Jump to content

Talk:Xbox 360/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Credit/Debit Card Issues

I'm shocked how the X-Box retains your credit or debit card information in the Live Account with no option to remove it, seems like a privacy issue to me. Could someone include this in a new "Criticisms" section of either this or the XBox Live page as appropriate?

You need to find a reliable source that makes that criticism. It's not sufficient to write about our own opinions. Nandesuka 15:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
nevermind..i prefer the edited version...i have done likewise with the PS3 article Ceecookie 07:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

We already have a link to the official spec sheet. Why replicate that here? That's pointless. Nandesuka 23:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the PS3 article hve been no 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)
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)
    • 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)

Exactly, deathseeker. Just because something's "pointless" as they say doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. We are here to give the facts, no matter how "pointless" it is. The Xbox 360's hardware is not only a very important part of the Xbox 360, technically it IS the Xbox 360. If we are to put it into essay form, we should at least include some specs instead of "teh xbox 360 is teh evolved from teh xbox lolol!!!11"
McDonaldsGuy 07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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)


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)

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)

[Please delete this, it is no longer relevant]

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)

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)
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)

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)
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?

Sure:
  • "Three symmetrical cores, each one SMT-capable and clocked at 3.2 GHz"
  • "Dot product performance: 9.6 billion per second."
  • "One VMX-128 SIMD unit per core, dual threaded."
  • "48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines"
  • GFLOPS
  • Texels
(Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not even going to mention that you think symmetrical is technical. Nor shall I even try to decypher "texels". For GFLOPS, anything related to computers is given in FLOPS, it's an industry standard term and anyone who reads about processors should know what it is. 48-way isn't technical, just look at it word for word nothing that someone fluent in English wouldn't be able to understand. As for VMX, That is technical, but there isn't a way to simplify it, and articles shouldn't have information removed because all users may not understand them. As some articles require some knowledge of the subject before hand.(Doesn't know the wiki policy quick link for that one, but pretend I added it there).

Hmm... Your explanation of FLOPS is totally wrong and you didn't even bother to indicate whether you know anything at all about instruction parallelism or SIMD. It strikes me as ironic that you're arguing for the inclusion of terms and figures that you yourself don't even seem to comprehend. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 01:27Z
  • FLOPS are the most commonly given term to indicate a computers power, there is nothing wrong with what I said about them.
  • Instruction parallelism? Lets break this down into two words. Instruction and parrallel, do you honestly think the average user doesn't know that parallelism is? Or intructions?
  • And as for VMX-128 SIMD, I said that was technical, but in keeping with wiki policy. "it may be reasonable to assume certain background knowledge", that means there is no reason to remove it.DeathSeeker 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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
The user clearly proved his point, users aren't rewriting the article, as the above shows. All that's being down is removing information for the sake of getting rid of
  • Bullets

DeathSeeker 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Anyway, I'm tweaking things as I speak. It is a difficult area - you want it to be accessable to the public while at the same time not losing many technical details... RN 13:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PHEW :). So, I think I stuffed just about every fact I can get into there.... I think it looks pretty decent now - at least to myself :). I think some of the jargon is unavoidable, the best is to just spell it out when one has to.... RN 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't look like that stopped it yet. Oh well, at least I tried :\ - hopefully it ends up OK. :) RN 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, anything technical was removed. Anything you can't find a way to work into the page, is simply deleted. As stated before, any removal of technical information is dumb down the article, and replacement of data containing tables with phrases such as "Wide variety"/"Various" contain no valuable information.Any such revert that leaves out any information from the "list" version will be considered vandalism, until you can work out a way to contain all technical information, edit will be considered removal of information and vandalism. Such being they will not follow the 3RRDeathSeeker 23:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting really tired of people calling edits they disagree with vandalism, when they clearly do not qualify as the simple vandalism referred to in the 3RR policy. This is getting out of hand. If people don't cool it with the revert warring soon, I'm afraid full protection may be necessary on some of these console articles. And I really don't want that. Dancter 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"is simply deleted" - this is not exactly true from a view that the references contain all the info one would want. (If they don't we should change the references) - the point of the article is to give an overview, not every last detail. Right now it contains basically all the memory and bandwidth info in the article between the image and the text even! RN 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice job ignoring practically every point that has been made and going back to your tired "you aren't allowed to remove or rephrase ANY SHRED of information from this article, no matter how insignificant or trivial, so long as I'M around to police things" argument. Since you haven't bothered to respond to a single question we've posed, nor have you made any attempt to actually improve the article (you've only tirelessly reverted the good faith changes of others), I'm going to simply ignore you totally and proceed with trying to make constructive edits. Keep up the blanket reversion and we will have to seek administrative intervention. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 01:22Z

One more straw poll

I'm tired of making the same arguments until I'm blue in the face, so I'm going to fall back on good 'ol consensus. The revert war needs to stop, so we need to set a clear precedent for what we want to see in the article. Please sign your name under only one of the below options. I don't want any significant discussion in this section, only a clear vote. Should we:

Wiki policy is to support the needs of all users, including tehnical. Regardless of the outcome of this poll the information stays.DeathSeeker 05:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Point me in the direction of this policy. This is an encyclopedia and a list of the hardware minutiae is not encyclopedic. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't own the article. -- ReyBrujo 03:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
AccessibilityPeople already familiar with the subject looking up details for reference. We want them to easily find the details they are looking for. A good table of contents (and thus appropriately constructed section headers) can help a lot.
Abundance and Redundancy is a guideline dealing with similar material being shared among separate articles, and debates over the removal of said materials on the basis of context: It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war. In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.

Until someone can find a wikipolicy that states information should be removed, I think the above is proof enough it stays. I am reverting to the previous version on the basis that I have provided a direct wiki policy to support my opinion. DeathSeeker 03:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is one of the strongest wikipedia policies. We do not have to find a policy to justify every content change that you disagree with. If you continue to pretend like consensus is irrelevant, there will be reprocussions for you. -- mattb @ 2006-09-07 03:32Z
  • Consensus It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles
Consensus is irrelevant if it breaks policy.
  • Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate.
As I stated above, voting should have nearly no weight in page outcome, established guidelines should.DeathSeeker 03:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Refusing to acknowledge consensus, and going against it once it has been reached by the majority of the editors may end in a problematic situation. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute, where a user was banned from editing the article and talk page for being uncooperative during and after consensus. -- ReyBrujo 03:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.

Majority is not consensus.

If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over.

As Accessibility and Abundance and Redundancy are established guidelines, they are consensus. DeathSeeker 04:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (policy): You don't own the article to stop ongoing edits
Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (guideline): You are twisting the guidelines, abusing them to favour your own edits
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute (disruption precedent): Refusing to acknowledge the building consensus for a modification of the article, negating negotiation, disrupting the article, etc.
That is all I have to say. Consensus means negotiating. Negotiating means splitting the difference between editors. You were offered the chance of rewriting the section in prose, but you refused. You were explained point after point why each piece of information was being removed from the article, you denied discussion. You were shown paragraphs that were generated by consensus, you reverted them. Apparently, you want this specific version to stay, and will do anything to do that. Which is wrong. -- ReyBrujo 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is far more important than guidelines. Guidelines on Wikipedia are the result of many consensus discussions and are mostly there to help you along when you run into trouble. Most guidelines are not harshly enforced, and you will find that using guidelines as an excuse to ignore consensus will not work. Guidelines are usually changed because of consensus, not the other way around. Majority can very well be consensus when there is one person conducting an edit war against a handful of other editors. Claiming that majority is not consensus in this case is false and is only being used as a lame excuse to justify your actions. -- mattb @ 2006-09-07 04:24Z
  • Guidelines=Consensus+Consensus+More Consensus Guidelines on Wikipedia are the result of many consensus discussions
  • Consensus > Guidelines Consensus is far more important than guidelines.

Can you spot what's wrong with the equation above?

Policies and guidelines While we try to respect consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its governance can be inconsistent. Hence there is disagreement between those who believe rules should be explicitly stated and those who feel that written rules are inherently inadequate to cover every possible variation of problematic or disruptive behavior. In either case, a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated.DeathSeeker 04:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Policies. -- ReyBrujo 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, wrong.DeathSeeker 04:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you don't seem to find this solution acceptable, I offer two different neutral solutions, to see if either is enough for you to stop these reverts. We can create an Xbox 360 hardware article, where all the technical information, benchmarks, etc, could be included, trimming the hardware section of this article in a prose sentence (maybe the one suggested here), with a link at the beginning of the section pointing to the hardware article. The Xbox 360 article would focus on explaining the features of the console to the casual user in a friendly manner, while the hardware article will offer the full information of the console, oriented to the techies and geeks.
The other solution is involving the whole community through a request for comment for the article section, asking for informal mediation, or directly requesting mediation. Does either of these alternatives appeal to you? -- ReyBrujo 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer the simple prose that the original version states, with technical details in another article. There's no need for all that alphabet soup in a universally accessible article. TFX

RfC against DeathSeeker

I think it's time for an RfC against DeathSeeker. Does anyone think I'm being premature? Nandesuka 12:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's for us to decide, but anyone who tries to dictate policy (Regardless of the outcome of this poll the information stays.) can only be in the wrong. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but he is not the dictator. -AthlonBoy 12:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've posted some information on WP:ANI regarding this matter. Give that a little time to pan out before moving on to an RfC. However, if DeathSeeker's revert warring and disregard for others' opinions doesn't change, I'll gladly support RfC. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 12:52Z
I believe it is premature. Until last night nobody had tried to make him understand Wikipedia through his talk page. I was going to do it, but then thought better of it, as my time is pretty limited as of late (I can barely catch up with my watchlist modifications). -- ReyBrujo 13:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


The fact is I gave a reason for any edit, that not a single user repsonds to.DeathSeeker 14:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The "fact" you have given thus far is that you think removal of trivial information is vandalism. We have repeatedly told you that it is not, and repeatedly you have been reverted by several other editors. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:01Z

The facts I gave were all wiki policy/guidelines.DeathSeeker 13:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first.
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.
In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.
Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.

How is this informative

In addition, while the first Xbox's graphics processing unit (GPU) was produced by NVidia, the Xbox 360 uses a chip designed by ATI called "Xenos" (Developed under the name "C1", sometimes "R500").

  • The only information I get from this is a name.
    • What else do you want? Contrived and artificial metrics describing one obscure method of estimating a facet of floating point performance? That's not data that will be of general interest. I have a good bit of experience in embedded system design, and I certainly don't care. How much less so the lay man. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z

The Xbox 360 hardware is completely updated from that of its predecessor, including an entirely different central processing unit (CPU) named Xenon. Xenon is a custom triple-core PowerPC-based design by IBM as opposed to the Xbox's Intel Coppermine-128 microprocessor. Each core of the CPU is simultaneous multithreading capable and clocked at 3.2 gigahertz.[31]

  • The Xbox 360 has more power than the original, obvious and pointless statement.
    • Suggest an alternative. What's obvious to you may not be to the next person. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z
  • You state SMT and the clock speed. To bad clock speed is meaningless.[1]
    • If you want, I'd be fine with removing the clock speed as well. Again, what would you suggest? Yet another contrived metric? No list of theoretical numbers will ever define the performance of a microprocessor in all (or even many) situations. Additionally, mass journalism is a horrible HORRIBLE place to find any technical information. I suggest reading a book on computer architecture rather than relying on some journalist's dumbing down of the concepts. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z
  • Reason for removing anything that would include information that shows the basic power of the CPU?
    • Explain exactly how theoretical figures whose derivation is seldom explained (read: "marketing numbers") actually indicate microprocessor performance. Have you ever developed computer systems? Ever actually used an embedded system in a real-world situation where performance is a complicated issue that cannot be judged by one metric? -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z


Additionally, a wide array of standard and HDTV resolutions, up to 1920×1080 in interlaced mode, are supported by the console hardware.[34]

  • Reason for removing and replacing with content less wide arrary
    • Trivial information. Nobody cares about a list of resolutions; they can simply look it up in the product manual, in one of the press releases we link, or on Microsoft's website if they want to know. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z

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]

  • Reason for removing and replacing with content less "wide variety"
    • Trivial information. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z

Bandwith

  • Reason for breaking wikipolicy of accibility
    • As far as I can ascertain, you don't even have a good idea of what all those bandwidth numbers really mean, yet you are complaining that we're making it less accessible to a group of users more savvy than yourself. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z

Optical disc speed

  • Reason for removing
    • Reason for keeping? -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z

Codecs

  • Reason for removing

The option to apply a regional lockout to games is available to publishers. DVD region codes are always enforced.

  • Reason for removing
    • That one might be a candidate for re-adding because it's ever so slightly interesting. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z

Height and weight

  • Reason for removing
    • It's a useless factoid because it isn't presented in any context. Stuff like that should be explained in comparison to other relevant figures, but I see little reason to create several sentences comparing the device's size and mass with that of other consumer electronic devices. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z

Voice communication is handled by the console, not by the game code, allowing cross-game communication.

  • Reason for removing

No voice echo to game players on the same console; voice goes only to remote consoles.

  • Reason for removing

Support for 48 kHz 16-bit audio

  • Reason for removing
    • Only someone who has no idea what this means would think it's useful information. What do you know about digital quantization and sampling theory? Do you know what the Nyquist-Shannon sampling rule is? Do you know what the upper threshold of human hearing is? Combine Nyquist-Shannon with 24 kHz and you should get my point. Do you know what PCM is? (these are rhetorical questions; I don't want an answer) 48 kHz 16-bit PCM are EXTREMELY common sampling parameters, likely surpassed only by 44.1 kHz 16-bit PCM per Red Book standards. Most people won't understand what the significance of digital sampling is. Those that do (like myself) could make an educated guess as to what sampling rates are being used based on years of precedent. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z

320 independent decompression channels

  • Reason for removing
    • Trivial, meaningless, do you even know what this means? -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z

32 bit processing

  • Reason for removing
    • Oh, I dunno, because integer range means very little and is totally irrelevant the end users who might be reading this article. Unless of course you can think of a reason that the reader would want or need to know what the physical address space, GPR, and ALU width in the Xbox 360's microprocessor is. If there's no reason the reader should know this (there isn't), then it's nothing but a factoid. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z

256+ audio channels

  • Reason for removing
    • It means nothing to the lay man, and it means nothing to the DSP expert. You present that factoid to a DSP designer and they'll laugh and tell you it's a funny contrived marketing phrase that was added to a list of specs for bulk. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:33Z


Can some one link me to a single policy that states inclusion of information it bad? Or that the voting majority decides everything?

An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

  • Anything that is detailing and comprehensive is encyclopedic, can you say anything to prove otherwise?

As stated before, this isn't a rewrite, it's outright removal[2].DeathSeeker 14:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fact book. It is not a place to list every bit of trivia. If we were to include every possible detail this article would be enormous and inaccessible to EVERYBODY. When an encyclopedia is called "comprehensive", a general scope of knowledge is inferred. Writing a comprehensive article does not mandate inclusion of every single factoid that can be gathered. I invite you to pick up your hard copy encyclopedia and try to find out what Leonhard Euler's favorite color was. If I went to the Euler article and added a well-sourced statement indicating the luminary mathematician's favorite color, I'd be quickly reverted for adding trivial information. If I started revert warring and wildly accusing other users of vandalism for removing totally factual information, I'd look downright foolish.
You have many editors telling you that they do not believe all of this data is necessary to include and is rather tedious to read through and hurts the article more than it helps it. I'm telling you again that factoids like digital buss bandwidth are totally trivial and unimportant for this article, which deals with a consumer product, not computer architecture. Your response has been the same: "information removal is vandalism". You are fighting against a consensus with the same argument that has been rejected repeatedly. Bringing it up again and badgering us with it won't change anybody's mind. Your misuse of the term vandalism sounds as wild and foolish as trying to argue inclusion of Euler's favorite color. I hope you can come to terms with the fact that you cannot always have things your way on Wikipedia. If not, things will eventually work out in the favor of consensus. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 22:04Z

Some of you people say the specs are "useless," which is not true. Some of the most discussed topics on forums for example are specs vs. specs. And even if the average person who goes to Wikipedia doesn't care, they probably won't care about when it launched either. Or Microsoft XNA. Or the sales figures. See, just because you think it's pointless doesn't mean it is. You say it's a "consumer product," but contrary to your belief, the Xbox 360 IS a computer, just as Titanic was a ship. Therefore, we should talk about the specs in more detail. Tell me, how are the specs useless? McDonaldsGuy 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the people on said forums don't know what they're talking about. Press release spec lists loaded with contrived figures are just as big a marketing tactic as commercial advertisements. Additionally, since when have internet forums set a precedent for Wikipedia?
Your computer argument doesn't hold up since almost every complex consumer electronics device contains a computer of some sort now. If you want to bring a real discussion of computer architecture into this article, you're proposing expanding it far beyond its scope. There are other articles where computer architecture discussion is appropriate; this is simply not one of them. Think about target audience: someone looking up a wikipedia article on computer architecture will be expecting to see a technical discussion of architecture. However, do you honestly think the average person looking up a videogame console wants to be inundated with a list of computer architecture terms? On the one hand we have the terrible laundry list that tosses a pile of trivia into the reader's lap and leaves them to deal with it. On the other hand we could rewrite all of that "technical data" (I use quotes because most of these figures are subject to a lot of marketing department massaging) into a fleshed-out discussion of computer architecture and assault the guy who just wanted to read about the thing's retail configurations or find out a little information about the hardware. It's fallacy to assume that a significant portion of the readers of this article will be interested in any real computer architecture topics.
Anyway, I already explained in detail above why some of the various specifications are insignificant for the purposes of this article. Instead of asking me to do exactly what I already did, please see my responses above and explain why you think I'm wrong on some of the points. -- mattb @ 2006-09-07 03:30Z
You said most people didn't care, which is NOT the case. Whether or not they understand is irrelevent. And even if some people didn't care, they don't have to read it. If they don't want to read it, they don't have too. It's that simple.
The average person looking up a console in an encyclopedia probably wants to find out everything s/he can. I mean seriously, what makes you think they don't? Do you suddenly think for the "average consumer"? What information do they find out here, anyways? The only useful information they could find here is the "retail configuration" prices, which Microsoft has probably already provided them. The "average consumer" most likely isn't going to go on Wikipedia to get info on the Xbox 360. Xbox 360 IS a computer (that plays Xbox 360 games), and the specs ARE important. How is you taking out the bullets helping? Now we have to read through a whole boring paragraph instead of just reading the bullets. Good job, you made it worse.
How are they insignifanct? So because you don't care, it doesn't matter? Wikipedia isn't about picking and choosing - half of the shit on here is useless, but we report facts. Or we should. McDonaldsGuy 04:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Good articles are not produced on the assumption that "users don't have to read this if its too complicated for them to understand". I've produced highly technical articles here that are readily accessible to the lay man, so let's not go down that path. I still don't see any reason to treat this as a technical article, however. There is very little that is architecturally interesting or unique about the Xbox 360; it's biggest claim to fame is that it is Microsoft's high profile modern game console. The article should talk about it in that context, not in the context of computer architecture.
You have yet to even hint at how we could successfully incorporate sufficient comp arch information into this article to properly explain all of the figures that you wish to include. A list of facts, many of which are nothing but massaged marketing numbers, unsupported by explanatory text is not informative at all. We can simply link to that list and people can easily see it in all its glory. A good article should pick out the most important details of the hardware specs and summarize them.
Precedent set by bad Wikipedia articles is not an excuse to try to impede the work of people trying to improve THIS article. -- mattb @ 2006-09-07 04:42Z
But the problem is, from my point of view, you are NOT improving the quality of the article. Kenimaru 05:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Leaving the spec sheet is is simply not a viable option. We submitted the article for review as a "good article." The review came back with specific comments indicating that one of the biggest problems with the article was the unreadable hardware laundry list. To improve the article, the list has to go. Period.
Now, that being said, it surely might be the case that those of us that have worked hard on rewriting the hardware section into text might have not done a good job of it, and I absolutely encourage any and all editors of the article to improve what we've started by editing it. For example, if you think the CPU bandwidth statistics are absolutely critical, and want to add them, along with a sentence explaining what they are, why they're important, and how they compare to other consoles, go for it. But simply reverting back to the tabular list form is in no way acceptable. Nandesuka 05:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Now that's some constructive discussion happening. Maybe we should talk about what's to be included and the depth of the topics should be? For example, the CPU, we'll talk about tri-core, dual-threading for sure, but do we talk about the theoritical performance and such? I mean, me being a software engineer understand what those spec numbers mean, but that's just me. So, what now? Kenimaru 06:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of What's to be Included for Hardware

I'll start the section here, but first I'd like to let others express their views. Thanks all. Kenimaru 06:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

For now I'll like to suggest to leave the section alone as DeathSeeker's reverts since that was the way it is before the re-wrties, and let's start talk about what's to be covered in the article, both breath and depth. This secion WILL have a re-write, I think everyone's on the same page, but the difference lies in HOW it would be re-written, thanks all. Kenimaru 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Since not a single user bothered to make this article accessible to all users, including technical ones, I've rewritten everything myself. Due to the fact not everything is directly relevant to each other it may be worded fragment-ly(Proper word?) or run-on-y(Intentionly improper). Make an effort to improve the flow by adding linking sentences, rearrangment, or rewording. Removal is not an improvement. Any user who removes information is in direct violation of wikipolicy/guideline. Keep that in mind if you want to copy edit anything.DeathSeeker 07:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

First I'd like to point out that the current Hardware section has about 1/2 to 1/3 of the bullet points then the section as of the GA, so is quite possible it would now pass on that point anyhow. That aside I think it has to be determined what the section should contain, should it contain technical details or should it be an overall description. I don't believe that mixing the two as done by some editors is a solution. It's still way too hard to read for a general user and completely destroys any technical value of the artical.vortex 08:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What might be useful is finding a way to express the graphical power of the 360 in some comprehensible, tangible way, without resorting to marketingspeak like "34784 gigatexels per microsecond." Can we find a reliable source that explores this issue in some detail and cite them? Nandesuka 14:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that any understanding of the hardware requires some knowledge and/or patience to learn on the part of the reader. The absolute best articles about the machine are at Beyond3d.Com and ArsTechnica.Com. ArsTechnica's articles in particular try to explain the machine in somewhat layman's terms. Beyond3d's GPU article is incredibly thorough, as is typical of the site. If there ever was a site to trust for accurate GPU info, B3D is it. The site's owner now works at ATI because of his work at B3D, and the forums are filled with console devs, PC devs, and hardware/software engineers.--Swaaye 17:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I think a way to do it, is we create spacific page for the details of the CPU/GPU, with brief summary and a link from here to those pages, like that of the list of games. Kenimaru
There is already a Xbox 360/PS3/Wii comparison page that contains a LOT of the technical details that have been included on this artical. To a large degree duplicating is probably pointless. I'm still of the view that this artical has to go one way or the other... be technical or be general overview. In the case of being an overview I'd say that no technical specs or details should be included (no bandwidths, no 32bit this or SMP that).vortex 02:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I dunno. A specific page seems like overkill. I thought what we had here was decent, if a bit too bullet-ridden. I can see why some people would be horribly annoyed by the useless numbers though. But that use of useless numbers has pervaded console history since the beginning. It's part of how they're sold to uneducated consumers, and how the machines are compared to their peers. In the end though, the numbers mean little. This generation more than ever is impossible to relate to single measures because of how difficult it is for games to approach such numbers. I think the console's hardware can be outlined in 3-4 paragraphs and then we can link to the external articles to really go in-depth. It would be reinventing the wheel to try to paraphrase those incredible articles. --Swaaye 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say it's useless, but maybe it's because it makes sense to me being of my background. Kenimaru 07:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've add sub-section tags to make it easier to read. Kenimaru 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that the section has been cleaned of most of the hard technical bits, is there any reason to keep around my bandwidth diagram? It seems somewhat out of place. --Thax 16:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Articles

These might make a good article on ATI Xenos, which we could then link to. Nandesuka 14:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Splitting off

Can we move this discussion to another page? Maybe a subpage? My edit form says this talk page is 93 KB long, which is nearly 3 times the 32 KB recommendation. Most of this bulk comes from this debate, which is crowding out all the other discussion. Dancter 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've archived some of the earlier content, including the straw poll on the game list. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 14:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What a Timing

Is it just me or all the sudden vadalism happened here coincides with the announcement of only 500k PS3 units shipped at launch? Kenimaru 21:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen much extra vandalism. There's been quite a bit of edit warring, though. Dancter 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

split off

I've archived the top half of the page.

1st Hardware Conversion

Xbox360 2 Laptop this is great.--Nemissimo II 15:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Forecaste sales estimates

The article currenlty states for the installation base:

Total: 5 million consoles,[40] as of June 30, 2006.

Quarterly Data
Q4 2005, 1.5 million units [41]
Q1 2006, 1.7 million units [42]
Q2 2006, 1.8 million units [43]
Forecasted total estimates:
Q4 2006, 10 million units[9]
Q2 2007, 15 million units[44]

My question: what the hell? A sudden jump BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE just as other consoles are being released? Shouldn't we be quoting independent analysts here rather than Microsoft's wishful thinking -- or at least make clear it's their wishful thinking? MrVoluntarist 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this information came directly from Microsoft. As you stated, it is simply an estimate. Analysts don't have access to the kind of information about the 360 that Microsoft does. For all you know they could lower the price to 5 dollars and sell 50 million units this christmas(Heh, don't quote me on that.) Sorcre 21:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, but I think that should be re-labled as "Microsoft's estimated cummulative sales" to remind people who's fooling whom. MrVoluntarist 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see your point...
"remind people who's fooling whom."
You have absolutely NO evidence to backup your statement. For all you know it could be 100% accurate. Even if it isn't, it is an estimate. Microsoft is not fooling anyone with an estimate. The only people being fooled are those who don't understand what an estimate is. Sorcre 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not advocating saying that "Microsoft is fooling you" in the article, so I don't need to "back it up". I'm just saying, it needs to make clear this is a Microsoft estimate, which is going to be biased toward the higher end to appease investors. That's not currently clear in the text, or even from looking at the footnotes. MrVoluntarist 21:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
If you follow the footnote, it takes you to articles which clearly state that the information is provided by Microsoft. Bias or not, it is the most realible source(at this time).Sorcre 21:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
And I'm saying a reader shouldn't have to go through all that to find out that it's a Microsoft estimate. I'm adding it in. MrVoluntarist 21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. My argument were aimed at your side comments. Sorcre 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice chat. I like the comments at the top. This looks like an actual chat, and I don't see that much fanboy arguing, NICE JOB. This is SO unlike the PS3 talk page. THANK YOU ALL! - 68.228.33.74 06:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. Does anyone have the Q3 sales? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.138.22 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit early for that, don't you think? Q3 isn't quite over yet, and then it usually takes about another month for the companies to release their official quarterly reports. Dancter 03:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


"This is SO unlike the PS3 talk page". exactly. that page is ugly. are the forecasted estimates cumulative? If they are, that means they have an increase from 1.8 to 2.5 million units per quarter, which isn't unheard of. Perhaps it could be converted to the same scale if so? --gatoatigrado 16:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean changing all the numbers to cumulative? Anyway, I changed the 10 million units information again. Every time they've mentioned the figure, Microsoft has made it clear that the number is not for the end of the fourth quarter, but several weeks before then. That can be a significant difference, and it is misleading to indicate otherwise. Also, where is the 5.0 million total coming from? I'm not seeing it anywhere in the given reference. Dancter 16:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC suggestion

Based on the RfC summary, how about branching the list information and trivia references into a separate list page? I often see debates about whether to include or exclude this sort of information. From my own experience, the editors at Joan of Arc reached a very successful solution in creating the list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Both pages are now featured. Durova 00:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

HD-DVD update / Newly announced info

I have added 1080P scaling to the article but there is still a lot missing. Could someone please add it? : Sorcre

Out of Warranty Xbox 360 Repair

MS announced that they will repair any Xbox 360 out of warranty, as long as it was made before January 1st, 2006. If they cannot repair it in 48 hours, they will send the owner a new Xbox 360. Could someone add this to the article.- Delta Spartan 05:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I found the source for that, but I'm not sure how to fit it into the article. Anyone want to give it a shot? --Karafias 20:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
How about in the short Technical issues blurb? It seems like a good place.-Delta Spartan 00:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Question

Hey, I was lookinhg at some of the edit's history, and there is vandalism going on constantly. Why hasen't anyone locked up the page? 66.157.207.33 21:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's more productive to just revert the page and allow ----all---- users who wish to make productive edits do so.70.101.200.243 23:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias

"A unique feature of the console is its robust graphical user interface" The tone of this sentence is very subjective, so I'm changing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.14.53.15 (talk • contribs) .

Criticism

Why does the ps3 have a separate section for all the "criticism" people have about it, while the xbox 360 is criticism free? There are plenty of referenced issues people have with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.138.210.106 (talk • contribs)

If you read the article, you will find most of the appropriate criticisms in the right area. Check technical issues, etc. If the criticisms are already woven into the article in the places they belong, there really isn't a need for a separate section. Unless you have some specific ideas that aren't covered in the article. --Karafias Talk • Contributions 19:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Criticisms tend to be POV and are often hotly debated (whats one persion's criticism is anothers feature). As Karafias points out, the text covers many of the 'criticisms' anyway and it would be duplicating. Also just because it occurs in the PS3 actical is not reason for it to occur in this one (or vice-versa).vortex 08:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

System names

Is the $399 system simply called the Xbox 360, or does it have a name attacted, like "Pro" or "Premium"? Koweja 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends, it can be called Premium or Pro depending on where you look and the region.vortex 07:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Then is refereing to the Pro/Premium system as "Xbox 360 System" in the article accurate enough, or should it be changed to one of the two? Koweja 13:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft's official names are "Xbox 360" and "Xbox 360 Core", as such the article is perfectly fine. Premium is a retail/fan coined term to differintiate between the system and one of the systems configuriations.70.101.200.243 20:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

legitimate criticsm

This was said by Tim Sweeney of Epic games. Obviously don't use the cquote template, but I think a brief mention of this - it is legitimate criticism - would be npov. [3]. --gatoatigrado 17:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the Xbox Live article.70.101.200.243 22:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
am I blind - where? --gatoatigrado 02:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Criticisms of Xbox Live

In a recent interview[1] with Gamasutra, Epic Games's Tim Sweeney noted that Sony's online strategy offered a more enlightened business model that will allow gamers to download user generated content directly to the PlayStation 3. He went as far to say that Microsoft had been quite negative to user created content, something that had been an essential part of Epic's success.



Yep, your blind. ;)70.101.200.243 23:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

lol okay. --gatoatigrado 05:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

question

"The GPU also houses additional capabilities typically separated into a motherboard chipset in PC systems"

like what? --gatoatigrado 17:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Memory controler for one, there is a few other bits as well. vortex 06:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

pov statements

"The Xbox 360 has an extensive amount of bandwidth in comparison to its competition". [4]

I hate to sound like a fanboy. I have an Xbox 360 "premium", so don't say anything. But on another level technical incorrectness and distortion is just wrong. --gatoatigrado 17:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. The article linked to is the "Microsoft Competitive Comparison". Guaranteed to be pov.
  2. The cell has good experimental bandwidth (Wikipeida's previous version [5]).
  3. this Microsoft propaganda is **** ****. This is the main point in the ref. They are counting the "memory performance" of the eDram on the GPU. This is like counting the 51 GB/s on all of the Cell's Local Stores, and adding them up (the number is 357, equally irrelevant). The eDram is specialized memory, as my article revision more accurately shows.
would someone make a reference out of this article? or find one from a better source? thanks. this is in regard to the antialiasing comments. diff. reference. --24.7.86.143 01:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a relevant factual comment from a reliable source, there is no need to discuss it's inclusion. Your other comment is already in the GPU section. (inserted by gatoatigrado from 70.101.200.243's edit summary)

"Your other comment is already in the GPU section." I'm sorry, you're right. It is from a "reliable" but highly biased source (Microsoft). That is not IGN's words, they are providing a copy of Microsoft's "competitive comparison" document. It is not the purpose of this article to spread Microsoft propaganda. Please reply on the talk page. Your edit summaries are good so I won't complain yet. --gatoatigrado 05:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

All specifications are from the company that makes the products, Microsoft releasing it doens't make it POV. All the numbers there are factual. The bandwidth conclusion was drawn by IGN (pg 3) (inserted by gatoatigrado from 70.101.200.243's edit summary)

On page 3, this (below) is Microsoft's. The information below the horizontal line, as I am interpreting it, is IGN's comments. --gatoatigrado 05:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

CONCLUSION When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the PlayStation 3.

This is what appears to be IGN's comments, below the horizontal line. --gatoatigrado 05:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, we were sent updated spec numbers on the Xbox's numbers, and we spoke with Microsoft's Vice President of hardware, Todd Holmdahl, about the Xbox 360's final transistor count.

Another bit of information sent our way is the final transistor count for Xbox 360's graphics subset. The GPU totals 332 million transistors, which is spit between the two separate dies that make up the part. The parent die is the "main" piece of the GPU, handling the large bulk of the graphics rendering, and is comprised of 232 million transistors. The daughter die contains the system's 10MB of embedded DRAM and its logic chip, which is capable of some additional 3D math. The daughter die totals an even 100 million transistors, bringing the total transistor count for the GPU to 232 million.

So, that's Microsoft's analysis. What do you make of it? Tell us what you think on the boards.

Information coming from a reliable source does not remove it from discussion. I would argue that articles such as http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-2371220,00.html, which are obviously from reliable sources, are biased and conflict with other opinions. The criticism for lack of surface level innovation is one thing, but the "lack of wow factor" because many games are extensions to series started on the PlayStation 2 has been criticized by other users. Indeed, this link is still in the PlayStation 3 article, but it demonstrates how this can be controversial. --gatoatigrado 06:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

how many consoles?

is it 5 or 6 million? the statistics on the bottom say 5. the cvg box at the top says 6. When this is complete, please rewrite the statistics into prose. --gatoatigrado 17:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

irrelevant

these are a bit irrelevant in my opinion. --gatoatigrado 17:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • "Project X", Xbox Next or NextBox
  • That month Microsoft held an event for 400 developers in Bellevue, Washington to recruit support for the system
  • On October 24, 2005 Microsoft shut down Xbox Live for a day to upgrade it for the Xbox 360

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gatoatigrado (talk • contribs) .

Reality Check

From what I've heard(Just a Rumor),it's said that the XBox 360 features the ablility to play any 360 game on it,and it looks as if it were in real life(the graphics).Is that tru? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conker The Squirrel (talk • contribs) .

not unless your eyes are very bad. The nvidia CEO said, it will be at least 10 years until "photorealistic" graphics; compared to all hype accounts, I think it's a much more realistic estimate than I have ever heard. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 50. --gatoatigrado 02:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It might be possible to make photorealistic graphics if the senerio were constrained enough. For example having a game like "Hyper Cube" or "The Cube" may allow for extremely convincing graphics. The main constraint may not be the rendering power, but our artistic capabilities, as full rendered movies are not even 100% convincing at this point. --Thax 03:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360 modding

The original Xbox was hugely popular for modding. People ran linux on it, people did softmods (like making it into a media center with XBMC) and hardmods on it. I've been looking a lot over the internet, and other than cosmetic changes, or installation of cooling systems, nobody has really succeeded in softmod/hardmod yet. Even if nobody has modded the 360 yet, it should still deserve a mention, no? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.35.42 (talk • contribs) .

it doesn't look like there is a lot of progress. free 60 project. --24.7.86.143 03:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

XBox 360 Hardware Revisions?

With the recent refund Microsoft was offering to customers who have paid for repairing their consoles, i was wondering if there was any information about different Hardware revisions that can be seen by a change in model numbers printed on the case of the console. If so, perhaps these model numbers could be added to this article? 3 October 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.53.52.122 (talk • contribs) .

Conker:Live & Reloaded

I'm sorry,is Conker:Live & Reloaded playable to the XBox 360 as an Original XBox game with the 360 Hard drive?I mean,if I have the XBox 360,and the Hard Drive,will the 360 allow me to play Conker:Live & Reloaded on it?What I'm saying is,is it SUPPORTABLE?I had Bad Fur Day,but I lost it,so now I'm looking for Live & Reloaded.Conker The Squirrel 16:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you had checked the Backward compatibility section you might have been directed to List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 for the answer to your question, or the official site via reference. --Kamasutra 17:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"premium" chrome finish

In the retail configurations description, it decribes the $399 version as having a "premium" chrome finish. Is there a standardized meaning for "premium" in this context, or is that just marketingspeak? If it's just marketingspeak, we need to remove the word "premium". MrVoluntarist 05:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It probably is marketing-speak though you could always argue it's "premium" because you pay a premium for it ;) I'd say remove it as it's redundent/pointless. vortex 05:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Roger that. MrVoluntarist 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Europe (price by region)

I have replaced Europe with eurozone. Two countries which have adopted the euro a have different launch price (Finland and Portugal). The UK and Sweden being in Europe and part of the EU, do not have the same price, nor use the euro. Thewikipedian

Is Xbox 360 Vista Capable?

9.6GHZ processor, 512MB RAM, ATI Xenos graphic card @ 500Mhz....

The processor(s) met the minimium requirement for all the Vista version except Premium. Only that the console was not optimised for the Windows OS,so do u think it would be able to install the new OS(after removing the current OS inside the 360)?

No. The O/S is stored on a small flashable area on the x360 motherboard, not big enough to hold Vista. In addition the x360 does not allow arbitrary code to execute. --Thax 16:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  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/Archive_6&oldid=1128413972"