Post by: Xbox-Scene on April 05, 2006, 01:27:00 PM
Xbox Team on Backwards Compatibility-- Posted by XanTium on April 5 14:51 EST
From the Xbox Development Team:
Quote
Xbox is based on a Pentium III processor, while Xbox 360 is based on a custom triple-core PowerPC processor co-developed with IBM. This is but one of many differences between the platforms, but one people are familiar with. Digging deeper, you would find that nearly everything has changed. Graphics, audio, networking, etc. have all been replaced with different subsystems.
Xbox games all run on the assumption they are being run on the exact set of original hardware. Changing anything usually means breaking some kind of behavior games depend upon. Therefore, Xbox 360's backwards compatibility had to emulate the exact configuration of an original Xbox.
One way to do this is embed the parts of an original Xbox into an Xbox 360. This was the path Sony chose to use in PlayStation 2's compatibility. However, Microsoft doesn't own the intellectual property in Xbox: it's owned by various other companies including Intel. Microsoft wouldn't have the freedom to take the parts needed for compatibility, shrink them down, and put them inside Xbox 360. And no one would want a bigger power supply any way :)
Another option is software emulation. Many of you already know this is the path Microsoft has chosen. Our software emulator works much like emulators for other platforms like SNES and Genesis. However, one key difference to keep in mind is that the Xbox emulator is emulating the immediate previous generation of games. Most emulators come out many years after a console has launched and run on PCs that represent quantum leaps in performance.
Read More: Xbox Development Team Blog
Post by: lmaolmao on April 05, 2006, 01:07:00 PM
QUOTE(Xbox-Scene @ Apr 5 2006, 08:58 PM) 
quantum leaps
OH BOY!
Post by: Gobelet on April 05, 2006, 01:43:00 PM
QUOTE
However, one key difference to keep in mind is that the Xbox emulator is emulating the immediate previous generation of games. Most emulators come out many years after a console has launched and run on PCs that represent quantum leaps in performance.
Well cxbx was a nice project, which worked kind of well, because of the simple architecture of the first Xbox. After all, it's basically a PC. It couldn't be that hard to emulate.
Why was it dropped, by the way?
This post has been edited by Gobelet: Apr 5 2006, 08:44 PM
Post by: jasdev on April 05, 2006, 01:44:00 PM
Post by: downlowfunk on April 05, 2006, 02:09:00 PM
Post by: stezo2k on April 05, 2006, 02:01:00 PM
QUOTE(Gobelet @ Apr 5 2006, 09:14 PM)
Well cxbx was a nice project, which worked kind of well, because of the simple architecture of the first Xbox. After all, it's basically a PC. It couldn't be that hard to emulate.
Why was it dropped, by the way?
yeah it was quite good, probably due to MS i recon but i cant be sure
interesting article btw, i'm still quite impressed that the 360 is so powerful it can actually fully emulate an xbox1, i mean it would require a hell of a lot of CPU power unless it used high level emulation
Post by: Itcouldbeyou on April 05, 2006, 02:10:00 PM
Well they still could team up with Reactos, port it over to PowerPC and then use Cxbx to... Well theyre the Windows guys they have the source code anyway...
Probably its easier the way they do it
And: Heck yes theyre using some kind of high level emulation, I don't think the 360 would be powerfull enough to run the Xbox in a VMware or VirtualPC or alike!
Post by: Altima NEO on April 05, 2006, 04:42:00 PM
yeah, there are xbox emulators, but none of them emulate perfectly
the fact that ms can even emulate as many games as they have at the quality that they have been getting is amazing work
its also cool to note, that MS acknoledges snes and genesis emulators, lol
Post by: ArkitekT on April 05, 2006, 04:46:00 PM
Obviously it can be done.
They have already done it.
Perhaps this is an excuse for only a few games being backwards compatible and not all right away.
This all works in M$ favor because they now get to choose what is and is not compatible and we the consumer are at the mercy of this giant corporation.
Kinda funny how that works.
Even if they could make them all backwards compatible right away (and who knows they may have that ability and are feeding us all a line of crap, i am not THAT tech savvy to say whether they can or can't) M$ still wouldn't because they can still reap the benefits of the original xbox, which would be useless if backwards compatibility for xbox were 100%.
We are not that stupid M$!
ArkitekT
Post by: psyantist on April 05, 2006, 05:16:00 PM
-ArkitekT
Don't lump me in with your retarded ass. Who effen cares if the 360 is backwards compatable anyway. Nobody can sit here and say they spend a majority of their time playing old games from old systems. If they do, they are in need of a roundhouse kick to the face from Chuck Norris. Hell, I can't even go back and play 1st generation games cause they are so antiquated, let alone play nes or genesis crap.
Backwards compatability is all novelty and the only "cool" thing is the ability to play xbox games at a slightly higher resolution, if that is "cool". Get off MS, at least they are trying to do something. And for your conspiracy theory of being at the giant corporation's mercy of what is and isn't compatable........lay down the bong.....paranoid freak.
Post by: C-5 on April 05, 2006, 05:17:00 PM
If I want to play an original Xbox game... I turn on one of my original Xboxes.
Post by: Statecowboy on April 05, 2006, 04:46:00 PM
QUOTE(psyantist @ Apr 5 2006, 05:47 PM)
"We are not that stupid M$!"
-ArkitekT
Don't lump me in with your retarded ass. Who effen cares if the 360 is backwards compatable anyway. Nobody can sit here and say they spend a majority of their time playing old games from old systems. If they do, they are in need of a roundhouse kick to the face from Chuck Norris. Hell, I can't even go back and play 1st generation games cause they are so antiquated, let alone play nes or genesis crap.
Backwards compatability is all novelty and the only "cool" thing is the ability to play xbox games at a slightly higher resolution, if that is "cool". Get off MS, at least they are trying to do something. And for your conspiracy theory of being at the giant corporation's mercy of what is and isn't compatable........lay down the bong.....paranoid freak.
Wow, a little touchy. And I CAN say that the majority of my time is spent playing older games online with my friends who can't afford or find a 360. And old NES and SNES stuff is not crap, some of those games have a lot higher "playable" factor than a lot of newer gen games that might look flashy.
It's kind of like buying an older car. You don't buy it to get the latest and greatest of things, you buy it for it's classic appeal. Either way, no need to be such a dick.
Post by: erexx on April 05, 2006, 05:25:00 PM
QUOTE
"I hope Sony doesn't alienate gamers based on an excuse like technical requirements."
The only "excuses" I hear are coming from the Xbox Team.
Post by: Martinchris23 on April 05, 2006, 06:09:00 PM
It's nice to see some output from the Xbox camp in relation to BC, even if it looks like an excuse to generate sympathy for the lack of BC games.
Sure, explaining what's involved to write an emulator is pretty cool if you're not a coder/programmer/debugger. But let's not forget - you're the ones getting paid the big bucks to do this! Surely you're just doing your job?? Hell, lets talk about REAL dedication - the guys who write the earlier generation console emulators who get paid diddly squat for their efforts. In all seriousness, if it's your job to write an Xbox emulator for the 360, then stop whining and do it already!!!!!
I would LOVE to see more Xbox games playable on the 360 - there are so many out there which still have a huge playability factor combined with some excellent value deals, it only makes sense to keep it alive.
If you're having trouble emulating the Xbox on the 360 (and it really does both look and sound that way), then why not release a dev kit to the public for others to work on this? I know of quite a few emulation groups who would love the chance to get their teeth into the project.
Even though I don't think it would be utilised, advertising the 360 as 100% fully BC with Xbox games would be HUGE boost in popularity. Even though the PS2 was BC with the PlayStation, a lot of people didn't really take advantage of the fact - having the ability was enough. Considering the PS3 is released later this year and will probably be advertised as 100% fully BC with previous PlayStation/PS2 games, any leverage you have on shifting people to 360 before the PS3 release will be a big advantage.
My 2c, for what they're worth!
Post by: compton on April 05, 2006, 06:41:00 PM
just Last generation PSX was almost flawlessly emulated by PC's who's stats are barely worth remembering and there has been little change since. i remember renting games and coping them to my HD with CDRWin and playing them with ePSXe on their release date (FFIX.)it was harder to find games that didn't work, although most required some small game specific tweaks.
unlike a free PSX emulator, the XBox 360 reverse game compatability IS the EXCEPTION.But if they want to make there jobs sound harder then they really are, then so be it.
You would think they are emulating the 360 on an original XBox, the way they make it sound...
Post by: jherre6 on April 05, 2006, 06:53:00 PM
Post by: kowrip on April 05, 2006, 07:46:00 PM
QUOTE(compton @ Apr 6 2006, 01:12 AM) 
their comment about Systems being emulated by computers that are Quantum leaps above is off base.
just Last generation PSX was almost flawlessly emulated by PC's who's stats are barely worth remembering and there has been little change since. i remember renting games and coping them to my HD with CDRWin and playing them with ePSXe on their release date (FFIX.)it was harder to find games that didn't work, although most required some small game specific tweaks.
unlike a free PSX emulator, the XBox 360 reverse game compatability IS the EXCEPTION.But if they want to make there jobs sound harder then they really are, then so be it.
You would think they are emulating the 360 on an original XBox, the way they make it sound...
Yeah, I agree. With 3 CPU cores running at 3.2GHz, they could dedicate an ENTIRE single core to emulating the Xbox. That's at LEAST 4 times the power of the 733MHz processor in the Xbox. Clearly, this should be enough for decent emulation. It seems to me that they are half-assing the BC stuff just to be able to say "we are backwards compatible", similar to "offering a $299 core Xbox system". It's more about being able to present something than being able to deliver it.
Post by: Tomobobo on April 05, 2006, 07:46:00 PM
They're not going to release backwards compatability for these popular games off the bat because.....they can make more money by making you buy the new 360 versions of the game. Why let you play Madden 06 on the 360 using your orriginal Xbox disc when they can make you pay 60 dollars for the new version. If you want to play Madden on the 360, the only option is to spend 60 bucks. Same with Burnout and NBA and half of the other bad ass games that aren't back compat.
That's just how I see it.
Post by: ArkitekT on April 05, 2006, 08:05:00 PM
QUOTE(psyantist @ Apr 5 2006, 11:47 PM)
"We are not that stupid M$!"
-ArkitekT
Don't lump me in with your retarded ass. Who effen cares if the 360 is backwards compatable anyway. Nobody can sit here and say they spend a majority of their time playing old games from old systems. If they do, they are in need of a roundhouse kick to the face from Chuck Norris. Hell, I can't even go back and play 1st generation games cause they are so antiquated, let alone play nes or genesis crap.
Backwards compatability is all novelty and the only "cool" thing is the ability to play xbox games at a slightly higher resolution, if that is "cool". Get off MS, at least they are trying to do something. And for your conspiracy theory of being at the giant corporation's mercy of what is and isn't compatable........lay down the bong.....paranoid freak.
Wow! Ignorance rears its ugly head!
Just becauses your retarded ass doesn't play the original xbox games doesn't mean that other people don't.
Such a narrow minded point of view. I did not say that M$ was intentionally not making games backwards compatible, but the possibility exists. Use your brain Mental Midget.
Maybe you need to put the bong down. I don't even smoke.
Wake up and smell reality!
Oh and by the way, learn how to spell "compatible" genius!
This post has been edited by ArkitekT: Apr 6 2006, 03:14 AM
Post by: kowrip on April 05, 2006, 07:37:00 PM
QUOTE(ArkitekT @ Apr 6 2006, 02:36 AM)
Wow! Ignorance rears its ugly head!
Just becauses your retarded ass doesn't play the original xbox games doesn't mean that other people don't.
Such a narrow minded point of view. I did not say that M$ was intentionally not making games backwards compatible, but the possibility exists. Use your brain Mental Midget.
Maybe you need to put the bong down. I don't even smoke.
Wake up and smell reality!
Agreed. He makes it seem like the original Xbox games are ANCIENT and lacking in playability when compared to 360 games. Many years ago, I could see some weight in his argument. Each generation was a drastic improvement over the previous. However, these last few generations of games have gotten to the point where there are so many enjoyable games that people would still like to play. 100% BC is definitely something I wouldn't mind seeing, even if 80% of the games I play are for the 360.
Post by: sew3521 on April 05, 2006, 08:19:00 PM
QUOTE(compton @ Apr 5 2006, 06:12 PM)
their comment about Systems being emulated by computers that are Quantum leaps above is off base.
just Last generation PSX was almost flawlessly emulated by PC's who's stats are barely worth remembering and there has been little change since. i remember renting games and coping them to my HD with CDRWin and playing them with ePSXe on their release date (FFIX.)it was harder to find games that didn't work, although most required some small game specific tweaks.
unlike a free PSX emulator, the XBox 360 reverse game compatability IS the EXCEPTION.But if they want to make there jobs sound harder then they really are, then so be it.
You would think they are emulating the 360 on an original XBox, the way they make it sound...
I dont think u realize that the more powerful a platform is the harder it is to emulate it...
Post by: Mega_mil on April 05, 2006, 08:57:00 PM
QUOTE(compton @ Apr 6 2006, 01:12 AM)
their comment about Systems being emulated by computers that are Quantum leaps above is off base.
just Last generation PSX was almost flawlessly emulated by PC's who's stats are barely worth remembering and there has been little change since. i remember renting games and coping them to my HD with CDRWin and playing them with ePSXe on their release date (FFIX.)it was harder to find games that didn't work, although most required some small game specific tweaks.
unlike a free PSX emulator, the XBox 360 reverse game compatability IS the EXCEPTION.But if they want to make there jobs sound harder then they really are, then so be it.
You would think they are emulating the 360 on an original XBox, the way they make it sound...
I think you misunderstood their point. Yeah you can play PSX games on the PC, but this has only been going on for a few years now. They are trying to emulate a system that is 1 generation old. Think of it this way. Is the PS2 emulator out there fully working? No it's not. It plays SOME games but not enough to really rely on your PC to replace your PS2 yet. It's the same thing with the xbox 1. It's not going to be that easy since the hardware isn't remotely the same.
This post has been edited by Mega_mil: Apr 6 2006, 03:59 AM
Post by: thax on April 05, 2006, 08:27:00 PM
QUOTE(kowrip @ Apr 6 2006, 02:17 AM)
Yeah, I agree. With 3 CPU cores running at 3.2GHz, they could dedicate an ENTIRE single core to emulating the Xbox. That's at LEAST 4 times the power of the 733MHz processor in the Xbox. Clearly, this should be enough for decent emulation.
This seems to be a good example of the general level of understanding of emulation. The 733 MHz Intel CISC processor in the xbox is very difficult to emulate using a 3200 MHz PPC RISC tri-core processor. MS is not using a just a single core for the emulation, they are using all 3 and it is barely enough power. Many instructions on the Intel CPU that take just a single clock require hundreds of clocks in overhead and execution on the RISC processor. This is because the RISC processor simply does not have the large set of instructions that the Intel CPU has.
A large part of the problem is ensuring that the sum of all the instructions executed take the same amount of time executing on the new processor as the old. Experiments with adjusting the clock speed on the original xbox has shown that even a small deviation in clock speed causes many games to become unplayable or unstable.
Compounding this problem is working out the bugs. This is hard work when so many variables and other bugs are in play to when trying to isolate the problem. Despite what all the armchair computer scientists think, this isn't easily accomplished with just a few months of work.
Post by: makaveli91 on April 05, 2006, 09:59:00 PM
Post by: T Ghost on April 05, 2006, 10:58:00 PM
Post by: Alex548 on April 06, 2006, 02:45:00 AM
You also must consider they're competing with Sony in the console market. What was one of the huge selling points the PS2 had? Backwards compatibility. MANY people chose the PS2 over the xbox simply because they would still be able to play their old PS1 games on the new console. Failure to make the 360 backwards compatible would have crippled the 360's selling potential. M$ is already ahead of Sony by releasing the 360. They've seperated themselves even further with their Xbox Live service. Backwards compatibility is just icing on the cake.
Post by: Martinchris23 on April 06, 2006, 06:29:00 AM
1. We're not talking about an underground emulation group, who have to reverse engineer both consoles in order to work out how things are going to calculate - although MS don't own the intellectual rights to the Xbox, it's still their console as is the 360.
2. These guys are top-level programmers who should be able to do this stuff in their sleep. MS only hire the best for the job- they have the money to do this, remember?
3. The programmers have had the Xbox 360 a LOT longer than a few months. I would imagine that it's been over a YEAR now since the first development kit has been available within MS itself.
4. Agreeing with Tomobobo, the lack of BC games has NOTHING to do with competency or ability. Is it just a coincidence that some of the latest EA games (ie FIFA 06 - MILES better than FIFA 06RTFWC) aren't yet available and yet games like Black are already on the BC list?? If this really is the case, then MS are shooting themselves in the foot.
I'm 99% sure MS could write an emulator for the 360 and have it listed in the Dashboard for us to just insert an Xbox game and play it. There are too many commercial reasons why this wouldn't happen.
Martin
Post by: FlashKick on April 06, 2006, 09:24:00 AM
QUOTE(thax @ Apr 6 2006, 03:34 AM)
This seems to be a good example of the general level of understanding of emulation. The 733 MHz Intel CISC processor in the xbox is very difficult to emulate using a 3200 MHz PPC RISC tri-core processor. MS is not using a just a single core for the emulation, they are using all 3 and it is barely enough power. Many instructions on the Intel CPU that take just a single clock require hundreds of clocks in overhead and execution on the RISC processor. This is because the RISC processor simply does not have the large set of instructions that the Intel CPU has.
A large part of the problem is ensuring that the sum of all the instructions executed take the same amount of time executing on the new processor as the old. Experiments with adjusting the clock speed on the original xbox has shown that even a small deviation in clock speed causes many games to become unplayable or unstable.
Compounding this problem is working out the bugs. This is hard work when so many variables and other bugs are in play to when trying to isolate the problem. Despite what all the armchair computer scientists think, this isn't easily accomplished with just a few months of work.
yeah, most think that the 360s PPC is so many times superior to the xbox CPU simply going by clock speed. it is probably as hard as they say, and who are we to say otherwise (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
either way, i hope they continue with improving it(like with ninja gaiden) and adding new games into the list.
Post by: arciced on April 06, 2006, 09:35:00 AM
Post by: psyantist on April 06, 2006, 10:13:00 AM
QUOTE(ArkitekT @ Apr 6 2006, 02:36 AM)
Just becauses
First off, if you are going to knock someone for spelling, make sure you can spell yourself, "mental midget". Secondly, it's good to see you are hanging with your conspiracy theory of MS keeping things from people, "becauses" they are MS and that is what MS does.
People here can't honestly say they go back and play games like Prince of Persia "Sands of Time" and think to themselves, wow this is better than "Warrior Within" or "Two Thrones" or go back to Madden 2004 when 2005 came out. All the Ghost Recons, new one out and you move along. GTA - Yup, I'd rather play "GTA 3" over "San Andreas" anytime.
As for old NES, SEGA and Arcade classics, there are a select few that people like to play. I'm not that naive to realize that, but honestly the vast majority of games on those systems are crap. I like some Mike Tyson's Punchout and Galaga every now and then but I sure am not going to waste valuable gaming time on older games when newer more cutting edge games are yet to be played.
Classic games are just that, Classic. Remember them for their greatness and move on.
And, ArkitekT, I am awake and I have smelled reality - It looks like a house, is a pain like a job and reaks of responsibilty. Reality is not having the luxury of sitting in my Mom's house sponging off her retirement so I can sit around and waste away playing games of yore. Hat Rack.
Post by: kowrip on April 06, 2006, 11:27:00 AM
QUOTE(thax @ Apr 6 2006, 03:34 AM)
This seems to be a good example of the general level of understanding of emulation. The 733 MHz Intel CISC processor in the xbox is very difficult to emulate using a 3200 MHz PPC RISC tri-core processor. MS is not using a just a single core for the emulation, they are using all 3 and it is barely enough power. Many instructions on the Intel CPU that take just a single clock require hundreds of clocks in overhead and execution on the RISC processor. This is because the RISC processor simply does not have the large set of instructions that the Intel CPU has.
HUNDREDS of clocks on the RISC ? What's an example of a CISC instruction that would take "hundreds" of clock ticks on a RISC processor ? I'd like to know. I'm aware of the different types of instruction sets, but I find it hard to believe that a single instruction would need hundreds of clock ticks to be executed on RISC.
Post by: thax on April 06, 2006, 11:58:00 AM
QUOTE(kowrip @ Apr 6 2006, 05:58 PM)
HUNDREDS of clocks on the RISC ? What's an example of a CISC instruction that would take "hundreds" of clock ticks on a RISC processor ? I'd like to know. I'm aware of the different types of instruction sets, but I find it hard to believe that a single instruction would need hundreds of clock ticks to be executed on RISC.
Post by: thax on April 06, 2006, 12:19:00 PM
QUOTE(Martinchris23 @ Apr 6 2006, 01:00 PM)
1. We're not talking about an underground emulation group, who have to reverse engineer both consoles in order to work out how things are going to calculate - although MS don't own the intellectual rights to the Xbox, it's still their console as is the 360.
They still need to reverse engineer the games, which is the hard part of the equation. The hardware specifications give the team what the hardware should do, but sometimes there are undocumented instructions or behaviour that doesn't match specifications.
QUOTE
2. These guys are top-level programmers who should be able to do this stuff in their sleep. MS only hire the best for the job- they have the money to do this, remember?
There is only so good a human can get, the law of deminishing returns applies. MS does not genetically modify their employees to be super humans. Building an emulation engine of a complex platform is time consuming.
QUOTE
3. The programmers have had the Xbox 360 a LOT longer than a few months. I would imagine that it's been over a YEAR now since the first development kit has been available within MS itself.
The final kit has been around for only about 6 months now. Althought the emulation work probably started about a year ago, as MS decided to offer BC late in the game.
QUOTE
I'm 99% sure MS could write an emulator for the 360 and have it listed in the Dashboard for us to just insert an Xbox game and play it. There are too many commercial reasons why this wouldn't happen.
If MS could release a 100% perfect backward emulation engine they would as it would boost sales of the x360, which is the platform that MS wants to be successful. It makes sense because if the x360 acheives market dominance they will make more money then the small amount they would realise with the legacy xbox sales. In addition the venture in the console arena is a fight to control the living room for MS, when MS is not in the dominant market postion they do not hold back.
Post by: kowrip on April 06, 2006, 06:55:00 PM
QUOTE(thax @ Apr 6 2006, 07:05 PM)
A matrix multiplication.
A matrix multiplication is NOT a single instruction. What is the name of the instruction that does a matrix multiply ? I have the entire Intel Celeron instruction set reference right in front of me. The word matrix doesn't even appear in there. Regardless, even if there are some complicated instructions in CISC, the cost-per-instruction is much higher for CISC. So, if it takes a RISC processor 50 instructions to accomplish the same thing, it still wouldn't be 50 times as long because the cost-per-instruction is much less on RISC.
This post has been edited by kowrip: Apr 7 2006, 01:57 AM
Post by: madmab on April 06, 2006, 09:27:00 PM
I saw this lame excuse coming over 6 months ago.
Waaa waaa waaa.
Post by: Martinchris23 on April 07, 2006, 07:04:00 AM
QUOTE(thax @ Apr 6 2006, 06:26 PM)
They still need to reverse engineer the games, which is the hard part of the equation. The hardware specifications give the team what the hardware should do, but sometimes there are undocumented instructions or behaviour that doesn't match specifications.
The hardware is the lowest common denominator - all Xbox games are created to work with it. MS know the architecture since they wrote the XDK for developers. Surely with this amount of knowledge, writing a software emulator wouldn't be *that* hard?
QUOTE(thax @ Apr 6 2006, 06:26 PM)
The final kit has been around for only about 6 months now. Althought the emulation work probably started about a year ago, as MS decided to offer BC late in the game.
The RETAIL kit was released to the public around 6 months ago with Halo and Halo2 being BC out of the box. Why? Because Bungie knew Halo 3 was still a long way away. A lot of consecutive games have the same engine from year to year - take FIFA 2004. There really is no difference between this and FIFA 06 - you can tell because the same bugs are there year after year. As I said, Black has been out for no time at all and is already BC - doesn't this strike you as a little suspicious?
Post by: arcice3 on April 07, 2006, 09:38:00 AM
Post by: KAGE360 on April 07, 2006, 09:50:00 AM
QUOTE(Martinchris23 @ Apr 7 2006, 09:11 AM)
The hardware is the lowest common denominator - all Xbox games are created to work with it. MS know the architecture since they wrote the XDK for developers. Surely with this amount of knowledge, writing a software emulator wouldn't be *that* hard?
knowing the architecture is only part of the problem. making a specific architecture "act" like another architecture that is vastly different is not easy at all.
QUOTE(Martinchris23 @ Apr 7 2006, 09:11 AM)
The RETAIL kit was released to the public around 6 months ago with Halo and Halo2 being BC out of the box. Why? Because Bungie knew Halo 3 was still a long way away. A lot of consecutive games have the same engine from year to year - take FIFA 2004. There really is no difference between this and FIFA 06 - you can tell because the same bugs are there year after year. As I said, Black has been out for no time at all and is already BC - doesn't this strike you as a little suspicious?
final dev kits were released the august before launch. bungie has nothing to do with BC beyond providing the source code to the BC team. yes halo 1 and halo 2 were BC out of the box but bungie/MS also admitted that the emulator wasnt finished. obviously they were going to spend the most time optimizing and perfecting the emu. code for halos, its their biggest franchise, but you can only do so much planning and coding until you get the final hardware. why is it a little suspicious that black got on the BC list so soon after its release? all this tells me is that all of the interviews and reports of the team tackling each game on a request bases is true. of course black would be added fast, it was in high demand, that is why a lot of people and reports were dissapointed about no BC on its release day. all this tells me is that MS is listening.
and about this whole BS theory of them holding off on some games and being able to emulate 100% if they wanted is rubbish. lets see, MS is in the business to make not spend money, so they are going to drag on the BC development just so they could pay a team of people hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop something they wont be making money off of?
give me a break, if it was up to MS they would have 100% of the games BC and put the staff to better use developing features/tools/software that would actually make MS money. like it was stated before, MS does not hold back until they get what they want.
Post by: Martinchris23 on April 07, 2006, 12:16:00 PM
Also, what's with this condition affecting a few games on the list?
"Currently the North American versions of these games are the only ones supported as backward compatible titles on Xbox 360"
Can there really be that much difference technically between PAL and NTSC versions?
I would LOVE to see how many people requested Black for the 360 - could there be as many as those who have been SCREAMING for FIFA 06? Any coincidence that there isn't a 360 release for Black?
Post by: KAGE360 on April 07, 2006, 01:36:00 PM
QUOTE(Martinchris23 @ Apr 7 2006, 02:23 PM)
I do see where you're coming from Kage360, but I don't think MS actually WANTED BC with the 360. It was only due to public outcry that they actually decided to spend some bucks and make it work.
Also, what's with this condition affecting a few games on the list?
"Currently the North American versions of these games are the only ones supported as backward compatible titles on Xbox 360"
Can there really be that much difference technically between PAL and NTSC versions?
I would LOVE to see how many people requested Black for the 360 - could there be as many as those who have been SCREAMING for FIFA 06? Any coincidence that there isn't a 360 release for Black?
of course MS didnt think of BC in the beginning, i think they made it clear from the start that they werent developing their next gen system with BC in mind and im happy they did it that way.
as for the region specific BC game list, i imagine it has to do with the programming required for games to work in the region. like the 360, its up to the developers if they wanted a xbox game to be region specific. between what is programmed in the game and the systems themselves there are plenty of reasons why there is different number of games on each region's BC list.
there obviously were enough people wanting black to be BC because like i said before, as the games launch game and went there were complaints and articles posted all over the net of how it was not BC. i hightly doubt that the demand for FIFA was really that high as many footbal/soccer fans consider it a sub-par game compared to winning eleven and also for the fact that FIFA was one of the next gen titles on EA's line up. and no there isnt any coincidence that their isnt a 360 release for black, regardless of the level of enhancements, it still takes a good amount of time to bring it near the level of what gamers expect on the 360.
Post by: spinr34 on April 07, 2006, 01:43:00 PM
emulation isn't easy and while the original xbox isn't a real monster of a machine, emulating all parts and different architectures isn't easy. anyways having said that, MS's main reason for emulating BC is because of the different architectures and their lack of IP over the parts in the original xbox. so that MIGHT mean you could see something like sony's approach on the next xbox by actually including the parts needed.
Post by: thax on April 07, 2006, 04:27:00 PM
QUOTE(kowrip @ Apr 7 2006, 01:26 AM)
A matrix multiplication is NOT a single instruction. What is the name of the instruction that does a matrix multiply ? I have the entire Intel Celeron instruction set reference right in front of me. The word matrix doesn't even appear in there. Regardless, even if there are some complicated instructions in CISC, the cost-per-instruction is much higher for CISC. So, if it takes a RISC processor 50 instructions to accomplish the same thing, it still wouldn't be 50 times as long because the cost-per-instruction is much less on RISC.
The fact that the emulation developer stated that they need all 3 cores to do the emulation means that some instructions take much more work the emulate than a simple 1:1 instruction map.
When I used the reference of "require hundreds of clocks in overhead and execution" I meant that the code that the emulation engine must use to emulation the instruction may take hundreds of instructions. This isn't a strict 4 cycle celey vs. 26 cycle PPC comparison because we don't know how tight the code is in the emulation engine, thus I used the word "overhead".
Post by: kowrip on April 07, 2006, 08:07:00 PM
QUOTE(thax @ Apr 7 2006, 10:58 PM)
I agree with your explaination. My counter response was originally for someone who thinks that a PPC can execute every intruction that the celey does clock for clock on a single core.
The fact that the emulation developer stated that they need all 3 cores to do the emulation means that some instructions take much more work the emulate than a simple 1:1 instruction map.
When I used the reference of "require hundreds of clocks in overhead and execution" I meant that the code that the emulation engine must use to emulation the instruction may take hundreds of instructions. This isn't a strict 4 cycle celey vs. 26 cycle PPC comparison because we don't know how tight the code is in the emulation engine, thus I used the word "overhead".
Right, and I agree. There's certainly going to be overhead with emulating, especially when using drastically different architectures. However, 3 PPC cores at 3.2GHz is a HELL of a lot more power than the 733 Celeron has. They were making it seem like they were trying to emulate something that was only marginally weaker in performance, which is simply not true.
Post by: DWells55 on April 10, 2006, 02:14:00 PM
3.2GHz x 3 vs 733MHz.... yeah...
X1900XT based vs GeForce3 based.... yeah...
512MB GDDR3 vs 64MB RAM... yeah...
So why can't the 360 run Halo 2 right?
I know, systems need to be substantially more powerful to emnulate, but the Xbox was basically a PC, and 360 is substantially more powerful.
Post by: EugeneEW3RD on April 30, 2006, 04:39:00 PM
The XBOX 360 uses a 3.2 GHZ CPU running 3 cores, 512 MB of ram, ATI GPU, et al.
This is the main reason why it is harder to emulate the XBOX on the 360 because the specs are totally different. While the XBOX & 360 support DirectX, the DirectX on XBOX is tied to the specs of the XBOX.
This post has been edited by EugeneEW3RD: Apr 30 2006, 11:40 PM
Post by: RiotShift on May 23, 2006, 08:04:00 AM
Remember Bc was never gonna be implemented in the first place. So be thankful.
This post has been edited by RiotShift: May 23 2006, 03:12 PM
Post by: monkeyhands on June 02, 2006, 05:49:00 AM
People are bothered, and prior to launch they said that "Ultimatley, our goal is for all Xbox games to run on 360"
Now what? They are making press releases saying "But it's sooo difficult to write cos all the components are different". Like that justifies anything.
I don't know what you lot do for a living, but I wish I could hand in shit reports to Courts and just say "Sorry it's a bit shit and not what I promised, it's just that it's really difficult"
I'd be out on my arse.
Post by: Vidness on June 02, 2006, 06:39:00 AM
QUOTE(RiotShift @ May 23 2006, 02:35 PM)
You guys should be grateful, all the best xbox games run on the 360. Halo, Halo 2, Ninja Gaiden+Black, The DoAs, Black, Fable, Forza, sega gt, GTAs, Tony hawks, Halflife 2, Jade Empire, Metal Arms, NFSU2, Pariah, The best Star Wars games, Theif, All Tom clancy's GOOD games not shitty new rainbow sixes. I could go on, shit even Genma Ominusha, and Fuzion Frenzy works. All these games ARE the top selling games on xbox right now , so you know m$ isnt screwing anyone over for profit. The only game i wonder about, is my beloved morrowind. While i do understand some of your hatred towards M$ as they are not everyones best friend, but shit they have created a great console in the 360, and i am fully enjoying every feature that it has.
Remember Bc was never gonna be implemented in the first place. So be thankful.
Marvel vs. Capcom 2 isn't emulated, and I bet it goes for more than any game you've listed on ebay.
Post by: Kitsunisan on June 25, 2006, 08:28:00 PM
QUOTE(compton @ Apr 5 2006, 07:12 PM)
their comment about Systems being emulated by computers that are Quantum leaps above is off base.
just Last generation PSX was almost flawlessly emulated by PC's who's stats are barely worth remembering and there has been little change since. i remember renting games and coping them to my HD with CDRWin and playing them with ePSXe on their release date (FFIX.)it was harder to find games that didn't work, although most required some small game specific tweaks.
unlike a free PSX emulator, the XBox 360 reverse game compatability IS the EXCEPTION.But if they want to make there jobs sound harder then they really are, then so be it.
You would think they are emulating the 360 on an original XBox, the way they make it sound...
Hmm, off topic, I know, but could I get a link to that? Nevermind, I could Google ePSXe, I guess. Anyway, I also play alot of my old X-Box games (still love Republic Commando), but it would be nice to be able to lose that big black clunker and play them all on a 360. New compatibility list just came out, and I'm disappointed at how few additions have been made. Martin C. was right in asking why a full emulator isn't on the 360, instead of individual game emulators. How many emulators do you know of need a separate file for each game? It should be possible to create one that fully emulates the old X-Box. M$ does have all the programming codes at their disposal, after all.
This post has been edited by Kitsunisan: Jun 26 2006, 03:36 AM
Post by: rayodin on March 17, 2008, 02:25:00 AM
now for the second reason that the 360 should be able to easily run all the xbox games..... because it wouldn't have to emulate it at all, since Microsoft owns the OS/Dashboard for the original they could just piggy back it on the system like Nintendo did with the wii. see when Nintendo first dropped the wii they released it containing to separate dashboards, so when you boot a game cube game your actually switching to an entirely different feature. this is why none of the wii controllers can be used in the game cube stuff and vise versa, this means you can't use online games from the game cube with the wii, because the wii turns off the usb ports and the wireless card when you switch to the cube OS/dash. so as i said if Nintendo can do it so can Microsoft. there would be no new coding needed aside from hardware application. which since its their baby they could do in a heartbeat.
but that is just what i know about this matter, feel free to find reasons they couldn't if you still think they couldn't have from the beginning.
Post by: scuba156 on March 17, 2008, 10:14:00 AM
each core is not 3.2Ghz, the total CPU clock speed is 3.2GHz, that is its clock speed nothing more. having a triple core helps take the load of the other cores and makes it complete tasks faster, but does NOT increase its clock speed. emulating a 700MHz machine on a 3.2GHz machine is NOT easy, have a look at some of the xbox emus for PC, they can only emulate 2 games, and even with top of the line PC, they still run under 10FPS
the reason the 360 cannot do a complete backwards compatibilty so easily is because there is NO original xbox hardware inside the 360 and that is MS's mistake as they did not liscence the original xbox hardware. otherwise, they would still be paying other companies for the hardware, and this is the same reason they dis continued support for the original xbox. its not just about having the xbox software on the console (which the xbox 360 does have parts of the original xbox software on the HDD) as the hardware architecture is completly different. if they did include the xbox hardware inside the 360, then you would be paying between $50 to $100 more per console due to it being un licenced from MS
its not backround processes than make emulating take a hit in speed, its because it has to read the data and convert it on the fly into commands the machine its running on can understand. the original xbox emus did not have the dshboard running in the backround, when ever a game or program would run, the dashboard would actually close
while it is easier for MS to emulate there own games as they already know the function calls, its still notan easy job as they have to quilaty test every game and check for any bugs or glitches that the BC creates
Post by: aeroforce325 on March 19, 2008, 08:48:00 PM
then when this gen ends and the development of the next console begins they could go about refining each regional backward compatibility update to a point where each region specific game will then run on any regional console allowing for universal play next gen since the next xbox may be backward compatible with 360 games and hence would have all it needs to support xbox 360 backward compatibility updates. this is completely possible since the updates are based on emulators and clearly from what the U.S. regional backward compatibility update list shows is that apparantly some japanese only games have been apparantly made to work with a NTSC-U/C region console and that the emulators arent region specific. examples for reference: Magatama and Guilty Gear Isuka. Magatama is region specific to just asia and japan, while Guilty Gear Isuka from what i gathered on it is just japanese, though i dont doubt an asian region version was made. it would also be possible, cause going on the assumption MS uses backward compatibility for 360 games in their next console, and license the necessary hardware to do so, then that would give that console the means to utilize backward compatibility updates from this gen to allow original xbox games to run on it.
now there are more examples of other regional titles on the U.S. list as well, but i wont go into mentioning specific games. needless to say there are PAL region encoded games as well as other NTSC-J region coded games as well. if you look and know where to find release info for the games then you will see this as well.
now if they decide backward compatibility will be in the next console (i'm pretty sure they arent decided on the issue, along with other issues regarding next gen), then they will of course have advantages over their xbox originals download service. advantages such as giving gamers the chance of having a complete game experience both online and offline. right now i believe i'm right in saying that (correct me if i am wrong) the xbox originals downloads dont have any interaction with XBL.....it's essentially broken. MS claims they want to see more original xbox titles played over XBL. downloading the games doesnt solve this, due to the fact that the feature is broken in the games. with an actual physical copy you can have players online with the original titles. and while the numbers of players for original titles isnt high enough according to MS to continue BC updates, the fact remains that there are players on certain titles playing original xbox games. with the downloads of said games......you get the idea. honestly it's like MS created a double standard in a way. in one instance they want the games played online. in another they now want the games downloaded from online via XBL and lose online functionality.
it should be clear to MS that continuing backward compatible updates should continue, even though it isnt the most appealing situation to them.
Post by: scuba156 on March 30, 2008, 09:12:00 PM
the xbox 360 has no original xbox hardware, so they have to use software emulation which they were doing. the wii has gamecube hardware in it, which it calls on when a gamecube game is inserted, so there is no need for software emulation. the PS3 older models has the PS2 emotion chip in it which was used for BC, no software emulation needed, the newer PS3 models have no emotion chip, hence they do not allow PS2 BC without software emulation.
microsoft did not license the original xbox hardware, instead they were paying royalties per xbox sold. now, if they wanted to put that hardware in the xbox 360, they would have to pay royalties per xbox 360 sold and that is going to reduce there profit, and increase the price of the console. they never licensed the original xbox hardware . this is the same reason they discontinued the xbox, it was just too costly for them. never did i say that microsoft has there own hardware department, or that they manufacture there own hardware.it has nothing to do with the OS (im not denying the OS is used, as a matter of fact its used in all consoles even the 360)
it had nothing to do with timing, it has to do with money, in the long run, its not worth the money to include the xbox hardware inside the 360.
Post by: georaldc on April 03, 2008, 01:34:00 AM
QUOTE
so i believe you might want to look into the setup of mutli-core processors, each core is a separate processor, as an example in the case of 2 of the pc's in my house both of which i built, one has a 2.8 ghz dual core amd 5600+ which supports hyper threading so thats 2.8 + 2.8 + the ability to run a second set of processes at as high as 2 ghz per core, giving me just about 8 ghz.
Sorry to go offtopic, but I was just wondering. Isn't hyper threading an intel cpu feature? If what you say is true, shouldnt' that 8ghz cpu of yours decimate my e8400 3ghz cpu? lol.
I always thought amd rated they're cpu's differently from INTEL, and that they're cpu names would correspond to what they would rate compared to intel cpus. Example, I had an amd 3200+ before, and that's rated at only 2ghz. But since its called a 3200+, its actually rated at 3.2ghz if you look at programs that scan your hardware like 3dmark I believe. Now on to x2 cpus, say we have an x2 6000+, its actually rated at 3ghz. But since it has 2 cores, it would be like having 2 3ghz cores, so that would be like 6ghz (hence the name).