Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft

What Happens To The X-Box If Microsoft Is Split? 19

Posted by Cliff from the might-its-fate-be-limbo? dept.
Lerc asks: "If Microsoft is to be split up into OS and a non-OS Companies, what happens to the XBox? The XBox is not an operating system, so does that mean the non-OS company gets it? What operating system will it run? Currently the XBox is described as running a version of windows specifically designed for the XBox, but isn't preventing this type of tight binding the entire point of the split. Michael Abrash says "the DX 8 specification is an excellent reference for the chip, especially the new components". An interesting question. I would think that since the X-Box is a platform in and of itself, that it would go with the OS Group. What do you think?

"There are plenty of rumors and speculation about the demise of OpenGL because of the XBox. This at least shows peoples' concerns about Microsoft getting back into the anti-competitive ball game. Will they do it? Should they be given the opportunity?

If the Xbox were to be deemed OS like enough to be bundled into the OS company, you get into a whole mess regarding the games. It is traditional in the console industry to sell the console cheaply and make the money off of the games. Surely the OS business couldn't get into selling other software immediately. It would be ridiculous to allow one company to sell the XBox at a loss and for the other to make money off of the games."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Happens to the X-Box if Microsoft is Split? More

What Happens to the X-Box if Microsoft is Split?

Comments Filter:
  • Direct X is a service that the OS provides to the applications which run on it. It may come bundled with every game in the world - but it's so tightly integrated with the OS that they can't even get to parity on versioning from 9x to NT. It doesn't make any sense, IMHO, to split it off to the Apps division.

    That sounds almost exactly like Internet Explorer - it's tightly integrated with the OS, it comes bundled with everything, and it provides services to applications (such as WinAmp and StarOffice, both of which use MSIE's browser engine).

    --

  • If you're confused about how things will be split up, go read the Final Judgement; it's pretty clear and is written so we laymen can understand it. The apps company gets EVERYTHING, except Windows (98, NT, 2k, ME, CE, etc.). I don't really like it either.

    Gotta respect Bill, though, for winning big even when he loses.

    --

  • Microsoft develops the plan. The DOJ then gives it a yea/nay. Presumably if M$ screws around for too long, the DOJ gets to write the plan.

    By screwing around too long, you mean they keep submitting proposals that the DOJ doesn't approve of? The DOJ won't just say yes or know; they'll say what they don't like and negotiate a compromise. If they have trouble, the judge will probably step in and make a compromise for them.

    --

  • That's ironic, considering that the whole idea of splitting MS is for supposed anti-competitive practices in the first place.

    True enough, but there is a slight difference between integrating a web browser and simply providing a zip utility. IMHO a simple compression tool is really something that should come with the OS.

    They can include Notepad, not Office. They can include a simple zip/unzip tool, not Archiver 2000 (or whatever neat backup and compression suite there is).

  • Who gets to decide this sort of thing, anyway? Does the government get to define what is OS and what is application? What kind of input will Microsoft have?
    Microsoft develops the plan. The DOJ then gives it a yea/nay. Presumably if M$ screws around for too long, the DOJ gets to write the plan.
  • Direct X is a service that the OS provides to the applications which run on it. It may come bundled with every game in the world - but it's so tightly integrated with the OS that they can't even get to parity on versioning from 9x to NT. It doesn't make any sense, IMHO, to split it off to the Apps division.
  • >If the Xbox were to be deemed OS like enough to
    >be bundled into the OS company, you get into a
    >whole mess regarding the games. It is
    >traditional in the console industry to sell the
    >console cheaply and make the money off of the
    >games. Surely the OS business couldn't get into
    >selling other software immediately. It would be
    >ridiculous to allow one company to sell the XBox
    >at a loss and for the other to make money off of
    >the games."

    That is why game box companies charge high licensing fees from developers. Look at Sony, they don't do any of their own PS development (or at least they didn't when the machine came out), and they still made a bundle. How? By charging a percentage of every copy of every game sold. And that is probably what MS is going to do also. They just wish they could do the samething with Windows 2000 on the desktop.

  • Playstation and Dreamcast don't use OpenGl. I would guess that Nintendo doesn't either. Nor do I expect the PS2 to use OpenGL. And yet all those platforms are doing rather well.

    Interestingly, on the Dreamcast developers have the option of developing for WindowsCE and using DirectX, however almost all developers use the Sega OS, where they are much closer to the hardware and can selectively replace parts of the OS that they don't like.

    On a related note, how many really good single player games come out for the PC? Diablo 1 and 2 are the only ones that I can think of. So lack of OpenGL doesn't seem to be hurting the good games, I don't expect that it would hurt the X-Box. I do think that being forced to actually use Windows and DirectX might hurt the X-Box though, since if the hardware is constant and unchanging, then an OS isn't really needed (it's helpful when starting, but eventually you'll get to the place that you want to replace it all with your own OS taylored to your game).
  • If you split and X box, you would most likely then have two V boxes. Not hard to figure out.

    Die rebel scum,
    Lidontno1
  • On a related note, how many really good single player games come out for the PC? Diablo 1 and 2 are the only ones that I can think of.

    Lots. Lots and lots and lots of really good single player games come out for the PC. A large number of them also have multi-player modes, but there is no shortage of good single player games out there. Ones I've played recently include Diablo 2, Vampire, Homeworld, Half Life, System Shock 2, Freespace 2, Age of Empires 2, etc. Of course, I've probably forgotten some and I certainly don't have time to play everything. But there's no shortage of good single player games out there.

    PC gaming isn't dead. It's alive and well.

  • try the shareware http://www.winace.com
    yes this is off topic but if people are looking for MS to bundle a zip/unzip.. well I'd want this one :-)
  • "And finally include a zip/unzip utility by default for example." That's ironic, considering that the whole idea of splitting MS is for supposed anti-competitive practices in the first place. A built-in zip utility could be construed as such...competing against Niko Mak's WinZip. We could have a whole other "Netscape Vs. Microsoft"-type battle over this one. Granted the stakes aren't exactly as huge, but...
  • The answer is simple: The HARDWARE division. Along with the assorted mice, keyboards, the "easy ball", that annoying soundcard that they sold years ago, and perhaps the still-annoying Windows Printing System. Or was that software? Whatever it was, it annoyed me, and it paved the way for incredible pieces of crap like the Canon LBP-460, which ONLY works in Windows 9x, and has absolutely no hope of use with any other OS or platform.

    That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

  • The OS company would get the OS/HW part of the X-Box, and the Apps company would do the games for it.

    Of course, this may all be moot, because by the time the glacial U.S. court appeals process is finally over 7-8 years from now, the X-Box may already be a dead platform.

  • But Microsoft has already announced that it isn't planning on selling the hardware directly. Instead, they'll license out the requirements to other companies.

    Microsoft would then make money on licensing their operating system.

    This is always assuming the Microsoft will ever get the damn thing out there. Talking to some folks from Electronic Arts reminded me that Microsoft has a pretty pitiful track record on this sort of thing.

  • I would expect the X-box to be put into the non-OS group because while it is a platform when you go to the store in a year and buy an X-box you are buying a piece of hardware not a piece of software. As an example... I expect Windows CE will go into the OS Group because it is an OS for handhelds and such, however if Microsoft made and sold the actual handhelds that ran Windows CE those handhelds would be put with the non-OS Group.

    If the DOJ did put the X-box into the OS Group then instead of the OS Group eating the monetary loss they could just spin off the X-box group and the non-OS Group could buy it or let it sink or swim on its own.

    /***
    Below are my thoughts on the OpenGL part the question. I and not very knowledgable about it so these thoughts are just kindof meandering ideas.
    ***/

    As far as the concern of OpenGL being killed by the X-box, I dont really understand those concerns. I think it would be nice if OpenGL could be used on the XBox because then it would make it easier to port from computer to the X-box but if companies did what I thought was best the world would be a lot better place. If the X-box does not use OpenGL then that just means that if a game is written for the computer w/ OpenGL then it is a game that won't be ported quickly to the X-box which would just hurt the X-box and Microsoft's income.

    Rich
  • Since the "operating system" for the XBox (an extremely pared-down version of the NT kernel) has no purpose or capabilities other than to run on the XBox hardware, I think it should go with the Non-OS part of Microsoft. It's not as if the XBox OS is going to be in competition with any other OS; it only competes with other consoles. Therefore I think it ought to be treated for this purpose as part of the hardware system and not as an OS.
  • The Final Judgement is pretty clear, I think. MS-OS (Windows, Inc. led by CEO Steve Ballmer) gets operating systems, and MS-Apps (Microsoft, Inc. led by CEO Bill Gates) gets everything else. The X-Box is not an operating system. It uses an operating system, and MS-Apps can license that operating system from MS-OS, but MS-Apps will own the X-Box.

    What's scary is that MS-Apps will probably also own Direct X, which they'll somehow tie in with Internet Explorer and MSN and Office and Microsoft.NET and everything else but Windows.

    --

  • And what about.. (Score:3)

    by Rob Kaper ( 5960 ) on Tuesday July 11, 2000 @10:50AM (#942502) Homepage
    And what about..
    • the MS joysticks/mice/keyboards being hardware?
    • MS's share in the cable network?
    • MSN being application nor OS but a service?

    I never got the two-part split up. If apps gets everything but the OS then there's still a big company that will integrate Office, IE, DirectX, MS-Java^H^H^H^H^H^H^HC#, IIS, ASP, services, MSN and paperclips. I believe Apps will be a lot stronger than OS.

    On the other hand - bare OS might have to deliver some good stuff to stay alive. And finally include a zip/unzip utility by default for example.

    Seems like this MS break-up debate will probably be endless, but so will the procedure be. Don't expect any change the next few years.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Close