Nextbox OS: Should Microsoft port windows 7 to it and to what extent?

[Squilliam]

Im sure there are a lot of compelling reasons for Microsoft not to do it, but I can think of at least 3 good reasons for them to at least consider it.

1. It increases the usefulness of the device considerably to a wider potential market.

2. It gives them a compelling selling proposition at the beginning of the generation even if the games aren't flowing.

3. If they implemented a full/partial port of Windows 7 onto at least one of the possible SKUs, I would expect it to justify a much higher ASP and margins and potentially give them at least one SKU at the beginning of the next generation which generates profit from hardware.

One thing I do know about Windows 7 is that its designed to be modular. They could from my limited understanding cut the OS down to fit the purpose a console/media centre is designed to do.

Now I know they want to retain control over the user experience on the Xbox platform, I understand that. So obvious questions like "Will it be able to play PC games?" are obviously out or would come with a proviso such as "Only if you're willing to pay X amount per year or per game"

So what do you think of the possibility?

 

[zed]

So what do you think of the possibility?

whilst it would be nice fr consumers
its extremely unlikely

Q/ why is the xbox360 the only console that doesnt have a browser (even the wii does)
A/ they want to create the impression that theres little in common with the console + PC

 

[Acert93]

I agree with zed (i.e. MS to this point has intentionally done everything they can to keep the Xbox platform from encroaching the Windows/PC ones). Depending on how the competition markets their products, though, who knows. e.g. The new Office is said to offer a web version; MS could offer something like $50/yr for Office/Explorer package that essentially turns a console into a "PC." A system like this would have entertainment (movies, games, audio) and productivity (word processing, browsing, email, etc) in a single package. The only missing link would be some basic support for peripherals like printers and the like (cough MICE! cough). I think the whole media center extender concept flopped, and for good reason.

On the other side MS doesn't want people buying $200 consoles they lose money on and using them as a PC w/o gaming.

 

[Squilliam]

I agree with zed (i.e. MS to this point has intentionally done everything they can to keep the Xbox platform from encroaching the Windows/PC ones). Depending on how the competition markets their products, though, who knows. e.g. The new Office is said to offer a web version; MS could offer something like $50/yr for Office/Explorer package that essentially turns a console into a "PC." A system like this would have entertainment (movies, games, audio) and productivity (word processing, browsing, email, etc) in a single package. The only missing link would be some basic support for peripherals like printers and the like (cough MICE! cough). I think the whole media center extender concept flopped, and for good reason.

On the other side MS doesn't want people buying $200 consoles they lose money on and using them as a PC w/o gaming.

So long as Microsoft profits from it, I don't think they are particularly worried about what anyone does with their consoles.

But one thing which this generation of consoles has taught us is that the scope of what kinds of software can sell and how a console can be used is moving beyond the simple bread and butter games. Look at the educational games which are selling on the DS such as Brain Training or the sales phenomenom which is Wii Fit.

The PC itself is a vast resource for educational, arcadey, and niche software which could be more easily tapped the closer the consoles software and hardware architecture is to personal computers. Furthermore the Xbox Live platform would be an excellent way of delivering these titles especially as niche titles incur a substantially larger publishing cost per unit relative to their more popular brethren.

I don't think they can afford to keep the seperation between Windows/Xbox as stark as it was before because one thing Microsoft needs to ensure for the next generation is profitability and one of the easiest ways to do that is to tap resources which are already available in the company.

 

[assen]

Look at the educational games which are selling on the DS such as Brain Training or the sales phenomenom which is Wii Fit.

Yep, note how you didn't mention the organizer-like software for DS, or the Opera web browser.

An OS is not "Windows" if it doesn't carry the huge baggage of backwards compatibility with the last 20 years of software development. There's no reason to burden a machine which has to play the best games possible, and to sell near cost at $299 at launch, with this baggage. They can't beat the upcoming wave of $100-200 eeePCs for any reasonable cost, and they don't want to devalue the "Windows 7" label.

 

[grandmaster]

Microsoft makes money with every OS sold. Microsoft loses money on every console sold. There's a reason why there's so little PC-style functionality in the Xbox 360 - they're seen as two different markets that should only have minimal overlap.

Sony and Nintendo have no OS business, so there's no reason for them not to support browsing on their console. Of course, the bottom line is that browsing on a console is an inherently unfriendly experience, so there's little incentive for MS to change their strategy - there's very, very little consumer demand for it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Exactly. Why should MS release a cheap, loss-leader PC and then have people run PC games without paying MS any royalty? The only way the WindowsBOX could work is if MS charged an license fee for all software that runs on it, and every application sold saw a few cents go to MS. Then they'd make enough money to retire.

Oh, hang on, they already do. Then they'd make enough money to buy up the whole world and retirs all of us!

 

[ShadowRunner]

They could just enable the install of another OS similar to how the PS3 allows linux to be installed (but with better integration), instead of having the console pre installed with it. They could still sell copies of windows and everything that goes with it off the back of it in that case.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That would be a good idea.

 

[eastmen]

They should make IE for the 360. Then put it up on xbox live market for $10 or so. The good thing about that is it would force them to create an efficent IE build that can then be used on the pcs.

 

[AzBat]

Still doesn't fix the problem of the selling the game units at a loss and trying to make up the money via game sales. Even if they charged for the OS it would be a one time charge and they might not have any further software sales. Personally I don't see it happening, but there are a few other possibilities. They could release a sku like the rumored 360 PC that would have the OS and the ability to run Windows and Office, but would be sold at a profit. Or they could go with a monthly or yearly subscription for Windows and/or Office service.

Tommy McClain

 

[ShadowRunner]

I wouldnt see people buying it just as a PC though anyway when you could pick up a cheap PC for less. Chances are that anyone picking it up primarily as a pc would end up buying a game or two anyway in the end. Another benefit would be getting more boxes into peoples livingroom even if they only break even on the initial set up (sell the box at a ~£100 loss but charging £100 for the copy of windows).

Also we dont even know if the next xbox would be sold at a loss to start with, some would suggest not...

 

[Dominik D]

Four key questions. Answer them from the POV of a platform owner.
1. Why do you want a full blown OS core designed for multitasking on gaming console which runs one and only one application at a time?
2. Why would an OS developer who heavily depends on hardware partners create its own PC and disguise it as a console?
3. Why would you ditch closed platform, console OS which is a core of your business model for open platform like Windows OS?
4. How would you keep your future gen back compat?

Answers are pretty obvious and explain basic reason why this would not and should not happen IMO.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Four key questions. Answer them from the POV of a platform owner.
1. Why do you want a full blown OS core designed for multitasking on gaming console which runs one and only one application at a time?

So that it can multitask when not gaming, same as a PC.

2. Why would an OS developer who heavily depends on hardware partners create its own PC and disguise it as a console?

To differentiate their console and compete in the full-feature set-top-box market with multiple products across a range of price-points.

3. Why would you ditch closed platform, console OS which is a core of your business model for open platform like Windows OS?

That's the real doozy.

4. How would you keep your future gen back compatible?

This is the most readily answered question! The same way current Windows PC are BC with older Windows PC, running virtualised hardware through APIs.

Basically the theory would be to not release a games console, but a media entertainment unit, an extension of the idea of PS3, something of a consolidation of the ideas of the MPC, offering a single utility box with the fixed hardware of a console but the flexibility of the computer. It'd be something like the computers of old, the Amiga and ST. It'll play games incredibly well, and also let you word-process, browse the web, update your Facebook page, watch hd movies and edit your photos. If all MS's next console does is play games, when the rivals offer it all through Linux, they'll but at a significant feature disadvantage. Whereas if MS offer full Windows application support, their solution will offer the best software range of any platform out there.

There is also the idea from a long time ago that the next XB won't be a hardware platform from MS, but a spec. Maybe the next Windows could instead be something ghastly like XboxOS and every PC is instead an XBox Entertainment Centre? Or the next XB is instead an entry level 'Entertainment PC' losing the XBox name? The idea with the XB is not and never has been to create a gaming console, but to compete for the living-room hardware encroachment of the consoles. A product that offers much of the Windows PC's versatility within a simplified operating environment could do very well there.

 

[Squilliam]

Four key questions. Answer them from the POV of a platform owner.
1. Why do you want a full blown OS core designed for multitasking on gaming console which runs one and only one application at a time?

No I wasn't suggesting a full blown OS. As Windows 7 is said to be highly modular only the parts that would be relevant to use on a console and are compatible with their goals for the system would be ported.

2. Why would an OS developer who heavily depends on hardware partners create its own PC and disguise it as a console?

If Microsofts goals are not compatible with the interests of other third parties they have to go it alone.

3. Why would you ditch closed platform, console OS which is a core of your business model for open platform like Windows OS?

I never said ditch the closed platform model, I just said that it might further their goals to implement parts of the Windows 7 OS on their console.

4. How would you keep your future gen back compat?

Answers are pretty obvious and explain basic reason why this would not and should not happen IMO.

I didn't propose removing the basic OS from the console, merely augmenting one or two of the SKUs with added functionality. Therefore it wouldn't compromise this core aspect of the design.

The reason why I suggested this crazy idea in the first place is because it seems to match with Microsofts goals for expanding the scope of their Windows empire. They don't just want you to just use their OS in the office, they are the perpetual middleman and their recent developments have hinted at just how much time and effort they are taking to give them access to more areas of your life. To put it bluntly they want to provide the computer OS for your life. The Xbox project is a cornerstone of this goal.

They are constantly working on improving the user interface between the user and their system. Perhaps the reason why there hasn't been a crossover console/pc to this day is due to the interface never being workable for such a thing. If you consider the new developments in interface from the Wii and expand that concept even further the whole idea of controlling a centralised computer system attached to your TV becomes less and less far fetched. Consider this picture of a patented control system by Sony for the Playstation series which uses ultrasonic vibrations to determine its location in 3d space. Microsoft couldn't implement this on a PC but they could do so on a closed box system and it would instantly be applicable to use by the OS so long as they can design the UI to work with it.

 

[Silent]

The reason why I suggested this crazy idea in the first place is because it seems to match with Microsofts goals for expanding the scope of their Windows empire.

Here at my home the Xbox 360 is the main reason that I finally could make the switch to a competitor’s platform.

For years gaming was the only reason why I didn’t want to say goodbye to Windows. For my work it wasn’t a problem because al the tools and software that I need are available on the mac.

That is something that I always found strange in the whole Windows <-> 360 relationship. The 360 for me take away a very strong selling point of Windows. While on the other hand you also know that the Xbox 360 is put on the market to expand Microsoft presence in your home. At my home it was quite the opposite.

I’m not going to claim that a lot of people will be making the same decision but I know that I’m not the only one.

 

[bkilian]

Hate to tell you guys this, but the 360 already uses a Windows NT kernel. Admittedly a monstrously hacked NT Kernel, with the process management stuff, the memory management stuff, and a whole host of other things ripped out.

 

[Squilliam]

Hate to tell you guys this, but the 360 already uses a Windows NT kernel. Admittedly a monstrously hacked NT Kernel, with the process management stuff, the memory management stuff, and a whole host of other things ripped out.

Oh thats interesting!

So really its not a question of if, but which OS kernel they will use and how much of it gets applied to the console?

 

[Tchock]

D: The return of NT on non-x86 systems?


It might be a nice platform to extend on embedded/handheld (Slim NT) compared to CE which seems to be walking in circles.

 

[bkilian]

D: The return of NT on non-x86 systems?


It might be a nice platform to extend on embedded/handheld (Slim NT) compared to CE which seems to be walking in circles.

Probably not. It's a very specialized piece of software, and only provides the bare minimum of services. It's also been heavily optimised for the exact CPU in the XBox. Windows CE is quite an achievement when you consider the number of devices, configurations, and architectures it'll run on right out of the box. Unfortunately, most manufacturers don't spend any time optimising it for their device, they just use the reference drivers wherever they can.