Jump to content

Talk:Xbox 360

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matt Britt (talk | contribs) at 13:23, 5 September 2006 (→Hardware laundry list edit warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Archive

Archives

1 2 3 4

Development

Would be nice if someone could expand this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.33.11.34 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • This section is in dire need of expansion, if anyone has anything to contribute please do.-Jigahurtz 10:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look to end 2002/early 2003 news when Gates said "next Xbox is comming in 4 years".

5 million user install base

Changed the info in the first table from 5 million units shipped to 5 million user install base. also changed the reference —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.30.120.106 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link? Reports say 5mi units shipped to stores, not purchased by costumers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.31.252 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft's fourth quarter earnings report reads "We sold approximately 5 million Xbox 360 consoles during the fiscal year," which is somewhat ambiguous, but in the conference call, they did mention "an installed base of 5 million consoles," which seems to indicate that the number is units purchased by consumers. Dancter 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people keep changing the quaterly results from shipped to sold? The numbers reported in the citations are shipped from Microsoft. NPD reports consoles sold to consumers, MS resports consoles shipped. If you are quoting MS quarterly reports that say "shipped" then it should not be changed to sold. --nutcrackr 02:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft announced today as part of its earnings release that it's hit its sales target for the Xbox 360 console. The company had expected to sell between 4.5 and 5.5 million units by the end of its fiscal year. The Home and Entertainment division said that "approximately" 5 million units were sold in the last fiscal year
The powerpoint slide(#15) states. 5M console installed base
Microsoft states consoles sold and a 5 million console installed base. An install base isn't by units shipped, it how many users have the console. How many users have purchased the console. The units sold. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jigahurtz (talk • contribs) .
Two other sources to support sold figures [1][2]Jigahurtz 04:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Approximately, cannot be used as a quotation, installed base cannot either. They both do not specify the exact number of units sold or shipped. The article from macworld states consoles sold, but the source of the data is no doubt from the MS quarterly reports which state shipped numbers. The author of the article in this case has made an error. Again this is the same for the IGN article, the source of the data (although not stated) is most likely the publicly availble reports from MS, but once again the alteration of sold and shipped are an honest mistake. I can easily find many web links that will report these numbers but state shipped figures, but I needn't bother. The citations used are from shipped figures and they are from the financial reports directly from MS. If you want to put in the citation from the MS powerpoint and state this is the current installed base then that's fine. I still stand by the usage of shipped and not sold. Unless you wish to quote NPD sales figures to consumers --nutcrackr 07:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the current statement of shipped figures for each of the individual quarters and don't wish to change the 5M sold total above it --nutcrackr 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to change the citation for "Total: 5 million consoles sold[22](as of the end of June 2006)", it points to #22 which clearly states five million units shipped. If you are going to state sold then change the citation to the powerpoint of whatever article it is that states sold. --nutcrackr 13:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone changed the referance link to a less reliable source. The original (and what is there now) says sold.[3]70.101.201.248 13:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question then becomes how on earth do you sell 5.5 million units when you only ship 5 million consoles? Well, you'd say that's impossible so it must be 5 million sold. But how can that be I say, since 5 million shipped will include units in transit and on shelves. If there were any units on shelves at the end of June 06 that means there is no chance of 5 million units have actually been sold to consumers. So to cut a long story short the numbers should be reported as shipped or you are going to have to come up with better reference. --nutcrackr 14:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, rounding. Microsoft's website and financial data both state 5 million sold, or a 5 million user base(consoles in homes, consoles sold). Users keep changing referances as to not show this. They referance to 3rd party websites that say shipped. Instead of linking to more reliable websites(microsoft.com xbox.com). Check history and you'll see any time a link to MicroSoft's press releases or Xbox.com referances are added. Some user will revert them to something else because they want it to say shipped.70.101.201.248 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note, the current referance, referances right back to the powerpoint slide. The powerpoint slide states a 5 million user install base. Which means that the current referance has been misquoted and supports the use of sold.70.101.201.248 01:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"We sold approximately 5 million Xbox 360 consoles during the fiscal year. "[4] This seems to be the most reliable source I can find.
I agree with Nutcrackr, "shipped" is the proper word in the box. Dionyseus 09:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check your referances. The current referance[5] can not be used. It is an indirect referance that incorrectly quotes it's referance. That page referances right back to microsofts reports. Which state sold. Until you find a referance more reliable that microsoft. That doesn't use microsoft as it's referance, it should remain sold.70.101.201.248 21:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Microsoft's United States Securities and Exchange Commission filings they had 5.05 million shipped *and* "approximately 5 million sold". Here are the relevant excerpts:
  • 10-Q for Fiscal Q3 (January 1st to March 31st): "3.25 million Xbox 360 consoles shipped since its launch "[6]
  • 8-K discussing Fiscal Q4 (April 1st to June 30th): "Fourth quarter: shipment of 1.8 million Xbox 360 consoles... Full Fiscal Year:.. We sold approximately 5 million Xbox 360 consoles during the fiscal year.[7]
Given that the above are submitted under federal securities law - and signed by the CEO and CFO as appropriate - I'd say they are fairly authorative.Jvandyke 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The box up top is for sold numbers, so it should says ~5 million in the infobox, with the shipment statement somewhere else. I don't know where I would put it in the article, so I'm not going to change the infobox. If someone could work Jvandyke statements into the article somewhere and then fix the infobox it would be wonderful.70.101.201.248 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Gotham resolution

The paragraph regarding the supposed drop of the HD requirement referances 1 game, Project Gotham Racing 3. The version of the game talked about is a non final review build. I beleive that this section should be removed unless someone can give referances to a RTM build of the the game being render in a non HD resolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.33.11.34 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentally Flawed?

At the references area, i found

^ a b XBOX 360 / PLAYSTATION 3 PERFORMANCE COMPARISON. IGN (provided by Microsoft - fundamentally flawed charts). Retrieved on 2006-05-25.

why/how did they use "flawed" data?

"Flawed" is probably incorrect. "Selectively composed to reflect the authors' interest" is more accurate. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-27 19:21Z

Xbox 361

wtf happened, who changed it, this is probably the second time (that I know of) where someone vanadalized the360 page. Mabye we should lock it like the PS3 page! --Elven6 02:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We need to restrict editing access. --CanesOL79 17:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit-count of Xenon CPU

What is the bit-count of the Xenon CPU? I'm under the impression that it's 64-bits, but I'm unsure. --CanesOL79 17:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xenon is based on IBM's 64-bit PowerPC architecture and implements the 64-bit PowerPC ISA. Each core includes a VMX128 unit (similar to PPC970 VMX, but with more registers) whose registers are 128 bits wide. So in the classical sense of things it's a 64-bit CPU, but don't get hung up on bit width unless you really understand the implications of integer range, address space, and SIMD. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-29 18:17Z
Thanks. I know enough about hardware and such to understand what things mean and implications of numbers here and there, but I was just curious as to the bit-count of the processor. Thanks for the clarification. --CanesOL79 19:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game Library

It would be lovely if anyone knew of any other First of Second Party games to add to the list, a more uniform (8 titles in each column) would show more diversity and Microsoft's support.70.101.201.248 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • When we factor in which games belong in which lists, it does not matter if the game is on the PC because Microsoft owns the Windows software. So, please stop changing the games around just because they are on both platforms. User:Lord Hawk 14:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest limiting to 8 titles per division, 24 titles in total. Either critically acclaimed or exclusive. I get this odd feeling that in a couple of months we will have the full list of games in the table just because people want to add their own favourite titles there. -- ReyBrujo 14:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8 titles is terribly limiting when it comes to 3rd party titles. And anything relating to exclusiveness shouldn't be included. And as a note to the users who keep try to "make each section the same size", stop. The reason the first 2 sections have 8 is because there are no other possible things to add, at current, 1st/2nd party is a COMPLETE listing. 3rd party isn't, and is open for changes, but those should NOT be removing games. Showing 8 titles to showcase an entire consoles library? Terrible idea.74.33.0.16 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game library size

First off, Wikipedia isn't here to showcase, it's here to inform. Second, there is already a comprehensive "list of games on the Xbox 360" article, which is linked to from that section. Third of all, laundry lists are boring to read, destructive to the tone of an article, and tend to accumulate cruft, as every rabid fan of Bladehunt: Deathspank 2: The Revenge takes it as a personal insult that his favorite game isn't in the list. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a random collection of facts or links. 8 third party titles is plenty. Nandesuka 00:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists are discouraged in articles, and they should be converted into prose whenever possible. However, if we must include a list (or a table, for that matter), it should be as small as possible. As Nandesuka pointed, we already have a huge list where every game is listed. I am guessing the Super Nintendo article doesn't have Paperboy, 7th Saga, Wizardry V or maybe Mortal Kombat in the titles section. -- ReyBrujo 02:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. PlayStation 3, 44 games
  2. Wii, 70 games
  3. Gamecube, 53
  4. Xbox 360, 32 games
Your "list is to long" argument it terribly flawed, no other wiki page is having this argument. Which shows that a reasonable amount of games is okay. And 32 is unquestionably reasonable, per wikipedia general "consensus" on the matter.74.33.0.16 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this "general consensus"? I never said the other articles were fine enough. Launch titles are fine to be listed, but I expect "key" titles to be reduced, starting from this article since it is already discussing the games section. -- ReyBrujo 05:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This general consensus is on every console page, no one is having problems with games listed. Except two users on this page, citing the fact it to long. No other users have thought (much larger) game lists are to long. Except the two above on this page. 74.33.0.16 05:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction between consensus and the status quo, allowing pointless bloat cannot be justified by either. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rey Brujo is right. The other game articles should be fixed. I'll list them on Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat presently. Nandesuka 12:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a simple fix: leave the list of Xbox 360 games at list of Xbox 360 games! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; leave the list on its own article. Otherwise, as Nandesuka mentioned, you have the people who get their feelings hurt because their game isn't included in the short list. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Launch titles could stay because they are limited. You launch only once, with a usually low amount of games. A line like "important franchises", however, invites points of view, plus the list would continue growing through the life of the console. -- ReyBrujo 15:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting each other, or you may have to be reported for violating the 3-revert rule. -- ReyBrujo 03:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Quite. The anonymous user is the only one here who disagrees. For now at least, the majority is against him and wishes to leave the list out of the article. He needs to stop reverting and discuss it here, or he may be blocked for 3RR. He also needs to stop calling a content dispute vandalism; it is clearly not vandalism since it does not damage the article and is agreed upon by several editors. Even alleged NPOV violations are not considered vandalism. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-09-02 04:15Z
The users removing things are the ones who should be warned. As pointed out by 74.33.0.16 on the History page, the user who started this is complaining about the size of this "unneeded list". But isn't even touching the much larger console page games lists(Which they have acknowledge). Clearly seems like they are trying to boast the apperance of one system over the other. This section should not be removed until the other pages(that is, the ones with much longer lists) are removed.DeathSeeker 04:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. As was mentioned earlier, status quo is not an excuse for keeping useless material. The majority of people here have deemed that section as useless, and until that changes, then the section should stay out. Continually reverting because you hold a minority opinion is unacceptible. Your opinion is no more valid than any other person's, you do not have the right to revert because you personally consider the issues agreed upon by several editors here to be "invalid arguments". -- uberpenguin @ 2006-09-02 04:17Z
The article does not degrade the article in anyway, and Blanking is vandalism. Majority does not rule and it does not matter "who has the most votes".
Also note, ReyBrujo did not have any problem with the list before, but did not their way for the 8 per section format. Their vote seems of bad intention for not getting their way. Prove your point as to why this should be removed. Until then there is no problem with it being here.DeathSeeker 04:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I agree with the "keep a few launch titles and axe the rest to a separate article" strategy. Lists are ugly in articles and should be confined to their own dark dirty corners of the Wiki. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-09-02 04:27Z
It's also worth noting that one of the reasons this article failed to achieve "good article" status was that it contained a huge bulleted list. Nandesuka 04:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And checking history will show that's for the hardware/components section. Which has 77 lines of bulletened(Correct word?) lines. Compared to this section's 16. And the launch titles are already on a seperate page, and they take up four more lines then this section. Seems a bit odd that you are for a larger list, but for the removal of this one.DeathSeeker 04:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get rid of the hardware list (by turning it into actual content paragraphs), I'd support it, but that's not what we're talking about right now. Consensus is found by discussion, and it should be clear from this discussion that most of us don't like the idea of lists and would like to see them gone if possible. In particular, this information should go away because it's hard to decide which games to list here and a list of games really doesn't add much to the value of the article. Stop dodging the issue; so far your only argument is that this content should stay because you don't like our reasons for wanting to remove it. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-09-02 04:40Z
It's a game console, games should be somewhere in this article. Removing any thing relating to them(even if it is just a list) and replacing it with a link does not improve this article. Jigahurtz 20:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does improve the flow. How does a big list help the article at all? It's just trivial information overload. Having a select FEW games is probably okay, but the general feeling on Wikipedia is that good articles do not contain big lists. There are better ways to express information than in a list. Incidentally... It's interesting that random new editors are popping up on this page just to discuss this debate. -- mattb @ 2006-09-02 21:40Z

Backward compatability (again?)

We had a discussion about this on the Wii article's talk page, and sort of wanted to bring some of that here. This article's infobox doesn't list the Xbox 360 as being backward compatible with the Xbox, unlike the Wii article and the Gamecube, and the PS3 article and the PS2/PS1. Now, while the Xbox 360 obviously isn't binary compatible with the Xbox, that's a seperate definition from backward compatibility. The Backward compatibility specifically says that a product is backward compatible if it can act as a replacement for the other product, ie. can use the original media made for that predecessor product. The Xbox 360 does that, even if it does it through emulation. The only discussion I could find on this in talk archives was on binary compatibility, so my apologies if this has been addressed already and I simply didn't find it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: after that tirade, it appears that this was already in the article. However, it was using "backwards=Xbox" rather than "compatibility=Xbox", so it wasn't showing. Blah blah blah. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Gaiden 2

Is there a link confirming the development or that said title is comming to the xbox 360? I remember Team Ninja saying they would get to it once they finished DOAX2, and they never stated the platform. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.147.45 (talk • contribs) .

Itagaki stated it would come out sometime between DOAX2 and Code Cronus[8]

"Itagaki opens the vault on various tidbits of information spanning all of Team Ninja's upcoming Xbox 360 games: Dead or Alive Xtreme 2, Ninja Gaiden 2, Dead or Alive: Code Cronus, and something called Project Progressive."[9]70.101.201.248 19:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Now we won't jump to conclusions, but this is a pretty good sign for Ninja Gaiden 2 on Xbox 360."

"If this holds true, we should expect an official announcement from Team Ninja themselves on the matter." If they're not sure, how can you be? , is there any other source? --201.19.147.45 02:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official Xbox Magazine states it also. Unsure of issue # though.70.101.201.248 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gamespot isn't even listing the game and Ign says

"NOTE: This game has not been confirmed for release on Xbox 360, and has also not been confirmed or denied for planning on another system. Please check back for official info." So it's a rumor.--201.29.185.132 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed until the actual confirmation of Team Ninja. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.29.190.39 (talk • contribs) .
Official Xbox Magazine May 2006 pg. 61
"Dead or Alive Extreme Beach Volleyball 2 and Ninja Gaiden 2 have already been confirmed by the gaming visionary himself. Domo arigato. Itagaki-san"70.101.201.248 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone provide a link with an official confirmation from Team Ninja or Tecmo? A guy tauting the idea of development in an interview is not official confirmation "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." --201.29.204.130 04:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taunting the development? The OXM article states Itagaki confirmed it for 360.74.33.0.16 11:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify Referances

I'd would be lovely if someone who is fluent in Referance attribution could fix up our referances. They are missing a lot of the attributes that should be there.70.101.201.248 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

I failed this article because:

  • No references in Xbox Live and Interface section.
  • A lengthy bulleted list in the Hardware section
  • Few pictures in Overview, Xbox Live, and Software section.

Some P. Erson 15:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Anything that can be referanced in those sections I will be getting sources for after this post
      • I'm not realy sure what you want referances in the UI section, it's a section that doesn't realy seem to need referances.
      • Adding anything I thought needed referancs. Please tag[citation needed] to anything else you want referances in the Live section r interface
    • I'll put a survey here to see on what we should cut out of the bulleted list to make it shorter.
    • Any pictures added to the article are removed quickly, I've tried adding some that I feel add to the article, but they are always removed. (Under the basis that they are only fair use in the section main article, not on this page) Can't fix that one by myself.
      • Jigahurtz has added the images that greatly add to UI section, that may be referance to what you wanted there.
      • Xbox Live UI images added, flow perfectly with the two Jiga added.
      • Suggestion for overview, live and software images?

70.101.201.248 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the criteria, a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status. So no need to turn on "insert-picture" mode, just concentrate on the other stuff. -- ReyBrujo 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted list needs undeletion

List of Xbox 360 games without region encoding has been deleted for some reason. Can anyone who knows how to request undeletion do so? Wikipedia's search feature is having problems so I don't know the procedure on how to undelete it and can't do it myself70.101.201.248 11:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the community doesn't feel we need a seperate page for the list why don't we put links to the other lists in the external links section? I think this will help avoid having people recreate the page or a similar page and will still give the requested information.

http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-00-3-xbox360_compatibility_guide-49-en.html

http://www.xbox-sky.com/xbox360_regional_compatibility_guide/ Rvisintine 10:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critiscism section?

Was there a critiscism section recently deleted? I could have sworn i saw one with at least 3 subsections. Only curious if this was vandalism or something (or if it even existed) Mr toasty 03:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Nevermind XD, still new to this whole "history" Mr toasty 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They belong in the articles to which they were critisizing, and the Dreamcast comparison was very trivial and not even critisms but a comparison.70.101.201.248 08:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I read them in the history section and came to a similiar conclusion ^.^ Mr toasty 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add an achievement site to the external sites, since it deals with the 360 achievement system, and it has a great community. I added it earlier today, but someone took it off. The site is xbox360achievements.org. --72.144.142.72 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to sign in when I altered the page before, and now. --DaKing 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this site anything more than a game walkthrough site?70.101.201.248 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, after visiting the site for a while I am against the addition because:
  • News section is nothing close to frequiently updayed
  • Very small and overly catergorized forums make it non-newbie friendly
  • Isn't a general site, if focused on one feature of the console
  • Other sites (Eg.Gamefaqs) include achievment info on them, along with more detailed game guides.
  • This site seems more suited for game pages then on this main article
70.101.201.248 01:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link back... The site has over 2000 members, and explains in detail every single Achievement for the 360 system. Since achievements are the backbone of the console, it is more than a simple feature. They also feature guides and reviews for most of the games.

Does it deal with the 360? Yes. Does it belong on the Wikipedia since it deals with an important aspect of the console? Yes

Finally, if your going to have a book as a link, I think that my added link is worthy.

--DaKing 08:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2,000 members is hardly notable, the other sites linked have well over 100,000 members. And they have much more updated news, more detailed reviews, and cover all 360 games, not just most. If you want to add a walkthrough/achievment site, add one with notability, such as GameFAQs.70.101.201.248 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Hits

When are the Platinum Hits coming to the 360?--MarioV 22:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no official word on this as far as I know. --Kamasutra 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headset in australia

I've been try to find a referance for this, but am unable to do so. Anyone have citation for MicroSoft not including the headset in Australia/New Zealnd?70.101.201.248 06:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of included items in the Australian Premium console is here http://www.xbox.com/en-AU/hardware/x/xbox360prosystem/default.htm vortex 00:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MiB

What is the point of measuring the system ram in MiB? Nobody else does, not even MS themselves?70.41.230.6 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was decided a long time ago. The manual of style was altered to reflect this change. Archive --Thax 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay obviously you got rid of the hardware failure article to...

To give this article a better image, now I am going to include an article here that talks about the red light of doom, etc. Or...You guys got three days, THREE days before I include it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.97.150 (talk • contribs) .

Check What Wikipedia is not. We are not a FAQ nor an instruction manual, so don't add information that describes what to do or when to do something. -- ReyBrujo 03:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mods

Shouldnt there be some info on the development status of mods and homebrew? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.135.134.146 (talk • contribs) .

The main problem is that it is usually hard to verify mods with reliable sources. -- ReyBrujo 04:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FSB for 360

Hi do anyone know the exact FSB speed for the 360 console?The page currently only have the theoretical bandwidth speed of 21.6GB/s... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.4 (talk • contribs) .

I've added the FSB speed after doing my research,this website provided the info - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-fpfxbox/?ca=dgr-lnxw07XBoxDesign

Rewriting the Hardware Laundry List into Text

The next thing we need to tackle is to eliminate the hardware laundry list, per the feedback from the good article nomination. But here, it's not really appropriate to just remove it. What we need to do is to turn this into comprehensible paragraphs that explain what is unique or notable about the hardware, in a way that is interesting. Does anyone have any thoughts about the best way to do this?

My first guess is to suggest that we could turn it into text describing the performance of the hardware relative to the Xbox 360's predecessor. Anyone have any better ideas? Nandesuka 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. You can eliminate a lot of the maximum bandwidth statistics since practically no reader is going to care (and they are meaningless to most people anyway). -- uberpenguin @ 2006-09-02 15:51Z
How about an overview of the hardware (first sentences in each subsection look good), with a link to a new "Exhaustive XBox 360 hardware" article, much like the current situation with the games list? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think that's necessary. I really don't see any reason to retain useless factiods like transistor count of peripheral chips and maximum interconnect bus bandwidth, etc. Even the few readers who will understand the significance of these figures probably won't care (I do, and I don't). -- mattb @ 2006-09-02 17:20Z
OK, I've made a first cut. Feel free to revise my edits as you see appropriate. I tried to leave most "important" things in, while throwing out things that would only ever be discussed in the context of a spec shet. Nandesuka 20:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on ruining a perfectly good article, your changes may be the WORST I have ever seen. You don't like lists, we got that, stop trying to force your opinion onto others.88.191.18.162 20:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that one of the reasons this article failed to achieve "good article" status was the presence of that laundry list, I don't really see how your suggestion that w leave it in is tenable. Nandesuka 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a technical article, technical things are going to be here. Removing just because you dislike lists and without discussing the matter is terribly unhelpful.81.169.180.248 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to actually read this talk page, and you'll see that the matter was discussed. Participating on the talk page without actually reading what other people have said is terribly unhelpful. Nandesuka 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even bothered to read what we have been saying? NOBODY likes lists in articles. Not me, not Nandesuka, not most Wikipedia editors. As has been pointed out a number of times, the big lists are one reason this article didn't pass GA. Stop accusing other people of bad behavior when you're the one who has carried on a campaign of childishly insisting on his own way when most of the other editors disagree. You've already been blocked once, don't get blocked again. -- mattb @ 2006-09-02 21:43Z
I personally liked the information, but I like the seperate article idea as well... for this one as it is not a list paragraphs are better. RN 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nevermind..i prefer the edited version...i have done likewise with the PS3 article Ceecookie 07:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh this is about the Xbox 360 - contrary to what you believe, the CPU, System bandwidth, GPU, etc. etc. ARE part of the Xbox 360 - much more-so than the game list, for example (this is about the CONSOLE, is it not?). Maybe we should make a seperate article explaning the Xbox 360's guts with the list? Just take this, for example "The Xbox 360 hardware is greatly evolved from that in the original Xbox." No, really? I always thought the Xbox 360 was just Xbox hardware put into a white box? If you are going to put it in essay-format, at least make sense. McDonaldsGuy 03:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a link to the official spec sheet. Why replicate that here? That's pointless. Nandesuka 23:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the PS3 article hve been reverted back to it's original page and look exactly like the xbox 360 page before edition,shouldent the ps3 page be edited to be like the current 360 article? 218.186.9.2 13:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nandesuka. While this article is inarguably about the Xbox 360, we need to strike a balance between the encyclopedic and the trivial. Interconnect bus(s) bandwidth is one of those trivial bits of information. Why? First, it is not tied to anything else in the article, just thrown out there for the reader to do what (s)he will with it. Facts and figures need to be fleshed out with explanatory text in an encyclopedia article because you cannot take for granted that the reader has any idea what they mean. Second, even if all these items are properly explained, they are the domain of computer architecture. Even a basic explanation isn't useful to the reader unless they understand how digital electronics work, and that entire topic is, IMO, out of the scope of an article about a consumer game device. Now, if you would like to offer a way to include these big lists of facts and numbers into well-rounded, explanatory, and easy-to-understand text, please do so. However, as a person who has a little bit of experience in digital VLSI and embedded computer architecture, I don't see much merit in keeping most of these figures around. An external link to the spec sheet in all its listy glory should be sufficient.
This is NOT, as has been suggested, a technical article. This is an article about a consumer product. If it were a technical article we would be talking about process engineering, VLSI, API design, concurrency considerations, thermal dissipation, etc. -- mattb @ 2006-09-05 00:03Z
It is my belief that the article should not have a full list of specification. The same way we describe part of the plot in a game, a summary in a novel article, a famous recipe or complex machines (like car engine) and the most important facts in a biography, we should describe only the most important part of the specification, those that are useful for all readers, linking to a reliable external site where the full specifications are found. -- ReyBrujo 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Xbox 360 hardware is greatly evolved from that in the original Xbox.
Very informative!
    • The CPU, named Xenon is a custom IBM tri-core PowerPC-based design.[31], as compared to the Intel-based CPU in the original Xbox.
This realy gives me loads of information about the CPU!
    • The CPU/GPU combination of the Xbox 360 allows all games to support six channel Dolby Digital surround sound,
Shows how much the writer knows about the system, and it gives so much information about the audio, I mean, I know the channel count and.. that's it
    • as well as a wide array of standard and HDTV resolutions [34].
Wide array? So informative!
    • The Xbox 360's optical drive supports a wide variety of DVD-ROM formats in addition to DVD Video, as well as most common CD-based formats.
Wide variety? I just love how much information this gives me. Again, super duper helpful information!
    • Bandwith
Oh wait, you removed everything relating to it. Oh well, it doesn't matter! It's useless information right?
    • Disc speed
Yay, you removed that terribly uninformative information! Because no user will care about that technobable right? I mean who cares if they don't know the disc data read speed. Like I realy care to know how fast my games will be read of the disc.
    • Disc regioning
Yay, more removals! I mean, I totaly already knew I could play come japanese games on my American console. Everyone knows that right? And no user who doesn't know cares about it, correct?
    • Codecs
Who cares how video and audio is stored right? I know I don't, it's totaly unneeded.
    • Memory
Irrelevant! Glad you got rid of it, thank for improving the article!

Etc, your not improving the article, you plainly removing information for the sake of getting rid of the bullets.DeathSeeker 08:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I have requested full page protection for some hours until we settle the game library matter. If we need to have an informal poll, we should do it now. Note that, as this may be a precedent for every other console article, maybe a straw poll would be better. -- ReyBrujo 20:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll - Games list

This straw poll is to flesh out some consensus on the debate over whether to include a list of games (or what kind of list to include) for the console.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Discussion

Discussion resulting from the survey would go here. If there were a significant amount, it might be moved to a talk page instead.

I have added this survey to Wikipedia:Current surveys,[10] and at the WikiProject Computer and video games,[11] as the result could be used as precedent for other game articles. Sorry for the delay between both notifications, my connection went down and was just restored. -- ReyBrujo 05:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who wants to make the request to unprotect the page? I think we have a very broad consensus here. Nandesuka 13:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have semi-protected the page due to tendentious reverts from an anon who isn't participating on this talk page. Nandesuka 03:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music on original xbox games played through 360

  • I'm not sure if this was intended but I had recently been playing music on my 360. Without ending the music I put in an original xbox game and it was playing. Has this been reported to crash the 360 or was this intended despite the 360 dashboard not being available in original xbox games? DarthMaul431 13:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the remote, you can control your music while playing BC games - like Halo 2 for example. --DaKing 16:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HDMI output?

According to the following link, there are 3rd party HDMI cables for the Xbox 360. Should this be included in the Wiki?

Universal Premium HDMI Cable

Hardware laundry list edit warring

Jigahurtz has decided that the rewritten hardware sections on Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 aren't acceptable. The quote of the night is "Consensus means nothing". I'm not going to violate 3RR over this, but it might be nice if some of the editors who have participated meaningfully in this conversation demonstrate to Jigahurtz exactly what consensus means, and why it means much more than nothing. Nandesuka 04:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He and the anonymous IP have done nothing but revert, complain about well-intentioned edits other people have tried to make, and ignore discussion on the talk page when they disagree with it. Even if they disagree with the edits, they need to try and work with the consensus that other editors have come to rather than stubbornly insisting that the paragraph must meet their standards of perfection before it can stay. Their actions at this point constitute a complete unwillingness to work with other editors, and I have no qualms with reverting their edits as vandalism or at least bad faith. If they continue to revert we can seek 3RR blocks or other appropriate action. -- mattb @ 2006-09-05 04:27Z
Maybe the seperate article solution can be good here? RN 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an article containing a copy of a press release of technical specifications is encyclopedic at all, and I don't think it should be used as a peace offering to some folks who just don't seem to want to engage in the process. -- mattb @ 2006-09-05 05:09Z

Have the three of you even read the article? It gives absoultely no information about anything. The entire CPU section states the name, the memory and bandwith sections are completly removed, anything that specifies information was replaced with "wide variety" or "various". The page must meet the needs of all users.

  • People already familiar with the subject looking up details for reference. We want them to easily find the details they are looking for.
  • Do not "dumb-down" the article in order to make it more accessible. Accessibility is intended to be an improvement to the article for the benefit of the less-knowledgeable readers (who may be the largest audience), without reducing the value to more technical readers.

Two wikipolicies broken by this rewrite.DeathSeeker 08:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, neither of those are policies. Secondly, "Make technical articles accessible" also gives the following guidelines, all of which the previous, ridiculously unreadable list violates: Use jargon and acronyms judiciously, Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation, Eliminate long strings of adjectives, particularly technical adjectives. Thirdly, I disagree with you that summarizing the spec sheet constitutes "dumbing down." in fact, the hallmark of a decent computer engineer is the ability to look at a complex list of technical requirements and distill out the most important. It's not OK for us to punt and include the entire spec sheet just because one or two editors aren't technically skilled enough to be able to recognize when that's been done successfully. Lastly, the spec sheet does actually violate an official policy: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The idea that we need to include all of the information in the spec sheet, regardless of whether it's important or not, is inexplicable. Nandesuka 11:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another quick note, the bandwith section may be technical, but a diagram was provided for non technical users. So there shouldn't be a single user complaining about it. As it caters to all users.

Can you list what jargon or acronyms are used? And how they make the article less readable to other users?

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

  • Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. - Nope, isn't a fact.
  • Travel guides. - Isn't a travel guide
  • Memorials. - Isn't a memorial
  • Instruction manuals. - Isn't an instruction manual.
  • Internet guides. - Isn't an internet guide
  • Textbooks and annotated texts. - Isn't a textbook or annotated text
  • Plot summaries. - Doesn't summaries a plot.

Breaking what part of wiki policy?


  • I copied the full version of the current list, and removed information, nothing is rewritten or reworded, just removed.


The CPU, named Xenon is a custom IBM tri-core PowerPC-based design.[1]

The "Xenos" GPU is a custom chip designed by ATI. (Developed under the name "C1", sometimes "R500")[2] The chip contains two separate silicon dies: the parent GPU and the daughter eDRAM. Both the GPU and CPU of the console have heatsinks. The CPU's heatsink uses heatpipe technology, to efficiently conduct heat from the CPU to the fins of the heatsink.[37] The heatsinks are actively cooled by a pair of 60 mm exhaust fans that push the air out of the case (negative case pressure).

The console has a built-in 100BASE-TX RJ45 ethernet port, suitable for connecting to Xbox Live, and three USB ports.


  • Easily proves that no effort was put to make it easier for a nontechnical user was made. They person who wrote this version just deleted anything they thought was technical. This is nearly the complete version of the one you want to use. All this version does it remove information, it doesn't rewrite it to make it more readable to non technical users. The average user who would read either version gets the same sentences. Below are the rewritten sentences.


The CPU/GPU combination of the Xbox 360 allows all games to support six channel Dolby Digital surround sound, as well as a wide array of standard and HDTV resolutions [34].

The Xbox 360's optical drive supports a wide variety of DVD-ROM formats in addition to DVD Video, as well as most common CD-based formats.[35] A 20 gigabyte detachable hard drive is available for game saves and downloads (included in the non-Core version of the console), as are small, portable memory cards.


Not only is this technically incorrect, but it contains no context. "Wide variety"/"various" don't give information, this is even mentioned in the peer review.

One more note, this talk page even has people asking for technical information(FSB speed, bit count), which shows that some users come here looking for technical information.74.33.0.16 12:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a point buried in that rhetoric, or are you just doing more complaining without suggesting a real solution? We are not going to include a big laundry list of hardware; that has already been decided. Now please explain what you would change about the current prose, suggest an alternative, or kindly leave if you can do nothing but complain. I again put the challenge to you; if you want to include all the trivial figures please suggest a way to do so with proper context and explanation. If you don't really know what's going on well enough to do so, you have no business insisting that we include every minute detail possible. Alternatively, at least tell us the minimum list of hardware specifications you want to see in the article and why you think they should be there. Be as judicious as possible, because thus far the consensus has been that the list of information you revert to is far too much. -- mattb @ 2006-09-05 12:58Z
Additionally, if the blanket reversion by editors who disagree with the consensus and don't even make the attempt to suggest alternatives within the bounds agreed upon by other editors continues, I move that we file an RFC. It should cover both the issue of laundry lists in game console articles and whether the dissenting editors are justified in mass reversion on the basis of removal of content deemed trivial by the majority. -- mattb @ 2006-09-05 13:06Z
One more point, the bandwidth section was far out of the scope of what a consumer product article should cover and needed to be removed. Look, I can draw an energy band diagram for a MOSFET in strong inversion, stick it in the article, and write a paragraph about digital logic and the CMOS process. Even if the information is well presented and explained, this is not the correct article to be talking about digital logic. Likewise, this is not the correct article to be talking about computer engineering.
Could the dissenting editors please explain exactly how they would explain buss bandwidth for the purposes of this article? Synchronous clocked logic? Could you even explain to me what global logic synchronization is for? Do you want to explain what I/D cache locking means and why it's a significant thing to discuss in this article? How about explaining in a simple sentence why dot product operation performance is of interest here and exactly what dot product are used for inasmuch as polygon rendering is concerned. While you're at it, please elaborate on how listing the number and width of the Xbox 360's CPU's SIMD unit's vector registers is "valuable" to the average reader and how we can effectively explain the significance to the lay man. Want to explain what a FLOPS is, why it's important enough to list in this article, and why the theoretical peak is a totally bogus figure when it comes to real program execution? Who wants to explain instruction pipelining in a sentence, something that took me several paragraphs in the CPU article I wrote? Anybody want to explain some of the CMOS process jargon and exactly what that means to the average reader? Does anybody here even know exactly what we're referring to when we say "90 nanometer CMOS process"?
I eagerly await your suggestions as to how we can incorporate all these technical specifications into the article while answering the above questions (and more) in brief so as to explain the significance of each figure to the lay man. I've written a featured article on a technical subject and frankly, I'm not seeing any way this is possible. If you don't understand any of those above subjects well enough to explain it in your own words, then perhaps you will BEGIN to understand what I mean when I said that this is NOT a technical article, it is NOT a computer architecture article, it is NOT a semiconductor device engineering article, it IS a consumer product article. -- mattb @ 2006-09-05 13:22Z
  1. ^ "Application-customized CPU design", Brown, Jeffery, IBM developerWorks, 2005
  2. ^ Wavey Dave Baumann. "ATI Xenos: XBOX 360 Graphics Demystified". Beyond3D. Retrieved 2006-04-11.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xbox_360&oldid=73942611"