XBox 360 crashesFollow

LMAO!!! color like none other lol thats funny

Xbox 360 is also *already* having performance issues with some of it's game.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/quake4/review.html?page=1

Quake 4 is a compelling game, but when saddled with an extremely unstable frame rate, it's tough to recommend.

Can you imagine someone caught in that storm though?

"AAACK! Stop! Your balls are killing me!"





Otherwise, that would be so much fun to do...

Colorful bouncing things .

Now if only they were shiny too...

Edited, Wed Nov 23 15:45:49 2005 by Stunted

LMAO anyone know if they are giving blue screens of death?

and the funny thing...isn't this EXACTLY what happened with the original X-Box release? Microsoft needs to hire a debugging department...I think when they recruited for it, they forgot the de- in debugger....

Edit: I feel for ya, defender, but even you gotta admit that a major bug like this less than a day after release isn't exactly new for microsoft. I just wish there management would recognize the need for more testing before releases...

Edited, Wed Nov 23 16:04:42 2005 by CrimsonNeko

"This is why it's a bad idea to get consoles when they first land. This isnt the SNES/Genesis days anymore where you can buy it and expect it to work out of the box."

I'm still on my first Gamecube. My second PS2, but those began to have problems after about a year or so...

Imagine what the cleanup for that must have been. lol they must have been finding colored balls all over the city for months after that.

I would have loved to see that though.........170,000 super balls flying at insanse heights and speeds.......sweet......

I am sure anyone having these problems will be able to get an exchange or refund. I am sure MS is trying their best to make the best Console they can. When you look at the time frame from the time IBM left the prototype phase and moved onto production of the CPU, and then the release of the XBox 360 is does seemed a bit rushed IMO.

XBox 360 has the PS3 they want to get the jump on and the Holiday season they want to have it out for. I just though to myself that is an awfully short time frame to get things done in.

I'm sure as hell no expert on these things.

P.S. to play FFXI I built a PC and bought WinXP Pro. I have had no problems with it to date. Although as a MAc guy I do all my work on my Macs and all my surfing and email. I use my PC only for FFXI and I go to only FFXI related sites, using Firefox. But other than that the PC with WinXP Pro has been good to me.


And Another Thing: A Console is not a PC. In the good old days a Console had to work, there were no downloadable patches, there were no hard drives or Flashable firmware, they just had to work. With Software on both Macs and PCs there is a point where software is "good enough" to be released. There are still known bugs but few enough that developers ship the product with the intent to release patches to squash the bugs.

Moving into the next Gen Console era I dread that with them becoming more PC like we inherit this phenomenon.

Edited, Wed Nov 23 16:56:00 2005 by kgav

It's not you personally, it's Bill Gates who is the devil.

You can't blame people for the way they respond really. Regardless of the type of company and products MS puts out now, the history is still there.

The saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." comes to mind. The majority of people who lived through the horrible experiences with MS have come to expect it. If they actually get a good product, they think nothing of it, and go on about life. If they get a bad one, well, they were right, and MS is just doing what it always does.

I don't particularly care for MS either, but on the flip side, I often think I am the only person in the entire universe who got a working copy of WindowsME. I've never had a single problem with it. But I've had my share of crap software in the past.

I've always had good experiences with sony products, and because of that, I will most likely go with the PS3 instead of X360.

Though regardless of all of this, you can't help but feel that MS did rush the X360 to beat the holidays and the PS3, and no matter who's name and past is behind it, they messed it up just the same.

{Development Team}{Do you have it?}

I have Quicktime Pro so I was able to save it as a .mov and I have watched it 20 times and still love it. It is too much like art to be a commercial. Surreal.

Edited, Wed Nov 23 17:36:02 2005 by kgav

MS is the company everyone loves to hate,but I remember the days before we had a standard OS. It was a mess and Im glad someone won. People talk about how MS is evil because of the monopoly. Lets take a look at the others that might have won the fight and consider how they would have behaved.

Apple. MacOS was aboslute garbage before OSX. It had a good user interface,but thats ALL it had. I remember mac users telling me that he had to reboot and unload all their extensions (device drivers) before they could print or the machine would hang.) They considered this normal,while at the same time ridiculing windows. Apple makes all the hardware and all the software. If apple had won,I find it hard to beleive that they would have still purchased NEXT and made the switch to a unix based OS. (Which was one of the best moves they ever did. OSX is a wonderfull OS,superior to both other unixes,due to its great UI and other non unixes due to its BSD heritage. Its just damn good) We would be stuck with expensive hardware produced only by apple,running an OS produced only by apple. Do we really think apple would not try to use dominance of all PC software AND hardware to move into other fields. Of course they would. They would use the same kind of cutthroat practices that ANY other monopoly uses to maintain its position. Eventaully the government would step in. Everyone of course would hate Apple,and of course would tell stories about how Jobs eats infants and pushes little old ladies into the street.

IBM: IBM would have given us OS2. DOS was a stop gap to get a product to market fast to compete in the personal computer market. IBM really envisioned something like OS2 from the getgo. They worked with MS to develop it jointly but the project ran into problems when MS and IBM couldnt work together. MS went its way and called its version of OS2 windows NT,IBM kept the OS2 name. If we assume IBM won,its probobally safe to assume they would have done it by making their PS2 line fly. Other companies would have been able to manufacture PCs.but they would all be rather expensive becuase they would all have to pay licensing fees to IBM. Computers would all be microchannel,which is not a bad thing at all. IBM would make the OS,which was pretty good. IBM also provides services ,networking gear and larger systems. They almost certainly would have used dominance of the desktop to sell their services and mainframe systems. You can imagine IBM making OS2 incompatible with their competitors servers. Proprietary networking equipment would tie computers to IBM networks. Companies would be unable to make open standard networking components becuase IBM would refuse them the Microchannel licenses they needed. IBM also owns a vast array of patents and would have developed countless more as they created versions of OS2. They also would have purchased the other software companies as they ground them under,aquiring their patents. Again,abuse of monopoly power until the government would finally have to step in,again. (IBM has in fact abused monopoly power before)

Xerox: Xerox invented the GUI. The Apple Lisa used a Xerox OS. It was a train wreck. We can imagine though,if it had worked out,Xerox would have been another Microsoft,except that they also had their hands in alot of other office equipment. Xerox of course almost certainly would have abused their monopoly. They did it when they dominated the photocopier market by forcing people to buy service contracts from them for the copiers and requiring the copiers only be leased instead of bought to make sure you couldnt go buy a used one and not get a xerox service contract.

Sun: Another hardware and software vendor. We would have a good OS,and good hardware. It would be very expensive. This would pretty much be just like IBM. Sun never really had a monopoly,but they tried real hard. You would expect them to be just like IBM.

DEC: DEC was notoriously proprietary. VMS was a solid OS and I imagine that a friendly GUI would have been possible. DEC was very good at locking people into their stuff. There is STILL VMS stuff out there running,becuase once you were locked into DEC,you were stuck unless you want to spend a small forture to switch over. Hardware was pretty good and they pioneered some of the advanced features like virtual memory,parralel computing and clustering. Dec stuff was very scaleable,but also expensive. Still,DEC was a master of keeping you using DEC. Ready made monopoly. VMS on a VAX processor in your refrigerator? No,wait,thats not the refrigerator,that IS the computer. =)

HP: Another IBM,except they made TONS of stuff. Dominance of desktop computing would allow them to monopolize lab equipment servers and tons of other fields. With something like a desktop OS to anchor them,they might not have felt the need to spin off Agilent. Very good stuff with a Unix based OS. Probobally would be just like IBM,but might have grown even bigger.

I dont see any difference in MS. The only real difference is that MS really doenst have the best product. They have an ok product. What they also have is a product that runs on open hardware. MS won not becuase of the best OS,but because of the best strategy. Thats their strength. Once they had their monopoly,they used it,just like anyone else would have. Im not making a value judgment on this,its just the way it is. We dont have a monopoly in computer operating systems becuase Bill Gates is the antichrist,we have it because the OS market lends itself well to monopoloes. People want to buy whatever the most people are using so they can all use the same software. This means once someone gets the largest market share,they are more powerfull and can edge out the competition. The consumer wants ONE OS. It really only could have turned out one way. The only real question was who was going to get the monopoly,not if there was going to be one.