Talk:Xbox 360 technical problems/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Changing title of c't article "Jede dritte stirbt den Hitzetod"

Some well meaning but mistaken people are changing the quotation "Jede dritte stirbt den Hitzetod", to "Jeder dritte stirbt der Hitze". Well that -might- debatably be more correct german, but that is not the point, the point is that the original quote is literally letter for letter the -title- of the c't article! See [1] this is the c't web-page which previews the article litterally as "Jede dritte stirbt den Hitzetod", as you can read on the linked page.

C't is one of the most respected German computer magazines, and it is in itself therefore very unlikely that this is "bad German", but that in itself is not relevant either, as this is a literal -title- of the referenced article. So whoever changes this, for whatever reason, please do not! I have reverted this change twice, and cannot do it a third time in 24 hours, (as Wikipedia:Three-revert rule prevents me from doing so) but this -should- be reverted. So please anybody who agrees with me that this is a bad idea, revert this for me! Mahjongg (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Ring of Death unofficial website

A website has been created to help users learn more about the Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death website. It has helped hundreds of people worldwide with their own RROD problem as well as helping some people decide whether or not they want to buy an Xbox 360 console. It is basically a collection of ideas and facts from all over the Internet, all put into a single website to save people time and effort.

The URL is www.xboxredringofdeath.com.

Fatfroggenius (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, see WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:LINKSPAM, also, but that's just my opinion, telling users to try the "towel trick" is a very bad idea indeed as they are liable to FUBAR their system, and lose their guarantee at the same time in one and the same stupid action. Actually even your message here should be removed, as the talk page is not mean for this, only for improving the article. Then there is this to consider, if some user FUBAR's his xbox 360 he can validly say that Wikipedia endorses the practice that has caused him to lose his guarantee and his system, by pointing at this site, and he might want to sue Wikipedia too. Microsoft will repair all general failure error damaged systems for free, so there is also absolutely no point in taking such risks. this is why all these editors remove this link if anybody puts it back. Mahjongg (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the website say that the towel trick should not be done, as it voids the warranty? It explains possible solutions found across the web and explains the risks and benefits of each. It states "We do not recommend this fix, as it can damage the interior of the console and may even void your warranty if it damages anything."

I've never used a talk page and am quite new to Wikipedia. I put this post up here because I was told that I should explain here why the site is valid and may benefit the users of the page, which I think it would (and seems to have done so far). I do understand that Wikipedia has a responsibility to disallow anything that may cause them legal problems, but I think the site sufficiently explains both pros and cons of the solutions and doesn't urge anyone to do anything illegal, but instead warns them that what they see on the Internet may void their warranty (something that a lot of people haven't realised until they visit the website).

Fatfroggenius (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The website could be linked to in a citation. That is unless a better source for the same information could be found, then the link would be replaced with the better source. --Decompiled (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's self-published. See WP:V - Ehheh (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia rules and guidelines, etc, seem to say that certain exceptions can be made in some situations. Although the Red Ring of Death website doesn't offer citable evidence, it does enhance the reader's knowledge and helps to protect them against a major technical failure that many consoles face. I, as well as many others, believe the website should be allowed on Wikipedia, as it offers further reading as well as safety warnings for false claims made on other websites throughout the net, cautioning the user before they screw up their console with stupid "quick fixes". I'm not sure what it usually takes for a website to become an exception to the guidelines, but I think in this case that this RROD website is helpful enough to warrant such an exception. Fatfroggenius (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case, but when something can be listed as violating at least four separate policies, it's a safe bet to say it shouldn't be included. Ayocee (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and how does this site "helps to protect them against a major technical failure that many consoles face", it does no such thing. Instead, it gives credibility to "alternative solutions", even while issuing warnings, while actually none of these solutions are necessary, as Microsoft guarantees the fix the problem for them, for free. Any involvement from the user to then try an "alternate solution" that per definition carries a risk is then per definition a bad idea. The -only- valid suggestion the site should give, is "take no risk, send it to Microsoft to be fixed". It can give "background information", but should not encourage "alternate solutions", and now it does. Mahjongg (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. if you are still under the impression that this site is only about "warning users not to use alternative solutions" then read this, its at the end of the page listing all the "tricks", it "warns" against.

"If you are still not too sure what you want to do to fix your Xbox 360 console, we recommend taking a look in our Discussion Forum, where other Xbox 360 users can talk to you about how they solved their Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death problem."

Mahjongg (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The website has been updated and the discussion forum link removed. The Discussion Forum was meant to be to help users see the problems that trying to fix it would achieve through the stories of people who have tried it, but it never really got under way.

Each alternate solution now clearly explains that they're not recommended at all, warning readers not to attempt them. The Prevention section explains ways of avoiding the RROD which is important to people who haven't heard much about the problem and who are interested in purchasing the console.

I am more than happy to edit the website to comply with policies Wikipedia has, as I think the website is important and people need to read it before or while they are experiencing the RROD so they know what to expect and where they can go if they experience the problem.

Let me know if there's anything else that should be changed, for both Wikipedia and the public's sake.

Fatfroggenius (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, you could put the solutions you are referring to between quotes, so that it's more obvious that you are quoting another source instead of presenting it as your "solution". Then I should think the first introductory sentence should warn -against- using any of the fixes described at your side, so it is more immediately clear that you are trying to -warn- against trying to implement them! Although I can see now that you trying to protect people from doing something stupid, I am afraid there is still a problem, because of WP:NOT (not a source of indiscriminate links) and the fact that WP does not generally link to "how-to" sites, and your site still gives the impression it's a how-to site. Actually, my resistance to incorporating your link has diminished conciderably, but that does not mean others might reason the same. Mahjongg (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now put the bad 'solutions' in quotations, and have changed the wording for almost every paragraph on the page to encourage people to stick with the warranty. In the introductory paragraphs it now explains which 'solutions' should not be attempted. I think the purpose of the page is shown a lot more clearly now.

I'm happy that you're a bit more accepting of the link. Do many others feel the same? Can anyone else offer any suggestions to help fix the content on the site to clear up the confusion?

Also, what can I do to make my website less of a how-to site? I think I've fixed that up a little bit today but I'd like to know if there's anything else that can be done.

Thanks, Fatfroggenius (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with wikipeda, just a tip, in the paragraph "The More Technical Cause" you print "....on the inside of the console was the wrong type,", that should be "...on the inside of the console is of the wrong type, ". Just a tip.

By the way, the solder they used is indeed of the wrong type, but not because of what you claim, but because they chose a type that gets too brittle after being exposed to elevated temperatures for a long time, and it won't melt as you claim, because it needs temperatures around 300 degrees Celsius to melt! Those are temperatures not even reached when you do the towel trick. Note there are components inside the box that can only handle temperatures as high as 85 degree Celsius, (elco's for example) raising the temperature to anywhere the melting point of lead-free solder is a therefore a -very- bad idea, but I think it's not even possible to reach temperatures anywhere near the melting point of solder using the towel trick, and that is a good thing too because if it did all the solder-balls that connect the GPU/CPU to the PCB would become flattened, and flow into each other to create a small "pool" of solder, shorting every pin with every other pin. But long before that the insides of the 360 would have started to burn! The real problem is not shorts, but interruptions cause by brittle solder balls that develop electrically isolating hair-cracks because of the mechanical stresses put on them by the fact that the CPU expands/contracts faster than the PCB due to fast temperature variations, such as happen when the CPU/GPU suddenly has much more/much less work to do.

Back to the main issue. In the same chapter you have a header "The Solutions for the Problem...", make that "Are there solutions for these problems", that is less suggesting you should try a "homebrew solution". An on the home page, you print "How can I fix my Xbox 360 Console?" better is "Can I fix my Xbox 360 Console myself?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahjongg (talk • contribs) 02:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I have done everything you said. I actually paraphrased the information you just gave me, I hope that's okay, let me know if it's not. I've corrected the typos and have changed those headings to make them less suggesting about the homebrew solutions. The information on the site was a collection of theories presented by the many many websites I've investigated, I apoligize for anything that was incorrect.

Thanks for your help. Fatfroggenius (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Any other ideas for the site? What else is holding it back from being put on Wikipedia? Fatfroggenius (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is "holding it back", that not how wikipedia works, you can try to put the link back and see if nobody objects, but there is nobody here who can give you a "green light" either. If it means anything, ill not take it down, but others might. Mahjongg (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I appreciate it. I've put it back up so if anyone takes it down could they please come here to explain why and I'll see what I can do to fix the problem. Fatfroggenius (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Link removed. I would have left the link in, but Xbox.com is obviously a more reliable source for anybody seeking help with their RROD issue. See Wikipedia:SOURCES --Decompiled (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My website isn't a source for solutions, we've already discussed that above. It's more of a 'watch out for the so-called solutions on the internet' sort of site, which Xbox.com has no information about. I titled the link incorrectly, it should have read something like "Myths about the Xbox Red Ring of Death Revealed", which is a link I think still has a place here.

Just out of curiousity, what allows the External Link to the "Xbox360 Ring of Light error codes explained (unofficial)" to be on Wikipedia, while mine isn't? Xbox.com would be a more reliable source than that site, yet its still important because it offers important information to viewers, right?

The Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death Website does provide information that isn't available from either Wikipedia or the Xbox site. People need the site to explain the myths before they make mistakes that might cost their console. Fatfroggenius (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'Xbox360 Ring of Light error codes explained (unofficial)' is a valuable resource because it describes what the error codes mean in plain English. But in reference to the repair myths of the RROD, I am not convinced that the article needs a section that describes ineffectual tricks and myth solutions. However if someone was to add a section to the article titled as such, I wouldn't be opposed. What I am opposed to is the placement of a self-promoting external link on the matter. --Decompiled (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how the website being my own would degrade its importance. Whether or not its submitted by me or others wouldn't change what Wikipedia is linking to. If we've agreed that the subject matter and content is worthy of being spread then why would we ignore it just because I'm submitting it myself? I designed the site when I heard about the problem and did quite a bit of research about it all. I think people need to see the website, and I'm sure others out there would feel the same, and the fact that I designed it doesn't change that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatfroggenius (talk • contribs) 06:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Because then it still fails the Wikipedia:SOURCES test. Specifically:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."

Ayocee (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's my point. I'm not claiming to be an expert and am therefore not trying to teach anything. What I'm trying to do, which we've already explained above, is to try to guide people to make the right decision for their own sake. And by 'largely not acceptable', doesn't that mean that sometimes exceptions can be made? Most of the guidelines on Wikipedia allow for leway and I think this is a situation that calls for it.

Fatfroggenius (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There are some exceptions, such as when the author of the self-published material is a recognized expert who's already been published in reliable third party publications, or when a self-published website is used in an article about the author of the material. I don't believe any of those exceptions would apply to the link under discussion. - Ehheh (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But the point of having a recognized expert as the author is to determine that the information they present on their website is legitimate. We've seen here that the information presented on the website is helpful, so why would it matter who the author is? The information is the same whether it was written by an expert or not...

Fatfroggenius (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Any reply would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.89.130 (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The website cannot be included in external links per Wikipedia:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest. Sorry. xenocidic (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Support for 33% or '1 in 3 fail' claims

There has never been any credible source for this number. Currently, to my knowledge, there has never been a "on the record" or reputable number other than the 3-5% claim from MS originally. Now, the 3-5% claim may or may not be accurate, but any other claim requires evidence.

There are two places where this number seems to have originated 1) Was a story in a the blogosphere in mid-2007 that claimed "an unidentified manager in a retailer in Australia" and 2) "the8bitblog" who claims to have a "inside source" close to the Xbox team, this second source began these claims late in 2007 or early this eyar.

The claim that 33% of Xbox 360's fail is a unsupported claim, that has turned into "popular internet urban legend". Until something CREDIBLE is used as a source or evidence, that number or allusions to it "1 in 3" should not be present in Wikipedia.

70.178.97.83 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You are probably new to Wikipedia, that is not how things work here!. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.".

The reader should determine if the information made available by the reliable source (in this case c't) is "true" or not. But suppressing the availability of this information is non NPOV. Mahjongg (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We cannot read the article. Further, can *any* claim made on the internet be included? Simply making a claim is not enough. I believe "Verifiable" can not possibly mean what you think it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.83 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

-You- cannot read it, don't say -we-! This is an English language encyclopaedia, but that does not mean that nobody who uses this wiki can read it. -I- can, thousands of others who come here can, and then if you are so paranoid to believe it's not true, use a translating service to read it like bable fish. But in fact it does not matter at all that you can't read it! It only matters that the webiste in question is a "reliable source", not a self-published blog or something like that. You are clearly new here, so please before you do anything else here, read some of the guiding principles of Wikipedia, like WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Verifiability. All articles here have links to websites to "prove" verifiability, again, Wikipedia:Verifiability, it's how Wikipedia works. This all has been discussed many times before, bad luck for you if you don't like it... Mahjongg (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources you should read about non-english sources. They are unverifiable. Further, the idea that 33% fail is CLEARLY a Wikipedia:Fringe theories that requires a higher level of verification.

EMILY ROCKS

Your citation for a Fringe Theory is a non-english source.

Sorry, I will be removing that claim shortly. If you restore it again, I believe we should move to a disupte resolution and if that fails, appeal to an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.83 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:V states "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality", in this case the source is a well respected German magazine, of the article "jede dritte... " there is no English translation available, so whatever may be "preferred" in this case is irrelevant, If an article is written about something that happened in Japan, and on the web there is only a japanse article, then that -can- be used as a source, WP:V only states that English sources are preferred, not that non English sources are forbidden. Where in the article things are discussed that are not demonstrable truths, but rather are for example "rumours", then in the article they are clearly identified as such. We then do not claim that what is said is true, but merely that these rumors exist, and that reliable sources report they exist. What is in the German article is not presented as indisputable facts, but the article merely states that a reputable magazine wrote such and such, and a reliable source backs the claim up that this article exists, and what it is saying. Again, read Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The article is written, which is a verifiable truth, the content of the article can be checked by anybody who want to bother. Oh, and the "high level of failure" that is disputed to exist by you, is not a "fringe theory", as there is overwhelming anecdotical evidence, and so its a very widely hold belief, not a "fringe theory" , That the Failure rate is high is an accepted fact by anybody who cares to research the matter. Only there are no hard facts about the actual percentage of the failure rate, (as Microsoft refuses to publish them) but this article does not claim there are. Mahjongg (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you need a German speaking wikipedian, to check what "Jede dritte stirbt den Hitzetod" means, you can find a few hundred here: [2]. You can also let him read and check the the article itself, it can be downloaded from the c't site, for a price of 30 eurocent, here: [3] Mahjongg (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Added POV Tag

I believe the text in this article has a negative bias. The article makes claims from unidentifiable sources. Many of the citations are simply Questionable sources, Self-published sources and Non-English sources.

The tone is clearly negative. There are numerous non sequitors who's false conclusions are universally negative.

Wikipedia is being used to falsely establish inaccurate information.

70.178.97.83 (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Its completely irrelevant that you think this article has a "negative bias", it simply mirrors the negative bias about the Xbox 360's reliability that exists in the real world, and it uses links to reliable sources to prove that this "negative bias" exists out there. That is all. It does not "make claims", it documents that these claims exist. Wikipedia is not "being used to falsely establish inaccurate information", , it simply documents the information there is outside wikipedia,about these "negative feelings", because that is what the article is -for-! And it is using reliable sources to do it. Wikipedia does not create, it documents!

In rare cases (actually for this article in just one case) sources are not from English speaking territories, the Xbox 360 is a worldwide phenomenon, so it stands to reason that there can be some sources that are from other parts of the world than English speaking parts, which for the article is irrelevant, as long as the source is reliable. In this case the source is a -very- reliable major technical computer magazine, which happens to be German. The world does not end at the borders of the US, the high failure rate problem o the Xbox 360 is an issue in Germany too. This magazine felt obliged to investigate it, and with German thoroughness they went further than most other magazines would do. Mahjongg (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"it simply mirrors the negative bias about the Xbox 360's reliability that exists in the real world

Your maintaining this article to reenforce that false idea. The source you quoted is unreliable. It is an agenda driven periodical with limited circulation.

"The world does not end at the borders of the US, the high failure rate problem o the Xbox 360 is an issue in Germany too. This magazine felt obliged to investigate it, and with German thoroughness" Your xenophobia and jingoism shines through.

Perhaps that is what motivates you to police this article and assure the most ridiculous and unrealistic claims?

Wikipedia is not a venue for salacious claims and ridiculous assertions. There are knooks and cranies on this internet -- and in print -- that bear agendas that do not reflect a neutral point of view.

What is happening here is the equivalent of this: A racist cites all all manner of unverified sources, then delivers a non sequitur conclusion. Why? Because there is a desire to establish the a false worldview.

The notion that their is a "33%" heat failure rate for this hardware is laughable. Just ridiculous. And, the only reason that falsehood is reflected here is because of an agenda. I dont have the time or motivation to do public relations on behalf of Xbox.

This article has your agenda written all over it. And this discussion page reveals your motivation in many thousands of words.

Your personal attacks are completely out of order, you are acting as if I created this article all by myself for my own personal agenda. Which is patently ridiculous. Mahjongg (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This article definately needs a lot of work, but subverting notable, verifiable sources that point out the problems with the 360 (and there are problems, as much as I love the system, she ain't perfect) would be unencyclopaedic. It's ironic that you call Mahjongg xenophobic when you are the one who is refuting non-english sources. xenocidic (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As an Xbox 360 owner who got about 60 hours(at best) out of a $650 purchase(including accessories), wasted over an hour on two occasions on the phone with their worthless representatives, and has gone through three separate replacement consoles with each failing within the first few weeks, I concur with this article completely. I have since given up on trying to get a working console from Microsoft. Whether the wording is considered POV or not, I feel the article's content is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.70.168 (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As a person who has purchased 5 units, 3 as gifts and 2 for my home, I can assure the claims in this article are not accurate. There, now we have to personal testimonials.

The Article is rife with less-than trustworthy assertions, NPOV and statments of fact (that frankly) would never be allowed virtually anywhere on wikipedia.

This article needs to be pruned-back to remove the un-wikipedia quality statements herein.

Wageslave (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Turnaround time?

I called the support line today and the time to fix it was quoted as 3-4 weeks, not the 2-3 as mentioned in the article. This did not include the time it would take to ship it there and back, or to be provided with the shipping box and materials, so I'm guessing 4-5 weeks would be more accurate. This waiting time may only be affecting my region (northeast, usa), or it could be that they are further backed up with repair requests than they were when the 2-3 week wait time was announced. Either way, it might be necessary to redetermine the figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.173.89 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Try and find a published source for this, and we can change it. Right now the citation that it uses doesn't even say 2-3 weeks anyway, so I'm sure that no one would have a problem with you making the change. xenocidic (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This article cites a 13 day turn around time; http://kotaku.com/gaming/xbox-360/xbox-360-back-in-the-house-230317.php

Microsoft quotes 2-3 weeks, but, sometimes it is less. I recommend you change the article to say so.

70.178.97.83 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The turn around time can be as high as 6-7 weeks in places like India. I've experienced this myself. MY Xbox 360 RRODed 7 times in the past 1.5 yrs and there have been several occasions when it took almost 7 weeks for the console to arrive. Considering the fact that we pretty much pay more than say, US customers, this is absolutely criminal. Here is a link showing an editor of a well-respected Technology Website being told to wait for 1.5 months for the Xbox 360 to be replaced.

http://www.tech2.com/india/topstuff/xbox360-gaming/dealing-with-the-stressbox360/33131/0

This is a website owned by TV18 (NDTV) and hence is part of the mainstream media. 122.167.31.169 (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale misrepresentation in 2nd Paragraph

This paragraph is inaccurate:

"According to several sources, including a Wired blog, an Xbox 360 production "insider" has come out suggesting that units that fail early in their life are related to poor construction and inadequate testing prior to the console's release. Other web-sites claim the insider's authenticity has been confirmed."

Firstly, the first sentance: "According to several sources, including a Wired blog, an Xbox 360 production "insider" has come out suggesting..."

Is inaccurate. The Wired Blog is not a source of this information. The Wired Blog is repeating the story. Wired is not the source. Saying "wired is the source" serves to give the speculation validity that it is not due.

The second source, is actually a "readers blog". A "readers blog" where the ORIGINAL article has simply been copied into nwsource.com's user-blog system.

At the bottom of that page you find this: "Posted by 8bitjoystick at January 19, 2008 12:18 p.m."

This is a re-printing of the original post from a weblog "8bitjoystick"

So, a wired blog is bringing attention to a 8bitjoystick blog that has been inserted into nwsource.com's user-submit blog system.

The paragraph is written with far more confidence and authority than the story warrants.

The paragraph should be written with language that reflects this very-low credibility story and source.

You have a point there, I have re-written the paragraph to better reflect what we actually know, and is verifyable. Mahjongg (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify. I write for both my own blog 8bitjoystick.com and the Seattle PI reader Blog Digital Joystick that is a self syndication of 8bitjoystick.com - Jake Metcalf --8bitJake (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. check this out Photographic Proof Of Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death Insider's Authenticity My source inside Microsoft was one of the origional designers of the Xbox one. --8bitJake (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Posting a picture of an award is not "proof" of your actually speaking to a source. If I posted a picture of Trump Towers does that mean I prove Donald Trump is my source? That picture could be from anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageslave (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The photo was of a custom "SHIP IT" award that is only given to key people on the Xbox team. That is the equivalent of a seal in wax. Microsoft knows who my source is. --8bitJake (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. It is a photo, a photo that could be obtained anywhere. It doesnt prove your source at all. And, further, you are here claiming that MSFT knows your source. What are you going to do to prove that? Show us a picture of the sign at MSFT WHQ?

The fact is that you have never proved you have a source at all. Wageslave (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no other high resolution photographic record of an Xbox Ship It award on the web. Go ask Microsoft, it's real and more important there is a consensus on other video game websites that it's proof of my confidential source. --8bitJake (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Wageslave (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

problem with tense, and accuracy in 2nd & 3rd paragraphs

The 2nd & 3rd paragraphs speak as if the reports were from the present. The reports are from the past, prior to any revisions, and are no longer relevant or current.

The language has a NPOV. The language is misleading and inaccurate.

Wageslave (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I reported from a confidential source from inside Microsoft and never hid that and I don't think that your language casting my reporting in a false light is NPOV. --8bitJake (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also the reports are still relevant since there are millions of Xbox 360s that are potentially affected and the current hardware generations still have major reliability problems. --8bitJake (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Microsoft is controversely pushing POV and NPOV tags to hide Xbox 360 problems! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.241.229 (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I think it's more their fans than their employees but all good Wiki articles should be looked at objectivly for NPOV.--8bitJake (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note from Jake Metcalf of 8bitjoystick.com

I am thinking about going over this article and clarifying some points. If you have any questions about my reporting or my source on this topic let me know. --8bitJake (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

moved to the bottom of the page, as is appropriate. Wageslave (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree I should have put it at the bottom. --8bitJake (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to Avoid Destructive Editing

I am not going to name names but everyone should try to avoid further destructive or disparaging editing of others work. Destructive editing is systematically undoing or deleting someone else’s contributions in bad faith without discussion or a consensus of all editors involved. We should all follow the editing rules. Also try to avoid attacking other editors and avoid use weasel words. Remember no one editor owns any article and let’s try to work together without having to being Admins involved.--8bitJake (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to Avoid Using Wikipedia for the Purpose of Self-Enrichment

I am not going to name names, but everyone should try and avoid exploiting Wikipedia to drive traffic to your personally owned websites, and to use Wikipedia to establish credibility for your personal websites and yourself as a writer.

Please follow the editing rules, no new research is permitted, and to maintain a neutral-point of view. And, to link only to credible, verifiable sources.

Wageslave (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And try not to get too passive agressive and act like you own the article.--8bitJake (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You want to see passive agressive? The section above this one. Wageslave (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey let's check the rules on this.I allways make sure that I actually know the rules and policies of Wikipedia... Here it is.

Citing oneself Policy shortcut: WP:COS This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.--8bitJake (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You assume to much. What "specialist knowledge" do you have? You're writing is not published in reliable sources. You are not writing for these publications, they are merely repeating your blog-posts. Reputable Publications are repeating your claims, they are not posting your claims under their editorial approval.

Clearly the context matters here. That passage doenst apply in anyway to what you're purpose and actions are here.

Wageslave (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hogwash. I've seen plenty of information about the specifics of the RROD problems coming straight from Microsoft. The numerous publications that have found it worth of reporting on it. Again I don't see a place stating that you own this article. You seem to pride yourself of some magical power of knowing exactly what other people are thinking and intending and are using your magical power of perception to justify your edits. Frankly I don't think you work well with other editors and might not be suited for Wikipedia. --8bitJake (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hogwash. You're the source of unfounded, patently ridiculous claims. Your "MSFT is watching this article" is a perfect example of your method and aims. Wageslave (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wageslave, you are a fucking tyrant. Your "see no evil, hear no evil" charade is pissing everyone off. The technical problems exist with Las Vegas neon signs and last thing I recall, you've pulled this crap off since last year. Wake up, douchebag, this thing is wide open. What did you think some lawsuits against Microsoft were filed for, malice, extortion? Puh-lease, and stop trying to wrap a blood splater with a small band-aid, this shit is fooling no one. Just because you don't believe that the problems are real doesn't doesn't mean that there's no verifiability whatsoeverDibol (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC).

Please do try to observe Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. Address the edits, not the editor. xenocidic (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction to Towel Trick

I have edited this page a little bit, and crossed out the bit that says placing the Xbox 360 'in a warm room' because I have never heard of that technique. I have replaced it with leaving the console on since that is what most sources say to do. Unless there is any source otherwise saying so, or it is for the readers safety of not damaging his Xbox 360, it should be deleted. --St33med (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire section, and any mention of this "towel trick" should be removed frankly. Any mention of it is dubious. There is no purpose (the machines have a warranty), its dangerous and most discussion of the matter seems like an effort to troll the internet for traffic.

Just because something is mentioned on the internet doesnt make it worthwhile for inclusion at Wikipedia. You can find anyone to say just about anything on the internet, and this "towel trick" is just nonsense.

Wageslave (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the Xbox 360 technical problems and the Towel trick while being a stupid thing to do is a legitimate topic on that subject. If you have a problem with the link to the Engadget article we should replace it with a link to a similar article on Xbox360Fanboy.com or Joystiq.com. Again another case of Wageslave's magical powers of knowing peoples secret intentions while they are writing articles. --8bitJake (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not noteworthy.

Wageslave (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you for sharing your opinion. All editors have them and there are other editors working on this article.--8bitJake (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have tried it myself... It worked fine after the first few times, but later, it didn't work as well and my Xbox still gave me the Red Ring of Death or crashed after 3 to 10 minutes of playing. Of course, I knew there was a risk of damaging my hardware (A kind of horrible risk :\), but maybe there should be a stern warning against this towel trick and notify the reader that there is a three-year free repair warranty for any Xbox 360s that rrod.

Also noted, everything in my last edit has been changed, even the ones not exactly involved with the towel trick and were just minor corrections...--St33med (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This I could concur with, perhaps a simple mention that it is not recommended by MSFT, and should instead utilize the Warranty. Certainly not this how-to nonsense. There isnt instructions on how to hot-knife hash on the articles about GE Stoves. You can find *ANYTHING* on the internet, but spurious and spacious claims that originate on worthless blogs, or clear traffic-trolls (like most of the over-heat-repair sites are and some of the other "sources here) should be avoided. They are not Wikipedia quality sources.

Wageslave (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than having wageslave muddy the water I would suggest adding some information from Joystiq, Xbox360Fanboy.com, Ben Heck and other specialty publications covering this. It's not the cure for cancer or even the RROD. and the potential risks should be presented with any alleged benefits. --8bitJake (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked on those sites, and I really couldn't find any hard facts on why it is a bad idea. Joystiq.com said "don't do it," and that is not a very good reason. However, I have found a PDF that states it is a fire hazard. I am not sure as if it is a good source, however, since it was about making a Xbox 360 Repair station. I used it in my last edit here because it had a lot of facts about how the rrod error occures. St33med (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The observant reader of these pages will know that I do not often Agree much with Wageslave, but in this case, I totally agree with him that the towel trick should not be published in this article. I have several reasons, firstly a "technocratic" reason, and that is that the towel trick is a "how-to", and as such should not be published in an encyclopaedic article. Secondly, it gives the towel trick undue attention, which it does not deserve, lastly using this "trick" -will- be damaging to the electronics inside the Xbox 360, making a long-lasting repair much more difficult. That is because several components inside the Xbox 360 will degrade further if exposed to an elongated very much elevated temperature. Especially electrolytic capacitors which can loose a large percentage of their rated capacitance, and can even fail completely (even "explode") when subjected to temperatures around 100 degrees Celsius. Most electrolytic capacitors are rated at 85 degrees Celsius maximum. I suspect the internal temperature can reach values above that. Even if the "towel trick" "restores working order" for a short time, it's not worth the damage it does, and I am not even contemplating the real hazard of spontaneous combustion of the plastics inside. So I think any reference to the towel trick should be avoided, or at least a warning should be given against it's use! Mahjongg (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about the hardware damage. This should be added since it has something to do with Xbox 360 technical problems, but it should not go in depth of how to do the towel trick and warn readers away from this. The article already has the part about the capacitors, but the fire hazard risk should be added as well, maybe from a different source than the PDF I last posted. Any mention of how to do the towel trick should be removed.

But are the capacitors only used in power converters? Then that would mean only the power brick has it, unless I am misreading something... ---St33med (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Large Electrolytic capacitors are often associated to power conversion, but you are mistaken to think that power conversion only takes place inside the power brick. Modern CPU's and GPU's use extremely low voltages 1 to 2 Volt, and typically a power brick delivers either 5V and 12V or it delivers some intermediate higher voltage like 27Volt. That is because otherwise the currents that would be needed to be supplied would be enormous (tens of Amperes), and with very little tolerance in the voltage, so even a slightly corroded power connector would cause fatal problems, as even a drop of a tiny fraction of a volt would be fatal! Also most hard-disks still need 5 Volt. So power caps ARE used on the motherboard, to convert 5V (or perhaps 3,3Volt) to the low voltage/large current the CPU and GPU need. Indeed overheating these capacitors might result in the same exploded capacitors as can be seen in the Capacitor plague article. Note that the Xbox 360 very likely has exactly the same kind of capacitors as can be seen in the pictures in this article, they do not have to be mis produced but when you apply temperatures higher than the rated 85 degrees to them for some time they -will- explode sooner or later! Mahjongg (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am in full agreement with Wageslave and Mahjongg. If my Xbox 360 RRODed I would not cook it with the "towel trick". I think it can seriously make damage worse or cause new problems. Powerful precision electronics are not meant to be cooked. I mean seriously I would just unplug the Xbox and do something else until you get a replacement system from Microsoft. --8bitJake (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Then should we rid of the towel trick completely? If we only mention the towel trick, it will be vague and against WP standards. --St33med (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be there but have both sides and a strong caution. --8bitJake (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That the Towel Trick is unduly risky, and shouldn't be done, is no reason not to have it in a wikipedia article. Wikipedia has articles on LSD and Cocaine, but this hasn't lead to an increase in drug users. In fact, having the Towel Trick on here, with good analysis of the risk, would be beneficial, as you could well have people hearing about the Towel Trick, checking whether it works on wikipedia, and when they find nothing, doing it anyway. I cannot understand why you would avoid reporting on a phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.138.127 (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The real reason against mentioning the "towel trick", hasn't so much to do with its hazardousness as well as its un-encyclopaedic to publish how-to's , and there is actually a strong policy against it. see Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE#GUIDE. Perhaps if its mentioned without describing the procedure, so that it can't be explained as a "guide" how to do it, and with a warning it will do even more damage, it might have a place in this article. Mahjongg (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs semi-protection

Tons of reverts today and yesterday, especially edits against Microsoft. I think this should have semi-protection since this is a touchy article involving the 'console war'. --St33med (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Intercooler Bad?

"The Nyko Intercooler has also been reported to have caused a general hardware failure in a number of consoles, as well as scorching of the power AC input.[21] This is very true."

in the artical i read Nyko corrected this problem with the EX Series of intercoolers.This should be in the artical. check it out at [4] F.Caswell (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

supplied link does not work! Mahjongg (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Because there's a slash at the end. Not that hard to fix if you looked. Fixed/link works. Cole (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything that draws a large amount of power from the Xbox Motherboard can cause problems. I think the Intercooler and similar products are snake oil.--8bitJake (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Except, the intercooler does not "draw its power from the motherboard", it draws its power directly from the power brick, as it plugs in between the power input of the xbox and the power brick. The intercooler -might- overload the power brick, but it does not add any load to the internal power converters in the Xbox. An extra fan -can- help cool a system such as the xbox 360, but if the fan itself fails, then it will obstruct the airflow, making things (much) worse, also if the external flan happens to blow in the opposite direction of the arflow caused by the internal fan or the natural airflow by raising warm air (convection) it also will hinder the cooling instead op reinforcing it. Mahjongg (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should avoid doing our own arm-chair electrical engineering with the article. And, we should exclude that same nonsense from the article from third-party sources.

The article is FULL of this kind of presumed conjecture. We should include material that has a reputable source. A lie often repeated is still a lie. Wageslave (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

as I certified electronic engineer with 30 years of experience, I take offence. And the truth often attacked for all the wrong reasons is still the truth! Mahjongg (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this about airflow though? Using Affinity_laws putting one fan in front of the other messes with the air pressure, which puts more strain on one fan to work harder for negligible benefit. The fans also likely spin at different speeds (in fact the 360 could have variable speed fans) which would add to the stresses there. Putting two pc cooler fans one after another and seeing what happens would probably be a good experiment and measuring draw and speed of the fans to prove it either way... an easy one for the MythBusters to prove / disprove - not so easy unless you have that stuff handy. That and I doubt such an experiment complies with wikipedia's laws of verifiability - though I'm pretty sure putting numbers through the [Affinity_laws] would prove things one way or another. 78.86.107.55 (talk)

I dont think these affinity laws have any real bearing on this case, but logically any suplementary fan system should be designed to improve the airflow, which means taking some of the workload from the primary ventilator to pump air around. This would reduce the amount of current the main fan would draw, but only by a tiny fraction. Mahjongg (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Who coined RROD

Is there any specific record of someone saying specificlly Red Ring of Death before anyone else?75.121.36.237 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099

You want to find "the very first user who came up with the term"? Good luck! As in many such cases, the term (and variations of it) was probably "invented" by a dozen individuals at the same time. Mahjongg (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly based on microsoft's biggest contribution to the cyber world, the BSOD? Maybe its a play on that? Just speculating.. 122.167.31.169 (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. [Insert something here] of death has been in use for a long time. It most likely got popular with the early Windows 9x operting systems which got the Blue Screen of Death. Even the original Xbox had the "Green Screen of Death". 76.235.233.251 (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

uncited claims

Made the following edit:

"and several others reported on a reputed interview by a Seattle PI Reader Blog "Digital Joystick" with an anonymous confidential source inside Microsoft that the blogger called "xboxfounder"

Which much more accurately describes the nature of the blogpost in question. Other language was used that did not correctly describe the nature of the blogpost.

Wageslave (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your death by a thousand cuts approach is quite POV and so was your wording.--8bitJake (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

social bookmarking site used to redirect to original claim

"Other web-sites claim the insider's authenticity has been confirmed" uses a framed-pass-through to a social bookmarking site to point to this story:

http://www.8bitjoystick.com/archives/jake_photographic_proof_of_xbox_360_red_ring_of_death_insiders_authenticity.php

So, "other websites" is really a link to the original blog's site.

I have removed both this claim and the citation. Using social bookmarking sites does not constitute "other web sites".

Wageslave (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It was on other websites other than that link and it got coverage. Besides I have a pretty good feeling that you are a use of said "Social Networking Site." --8bitJake (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of using General Hardware Failure vs. colloquialism

What is the purpose of this passage?

"The three glowing rings have been nicknamed in these articles as the "Red Ring of Death" (or "RROD").[1][2][3]"

Instead of using the correct term, General Hardware Failure (possibly for brevity, GHF) why is this article intentionally re-nameing it?

At the very most, a single mention saying "it is sometimes called Red Ring of Death" may be included in one place, but what is the value or purpose of trying to confuse the subject by adding a new definition? Just to be able to use a loaded colloquialism in the article?

That sentance should be removed.

Wageslave (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The RROD is the most common term for the General Hardware Failure. The only reason why you want to delete it is so you can destroy any reference to the technical problem. The term Red Ring of Death gets over half a million hits on Google. Hell even the Microsoft people I know use the term. --8bitJake (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RROD is to the 360 as BSOD is to Microsoft Windows. I may not like RROD's, but the fact is, that's what they're called. xenocidic (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this: Windows STOP Error Messages are to "bsod" as Xbox 360 General Hardware Failures are to "rrod". One is a needless slang invention, the other is accurate.

or, as I've said once here before, cunt is also a popular slang for vagina, should the article on vagina use the two terms equally?

Wageslave (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you see the word "wageslave" used interchangeably with "cunt" and "vagina" on the wikipedia pages? Although it is common knowledge that basically depict the same thing. Please note that I am simply illustrating a point and not mounting a personal attack. 122.167.31.169 (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the point, no page "Windows STOP Error Messages" exist on wikipedia, as the article on this subject is called "Blue Screen of Death".

As I explained before, you are using a wrongfull comparison comparing cunt/vagina versus General Hardware Failure/Red Ring Of Death. Again, when is the last time you read the word "cunt" instead of "vagina" on a respectable site like the BBC, yet the BBC -does- call the Xbox 360 "General Hardware Failure" the "red ring of death". Enough of this nonsense! Mahjongg (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The English language continually evolves. Just as it evolved to include "BSOD" as a recognizable and appropriate term, so has it evolved to include "RROD" - an accurate, appropriate and instantly recognizable term for "general hardware failure". xenocidic (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For example. Cardiac Arrest is a specific medical term but if your in the emergency room you are going to just say heart attack. --8bitJake (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I've gone ahead and filed an alert at Wikiquette alerts since it's clear the battles at hand won't be resolved without outside intervention of some sort. Ayocee (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Never edit another editors comment on a discussion page.

I would just like to say that one should never edit another editors comments on a discussion page. The article should be free for editing for all but it is bad form to put words into someone else's mouth on the discussion page.--8bitJake (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate about what you mean please? Wageslave (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I received a message about people editing and deleting other editors comments on this discussion page and I just wanted to point out that is not cool. --8bitJake (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've thus far only seen removal of comments, I haven't seen anyone "putting words into someone else's mouth" as you claimed above. The Wikipedia guideline on removal unsuitable talk page content can be reviewed here WP:TPG#Editing comments. xenocidic (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The "contributions" of 122.167.31.169

A user from IP 122.167.31.169 has been trolling this board with harassment and insults.

Is there a method of having an IP blocked? And/Or, is there a way to find out what IP user-accounts use so that I may determine if this is a regular user here who simply posts after logging-out?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.167.31.169

Anyone know where such questions could be answered?

Thanks! Wageslave (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"trolling this board with harassment, insults, trolling and vandalism" No comment on this one.

Well a look up on that IP brings up an ISP in India. --8bitJake (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a proxy? Based on the english, this person is unlikely to be indian. Secondly, it has only ever posted on this page - almost universally for the purpose of slandering me. We clearly dont have a random Wikipedian, we have someone familiar with the goings on here, and he's only ever chosen to post for the purpose of slander and trolling.

No worries.

Wageslave (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling, harassment, insult ? Yes, I can see that from your point of view he is doing that to you, but vandalism? I did not see any "vandalism", at least not in the form we would normally cal it that, like removing content etc. Mahjongg (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So your mind jumps instantly to a far flung international conspiracy against you rather than the more logical likely approach that you probably ticked off someone in India. Good luck with that --8bitJake (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about a "far flung international conspiracy"? The contributions from that IP are worthless trolling. Not at all what you've just invented as "far flung international conspiracy".

Im not overly concerned with it ("no worries").

Wageslave (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Do note that there is such a thing as dynamic IPs and hence my other contributions have not been listed. That was ONE particular day and ONE particular session. I was extremely ticked off at your extreme "fanboy-ism" and had you adopted a more moderate tone towards others who do not subscribe to your stands, I would definitely not have attacked you. You do realize that the entire talk page is mostly filled with your posts? Also, Mahjongg and Chocobogamer, both have pointed out your POV style (xbox360 fanaticism) of editing the Xbox360 article which entailed almost totally obfuscating the RROD phenomenon. Your incessant attack on 8bitJake who was simply trying to get some sources listed (regarding the 33% failure rate) was despicable to say the least. I apologize for the name-calling though, I shouldn't have done that.

122.167.13.212 (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But there are no sources for the "33%" number. Can you show one that doest originate on an obscure site and with an "anonymous source"?

That said, my purpose here is clearity and not obfuscation. Case in point the "33%" is a nothing more than an internet-myth. If you disagree, please provide an "on the record" source from a worthwhile source - thats the kind of standard other articles on Wikipedia hold, but this article (for reasons unknown to me) seems to have vastly lowered the bar. This article is far below wikipedia standards (IMO). Sure, it should be mentioned, but in the clear context of "rumour".

Wageslave (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if Microsoft would release their official repair/failure statistics. To collaborate or refute the stuff that I’ve seen. They have charts of the amounts of hardware failures of each revision by week to amount returned and repaired and reshipped. They know the stats, they know I know and they have yet to post any of their official statistics.

Yes, it would be nice if we had accurate and reputable sources. Wageslave (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The 33% is the failure rate of the Xenon motherboard based on repair/return statistics. --8bitJake (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what. Send me an email and I'll show you what I know about the repair/failure stats. --8bitJake (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jake, wouldnt you agree that WP:OR cant be included here? Wageslave (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not my research. The data I was talking about was from Microsoft. --8bitJake (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What he means is that until it's published, it's WP:OR. xenocidic (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wageslave I was offering to show you some of the inside information on the RROD that I have. You don't want to see it and then continue to argue that it does not exist. That is a Catch-22.--8bitJake (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Compensation section

I am going to send an email over to the Xbox global marketing team and see if the stuff listed in the "Compensation" section is official MS policy. --8bitJake (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, unless the statement doesnt comes directly from Microsoft PR (or one of MS's offical publications), your "email" and subsequent blog-post wouldnt be worthwhile as a citation here.

Wageslave (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Would Gamerscoreblog run by the Microsoft Xbox Global Marketing team be official enough for you? Or would you only accept Steve Balmer? --8bitJake (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Being that Steve Balmer is the CEO of the firm we're discussing here, I'd say he'd be an excellent editor. Why do you mention him? Not everyone shares your knee-jerk loathing of Balmer and MS. Some of us are interested in producing a wikipedia-quality article, not a hit piece. Wageslave (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a knee-jerk reaction to absolutly anything I write. --8bitJake (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have an Xbox simply call in with any issue (even as a test) and the content in this section is immediately verifiable. No company, in my opinion, would reply to any email suggesting that they write down internal policies for external distribution though. So this section stays verifiable but has no external citations.

Epecho (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems in Compensation Section

There are zero citations in the section

This sentance: "Microsoft, possibly recognizing the high failure rate of its Xbox 360 hardware and wanting to curb defection by its customers to Nintendo's Wii or Sony's PlayStation 3" is Neg-POV and speculative assumption.

Also, the section appears to breach the WP:NOT#GUIDE policy.

Wageslave (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with sections like this one is that they point to known and verifiable information that is internal policy and would not have a posted list available to cite. The content in the compensation section is verifiable to any Xbox 360 owner who calls Microsoft for any kind of troubleshooting or complaint - especially a defective unit issue. Like all encyclopedias, Wikipedia is limited to verifiable content. This content meets that criteria.

I disagree that this is a guide section. It only educates the reader that Microsoft has policies in place to compensate customers who have specific hardware failure issues. Ill re-read the section, though, and make sure its only that.

Also, Ill change the speculative opening sentance.

Epecho (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think this section has a place in this article whatsoever. It's completely original research, and individual user mileage may vary. Case in point: I was unable to convince Microsoft to give me anything beyond the free 1 month of Live when my 360 went in for service. xenocidic (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that everything in this section is true. And I personally have interacted with Microsoft and verified all sections of this policy prior to posting. The problem remains that Microsoft will not publish these internal policies. That doesnt mean that its not verifiable though. I edited for POV. I also left up the citation needed flags. Ill check the net this week for citations to fill the void.

On a personal note: If you had a defective unit, Im really sorry that you couldnt get anything else. Did you escalate? You are the first person who I have talked to or read about that didnt get any other compensation for a defective unit. Remember that the compensation guidelines for Microsoft are hardware specific. You MUST have a defective unit to qualify. Thats why it fits in this section in my opinion. Epecho (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my optical drive had failed. I don't know if that qualifies as a 'defective unit'. I didn't bother escalating, because I was too excited to have my Xbox back after so many weeks. Anyhow, I believe your definition of verifiable and Wikipedia's differ somewhat. From WP:VER -

“ The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. ”

This section does not fulfill this criteria. xenocidic (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess Ill have to check the web for some citations. Ill try to find something better than blogs. We shall see. Epecho (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: the reason you didnt get the compensation is because you didnt escalate. If your box breaks again, escalate. You'll get compensation and see that this section is accurate. Epecho (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but whether you or I can independently verify this section doesn't make it verifiable per WP standards. Please do seek the sources. xenocidic (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Except for kotaku, none of those met WP:RS. Rolled back. xenocidic (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote an email to members of the Xbox global marketing team asking them to comment on confirm or deny the compensation section. --8bitJake (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they'd be comfortable going on record and allowing you to publish their response, which would be necessary to satisfy WP:VER. xenocidic (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve dealt with them in the past. The folks at Gamescore blog are actually very approachable and Microsoft make a very good effort at building community relations with bloggers and such. --8bitJake (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be standard practice to give a 1 month Gold subscription with any repaired console as a compensation for the time you couldn't be online during the repair. So I do not have a big problem with mentioning that, but it seems that further gifts depend more or less on the arbitrariness of the handler of the repairs. If a written statement by microsoft that this is official practice, when for example your system broke for a second time, isn't available, then at least we should not use wording like ", Microsoft will also offer .....", but instead we should use language like ", Microsoft might also offer .....". Mahjongg (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Might" being a weasel word and individual mileage varying, I think it's much wiser to just trim the whole section down to the verifiable part about receiving a month gold sub. More encyclopedic. xenocidic (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You jumped the gun on deleting the whole section. Ive found - in one simple Google search - many examples of the policy that I know to be true (both from experience and from information). If you would prefer different wording that suggests that there are examples of ... then we could go with that. I think maybe your personal experiences are coloring your judgment on this. Epecho (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the the section as Xenocidic left it. If you can find more relevant sources of notable information, you should add them. The article needs citations, not OR. Wageslave (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Smarthouse as a Source

I have removed smarthouse from this page. Please see the discussion on Smarthouse as a source here: [5]

The owner of that blog network is a well known liar and traffic troll.

Wageslave (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to undo it. Wageslave edits are POV and he acted unilaterally again. This is a perfect example of his destructive editing --8bitJake (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability under WP:SPS. xenocidic (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The smarthouse article has enough exposure through the Wired article that refers to it, so in -this- particular case I agree with wageslave and Xenocidic that a direct link is not needed, it's better that you refer from putting it back in 8bitJake. Just my opinion on this. Mahjongg (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If the Wired article is using the smarthouse article as the *source* of their information, than the Wired article should be removed too. Just because a blog article sparks a fire-storm of false information into reliable media, it doesnt mean it should be included. The source is clearly not reliable. The citations need to be from reliable sources.

This is not the only instance of this kind of failure in this article.

Wageslave (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a "failure" of any kind, and your reaction betrays your real reason you want to remove stuff about the Smarthouse article. You are not concerned about 8bitJake linking to his own article, for WP:SPS reasons, you just do not want this knowledge (or rumour if you will) to become widely known. I agreed that because of WP:SPS (self-published-sources) it wasn't a good idea for 8bitJake to put a direct link to his own site and article, but mentioning the Wired article is a whole different matter. Wired -is- a respectable source, and the articles info IS relevant to this article (Xbox 360 technical problems), it even does not claim the info is true, it clearly identifies it as a rumour. It therefore fully satisfies WP:NOT. That -you- do not like this rumour/info in the article is irrelevant, and you certainly can't claim to know the complete truth about the articles claim. Perhaps it's not true, but you do not KNOW that it isn't true. The reader of this rumour/info is the one who should determine the truthfulness of these claims, not a sensor like you! Mahjongg (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong, but citing sources about rumours doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. xenocidic (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of the mayor principles of wikipedia. I cite "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The link to the Wired article fully qualifies for placement, because it's relevant info from a reliable source, Wired. A bit of background info might clear things up a bit. The info in the Smarthouse article is of an inflammable nature, because (if it's true) it proves what for a long time many people have assumed, but for which no proof in the legal sense existed. Because the subject of the information is of a nature that would make Microsoft allegeable for a class action suit. So the person who is the source of this inflammable info is rightly afraid of measures against him by a very powerful company (Microsoft) in the branch in which he is (allegedly) working, so he does not want to be legally identified. Because of this there is thus no "proof" of his identity, which means the story is legally a "rumour", and Wired can't therefore claim it as a proven fact for fear of litigation against them. Still the existence of the "rumour" as a fact on it's own is -very- significant for this article, and can't be just ignored. In other words, the material that is relevant for inclusion, is not the content of the rumour, but the -fact- that the rumour exists. Mahjongg (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We have taken a claim, from a source that is not credible, and presented it as fact. Even the Wired article included language that warns readers, language like "Rumor" and "take the following with as much salt as you feel is appropriate" -- and we have elevated it into the 2nd paragraph of the article, and presented it as infallible truth.

Here is the way the 2nd para reads:

"Several video game blogs, newspapers and magazines Wired, Kotaku, Joystiq, The Inquirer, GamePro, G4, and several others reported on an interview by a Seattle PI Reader Blog "Digital Joystick" with a confidential source inside Microsoft by the name "xboxfounder". It reported that this source was a team leader and key architect in the creation of the Xbox and Xbox 360 and a founding member of the xbox team and has since left the company but maintained close ties to the remaining Xbox team.[4][5]"

Doesnt that appear a *touch* too much credibility for a story that we know originated from a anonymous sourced blogpost?

Should it be more reasonably presented lower into the article, in the overheating section perhaps?

Wageslave (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining. xenocidic (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You say "We have taken a claim, from a source that is not credible, and presented it as fact", NO WE DID NOT!

Firstly, you do not have ANY knowledge about the reliability of the claim, so do not keep keep saying that "its not credible", simply because you do not like it to be true. There is a big chance (in my humble opinion) that every word of it is true, and that it will be proven to be true in the future.

Secondly, the passage in the article about it is perfectly clear in its assumptions. it says "The interviews suggest that...", note it says "suggests" not "claims it is the indisputable truth that..."!!! and continues with "These issues were alleged to be the....", it uses "alleged to be" ! so it clearly uses language designed to make sure to the reader that the information is not presented here as a proven fact. So do not say we present it "as fact". That is simply not true. You just want to remove the whole issue, presenting it as simply "a claim" is obviously not enough for you.

You want to make it even more obvious that there is no proof for what this "insider" says, be my guest and go right ahead and add that, you may even claim that it's not certain this insider even exists, just do not remove all trace of the story, that is all I ask. Mahjongg (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Firstly, you do not have ANY knowledge about the reliability of the claim... simply because you do not like it to be true."

An anonymous-sourced article, published on a blog is against wikipedia standards as sources. What you posit, "I think" is immaterial.

"You just want to remove the whole issue"

I want the article to include sources that meet wikipedia standards, as this one does not.

I maintain my argument, that (at least) the current 2nd paragraph needs more language to reflect the true nature, and that it is being presented in a place that provides it more authority than it deserves.

Wageslave (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"What you posit, "I think" is immaterial." ah I agree! But I don't care what you -think- at all, I care about your "track record", and what you have tried to do from the beginning, removing everything that might indicate the problems with the 360 are real. Well time alone will tell, in the end all your (and my) efforts will be irrelevant when the real world overtakes us. I am unclear which Sources etc you refer to, do you refer to the article on smarthouse or on Wired? You say "he current 2nd paragraph needs more language to reflect the true nature", well I won't go into the "true nature" part, but I already said that I do not object at all that you add your POV to the article, in the end the reader must decide what to make of it all. You think the issue gets "too much exposure", where it is, OK fair enough, but moving it inside an article that is completely unrelated ("in the overheating section") is simply ridiculous. Mahjongg (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please try and adhere to WP:AGF and WP:PA. Wageslave (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I always do. Mahjongg (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wageslave did you know that someone has started a Arbitration case against you about your anti-PS3 edits.

Hey, 8bitjake, no I didnt, do you have a link? Wageslave (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Link --8bitJake (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your "someone has started an arbitration case against you" statement is inaccurate. Wageslave (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Someone is gathering documentation to make forth a case. I might not be joining the case since I have other things to write… like a blog. --8bitJake (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a press pass, have written books and newspaper articles, have thousands of daily readers, and I am syndicated on the Associated Press news feeds. Microsoft considers me a news source as well as major videogame news publications like Joystiq, Newsweek, MTV news and Kotaku. I am an online journalist that has done a considerable work of investigative journalism on this subject. I honestly think that your obsession with the word “Blog” as a pejorative is petty and outdated. Honestly I don’t have to prove myself to you or solve your hang-ups you have toward online journalists.--8bitJake (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont have "hang-ups about online journalists", please refrain from WP:PA. Thanks. Wageslave (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Like hell you don't, I don't think I ever seen someone use the word Blog as an insult more than you. --8bitJake (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop the personal attacks? Wageslave (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you don't hold the publishing medium of blogs as high as other forms of online publishing. I am basing that on your repeated referals of me being a "Blogtroll" and "Traffic whore" on this very page. That is not a personal attack.--8bitJake (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

December 2005

I would like to invite editors to review the "December 20005" section. Of the two links, one is a clear advertisement (and the paragraph is written thusly) and the second is a bad-link.

The entire paragraph is weak IMO, I dont see what it adds to the article over-all. Does anyone else find anything of value in that section?

Wageslave (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the tone of the second part since it reads an awful lot like a plug for Digital Innovations - which 'just so happens' to be the company behind GameDR / SkipDR / all those other products that claim to fix your discs. Arguably it is valid information if they did make a significant push based on scratched discs, but at the very least it needs to be adjusted for a more neutral (to DI) tone. Ayocee (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Disc scratch removal products existed long before the Xbox 360, so except as an example of the publics frenzy over the Xbox 360 disk scratching problem I do not see how mentioning this, or any other company selling such devices is really relevant to the article. Perhaps this can be reworded without mentioning any specific company. Mahjongg (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Most certainly agreed, those things have been around seemingly since CDs became mainstream. My concern is that the way it's worded seems to lean heavily towards that specific company. Ayocee (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we see anything of value there? There is nothing worthwhile or unique there. I recommend it be removed completely. Wageslave (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed the article to remove mention of specific company, and added source for the sentence. John.n-IRL 03:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Added OR to General Hardware Failure section

The General Hardware Failure error could be caused by cold soldering. The added mass of the CSP chips (including the GPU and CPU) resists heat flow that allows proper soldering of the lead-free solders underneath the motherboard. This causes cracking and voids in the solders themselves from prolonged constant temperature changes inside the Xbox 360. Lead-free solders, however, might be the cause of this because, when properly soldered, they take on a dull appearance that professionals take as a cold solder in older methods, thus, leading to confusion. Lead-free solders also require a greater amount of heat to solder properly when compared to older lead/tin solders.

This is Original Research. The purpose is for mannucorp to sell the product it has advertised in the pdf citation. It is in bad faith and should be removed.

Wageslave (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly who's "original research" is it? I do not see an addition to the article from someone who has come up with this idea all by itself (as in "original research") Instead I see a post where someone has found information from a reliable source (a highly technical expert on this issue) and posted it's findings with a reference to this source. So in no way this is "original research".

Instead the source should actually be seen as a peer reviewed expert, exactly the kind of expert that would be able to get to the bottom of this issue. It is a reliable source!

Citing WP:OR "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals".

Well this info is from a company that has researched the reason behind the general failure errors with the explicit purpose of developing a working and technically sound solution to restore Xbox 360 motherboards to a working state, in order to sell such systems, not to the general public, but to their peers in the business. Because these peers are technicians too they obviously only want to buy the solder re-working station if there is a solid technical background for why it is working as advertised, so the company that researched the matter and developed the solution wrote a "white paper" about it, in the form of this document for direct "consumption", or for placement in a "technical journal", for their peers.

To think that these peers, highly technical experts would use, or even consider to use, a four line reference in Wikipedia to base their decision on, on whether or not to acquire this device, is ridiculous. This isn't a device sold to a (possible) naive general public, its a device sold only to other experts in the field. The contention that " The purpose (of placing this reference [sic]) is for mannucorp to sell the product it has advertised in the pdf citation." is simply ridiculous, and even when you take this notion seriously it still not "original research" to place it, and certainly not a reason to hit the whole paragraph, of which this issue is only a small part of with a OR tag, thereby falsely giving the impression that the whole section is based on nothing but "original research". Mahjongg (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag

Can we get a consensus vote to remote the POV tag? I vote remove --8bitJake (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do too, it was placed by an anonymous user (User:70.178.97.83) that was obviously disgruntled, and left soon after he placed the tag, so I do not think there is any real "discussion" on the topic for which the tag was originally placed anymore. Mahjongg (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

At the time it was probably warranted, but I think it can safely be removed now. xenocidic (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Xbox 360 Motherboards

Such a section would be useful to summarize the technical differences between the different hardware revisions, like processor die size, number/type of heatsinks, and HDMI inclusion.--SkiDragon (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. You should get going on it and we will help. There is some text you can use as a start at Xbox 360 hardware --8bitJake (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this information would be better in that article anyway.--SkiDragon (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Have these problems been resolved in anyway?

Have new improved versions of the Xbox 360 been released or something because it's been two years and I'm pretty sure that these problems have been resolved somehow and that information is just not in the article. --Coconutfred73 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. These issues are still going on and Microsoft has hundreds of people still working on it.

Well they are still working on these issues and there are new motherboards in the works IE Jasper, Opus and Valhalla but this is still relevant because there are millions of Xenon and Zephyr based Xbox 360 out there and while the Falcon system are more reliable they still have an failure rate that is extremely abnormally high compared to other electronics and their competitors. The failure rate of the Falcon motherboard is still over 10%.

I do think this article would benefit from a detailed explanation of the differences in the generation of Xbox 360 motherboards : Xenon. Zephyr, Falcon, Opus, Jasper and Valhalla. Also the different generations of heat pipes and fans would help. --8bitJake (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft still hasn't even disclosed what exactly went wrong with their product, and how exactly the failure rates dropped. I'm skeptical at the reliability of their claim at best, and I do agree that there should be a list of differences between the Xenon, Zephyr, Falcon, etc. models.. Dibol (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The EE Times reports on GPU

I have a couple minor issues with the text that got added.

"In June 2008, the EE Times reports [6] the problems may have started in a graphic chip. Microsoft designed the chip in-house to cut out the traditional ASIC vendor with the goal of "going cheap". After the multiple product failures, Microsoft went back to an ASIC vendor and had the chip redesigned."

There might be a problem with the GPU but it is not the total issues on the hardware design. The CPU, heat flow, component supply and Motherboard layout are all contributing factors to the Core Digital error failure. Yeah they wanted to own the technology behind the GPU and CPUs so they would own the miniaturization cost reduction process and can use it for future Xbox products. --8bitJake (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing in the original article too. However, on reflection, I think it all depends on what exactly "started in" means. If you read it as "the overheating is caused by the GPU and spreads out..." then yeah, that doesn't sound very realistic. But if you read it to mean "well there's a whole whack of problems, but the first one off the top of my head is..." then it makes sense. Maury (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The eetimes article had some good points to it but I think that it is a more complex issue than just saying it's just the GPU. --8bitJake (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's what I'm saying; the eetimes article, read the way I believe it is meant to be read, is not saying it's just the GPU. It's saying the GPU is the first and best example. Maury (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not say that the article is wrong but cost reduction was not the only reason for Microsoft choosing those chips and to do the chip design work in house. [7] Microsoft does not own the IP for all PowerPC or ATI chips but they own the IP for these chips --8bitJake (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the reasons why the hardware design of the GPU and CPU work for the Xbox 360 is being done by Microsoft. They wanted to own the IP for the chips so they would not have to license any external IP for future work on the chips or to use the tech in other projects. This was one of the reasons why they chose a new CPU/GPU architecture than the Xbox one. It is not in the at eetimes article but it is in Dean Takahashi’s book and my interview with my “Xboxfounder” source. --8bitJake (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am confused: what are you talking about here? Are you saying the eetimes article is wrong because it says that MS was only trying to get the IP for the GPU itself? I don't recall that. Maury (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this article really necessary?

Do we need an entire article on problems the launch consoles had? These aren't even current day problems, this is just fanboy bullshit. 76.235.233.251 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's necessary. Its informative, isn't that what Wikipedia is about? Information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.116.162 (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There's enough verifiable information in this article that it's pretty definitively not "fanboy bullshit". While I certainly hope the problems are growing less and less frequent (having finally broken down and bought one myself), ignoring the problem would be pointless due to the scope of the issue. Ayocee (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also concur that this article is unnecessary. Monkeytheboy (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I also concur that this article is wholly unnecessary. Its clearly a fanboy-written hit job. An assembly of guesses and assumptions, from blogs and forums and other such nonsense.

It is only included here because of wikipedia's well-known anti-Microsoft bias.

A mention of the General Hardware Failure should be made in the regular article, and the rest of this garbage should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a bully-pulpit for anti-Microsoft zealots.

70.178.97.233 (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For a person that is hit by this issue, (and there appear to be many) this article is very "necessary", or at least helpfull to their plight. I also firmly believe that people who say that this article is "unnecessary" have other, unoutspoken, reasons why they don't want this article to exist. Also there is no reason to believe that the issue is limited to "problems the launch consoles had", at the very least it's an ongoing problem. Microsoft simply denying the problem exists and not giving out any hard data about the actual failure rate, and its development over time, also does not help to determine if the problem is really fixed, and to what degree. So there is no reason to believe at all that "these are not current day problems", at least not untill a reliable source gives data that makes that an acceptable fact. If that happens it will be incorporated into the article for sure. Upto now that has not happened. Mahjongg (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is a part of the Xbox 360 page, I forget the correct name but this page is a sub-page of that page. John.n-IRL 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is quite necessary. I am experiencing the death of my second 360 console as we speak, and I came online to find help, or at the minimum some information about the internal causes of these failures and possible solutions. Also, speculative talk about the manufacturer itself is part of any healthy discussion. Looks more to me like the fanboys are the ones posting agianst such discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.198.225 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As a fellow console gamer I know how much hardware failure can totally ruin someone's day. I am appalled by Microsoft's attitude to this problem and I sincerely hope they fix it in the near future. AlexFili (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

MS has given a free repair and extended warranty. They fixed the problem (via hardware revision) over a year ago. They apologized. They fixed their mistakes. Your "oh, MS sucks" FUD is hollow and empty. Grow-up, wikipedia is not your anti-MS pulpit.

70.178.97.233 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Microsoft still won't fix the problem unless the code is three red rings. If you have an E74 error with one red ring, they won't fix it. They're just doing the minimum in order to not be sued.--Ssj4android (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't own either the 360 or the PS3, but I do know that criticism in Wikipedia should be kept to a minimum. Pages that are entirely devoted to criticizing are not Wikipedia acceptable. If you don't believe me you can refer to Wikipedia:Criticism section 3.4. I personally won't do anything to delete this page because I do believe that there are a lot of PS3 fanboys (please excuse my wording) that will ruin my wikipedia reputation for even trying. Hopefully this page comes to the attention of a group of administrators. Best Regards. Monkeytheboy (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not a "criticism section" as such (according to the definition used by Wikipedia:Criticism ), instead it follows the recommendations of Wikipedia:Criticism and gives this issue its own "Xbox 360 technical problems" article, as such it simply describes with a neutral point of view this phenomenon that exists out there in the real world. it does not "advocate a different stance on the subject", but simply gives the facts as they are. Fanboyism only comes into it when fanboys don't like the facts as they exist and want them suppressed, or when the opposite happens and a PS3 fanboy tries to create an impression the problems are much worse than they are. Mahjongg (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

From a humble "gamer" I have to ask why not do it as the ps2 page has been done? Give the facts no one can dispell "their has been a higher than accectable failer rate dics scratch and over heating is a promblem and microsoft has increased the warranty and new boxs now have a new cpu and motherboard (right or was it more?) all done with the hope of lowing the failer rate all. If we can't get along lets go with the concise. The ps2 had the same if not a great rate of failers also caused by hardware that is why I bring it up. Please do not respond with my ps2/360 is great or sony/microsoft is the devil or the flip I don't care I guess Im saying is why dont we merge this page with the xbox 360 page and make each issue known but unlike this page instead of trying to prove a point let the sources do it for you which means sourcing each issue. (66.43.221.161 (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

I completely concur with this opinion. 98% of this article is just flamming, hit-job, fanboy garbage -- far far below the standard of inclusion for wikipedia. The early hardware failures that the Xbox 360 experienced should be treated just like the PS2's pervasive hardware issues at launch.

70.178.97.233 (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that all of the users who are against this article immediately bring up comparisons to Sony is totally indicative of the backlash being due to a Microsoft-sided bias rather than a legitimate concern over the integrity of the article. I'm voting that the page should stay. 76.181.100.29 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The xbox 360 (older boards) and the ps2 (the older larger ones) have similar failure rates that is why I asumme they are being compared. My main concern is that this article is try to argue a point that this is an issue (not saying it's not) shouldn't it state the issue and then the citations provide the argument. (69.63.16.131 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

Totally untrue, ask anyone in the industry and they will tell you that the failure rates of these two systems are completely beyond comparison. Just read industry journals, and you will learn that your wishful thinking is simply untrue. Please back up your claim with reliable sources, like this article has. Mahjongg (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Game Stop/EB games found that for every 10 xbox 360 that went out 2 to 3 would come back to the store due to harware/software failer. When the ps2 when released (aka the big boxs) for every 10 to expect 3 to 4 for hardware failers there was a special note that the ps2 would lose the abilty to play blue back cds so when trading these system in they need to be test using a blue back game. I agree that they shouldn't be comparied. Microsoft choose to go with cheaper components in order to provid a system that would sell and yet would make money. Sony when the released the ps2 they didn't make money on the system it self aka it cost them more to make then they sold it for knowing that they would make up for the loss with game sales. Thats why i personal think they shouldn't be compaired. But the point is why isnt this all covered on the main 360 page why can't it be expanded on that page its a waste of room to have a seprate page for it; but more over this page seams to have the need to argue a point that no ones arguing why cant you just say it will scrate your disks if moved while system is on and it also scrate disks random then source it out to what ever group has found that to be true why does it have to have to 63ish lines of text I can't find any other wiki pages that are writen like this thats why im asking. I also resent the wishful thinking I don't take pleasure I other gamers consoles dying the fact is I don't relize that this was a fanboy only page now relizing so I say good day (69.63.16.131 (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

You are referring to a single event, in the early history of the PS3, and comparing that with numerous and ongoing issues, issues not even acknowledged (except by extending the warranty to keep users from giving up on the system) by Microsoft. And you are using that to say that this article therefore should be brought back to a few lines in the main article. That is simply not a neutral point of view standpoint! This article has grown this big simply because there is much to say, and much has been said. That is simply all. Mahjongg (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I got the 3 light red ring and found this article to be more useful than about 99% of the articles on wikipedia, it is not critising microsoft, everything i read on this page (im not saying ive read all of the article its massive) is true, if microsoft have made a product with many flaws its not critism to point them out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.84.252 (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

does a "four red segments" error exist?

An anonymous poster posted this sentence "An Xbox 360 console showing a forth (sic) "Red Ring of death" is determined to be damaged beyond repair.". Does such a four segment error really exist, or is this just someones attempt to slate the Xbox 360, the wording "is determined to be damaged beyond repair" suggests that. So I removed the sentence until there is a reliable source backing this up. Mahjongg (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of it, to be honest. Without a source I'd say leave it out. –xeno (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so too, that was why I removed it, I just posted this in case I was wrong! Mahjongg (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Four red rings just means they've not connected the video cable properly [8] 78.86.107.55 (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• Three Red Lights = You're boned
• One Right Light = Restart Console (trust me)
• Four Red Lights = Replace the brake fluid and reinsert video cables.
• Five Red Lights = The F**k are you doing?!!?!??!!

Gyrferret (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record...

Forgot to add an edit summary, but I rewrote some information updating their repair process which has changed recently.

--Abusing (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

WTF

I keep getting the red ring of death but it goes back to normal if I restart the machine. Accompanying the red ring of death is a message on the computer it's connected to (ethernet) saying about an IP address conflict. So um is there another meaning to the red ring of death? The xbox still boots up properly and works fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.244.32 (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This question is probably best posed at the Xbox.com Technical Issues forum: http://forums.xbox.com/9/ShowForum.aspx –xeno (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dull solder

One mistaken editor is keeping changing a sentence about the confusion that might arise from how a good soldering soldered with lead-free solder looks to "when improperly soldered, they take on a dull appearance that professionals take as a good solder joint in older methods", which is wrong, and should read ", when properly soldered, they take on a dull appearance that professionals take as a cold solder joint in older methods".

When making a good solder joint with older lead-containing solders it would be shiny, and when it wasn't shiny that normally meant that the solder joint was "bad", it was a "cold joint", that is the solder wasn't hot enough to freely flow and make a good connection. So in the past a solder joint with a dull appearance was a "bad joint". However, the modern lead-free solders behave differently, and even a perfectly good joint will look dull, not because it is "bad", but simply because that is how lead-free solder looks like. This causes much confusion with non well-informed people who still think that dull means "bad".

Of course it is still possible to visually distinguish a bad solder joint from a good one, but not the shininess of the joint.

One problem that still gives a visual clue of its existence is "cratering", that is the appearance of little "craters", or "bubbles" in the solder. It is cause by water vapor from within the PCB, when the PCB was not dry enough. When the PCB is produced in a country with a very wet season, and the factory wasn't dehydrated well enough then the PCB's may contain too much water, in such a case the boards must first be dried in an oven for an extended period (several days or even weeks) before they can be soldered, but if that isn't done this problem can arise. Mahjongg (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

New XBOX Experience and RROD

The XBOX Forums have quite a few people posting that they are getting RROD from the NXE, anyone else care to chime in on this? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's called "coincidence" and "idiots". There's no possible way it could be causing it and people whose consoles failed near the launch of multiple games (Dead Rising leaps to mind) made up the same crap too. Duds 2k (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Color blindness

I've added info about color blind folks having a hard time noticing the red-ring. I tried to make it as appropriate to the article as I could. - Team4Technologies (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)