MS Xbox One - Timed Family Sharing confirmed false

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

TBH I am more into software engineering than I am into server architect, but I can try.

Basically, the Xbox One runs two different operating systems inside of another which acts as a container for both of them to co-exist on the same system. Sorta of like running two guest OSs on one Virtual Machine (like VMWare). It isn't as bad as it sounds in terms of performance overhead though due to a type 1 hyper-v technology they're utilizing (that means no virtualization of hardware components) that is tailored for the XBox One hardware in particular.

The two kernels can be placed into a suspended state freeing up system resources - and then instantly resumed. One of the OSs is developed just for low-level hardware access and optimal game performance, the other is designed for more abstraction for software app development (i.e, for skype). The third is the container for the two that manages their resources.

This is what allows you to go from browsing the web to playing a matched game in a matter of seconds. Because the second OS is suspended and the one meant to play your games is resumed.

Is that supposed to be groundbreaking or something? Sounds a lot like partitioning to me.

[radnomguywfq3]

Is that supposed to be groundbreaking or something? Sounds a lot like partitioning to me.

Really, I can't say - I don't know much about server architecture and virtual machines.

It is definitely a first for game consoles and it makes sense. It is probably what allows the multi-tasking of really high-level components (like apps) with lower level components (like heavily optimized games) to run along-side each other and I suppose a good way to prioritize software\games. I can't think of a better way to do it without loosing some chances to optimization and trading them off for abstraction.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

Really, I can't say - I don't know much about server architecture and virtual machines.

It is definitely a first for game consoles and it makes sense. It is probably what allows the multi-tasking of really high-level components (like apps) with lower level components (like heavily optimized games) to run along-side each other and I suppose a good way to prioritize software\games. I can't think of a better way to do it without loosing some chances to optimization and trading them off for abstraction.

Well alright why not the bluetooth capability then? I mean if I were to buy a new car or even a pc from 2009 and further it would offer that feature.
It's not new tech but can be really handy and I'm wondering why such a tech savvy company didn't offer it on it's new gen platform.
Do you have a reasonable answer for why that is?

[Raple]

Going full PC.

[Nyan]

you sure are on XBOX ONE's side.

[radnomguywfq3]

Well alright why not the bluetooth capability then? I mean if I were to buy a new car or even a pc from 2009 and further it would offer that feature.
It's not new tech but can be really handy and I'm wondering why such a tech savvy company didn't offer it on it's new gen platform.
Do you have a reasonable answer for why that is?

The Xbox uses three wifi modules instead - it is actually a feature not a fault. It is generally a lot more optimal for transmitting large amounts of data.

Why in particular did you want bluetooth though? I would say that it would be more or less pointless since they plan to deploy MS SmartGlass with their mobile devices - and with that the datarates are pretty high and I don't think it would be safe for them to assume bluetooth would cut it.

Just speculation though.

[Gray]

Well, it sounded somewhat handy.
Although I still think that all that is overly complicated on a console.

[[MPGH]Killian]

Well, it sounded somewhat handy.
Although I still think that all that is overly complicated on a console.

I don't see how. As Jet said, it's what allows you to go from browsing the web to playing a matched game in a matter of seconds. Microsoft isn't trying to make another console, they're looking to create an all-in-one entertainment system that does everything you'll need, instead of having separate devices for different activities such as Blu-Ray players.

[Gray]

I don't see how. As Jet said, it's what allows you to go from browsing the web to playing a matched game in a matter of seconds. Microsoft isn't trying to make another console, they're looking to create an all-in-one entertainment system that does everything you'll need, instead of having separate devices for different activities such as Blu-Ray players.

See, now you lost me.
That's what I got from what he said, I only said for items such as skype (if it's typing involved) I'd much prefer PC due to it's well known keyboard layout in front of me rather than a software keyboard that takes ages to use.

Did I miss something?

[Auxilium]

I think people give too much credit to microsoft for technology that's not really revolutionary.

Voice recognition was already working in the 80s thanks to IBM. People should look more at the companies that aren't really mainstream anymore to average consumers, because that is where most technology break thoughs occur. IBM and Fujifilm making 35 TB cassette tapes with 250+ mbps data transfer speeds is a hell of a lot more fascinating and important than a console which has some high quality infrared cameras with voice controls.

IBM > Microsoft

[Cole]

I think people give too much credit to microsoft for technology that's not really revolutionary.

Voice recognition was already working in the 80s thanks to IBM. People should look more at the companies that aren't really mainstream anymore to average consumers, because that is where most technology break thoughs occur. IBM and Fujifilm making 35 TB cassette tapes with 250+ mbps data transfer speeds is a hell of a lot more fascinating and important than a console which has some high quality infrared cameras with voice controls.

IBM > Microsoft

That's sort of a case but IBM has actually sort of divided themselves too far from most companies to really be considered a comparable. Although I would agree with you when it comes to revolutionary design IBM takes the prize. The only issue is the way that companies set goals and how they regulate themselves its no wonder why IBM would be in the lead for that department.

Microsoft primary function as a company is normally manufacturing they follow a process that many companies do and they release a product based on polling and whatever mechanisms they can in order to judge the success of a product in the population. Its not to say they don't innovate but overall they innovate based usually on what is considered social popular (as evidenced by the fact that they just abandoned there cloud idea due to its unpopularity).

IBM on the other while a manufacturer aswell can be more looked at as a company more influenced by venture capitalism (high risk, high reward) they will invest in projects that seem like a grab from science fiction but because they believe it has a chance of reward they will invest in it as a new technological step. They are also invested in optimizing parts of the world (business interactions, transit, and global statistics).

tl;dr

Microsoft uses the science of polling in popularity to gauge how successful a product can be introduced in the world while IBM can be seen as more prone to scientific exploration in order to gain high-risk high-reward think of it as a bit of social science versus technological science.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

The Xbox uses three wifi modules instead - it is actually a feature not a fault. It is generally a lot more optimal for transmitting large amounts of data.

Why in particular did you want bluetooth though? I would say that it would be more or less pointless since they plan to deploy MS SmartGlass with their mobile devices - and with that the datarates are pretty high and I don't think it would be safe for them to assume bluetooth would cut it.

Just speculation though.

I didn't say I wanted bluetooth, how is smartglass even coming up in this conversation?
If you know anything about that technology you would know that it doesn't offer the range bluetooth does.
A "plan to deploy" and what is actually accessible to consumers is what will sell these systems out of the gate.
How is Bluetooth important? Is a tech engineer seriously asking me this question?

[radnomguywfq3]

I didn't say I wanted bluetooth, how is smartglass even coming up in this conversation?
If you know anything about that technology you would know that it doesn't offer the range bluetooth does.
A "plan to deploy" and what is actually accessible to consumers is what will sell these systems out of the gate.
How is Bluetooth important? Is a tech engineer seriously asking me this question?

SmartGlass is relevant depending on what in particular you wanted to use bluetooth for. Bluetooth offers significantly less range and far smaller data transmission rates. SmartGlass is a software platfrom that offers a way to communicate with the console via Wifi - I don't know what the fuck else you'd be doing with bluetooth.

Are you looking for standard Human Interface Devices to communicate with the Xbox One? To share media? I don't understand why you want bluetooth so badly.

Bluetooth is just a standard for wireless communication, wifi is another with longer range and larger data rates - I really don't understand your argument.

I am not asking you "Why is bluetooth important?" I am asking you "Why the fuck do you want bluetooth over wifi?" I am not arguing that bluetooth doesn't have its applications, but I am arguing that it isn't better than wifi - and further that the communication platform MS wants to setup with smartglass won't be supported by bluetooth.

Bluetooth is good because it consumes much less power and the interface is much simpler - however the devices on which SmartGlass will be deployed aren't simple devices and they will contain a wifi module as well. The primary target would be modern phones\itouches and tablets.

[Lehsyrus]

See, now you lost me.
That's what I got from what he said, I only said for items such as skype (if it's typing involved) I'd much prefer PC due to it's well known keyboard layout in front of me rather than a software keyboard that takes ages to use.

Did I miss something?

You can always buy that keypad thing for the controller.

And to make the entire idea of a hypervisor even more simplistic to understand, you have three OS's. One controls the entertainment aspect of the console (the apps), one controls the gaming, and one is the master OS. The master OS controls the hardware resources, as well as the other two OS's. When you're using the entertainment side, the master OS allocates all of the resources to that OS and gives it full access to the hardware. When you are using the gaming side of the OS, the master OS allocates as many of the resources as are available from the console to the game. So if a game needs 6 GB of RAM for some reason, the master OS will allocate that 6 GB of RAM for the game rather than having the developer limited to the 5 that it would normally be able to use without the hypervisor. All in all, this means that the developer as more access to the RAM than initial perceived.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

SmartGlass is relevant depending on what in particular you wanted to use bluetooth for. Bluetooth offers significantly less range and far smaller data transmission rates. SmartGlass is a software platfrom that offers a way to communicate with the console via Wifi - I don't know what the fuck else you'd be doing with bluetooth.

Are you looking for standard Human Interface Devices to communicate with the Xbox One? To share media? I don't understand why you want bluetooth so badly.

Bluetooth is just a standard for wireless communication, wifi is another with longer range and larger data rates - I really don't understand your argument.

I am not asking you "Why is bluetooth important?" I am asking you "Why the fuck do you want bluetooth over wifi?" I am not arguing that bluetooth doesn't have its applications, but I am arguing that it isn't better than wifi - and further that the communication platform MS wants to setup with smartglass won't be supported by bluetooth.

Bluetooth is good because it consumes much less power and the interface is much simpler - however the devices on which SmartGlass will be deployed aren't simple devices and they will contain a wifi module as well. The primary target would be modern phones\itouches and tablets.

Again, I never said I wanted Bluetooth..my question was why PS4 didn't support it.
What you may deem as a useless feature others may see it as useful otherwise why would they add that feature?
As far as smartglass goes, it seems great and all but isn't that feature under the developers discretion on just how it's utilized?
Whereas you have the Vita which is cheaper than most tablets, actually set up much more efficiently for gaming and you'll be able to access every game in your ps4 library with it. The down side of that is yes you'll be stuck with a proprietary device.