backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by inighthawki.. on May 16 at 1:20 PM

Microsoft will finally answer the questions of DRM and more next week

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) will announce its next generation console next Tuesday (May 21) ahead of the 2013 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3).

Rumored to be named either the Xbox Infinity or Xbox 720, the upcoming console stirred controversy over rumors that it would use digital rights management (DRM) to ban used games.  Rude Twitter remarks led to the firing of one Microsoft staffer as the debate over the DRM grew heated.

No one knows for sure, though, whether Microsoft actually planned the DRM or is sticking to such possible plans after the controversy.

What is expected is that the Microsoft console will pack similar hardware to arch-rival Sony Corp.'s (TYO:6758already-announced PS4.  That console packs 8 GB of DRAM, aside a GPU and x86 CPU from Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD).  Given that NVIDIA Corp. (NVDAsays it isn't interesting in making console graphics, it seems likely AMD could pop up in the next Xbox, as well.

The PS4 -- which has not yet been priced -- is rumored to be priced between $400 and $500 USD.  The next Xbox is rumored to cost $500 USD, but also be available in an ad-subsidized form for $200 to $300 USD.

The console is rumored to introduce 1080p Kinect motion controls, a work-in-progress that's been written about in leaks stories for some time.

Source: ExtremeTech



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: x86?
By bsd228 on 5/15/2013 2:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you're both going to pretend that the convention isn't to use "x86" to refer to 32-bit stuff and "x64" to refer to 64-bit stuff?


It really isn't the convention you say it is. (and it's really stupid to be so angry about it)

x86 has long referred to processors (intel, amd, a few small players) that are capable of running the 8086-80686 instructions. In contrast, you have Power, ARM, Core, Sparc, etc.

Going into linux/unix land, i386 is often your designation for 32 bit, with x86_64 for 64bit.


RE: x86?
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/15/2013 9:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
He actually acts like this about a lot of subjects on this site, that's very common for him to act this way.


RE: x86?
By inighthawki on 5/15/2013 9:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well of course, didn't you know that he is the gatekeeper of all knowledge, and is always right about everything, including areas he clearly has no expertise in?


RE: x86?
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/16/2013 12:07:52 AM , Rating: 1
I actually was thinking about how much of a know it all he thinks he is, also it's quite amusing he acts like a total douche when I posted what I did, then posts the same shit with what basically says the same thing I did...


RE: x86?
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/16/2013 1:15:26 AM , Rating: 1
Also, there are a few others just like that on this site...


RE: x86?
By Motoman on 5/16/2013 10:47:17 AM , Rating: 2
I have more expertise about computer hardware in my left pinky than either of you children will ever learn.

The insistence of toddlers that long-established norms like x86 vs. x64 to denote 32-bit vs. 64-bit somehow never existed does nothing but underscore the fact that you've not actually been involved in this industry...or at least, not since you graduated from kindergarten a few days ago.

It's an indisbutable fact that the terms are exceedingly commonly used to differentiate between the entirety of either the 32-bit or 64-bit platforms. CPUs and software.

Two seconds on Google would verify that - if you children could be bothered to learn WTF you're talking about before you spout off.


RE: x86?
RE: x86?
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/16/2013 11:08:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
illiteratehack writes "10 years ago AMD released its first Opteron processor, the first 64-bit x86 processor . The firm's 64-bit 'extensions' allowed the chip to run existing 32-bit x86 code in a bid to avoid the problems faced by Intel's Itanium processor. However AMD suffered from a lack of native 64-bit software support, with Microsoft's Windows XP 64-bit edition severely hampering its adoption in the workstation market." But it worked out in the end.
Let's see how Mr. Knowitall spins this one.


RE: x86?
By Motoman on 5/16/2013 11:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=what+...

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=what+...

So on and so forth. It's clear that normal people normally use x86 and x64 to differentiate between 32-bit and 64-bit.

Period.

It's over. The snippet you pasted up there says nothing to dispute that fact. You have one person acknowledging that AMD incorporated 64-bit extensions into the x86 framework, creating what formally was referred to as x86-64...but continuing forth was differentiated from traditional x86 platform stuff by stating either x86 or x64.

Period.

Not to mention that it's rather ironic that you quote someone who calls themself "illiterate hack."


RE: x86?
By karimtemple on 5/16/2013 11:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
LOL


RE: x86?
By Motoman on 5/16/2013 12:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
OK. Point of interest...maybe this actually is more of a "generational thing."

Informal poll of a dozen or so IT types that were milling around the IBM office where I happened to be working with an old colleague...

There were only a couple younger guys in the office - like, in their 20s. Everyone in their 30s and over stated that they intuitively think of x86 as indicative of 32-bit, and normally would use x64 to refer to 64-bit stuff - hardware or software.

The 2 guys in their 20s said they never use "x64" and just refer to any such hardware or software intended to be used on a Windows platform as "x86."

At which point the rest of us told them to stay off our lawns.

I think it probably has to do with them not really "living" through the transition of 64-bit extensions into the platform. Neither of them really have any recognition of Itanium either. We had to explain to them what the hell that even was, and why it ultimately failed. Well...they understood why it ultimately failed, once we described it to them...it's just kind of amazing that they didn't know.


RE: x86?
By karimtemple on 5/16/2013 12:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
Nice try. 8/10.

(I'm 30 BTW)

No x86 hardware is 32-bit anymore. What are all these 32-bit parts that need their own nomenclature? "x64" is a software term. Microsoft uses it to distinguish between their 32- and 64-bit software. Even your links say that.


RE: x86?
By inighthawki on 5/16/2013 1:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure it is. I work with a number of people who have been in the industry for 20+ years and they use the term x86 to refer to anything in the x86 family, including x86-64.

I lived through the 64-bit transition and know fully well what Itanium is, but that doesn't change anything.


RE: x86?
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/16/2013 11:04:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have more expertise about computer hardware in my left pinky than either of you children will ever learn.
Keep dreaming... kid.


RE: x86?
By inighthawki on 5/16/2013 11:30:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The insistence of toddlers that long-established norms like x86 vs. x64 to denote 32-bit vs. 64-bit somehow never existed

Another prime example of your delusion, since nobody ever said that.

What you ARE wrong about is that x86 is an uncommon term used to describe any CPU from the x86 family, 32 OR 64 bit. Nobody claimed the term x64 doesn't exist or that it cannot be used to refer to a 64-bit x86-64 CPU.


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki