Talk:Xbox 360/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

what is more powerful?

is the ps3 more powerful then the xbox 360 or vice versa? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falcon866 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

PS3. . . DUH!Pumapayam 17:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

very debateable actually..... pretty rude response for a registered user! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.67.247 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

PS3 is pretty much all areas. Although the fanboys here will try and dispute this. However look at some independant specs --Mgillespie 17:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Theoretical numbers make the PS3 look like a massive super server beast of ultimate performance. However, when you compare the cost of one of those to the PS3, you'd laugh at the logical fallacy. Sony claimed the PS2 would render "Toy Story Graphics" on the PS2. I don't think even the 360 can render "Toy Story Graphics" in real time. The cycle is probably set on loop. Sony claims they have god-like machine, but machine isn't god-like. Again. The only comparison with the Cell I have heard is that it seems as powerful as a 800Mhz Pentium 3 (using only the main core). Incase you didn't know, that's really shitty. But the 360's CPU isn't as good as it sounds either.--Can Not 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are severe technical issues hidden?

Hello.
I was wondering why all of the defects and technical issues are so hidden in the article?
Unless I'm missing something, the only acknowledgements I can find are in the launch section (where they have a link to the Xbox_360_technical_problems article that doesn't stand out at all, and is only linked for context of the launch), and in the "Physical appearance" section (again, linked inline to the same article, but only linked for context of the light).
The issues themselves should be at least partially addressed right in the main article. At the very least, the links shouldn't be hidden so well. They are still happening, even on machines from outside of the launch window.
(Incidentally, for an interesting read, take a look at Matt Casamassina's ign blog entry about being on his fifth 360 here) Bladestorm 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Allo? No comments? I'd much rather have one of you (more talented) writers add this than me. Bladestorm 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody cares. Or everybody is to biased in the 360's favor to bother. I don't care either way. "Cast in the name of God, ye not guilty" 12:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Because they get deleted by Xbox fanboys who can't believe the console is nothing but an unreliable hunk of junk.. --Mgillespie 17:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It's because Wikipedia is not a soapboax. Nandesuka 17:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, I realize that you probably intended to only address the 'fanboy' comment, but you still phrased it as an answer to my question. And WP not being a soapbox is entirely irrelevant. As it is, the link to the article about technical problems is now far more prominent for those interested in that information. So, the answer to my original question was: The article was broken. But at least now it's fixed. Bladestorm 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Xbox DVD drive speed

The Xbox 360's 12x DVD-ROM drive is compared with the PlayStation 3's Blu-ray drive's speed at reading Blu-ray discs (2x, or 72mbit/s, just under 9 mebibytes per second) but this is not clarified in the article. The way it reads implies a straight comparison of DVD read speeds. The DVD-ROM read speed of the PS3 drive is 8x or about 10.5 megabytes per second. Since this seems to be a contentious article I just thought I'd point it out that it's misleading and ambiguous. I would recommend either adding a qualifier that identifies the 8.6 megabytes per second figure as the Blu-ray read speed or just leaving it out.

Oh wait, looks like somebody already took out the reference to the PS3. dreddnott 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

sold 10.4 million vs actual number sold to consumers unknown

The original version of the statement was "The console sold out completely at release and by the end of 2006 had sold 10.4 million worldwide." That statement is sourced, and is attributed directly to Microsoft. However, User:LedRush wants to change the statement to "The console sold out completely at release and by the end of 2006 had sold 10.4 million worldwide to retailers, though the actual number sold to consumers is unknown". I believe it is completely unnecessary to include the statement "though the actual number sold to consumers is unknown." Anyone agree, disagree? Dionyseus 02:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The original sentence said that MS sold 10.4 million units. While they said this, Peter Moore explained that by sold they meant sold to retailers, which most of the world considers "shipped", (though Peter Moore says shipped is something different). That the 10.4 million was sold to retailers is sourced twice and also attributed to MS. It is disingenuous to leave out this critical information.

As for actual numbers sold to consumers, the best estimates for the amount sold to consumers is about 9 million. However, I was told for some strange reason that source is not allowed to be used (despite the fact that it is inherently logical). Saying that 10.4 million are sold implies that 10.4 consoles are being used. However, that is obviously not true by MS' own admission. If Wiki won't use the correct information, there should be a marker that explains that the actual number is unknown.

I would gladly concede the point and allow for the well researched estimate from vgcharts.org to be used. ----LedRush 10:43, 8 February 2007

Well, it seems to me that both versions are a bit misleading (not intentionally, of course). Saying that 10.4 million have been sold does imply to consumers, but, if "sold" means "sold to retailers", is essentially identical to what Sony means by "shipped". On the other hand, ledrush's addition somewhat implied an unnecessary negative tone. My suggestion would be to simply split the difference: "The console sold out completely at release and by the end of 2006 had sold 10.4 million worldwide to retailers." Leave it to readers to decide how significant that is or isn't to them. Bladestorm 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Bladestorm is right. ----LedRush 16:54, 8 February 2007

Thanks for discussing this. The issue causing the edit war seems to be resolved, so the page is no longer fully protected. Next time, just try and discuss before edit warring. Thanks, -- Natalya 13:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Moore meant that shipped jut means they have left the manufacturing plant and could be sitting in a warehouse waiting to be sent to retailers (Sony counts these systems just sitting in a warehouse when they release shipment numbers). I still think they should only use actual sold numbers, and not these shipment numbers (which they used to meet their 10 million goal, and why they have said they are only shipping 1.5 million systems until June due to overshipping to meet their goal). Also, it's been agreed that VGCharts (and Nexgenwars) are unreliable since they guess their numbers and then change them when the real numbers are released. TJ Spyke 10:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NPD extrapolates from reporting retailers to national sales, and vgcharts.org extrapolates from NPD (and others) and the console maker's statements. NPD does not have internal numbers from the console makers, nor do they physically count every sale in stores. I don't see a different quality there, one might even say that you can verify or qualify vgcharts.org's tally better as they break out most of the individual data points that make up their estimate. We just assume NPD to be more respected, that's all. Repetition 00:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Financially, "sold to retail" equals "sold" for any company that does not sell to consumers through direct channels. When the retailer pays the console Microsoft is set and can put that money in the bank. (Sony's "shipped" means "left the factory".) In spite of this I think it's important to pronounce the distinction for Wikipedia readers, especially because NPD et al report numbers "sold to consumers". I just did that, I hope everybody's ok with my wording. Repetition 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

it is 3 wired

the 360 supports 3 wired controllers there are 2 usb ports in the front, and one in the back. what kinda ignorance is this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.17.70.249 (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, I can't say I much approve of comments like, "what kinda ignorance is this?". That said, I think you're right. I found at least three sources[1][2][3] referring to it allowing 3 wired controllers; and that's in addition to the fact that even this 360 article (here) says you can use 3. Might want to change that after the article is unprotected (deprotected?).

Actually, as an aside, is that infobox right? Is it "2(/3) wired or 4 wireless"? You can't mix&match? That seems a bit hard to believe. Bladestorm 16:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this was discussed before but I believe you can have 4 wired controllers if you use a USB hub or the HD-DVD drive add-on. I don't have a source to hand but if someone else has one we can hopefully clear this up. SkorponokX 00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, i cant prove it with citation, but i can prove that it supports four wired controllers because i tried it. I used a USB hub. Neodarksaver 08:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about the BenQ VAD6038?

Kind of surprised no one added anything about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

It's been added - suprised nobody mentioned it here.83.100.254.40 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's under Hardware > Storage. MarioV 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

External Sites

I think the unofficial external sites section could use some editing. Currently it links to Gamespot, IGN and TeamXbox.

1. IGN and TeamXbox are essentially the same. They are both owned by IGN.
2. All three are corporate
3. There are a few other dedicated Xbox 360 websites that cover exactly what these sites do, and then some. The only difference is they are not as highly visited (although they are still quite large) and they do not have a purely commercial agenda..

What I am saying is big corporate sites like the ones listed are not the be all and end all of useful Xbox 360 information for Wikipedia users.

Bigwingnut 02:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Xbox 360 Sales

The xbox 360 has sold '10,495,218' units rather than 10,412,630, use this site for reference and to keep up with the changes: http://nexgenwars.com/ Chelseajaif 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

VG Charts and Nexgenwars are NOT reliable sites, and that's why we don't use them on Wikipedia. They both guess their numbers, and then adjust them when the real numbers are released. Not to mention the fact that MS has only SHIPPED 10.4 million, not sold. TJ Spyke 07:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Xbox 360 external sites:

I think these sites should be added to the list? Achieve360points ign gamespot team xbox

These four sites are very popular and are used by almost all xbox users, also i think all of them have been mentioed in the oxm magazine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chelseajaif (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I was hoping to get some decent independent sites listed, not the usual Corporate ones...

Bigwingnut 22:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The current links are fine. Wikipedia is not a link directory. We have the de facto fansite listed (TeamXbox) and WP:EL recommends linking to one fansite at the very most. SubSeven 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-addition of technical issues section

There is a page that was spun off of this article called [Xbox 360 technical issues]. This page was under-represented in the current version of the article. It was simply linked to in the launch section as a hyperlink for the word "technical issues". That is not how sub-pages are handled on wikipedia. I could not find out why the information was removed from the article in the first place, it was simply moved to another section since someone felt the section was too small. Seraphim 19:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What do we do about flags?

I'm probably a bit overly sensitive since I am a canadian, but it seems grossly inappropriate to lump canada in with the US, as though it's a 51st state or something.
On the other hand, it's true: Mexico had a different release date from the rest of north america, so maybe the NA tag isn't appropriate for Canada and the US.
On the other other hand, take a look here, where Mexico is considered part of Central America, not North America... which would mean the tags would be appropriate...
Then again, one could also simply list Canada as an extra flag, but, while although Canada's a significant market, and also produces a significant amount of games content, it would still be disproportional to list Canada individually, but not individual european countries.
(In case nobody's guessed, I'm not presenting a solution: Just qualifying just how complex the problem is)
Suggestions? Bladestorm 07:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would just use the NA tag, Mexico is listed under the wordwide releases. Game systems can be released years after they originally are released (I think some countries just got the GameCube last year). I would say use the tag for when they are first released in that region (so NA for November 22, EU for the first release in Europe, etc.). I do like flags, but think the tags are better than having multiple flags like this. TJ Spyke 08:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I may as well wait a while to see if anyone objects. Bladestorm 08:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

North America is incorrect. As mentioned, Mexico has a different release date. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, again... while although it isn't as common, take a look here, and see that Mexico is sometimes considered part of Central America, with North America being the US and Canuckistan. Bladestorm 15:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Referring to North America, the delineation as it refers to Mexico is ambiguous enough that I would not definitively call the US and Canada the sole members. As to the Canadian flag's presence, it seems appropriate since it was the only other country with the same launch date. I think it's important to at least list the countries which launched on day 1. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know it's ambiguous. It's actually that ambiguity that I wanted to exploit. :) Since NA can refer to just the US and Canada, it isn't strictly incorrect to do so. As such, it isn't technically wrong to use the NA tag. Is it ideal? Nah. But I think it's the lesser of three evils. Bladestorm 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is the current situation undesirable? (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 12:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... I say that in the first paragraph of this section? "Then again, one could also simply list Canada as an extra flag, but, while although Canada's a significant market, and also produces a significant amount of games content, it would still be disproportional to list Canada individually, but not individual european countries." As a canadian, I get somewhat oversensitive when the american flag is used interchangeably with US&Canada as a whole, but at the same time, I don't like disproportionately exaggerating the significance of Canada either. Bladestorm 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(un-indented) - Disproprotionate by sales/shipped? Do we have this broken out by country? We have the numbers for North America here, but I haven't seen any numbers specifically for Canada. Not that I'm saying they aren't available, I've just not seen them. I think until we can quantify that Canada is disproportionately represented in that list, let's keep it there. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did find 2005 holiday sales for Canada here. Although Australia/New Zealand (the only ones not in the current flags which had hard numbers) appear close, their quoted number (30,401) was still less than Canada's (32,100). I would simply say Canada should be there as it shared first release date with the US. I think trying to justify it with sales, the only verifiable quantifier of disproportionality, is just too complicated. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop the bloody "fanboy" accusations

Just drop it, guys. Seriously, it's insanely childish to be throwing 'fanboy' accusations back and forth (not to mention being incredibly unoriginal). If you can't make an argument without insulting someone, then you have no argument, and you'd be better off not highlighting that fact. This is discussion about an article, not a forum, and certainly not a venue for insulting eachother.
Grow up. Bladestorm 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Xbox 360 shape

This article claims that the Xbox 360 console is slightly concave but it is not. The faceplate gives the illusion of concavity but, when viewed from the rear, the console is clearly a plain straight-sided box. --Soy Keymaster 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

? I need glasses.. The top curves in right?87.102.11.134 13:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, my mistake. I placed a clipboard on top of the console when laying down and there is a very slight curvature. Never mind --67.189.223.104 13:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It starts concave at the front of the box then tapers off to being perfectly flat at the rear of the console. Thats probably what you're seeing RC Master 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Carmack's misplaced quote

There is a quote from John Carmack in the XNA section which doesn't belong there. The comment he made is about MS's development environment for Xbox 360 that is currently in use by game studios producing retail games. That is, he is not talking about XNA. --Soy Keymaster 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Chart

I Believe there should be a chart where it lists its bad things and good things . This should also be on the PS3 page and on the Wii page . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Narutodiaz (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Technical specifications

CPU

Hardware specifications

Processor	Xenon Runs at 3.2 GHz PPC 115.2 Gigaflops 9.6 billion dot products Each CPU is simulataneous multithreading in order execution to meet complexity, cost, power demands S90 nanometer process (65 nanometer process SOI for 2007) 21 GB/s front side bus (aggregated 10.8 GB upstream/downstream connects to Xenos 1 MiB shared Level 2 cache

Memory

Memory specifications

Memory and system bandwidth	512 MiB 700 MHz GDDR3 128-bit bus the unified memory architecture.
eDRAM	internal logic to its internal memory bandwidth is 256 GB/s. z-buffering, alpha blending, and antialiasing saves time and space on the GPU die.
Between the eDram die and the GPU	32 GB/s
Audio/Video	5.1-channel Dolby Digital surround sound.
Channels	256 audio channels 320 independent decompression channels
Codec	XMA audio format MPEG2 VC1 non-HD NTSC and PAL resolutions or WMV HD

Graphics

Graphics Processing specifications

C1 and R500:	48 unified shader units which are capable of both vertex and pixel shading operations
TSMC:	90 nm chip with a clock speed of 500 MHz;
NEC:	10 MB eDRAM daughter-die
On-screen colors:	4x FSAA, z-buffering, and alpha blending with no appreciable performance penalty on the GPU
Heat Sink	An aluminum heat sink is also implemented to cool the GPU;
Video Resolution	HD-quality output can only be produced over VGA or component video

Inputs and outputs

Input and output list

RF output	DVD-ROM 12x 7 GB of usable space BenQ VAD6038 MP3 CD JPEG CD CDROM XA CDR/CDRW WMA-CD
USB	3 USB ports
external USB HD-DVD drive	announced at CES 2006 €199.99/£129.99 in the UK, France, and Germany
Hard Drive	20 GiB Inputs and outputs Input and output list Ethernet 100BASE/TX RJ45 Microsoft has no plans to include an internal HD DVD player in future Xbox 360 designs copy it to the Xbox 360 article. Renegadeviking