XBox 1 Backwards compatibility

[Dave Baumann]

So, now that NV is providing the graphics for Sony, anyone considered the possability of XB1 backwards compatibility being easier for Sony than MS?

 

[McFly]

Are you just bored or did you get some infos that point to some strange backward compatibiliy in PS3?

Fredi

 

[London Geezer]

TROLL!!!11!111!!!11

 

[Mulciber]

wouldn't there be legal issues there?

 

[MODEL 3]

Also, it is more possible than your senario, for XBOX2 to have Gamecube compatibility since XBOX2 will have more things in common with gamecube than PS3 with XBOX1 (In fact XBOX2 from a h/w point of view will have possible more things in common with Gamecube than XBOX1, all is left is the software side)

 

[Mulciber]

Also, it is more possible than your senario, for XBOX2 to have Gamecube compatibility since XBOX2 will have more things in common with gamecube than PS3 with XBOX1 (In fact XBOX2 from a h/w point of view will have possible more things in common with Gamecube than XBOX1, all is left is the software side)

except the media

 

[Mendel]

So, now that NV is providing the graphics for Sony, anyone considered the possability of XB1 backwards compatibility being easier for Sony than MS?

Through emulators, certainly.

For example, xbox (1) is able to run Nintendo 64 games perfectly through emulator.

 

[London Geezer]

So, now that NV is providing the graphics for Sony, anyone considered the possability of XB1 backwards compatibility being easier for Sony than MS?

Through emulators, certainly.

For example, xbox (1) is able to run Nintendo 64 games perfectly through emulator.

Huh? Since when?

 

[j^aws]

IBM Microelectronics: Focus on Secrecy


IBM Microelectronics is potentially as powerful as Intel, but like a shadow government it often operates behind the scenes. It currently doesn't ship an x86-compatible processor under its own brand, and its motto seems to be, "we are where you least expect us." IBM Micro was instrumental in getting AMD's Athlon 64 processor to market, it builds VIA's new processors, and it was the first to build Transmeta's. It captured the Microsoft Xbox business and now has virtually all of Apple's business. It is also building the processor for the Sony PS3 and the Next Generation Nintendo platform. (It is already in the current Nintendo Cube.) Basically IBM Microelectronics now owns the future of the console-based game market.


It also just announced eFuse, a unique technology that will allow a processor to dynamically alter itself to adjust for changing conditions.


IBM is expected to release an inexpensive x86-compatible processor based on its PowerPC architecture around the time the Xbox 2 is announced next year. This should give IBM Microelectronics the potential to become a nightmare for Intel.


Of the vendors listed, IBM has the only brand that can match Intel's, and it is also the only vendor that can call on resources that might even eclipse Intel's. With one or two acquisitions, IBM could slide into this space. And while it would not be successful against Intel as long as it is part of IBM Corporate, there are indications that it is considering spinning out of IBM.


IBM is in stealth mode, and that could mean it is planning on moving against Intel next year. It could also mean it is perfectly happy to continue to operate under Intel's radar. One lesson we learned this year is that just because someone is capable of having powerful weapons doesn't mean they actually do.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Fighting-for-Leadership-in-the-PC-World-37203.html

Doesn't IBM own Cyrix x86 IP and doesn't need to pay royalty to Intel...that would be funny!

ROFL

 

[Evil_Cloud]

So, now that NV is providing the graphics for Sony, anyone considered the possability of XB1 backwards compatibility being easier for Sony than MS?

Through emulators, certainly.

For example, xbox (1) is able to run Nintendo 64 games perfectly through emulator.

Huh? Since when?

Since people hacked the console and put new BIOS and HDD's in it.

But the emulator isn't perfect though, so I've got a far better example:

The Legend of Zelda: OOT running on GameCube with a Nintendo made N64 emulator.

 

[Guden Oden]

IBM is expected to release an inexpensive x86-compatible processor based on its PowerPC architecture

That article is waay old, and it's as bizarre now as it was then. "x86-compatible" and "powerpc architecture" are pretty much mutually exclusive, especially used in conjunction with "inexpensive". The one who wrote the article you quote must have smoked some serious sh!t, I can't explain it any other way.

As for the topic of the thread, Nvidia may hold ownership of the graphics and I/O-related parts of the hardware, but MS holds the IP for the copyright protection, the OS/dashboard thingy and all that other stuff that makes the xbox tick. Mildly put, I find it pretty unrealistic to believe PS3 will offer XB compatibility just because NV is involved in designing the graphics chip...

 

[Spidermate]

So, now that NV is providing the graphics for Sony, anyone considered the possability of XB1 backwards compatibility being easier for Sony than MS?

Have you ever considered the fact that Sony is helping Nvidia develop the GPU while Microsoft had Nivida built their entire GPU? :| Oh wait, you didn't.

 

[London Geezer]

So, now that NV is providing the graphics for Sony, anyone considered the possability of XB1 backwards compatibility being easier for Sony than MS?

Have you ever considered the fact that Sony is helping Nvidia develop the GPU while Microsoft had Nivida built their entire GPU? :| Oh wait, you didn't.

The owner of the site made a thread in what he considers his childplay forums... And you take it seriously?

 

[Fox5]

So, now that NV is providing the graphics for Sony, anyone considered the possability of XB1 backwards compatibility being easier for Sony than MS?

Through emulators, certainly.

For example, xbox (1) is able to run Nintendo 64 games perfectly through emulator.

If by perfectly you mean severe graphical glitches in even the simplest n64 games then yes, it can.(I saw screenshots of the xbox emulator made using the sdk and it had severe errors in mario 64, gamecube's emulator made by nintendo is probably better and has been hacked to play other n64 games)

Doesn't IBM own Cyrix x86 IP and doesn't need to pay royalty to Intel...that would be funny!

I thought VIA bought out Cyrix...

 

[Spidermate]

So, now that NV is providing the graphics for Sony, anyone considered the possability of XB1 backwards compatibility being easier for Sony than MS?

Have you ever considered the fact that Sony is helping Nvidia develop the GPU while Microsoft had Nivida built their entire GPU? :| Oh wait, you didn't.

The owner of the site made a thread in what he considers his childplay forums... And you take it seriously?

I'm confused. Did I say something wrong?

 

[London Geezer]

I'm confused. Did I say something wrong?

Nothing, you just sounded like you actually were gonna try to "prove Dave wrong"... When the whole thread is obviously a joke, just a light hearted thread.

 

[Spidermate]

I'm confused. Did I say something wrong?

Nothing, you just sounded like you actually were gonna try to "prove Dave wrong"... When the whole thread is obviously a joke, just a light hearted thread.

LOL! Ok, I guess that would make some sense if you were to look at it in that way.

 

[MODEL 3]

Mulciber wrote:
except the media

Well since PS3 XBOX1-compatibility (or XBOX2 Gamecube-compatibility) (if possible) is going to be illegal then the original gamecube game discs which you are refering to is no issue.For example: Although Dreamcast doesn't have a cartridge slot can play SNES games through emulation.

 

[Dave Baumann]

The statement was fairly glib, however from the hardware perspective its probably more easily achievable for the Sony setup than the MS route. Regardless of whether Sony is "assisting NVIDIA" or not (although, really, what help could they be for the graphics core?) the eventual outcome is likely to be a superset of previous capabilities, which basically leaves the CPU side and that is proably a much more well known art than the graphics side.

It would be the software front that would be somewhat more of an issue though...

 

[Fox5]

Mulciber wrote:
except the media

Well since PS3 XBOX1-compatibility (or XBOX2 Gamecube-compatibility) (if possible) is going to be illegal then the original gamecube game discs which you are refering to is no issue.For example: Although Dreamcast doesn't have a cartridge slot can play SNES games through emulation.

SNES games are a bit easier to find online than gamecube games are, and I've never seen a mass market drive or adapter to play the original games of 1 system on another.

Besides, just because xbox2 has an ati graphics chip doesn't mean it'll be compatible with gamecube...the r300 architecture was already completely different from flipper, and I doubt the r500 will be any closer. And is a G5 cpu fully compatible with a G3 cpu? Then there's still the problem of compatible software, the xbox basically uses all pc parts but you can't run a pc version of linux on it, and windows won't run on it at all.