X1 vs. PS4: which has a better operating system?

#41Cowboy082288(Topic Creator)Posted 10/3/2013 10:17:21 PM
TargettPractice posted...
Cowboy082288 posted...
TargettPractice posted...
How can you pose such a question to gamefaqs? For one, nobody knows exactly what either system's software will be capable of.

Most importantly, the majority of gfaqs are ignorant on such matters. I saw someone earlier say that a hypervisor was a third operating system made to control two other ones. I saw another guy posting calculations for xb1's and ps4's memory cycles, all of which were incorrect and nonsensical, and people actually responded as if any of the information contained in his post was factual.

The posters here are mostly ignorant and proud of it. Judging by the fact that you made a poll about things that are unknown outside of sony/ms developers, and wouldn't be understood by the gfaqs population if they were available to the public, I'm going to wager that the OP is an ignorant fool as well.


Comparing and contrasting the pros and cons (based on known information and speculation) of two directly competing products that are soon to be released is how people make their purchasing decision. Talking about that decision making process with other people before the products come out is a perfectly normal things to do. If that bothers you, maybe you should just avoid Xbox One board or the PS4 board.


I'm fine with comparing and contrasting, when you know exactly what it is you're comparing and contrasting. I'm not fine with spreading misinformation or making claims without a clear understanding of the discussion's subject matter, which is exactly what a topic like this encourages. It's impossible for you to know much about either os. It's unlikely that you'd understand it, even if all of the information were publicly available. If you did know, understand, and present the information clearly in the original post, my response would have been different.

It's not a good idea to base purchasing decisions, or encourage others to, based on something you can't possibly know and likely don't understand.

I've read the rest of this topic, and what you've posted has nothing to do with which operating system is the "best". How would you define the best operating system, anyway? A better question to pose in order to get the information you want would be "which console has more appealing features", or "whose colors are the prettiest", or "which operating system is the most user friendly".


I posted a link in my original topic to a panel discussing the X1, one of the guys on that panel was the team lead for designing the OS. Guess what he talked about in that panel?? Did you even watch it?

I said I don't know of a similar source of information for the PS4 OS and asked that if anyone did to plz link it in this thread.

Now maybe "whose colors are the prettiest" is the limit of the depth with which you want to judge these to systems. But believe it or not some people do know a thing or two about operating systems and computer hardware. Those people may want to talk about these things. Don't let it bother you so much.
---
PSN/XBL/Steam - cowboyoni
#42Millertime660Posted 10/3/2013 10:34:17 PM
So it seems the majority are voting playstations OS because of windows 8? I dont get it
#43FoppePosted 10/3/2013 10:36:11 PM
Cowboy082288 posted...
I posted a link in my original topic to a panel discussing the X1, one of the guys on that panel was the team lead for designing the OS. Guess what he talked about in that panel??


He clearly talked about My Little Pony.

Anyway, I'll wait until I've tried both and got a personal experience with them.
---
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC
#44TheOmacronPosted 10/3/2013 10:37:14 PM
Cowboy082288 posted...

To be honest I think this is an antiquated way of looking at it. To give an analogy, it's like saying that that the only thing an OS on a phone needs to do is make sure people can make phone calls. Android/iOS have set a new standard of what people expect their phones to be able to handle. Many leaders in the technology industry have noted that the TV screen is the most underutilized screen space in the average home. I'm sure that both sony and MS intend for their OS to be a very capable platform for running various apps on the TV screen.

Now trying to be the first big success in this potential 'apps on your TV' market is certainly nothing new. Apple mad a stab at it (didn't work out so well) and all these new 'smart TVs' are making a go at it. I personally think that video game consoles are primed to explode this market over any other devices. I mean gaming consoles have already been running programs on TVs for decades and I believe that a game controller blows the average remote control out of the water as an interaction device. Of course MS is banking that the kinect will also be useful in this. Also what kind of 3rd party support each platform gets in creating apps on TVs will matter as well.


The phone has the benefit of being highly mobile and is useful in many different circumstances. There is a saying that the best camera is the one that you have with you. That points out the fact that apps/features on the phone really don't have competition. That is unlike the TV. When watching TV any extra feature has to not only be good, but better than that same feature offered on a phone, tablet, or laptop.

The phone comparison is also not appropriate to game consoles because new features added to the phone were larger than the prior features, while for the consoles it is reversed. What I mean by this is that the general computing capabilities and internet access of the phone dwarfs the ability to make a phone call. The ability to make a call on a phone is minor to the ability to send messages, access Twitter/Facebook, and take pictures. Also because those other features require so much more computing capability from the device, the ability to make a phone call is not impacted.

Now compare that to the console. The original feature of the console, the ability to play games, is still its primary selling point. All the other features are secondary and mainly for convenience. What is worse is that with all other things being equal, offering those other features negatively impacts gaming. For example compare two consoles with the same hardware. One offers a gaming only mode while the other offers gaming while Skye or some other app is running in the background. The one that offers a gaming only mode will be able to use more of the devices capabilities.

You say that many people consider the TV to be underutilized. I say that it not that it is underutilized. It is that people simply don't want those extra features on their TV. Companies have been trying to bring the computer to the TV for over a decade without success. The only successful app outside of multimedia functionality that simply allows you to watch TV from a different source, has been games.

So I stand by my original statement. The best feature of console is one that gets out of the way. I admit that secondary features will be increasingly important but not running concurrently while playing games. Any feature that would be desired to be run will playing games would better be implemented as a second screen device.
#45zorlaczeroheroPosted 10/3/2013 10:52:56 PM
pigman2003 posted...
The obligatory PS4 vote aside, the Xbox One is featuring 3 OS's to quickly navigate the console, it of course has the best one.


The obligatory Pigman MS arse kissing aside, no one knows. Unless you are reading this in 2 months time.
---
19. And so did Elvis have his road crew set up a mighty speaker system outside the walls. And thusly did he pump up the volume.
-The Suburban Book of the Dead
#46TheOmacronPosted 10/3/2013 10:53:08 PM
Pupu27 posted...
TheOmacron posted...
Pupu27 posted...
WM_PMC posted...
MrImpatient35 posted...
i think X1 runs 3 OSs simultaneously. Off that alone, I voted for them :)


Those 3 OSs could have been DOS, Vista, and Windows ME. More isn't always better.


And which OS Sony made that can compare with Dos, Vista or Windows ME? I guess not.


They didn't have to make an OS. They just had to pick a good one, Orbis which is derived from FreeBSD, that was available. FYI, FreeBSD is also the basis of Apple's OS X.


There is a different between knowing how to build an OS from scratch and just picking an existing OS and adding stuffs that you don't understand about. BSD is a very good operating system and was built by talented people who invented modern computing. However when Apple decided to adopt BSD to OSX they create a bug-ridden abomination. All "innovative" things in OSX are about user interface. The core foundation of OSX is a mess, lacking of security and using obsolete technologies (HFS+ is miles behind current file systems like NTFS or ext4 for example). Even Linus Tovarlds said that OSX was fundamental flawed.


There is a difference. Sony was not trying to build a general purpose OS. All they wanted to do was to remove the generic pieces that did not apply to a console. I'm not saying that is a trivial task, but it is much simpler than offering a fully working OS moded from FreeBSD.

I'll grant you the point that if Sony tried to do as much with the OS and MS, then they would be at a disadvantage, but they are not. Their operating environment is much simpler. The real question is just because you can add a feature to a console OS, should you?

Microsoft has had success in this regard. Their ability to have party chat cross game on the 360 while the PS3 couldn't was an important deciding factor. However now they are moving into adding nongaming related features. That decision was a poor one and is the reason why the XB1 will lose market share when compared to the 360. What MS didn't get was that the main purchasing driver of a console is its ability to play games. That is independent from what people actually use their console for once they've got it.
#47BS_InfinitePosted 10/3/2013 10:55:54 PM
Golden Maven posted...
All this Windows 8 bashing is mind numbing... People just regurgitate someone else's thoughts, pathetic.


^Seriously
Windows 8 has VERY few flaws. It would have been universally loved if windows 7 hadn't been so amazing
---
--
-
#48Cowboy082288(Topic Creator)Posted 10/3/2013 11:19:23 PM
TheOmacron posted...
Cowboy082288 posted...

....


The phone has the benefit of being highly mobile and is useful in many different circumstances. There is a saying that the best camera is the one that you have with you. That points out the fact that apps/features on the phone really don't have competition. That is unlike the TV. When watching TV any extra feature has to not only be good, but better than that same feature offered on a phone, tablet, or laptop.

The phone comparison is also not appropriate to game consoles because new features added to the phone were larger than the prior features, while for the consoles it is reversed. What I mean by this is that the general computing capabilities and internet access of the phone dwarfs the ability to make a phone call. The ability to make a call on a phone is minor to the ability to send messages, access Twitter/Facebook, and take pictures. Also because those other features require so much more computing capability from the device, the ability to make a phone call is not impacted.

Now compare that to the console. The original feature of the console, the ability to play games, is still its primary selling point. All the other features are secondary and mainly for convenience. What is worse is that with all other things being equal, offering those other features negatively impacts gaming. For example compare two consoles with the same hardware. One offers a gaming only mode while the other offers gaming while Skye or some other app is running in the background. The one that offers a gaming only mode will be able to use more of the devices capabilities.

You say that many people consider the TV to be underutilized. I say that it not that it is underutilized. It is that people simply don't want those extra features on their TV. Companies have been trying to bring the computer to the TV for over a decade without success. The only successful app outside of multimedia functionality that simply allows you to watch TV from a different source, has been games.

So I stand by my original statement. The best feature of console is one that gets out of the way. I admit that secondary features will be increasingly important but not running concurrently while playing games. Any feature that would be desired to be run will playing games would better be implemented as a second screen device.


I would like to say a few things on that point. One the X1 is using something called a Hyper-V, the team lead for the X1 OS talked a bit about this in the link. Admittedly I'm a little unfamiliar with this. The concept of it though is that the OS (well the OS with priority) can allocate resources as needed, so your not actually running another program in the background, like you do on a pc. Something I'm much more familiar with is the android OS. Due to the limited memory of many android devices google created a solution that to me seems very similar in concept to the Hyper-V thing. It's called the Dalvik Virtual Machine. This VM runs on top of the linux kernel. To sum it up quickly, it allows you to pause/destroy processes so that what has screen priority gets access to the full resources.

At any rate there are many solutions being created for the very issue you are talking about. As for how big of a potential market is programs on your TV screen? Hard to say really, but new technologies can give solutions to old problems. I think sony and MS new consoles are in the best position out of everything else to give those solutions.
---
PSN/XBL/Steam - cowboyoni
#49TheOmacronPosted 10/4/2013 12:02:24 AM
Cowboy082288 posted...
TheOmacron posted...

...


I would like to say a few things on that point. One the X1 is using something called a Hyper-V, the team lead for the X1 OS talked a bit about this in the link. Admittedly I'm a little unfamiliar with this. The concept of it though is that the OS (well the OS with priority) can allocate resources as needed, so your not actually running another program in the background, like you do on a pc. Something I'm much more familiar with is the android OS. Due to the limited memory of many android devices google created a solution that to me seems very similar in concept to the Hyper-V thing. It's called the Dalvik Virtual Machine. This VM runs on top of the linux kernel. To sum it up quickly, it allows you to pause/destroy processes so that what has screen priority gets access to the full resources.

At any rate there are many solutions being created for the very issue you are talking about. As for how big of a potential market is programs on your TV screen? Hard to say really, but new technologies can give solutions to old problems. I think sony and MS new consoles are in the best position out of everything else to give those solutions.


Yes, but that is not how the Kinect handles multitasking.

"Xbox One has a conservative 10 per cent time-sliced reservation on the GPU for system processing. This is used both for the GPGPU processing for Kinect and for the rendering of concurrent system content such as snap mode," Microsoft technical fellow Andrew Goossen told said.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/81411/xbox-one-reserves-10-percent-of-gpu-for-kinect-and


The apps are still visible in snap mode. That is unlike Android apps where they really are paused unseen in the background. In any event Kinect is always running in the background and is not paused.

Another point is that unknown dynamic allocation of resources doesn't work well for a gaming console. The benefit of console development is that you can code to the specific hardware and environment. You'll know just how long any specific action will take. That is why the XB1 reserves a flat 10% of resources instead of making it variable and more closely matching the actual requirements at the time.

You can't get around the fact that the XB1 tries to do more per unit of time. That capability does not come free and its cost can't be avoided. MS gamble is that that extra capability is worth more to the user than the loss in gaming performance. Personally I think that was a bad bet.
#50FustmonkeyPosted 10/4/2013 12:15:21 AM
Does somebody actually have examples of gaming being bad on Windows 8 or are they just talking out the sides of their necks?

*looks again at people that said Windows 8 sucks... the usual side-of-neck regulars*

Nevermind. Already answered.
---
How many mods does it take to screw in a light bulb? "the lightbulb is technically not violating the TOS so we're powerless to do anything about it"