This is the second version of the Unofficial Anti-Xbox Website. This first version was created in January 2000, shortly after the X-box was announced. You may be able to find the old version from Googles' Cache.
To start, let me explain a little about myself. I am 20 years old and am getting a computer science degree from a techical school. I have been playing video games on consoles since I got my Nintendo Entertainment system when I was five. A couple years back, I used to work at a big arcade helping people play arcade games. Currently, at home, I have a Playstation 2, Dreamcast and Nintendo 64 connected to a 27" Sony Wega, with sound being routed through a Kenwood DD5.1 and DTS receiver. I have been working with computers since I was 8 years old. So, I think I know what I'm talking about.
My favourite genre of games is racing, especially the Gran Turismo Series. I also enjoy console specific First-Person Shooters, such as Medal of Honour, as well as puzzle games.
Some may question the point of making a page like this. That it's all about the games, and it doesn't matter who makes the console. Well, that's true, but there are companies in the past that have made grandios claims in the past and have failed miserably. The 3DO promised revolutionary gaming, with full-motion video, detailed textures, blah, blah. Well, it turned out that full-motion games sucked ass, 3DO sucked ass. The Virtual Boy promised to bring cheap Virtual Reality gaming to the masses. It too, sucked ass and bombed. Then there's Atari, an American company that thought it could pit its' VCS 7200 against the NES. Coincidently, the last successful American-company made console was the Atari 2600.
Also, consider a car analogy: perhaps someone doesn't like Chevy. They made have had Chevy's in the past, and they required constant maintenance, or Chevy didn't live up to their promises and expectations.
So the Corvette may be a great car. Chevy says it faster than all the other sports cars on the market. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But this person won't even consider the Corvette because of the bad experiences he had with other Chevy products. He won't believe the virbage that the Chevy salesman is spouting. He believed it once before and look where it got him. That's how I feel.
About a decade ago, the two kings on the block were the Genesis and the Super Nintendo. Both were great systems, with great games. If one had a deficiency, it was made up in the other one. The Genesis had the great sports games, and the SNES had the great arcade ports. The deciding factor for me to choose a system finally came down to a little marvel called the Sega Channel. For the un-initiated, the Sega Channel was a service, for $20 a month, that allowed you to download, into a special cartridge, and play one of fifty games. You could play as much as you wanted, when you wanted. I've always believed it was the epitome of gaming.
Then, around '94 and '95, new, next-generation systems were announced and launched. For the first time in a while, there were, four or five consoles to choose from. To try to prove their superiority, and to differentiate from the competition, companies would spout off some numbers like "300,000 polygons per second" or some fancy buzzwords like "z-buffering" and "alpha channel transparency". That lead consumers to believe whatever system had the biggest numbers or the most buzzwords was the best. And that mentality stuck. This lead to debates on the then-young World Wide Web with arguments like "Well, my Playstation can do 360,000 polygons per second," and "Oh yeah! Well my Nintendo 64 has a 93.85 MHz processor." Five years later, companies are still trying to impress consumers will fancy numbers and hich-tech sounding buzzwords, even when they mean jack, and I'm here to enlighten you.
If you want to criticise me, fine, be my guest. But keep in mind that these are my opinions on a website that I created. I am entitled to say whatever I want, even if it's lies, facts, opinions, extreme biasness, idiocy, etc. You don't have to read it. I am not forcing you to. Do a search on Google and you'll find that there's an anti-site for everything from sports to credit cards to the Internet (Now that's ironic). This is just my contribution.
Microsoft
"Windows [n.]
A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition."
(Anonymous USEnet post)
To start off, I ain't too fond of Microsoft as a company. They have a history of duping consumers, shipping bad products and being anti-competive.
I remember back in '93 when Windows 95, then called Chicago, was announced. It was right around the time when IBM started selling OS/2 Warp. Seeing sales of Windows 3.1 falling to OS/2 Warp, Microsoft basically said "Don't buy OS/2, wait for Chicago. It'll be revolutionary and innovative." But when Chicago, AKA Windows 4.0, AKA Windows 95, was launched with a Rolling Stones song, the only thing innovative about it was the new minimize, maximize and close program icons. And if I recall correctly, Windows 95 shipped with like 6,000 bugs.
There's cases going back to the DOS days that show Microsoft does not like competition, and will do anything to squash it. Try a google search.
I won't comment on Netscape, because frankly, they brought in on themselves. Besides, I made a separate page detailing reasons I don't like Netscape.
Did you know that during a worldwide broadcast of Bill Gates using Windows 98, it crashed on him?
An internal memo among Microsoft developers mentions 63,000 known defects in the initial Windows 2000 release. Microsoft did not deny the existence of the document, but claimed that the statements were made in order to "motivate the Windows development team". They went on to state that "Windows 2000 is the most reliable Windows so far."
So that's 63,000 defects in Microsoft's best work. Don't forget that that is the OS operating your X-Box.
On the old site, people use to say that X-Box is in the same position that Sony was over 6 years ago. That they are newcomers to the console business. And I told them that they have a bad memory. Sony designed the Sound chip for the Super Nintendo, as well as an CD-ROM add-on for the SNES, to counter-act the Sega CD. Well, various things happened. Sony didn't like Nintendo's policies, and the project was dumped. But the idea of that system lived on and became the Playstation.
"... it is easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of them by the sense of achievement you get from getting them to work at all. In other words... their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws."
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, on the products of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
Anyways, there's a bunch of pages roaming on the web that detail more of this stuff. The Redmond Roundup is a good place to start, with my favourite being Why I Hate Microsoft by Frank WV.
Also, the Halloween Documents, an internal Microsoft memo that details their fear of open source software, is an interesting read. It suggests strategies that the company might use to counter the open-source movement, including methods for making common Internet protocols dependent upon Microsoft software. It also clearly states that Open Source software performs and scales much better than Microsoft Products.
Another interesting read is the website of security consultant Georgi Guninski, who holds the unofficial record for identifying the most security holes in Microsoft products.
The Infernal Machine
On The surface, the X-box would appear to be a very powerful machine. However, there are some things about the PS2 that make it more powerful than X-box.
First, some technical stuff. Most modern 3D games use polygons, or multi-sided shapes, to represent a 3D world. Polygons are nothing more than a collection of three or more XYZ coordinates. Put enough of these polygons together, you have a car, a character, a weapon, a world, etc. More polygons means more detailed cars, characters, larger worlds, etc.
Now, to move the car, or the character, etc, you have to calculate a new position for each of the points in each of the polygons. That requires lots of floating point math, specifically multiplication and division. The Emotion engine has two dedicated co-processors, VPU1 & VPU2, that are specially designed to do this math. That leaves the Emotion engine to calculate computer artificial intelligence, actual game code, and whatnot.
The Emotion engine and the VPU's, the heart of the PS2, were built from scratch to be a dedicated games processor. The 733 MHz x86 Intel Pentium III, used in the X-Box, is descended from a line of processors designed back in the 70's to calculate and handle large amounts of text.
For the record, the emotion Engine can do something like 6.4 Billion Floating Point Operations Per Second. Microsoft has not given its' numbers but I believe a Pentium III can do about 3.5 Billion FPO's per second. That's 50% less.
Now, for some other technical stuff. The bits of processor, as in 32bit, or 128bit, basically means how much stuff can move in and out of the processor, as well as inside it. That means, for example, the 32bit P3 used in the X-Box can move around 32 bits, or 4K, of game information at a time. That could be polygon coordinates, game logic, or anything. This can all happen about 733 million times a second (733 megahertz), for a theoretical throughput of about 2.9 billion bytes per second. Now, the Emotion engine operates at 128bits, or 16K, at 300 Mhz, for a theoretical throughput of 4.8 billion bytes per second.
Custom 3-D NVIDIA graphics processor
First, a little more technical info.
As mentioned above, in a 3D game, the processor calculates new positions for each of the points in each of the polygons. It then sends these coordinates to the Graphics chip and the Graphics Chip draws them. So in other words, the capabilities of the processor will determine how many polygons, hence how detailed an image, can be pushed.
So it doesn't matter if a chip can push 125 million polygons, if the processor can't keep up.
But let’s take a closer look at that video chip. The original spec sheet for the X-Box shows a pixel fill rate of 4.0 Gpixels/PS (Billion Pixels Per Second), with Anti-Aliasing. This figure is a bit misleading. The NV2a, the chip used in the X-Box, has 4 pixel units, chips that actually draw the pixels, that operate at 250 MHz. 1 Hz = 1 pixel, and 4 pixels units x 250 MHz = 1.0 Gpixels/PS. So where did they get that 4.0 Gpixels/PS figure? It turns out that the NV2a uses oversampling, or redrawing every pixel to smooth out jagged edges. It does this four times for each pixel, so 4 times 1.0 Gpixels = 4.0 Gpixels/PS.
For the record, the graphics chip in the PS2 has 16 pixel units, running at 150 MHz, for a throughput of 2.4 Gpixels/PS.
So what about polygon’s?
The industry standard size of a polygon is 32 pixels. Divide 4.0 Gpixels/PS by 32 pixels and you get 125 million polygons/PS. But remember that the X-Box can’t draw 4.0 Gpixels/PS, only 1.0 Gpixels. So now we get a polygon count of 31 million polygons/PS.
For the record, divide 2.4Gpixels/PS, the throughput of the PS2, by 32 and you get 75,000,000 polygons per second.
Now, these figures are just theoretical, raw numbers. Actual performance for both machines is lower. And these are unlit, unshaded, untextured polygons. When we add textures, or pictures added to the polygons to add detail, we get way different numbers.
Also, the PS2 has VRAM embedded directly on the chip, and has an incredible 2,560 bus width, and a total bandwidth of 48 Gigabyes per second. That means updates to that Video ram are nearly and instantaneous and incredibly fast.
64 MB of RAM (unified memory architecture)
OK, more ram can mean bigger game worlds, etc. Sony fans, they got us beat on that one, but it goes along with Moore's Law, so one would expect that it has more RAM.
However, the 32 MB of memory in the PS2 operates at 800 MHz, vs. the 200 MHz for the X-Box. That means information information in can be sorted around, modified, etc. four times faster than the X-Box. That can make a difference.
10GB hard drive
I've got mixed feelings about this, for both the PS2 and the X-Box. On the one hand, a hard drive would add a tremendous amount of depth to a console, allowing unlimited game saves, new game content, etc, to be loaded and stored. On the other hand, hard drives are one of the first things to fail on a computer, and I doubt either Sony nor Microsoft are using the best hard drives on the market. What happens when the hard drive fails? Do you lose all your information. Are you able to swap hard drives? The good thing about Sony's hard drive though, is it is removeable. So when it goes kablooey, you won't have to replace the whole unit. You also have to worry about fragmentation, or corruption. On the old page, I said that it's possible that the hard drive could be used for patches, and the fanboys said it won't. Well, fanboys, what evidence do you have that it won't? Microsoft's good word?
4X DVD drive with movie playback. (Requires separate add-on)
Not much to say about this one, except that yes, it was a smart move, but what the heck is with that add on required? That was a stupid move by Microsoft. When I got my PS2, one of the first things I did after hooking it up was to play the Matrix DVD on it. I liked the fact that I could play a DVD right out of the box. How much do you wanna bet Microsoft will not advertise this little 'feature' of having to buy a separate periphial? Probably just in tiny print on page 46 of the manual, right before the Spanish section.
But a bigger question is, why did Microsoft even offer this capability? They could have just put a DVD-rom drive inside for the more storage, and not bothered with the movie playback, which costs more licensing money. I remember Microsoft saying that the X-box will be purely a game playing console, not a home entertainment unit the way Sony was pushing the PS2. So why include the DVD movie playback capability, if it will be used just for games?
Four game controller ports
Yeah, whatever. This is something that Sony should have done, but didn't. Too bad they'll all have that ugly green sphere on them.
Proprietary USB Ports
Thats odd. I though USB meant Universal Serial Ports. Universal as in works in (almost) everything. The USB ports on the PS2 are universal. I can plug in any USB device into it, and if the game supports it, it will work. Not silly, useless things like Webcams, but functional things like a mouse, or keyboard.
Proprietary A/V connector
What, no Optical out? You mean to tell me that if I want to connect the X-box to my Kenwood Receiver, I have to first buy a connection that has the optical out, plus the optical cable? What if I just have composite inputs on my TV, but a DD receiver? That means I have to buy a another composite cable with an optical cable outlet. What would I do with the original cable? Strangle Bill Gates?
100 MBps Ethernet
I'm indifferent to this as well, for both the X-Box and the PS2. It's good in theory, but consider this.
First of all, broadband is not available everywhere. What are the people living in the sticks gonna do for connectivity?
Most people who have broadbrand are probably getting it from ATT, Rogers or Shaw who, for a monthly fee, provide the service, and rent out the cable modem. I don't know about the rest of the world, but our broadband only comes out of one outlet and we've got just the one cable modem, and that's near the computer, which is nowhere near the TV. So, if I want to hook the console up to broadband, I've got a couple solutions:
Get a splitter, some long cable cord and lug the cable modem back and forth between the computer and the TV everytime I want to play. Cost: < $10 for the cable cord.
Rent or buy another cable modem and order another wall outlet for cable. Cost $200 plus $10 extra per month or maybe an extra $15 per month.
Buy a hub, some 10BaseT wire, start drilling some holes, and make a mini Lan. Cost: $40 for the hub and $10 bucks for the cable.
The first one is the cheapest, but it's also the most annoying. The second one would cost more in the long run. The third one would be kind of fun actually, and if I do decide to connect the console to broadband, that's what I'd do.
Another issue with broadband is the fact that it's always on. This would allow would-be hackers to access the X-box (or PS2) and do whatever. While I'm pretty sure that you won't be upset if you're Abe's Oddyssey save games are stolen, you'd probably be pissed if someone used your X-Box for denial-of-service attacks, or erased your boot-up ROM. I'm sure it won't be too long before the first X-Box virii and trojan horses appear, especially with a well documented, Windows 2000 operating system.
The Console Design
This is a matter of personal preference, but I don't like the look of the console, or the controller. The console looks like a big, bulky, 80's style VCR. I have the PS2 set up vertically next to the TV, and it looks really good. The controller looks like a rehash of the Genesis, Saturn, Dreamcast and Playstation controllers amalgamated into one. And again, as a matter of personal preference, what's with that big green sphere on the controller? Blech.
Price
So the price of $299 USD was confirmed, whick was smart because a) That's PS2's price; and b) anything over that will kill it.
But let's take a look at this. First of all, the Gamecube comes out about a week before and for $100 USD cheaper. There's also rumours of a PS2 price drop before then. Anyway, on the first version of this page, I broke down the components and came to an @unit price of around $450. Microsoft makes probably $275 revenue from each console sold. (Retailers make very little from selling a console, but they do get some perks from manufacturers.) So Microsoft is losing about $175 per console. Now that unit cost will come down, but not soon. They, like all console manufacturers, plan to recoup losses through game liscensing fees.
But what if that doesn't happen? Right now, Sony is happy with PS2 game sales. They're making up the loss from each hardware unit sold. But what if people find another use for the X-Box. What if someone developed a webserver for the X-box, or ported Linux? They could have a cheap, relatively fast and powerful webserver. The same thing could be said of PS2, but with X-Box having more RAM, a built-in ethernet port and hardrive, and a more widely used operating system, it would be the choice of someone who would do that.
So if a lot of people are using X-Box for something other than their intended purpose, they won't be buying games. And if Microsoft can't recoup the losses through current licensing fees, they'd have to raise them, leading to more expensive games, leading to less being bought, leading to less licensing revenue, and so on.
The Games
The usual crop of games appears. You've got some sports games, some action games, some computer ports, some ports from other systems.
The only game that piques my interest is Halo. From reading up on it, it offers some interesting possibilities, and Bungie is making a big mistake not porting it to PS2.
Some important names are missing from the developer list. Namely Square. Square makes some excellent RPG's, which are important when pushing a console.
Let's take a closer look at the Microsoft games, and how they relate to Microsoft's software track record.
Now, granted, there's no such thing, nor will there ever be, bug-free software. Programmers are only human, they make mistakes, and things slip through.
As I've said before, Windows 2000 was released with 63,000 known defects, and that it was considered Microsoft's "best work." Of course that's the known defects. God knows how many unknown there were.
In Windows 2000, the "head" icon of a group will have it's hair turned gray, if there's more than 500 people in that group. It's just a stupid little thing that probably one of the junior programmer's put in, and doesn't do anything, but makes one wonder how it slipped past quality control.
There's also some easter eggs in Word 97 and Excel 97 that allow you to play a pinball game and a flight simulator. If stupid things like that can get past quality control, it makes you wonder about important things, like stability issues, etc. As well, Microsoft carries no ISO9000 quality certification, or any other quality certification for that matter, and most likely does not intend to.
And if they let major security issues go by in $2000 a license Windows 2000, what do you think they'll let by in a $50 dollar game?
And don't think that Microsoft is not responsible for the mistakes of other companies. Each game is tested by Microsoft, and it decides what gets published and what doesn't. So if Company XYZ releases a really buggy game, and Microsoft releases it, it's Microsoft's fault.
Miscellaneous
Microsoft has a very tough struggle ahead of it. There has not been a successful American made console in over fifteen years.
Dreamcast is out right now, it's cheap, it lets anyone play online against other people, and it has an extensive library of some great games.
Playstation 2 is also right now, has some good games, and has a great future of ahead of it. Not to mention the loyalty of 75 million Playstation 1 owners.
The Gamecube has the loyalty of a generation of gamers who remember what Nintendo did for this industry. It's cheap and has an innovative controller. Mario, Zelda, Metroid and countless others also help out a bit, too.
The X-box has the reputation of Microsoft behind it. Wait.... that's not good. Well, it can function as a DVD player. Wait... you need a special remote for that.
Let's not forget Microsoft's "Third-Times-A-Charm Curse." Its states that the first two versions of a Microsoft product will be absolute dogs, and by the third time, they'll have something. It happened with Windows, it happened with Office, it happened with DirectX, and it's happening with Windows CE. Judging by that track record, it could happen to the X-box. But you don't get second chances in the console business. That's why we don't see Panasonic or Phillips making video game systems any more.
Conclusions
On paper, Microsoft has made a very powerful machine. However, Their whole marketing intent was to show numbers, proving that their console was the most powerful, hoping to entice un-informed consumers. Hopefully, I've enlightened you a bit.
Microsoft has a history of lying to consumers. They have repeatedly taken old technology, given it a shiny new coat of wax, and called it innovative. There is nothing to show that this does not apply to the X-Box.
I will not buy an X-box. I do not want an X-box. Yes, I am able to afford one, but the only way an an X-box will find its way into my living room is if good ol' Willie Gates the third is giving them away for free. After trying to get Microsoft Windows 98 not to crash every three hours, I don't see why I would want to play games on an official Microsoft game machine. I don't see why anyone else would either.
If you want to contact me about the opinions on this page, you can do so through this address: Gomer109@hotmail.com.(Yes, I understand the inherent irony of using a Hotmail account on an anti-Microsoft page, but Hotmail was not always owned by Microsoft) Please try to be coherent with your messages. Or you can sign the guestbook. I do read all the messages on there, and respond to some of the more inane ones. If I feel like it, I'll point out flaws in your arguments, make you look like an idiot, or I'll just make of your spelling. Thank you and have a nice day.
"Windows [n.]
On The surface, the X-box would appear to be a very powerful machine. However, there are some things about the PS2 that make it more powerful than X-box.