balmer's in denial...

What dufus.

FYI

mm First off, Xbox runs and embeded version of Linux, always has. So no windows is not run on the Xbox console, and you can prove it to your self by hacking the Xbox front end.

Second, This argument I see about SCO-Unix. I would Like to throughly inform you that you have no concept of what GPL Licensing means or stands for if you even put steal and code in the same sentence. GPl Licenseing Goverens source code trade, It does not cover copyrights. GPL Prevents the theft of source code. If anyone would have taken the time like SCO recently did, they would know that. Which btw wis why SCO has failed horribly at its lawsuit. Under GPL Licensing I as a developer have to have premission from the original author and I have to post the apporiate copyrights, and authorship in plain view. Stated Pretty plainly that it is the responsiblity of the User who is modifying exsisting codes.

Longhorn, is built on top of the Windows XP core, which includes Unix/Linux components, its is not a full rewrite of any sort.

This Linux could not have taken any SCO source code becuase Linux is developed in Native C unix is not. Linux contains a different tree structure and many, many more differences. The only thing that Might be the same is the concept,

The SCO Law suit was done for greed, and nothing more. Linux has a larger more stable user base then unix.

Windows may have a future, but it's not the big bright star that they make it out to be. Windows has become and inherit security risk across all platforms. That is not to say that the same threats could effect other platforms as they do. It is microsoft closed source, closed mind, and closed door development that allows such large security problems to develop and evolve.

[David Arbogast]

Here we go again

Without fail, a Microsoft article draws in the Linux zealots... Interesting how an article about Microsoft is turned into a discussion of SCO vs. IBM. And the "facts" are presented by somebody who claims that XBox runs Linux! HA! Give me a break! Obviously, not a valid source of information here.

FYI

mm First off, Xbox runs and embeded version of Linux, always has. So no windows is not run on the Xbox console, and you can prove it to your self by hacking the Xbox front end.

Second, This argument I see about SCO-Unix. I would Like to throughly inform you that you have no concept of what GPL Licensing means or stands for if you even put steal and code in the same sentence. GPl Licenseing Goverens source code trade, It does not cover copyrights. GPL Prevents the theft of source code. If anyone would have taken the time like SCO recently did, they would know that. Which btw wis why SCO has failed horribly at its lawsuit. Under GPL Licensing I as a developer have to have premission from the original author and I have to post the apporiate copyrights, and authorship in plain view. Stated Pretty plainly that it is the responsiblity of the User who is modifying exsisting codes.

Longhorn, is built on top of the Windows XP core, which includes Unix/Linux components, its is not a full rewrite of any sort.

This Linux could not have taken any SCO source code becuase Linux is developed in Native C unix is not. Linux contains a different tree structure and many, many more differences. The only thing that Might be the same is the concept,

The SCO Law suit was done for greed, and nothing more. Linux has a larger more stable user base then unix.

Windows may have a future, but it's not the big bright star that they make it out to be. Windows has become and inherit security risk across all platforms. That is not to say that the same threats could effect other platforms as they do. It is microsoft closed source, closed mind, and closed door development that allows such large security problems to develop and evolve.

[David Arbogast]

Here we go again

Without fail, a Microsoft article draws in the Linux zealots... Interesting how an article about Microsoft is turned into a discussion of SCO vs. IBM. And the "facts" are presented by somebody who claims that XBox runs Linux! HA! Give me a break! Obviously, not a valid source of information here.

Oh, SNAP! Ballmer you are no gamer...

Hey Ballmer, whens the last time you:

Played Final Fantasy
Modded a console
Went to GameFAQs.com
Hacked DRM
Impressed EGM
Played Armored Core
Went to NCSX .com
Loaded SNES 9x Emulators
Found an intrest in the Super Hitachi 4 processor
Bought an import game
Went to Lik Sang .com
Played Tekken on a dual shock controller
Played a GBA on the bus
Went to DCEmulation .com
Went to ftp.irradiance.net

etc. etc. etc.

Point: You have no idea what the gaming comunity is all about. I've been inside MS-Redmond's ass for your focus groups, and the MS marketing department is so utterly focused on producing a feminized / politically correct / multicultural cardboard box that anything remotely related to gaming is lost.

I know a 3-4 of your hardware engineers. Morale is low, because the bad design decisions are setting like a flawed slab of concrete.

No backward compatibility. GAMERS BE DAMED, we didn't want you to keep using Windows 98 either. SCHLonghorn anyone?

Oh, SNAP! Ballmer you are no gamer...

Hey Ballmer, whens the last time you:

Played Final Fantasy
Modded a console
Went to GameFAQs.com
Hacked DRM
Impressed EGM
Played Armored Core
Went to NCSX .com
Loaded SNES 9x Emulators
Found an intrest in the Super Hitachi 4 processor
Bought an import game
Went to Lik Sang .com
Played Tekken on a dual shock controller
Played a GBA on the bus
Went to DCEmulation .com
Went to ftp.irradiance.net

etc. etc. etc.

Point: You have no idea what the gaming comunity is all about. I've been inside MS-Redmond's ass for your focus groups, and the MS marketing department is so utterly focused on producing a feminized / politically correct / multicultural cardboard box that anything remotely related to gaming is lost.

I know a 3-4 of your hardware engineers. Morale is low, because the bad design decisions are setting like a flawed slab of concrete.

No backward compatibility. GAMERS BE DAMED, we didn't want you to keep using Windows 98 either. SCHLonghorn anyone?

The story of Microsoft's Downfall

Honestly, Microsoft would never say that Xbox 2 is going to sell
less than the next Playstation. The comment that Xbox 2 is
going to beat Sony is just to keep shareholders happy.
Realistically, there is little chance Microsoft will have the
intuition Sony does on making a quality system and then getting
quality games. Longhorn is the first real effort Microsoft has had
to put toward a new operating system in ages. The downgrade
that was Windows 98 and then the Quasi-Update of Windows XP
have had such poor quality that they have brought around the
Evolving of Microsoft as a company. There is no longer a good
reason to update software for most computer users. The extra
speed is just not needed when compared to the costs involved.
Now the company that used to have guaranteed sales with any
update faces the challenge of proving the value of their
products. This is something totally alien to Bill and Co.
Microsoft's maturity is actually realizing that quality does matter,
and it's finally catching up to them. If Xbox 2 isn't absolutely
mind blowing, Sony WILL win. If Longhorn isn't revolutionary(so
doubtful) upgrading won't happen for a lot of people. With Linux
running servers and Sony controlling the home market (honestly,
the most realistic outlook, not shareholder brown-nosing)
Microsoft is on the way out. Of course there are plenty of points
to argue against this, but is it really possible for a company with
absolute market domination to put out sub-par products and
stay on top? Just my take.

The story of Microsoft's Downfall

Honestly, Microsoft would never say that Xbox 2 is going to sell
less than the next Playstation. The comment that Xbox 2 is
going to beat Sony is just to keep shareholders happy.
Realistically, there is little chance Microsoft will have the
intuition Sony does on making a quality system and then getting
quality games. Longhorn is the first real effort Microsoft has had
to put toward a new operating system in ages. The downgrade
that was Windows 98 and then the Quasi-Update of Windows XP
have had such poor quality that they have brought around the
Evolving of Microsoft as a company. There is no longer a good
reason to update software for most computer users. The extra
speed is just not needed when compared to the costs involved.
Now the company that used to have guaranteed sales with any
update faces the challenge of proving the value of their
products. This is something totally alien to Bill and Co.
Microsoft's maturity is actually realizing that quality does matter,
and it's finally catching up to them. If Xbox 2 isn't absolutely
mind blowing, Sony WILL win. If Longhorn isn't revolutionary(so
doubtful) upgrading won't happen for a lot of people. With Linux
running servers and Sony controlling the home market (honestly,
the most realistic outlook, not shareholder brown-nosing)
Microsoft is on the way out. Of course there are plenty of points
to argue against this, but is it really possible for a company with
absolute market domination to put out sub-par products and
stay on top? Just my take.

[PCCRomeo]

Microsoft Can't Take on ANYONE!!

Microsoft has done nothing but sat on their lazy @$$ since they've became the worlds most popular OS, and now it's came back to bite them in the @$$. Stop boasting Microsoft, I'm already switching to Mac or Linspire anyway, and there is no way you can take on Sony.

[PCCRomeo]

Microsoft Can't Take on ANYONE!!

Microsoft has done nothing but sat on their lazy @$$ since they've became the worlds most popular OS, and now it's came back to bite them in the @$$. Stop boasting Microsoft, I'm already switching to Mac or Linspire anyway, and there is no way you can take on Sony.