Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

XBOX Media Player 2.0 249

Posted by timothy from the repurposing dept.
smashr writes "If you can't afford the new Windows XP Media Center edition, why not grab yourself a modded XBOX, and check out the XBOX Media Player 2.0. The official site has some screen shots and previews. I am sure Gates will be real upset about this one. Somehow $300 for an x-box setup is cheaper than the $2000 XP boxes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XBOX Media Player 2.0 More

XBOX Media Player 2.0

Comments Filter:

  • Still has some bugs to iron out (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    But impressive nonetheless. Beats the crap outta the Dreamcast Divx player. Although my personal fav is the SNES emulator, it runs without a hitch, and is offically the coolest thing a nerd could ever want.

  • Still has some bugs to iron out. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chris_Stankowitz ( 612232 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @01:37PM (#4738943)
    But impressive nonetheless. Beats the crap outta the Dreamcast Divx player. Although my personal fav is the SNES emulator, it runs without a hitch, and is offically the coolest thing a nerd could ever want. ---

  • modded xboxes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chunkwhite86 ( 593696 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @01:37PM (#4738948)
    While a modded XBOX seems like a cool inexpensive PC, I feel that it's more trouble than it's worth.

    If Billy G. does not want you to mod his XBOX, he will continually roll out new schemes and plans to try and foil you. Sounds like just a big pain to me. For the same money, you could go buy one of those Walmart/Lindows PC's and load a copy of Mandrake or Redhat on it to achieve a low cost useful PC.

    Just my 2 cents.

    • Re:modded xboxes (Score:3, Informative)

      by DBordello ( 596751 )
      He tried. He released a new version of the xbox. Something in the kernel changed. Now you can use the same mods as before! just need a new bios on it. db

    • Re:modded xboxes (Score:3, Informative)

      by MonTemplar ( 174120 )
      For the same money, you could go buy one of those Walmart/Lindows PC's and load a copy of Mandrake or Redhat on it to achieve a low cost useful PC.

      The difference, of course, is that you can fit an Xbox in your front room alongside the TV and VCR.

      • Re:modded xboxes (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Cpt_Kirks ( 37296 )
        The difference, of course, is that you can fit an Xbox in your front room alongside the TV and VCR.

        Why do friggin' black desktop cases cost 2-3x what a beige one costs? Black CD and DVD drives cost more too.

        Yeah I know, black spray paint. Easier said than done. A case isn't a patio chair.

        I want to build a mini-ITX [mini-itx.com] box in an old VCR case, but I keep hearing how bad the perfomance of the CPUs on the mini-ITX motherboards are.

        I wish VIA or someone would bring out a mini-ITX motherboard with a TV tuner, DVD decoder and mpeg/Divx encoder/decoder on the board, for ~$150.

    • As obvious as it sounds, don't forget lots of people buy XBox's to play it's native games (which are getting better and better). If you already have an XBox, why would you want to invest another few hundred dollars for a Walmart PC? You've already got the hardware right there.

      Besides, most of the XBox apps seem to be geared to stuff that was meant to be viewed on a TV instead of a monitor, such as emulators, divx/media players, etc.

    • Re:modded xboxes (Score:3, Informative)

      by Nickus ( 10876 )
      Build a box based on VIA EPIA. It costs basically the same but you don't have to deal with any stinkin modchips. Take a look at http://www.mini-itx.com for more ideas.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Why waiste time modding an xbox (Score:4, Funny)

      by cybrthng ( 22291 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @04:07PM (#4739565) Homepage Journal
      When you could be playing its killer linup of games?

      Off to UC, Mech Assault, Ghost Recon and Whacked i go.

      If you don't have Xbox live, your not a gamer

  • gates could care less (Score:2, Informative)

    by eht ( 8912 )
    i'm sure gates could care less, as he's not selling the 2000$ media center pc's, hp is

  • Price Drop (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DBordello ( 596751 )
    The price of the xbox is believed to drop to $150 after turkey day. Even better. db
    • Last time I saw, you could get refurb Xboxes from EB for $159. I thought about buying one, but I'm saving up for one of those Panasonic DVD recorders (HS2) instead...

  • So far, he isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kaosrain ( 543532 ) <{root} {at} {kaosrain.com}> on Saturday November 23, 2002 @01:40PM (#4738961) Homepage
    I am sure Gates will be real upset about this one.

    I understand that because this is Slashdot, we all feel a need to assume the worst about Bill. However, this program has been out for over six months, and not a single word has come from Microsoft.

    For an article about an earlier release of XBMP, check here [com.com].
    • They dont get it.

      The more xboxes are sold, the more profitable the xbox division becomes, regardless of what they're used for.

      This is what they want:

      "Hey [developer], we have a larger installed user base than PS2 or GameCube."

      • Re:So far, he isn't. (Score:2, Informative)

        by matguy ( 7927 )
        Not so much, it's the perverbial Gillete syndrome. Ms sells the Xbox cheaper than it costs to produce in the plan that owners will buy the highly profitable games.

        So, if an Xbox is sold, but it spawns no game sales from that one Xbox than MS should, in theory, actually loose money on that sale.
        • That's an industry myth.

          If I can build a P3 733 based PC for about 200-300 bucks - you're telling me MSFT cant mass produce them for less?
        • Not so much, it's the perverbial Gillete syndrome. Ms sells the Xbox cheaper than it costs to produce in the plan that owners will buy the highly profitable games.

          That's one major factor in their business model. One of the other major factors is that if they don't have a large installed user base, no one will make games for them and the system will die a slow death. Right now, the lack of a large installed user base is forcing Konami to stop selling X-Box games in Japan and Sega to stop putting so many games exclusively on the X-Box. If this trend continues, X-Boxes will start to simply sit on store shelves and gather dust, regardless of whether or not Microsoft is intent on keeping the project alive.

  • I am sure Gates will be real upset about this one. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @01:40PM (#4738968) Journal
    Why? The more they sell, the more they produce, they cheaper they produce 'em, and the closer they get to turning a profit on every piece of hardware.

    The more consoles they can show sold, the more they can entice developers, and the more software they can make a royalty on.

    Media Player or Linux or no, 99.9% of xbox owners eventually want to buy or rent a game.

    If you really want to screw Gates, build yourself a 300$ PC, and quit it with this "I'm stickin it to the man" crap.

    BTW, Xbox media player is developed illegally with the leaked XBOX SDK from MicroSoft. Thanks for the warez tip, though. Any idea when Doom III final going to hit my local fserves?

  • MPlayer (Score:3, Informative)

    by Doug Neal ( 195160 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @01:42PM (#4738972)
    Its worth noting that this project is based on MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu], the Linux video player. There were some GPL violation issues recently with XBox Media Player but they have apparently now been resolved...

    • Re:MPlayer (Score:5, Informative)

      by zurab ( 188064 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @02:02PM (#4739060)
      There were some GPL violation issues recently with XBox Media Player but they have apparently now been resolved

      Still not resolved with the old source code that was violating GPL from ffmpeg and xvid. If you read the mplayer website:

      Their reasoning: the Win32 version that is/was available for download at http://xboxmediaplayer.com was an older version which didn't contain ffmpeg or xvid, and has non-GPL license, equipped with a DivX3 decoder which was 20-30% faster (!) than ffmpeg. Well that's what they say. Unfortunately, the source of that version was lost (??!!).

      They also insist on us providing an apology. For what? They nuked any topic on their forum which was discussing GPL. The homepage did not contain enough information about licenses - only the success story of porting ffmpeg and xvid..

      And the "losing" of the old source.. Either way, let's hope they are more tolerant to (L)GPL licenses now.

      They took the code, distributed it violating both GPL and copyright, came up with lame excuses, conveniently "lost" the source code, and now demand an apology? Gimme a break! The only apology they get is "I'm sorry I won't go near your products for quite a while because I don't trust you!"

  • Well, these guys are bastards. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RomikQ ( 575227 ) <romikq@mail.ru> on Saturday November 23, 2002 @01:43PM (#4738977) Homepage
    They are the ones that used some of ffmpeg's and mplayer's code a couple of month ago and refused to open their source code(as required by gpl). They only opened it after two weeks of fighting. If you're curious, the details are on the mplayer homepage [mplayerhq.hu](just scroll down a bit).

    So I wouldn't support them if I had an Xbox.

    • Guess what. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mindstrm ( 20013 )
      They are not "required to by the GPL".
      What they are REQUIRED to do is have a license to re-distribute the work of another.. and one way they can do that is by following the GPL.
      As they didn't do that; they were guilty of copyright infringement, not "violating the GPL".

      Furthermore, the only poeple who can really force someone to do something is the COPYRIGHT HOLDER whose rights are being infringed upon.

      The community really doesn't have a right to scream "give us the source".. only the copyright holders do.
      • you're wrong, my friend.

        If I use any gpl'ed code in my software, I HAVE to distribute the sources with the binaries. ffmpeg was lgpl, mplayer was gpl. They used code from both, which means they have to distribute the source.
        • If I use any gpl'ed code in my software, I HAVE to distribute the sources with the binaries.

          Accepting the GPL is not required, but accepting the GPL is the easiest way to obtain th e right to redistribute other's GPL work.

          If you don't accept the GPL, well, you could always obtain that rights by other means (i.e. asking the authors, perhaphs paying them).

          But in the end, if you don't obtain the rights (by accepting the GPL or by other means), you can't redistribute. If you do so anyway, it's copyright infringiment.

          • Re:Guess what. (Score:2, Informative)

            by GigsVT ( 208848 )
            I see what you are saying, and I almost wrote a post to the same effect as yours, but I decided to check the GPL first:

            "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."

            So, one could argue that there is implicit acceptance of the GPL under the bold text above.

            Whether you call it a GPL violation or copyright infringement is really meaningless IMO, I believe it is both.
            • Where have I *agreed* to agree? I haven't. What if I never read this little text file?

              If we expect this to hold up, then we sure better not complain about EULA's and click-through agreements because they have no signature, and so forth, because this is even less clear.

              • Re:Right.. but.. (Score:3, Insightful)

                by damiam ( 409504 )
                However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.

                If you never read the file, then nothing has given you the right to copy the software.

        • If I use any gpl'ed code in my software, I HAVE to distribute the sources with the binaries. ffmpeg was lgpl, mplayer was gpl. They used code from both, which means they have to distribute the source.

          Close, but not quite right. If you distribute binaries that came from GPLed source, you are required -- if asked by the recipient -- to provide usable source for a nominal fee. It happens to be that the common practice is to charge no fees yet this is not a requirement of the GPL.

          Along those lines, if you distribute GPLed or LGPLed binaries along with binaries under a different license, you are only required to provide source for the GPL/LGPLed programs. The license for the other binaries is not impacted though it may have a source distribution requirement in it's licence.

          As an additional example, if Bill makes a program and licenses it under the GPL...and uses no other GPLed code...Bill can change the license for that code at anytime. If Bill gets code from Jack, and Jack allows Bill to relicense Jack's code, Bill can do so. If Bill does not get Jack's approval, Bill has two GPL-compatable options:

          1. Remove Jack's code and relicense.
          2. Don't relicense.

        • No... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @02:40PM (#4739211)
          not true.

          Look at it this way. The GPL is not *forced* upon you. You do not have to accept it; you don't click through, you don't sign anything, and it's not an EULA.

          What it IS is a set of terms under which you can do things other than what standard copyright allows. If you don't accept the GPL, you are bound by standard copyright law; no more, no less.

          If I use code available under the GPL in my softeware, the GPL is ONE option I can choose to accept to allow me to distribute/modify the code in my own work. I can also choose to contact the authors and negotiate another license. Or I can choose to NOT use any license, and hope I don't get sued by the copyright holders for copyright violation.

          My point is that the GPL is not something you are forced into; it's something you can choose to use in order to avoid legal problems.

          If you distribute some work that happens to be available under the GPL without accepting the terms of the GPL, you are guilty of copyright violation; you cannot be forced to release source, though you can be forced to stop distributing, and punitive damages, and releasing source will probably be one legal remedy for you (comply with a license that was offered so you don't get sued)

        • If I use any gpl'ed code in my software, I HAVE to distribute the sources with the binaries.

          No, you don't. There's no law which says that.

          The GPL basically says "we won't sue you for copyright infringement IF you release the source code and give the next guy the same rights we gave you". If you choose to pass on that good offer then you can be sued for copyright infringement - and you'll almost certainly lose - but subsequent distribution of source code is for the judge to decide. The judge might decide upon punitive damages instead. Or the two parties might settle out of court: "take the code out and I won't sue" or "pay me money and I won't sue".

          Everybody so far has decided to take the easy option and release their stuff as GPL rather than risk it in the courts. But the GPL is not binding if you don't accept it. Of course, you'd be damn stupid not to accept it, because the default copyright is far worse and opens you up to being sued.

    • Yeah, like I'm going to trust the project from hell. [linuxworld.com]

      How about tis quote directly off the xbox media player front page:


      On another note, and this is one I have to address myself, our friends the GPL zealots are complaining that the win32 build in the download section is violating the GPL because it does not contain sources. The win32 player on this site does not contain ANY GPL source code. I should know since I wrote the codec completely from scratch reverse engineering the divx 3.11 bitstream myself. The switch to ffmpeg happened when RUNTiME and I joined forces. I'm quite pround of my codec. Although it didn't support nearly the range of codecs that ffmpeg does and it didn't even support divx 3.11 as well as ffmpeg does it was about 20-25% faster than ffmpeg, using some unique optimizations.

      They opened it when they started including GPL'ed code

      Can you prove otherwise? It's going to take more than some RTFMing jerk making unsupported accusations to convince me.

      • Joe Barr is a notorious mplayer troll. He wrote that article in response to getting "kicked off" the mailing list. The article contains many half-truths blatant falsehoods, and the exaggerated install difficulties he described which once existed are no more.
        • Do you have a link to back that up?
          I've installed mplayer before and I've found everything he said to be true (the GCC annoyance, the failure to create /?/win32, the insulting faq entry, etc). I've never seen another faq EVER that asked what I was doing on linux if I didn't know how to add a new path for libraries (excuse me for not being BORN knowing how to do that). From my personal experience with mplayer, the maitainer seems like a RTFMing asshole.

          BTW, I just checked and that faq entry has been changed in the current version. I assume he got enough flames from people like the author of that article that he changed it. If you looked at the mplayer faq from the time that article was published, you could find a fairly insulting response.
          • The GCC 2.96 exclusion was not political. The compiler had/has serious errors when compiling inline assembler. There are megabytes of this in the mailing list archives.

            I'm not sure what you mean about the win32 directory, other than the fact that it resides in /usr/lib. The Win32 codecs are basically useless these days anyway; mplayer has native codecs for almost everything now.

            Remember that mplayer's developers are not Anglo-Saxon. Rules of "rude" in foreign countries are quite different than what we are used to in the United States. After all, the developers are under no obligation to support any of thier software or documentation.

            However, I am inclined to agree with you on their gruffness overall. As you noted, the documentation is not as scathing as it used to be and I believe the coders are developing slightly more moderate attitudes these days.

            mplayer is actually maintained by quite a few people. It just happens that the most vocal have the so-called searing attitudes. Other developers have given up on answering questions at all; you're lucky to get a response at all. The attitudes of the developers have nothing to do with the quality of the software in any case.

            As for the rest of my arguments, elaboration can be found scanning the "Developer Cries" section of the documentation and in the mailing list archives, particularly from exactly one year ago on.
            • However, I am inclined to agree with you on their gruffness overall...

              mplayer is actually maintained by quite a few people. It just happens that the most vocal have the so-called searing attitudes.

              I find it refreshing to know that suffering fools gladly is not a requirement in the open source world. :) After all, if you don't make people jump over a few hurdles every now and then, they'll never learn anything...

  • Devious! (Score:5, Funny)

    by I Am The Owl ( 531076 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @01:50PM (#4739013) Homepage Journal
    With this new plan to buy Microsoft hardware in order to undercut some of their software sales, we have finally found out the perfect way to stick it to Billy G!

    I was thinking about buying hardware from, you know, non-Microsoft companies, but this idea is much better...

  • But in the meantime, I'm guessing this is an output only device? I thought part of microsoft's schtick was the PVR aspects too.

    While the Xbox media connector in back IS listed as Video in/out, I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe it could suck-in data.

    Were I optimistic, I'd think they could make a slab with a bigger harddisk, AV inputs, and two ethernet ports, one to the Xbox, one to the rest of the world. (is 100mb/s fast enough to shove video+5.1 audio to the Xbox?)

    Since I'm getting less and less optimistic all the time, I'm thinking Microsoft will just include al l the additional hardware and wrap it around the Xbox2. OR the windows media server stuff runs on a central fileserver and all of that audio/video stuff is displayed in the familyroom with the Xbox acting as a display unit only.If THAT'S the case, then it doesn't matter what formats the Xbox can display as I'm sure the central server would transcode it to something the xbox CAN use..it already natively supports Mpeg2 (No, I'm NOT looking forward to shuffling all the satellite receiver stuff to wherever the media center hardware would live.)

    In the year or so I've had the Xbox, it's been a great DVD player/Game console...and for $200 I turned the Dishnetwork box into a PVR unit. I can't see a whole lot more that I'm gonna want to put in the family room, pre-HDTV. As an early adopter, I think I'll be missing out on whatever media hub plans Microsoft may have.
    • ". (is 100mb/s fast enough to shove video+5.1 audio to the Xbox?)"

      Yes, it is. By a lot. DVD-1x drives are what movie players use, with video and 5.1 audio, and they are significantly slower than 100mb/s.

  • Before this german site gets slashdoted... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well, since I got there early here's the feature list:
    Coming Soon - December 2002

    I guess we've kept quiet for long enough - time to make some noise :)

    For all the folks that have supported us, heres a preview of a little number we like to call 'XBOX Media Player 2.0'

    More screenshots over here.

    Major:

    * New user-interface inspired by Microsoft Windows Media Centre.
    * In-menu preview of running movie and currently playing music.
    * View media by cover or list, album or artist.
    * Sort, shuffle and queue media, M3U playlist.
    * Photo Slideshow and settings.
    * Customize with thumbnails.
    * Screen calibration.
    * Automatic Zoom to full 4:3 or 16:9.
    * Post-Processing (based on yamp - uses the same lib).
    * ISO9660 Joilet compatible (streaming and caching).
    * TTF Subtitle font.
    * SVCD and latest XVID (B-FRAMES).
    * Select audio stream from multi-stream avi.

    Minor:

    * Movies and music now visibly end when playback has completed.
    * Fixed a bug preventing mp3's greater than 8 mb from playing to completion.
    * Seeking implmented across more formats.
    * Movie clipping and aspect ratio tweaking.
    * TTF Subtitle font shadow (based on yamp - simple but effective!).
    * Simpler gamepad and infra-red controller button layout.
    * Auto tray retract when accessing DVDROM drive.
    * Popup-dialog errors/warnings/status
    * Enable/disable subtitles setting.
    * Slide show settings.

    (and many more!)
    Looks like they made the thumbnails real small, expecting slashdot, but they're already feeling slow... the screenshots all look like standard FisherPrice interface for XP, of course.
    In all fairness, though the modded Xbox doesn't compare the the $2,000 system... since it can only rip mp3s, and would be really really slow to encode DivX.

  • Free publicity for xbox.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @01:56PM (#4739037) Journal
    Ok, I've said it before, I'll say it again.. This deserves a little redundancy.

    Why all the free publicity for xbox, when you can get a PS2, install linux, and use that as your media centre - no modding required? Even w/o linux, there's a ton of homebrewed PS2 stuff out there.

    Which hurts MSFT more? Buying an xbox, or buying a PS2?
    • as i remember the PS2 linux kit doesn't give you access to read from the cd/dvd drive, not to mention that it's probably a bit easier for most people to code for the xbox's simple architecture compared to the vector system sony uses
      • That's how I use my PS2 Linux Kit. I have all my MP3's on my main Linux box, and connect to it using SAMBA (since I have Windows machines that connect on the network too.) I can then just telnet into the PS2 and tell it what songs to play next.

        And, the vector system coding is only for heavy duty graphics. For normal apps, it uses the same gcc compiler we're all used to, just for a MIPS processor instead of an ix86 one.
    • Selling your PS2 to MSFT :)
    • ps2+linux kit ain't cheaper.

      and.. ps2 afaik lacks the punch to decode divx on the fly(last time i looked into it..).

      the big plus side for the xbox as media center base is that it has powerful enough cpu for the type of things that media center would be used(mame, other emus, &etc &etc).

      though.. i'd go for a one of those 'netpc' type of case/mobo combos, more juice, easier to get parts, no need to rig to get kbrds/usb working.. no modding(sure you have to buy things like hd,cpu&mem&etc which pushes the price over xbox)..

  • xbox bias? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by droopus ( 33472 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @01:57PM (#4739043)
    Uh, explain to me why this causes a huge fuss on /., but articles about Qcast [broadq.com] for the PS2 (which is four months old and cool as shit) never see the light of day? Qcast just added Ogg support as well. Supports everything The xbox MP does, plus xvid. Has supported AC3 for a few months.

    This isn't a grouse, just wondering why a Media Center for 30 million+ installed PS2s holds little interest, but an unavailable hack of xbox that does the same thing is big news.

    Anyone?

    • Re:xbox bias? (Score:3, Informative)

      by CommanderTaco ( 85921 )
      Actually, there was already a story [slashdot.org] about both the broadq and snapstream software available for tivo.

      • Re:xbox bias? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by droopus ( 33472 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @02:28PM (#4739158)
        True, but all the story focused on was PVR functionality:

        Austin, Texas-based BroadQ is offering Qcast Tuner, software to connect the PS2 with a PC running SnapStream Media's video recording software.

        That makes it seem like Qcast is simply a UI for Snapstream when it is actually a total media player for the PS2. Since Sept, Broadq has added JPEG/PNG functionality, Xvid, AC3 and Ogg. It's way cooler than Snapstream IMVHO, deserving of a little attention.

        Disclaimer: I have no financial interest, nor do I even know anyone at Broadq. I just think it's neat software with awesome potential, and I use it a LOT.

    • Re:xbox bias? (Score:2, Funny)

      by ath0mic ( 519762 )
      I've come to the conclusion /. loves Microsoft

  • Bill Cares? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OS24Ever ( 245667 ) <trekkie@nomorestars.com> on Saturday November 23, 2002 @02:16PM (#4739112) Homepage Journal
    Folks, there's gotta be a point here where you stop villifying Mr. Gates and realize that Microsoft is a company, not one person.

    I doubt Gates got up this morning, checked slashdot and decided that Windows Media Player ported to one of his products is a bad thing.

    Microsoft will probably sell a few more XBOX machines because there are people out there that like to tinker, and then they'll scream foul when some new kick butt feature of the XBOX comes out that immediately disables their XBOX or doesn't allow it to work a la live.

    I'm always surprised at the number of geeks or opensource types that purchase a Microsoft product just to hack it to make it do something in the linux world. You're supporting Microsoft still whether you like it or not.

    Come on, buy a Gamecube. Make it run linux. Or buy the PS2 and their Linux kit and port something to it! Forget Microsoft's XBOX and let it fade away into obscurity like the 3GO, the NEC Turbographx, the NeoGeo and all the other failed (marketing wise) game systems.
    • I'm always surprised at the number of geeks or opensource types that purchase a Microsoft product just to hack it to make it do something in the linux world. You're supporting Microsoft still whether you like it or not.

      What I'M surprised about is how these l33t hax0rs suddenly get all enraged when their modded boxes lose functionality. It's actually kind of amusing.
    • There are things the Xbox has the the Gamecube and the PS2 do not. Like the hard drive and the near-x86 chipset. The Gamecube is largely useless for hacking, and it doesn't even play regular discs, so you can't really even add anything to it, or boot to a non-gamedisc. The PS2 already has Linux for it, and the only way to get it is to buy the Linux kit from Sony, which doubles the price. The Xbox is usefully hackable, and people like to do it for the challenge. An Xbox with linux is more useful than a Gamecube running linux, regardless of who builds them.

  • why have either (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @02:18PM (#4739125) Homepage Journal
    I am not sure why i would want either. The modded X-Box would be a nice toy, but I think, my money would be better spent on a $75 DVD player and a portable MP3 player. First, when the DVD player breaks it is cheap enough to replace. Second, 10 GB is not enough to really store a CD collection. The music will still have to be stored elsewhere and downloaded to the device. So why not just by a somewhat portable MP3 player which, in a 5gb version, can be had for $200.

    Beyond this I get nervous having MS stuff around. I really believe that their licenses are written to maximize the chance that the customer will break them so when push comes to shove, MS will only not have any liability, but can also have a reason to counter sue. Living in this world I have a few licenses around, but have made it a point to minimize the number.

    Also, I know that everyone is talking about how much money it is costing MS when people buy the player and not the games, but since MS cares only about unit sales of XBox, the argument is moot. Anyone who buys an XBox is contributing to MS success.

    To me, things such as this are just taunting the bear.

    • You bring up a couple good points.
      First, when the DVD player breaks it is cheap enough to replace.
      YMMV, but how often does a typical DVD player break? Sure, if you buy the $50 ones that I see on sale now a days, it may break more often, such as the Apex model that people are snatching up. Also, these cheap DVD players rarely have any digital out interfaces. But a quality Sony one hardly breaks and is in the upwards of $150-250. So for that price, it's the equivalent of a modded XBox.

      Second, 10 GB is not enough to really store a CD collection.
      I agree 10 GB is not enough. But you fail to recognize to key advances in XBox hacking: upgrading the hard drive and also streaming off the network. I'm assuming, if you're on Slashdot, that you have a nice computer setup with a huge hard drive and probably a home network. You can just plug the XBox into the network and access the files off of your file server. So that 10GB limit is non-existant.

      So why not just by a somewhat portable MP3 player which, in a 5gb version, can be had for $200.
      First of all, a portable MP3 player will not be able to produce quality sound that comes out of a home theatre setup or stereo speakers. Secondly, you're saying for $200, you can get a MP3 player. For that $200, you can get an Xbox. For the $75 more (from the DVD player you mention), you can get it modded and have a home theatre setup.

      To me, things such as this are just taunting the bear.
      I agree. MS is going to wake up one of these days and realize the monster that they've created and how they can't control it anymore. I think, however, this was part of their future plans: to merge their TIVO investment with the XBox. At that point, you have ubiquitous computing. However, I just think the public beat them to it.
    • I am not sure why i would want either. The modded X-Box would be a nice toy, but I think, my money would be better spent on a $75 DVD player and a portable MP3 player. First, when the DVD player breaks it is cheap enough to replace. Second, 10 GB is not enough to really store a CD collection. The music will still have to be stored elsewhere and downloaded to the device. So why not just by a somewhat portable MP3 player which, in a 5gb version, can be had for $200.


      Uhm, actually for 199.00 you get a console that plays games, dvd's, rips music (holds 8-10 gigs depending on which disk you have) and works online as well. This can be had for your stated price of below 200 bucks and include all the functionality of the multiple devices you are asking for in a single easy to use box.

      I just feel sorry for all the suckers modding there xboxen. They don't know WHAT they're missing on Xbox live!

      Game on!

  • this perfect day (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <j AT ww DOT com> on Saturday November 23, 2002 @02:27PM (#4739150) Homepage
    There is a book by Ira Levin called 'this perfect day', it has a nice little bit in it where rebellious people are given a fake rebellion to reduce the chance of them actually pulling off a real one.

    Slashdot is a little like that, imagine if all these people venting their frustration at the big bad MS would take it out on them instead of having this convenient safety valve right here.

    • I think you have point, but one counter argument is that a lot of /. readers is positioned inside IT organizations at often at key positions as far as IT is concerned.

      Let's take the uptake of Linux / samba servers installed surreptiously inside organizations a few years back. Don't you think this has had a huge impact on the ability to get to next step in reducing MS depencency?

      Now take Xbox hacking. Why couldn't this be the testing ground for the DRM issues that we will face in 12-18 month?

      One last comment. Why do you think MS is advertising on /.? Developers , developers developers....

      • it's exactly the fact that ms is advertising on /. that prompted me to make the comment in the first place.

        I find it highly suspicious that they openly back a site that is supposedly one of their few outspoken critics.

        My feeling is that they fuel slashdot to keep it a point of focus for otherwise potentially really harmful individuals.

        Imagine the damage if all those folks would really vent their frustration using whatever talents they have instead of flaming off here.
        • You are right I didn't really think about it from that angle, wish I had mod points for you original posting.

          I think your insight merits a separate story on /.. Ask Slashdot might be a possibility if you have some personal anecdote to tie it into.

  • Cheaper Media System ($200) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by I Want GNU! ( 556631 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @02:29PM (#4739161) Homepage
    At Walmart.com, the $200 Microtel PC [walmart.com]. 800 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 10 gig HD. Add linux. Add TV-out card or large monitor. Do lots more stuff than you could hope to do with the X-Box.

    Sorry, but the days of the X-Box being a cheap PC are over. MS still loses money but the companies whom it buys the parts for surely are not. And I'd rather have a PC whose insides are not backwards (in order to prevent me from making it a PC).

    Maybe a GNU/Linux mod on the X-Box is cool, but it is not functional.
    • Funny...I thought the X-Box was a CONSOLE GAME SYSTEM. If you want a PC, build one. If you want a cheap PC, build a shitty one. If you want a game system, then buy an X-Box.

      And I think the days of MS losing money on this are numbered if not gone. Lots of great titles out there for it now. I'm super glad I went with the X-box over the PS2.
      • So you're saying that now rather than getting only most of their money back from the purchase of an XBox they've made, now they get more money than they even spent and are turning a profit?

        Great. I'm sure they'll find something to do with it. They'll spend it in Washington DC and will get to run IT for the office of homeland security, and the next thing you know nice men from the government will take away your computer if it isn't running a Microsoft Palladium OS, for reasons of national cyber security.

        note for the clueless- that was IRONY, largely because it's beyond what the public would ever accept. But, Microsoft will happily TRY to do this and see how far they get. So for Christ's sake quit giving them fscking money already!

  • Weren't this these guys that used parts of mplayer [mplayerhq.hu] code and other open source projects (GPL) and tried to keep their end closed?

    Anyway, I didn't follow the discussion... Just caught something somewhere...
  • That is where the comparo falls over. MS gets a slice of that two grand from the PC , they get all of the XBox $$$$.
  • Not "Could Care Less." Could care less doesn't make any sense.

    You could care less? Then maybe you should!

    You couldn't care less? Then you must REALLY not care!

  • Modified XBox == No XBox Live (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Osty ( 16825 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @06:41PM (#4740168)

    Haven't you guys been paying attention? Modifying your XBox means no XBox Live for you (okay, sure, you can hack around and change your serial and/or MAC, but don't expect that to work for long, especially once it starts screwing legitimate owners and Microsoft has to really step up). It's like the past week or so of XBox news is just thrown out the window with this article.


    Okay, so you're asking, why would you want to play XBox Live if your whole reason for buying a modified XBox is for this media stuff? Ask the guys that are currently bitching and moaning about their modified XBox. Sure, many of them likely modified their XBoxes to be able to play pirated games (and fewer to play imports), but I'd bet a large chunk modified their XBoxes so that they could geek out and install Linux. In any case, if modders didn't care about not playing XBox Live, then there'd never be any major stories about modders complaining, so it seems obvious that modders want to play XBox Live. And they can't.

  • Microsoft reverse engineered his media player and sold it on Cd/DVD whatever as media player software that could be loaded onto the hard drive. Once loaded, users could play whatever music they want all without modding their box. Thus dealing a blow to hacking the x-box, and modding the x-box. It would take all the fun out.

    Kinda like the Linux based PS2
  • ...an Xbox?!

    Because, see, this player seems to be done incredibly well! Add to this that a modded Xbox runs Linux (which means, tons of apps) and there's also the MAME for Xbox project going on (imagine playing all those old but nice arcades... including Zero Wing ;-) on the Xbox), and you start to see some value here.

    Now, if they make a modchip that'll remove Macrovision along with region coding (I know Region coding has been removed, but please get that Macrovision off, too, it ain't good for some TV sets), I'm definitely going to get this, as a replacement for my trusty ol' Philips DVD 730.

    BTW, I got a question: here in Finland, the Xbox + the remote (needed if you want to watch DVDs) will cost me 290 Eur, which is roughly about 290 US$. How much do you Americans pay for it?

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close