Anandtech: both X360 and PS3 CPUs suck incredibly bad

1353 views
Skip to first unread message

xenos

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 4:11:13 PM6/29/05
to
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461

Microsoft's Xbox 360 & Sony's PlayStation 3 - Examples of Poor CPU
Performance

Date: June 29th, 2005
Author: Anand Lal Shimpi

"In our last article we had a fairly open-ended discussion about many of the
challenges facing both of the recently announced next-generation game
consoles. We discussed misconceptions about the Cell processor and its
ability to accelerate physics calculations, as well as touched on the GPUs
of both platforms. In the end, both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 are
much closer competitors than you would think based on first impressions.

The Xbox 360's Xenon CPU features more general purpose cores than the
PlayStation 3 (3 vs. 1), however game developers will most likely only be
using one of those cores for the majority of their calculations, leveling
the playing field considerably.

The Cell processor derives much of its power from its array of 7 SPEs
(Synergistic Processing Elements), however as we discovered in our last
article, their purpose is far more specialized than we had thought.
Speaking with Epic Games' head developer, Tim Sweeney, he provided a much
more balanced view of what sorts of tasks could take advantage of the Cell's
SPE array.

The GPUs of the next-generation platforms also proved to be quite
interesting. In Part I we speculated as to the true nature of NVIDIA's RSX
in the PS3, concluding that it's quite likely little more than a higher
clocked G70 GPU. We will expand on that discussion a bit more in this
article. We also looked at Xenos, the Xbox 360's GPU and characterized it
as equivalent to a very flexible 24-pipe R420. Despite the inclusion of the
10MB of embedded DRAM, Xenos and RSX ended up being quite similar in our
expectations for performance; and that pretty much summarized all of our
findings - the two consoles, although implementing very different
architectures, ended up being so very similar.

So we've concluded that the two platforms will probably end up performing
very similarly, but there was one very important element excluded from the
first article: a comparison to present-day PC architectures. The reason a
comparison to PC architectures is important is because it provides an
evaluation point to gauge the expected performance of these next-generation
consoles. We've heard countless times that these new consoles would offer
better gaming performance than anything we've had on the PC, or anything we
would have for a matter of years. Now it's time to actually put those
claims to the test, and that's exactly what we did.

Speaking under conditions of anonymity with real world game developers who
have had first hand experience writing code for both the Xbox 360 and
PlayStation 3 hardware (and dev kits where applicable), we asked them for
nothing more than their brutal honesty. What did they think of these new
consoles? Are they really outfitted with the PC-eclipsing performance we've
been lead to believe they have? The answer is actually quite frequently
found in history; as with anything, you get what you pay for.

Learning from Generation X
The original Xbox console marked a very important step in the evolution of
gaming consoles - it was the first console that was little more than a
Windows PC.

It featured a 733MHz Pentium III processor with a 128KB L2 cache, paired up
with a modified version of NVIDIA's nForce chipset (modified to support
Intel's Pentium III bus instead of the Athlon XP it was designed for). The
nForce chipset featured an integrated GPU, codenamed the NV2A, offering
performance very similar to that of a GeForce3. The system had a 5X PC DVD
drive and an 8GB IDE hard drive, and all of the controllers interfaced to
the console using USB cables with a proprietary connector.

For the most part, game developers were quite pleased with the original
Xbox. It offered them a much more powerful CPU, GPU and overall platform
than anything had before. But as time went on, there were definitely
limitations that developers ran into with the first Xbox.

One of the biggest limitations ended up being the meager 64MB of memory that
the system shipped with. Developers had asked for 128MB and the motherboard
even had positions silk screened for an additional 64MB, but in an attempt
to control costs the final console only shipped with 64MB of memory.

The next problem is that the NV2A GPU ended up not having the fill rate and
memory bandwidth necessary to drive high resolutions, which kept the Xbox
from being used as a HD console.

Although Intel outfitted the original Xbox with a Pentium III/Celeron hybrid
in order to improve performance yet maintain its low cost, at 733MHz that
quickly became a performance bottleneck for more complex games after the
console's introduction.

The combination of GPU and CPU limitations made 30 fps a frame rate target
for many games, while simpler titles were able to run at 60 fps. Split
screen play on Halo would even stutter below 30 fps depending on what was
happening on screen, and that was just a first-generation title. More
experience with the Xbox brought creative solutions to the limitations of
the console, but clearly most game developers had a wish list of things they
would have liked to have seen in the Xbox successor. Similar complaints
were levied against the PlayStation 2, but in some cases they were more
extreme (e.g. its 4MB frame buffer).

Given that consoles are generally evolutionary, taking lessons learned in
previous generations and delivering what the game developers want in order
to create the next-generation of titles, it isn't a surprise to see that a
number of these problems are fixed in the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

One of the most important changes with the new consoles is that system
memory has been bumped from 64MB on the original Xbox to a whopping 512MB on
both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. For the Xbox, that's a factor of 8
increase, and over 12x the total memory present on the PlayStation 2.

The other important improvement with the next-generation of consoles is that
the GPUs have been improved tremendously. With 6 - 12 month product cycles,
it's no surprise that in the past 4 years GPUs have become much more
powerful. By far the biggest upgrade these new consoles will offer, from a
graphics standpoint, is the ability to support HD resolutions.

There are obviously other, less-performance oriented improvements such as
wireless controllers and more ubiquitous multi-channel sound support. And
with Sony's PlayStation 3, disc capacity goes up thanks to their embracing
the Blu-ray standard.

But then we come to the issue of the CPUs in these next-generation
consoles, and the level of improvement they offer. Both the Xbox 360 and
the PlayStation 3 offer multi-core CPUs to supposedly usher in a new era of
improved game physics and reality. Unfortunately, as we have found out, the
desire to bring multi-core CPUs to these consoles was made a reality at the
expense of performance in a very big way.

Problems with the Architecture
At the heart of both the Xenon and Cell processors is IBM's custom PowerPC
based core. We've discussed this core in our previous articles, but it is
best characterized as being quite simple. The core itself is a very narrow
2-issue in-order execution core, featuring a 64KB L1 cache (32K
instruction/32K data) and either a 1MB or 512KB L2 cache (for Xenon or Cell,
respectively). Supporting SMT, the core can execute two threads
simultaneously similar to a Hyper Threading enabled Pentium 4. The Xenon
CPU is made up of three of these cores, while Cell features just one.

Each individual core is extremely small, making the 3-core Xenon CPU in the
Xbox 360 smaller than a single core 90nm Pentium 4. While we don't have
exact die sizes, we've heard that the number is around 1/2 the size of the
90nm Prescott die.

IBM's pitch to Microsoft was based on the peak theoretical floating point
performance-per-dollar that the Xenon CPU would offer, and given Microsoft's
focus on cost savings with the Xbox 360, they took the bait.

While Microsoft and Sony have been childishly playing this flops-war,
comparing the 1 TFLOPs processing power of the Xenon CPU to the 2 TFLOPs
processing power of the Cell, the real-world performance war has already
been lost.

Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon
CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox.
Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 -
5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective,
floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
Pentium 4.

The reason for the poor performance? The very narrow 2-issue in-order core
also happens to be very deeply pipelined, apparently with a branch predictor
that's not the best in the business. In the end, you get what you pay for,
and with such a small core, it's no surprise that performance isn't anywhere
near the Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 class.

The Cell processor doesn't get off the hook just because it only uses a
single one of these horribly slow cores; the SPE array ends up being fairly
useless in the majority of situations, making it little more than a waste of
die space.

We mentioned before that collision detection is able to be accelerated on
the SPEs of Cell, despite being fairly branch heavy. The lack of a branch
predictor in the SPEs apparently isn't that big of a deal, since most
collision detection branches are basically random and can't be predicted
even with the best branch predictor. So not having a branch predictor doesn't
hurt, what does hurt however is the very small amount of local memory
available to each SPE. In order to access main memory, the SPE places a DMA
request on the bus (or the PPE can initiate the DMA request) and waits for
it to be fulfilled. From those that have had experience with the PS3
development kits, this access takes far too long to be used in many real
world scenarios. It is the small amount of local memory that each SPE has
access to that limits the SPEs from being able to work on more than a
handful of tasks. While physics acceleration is an important one, there are
many more tasks that can't be accelerated by the SPEs because of the memory
limitation.

The other point that has been made is that even if you can offload some of
the physics calculations to the SPE array, the Cell's PPE ends up being a
pretty big bottleneck thanks to its overall lackluster performance. It's
akin to having an extremely fast GPU but without a fast CPU to pair it up
with.

What About Multithreading?
We of course asked the obvious question: would game developers rather have 3
slow general purpose cores, or one of those cores paired with an array of
specialized SPEs? The response was unanimous, everyone we have spoken to
would rather take the general purpose core approach.

Citing everything from ease of programming to the limitations of the SPEs we
mentioned previously, the Xbox 360 appears to be the more developer-friendly
of the two platforms according to the cross-platform developers we've spoken
to. Despite being more developer-friendly, the Xenon CPU is still not what
developers wanted.

The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either
manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their
next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in
terms of CPU performance.

While the developers we've spoken to agree that heavily multithreaded game
engines are the future, that future won't really take form for another 3 - 5
years. Even Microsoft admitted to us that all developers are focusing on
having, at most, one or two threads of execution for the game engine
itself - not the four or six threads that the Xbox 360 was designed for.

Even when games become more aggressive with their multithreading, targeting
2 - 4 threads, most of the work will still be done in a single thread. It
won't be until the next step in multithreaded architectures where that
single thread gets broken down even further, and by that time we'll be
talking about Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4. In the end, the more
multithreaded nature of these new console CPUs doesn't help paint much of a
brighter performance picture - multithreaded or not, game developers are not
pleased with the performance of these CPUs.

What about all those Flops?
The one statement that we heard over and over again was that Microsoft was
sold on the peak theoretical performance of the Xenon CPU. Ever since the
announcement of the Xbox 360 and PS3 hardware, people have been set on
comparing Microsoft's figure of 1 trillion floating point operations per
second to Sony's figure of 2 trillion floating point operations per second
(TFLOPs). Any AnandTech reader should know for a fact that these numbers
are meaningless, but just in case you need some reasoning for why, let's
look at the facts.

First and foremost, a floating point operation can be anything; it can be
adding two floating point numbers together, or it can be performing a dot
product on two floating point numbers, it can even be just calculating the
complement of a fp number. Anything that is executed on a FPU is fair game
to be called a floating point operation.

Secondly, both floating point power numbers refer to the whole system, CPU
and GPU. Obviously a GPU's floating point processing power doesn't mean
anything if you're trying to run general purpose code on it and vice versa.
As we've seen from the graphics market, characterizing GPU performance in
terms of generic floating point operations per second is far from the full
performance story.

Third, when a manufacturer is talking about peak floating point performance
there are a few things that they aren't taking into account. Being able to
process billions of operations per second depends on actually being able to
have that many floating point operations to work on. That means that you
have to have enough bandwidth to keep the FPUs fed, no mispredicted
branches, no cache misses and the right structure of code to make sure that
all of the FPUs can be fed at all times so they can execute at their peak
rates. We already know that's not the case as game developers have already
told us that the Xenon CPU isn't even in the same realm of performance as
the Pentium 4 or Athlon 64. Not to mention that the requirements for
hitting peak theoretical performance are always ridiculous; caches are only
so big and thus there will come a time where a request to main memory is
needed, and you can expect that request to be fulfilled in a few hundred
clock cycles, where no floating point operations will be happening at all.

So while there may be some extreme cases where the Xenon CPU can hit its
peak performance, it sure isn't happening in any real world code.

The Cell processor is no different; given that its PPE is identical to one
of the PowerPC cores in Xenon, it must derive its floating point performance
superiority from its array of SPEs. So what's the issue with 218 GFLOPs
number (2 TFLOPs for the whole system)? Well, from what we've heard, game
developers are finding that they can't use the SPEs for a lot of tasks. So
in the end, it doesn't matter what peak theoretical performance of Cell's
SPE array is, if those SPEs aren't being used all the time.

Another way to look at this comparison of flops is to look at integer add
latencies on the Pentium 4 vs. the Athlon 64. The Pentium 4 has two double
pumped ALUs, each capable of performing two add operations per clock, that's
a total of 4 add operations per clock; so we could say that a 3.8GHz Pentium
4 can perform 15.2 billion operations per second. The Athlon 64 has three
ALUs each capable of executing an add every clock; so a 2.8GHz Athlon 64
can perform 8.4 billion operations per second. By this silly console
marketing logic, the Pentium 4 would be almost twice as fast as the Athlon
64, and a multi-core Pentium 4 would be faster than a multi-core Athlon 64.
Any AnandTech reader should know that's hardly the case. No code is
composed entirely of add instructions, and even if it were, eventually the
Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 will have to go out to main memory for data, and
when they do, the Athlon 64 has a much lower latency access to memory than
the P4. In the end, despite what these horribly concocted numbers may lead
you to believe, they say absolutely nothing about performance. The exact
same situation exists with the CPUs of the next-generation consoles; don't
fall for it.

Why did Sony/MS do it?
For Sony, it doesn't take much to see that the Cell processor is eerily
similar to the Emotion Engine in the PlayStation 2, at least conceptually.
Sony clearly has an idea of what direction they would like to go in, and it
doesn't happen to be one that's aligned with much of the rest of the
industry. Sony's past successes have really come, not because of the
hardware, but because of the developers and their PSX/PS2 exclusive titles.
A single hot title can ship hundreds of millions of consoles, and by our
count, Sony has had many more of those than Microsoft had with the first
Xbox.

Sony shipped around 4 times as many PlayStation 2 consoles as Microsoft did
Xboxes, regardless of the hardware platform, a game developer won't turn
down working with the PS2 - the install base is just that attractive. So
for Sony, the Cell processor may be strange and even undesirable for game
developers, but the developers will come regardless.

The real surprise was Microsoft; with the first Xbox, Microsoft listened
very closely to the wants and desires of game developers. This time around,
despite what has been said publicly, the Xbox 360's CPU architecture wasn't
what game developers had asked for.

They wanted a multi-core CPU, but not such a significant step back in single
threaded performance. When AMD and Intel moved to multi-core designs, they
did so at the expense of a few hundred MHz in clock speed, not by taking a
step back in architecture.

We suspect that a big part of Microsoft's decision to go with the Xenon core
was because of its extremely small size. A smaller die means lower system
costs, and if Microsoft indeed launches the Xbox 360 at $299 the Xenon CPU
will be a big reason why that was made possible.

Another contributing factor may be the fact that Microsoft wanted to own the
IP of the silicon that went into the Xbox 360. We seriously doubt that
either AMD or Intel would be willing to grant them the right to make Pentium
4 or Athlon 64 CPUs, so it may have been that IBM was the only partner
willing to work with Microsoft's terms and only with this one specific core.

Regardless of the reasoning, not a single developer we've spoken to thinks
that it was the right decision.

The Saving Grace: The GPUs
Although both manufacturers royally screwed up their CPUs, all developers
have agreed that they are quite pleased with the GPU power of the
next-generation consoles.

First, let's talk about NVIDIA's RSX in the PlayStation 3. We discussed the
possibility of RSX offloading vertex processing onto the Cell processor, but
more and more it seems that isn't the case. It looks like the RSX will
basically be a 90nm G70 with Turbo Cache running at 550MHz, and the
performance will be quite good.

One option we didn't discuss in the last article, was that the G70 GPU may
feature a number of disabled shader pipes already to improve yield. The
move to 90nm may allow for those pipes to be enabled and thus allowing for
another scenario where the RSX offers higher performance at the same
transistor count as the present-day G70. Sony may be hesitant to reveal the
actual number of pixel and vertex pipes in the RSX because honestly they
won't know until a few months before mass production what their final yields
will be.

Despite strong performance and support for 1080p, a large number of
developers are targeting 720p for their PS3 titles and won't support 1080p.
Those that are simply porting current-generation games over will have no
problems running at 1080p, but anyone working on a truly next-generation
title won't have the fill rate necessary to render at 1080p.

Another interesting point is that despite its lack of "free 4X AA" like the
Xbox 360, in some cases it won't matter. Titles that use longer pixel
shader programs end up being bound by pixel shader performance rather than
memory bandwidth, so the performance difference between no AA and 2X/4X AA
may end up being quite small. Not all titles will push the RSX to the
limits however, and those titles will definitely see a performance drop with
AA enabled. In the end, whether the RSX's lack of embedded DRAM matters
will be entirely dependent on the game engine being developed for the
platform. Games that make more extensive use of long pixel shaders will see
less of an impact with AA enabled than those that are more texture bound.
Game developers are all over the map on this one, so it wouldn't be fair to
characterize all of the games as falling into one category or another.

ATI's Xenos GPU is also looking pretty good and most are expecting
performance to be very similar to the RSX, but real world support for this
won't be ready for another couple of months. Developers have just recently
received more final Xbox 360 hardware, and gauging performance of the actual
Xenos GPU compared to the R420 based solutions in the G5 development kits
will take some time. Since the original dev kits offered significantly
lower performance, developers will need a bit of time to figure out what
realistic limits the Xenos GPU will have.

Final Words
Just because these CPUs and GPUs are in a console doesn't mean that we
should throw away years of knowledge from the PC industry - performance
doesn't come out of thin air, and peak performance is almost never achieved.
Clever marketing however, will always try to fool the consumer.

And that's what we have here today, with the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.
Both consoles are marketed to be much more powerful than they actually are,
and from talking to numerous game developers it seems that the real world
performance of these platforms isn't anywhere near what it was supposed to
be.

It looks like significant advancements in game physics won't happen on
consoles for another 4 or 5 years, although it may happen with PC games much
before that.

It's not all bad news however; the good news is that both GPUs are quite
possibly the most promising part of the new consoles. With the performance
that we have seen from NVIDIA's G70, we have very high expectations for the
360 and PS3. The ability to finally run at HD resolutions in all games will
bring a much needed element to console gaming.

And let's not forget all of the other improvements to these next-generation
game consoles. The CPUs, despite being relatively lackluster, will still be
faster than their predecessors and increased system memory will give
developers more breathing room. Then there are other improvements such as
wireless controllers, better online play and updated game engines that will
contribute to an overall better gaming experience.

In the end, performance could be better, the consoles aren't what they could
have been had the powers at be made some different decisions. While they
will bring better quality games to market and will be better than their
predecessors, it doesn't look like they will be the end of PC gaming any
more than the Xbox and PS2 were when they were launched. The two markets
will continue to coexist, with consoles being much easier to deal with, and
PCs offering some performance-derived advantages.

With much more powerful CPUs and, in the near future, more powerful GPUs,
the PC paired with the right developers should be able to bring about that
revolution in game physics and graphics we've been hoping for. Consoles
will help accelerate the transition to multithreaded gaming, but it looks
like it will take PC developers to bring about real change in things like
game physics, AI and other non-visual elements of gaming. "


Bikini-Whacks

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 4:28:27 PM6/29/05
to
In article <m8GdndPHDa3...@comcast.com>, <xenos> says...

Fercrissakes, it wouldn't of hurt you to post the full article instead
of this tantalising snippet.
--


K4lM D0Wn, d34R. 17'Z 0NLY 4 4DV3R7.

Rumblin' in 't 'Pit with Ph33lin Phrisky

Xen0s*

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 6:45:19 AM6/30/05
to

<xenos> ha scritto nel messaggio news:m8GdndPHDa3...@comcast.com...

Anand want to persuade us that:


3 PPC 64 bit core [6-threaded] at 3.2 Ghz

is 2 times faster then a

733 mhz celeron [1-threaded]

ROTFL

He is assuming that developers don't use the 5 extra-thread of the cpu, so
He try to convince us that that anonimous developer will use only one
thread.

Another lies is 'efficiency', He point the finger to "in-order" cpu, all we
know what it means for a general purpose cpu, but he seems to forget that
xenon and cell are designed to fit a console, particularly xenon was
designed by more than 1000 MS and IBM engineers to provide console's needs.

elr...@pop.uky.edu

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 9:08:14 AM6/30/05
to
Bikini-Whacks wrote:
> Fercrissakes, it wouldn't of hurt you to post the full article instead
> of this tantalising snippet.

I don't know if this is a legitimate article or not. I can't find it
anywhere on the Anandtech website. So, if it is legitimate, it's a good
thing he posted the whole thing--cause it sure doesn't show up on their
website (at least not anywhere that's easy to find, anyway).

-Eric

Nite Shift

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 10:57:35 AM6/30/05
to
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=2


<elr...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
news:1120136894....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Fred Liken

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 10:59:02 AM6/30/05
to
<elr...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
news:1120136894....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

It was a legitimate article. It was linked from Slashdot even. For some
reason, it's been taken down.


raven...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 11:51:57 AM6/30/05
to
Has anyone considered the possibility that we may not have seen the
finished products yet? I don't know enough about the engineering
product pipe-line but consider this:

Particularly in the case of Sony:
1) they got their butts kicked performance wise last time by releaseing
too soon before the competition.
2) they still have about 8-10 months until the product ships; at least
6 months more than Microsoft - this is a long time considering a CPU's
lifecycle is only about 18 months.

If I were Sony I would hold my cards tightly - releasing prototypes and
devkits that are only a subset of the final product.

Then on launch-week, undexpectedly roll the real ferrari out of the
garage. Somthing more refined, and better thought out that actually
pushes past the previous promises and hype.

Quickly skimming this article, that might mean using a more appropriet
central core, than the one that was originaly announced. Who Knows?

Maybe i'm just being hopefull, but even at E3, I got the feeling we
haven't seen the whole picture yet.

a_noethe...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:05:03 PM6/30/05
to
> For some reason, it's been taken down.

Probably because it was complete garbage. (Yeah, I read it.)

He quotes some anymous sources in his effort to convince us the chips
are basically slower than current PC hardware even though there are a
large number of developers who have gone on record to say they kick
ass.

Let's see, who am I going to believe? Mark Rein, head of Epic, who has
real experience with the hardware and with programming successful games
and has publicly demonstrated Epic's engines running on both platforms,
or Anand La Shrimpi, who probably hasn't programmed a console in his
life and certainly doesn't have a PS3 or X360 development kit?

The article's still there, though, for anyone who needs a laugh. That
site is usually pretty good, but he's really piling it on with this
article.

Fred Liken

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:52:01 PM6/30/05
to
<raven...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> Has anyone considered the possibility that we may not have seen the
> finished products yet? I don't know enough about the engineering
> product pipe-line but consider this:
>
> Particularly in the case of Sony:
> 1) they got their butts kicked performance wise last time by releaseing
> too soon before the competition.

That or they weren't worried about producing the most powerful system since
that isn't what makes money?

> 2) they still have about 8-10 months until the product ships; at least
> 6 months more than Microsoft - this is a long time considering a CPU's
> lifecycle is only about 18 months.

Any fundamental changes would require cascading changes in compilers,
developer's work to date, etc.

> If I were Sony I would hold my cards tightly - releasing prototypes and
> devkits that are only a subset of the final product.
>
> Then on launch-week, undexpectedly roll the real ferrari out of the
> garage. Somthing more refined, and better thought out that actually
> pushes past the previous promises and hype.

Under promise, over deliver? That'd be a new tune for Sony. lol.

> Quickly skimming this article, that might mean using a more appropriet
> central core, than the one that was originaly announced. Who Knows?
>
> Maybe i'm just being hopefull, but even at E3, I got the feeling we
> haven't seen the whole picture yet.

No doubt.


Fred Liken

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:54:02 PM6/30/05
to
<a_noethe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Your opinion is noted. I read the article as well and it hardly "piled"
anything on. It's realistic, even, due to what the facts of the industry
are.


Bill Cable

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 1:31:08 PM6/30/05
to
I don't think we're going to see the final specs on the PS3 until after
the xbox360 goes into production. There's no reason for Sony to show
all their cards yet. Right now it's pre-launch hype v/s pre-launch
hype. When the xbox360 is a final block of hardware sitting there,
it'll be hard-cold-facts v/s pre-launch hype. That's when Sony will
really start showboating, and where we'll get a much clearer picture of
how the two consoles compare. As dominant as the PS3 looked at E3, I
still think they're holding a little something extra back to dampen
xbox's launch.

--
Bill Cable - Steelers Fan & Star Wars Collector
http://CreatureCantina.com <----- funny!
ca...@creaturecantina.com

a_noethe...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 1:48:33 PM6/30/05
to
"Your opinion is noted. I read the article as well and it hardly
"piled"
anything on. It's realistic, even, due to what the facts of the
industry
are. "

I think you're being too generous. There are a large number of
completely silly statements in that article and he frequently makes
statements about which he has no proof. He just sounds like someone
who's read too many tech articles but probably does little to
programming himself.

"The transition to multi-threaded development alone will increase
development time 2 or 3 fold. "

What?!? Isn't the average development time something like 2 years?
It's now going to take 4-6 years, huh?

"The Xbox 360 is clearly going to be the easier of the two to develop
for once a game engine is multi-threaded, just because of the general
purpose nature of its hardware"

Uh, according to his prior statement, making it multi-threaded is the
major time sink. (Why it'll triple development time!) The statement
doesn't make any sense. It seems to read "the games will be easier to
program once they've already been programmed." What?!?

He also seems unable to decide whether the SPEs in the Cell are good
for physics or worthless. He basically quotes Tim Sweeney as saying
it's ideal for physics computations and then spends a couple of
paragraphs trying to convince the reader you can't do collision
detection with them, and then turns around and reiterates that
Epic/Sweeney managed to get their physics code working just fine on it,
so it must be possible. Make up your mind, Anand. (And he's ignoring
all along that there's a lot more to physics computations than
collision detection.)

Anyhoo, these are just a small number of the silly things he says in
that article. It's not really worth arguing about. Reading that
article is like reading one of Cygnus/R520's/Xenon's analyses of the
new consoles. Lots of buzzwords and pseudo-science, not much content.

Fred Liken

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 4:56:03 PM6/30/05
to
<a_noethe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> "Your opinion is noted. I read the article as well and it hardly
> "piled"
> anything on. It's realistic, even, due to what the facts of the
> industry
> are. "


> I think you're being too generous. There are a large number of
> completely silly statements in that article and he frequently makes
> statements about which he has no proof. He just sounds like someone
> who's read too many tech articles but probably does little to
> programming himself.
>
> "The transition to multi-threaded development alone will increase
> development time 2 or 3 fold. "
>
> What?!? Isn't the average development time something like 2 years?
> It's now going to take 4-6 years, huh?

To make a fundamental shift from single threaded games to multithreaded?
Yes. The first games will take more man hours. Two to three doesn't sound
that far off base with such a significant shift.

> "The Xbox 360 is clearly going to be the easier of the two to develop
> for once a game engine is multi-threaded, just because of the general
> purpose nature of its hardware"
>
> Uh, according to his prior statement, making it multi-threaded is the
> major time sink. (Why it'll triple development time!) The statement
> doesn't make any sense. It seems to read "the games will be easier to
> program once they've already been programmed." What?!?

You're obviously not comprehending the statement. It's not silly. It will
be easier to program the threads when the threads will be running on general
purpose hardware rather than a stripped down cell that has quite a bit of
contstraints due to the design.

> He also seems unable to decide whether the SPEs in the Cell are good
> for physics or worthless. He basically quotes Tim Sweeney as saying
> it's ideal for physics computations and then spends a couple of
> paragraphs trying to convince the reader you can't do collision
> detection with them, and then turns around and reiterates that
> Epic/Sweeney managed to get their physics code working just fine on it,
> so it must be possible. Make up your mind, Anand. (And he's ignoring
> all along that there's a lot more to physics computations than
> collision detection.)

You just went from him saying A is easy to to but B is hard to do, but A is
easy to do, granted your statement is simplified in that analogy. You don't
seem to understand that you're trying to find contradictions in his
discussion of oranges with statements about apples.

> Anyhoo, these are just a small number of the silly things he says in
> that article.

You don't seem to have comprehended the article, IMHO.

> It's not really worth arguing about. Reading that
> article is like reading one of Cygnus/R520's/Xenon's analyses of the
> new consoles. Lots of buzzwords and pseudo-science, not much content.

Meh, I think you just don't know what you're talking about but have big
opinions that predate the article, IMHO.


Message has been deleted

herzo...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 9:53:25 PM6/30/05
to
the article was taken down from AnandTech.com but has been reposted
here:

http://www.ansonwilson.com/anandreview.htm

VDP1

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 10:21:30 PM6/30/05
to

"Fred Liken" <fred...@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:42c4084a$0$37073$bb4e...@newscene.com...


http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050629-5054.html

Hannibal from ArsTechnica has commented on Anandtech article


theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 12:07:29 AM7/1/05
to
it does seem especially stupid since his latest article in CPU is quite
the contrary. What gives? Curry poisoning?

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 12:24:40 AM7/1/05
to
interesting article. its hard to teach old dogs new tricks :) I think
developers will get the hang of it. IMHO, they're (MS and Sony) going to
be pushing multi-tasking media convergence (not game graphics) more than
anything else.

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 12:25:50 AM7/1/05
to


he must reserve his opinions quite a bit more for printed media.

Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 8:25:49 AM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:24:40 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:
> It's still off in the distance a bit, though my friend can stream a
> video over his wireless network, and play it back on another PC in the
> TV room.
Your "friend" is so advanced!
Xbox is already doing it legitly through media center extender software
and XBMC is way ahead on this field. You can stream practically any
format via numerous protocols (SMB, XNS etc) to a television in any
room. Not too many a slew of other features (and I do mean alot), python
extension, and the prettiest, most customizable GUI you'll have ever seen.
Here is a brief look.

http://www.xboxmediacenter.com/info_project.htm

Would you like to see a screenshot?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/babanoosh/screenshot004.jpg

>
>
>
> Satellite links in each dealership. The hardware? General Instrument
> (a division of which that is now owned by Motorola). Been doin' it for
> almost a decade now. The quality? Full HDTV capable.

I'm very enthralled!
>
> Yep, the consumer/business market is gonna be a ways off yet, or the
> hardware will be costly too. Despite us having the capacity speedwise
> and hardwarewise now, they will be sure that they make us pay an
> exorbitant amount for it before we ever see it.
what exactly are you talking about? Teleconferencing? Media Streaming?
Niether are WAY off by any stretch of the imagination. Ever heard of MSN
Messenger? Microsoft isn't too concerned with making a multi-faceted,
security oriented enterprise communication tool. Its just something that
Live friends can communicate with. Exorbitant fees? It's not going to be
on a voice grade network pappy :) It won't cost (or be better) than
anyone's LAN/INternet Connection's speed. And media streaming has been
around for AWHILE now.
>
> Nice try, though.
Thanks.

elr...@pop.uky.edu

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 8:59:17 AM7/1/05
to
a_noethe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Let's see, who am I going to believe? Mark Rein, head of Epic, who has
> real experience with the hardware and with programming successful games
> and has publicly demonstrated Epic's engines running on both platforms,
> or Anand La Shrimpi, who probably hasn't programmed a console in his
> life and certainly doesn't have a PS3 or X360 development kit?

The problem is that it's difficult to trust ANYONE right now, with so
much marketing and hype. Sony and MS are buying people off left and
right. No one is going to bad-mouth a system from a company that just
gave their company a huge contract (not in public, anyway). So it makes
statements from *any* developer suspect.

Basically, the consumer will just have to wait and see for themselves.
There is no easy way to cut through all the hype and outright BS right
now. Real-World performance will ultimately tell the tale, this fall
and next spring.

-Eric

elr...@pop.uky.edu

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 9:04:15 AM7/1/05
to
Fred Liken wrote:
> It was a legitimate article. It was linked from Slashdot even. For some
> reason, it's been taken down.

Well, that explains it. The site must have gotten "slashdotted" and so
they had to take the artcle down. A mention on slashdot has been known
to bring even the most powerful server down to its knees.

-Eric

Andrew Ryan Chang

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 5:41:29 PM7/1/05
to

I would think Anand's site gets hits regularly from Slashdot...

--
Absolute clean, help teach the Moral ABC mason Hillel taught carpenter
Jesus to unite all mankind free! 6 billion strong & we're All-One!
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternal One!" Exceptions Eternally?
Absolute None! -Dr Bronner

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 10:04:33 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:25:49 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>Xbox is already doing it legitly through media center extender software
>>and XBMC is way ahead on this field.
>
>
> I was not talking about over a WAN connection. I was talking about
> a full HDTV signal stream, not some compressed WMI crap.
WMI? LOL, did you even check out the link I sent you. You should relax
and learn for a second poopy pants. It's not as though you know
everything. I'm sure at this point you'd like to believe so though.

Hard to know what the hell you're ever talking about since you're so
vague and don't really touch on anything specifically. But since we're
on that topic.......
>
> You know, OVER ten MB/s. I don't think you are there yet, even in
> all your wildest dreams, Chucko.

Hmmm.... many countries have been over that WAN throughput hurdle for
some time now. Japan and Sweden to name a few. Are you familiar with
Verizon's FIOS?

http://tinyurl.com/655lu

15Mbps down for $50.00 a month. Likewise SBCGlobal is currently working
on a similiar solution encompassing a Internet/VoIP set/IPTV package
that should be in my area within a years time. Shit man, I've been on
5Mbps/500Kbps dsl for a long time now. About time for an upgrade :)

> Tell us which broadband service you use that get's the consumer
> 10MB/s streaming capacity?

ohhh...see last point, I'm getting ahead the pace here. Even though this
wasn't even was I was talking about to begin with. You should really be
more specific since we all don't have the power of telekinesis as you
seem to.
>
> Yeah... that's what I thought... silence from your end.

Feeble, in an attempt to make you look as though you have "a" IQ. Tick
tock, tick tock.

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 10:12:49 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:25:49 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>what exactly are you talking about? Teleconferencing? Media Streaming?
>>Niether are WAY off by any stretch of the imagination.
>
>
>
> Not at the resolution you dolts are willing to accept.
>
> It IS a ways off for what I described.

You didn't describe anything.

>
> I am talking about a full 6MHz wide channel, just like TV is.
>
> The only place sending big streams now is the mil boys, the
> hospitals and unis, and the film makers to theaters.

wheeewwww.... :) Cool BEANS!
>
> "It" ain't in the home yet, and when "it" arrives, "it" will be a cut
> back, concatenated version of what they SHOULD be giving us.

Don't worry, you'll be dead in a few years with your blood pressure.
Concentrate on Fish Oil and lots of exercise.
>
> It just seems that my "it" and your "it" are two different animals
> entirely.

Try explaining what you're talking about once in awile and you won't run
into this. What you're suggesting doesn't fit into the scope of the
thread and definitely not what I'm talking about. FYI, I'm not concerned
about streaming HDTV at this point and of course it'll take a while.
LOL, LECs are still working out the kinks in QoS for VoIP. I don't mind
downloading and waiting a little while on a fat connection. And fiber to
the door is right around the corner (in urban areas). As far as home
theatre convergence (my original comments), Xbox 1 HAS IT COVERED. SO
many features; completely open source (aside from the MS SDK). Here's a
snippet since you're too lazy to link though:

XoxMediaCenter is a free open source (GPL) multimedia player for the
Xbox™ from Microsoft. Currently XboxMediaCenter can be used to
play/view most common video/audio/picture formats such as MPEG-1/2/4,
DivX, XviD, MP3, AAC, JPG, GIF plus many more less known formats
directly from a CD/DVD in Xbox DVD-ROM drive or of Xbox hard-drive, XBMC
can also stream files from a PC over a local network and even stream
media streams directly from the internet. XBMC has playlist and
slideshow functions, a weather forecast and many audio visualizations.
All these features enable the Xbox™ running XboxMediaCenter to fully
function as a multimedia jukebox. XBMC is easy to install and use, it's
very convenient and flexible plus offers a great price/performance
ratio. XBMC is of also course completely free of any adware or spyware.
(This, The XboxMediaCenter Project is also known as "Xbox Media
Center" or simply "XBMC"). Note! XBMC is a hobby project that is only
developed by volunteers in their spare-time for free. (Remember that
XboxMediaCenter does require a modded Xbox to run on or it will not
function).

XboxMediaCenter 1.1.0 point release source code supports the following:

Supported hardware platforms and Xbox options:
- Compatible with modded retail Xbox, Debug/Development-Xbox and DreamX
- Fully control XboxMediaCenter and its features via a Xbox™ IR DVD-Remote
- Fully control XboxMediaCenter and its features via Xbox™ game controller

Supported output media formats and devices:
- TV-output: 50hz/60Hz NTSC-M/J (America/Asia) and PAL (Europe/Africa)
- RCA, SCART, RF Coaxial, S-video, Component/RGB adapters available
- Widescreen (16:9) and normal-TV (4:3) aspect ratio video output support
- NTSC playback on PAL Xbox/TV and PAL playback on NTSC Xbox/TV*
- HDTV support (multiple resolutions 480p/720p/1080i and progressive scan)*
- VGA-output is also possible via third-party adapters or VGA-hacked BIOS
- LCD-display output support to view status and control XBMC with TV OFF*
- Analog audio-out (stereo/mono) via phono (RCA) connection or scart-adapter
- Digital audio-out (mono/stereo/surround) S/PDIF optical (adapter required)

Supported input media formats and devices:
- Read files directly from a CD, VCD or DVD media in the Xbox's DVD-ROM
drive**
(Support CD/DVD formats: ISO 9660 - Mode1/2/XA, UDF 1.02 and XDVDFS/CDX)
(DVD-ROM playback is on-the-fly only** (no option yet to auto-cache
to HDD first)
- Play files directly from Xbox built-in hard drive (copy first from
DVD** or network)****
- Stream media files from a computer over a local network via XNS*,
XBMSP or SMB,
(including all NAS, Network Attached Storage devices that support
SAMBA/SMB).
- XBMC XBMSP-client code updated to support "Auto-Discovery of XBMSP
servers"
- Stream supported media files from the internet (if stream format is
supported too)*
- iTunes Music Shares via DAAP (network stream from Apple iTunes on Mac
or PC)*****
- Xbox Memory Cards (note that only FAT-X formated memory cards is
supported)****
- USB Mass Storage Devices (USB-HDD's/memory) with FAT-X file-system****

Supported file/container formats:
- Audio-CD (CDDA) playback for normal audio CD's
- VCD and SVCD (Video CD) (SVCD/VCD menu's are not supported yet)
- DVD-video directly from Xbox DVD-ROM (no DVD-menu's support yet)*
- MPEG, MPG, M2V formats (inc. VCD's .dat and .bin and DVD's .vob)
- MPEG-4, MP4 (MPEG-4 video) (including DivX video containers)
- RIFF AVI (AVI 1.0) container
- OpenDML AVI (AVI 2.0) container*
- BivX (AVI with several audio streams) container
- Microsoft ASF/ASX/WMV/WMA containers *****
- QuickTime QT/MOV containers (inc. those with raw audio) *****
- Theora Video (VP3) format
- Nullsoft Steaming Video (NSV) containers*
- Nullsoft Steaming Audio (NSA) containers
- MPA, MP2, MP3 and WAV containers
- AAC, M4A, MP4 (MPEG-4 audio) unprotected containers *****
- Raw .AC3 and .DTS audio files, plus DTS with WAV-header*
- RealMedia (Real Video/Audio) RM/RAM/RA/RV/RMVB containers
- OGG and OGM containers
- Matroska (матрёшка) MKV containers
- VIVO (VIV) containers
- PVA containers
- NuppelVideo containers
- FLI and FLC containers
- Tracker Mods (18 formats supported) audio
- M3U, PLS and STRM* audio/video playlists

Supported video/audio codecs and picture formats:
- MPEG-1 (VCD/MPG/DAT) and MPEG-2 (MPEG/SVCD/DVD/VOB/DV/TY) video
- MPEG-4 ASP: DivX;-) 3.11, OpenDivX 4.0, DivX 5.x (Pro), and XviD 1.0.x
video
- MPEG-4 AVC - Advanced Video Coding (H.264): Nero Digital AVC video codec
- Windows Media Video v7, v8 and v9 (MSMpeg4/WMV v1, v2 & v3) (WMV9 via
DLL's)
- RealVideo: 1.0, 2.0 (RealPlayer G2), 3.0 (RealPlayer 8) and 4.0
(RealPlayer 9)
- RealAudio codecs: 1.0 (14.4), 2.0 (28.8), SIPRO, COOK, DNET and ATRAC3
- QuickTime 5.0, 6.0, 6.3 video and audio codecs (QDMC / QDM2) (via QT
DLL's)*
- 3ivx D4 / 3vi1 MPEG-4 video (inc. MSZH/ZLIB Compressed-Header containers)*
- Sorenson v1/v3 (SVQ1/SVQ3) QuickTime video
- Apple Graphics (SMC) video
- Theora Video (VP3) video
- On2 Technologies VP4 (VP4.0), VP5 (VP5.0), and VP6 (VP6.2) (all via
On2 DLL's)*
- On2 Technologies VP3 (VP3.0 and VP3.2) video
- Intel Indeo 3.1/3.2 (Indeo3)
- NuppelVideo (NUV)
- VIVO 1.0 and 2.0 (VIV)
- ITU H.261 video
- Creative Labs YUV (CYUV) video
- Supermac Cinepak (CVID) video
- ASUS V1 (ASV1) and ASUS V2 (ASV2) video
- Autodesk FLI and FLC Animation
- WAV and PCM audio format
- MPEG-audio layer 1, 2, and 3 (MP1, MP2 and MP3)
- OGG (Ogg Vorbis audio codec)
- WMA - Windows Media Audio v1 and v2 (WMA1/2 / DivX Audio v1/v2)
- WMA - Windows Media Audio v9 (WMA9) (via WMA9 DLL's)
- AC3 (Dolby Digital) 2.0, 5.1 and 7.1 audio in video AC3 pass-through
(S/PDIF-out)
- AC3 (Dolby Digital) 2.0 and 5.1 audio in video software decoded to
stereo analog-out
- DTS (Digital Theater Sound) 48Khz audio in DVD-Video (DTS digital
pass-through)
- DTS (DTS and DTS-WAV) 44.1Khz/48Khz audio in DVD-Video (software decoded)*
- AAC - Advanced Audio Coding (Profiles: HE, Main, LC, LTP & LD, + ER)
- M4A and MP4 (MPEG-4 Audio) (including Nero Digital MP4) *****
- FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) audio
- BMP picture/image
- JPG/JPEG picture/image
- GIF picture/image
- PNG picture/image
- TIF/TIFF picture/image
- TGA picture/image
- PCX picture/image
- ICO picture/image
- SID (Commodore 64 tunes) audio
- Tracker Mod's audio, see list bellow:
(MOD/AMF/669/DMF/DSM/FAR/GDM/IMF/IT/M15/MED/OKT/S3M/STM/SFX/ULT/UNI/XM)

Features available for video playback:
- Full-screen playback display of all supported video formats/containers
via a TV
- Auto PAL50/PAL60-switching support and auto 4:3/16:9-switching support
- Adjust Framerate (23.98<->25fps), another NTSC <=> PAL workaround
solution*
- SQL database with view by file/genre/actor/year/title and sort by
year/name/rating
- Selectable options from OSD (On Screen Display) Control Panel during
playback
- FF/RWD seeking and PAUSE in AVI/OGM/MKV/MPEG/MPG media
- MPlayer seeking (2%/10% jumping) backward and forward
- Video-Autorun, auto-plays VCD/SVCD/DVD/CD's with video file(s) upon insert
- DVD-video playback* (only IFO/VOB and CSS decode. No menu support yet***)
- Play supported video files directly from BIN, IMG, NRG and ISO
CD/DVD-images*
- Subtitle support (MicroDVD, srt, smi, vplayer, rt, ssa, aqt, sub, jss,
mpl & VobSub)
- International-language fonts for subtitles (via TTF-Fonts,
configurable in UI-Settings)*
- Bi-directional (Right to left) subtitle support (flip subs for Hebrew,
etc. languages)
- Switch between multiple subtitles in DVD-video, AVI and OGM, (but not
in MKV yet)
- Video Calibration: Adjust for TV overscan compensation and edit
subtitle positioning
- Play internet files/streams of HTTP and MMS (Microsoft Media Streaming
Protocol)*
- Play Nullsoft Steaming Video (NSV) internet files/streams (a.k.a. NTV
- Nullsoft TV)*
- Play QuickTime internet files and streams over HTTP
(Hyper-Text-Transfer-Protocol)*
- Streaming video from a TiVo over network (requires hacked TiVo running
ccXStream)*
- Streaming video from a ReplayTV (4500, 5000 or 5500 series) DVR box
over network*
- IMDb information (The Internet Movie Database) lookup for movie info
and thumbnails
- Extract IMDb URL and info from a .nfo file (if selected from under My
Videos)
- Optional media file and/or folder thumbnails for easy localization
- Smart stacking for multi-file videos option, (show/play files with 90%
name similarity)
- Switch between multiple audio-streams/tracks in DVD, AVI and OGM (not
MKV yet)
- Video bookmarking via OSD (so can resume a movie later, even after reboot)
- Different Post-Processing filters for better video quality*
- GPU YV12 to RGB converter for movie playback (greatly reduces CPU load)*
- Brightness/Contrast/Gamma controls (restores to default after after
each video)
- Flicker-filter (optional video flicker-filter with five levels,
disabled by default)
- Soften-filter (optional filter to decrease video sharpness and thus
artifacts)
- De-interlace filter (for interlaced video) implementation option
- Multiple zoom/stretch options: Zoom, Stretch 4x3 or 14x9 or 16x9,
Original Size, Custom
- Screenshot capture function (including video overlay support and OSD)
- AC3 (Dolby Digital) 2.0, 5.1 and 7.1 audio in video AC3 pass-through
(S/PDIF-out)
- AC3 (Dolby Digital) 2.0 and 5.1 audio in video software decoded to
stereo analog-out
- DTS (Digital Theater Sound) 48Khz audio in DVD-Video (DTS digital
pass-through)
- DTS (DTS and DTS-WAV) 44.1Khz/48Khz audio in DVD-Video (software decoded)*
- Option to output mono or stereo to all speakers (for 5.1 surround
speakers)

Features available for audio playback/backup:
- Playback of all supported audio formats via a TV and/or external audio
receiver
- AudioCD-Ripper, backup CDDA's to HDD in WAV, OGG or MP3 (LAME) format*
- Karaoke CDG-file support for music files (enable *.cdg via Xaraoke
Visualization)*
- SQL database with view music by Top100/Albums/Tracks/Artists/Filenames
or Recent Albums and also option to sort by Track/Filename/Date or Size
- CDDB lookup support when playing/ripping Audio-CD's (done via freedb.org)*
- Thumbnail and album information lookup for MP3's (via AMG/Allmusic.com)*
- Audio CUE sheets (.cue) support (works with all XBMC supported audio
codecs)
- Audio-Autorun, auto-plays CDDA and music DVD/CD's with audio file(s)
upon insert
- Play internet files/streams of HTTP and MMS (Microsoft Media Streaming
Protocol)*
- Play soundtracks ripped by/in Xbox dashboard (add path "soundtrack://"
to XML)
- Play supported audio files directly from BIN, IMG, NRG and ISO
CD/DVD-images
- Reads ID3v1/ID3v2 tags from MP3's, also tags from OGG, FLAC and WMA
- Reads information tags from M4A, MP4 and AAC (MPEG-4 Audio) audio-files*
- Display embedded Thumbs from info-tags in WMA, M4A, MP4, AAC audio-files
- M3U and PLS audio playlists (inc. create/save M3U audio playlists)
- SHOUTcast Internet Radio (MP3 .pls M3U playlists) playback support
- Local/native SHOUTcast recording (to MP3) onto the Xbox hard drive
- Audio Visualizations API (and several visual generators and spectrum
analysers)
- FF/RWD seeking and PAUSE during audio playback/visualization*
- Optional media file and/or folder thumbnails for easy localization
- Option to output mono or stereo to all speakers (for 5.1 surround
speakers)

Features available for picture/image viewing:
- Full-screen display of all supported picture and image formats via a TV
- Picture slideshow, including option for adding recursive to slideshows
- Picture thumbnails (automatically generated on demand)
- Optional folder thumbnails for easy localization
- View pictures directly from BIN, IMG, NRG and ISO CD/DVD-images
- Picture Zooming, rotate, move around, info, pause, next/previous picture
- Kodak PictureCD compatible* (auto-launches slideshow on CD insert)**
- Auto-launches any picture CD's on insert if images in root directory

Other and generic Graphical User Interface (GUI) features:
- Controllable via either Xbox™ DVD Remote or Xbox™ controller/game-pad
- Controllable via USB-(HID)-Mouse (Left/Right/Middle buttons and Wheel
supported)*
- Flexible XML based skinning engine with GUI skin switching (many skins
available)
- View file media listing By List, By Small Icons or By Large Icons option
- Virtual-Keyboard for manual IMDb searches and settings configurations
- Dashboard replacement mode (launch other applications and/or games)
- Show original XBE (games and applications) icons under "My Programs"
- Flatten Directory Hierarchy setting option for use under "My Programs"
- Show only default.xbe setting option for use under "My Programs"
- "My Files" file-manager, move/copy/delete local and copy from network
- "My Weather" weather forecast module (done via The Weather Channel)
- Screensavers (dim, black-screen or Matrix trails) on configurable
timer in GUI
- RSS feed in main meny (can manually disable or change feed in home.xml)
- Python Script Interpreter Engine (execute Python scripts from within XBMC)
- Shutdown-timer, to shutdown XBMC when idle, on configurable timer in GUI
- Flicker-filter (optional GUI flicker-filter with five levels, high
enabled by default)
- International-language fonts for the GUI (via TTF-Fonts, configurable
in UI-Settings)*
- Language files for translated GUI (over 28 languages so far), switch
from GUI
- GUI and video calibration (including storing calibration settings per
resolution)
- Displays system info under Settings (Build date, free space, IP,
temperature)
- Screenshot capture function, take snap shots of GUI (inc. video
overlay support)
- Configurable memory cache buffer for video/audio playback, configured
in GUI

Other non-GUI features, functions and options:
- Profiles for Settings (configure + save different hardware-setups
and/or user profiles)
- Fully re-mappable keys for DVD Remote and the game-pad (via keymap.xml)
(inc. possibility to map and use all RCA-5 IR codes from a universal
remote)
- Submenu control to add/remove/edit skin buttons easy (edit
dialogSubMenu.xml)
- Volume control (by default mapped to right thumbstick up/down, edit in
keymap.xml)
- Auto-detection of UDF 1.02, XDVDFS/CDX and ISO9660 - mode1/mode2/XA*
- Auto-launch Xbox game on insert with enable/disable optional from
within GUI
- Option to auto-launch other application upon Audio-CD/CDDA insert (set
in XML)
- Option to auto-launch other application upon DVD-Video media insert
(set in XML)
- Clock/date synchronization from a (NT SNTP) Time Server on the
network/internet
- Built-in WebServer for remote control of XBMC
(http//:xboxIPaddressHere.asp)
- Built-in FTP-Server, connect to it via a FTP client to copy files
to/from Xbox HDD
- Supports Static-IP/Subnetmask/DNS and alternative DHCP-client for
auto-config
- Network-Configuration and Setup via Graphical User Interface (Settings
=> Network)
- Auto-temperature and fan-speed control options (Settings => General =>
System)
- Harddrive (HDD) spindown (spin-down disk when XBMC is idle or use
network)*
- Emergency Recovery Console (enables the FTP-server if corrupt
xml/media files)*

* = Experimental, unfinished, unstable, buggy and/or limited
** = Most Xbox DVD-ROM drives are very picky with CD/DVD media disks,
see FAQ
*** = XBMC currently only have DVD VOB and IFO parsing support, (no menu
support)
**** = Xbox's hard drive file-system has file & folder name/character
limitations, see FAQ
***** = DRM (Digital Rights Management) protected files are not
supported by XBMC

XboxMediaCenter CVS source code in addition to above supports the following:
(WARNING! XBMC CVS code can be very unstable and is not meant for normal
users)

Supported file/container formats:
- CD-TEXT support for Audio-CD (CDDA), audio CD's that have CD-TEXT
information*

Supported video/audio codecs and picture formats:
- Improved MPEG-4 AVC - Advanced Video Coding (H.264) decoding/playback

Features available for video playback:
- Play RealMedia internet steams of HTTP + RTSP/RDT (Real Data Transport
Protocol)*
- Switch between multiple audio-streams/tracks support in MKV (Matroska)
container
- Left, Right and Stereo channel selection available for all two channel
audio-streams
- Simple stacking for multi-file videos option, (like "-CD1" & "-CD2",
"-part1" & "-part2")

Features available for audio playback/backup:
- Play RealMedia internet steams of HTTP + RTSP/RDT (Real Data Transport
Protocol)*
- Karaoke CDG-file support for music files updated and improved (plus
more integrated)*

Features available for picture/image viewing:
- Improved slideshow function/feature

XLink Kai (online gaming) front-end features:
- Kai connection/cummunity front-end******
- Kai hosting options******
- Kai text-chat******
- Kai Voice-chat (using SPEEX)******
- Kai Toast - pop up notifications for XLink Kai******

Other and generic Graphical User Interface (GUI) features:
- Context Menu feature (mapped by default to the TITLE button on the remote)
- USB-(HID)-Keyboard support, (US-layout only), (re-mappable via
keymap.xml)*
- Screensaver API for XBMC, support .xbs screensavers specially designed
for XBMC*
- New File-manager (more logical filemanager with split windows,
'commander' -style)*
- Python Script Interpreter Engine updated and improved, (for XBMC
python scripts)
- Optional splash-screen on start-up of XBMC (displayed if
"media\splash.png" available)

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 10:27:32 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:25:49 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>Ever heard of MSN
>>Messenger? Microsoft isn't too concerned with making a multi-faceted,
>>security oriented enterprise communication tool. Its just something that
>>Live friends can communicate with.
>
>
> My god... let's all take a step backwards.
>
> instant messengers are a lazy boy's way to skip IRC.
>
> NEITHER is up to snuff for what I mentioned.

What did you mention? And what does it have to do with a game system
demographic?


>
>
>>Exorbitant fees? It's not going to be
>>on a voice grade network pappy :) It won't cost (or be better) than
>>anyone's LAN/INternet Connection's speed.
>
>

> Duh. INET 2 is not for you. It will not be for the consumer. It
> is for unis and gov facilities.

ok, but what does that have to do with anything I've said?


>
>
>>And media streaming has been
>>around for AWHILE now.
>
>

> No shit. Piss poor though, and that was my whole point.

Yeah, it’s not the greatest. Never said it was. Neither are cell phone
calls line quality and QoS (as opposed to voice grade circuits) but it
doesn't mean people are not willing to sacrifice for innovation and ease
of use. It doesn't need to be. What I'm talking about isn't meant to
replace anything but merely to add to the entertainment. Why did this
conversation get so convoluted off my simple remark about Xbox 360
multi-taking and multimedia?

Nonetheless, you'd be surprised (and underestimate) at the quality of
some of the stuff I can pull of my line onto my Xbox. Decent higher res
trailers from QuickTime (especially exclusives), 128-192 KBps Shoutcast
and Web Radio, Music Videos (Yahoo Shoutcast) and a slew of shorts from
BBC, History Channel, Comedy, and many more.. Even have stock quotes
:with different portfolio sort options.

Than again maybe not. You’re the most pessimistic person I’ve ever met.

Bill never
> has been "Enterprise Ready" as he claimed, and it took him another ten
> years just to get a form of NetMeeting to work.
>
> He lies, and we buys...

This isn't alt.dos.damnbilltohell and I've never paid Redmond a penny
(except for my wonderful Xbox and a few games). Good rhyme though MC
McBedPan. buys, lies, buys,lies... I LIKE IT!


theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 10:37:20 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:04:33 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>Hmmm.... many countries have been over that WAN throughput hurdle for
>>some time now. Japan and Sweden to name a few. Are you familiar with
>>Verizon's FIOS?
>
>
> At the CORPORATE level, yes. Those connections have high attached
> costs though. DOH!
>
> I am talking about consumer level, dude. Not many consumers can
> afford such "access". Even still, they ain't stream 10MB/s streams
> over it.

Wrong and wrong again. Are you kidding me? At the coporate level, we're
talking much more than that I'm afraid. Multiplexed DS-3s and Sonet
speeds of exceptional proportion that haven't even fully matured yet.
>
> Cable modems are 10MB/s, but you'll NEVER see them use it at that
> capacity.

well, technically many modems can't even achieve that sort of throughput
(or consumer routers) but I think you're referrring to the limitation of
thicknet (coax) anyways.
>
> Electronics is always overdesigned, and never meant to be taxed at
> the stated design limits.

wow. thanks for the breakdown I'm speechless at your advanced level of
intelligence. Teach me more!
.....theone throws away his soon to be BS in Network Design out as he
just got schooled!
>
> We ain't "there" yet... just like I said.


take another look at that FIOS link. That's for consumers and is
sweeping across metropolitan areas of the US at a fast pace. Lots of
people are getting 7+ these days (at home). You should drop by
broadbandreports.com and say hi. I'm sure they'll like your facade over
there :)

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 10:40:37 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:04:33 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/655lu
>>
>>15Mbps down for $50.00 a month.
>
>
> Hmmm... that ain't NOWHERE near 10MB/s.
>
> Note the B that stands for BYTES.

>
>
>>Likewise SBCGlobal is currently working
>>on a similiar solution encompassing a Internet/VoIP set/IPTV package
>>that should be in my area within a years time. Shit man, I've been on
>>5Mbps/500Kbps dsl for a long time now. About time for an upgrade :)
>
>
> Looks like I GOT YOU this time as well.

I let you go on a typo (as I've not been so fortunate Mr. Webster), and
this is the thanks I get? WAN speeds aren't measure in bytes; I gave you
the benefit of the doubt. You're such an idiot :)
>
> There is nearly an order of magnitude of difference between the BIG
> "B" and the LITTLE "B", son. Perhaps now, you need to go re-read the
> thread with a bit more in your head.

yeah 8 bits difference huh? See last remark :) Tell me about your job
again. you replace floppy drives for a living?

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 10:41:26 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:04:33 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>ohhh...see last point, I'm getting ahead the pace here. Even though this
>>wasn't even was I was talking about to begin with. You should really be
>>more specific since we all don't have the power of telekinesis as you
>>seem to.
>
>
> What part of HDTV resolution stream do you not understand?
>

well now that you said it after the fact.


>
>>> Yeah... that's what I thought... silence from your end.
>>
>> Feeble, in an attempt to make you look as though you have "a" IQ. Tick
>>tock, tick tock.
>
>

> More baby bullshit.

how many times must you post and repost to the same shit? Can't you
gather all your brain cells and use 'em at once?

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 10:42:49 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:12:49 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>Try explaining what you're talking about once in awile and you won't run
>>into this.
>
>
> Try learning to read without adding your jack brained interpretations
> to everything.

someone has to. you lack any and all denotation.

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 10:42:18 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:12:49 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>Don't worry, you'll be dead in a few years with your blood pressure.
>>Concentrate on Fish Oil and lots of exercise.
>
>
> I ALSO know more about nutrition than you ever will.
>
> Try hemp butter. We could feed the starving nations of the world
> with it... but NOoooooo some retarded jerk know it all, JUST LIKE YOU
> claims it is detrimental to society.


LMAO, Ron, are you getting this?! I'm getting freaked out now. I need a
drink and you NEED some sleep!

Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 10:47:20 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:12:49 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>Try explaining what you're talking about once in awile and you won't run
>>into this.
>
>
>
> SnIP 422 lines of crap hype about how poorer quality is gonna be "good
> enough"
>

ee, now, I thought you'd appreciate that snip but it looks like your
blood pressure is way to high to enjoy a casual converstation tonight.
BTW, it had absolutely NOTHING to do with Poorer quality. What the fuck
are you talking about?

> This from the idiot that just has to have a HDMI connection to his
> tube.
>
> Said the cut-n-paste RETARD.

I don't have an HDMI connection but when I get a HDTV next spring you
better well belive it'll have one (or two). Hopefully a new A/V deck too
with HDMI! Why wouldn't I; It's the way home entertainment electonics is
going.

THATS 5Gbps, not GigaBYTES , you dumb bastard.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 10:57:39 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:37:20 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>Wrong and wrong again. Are you kidding me? At the coporate level, we're
>>talking much more than that I'm afraid. Multiplexed DS-3s and Sonet
>>speeds of exceptional proportion that haven't even fully matured yet.
>>
>
>
> Tell me, dipshit... what CONSUMER has a sonet network connection in
> their home?

what?
Get a clue! The discussion is about what a consumer has
> available to them.

yes, i konw.
>
> You still have yet to disseminate between bits and Bytes.

8 bits= 1 byte. Shall I start subnetting and breaking dow hexadecimal
for you? you still have yet to explain why you measure transfer speeds
in bytes.


theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 10:58:27 PM7/1/05
to

YEAH, this one is going to take a little more research huh? Damn dial-up
huh?

Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 10:59:32 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:27:32 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>Nonetheless, you'd be surprised (and underestimate) at the quality of
>>some of the stuff I can pull of my line onto my Xbox. Decent higher res
>>trailers from QuickTime (especially exclusives)...
>
>
> Yeah, BUT you watch them AFTER you receive them. That is not media
> streaming, that is downloading, son.
>
> And it CERATINLY is NOT 10MB/s streams.


I stream them :) LOL. You're right, its certainly not 10MB/s Rain Man :)

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 11:01:19 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:27:32 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:
>
>
>>This isn't alt.dos.damnbilltohell
>
>
> Actually, considering what Outhouse Express does to Usenet, EVERY
> group is just that!


Are you trying to be my friend now? What am I using for a newsreader pops?


>
>
>>and I've never paid Redmond a penny
>>(except for my wonderful Xbox and a few games).
>
>

> If you operate a windows based PC, that would make you a felony
> thief.

no. it makes my company a MS partner and I do alot of work from home :)


>
>
>>Good rhyme though MC
>>McBedPan.
>
>

> Fuck you. I can barefoot water ski... can you?

LOL!


>
>
>>buys, lies, buys,lies... I LIKE IT!
>
>

> Whatever.

;p

Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 11:10:00 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:37:20 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>well, technically many modems can't even achieve that sort of throughput
>>(or consumer routers) but I think you're referrring to the limitation of
>>thicknet (coax) anyways.
>>
> Wrong. The bottleneck on cable modems is that they are equipped
> with a mere 10base-T LAN port.
that 10base-T LAN port will never achieve 10 maximum 10Mbps throughput,
neither will the cable, which by the was is also limted to 10Mbps
>
> The 6MHz wide standard TV channel they modulate it over carries much
> much more than that.

Its a physical limitation and no FDM on thicknet will not past the
theoritical maximum of 10Mbps.
>
> Either way, they will never get utilized at their rated maximum.

no shit, thanks for reverberating what I've already said.
>
> Remember 56k? Remember how it never hooks up at 56k?

Break it down, I'm familiar with the limitations of Pulse Code
Modulation (and prior modulation methods). Sampling, Quantizing,
Encoding, Companding, and Framing. Let's expound on all of them!

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 11:10:56 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:37:20 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>wow. thanks for the breakdown I'm speechless at your advanced level of
>>intelligence. Teach me more!
>>.....theone throws away his soon to be BS in Network Design out as he
>>just got schooled!
>
>
> You're on the wrong layer, dipshit.
?
Are we talking about OSI or TCP/IP stacks now? Yet another thing you
know nothing about.....
Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 11:14:54 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:40:37 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>I let you go on a typo (as I've not been so fortunate Mr. Webster), and
>>this is the thanks I get?
>
>
>
> Bullshit. It ain't no typo. I have been talking about hi res, high
> rate data streams and you came back with an order of magnitude less.
>
> It seems you spent too much time calling me stupid.

>
>
>>WAN speeds aren't measure in bytes; I gave you
>>the benefit of the doubt. You're such an idiot :)
>
>
> When the speed is up there, the MONIKER is as well, dumbass.


what??? 80mbps? what are we at now? I know! Optical Carrier 192 @
9953.28 Mbit/s with plenty more headroom in singlemode for much, much, more.


NOTE BITS JACKASS. Just shut up, please, shut it.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 11:18:48 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:40:37 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>> There is nearly an order of magnitude of difference between the BIG
>>>"B" and the LITTLE "B", son. Perhaps now, you need to go re-read the
>>>thread with a bit more in your head.
>>
>>yeah 8 bits difference huh? See last remark :) Tell me about your job
>>again. you replace floppy drives for a living?
>
>
>
> 8 bits? that makes a 7Mb/s data rate (that which you described) a
> 0.875 MB/s data rate.
>
> My 10MB/s rate (which was described as being over a LAN, BTW)
> becomes a 81.9Mb/s stream.
>
> Yes... it's only 8 bits, dufus. It's also 8 times faster... D'oh!

Its cute. You have not an ounce of dignity. You're also quite literally
a specially challenged human being. In your feeble attempts to finally
make an ounce of sense, you purposely contort and misconstrue my words
in a grammar school comeback. Yeah, that was really what I meant :) if
that's what you need to STFU and go to sleep tonight, you win :)

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 11:26:34 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:41:26 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>how many times must you post and repost to the same shit? Can't you
>>gather all your brain cells and use 'em at once?
>
>
> It's because you keep stealing all my lines. That one... was
> perfect... for YOU.


that's what you get for being the wittiest one on the block! Are we done
now? You really make me realize how important school work is; heaven
forbid I turn out like you in my 40s. Fucking nightmare conversation.


Here. Thought you might find this of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabit

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 11:27:53 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:42:18 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:
> Dumbass. Sterile hemp seed from Morocco is readily available, and
> legal. It has the highest protein of nearly all the nuts, second only
> to the soy bean. It is chock full of omega acids as well, a cancer
> fighting agent. And it tastes great, regardless of how filling it is.
>
> Oh that's right.. it is used to build houses that are stronger and
> have a better R factor than our homes do as well.
>
> Hemp grows two feet per month. Pine grows two feet per year. You do
> the math.
>
> Had enough?
>
> Yeah... go have some more drinks.
should I post my humanities essay on the Balinese?

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 11:32:54 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:47:20 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>THATS 5Gbps, not GigaBYTES , you dumb bastard.
>
>
> Yeah, some internal throughput spec. There ain't nothing streamin'
> over a network at that speed.
>
> You just can't get over the fact that I nailed yer lame ass on that
> one. Too bad!

you're insanely rich man. you quite literally just reinvent the wheel as
you go along, befitting the argument at hand. That was just a small
illustration to show you that you are wrong and the rest of the world is
right. Its simple. Connection speeds are not measure in bytes. you
should really take a Telco class or something.

Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 11:42:58 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:57:39 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>8 bits= 1 byte. Shall I start subnetting and breaking dow hexadecimal
>>for you? you still have yet to explain why you measure transfer speeds
>>in bytes.
>>
>
> Because the term reflects a nearly 10 to one difference in the data
> rate, Network designer degree boy. Hahahaha... sure.
>
> That is why my 10MB/s term is WAY faster than that crap you put
> forth. When I called you on it, you started some "typo" claim
> bullshit, when in fact, I AM correct about no such WAN level media
> streaming capacity being available.
>
> Who'd you copy off of all those years in class? That one is nearly
> impossible to not grasp correctly. Bytes... bits... pretty simple
> shit, boy.


its impossible for me to hold a logical argument with you :) thank you
drive through. I was always talking about bits, I'm currently talking
about bits; WHAT THE HELL DOES 10MBps have to do with my op anyway!
Please tell me.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 11:51:03 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:

>
> All you sheep follow that flock now, ya hear? Baaaaa... Baaaaa...

baaahhhh.....bahhhhh.....I sound you'll never hear insomnia boy :)

Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 1, 2005, 11:53:26 PM7/1/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 03:10:00 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>Break it down, I'm familiar with the limitations of Pulse Code
>>Modulation (and prior modulation methods). Sampling, Quantizing,
>>Encoding, Companding, and Framing. Let's expound on all of them!
>
>
>
> Here's one... MPEG-2 transport streams. What is the data rate?
>
> What is the max bit error rate allowable, before there are anomalies
> in the output picture quality?


that was a rhetorical suggestion. You're not the "sharpest tool in the
shed" pappy. Oh wait, how does that line orignate? Oh nevermind, I'm
sure you'll let me know.


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:05:20 AM7/2/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 03:18:48 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>you purposely contort and misconstrue my words
>>in a grammar school comeback. Yeah, that was really what I meant :) if
>>that's what you need to STFU and go to sleep tonight, you win :)
>
>
>
> BULSHIT! I was talking about local LAN streams at the rate I
> mentioned 10MB/s,

Now its LAN, before its WAN. If it were LAN than what is your point? My
100BaseT can hang at about 70Mbps? If I dropped a little dough on a new
router, I could easily go with a gigabit configuration, surpassing 80Mbps.

and YOU popped back with some spam about a new
> "offering" on the market that was nearly 9 times slower.
the only spam is every reply you've made to my OP. I never asked for
your two cents, and you've yet to say a single thing that remotely
relates to my orignal remarks. You sir, are a obsessive, sociopathic,
stalking troll.

When called
> on it, YOU called it a mere typo. That ain't no typo, dude.

No I called what YOU wrote a typo. For the 50th time, connection speeds
aren't measured in bytes.
Then you
> got all bent out of shape, because the one thing I nailed you on is
> the one thing you just spent a shitload of time supposedly "learning".

all I’ve learned is that you're an extremely poor conversationalist with
a lot of time on your hands.
>
> Take your lumps, chump.

eat a dick, rick.

theOne

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:08:03 AM7/2/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 03:27:53 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>should I post my humanities essay on the Balinese?
>
>
> Please, keep YOUR writings to YOURSELF.

my thoughts exactly. You and sarcasm don't exactly twine do they?

theOne

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:14:57 AM7/2/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 03:32:54 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>Connection speeds are not measure in bytes. you
>>should really take a Telco class or something.
>
>
>
> Media stream are though, dumbass.
I'm sorry, media streams don't follow into a special class. Connection
speeds are connection speeds and they are defined in bits per second.
Simple, Rudimentary, Shut the fuck up.

Read the thread. I was talking
> about a streaming video. Plain and simple. The claim still stands.
> We won't be seeing any hi res, high rate streams any time soon.


WHO EVER THE FUCK said we would be seeing what you describe any time
soon? Why did I ever entertain this conversation with you? you are so
fucking desperate for some conversation in your lonely pathetic life,
it's hilarious! Are you married? Is your family dead?


EARTH TO FUCK HEAD:


SEE OP:

interesting article. its hard to teach old dogs new tricks :) I think
developers will get the hang of it. IMHO, they're (MS and Sony) going to
be pushing multi-tasking media convergence (not game graphics) more than
anything else.


SEE YOUR REPLY:

Jeez.. and to think that Billy claimed his OS has been "enterprise
ready" since NT came out. One of his beg deals was going to be
teleconferenceing capability. That fell flat on it's face.

It's still off in the distance a bit, though my friend can stream a
video over his wireless network, and play it back on another PC in the
TV room.

I think it is a ways off yet, when one considers the security these
corporations are going to want.

Anyone here even know how GM and Ford trains their mechanics?

Satellite links in each dealership. The hardware? General Instrument
(a division of which that is now owned by Motorola). Been doin' it for
almost a decade now. The quality? Full HDTV capable.

Yep, the consumer/business market is gonna be a ways off yet, or the
hardware will be costly too. Despite us having the capacity speedwise
and hardwarewise now, they will be sure that they make us pay an
exorbitant amount for it before we ever see it.

Nice try, though.


WHAT THE FUCK DOES YOUR RAMBLINGS ABOUT BILLY OR YOUR FRIEND WHO CAN
STREAM A VIDEO OR SAT LINKS OR GENERAL INSTRUMENT HAVE TO DO WITH ME,OR
MY COMMENTS. I AM NOT YOUR FRIEND and YOU'VE ALIENATED YOURSELF WITH 99%
OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS GROUP. I'VE PROBABLY BEEN PLONKED BY HALF THE
PEOPLE HERE TOO FOR ENTERTAINING YOUR STUPID ASS. PISS OFF!

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:25:02 AM7/2/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 04:05:20 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>No I called what YOU wrote a typo. For the 50th time, connection speeds
>>aren't measured in bytes.
>
>
> DATA streams ARE, dipshit! Go read it again. We watched a movie,
> which was streamed over the LAN at 10MB/s, the full, hi res data rate.
>
> That is what I said. That is what I meant. No typo on my part...
> at all.


what? you mean this jibberish?

It's still off in the distance a bit, though my friend can stream a
video over his wireless network, and play it back on another PC in the
TV room.


How does this translate to "10MB/s High Definition over a WAN link"?

as you can see....
all you said originally was something about a friend playing a movie
across his LAN. My reply was Big fucking deal; its how I watch (and
stream) all movies (mpeg4, mpeg2, mpeg1), listen to all my music, and
guests view all my pictures, on a nice television front end GUI. Then
you distorted it into this rampage about future streaming technologies
and enormous consumer bandwidths that has consumed wasted hours.

Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:30:59 AM7/2/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 04:14:57 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>I'm sorry, media streams don't follow into a special class.
>
>
> OK.

>
>
>>Connection
>>speeds are connection speeds and they are defined in bits per second.
>>Simple, Rudimentary, Shut the fuck up.
>
>
> Dumbass. The rate a DVD reader streams its data off is measured in
> MB/s. I was talking about a media stream, plain and simple.
irregardless of what you're streaming over a LAN or WAN, its measureed
in bits. Plain and simple. What the fuck does the fact that you're
streaming a dvd have to do with it? Is that what you freind once
streamed on his LAN and you thought it was the coolest?
>
> The rate that memory subsystems fill or empty is as well.

yes, but not necessary to say
>
> The rate that video RAM is measured in is as well.

same
>
> YOU shut the fuck up, chump.

fuck you gramps, you're lucky you vent your life's frustrations online,
otherwise you'd be getting a certain keyboard backhand to end this
nonsense. it'll help you sleep :)

Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:32:37 AM7/2/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 04:14:57 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>WHAT THE FUCK DOES YOUR RAMBLINGS ABOUT BILLY OR YOUR FRIEND WHO CAN
>>STREAM A VIDEO OR SAT LINKS OR GENERAL INSTRUMENT HAVE TO DO WITH ME,OR
>>MY COMMENTS. I AM NOT YOUR FRIEND and YOU'VE ALIENATED YOURSELF WITH 99%
>>OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS GROUP. I'VE PROBABLY BEEN PLONKED BY HALF THE
>>PEOPLE HERE TOO FOR ENTERTAINING YOUR STUPID ASS. PISS OFF!
>
>
> Hahahaha,,,, That's what you get for jumping on me in the other
> thread. You just couldn't get enough... Whatsa matta, Network Design
> boy? had too many millibits go through your brain today?
>
> Bwuahahahaha.... No excuses. You shouldn't get even a cert, much
> less a degree.


really means alot coming from you :) my life is just utterly ruined cuz
some 80 year old man came in here spilling his spit all over the
keyboard. Seriously man, are you married? have kids?

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

theOne

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:35:38 AM7/2/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 04:25:02 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>How does this translate to "10MB/s High Definition over a WAN link"?
>
>
>
> That's exactly what I am saying. YOU cannot pass that degree of
> quality over a the net. It is a long way off. THAT is what I said.
>
> Go BUY a clue. That must be what you did for your test answers.


wrong answer..again...this is what you said....


It's still off in the distance a bit, though my friend can stream a
video over his wireless network, and play it back on another PC in the
TV room.


what is It? You didn't reply to anything I stated. And than you said
something about a friend that can stream movies on LAN wifi? Tell me
again. WTF does that have to do with high definition across the
internet? and when did I say the xbox 360 would be doing that?

theOne

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:38:28 AM7/2/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 04:25:02 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>. Then
>>you distorted it into this rampage about future streaming technologies
>>and enormous consumer bandwidths that has consumed wasted hours.
>
>
>
> Your wasted hours. I am sitting here taking in my prescription.
>
> Now, I am off to kick some billiard tard ass at the pool hall.
>
> Laughing all the way...

LOL, I'm so glad that I can enjoy life without medication :)

theOne

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:39:13 AM7/2/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 04:30:59 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>fuck you gramps, you're lucky you vent your life's frustrations online,
>>otherwise you'd be getting a certain keyboard backhand to end this
>>nonsense. it'll help you sleep :)
>
>
>
> Right. I'd let your lame ass come at me, then let you hurt yourself
> with your own inertia, dumbass.

than piledriver me with you walking cane huh? ewwww....bammmm.....ouchhhh

theOne

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:53:19 AM7/2/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 04:30:59 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>fuck you gramps, you're lucky you vent your life's frustrations online,
>>otherwise you'd be getting a certain keyboard backhand to end this
>>nonsense. it'll help you sleep :)
>
>
>
> Right. I'd let your lame ass come at me, then let you hurt yourself
> with your own inertia, dumbass.


http://tinyurl.com/bn6wc

HOLY BEJEZZUS you live a colorful life. I didn't know you do this sort
of thing all the time. Wow, you are a loser! Spending your golden days
picking childish fights across the internet. In between innovating
technology of course right?

.......::::::::IF ONLY YOU HAD A LIFE POTHEAD::::::.......

theOne

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 1:04:10 AM7/2/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 04:25:02 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>. Then
>>you distorted it into this rampage about future streaming technologies
>>and enormous consumer bandwidths that has consumed wasted hours.
>
>
>
> Your wasted hours. I am sitting here taking in my prescription.
>
> Now, I am off to kick some billiard tard ass at the pool hall.
>
> Laughing all the way...
As many times as you pissed yourself, I doubt that very much.

theOne

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 1:07:41 AM7/2/05
to
TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 04:25:02 GMT, theOne <sn...@dodgeit.com> Gave us:

>
>
>>How does this translate to "10MB/s High Definition over a WAN link"?
>
>
>
> That's exactly what I am saying. YOU cannot pass that degree of
> quality over a the net. It is a long way off. THAT is what I said.
>

again that isn't EXACTLY what you said at all (not even close). But
then, in your delusional world, it's ok for YOU to use loose terms and
continously connotate ambiguity, just not the other fellas right?

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages