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

[Dominik D]

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.

That doesn't answer my question. Yes, having a feature would allow you to use this feature. But what would you use it for? It's a console attached to your TV. You're with your controller on your couch. What do you want to do with multitasking? Would this investment justify benefits?

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.

Modular in what sense? You probably can remove certain apps, services (roles), but I'd be surprised if you could remove memory manager or plugable IO stack just like that. Besides as pointed out earlier - 360's core is based on NT kernel and this process of trimming down happened before. Why do it again?


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.

There's a difference between having products covering wide spectrum of needs and one product covering them all. The latter will make you lose money. Look at PS3 - does it really need BR to be a good console? Is iPhone for everyone? The common misconception is that more==better. It's not the case for hardware (more == more expensive == lower sales) and it's not the case for software (game with elements of RPG, FPS, puzzle game and music game will be compelling to ppl who care about all or most of the features at the same time, not to those who care about at least one of them). There's also this "jack of all trades..." saying.

Providing one product that's supposed to be solution for every consumer electronics usage scenario is not going to work. Not everyone needs all the features and those who don't feel like they're paying for something they wouldn't use. MS's strategy for full feature has always been _choice_. Sony is successful in TV space because they have a wide range of TVs, from inexpensive ones to OMG-expensive ones. Apple has the market share it has because it gives you no choice, builds for certain audience and satisfies that audience's needs.

Xbox 360 is gaming console. People who need more features can use (and do use) Media Center Extender functionality. I don't need it, I don't use and I would feel left out if MS gave me no choice but to buy expensive, one size fits them all product. And I wouldn't be alone. If you need PC, you can buy PC, there's still option for you and I see no justification for puting full-blown OS on the console. How many people run Linux on their PS3? I'd love to see the numbers actually.

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

If. But they are clearly not. If MS was unhappy with its partners, there would be no PDC, MVPs, ISV programs, development tools, etc. But all those things do exist.


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.

Excuse me?

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.

Which parts? Some, just to have them, or do you have something specific in mind?


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

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

Uhm, no? Windows kernel is running on x86, x64 and ia64 architectures. Porting it and testing it on PPC would take years of intense development which, in my opinion, has no business justification. We can assume that Xbox 3K would be x64. But then Xbox vs. 360 is one CPU@0.7GHz vs. 6 cores@3.2GHz, 8x the amount of cache, 8x the amount of memory, 2x the clock on GPU. Yet you can emulate only some of the titles. I do not anticipate Xbox 3K to be that kind of jump unless it's going to be the most expensive console in history.

In other words: partial back-compat on Windows platform today works due to incremental changes in hardware architecture paired with massive changes in HW speed. I can't imagine this kind of landscape for Xbox 3K but perhaps you disagree and can provide some more info on how Windows example applies to Xbox case?

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.

Ok, but which functionality. You used terms too generic to be convincing. I agree that by extending any platform you make it, well, extended. But there has to be some solid reason to do so.

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.

No, Xbox is to expand markets MS is present on. It has nothing to do with Windows. In other words: I don't buy it. Microsoft has been and still is present in multiple markets. I mean - if it was just about Windows, Office for Mac wouldn't exist.

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.

Sure, but for media entertainment you don't need new OS. Entertainment is not Office - you don't need Excel and Word running in parallel with your web browser. You don't need drivers for your plotter so you can print your Auto CAD project. These are not entertainment scenarios. At this point enabling new ent. scenarios is mostly about providing more intuitive UI, not core functionality. Being able to run full Live Messenger on the console would be great, but desktop interface just wouldn't cut the mustard. Besides as I said before - if you try do to everything in one package, you can't satisfy anyone.

 

[Squilliam]

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?

That doesn't answer my question. Yes, having a feature would allow you to use this feature. But what would you use it for? It's a console attached to your TV. You're with your controller on your couch. What do you want to do with multitasking? Would this investment justify benefits?


Modular in what sense? You probably can remove certain apps, services (roles), but I'd be surprised if you could remove memory manager or plugable IO stack just like that. Besides as pointed out earlier - 360's core is based on NT kernel and this process of trimming down happened before. Why do it again?

Because of this: Traut showed off MinWin and bragged about how much leaner the microkernel is than the current core of Windows. While Vista uses 5,000 files for its 4GB core, MinWin weighs in at just 100 files and 25MB.

MinWin is so small that it lacks a graphical subsystem. When Traut booted MinWin, for example, its start-up screen showed the standard Windows flag logo, but the design was built from ASCII characters, a technique discarded decades ago by everyone except spammers.

The microkernel will be used only internally and won't, as Traut put it, be "productized." Instead, it will be the basis of all upcoming versions of Windows, including the next-generation edition now saddled with the code name Windows 7. Microsoft has given out almost no information about that operating system other than a delivery timeline that puts its final release in 2010.

"We'll be using [MinWin] to build all the products based on Windows," said Traut. "It's not just the OS that's running on many laptops in this room, it's also the OS used for media centers, for servers, for small embedded devices."

Source - Computerworld.com





2.

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

There's a difference between having products covering wide spectrum of needs and one product covering them all. The latter will make you lose money. Look at PS3 - does it really need BR to be a good console? Is iPhone for everyone? The common misconception is that more==better. It's not the case for hardware (more == more expensive == lower sales) and it's not the case for software (game with elements of RPG, FPS, puzzle game and music game will be compelling to ppl who care about all or most of the features at the same time, not to those who care about at least one of them). There's also this "jack of all trades..." saying.

Theres a difference between covering a lot of bases with hardware to software. With software each deployment is "free" and you only have to really pay for the development costs. With hardware like Blu Ray the deployment costs money per unit and you pay a cost or pass it on whether every person uses it or not.

With software such as windows and the new U.I ideas they are developing, it would cost them more to not spread the cost of development as wide as possible. Many of these ideas are extremely applicable for use on consoles such as voice, motion, etc.

Providing one product that's supposed to be solution for every consumer electronics usage scenario is not going to work. Not everyone needs all the features and those who don't feel like they're paying for something they wouldn't use. MS's strategy for full feature has always been _choice_. Sony is successful in TV space because they have a wide range of TVs, from inexpensive ones to OMG-expensive ones. Apple has the market share it has because it gives you no choice, builds for certain audience and satisfies that audience's needs.

Xbox 360 is gaming console. People who need more features can use (and do use) Media Center Extender functionality. I don't need it, I don't use and I would feel left out if MS gave me no choice but to buy expensive, one size fits them all product. And I wouldn't be alone. If you need PC, you can buy PC, there's still option for you and I see no justification for puting full-blown OS on the console. How many people run Linux on their PS3? I'd love to see the numbers actually.

There is a reason why the Xbox 360 has three SKUs, and theres no reason why this cannot continue. I never said put a full blown OS on the console. I said before that the hugely limiting factor in deploying a full blown OS on a console was always the U.I. Now we have TVs which can display text, and huge development on voice, motion interfaces. Assuming the interface issues are solved, why would we want to do it?

A fuller operating system can run a wider variety of content. They could port code from Windows for Arcade/Flash/Educational games and run it in the windows stack if they wanted to. Every time Microsoft has talked about the Xbox 360 they seem to mention the success of third parties. If this enables third parties to better take advantage of the Nextxbox in delivering successful content it would be a huge plus in Microsofts book.



.

 

[dubyateeeff]

Of course, the bottom line is that browsing on a console is an inherently unfriendly experience

I have to disagree. It is excellent on PS3. For certain things much better than a PC. Of course I wouldn't want a PS3 style interface at work, but definetly for presentations.

Surfing on a console (PS3) is definetly not as bad as you make it out to be.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I have to disagree. It is excellent on PS3. For certain things much better than a PC.

What things? I haven't experienced a single benefit to PS3 surfing, from the lousy text entry to the dodgy page rendering, to the lack of plugin support, it's a sub-PC experience.

 

[dubyateeeff]

What things? I haven't experienced a single benefit to PS3 surfing, from the lousy text entry to the dodgy page rendering, to the lack of plugin support, it's a sub-PC experience.

I have bookmarked most of the sites that I would want to use on my PS3, weather, dilbert, metacritic, youtube, a few console sites etc and I avoid sites that needs text entry for the most since my usb-keyboard broke.

It is very easy to zoom in on text or parts of the page, which is useful on a TV. Quick at rendering and really haven't had much problems with page renderings, most of the problems I have had have been trying to get "web music" going, and that is usually plug-in related.

I sit in the sofa no matter if I surf on the PC or the PS3, that is why I love the zoom function, but ever since Firefox 3.0 the zooming on PC has become great. When it comes to unputs mouse+keyboard does work on PS3.

I realised my point is moot, you don't need an "advanced" OS to have a browser to surf satisfyingly. But would a better OS provide for a better browsing experience?

 

[Dominik D]

Because of this: Traut showed off MinWin and bragged about how much leaner the microkernel is than the current core of Windows. While Vista uses 5,000 files for its 4GB core, MinWin weighs in at just 100 files and 25MB.

MinWin is not microkernel. Xbox 360 has something around 16MB of built-in flash that holds OS with UI. Stripping down MinWin and adding Xbox UI on top of it is a waste of resources.

Also that doesn't answer my question - cool, you read about MinWin. But the question remains: 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?

Theres a difference between covering a lot of bases with hardware to software. With software each deployment is "free" and you only have to really pay for the development costs. With hardware like Blu Ray the deployment costs money per unit and you pay a cost or pass it on whether every person uses it or not.

With software such as windows and the new U.I ideas they are developing, it would cost them more to not spread the cost of development as wide as possible. Many of these ideas are extremely applicable for use on consoles such as voice, motion, etc.

And how does this answer my question? Why would an OS developer who heavily depends on hardware partners create its own PC and disguise it as a console?

Let me rephrase it: there's a reason why MS has no cell phones or PCs manufactured "in house". The reason is: MS creates environment for 3rd parties. In case of PC these are both hardware and software vendors. Console market has different model and as proven before (by MS) - selling console "OS" doesn't work. Why would MS build its own hardware, put desktop OS on it and claim it's not a PC? Do you think DELLs of this world would be like: sure, that's obviously not a threat for us!

There is a reason why the Xbox 360 has three SKUs, and theres no reason why this cannot continue.

Yes, the reason is avg income in developing markets, like Poland where I come from.

I never said put a full blown OS on the console. I said before that the hugely limiting factor in deploying a full blown OS on a console was always the U.I.

No, it wasn't. The reason was the amount of dev effort you have to put to develop OS. And even if it is all about UI - how would it benefit from new guts which you have to cut here and there in the first place?

A fuller operating system can run a wider variety of content. They could port code from Windows for Arcade/Flash/Educational games and run it in the windows stack if they wanted to.

Xbox already runs Flash, runs XNA, I can bet money that it will run Silverlight in a year or two. How would these scenarios benefit from full OS?

Every time Microsoft has talked about the Xbox 360 they seem to mention the success of third parties. If this enables third parties to better take advantage of the Nextxbox in delivering successful content it would be a huge plus in Microsofts book.

This is PR talk. How does it benefit third parties? Game developers benefit from fixed architecture, one process at a time approach more than they would from multitasking.

 

[AzBat]

Just to play devil's advocate...

Doesn't the 360 already run more than one app at a time? Running the OS, music, Party, voice chat, text messaging and downloading all kinds of content in the background while playing a game? Why not the ability to record live TV while playing a game or using the dashboard. What about the possibility of running Folding on a spare core that's not being used? There's all kinds of things that can be running simultaneously while playing a game, etc.

I understand that this about running Windows on a console, but you brought up the theory that a game console can only run one and only one application at a time and that's certainly not the case.

Tommy McClain

 

[bkilian]

Just to play devil's advocate...

Doesn't the 360 already run more than one app at a time? Running the OS, music, Party, voice chat, text messaging and downloading all kinds of content in the background while playing a game? Why not the ability to record live TV while playing a game or using the dashboard. What about the possibility of running Folding on a spare core that's not being used? There's all kinds of things that can be running simultaneously while playing a game, etc.

I understand that this about running Windows on a console, but you brought up the theory that a game console can only run one and only one application at a time and that's certainly not the case.

Tommy McClain

No, there is only one user process at a time. The other stuff that happens (downloads, audio mixing etc) all take place in the 5% of cores 2 and 3 that are reserved for the OS.
At a guess, it happens with a hardware interrupt at VBlank. In the same way DOS only ran a single process at a time, but hardware interrupts could give the illusion that other stuff was happening.

 

[22psi]

I would like MS to give the next xbox a browser maybe IE8 or 9. Why not? Every other console has one.

 

[AlNom]

I would like MS to give the next xbox a browser maybe IE8 or 9. Why not? Every other console has one.

Aren't those browsers fairly limited?

 

[AzBat]

No, there is only one user process at a time. The other stuff that happens (downloads, audio mixing etc) all take place in the 5% of cores 2 and 3 that are reserved for the OS.
At a guess, it happens with a hardware interrupt at VBlank. In the same way DOS only ran a single process at a time, but hardware interrupts could give the illusion that other stuff was happening.

Thanks for learning me. However, I could care less how it's done, just as long as the OS gives me the illusion of doing more than one thing at a time.

Tommy McClain

 

[grandmaster]

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.

Microsoft exists in a symbiotic relationship with PC manufacturers. I can't imagine such a move would really piss them off. More than that, if I buy a Windows license, I'd want full functionality - surely that would mean that:

a. NextBox would need an x86 CPU to be fully compatible, and
b. Microsoft could conceivably lose money from people buying Windows games rather than NextBox ones where it receives a hefty ransom in terms of licensing fees.

I think you need to accept that a Windows-compatible OS on a Microsoft console just isn't going to happen.

 

[eastmen]

Aren't those browsers fairly limited?

In what way ?

I use IE 8 beta and its great. it allows me to do everything i've done with firefox and I can download and install add ons for it.


Anyway I said earlier to just create a browser for the 360 and xbox next and then sell it. Nintendo did it with the wii and ds. MS can make it and sell it for $10 bucks or something so those that want it can have it and those that don't wont bother paying.

 

[Hector]

I don't know if a browser that consumes as much resources as windows xp is a good choice for a console