Talk:Xbox 360/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

8bitjoystick and the Inside Source on RROD Truth

There has been some confusion as to wither the interview over at [8bitjoystick] should be included in the article, so I thought it best to start a talk topic about it.

As I understand it after reading Wikipedia:Verifiability, the validity of the interview as a source is in question as anybody could have written that interview. 8bitjoystick did predict the Ms and Bungie split and I am not against Blogs as a source of information, but without something that can be verified as a fact we are essentially left with a very well written theory. Now on the Wikipedia:Verifiability page under Reliable sources it says:

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

Which suggests that Xbox 360 is not the article for this theory because it isn't verifiable. However for the Xbox 360 technical problems article, the source is perfectly fine because all that article has to go off, is theories.

Do you (yes you reading this) have any thoughts? --Decompiled (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is 8bitjoystick a reliable site? If it is, the information can be included in the technical problems article, no need to have it here. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll point to my comment over on WT:VG, but basically, these blog entires in no way are reliable. Wikipedia:Verifiability says that all statements like the one Dibol is adding should be supported by verifiable, reliable sources. If the sources don't meet policy and guidelines, it should be removed from the article, no exceptions. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I already posted repeatedly that this ex-employee attempted to talk to numerous news outlets in the Verifiability page and completely paraphrased the guy's sentence word for word for why it was not possible. According to him, this is the only way he can give out this information since all of the "official sources" are sitting on their hands thinking they have better things to do.

Here is their response:

Hi everyone. I understand the questions you all have. I hope you understand that it's a bit overwhelming to try and answer everything in real time. After tonight, I'm going to ask Jake (or Jacob?) to field your questions and funnel them to me for answers. Then we can do that in an organized way. But for now, I'm going to try and answer some that I thought were most important.

First, why the secrecy?

MS knows who I am. That's why I'm not concerned about self identifying to them in these postings with details only they would know, as some here have pointed out. The people who founded Xbox hw number 10. 1 left to go be the VP of manufacturing at Qualcomm, 1 left to go be the GM of engineering at Zune, 1 left after only 2 months in ‘99 due to conflicts with toddhol. He works on Surface now. The rest still work on Xbox. I am the only one who left the company entirely.

I am not concerned about MS knowing who I am. They are worried about me revealing their problems. Not the other way around. Plus, I have contacted every single attorney who has filed a lawsuit against MS and offered to help. Some have accepted, and that work is in progress. We'll talk about that in another post. It's very interesting, I just don't want a bunch of fan boys trying to hack my home PC (that I use for work). Harass my kids, call my house, etc.

Second, why now?

Well, it's not just now. I've been reaching out since before the product went into manufacturing. I left before launch. But many employees continued to contact me about the problems with the product and its launch. I did my best to help them figure out how to mitigate the problems caused my bad management decisions, and test the boxes right. Sometimes my ideas worked, sometimes they didn't. I then started to contact reporters. Sometimes it went no where. Sometimes, it resulted in a spectacular thing, like the ambush interview with toddhol just before MS admitted guilt. But still, it happened too slowly for me. That's one reason I'm doing this now.

When those articles were posted last July, I chimed in as a commentator. That's when Jake invited me for an interview. But I didn't see it then. It was only recently when I goog'ed "xboxfounder" on a whim that I found that old invite. So I contacted him to see if he was still interested. I sent him a current resume from my current work email account, and he believed me. If you guys don't, then tell me what you need to see as proof. And I will provide that.

Last: My motivation.

I have always been in a position to stand up for the customer. MS stopped me from doing that. They need to pay the price now. If you guys won't get together and make that happen, you have no hope for the future with them. It's not my fight, but I am here fighting. You decide what you want to do. And then do it!

Established facts: Ex-employee attempted to go through proper media channels, attempted to talk to news outlets, but attempts were for nothing. There's also the fact that Microsoft knows who he is and did not want the early problems to get leaked to the public. He offers to provide testimonial aid to parties suing against Microsoft due to the defective 360s. This is the closest thing you'll get for a reliable source other than whatever lawsuit proceedings there are on cases filed against Microsoft.Dibol (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Copying full text can be considered copyvio, so try not to do it. At this time we only care whether 8bitjoystick.com is a reliable source or not. I don't care if this undercovered guy is Billy Gates or if he invented the interview himself. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

8bitJoystick is a blog, and self-published one at that. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is not reliable, then it cannot be included. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur, it is a self-published blog, and it should be removed. The stories that are merely second-handing this story (ie the other blogs who simply repeated this story) should also be removed.

Wageslave (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry he couldn't media attention for the the problem, but that still doesn't mean he gets a free pass from WP:V and WP:RS. How are we supposed to verify that he's telling the truth about the claims, how he went to the media and got ingored, or even the claim that he's an ex-employee of Microsoft? With the sources you're presenting to us so far, we can't verify anything he said. For all we know, this could be somebody playing a huge hoax on 8bitjoystick. Since it can't be verified, the statement and source has to be removed per Wikipedia:Verifiability. These sources don't get a pass simply because nobody in the mainstream media wanted to talk to this anonymous person. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't care if he is saying the truth or not, we only care if he is reliable himself, or is saying it backed by a reliable site. Remember Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the article, and my gut feeling is that the anonymous insider is speaking 100% the truth, all the details he is telling are correct. But then , that is just my humble opinion. But why are we assuming that a blog is per definition an unreliable source, true a blog can publish a complete falsehood, but so can a "reliable source". WP:V does not mention blogs as being per definition unreliable, but rather states "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is". If anything a blog is "peer reviewed" to a degree seldom seen in other media. Note also that bloggers now often are seen as having the same status as regular journalists. What I am saying is this, a blog -can- be an unreliable source, if its just an average hobby blog, but there are blogs with a reputation for publishing well researched facts, and this one certainly has that reputation Mahjongg (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

By definition blogs are unreliable, yes. Seldom, they are accepted as temporary sources when relating current news that are not against our policy (but knowing one will pick information later, as determined in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon). Sometimes, blogs from the topic of the article can be used (like using the blog of a singer in his article) at the discretion of the editors of the article. However, I don't see this specific blog as trustful, and I ask others whether they think it is or not. The disclaimer in the blog reads Editor's note: This is a P-I Reader Blog. P-I Reader Blogs are not written or edited by the P-I. They are written by readers, for readers. The authors are solely responsible for content. In other words, the media is not supporting the claims of the author. It is like using my personal page at GeoCities in the article about GeoCities because I said there were approximately 1,000 pages with the "ffkdk" string. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"However, I don't see this specific blog as trustful" i concur 100%.

That is the key part, we see the author saying "Seattle PI syndicates my blog", which is lofty language for the actual situation.

The quality and purpose of this blog is transparent. Much insight into the methodology of this blogger can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Xbox_360_technical_problems#Microsoft_is_watching_this_article.21

Since raising my concerns with this kind of wikipedia abuse, this blogger-wikipedia-editor has taken to character assassination in order to undermine my objections. Wageslave (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's a bit steep to call a blog per definition unreliable. Yours was one of the hobby blogs I as referring too, not all blogs are equal. The disclaimer is just standard practice, but the anonymous source is still responsible for what is said so there is also the consideration that if nothing is true of what this source is saying, then why isn't Microsoft suing? Here you can read a bit more about the reliability issue of this particular source of information. [1] Mahjongg (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and what to think of this Wired blog? [2] many more "official" web media are using blogs now. Mahjongg (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 3)Mind you, I believe there are some trustful blogs, like the Antivirus companies, blogs from programmers, etc. However, for Wikipedia self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Now comes the tricky part: Is he an expert? Has he have previously published works in third party publications? Dean Takahashi is an expert who has published highly technical books about the Xbox family. N'Gai Croal is a highly respected video game columnist at Newsweek, usually contributing to several other very important outlets. Chris Kohler is an expert in video games who has published two books. I am not sure whether the blog owner is considered an expert or an authority about Xbox to have it included as a reference. However, the blog in Wired could be included (however, as I said, it is at the discretion of the users editing the article). If consensus is accepted that Wired Blog is fine enough, I have no problem with it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, if anybody thinks that 8bitjoystick.com is too "shady" to be a reliable source, then we can just refer to this Wired blog. Its all about referring to what is reported by a reliable enough source, -not- whether what is reported it -true-. I think that for anybody a source of information directly endorsed by a leading magazine (Wired) should be considered a "reliable source".

The problem isn't 8bitjoystick, but the fact that the information has come from an anonymous disgruntled possible-ex-employee. Every blog which has covered this has labelled it with "rumour", because the statements are unfounded. There have been rumours that Barack Obama is a fundamentalist muslim, keen on destroying American from within. It's not a reliable enough source in the slightest. - hahnch e n 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, you still do not get it. We are not reporting it as a fact all in itself, we are reporting that there -is- such a rumour floating around. and we are getting that information (that there is this rumour floating around) from a reliable source, namely wired. Again, see Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.. Also for the web-sites calling this a "rumour" is simple self protection, given the volatile nature of this "rumour". Regarding your Barack Obama example, who says we are not reporting about that either! see Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008#False_claims_concerning_Obama.27s_religious_background Mahjongg (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

8bitjoystiq has started a rumour, any mention should include language to clarify the dubious nature of the rumour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageslave (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the source for my article had only talked to one other reporter covering Microsoft before talking to me.

My articles on 8bitjoystick.com are Creative Commons Licensed an are free to be used here.

Also Microsoft's Gamerscoreblog.com has 8bitjoystick's podcast linked to on their video podcast page. Here is a photo of me and Chris from Gamerscore blog at PAX 07 on the Gamerscoreblog flickr page. [3]

The Seattle PI has told me that they have no issues with my Seattle PI reader blog Digital Joystick that is a syndication of 8bitjoystick.com. In fact Seattle PI Microsoft reporter Todd Bishop gave me credit in print for me breaking the Bungie/Microsoft split a week early.

In fact that the Seattle PI likes my blog so much that they have it syndicated across the AP press feed lines. Articles that I write on 8bitjoystick.com go out on Google News and other AP news subscribers.--8bitJake (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on this section is cluttered and AWFULLY laid out. Its hard to read what the trouble is even about!! Chocobogamer (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've restored this discussion from the archive per request. However, I do agree it is rather convoluted. Is there an impartial party who could review this and other issues? xenocidic (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RROD

Its Red Ring Of Doom not Ring Of Light! --BRTman666 (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)BRTman666

No, its called the ring of light by Microsoft. People call it the ring of doom because of how often the error occurs. Like the blue screen of death. Chocobogamer (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Colloquialisms are not Wikipedia worthy. Goto the page on "Vagina" and see how many times the word "vagina" is replaced by popular slang terms.

"Ring of death" or "ring of doom" should be removed completely from all these pages.

Wageslave (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it has a place at Xbox 360 technical problems as it is the common name for the 3 red lights error. I agree it doesn't necessary belong here. xenocidic (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedic, not an rag for nonsense. Wageslave (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree its not needed at all, but I am sure I have seen MS call it the ring of light in offical documentation. In that sense it should stay, or it would be like calling the PS3's SixAxis 'the controller with tilt features' every time you refer to it. RRoD is a term that has been coined to make light (too easy) of the error and that should therefore not be used, but 'ring of light' SHOULD be as its a term that Microsoft created. Chocobogamer (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As a counter-point, see Blue Screen of Death. Microsoft certainly didn't coin the term - it was a colloquialism that became common usage (as with RROD) - but there's an entire article named after it. Since the term "Red Ring of (Death/Doom)" and "RROD" does not appear at all in this article, this whole discussion is unnecessary. xenocidic (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is "Ring of Light". And, three red-lights, in certian positions indicate "general hardware failure". http://support.microsoft.com/kb/907534

Calling it anything else is simply unnecessary. What is the purpose of calling it anything else? To inject a negative POV into the article.

Wageslave (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The technical term of the part is the "Ring of Light" but the popular term for the "General Hardware Fault" is "Red Ring of Death" or RROD however the term RRODed "Red Ring of Deathed" can be used in the past tense. Fun fact - the really bad error messages on Windows NT are red, not blue. I am sure that there is a page for slang terms for female genitalia somewhere in the Wikipedia.--8bitJake (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I call the ring of light, "my happy thing" -- should that be included? You're calling it "popular" is false, misleading and totally without merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageslave (talk • contribs) 06:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Red ring of death" is the term commonly used in the media, and in the references in the Technical problems section of this article. Such as the link to the BBC [4] Gamesindustry.biz [5] Smarthouse. [6] and Ziff Davis [7]. So yes the term is extremely "popular" and not even in the regular media, but in blogs etc. too. Googling for "red lights of death" gives 60.800 hits. "red lights of doom" is much less popular with "just" 10.500 hits. Oh, and try to search for the term in YouTube, you get 1,370 hits! Some with parodies and songs about it, like this one [8] Mahjongg (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is simply not wikipedia worthy. It is obscure slang and unencyclopedic. Wageslave (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You sure love to talk out of your ass with your god complex, don't you Wageslave? Dibol (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we please remain on topic. Wageslave (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's only "obscure" in the sense that the subject of a "fatal error code indicator on a games console" is itself an obscure subject (compared to other subjects in the media), its NOT obscure in the sense that when talking about the subject it's a little used term. In fact it's so common a term that in most of the cases where this subject is discussed the term "Red Ring Of Death", or one of it's variations like "Red Ring of Fire" (see the song about it on youtube) or "Red Ring of Doom", is used. You will hardly see it being _only_ referred to as "general failure error code", as even the most respectable media (BBC etc) use the nickname "red light of death". So to call it "obscure" is patently false! Also it's notable, so it belongs in the article. Mahjongg (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There are 503,000 Google hits on the term “Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death” I think that’s very popular including articles that are way to many to mention. The term “Wageslave’s Happy Place” brings up zero hits--8bitJake (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There are 228,000,000 instance of the word cunt at live.com. There are 180,000,000 instances of the word vagina. Perhaps you should like to goto the wikipedia article on vagina and change some instances of "vagina" to "cunt" because it is common?

Common bs is still bs. Wikipedia would be a worthless mess if the entire database would use the standards you're advocating here.

Wageslave (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

this is getting pathetic guys. its like handbags at 20 paces!

Look its simple. the term ring of light is used formally by microsoft. see here for example on the official Xbox US page: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/support/systemsetup/xbox360/accessories/wirelesscontroller.htm

The term ring of death isnt used formally at all. the difference with BSoD is that the term Blue Screen of Death is a cross-platform error that was coined even before Windows truly existed.

I highly doubt the next Xbox will use a 'ring of light' becuase they will never want to hear that term again, so it will never be cross platform.

The RRoD is only formally known as "a general hardware failure indicated by 3 flashing red lights on the console"

also, despite the term being popular online, if it happens to someone who doesnt know the terminology, say a parent... if they rang a helpline they wouldn't say "i have a red ring of death", they would say "i have 3 flashing red lights on the console", whereas if they had a BSoD they would say "theres a blue screen on my monitor" as thats the easiest way to describe the error. hence the use of the term!

sorry for the boldening, thought it would help get the point across, and that point is: Ring of Light will stay on the page. Ring of Doom CANNOT be used. Chocobogamer (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the article -is- referring to the error code as the "Three red lights on the Xbox 360 ring piece indicator representing "general hardware failure"", so that is the "formal term" there is no dissent in that!

The only thing is, that in any discussion on any medium, be it a "popular" (blogs), or a "well respected" medium (BBC), when talking about this error it's almost exclusively referred to as the "red ring of death", (not as much the "red ring of doom", Chocobogamer, you are right with that). So it -is- the common terminology! The same user that just rang microsoft to complain about the error indicated with the three red lights when finding -any- discussion online about it will quickly learn the informal term for it, and that is how the error is known! So alhough it's not the "formal" term, it -is- the most used term! The comparison with using vagina and cunt does not apply, cunt is slang because a respectable person will not use that word in normal conversation, while "Red Ring Of Death" is a term used by even as respectable organisations as the BBC to describe this phenomenon. so it's NOT slang, and it because of it's wide spread use it IS notable, and therefore necessary for inclusion in the article. Mahjongg (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

One major problem with using the slang term is that it invites confusion. It is inaccurate. And, 3 red flashing lights actually indicates sitautions that arent a failure at all. If your console has 3 red lights, it is also an indicator of low-suppy voltage.

Why are we trying to make a _lesss_ accurate wikipedia article? Wageslave (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The "vagina" comparison is unfair. The principle of Wikipedia's common naming guideline is understood to refer to the common name of a subject in the context in which it is covered. Looking at the vagina article, the nature of the content and the associated sources expectedly use the word "vagina", and not "cunt". Looking at the cunt article, the content is actually quite different, as well as the sources used for it. While a neutral point of view is important, it is false to presume that "official" or even technical terminology to be neutral, as such language carries its own bias. The "Red Ring of Death" term should be at least mentioned as a common term. Modalizing the statement on that term with unnecessary qualifiers, restricting the usage to news articles is not a fair description, as the term is frequently used elsewhere. On the other hand, the general reference to "General Hardware Failure", in capitalized form, overly privileges Microsoft's frame for the issue, yet it is not similarly modalized. Not only that, but I cannot find much evidence of term used as such. If you can provide evidence of such usage, Wageslave, please do. Dancter (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wageslaves constant obsession with vulgarities aside. The name of the part is the "Right of Light" (As per the discussions on Major Nelson.com Podcast) However the most commonly known term for the Error code displayed by the general hardware fault is "Red Ring of Death". I have never heard anyone use the term "General Hardware Fault" except those in the Xbox hardware engineering group. Arguing about this is pointless. Do you want me to email folks over at Xbox marketing and ask them what terms to use?--8bitJake (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say "Constant", do you mean the two times I used the exact same arugment, in the exact same way, on the exact same topic? Then, yes, that's "constant".

If you do, decide to make another blog post, please be sure to get them to do so on record. Blog posts are not really wikipedia worthy sources, and this article doesnt need any traffic-trolling by unverified, anonymous sourced blogposts. Thanks. Wageslave (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a press pass, have written books and newspaper articles, have thousands of daily readers, and I am syndicated on the Associated Press news feeds. Microsoft considers me a news source as well as major videogame news publications like Joystiq, Newsweek, MTV news and Kotaku. I am an online journalist that has done a considerable work of investigative journalism on this subject. I honestly think that your obsession with the word “Blog” as a pejorative is petty and outdated. Honestly I don’t have to prove myself to you or solve your hang-ups you have toward online journalists. --8bitJake (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't think it's appropriate to use the term "Red Ring of Death" as the name for the three red lights, I think it's appropriate to mention the fact that it has acquired this nickname. As mentioned above, the nickname is widely discussed in the media, so the fact that it has this nickname is verifiable. I'd handle this by changing the caption on the picture of the three red lights to read something like 'An Xbox 360 displaying three red lights, nicknamed the "Red Ring of Death"' - with a reference to one of the aforementioned media outlets included, of course. James pic (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Has been added again

Can someone please undue this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_360&diff=207121466&oldid=206969018

As is discussed above at length, adding it there, yet again is without merit.

Thanks. Wageslave (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Smarthouse article as a source

"www.current.com.au wrote recently According to an EB Games store manager, who wished to remain anonymous, failure rates for the Xbox 360 have dropped in recent times but still outweigh hardware failures for competing consoles. "

The article, is not an original work, it is repeating a claim that originated from current.com.au that uses an anonymous source.

Even the original claim, from an anonymous source, is not wikipedia-worthy. Anonymous sources -- even widely repeated -- should not be cited here on wikipedia.

This current.com.au was the original source of the "30% of early consoles" fiction that is often repeated. No matter how much it is repeated, it is still not a reputable source.

I will remove this source unless a proper concensus can be achieved to keep it. I will do this shortly.

Wageslave (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm where in the text of Xbox 360 do you see a reference to "www.current.com.au" or "an EB Games store manager"? So what "source" are you going to remove? Also, you seem to ignore that in the meantime acknowledgements of the early failure rate have come up that are independent of the fist source, and you ignore general Wikipedia rules about what is needed to "keep", or place a piece of information that is relevant to the article, even if what a source is revealing might be of debatable truth, if what the source is saying is relevant to the subject, and it can be proven that he said it by revealing external reliable sources that said he did, that alone is reason enough for inclusion. we have discussed this countless times before! It's not up to -you- to to determine the truth-worthiness of the information, it's up to the reader to determine that. What you can do, is to point out that the some information -might- be false, not just sensor (remove) it. Mahjongg (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

When you say "Also, you seem to ignore that in the meantime acknowledgements of the early failure rate have come up that are independent of the fist source" can you provide a source?

In fact, the entire source of the "30%" claim originates from this anonymous source from australia. All the other reports have been _repeating_ this anonymous-sourced claim.

Not all claims on wikipedia are created equal. The article should not simply repeat a poorly-sourced claim simply because it is often repeated.

This claim "30%" is a internet-urban legend. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic in nature, and an often repeated lie is still an often repeated lie. This particular source makes incredible negative POV claims without any evidence what-so-every.

Its like posting stories about Richard Gere and gerbils to wikipedia and arguing that it should be presented as accurate because it is often repeated.

Wikipedia authors must be critical thinkers and not simply repeate falsehoods because they serve the purpose of one's biased world-view. This isnt a place to exercise grudges.

The article is *full* of bias and negative-POV.

Wageslave (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you happen to be employed at a store like Best Buy, Fry's, etc., that is an ignorant statement at best. After all, people working at said stores know the frequency of getting back broken 360s, and is not "internet-urban" considering that it has been problematic for hundreds of thousands of users. Do you think that people filing lawsuits against Microsoft were done out of malice or not? I'm more of the latter considering that the hardware issues have been problematic to begin with. Dibol (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wageslave keeps on trying to claim that the only source of a very high failure rate is this early report, while the main article (Xbox 360 technical problems) itself has numerous -other- sources of information that confirm this failure rate and which clearly are -not- "simple repeats from the same source" (my "proof"? See the c't article in the main article, which mentions at least two other large re-sellers and a repair center, but there are other sources as well, including Microsoft's own admission as to the scale of the problem, not to ignore the literally thousands of messages about from numerous other sources that illustrate the depth of the problem).

He has kept on trying to do this for years, so this is just his n'th rehash of an attempt at it, see the history of the articles and talk pages.

So why discuss removing claims of 33% failure rate -here-? This article xbox 360 only has a paragraph showing the current situation, which is that the failure rate-now- is one in six consoles that break with a "general failure error", it does not even mention the historical 33% failure rate. Wageslave also claims that -all- broken xbox 360's fall under the three year warranty, which is not true, as even fatally broken systems that do not happen to display the three ring segment error do -not- fall under the warranty, as the warranty is only valid for "general failure errors", which (according to the SquareTrade article) are just 60% of the disabled systems, so 40% of users with disabled XBOX 360 have just one year of guarantee.

So discussions about removing the first source for a 33% failure rate should be done on the main article discussion page, -not- here! But even the main article only mentions the 33% failure rate as a thing from the past, (the c't article explicitly mentions its from 2006) it does -not- claim it's the -current- failure rate, that is also explicitly reinforced with the SquareTrade paragraph at the start of the article. Mahjongg (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember to save links to any destructive editing and personal insults by Wageslave to be used as evidence at his Arbitration hearing.--8bitJake (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Smarthouse article as a source -- On Topic

Smarthouse -- and its owner via "4Square Media", Mr. David Richards -- is the subject of Australian Broadcast Corporation report: [[9]]

These blogposts elaborate on David Richard's behaviour:[[10]][[11]]

4Square Media's usual target is Microsoft and its products, including the Xbox 360 and Vista. If I had to speculate, I'd think Mr. Richards is doing this for traffic (as is normal for bloggers, which is why they arent journalists and should be avoided on wikipedia).

For these reasons, I would argue 4Square Media's properties are not good sources for this article.

Therefore, we should remove links to 4Square Media's "articles" - starting with the existing ones from Smarthouse.

Wageslave (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed this link title=Massive Failure Rate For Xbox 360 Exposed</ref>

Please do not re-add it.

Wageslave (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wageslave edits are POV and he acted unilaterally again. This is a perfect example of his destructive editing. This is not Wageslave's personal blog. --8bitJake (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This link is what's known as a self published source and therefore does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability. xenocidic (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with User:Wageslave on this one. Smarthouse is not a reliable source. Monkeytheboy (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

early vs all and heat issues

There is no evidence that machines from after the heat-fixes have problems. All reports of heat problems relate to the early machines.

As evidence;

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/support/systemuse/xbox360/resources/warrantyupdate.htm

"the company conducted extensive investigations into potential sources of general hardware failures. Having identified a number of factors which can cause general hardware failures indicated by three red flashing lights on the console, Microsoft has made improvements to the console"

Therefore, it is more accurate to say "Early Xbox 360s can be subject to a number of technical problems." than "All..."

The most credible and reliable source of information on the matter has said that the issues were resolved. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

Wageslave (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also no evidence that all machines after the heat-fixes are problem-free either since no reports are given whatsoever, making that thing a moot point. There is still a potential problem that may not be reported yet unless stated otherwise. It's just like saying "cigarettes are less hazardous after ingredient changes" despite the fact that they still cause cancer. Dibol (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also no evidence that the reported repair is not effective. So, why suggest otherwise by sayign "all" when not "all" are the same, some have heat-resolving changes.

Wageslave (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Afraid to say this but it should be "the" not "early". this is because Microsoft have not officially declared a problem with the console at all, let alone specific hardware configurations, there has been no recall or offical announcement on the motherboard changes, so until this changes it should be kept at "the", as Microsoft aren't admitting to the public any problems

Plus, 'nothing is 100% reliable. Putting 'early' is almost as good as saying you're guaranteed that if you buy a new console it won't ever break! If you read the paragraph later on it only questions early consoles anyway!!!!! Leave it as THE!!!! Chocobogamer (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"or offical announcement on the motherboard changes...Microsoft aren't admitting to the public any problems"

From MSFT's statement on the matter (linked in the article)

"As a result of what Microsoft views as an unacceptable number of repairs to Xbox 360 consoles, the company conducted extensive investigations into potential sources of general hardware failures. Having identified a number of factors which can cause general hardware failures indicated by three red flashing lights on the console, Microsoft has made improvements to the console and is enhancing its Xbox 360 warranty policy for existing and new customers."

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/support/systemuse/xbox360/resources/warrantyupdate.htm

Wageslave (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims that the measures Microsoft took are 100% effective and that the failure rate is now "normal" lack basis in proof, yes the tests done by SquareTrade indicate a lower failure rate than the initial units, but that only indicates the very first batch was the most problematic, and now the failure rate has gone down, but is still very high. SquareTrade have not tested any units from later than 2007 (as quoted from the square trade article "In July 2007, Microsoft announced hardware changes to fix the Xbox's overheating problem. It is unlikely any modified Xbox 360s were a part of our sample group."), so this article is not an indication that new systems have a normal failure rate, in fact there are -no- publications from any published sources that the changes made by Microsoft are somewhat effective, let alone 100% effective. Until such articles appear we should not just -assume- that this is the case. Mahjongg (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll conceed to this point. However, in some way, article should reflect a "pre-change" and "post-change" duality w/r/t hardware issues. Wageslave (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In a way you are right Wageslave, but unfortunately we do not have any hard evidence to what impact, any of the measures Microsoft made at any point in time to any version of the Xbox, has had on the true failure rate of that version of a Xbox 360. Simply because Microsoft refuses to release such actual faulure rate figures. And there isn't actually a point in time you can say is "pre-change", as different models have been given different mod's (fan's, PCB redisign, glue to prevent the CPU and GPU from moving, etc etc) over the lifetime of the Xbox 360. So the most we can say is what we do, that the latest tests indicate a faulure rate of 16 or so percent over a number of tested units. Much more is simply not known. I regret that because I think the customers would be helped with such information, but it simply isn't available. Mahjongg (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why we need an arbitration hearing calling for a ban on edits to Xbox 360 related articles on Wageslave.--8bitJake (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We should consider Request for Arbitration case against Wageslave

I wonder if we should start an Request for Arbitration case against Wageslave. It is obvious that he is not editing in good faith, or is even remotely willing to work with others and is frequently hostile and insulting to other editors. I think his constant angry demagoguing and edit wars are a negative influence on all of the articles related to the Xbox 360. Personally I think an Request for Arbitration case should be opened requesting he be banned from all Xbox related articles. Really he should just start his own Wiki or Blog where he is the only editor if he constantly refuses to work with other editors. --8bitJake (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What is happening is that Wageslave has it's own warped world-view that the whole article is based on a single "rumour", so the whole issue should be "dismissed". While in reality that "rumour" was just the very first source that something was seriously amiss with the Xbox 360. After all this time it's now quite obvious that Microsoft has done, what it always also did with it's software, and that is "rush to market to conquer the market no matter what the consequences are, and deal with the consequences later when you have a grip on the market". Well this time the "consequences" of the rush job were grave! That Microsoft is not acknowledging what it did is just symptomatic of the company's behaviour. The whole world knows what happened, but some apologists, like Wageslave, don't want to know it. I agree that if Wageslave continues to try to sabotage the article some higher authority should probably look into it. I think the article is fair and balanced as it is. Where claims are made that (unfortunately) can't be proven, we state as much. The article as is simply reflects what the opinions the -world- has about the technical reliability of the Xbox 360 are, and what evidence for the facts on which these opinions are based have been gathered. These opinions and facts should -not- be censored because some people are uncomfortable with them. Mahjongg (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I do have an issue with this notion. MSFT has "acknowleged" the problem. They did last year (july 2007), when they said:

"As a result of what Microsoft views as an unacceptable number of repairs to Xbox 360 consoles, the company conducted extensive investigations into potential sources of general hardware failures. Having identified a number of factors which can cause general hardware failures indicated by three red flashing lights on the console, Microsoft has made improvements to the console and is enhancing its Xbox 360 warranty policy for existing and new customers.[[12]]

My issue is that we are presenting the vitrolic, neg-POV opinion of blogs and un-sourced rumour-mongers as fact.

The credibility and quality of the source of information should be reflected in the article.

Wageslave (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem when you get fanboy editors that can't accept the truth. Compared to the Wii and PS3... and even last gen's unreliable console, the PS2, the 360 has been as reliable as a paper condom. You get some people who think they've made good edits and wont let anyone do anything. As you can see this was once a good article. We need to bring it back to that stage and that means no fanboy edits.Chocobogamer (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am 100% in full support of this and believe that he should be banned as well, especially with the fact that this has popped up seven months since his last "disappearance." Dibol (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Xbox 360 does, in-fact fail. At rates greater than customers, Microsoft or the industry are used to. No doubt. What I have a problem with is taking rumour and innuendo -- even often repeated rumour -- and repeating it as fact. There has never been a proper disclosure by Microsoft with the rates that the Xbox 360 has heat-failure.

All "guesses", from blogposts from anonymous sources, or guesses by gamestore employees in australia are just that, guesses, and they need to be presented as such.

Wikipedia should not take rumour and present it as fact.

Wageslave (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Rumour? MS will obviously obfuscate the stats as to the true number of RRODs (yes, this is the correct term). Infact, I have had 8 EFFING RRODS in the 1.5 yrs I had the product. The actual "ownership time" being only around 7-8 months at best. There were times it took almost 6 weeks for a replacement (a rather shabby refurb) to arrive. So, there is no debate on whether this is a matter of importance or not. You should stop policing the place with your "fanboy" baton and wake up and smell the coffee. This is a horrible console, face it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.31.169 (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears the only contributions of 122.167.31.169 is to attack me. See here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.167.31.169 I would wager this is a 'sockpuppet' of another regular contributer here. Please take that into account when reading 122.167.31.169's comments here.

Wageslave (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I was curious as to your contributions (or lack of) as apparently, all you seem to do is hide the fact that RRODs are indeed more frequent than officially claimed by MS. Clearly, you are simply a fanboy and do not seem to comprehend the fact that an encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge, and not a place for a besotted fanboy to gush about his "oh so purty" console. A person reading the Xbox 360 page should ATLEAST understand that there is an issue with the console which needs to be brought to fore.

122.167.2.228 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wageslave is trolling and harassing other editors since arrived. As Xbox Fan, he simply ignore all the rules and not accept other editors editings that are pretty well referenced and he also piss off consensus. He created the PS3 techinical problems a copyvio of the Xbox 360 technical problems to pure trolling. --Ciao 90 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it worthwhile to use this article as "form". I certainly wasnt "trolling". The PS3 has its own issues, as does the Xbox 360. Wageslave (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, I don't think copyvio would apply on material reproduced from one WP article to another. xenocidic (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, its the wrong wording, but making a copy of the then current Xbox 360 article for the PS3 (PlayStation_3_technical_problems) , and by doing so starting that article with the blatantly false claim "Since its release the Playstation 3 has gained a reputation for its poor reliability and technical problems, including occurrences of total failure, where the unit becomes completely unusable.", just as spite for the existence of the Xbox 360 technical problems article DOES give an indication of his mindset and purpose. the PS3 article is now just a redirect to the main PS3 article. By the way, he unsuccessfully tried to do exactly the same, with the exact same wording "Since its release the WII has a reputation for its poor reliability.... " etc., with the WII article WII_technical_problems, which has since then been removed, but you can read the talk page discussion about it here: [13] . Mahjongg (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha I shouldn't laugh but creating a page stating that the PS3 has been criticised for hardware failure is purely an Xbox fanboy move. Its actually one of the most pathetic non-vandalism moves I think I've seen on here!!

Even most of the "problems" he listed were software problems, which, unlike Xbox 360 faults, can be rectified. As for the Wii it did have a slight problem at launch to do with WiiConnect24, yes. However, both the PS3 and Wii are much closer to the "standard" 3% hardware failure zone, making these pages completely pointless (On a sidenote, several reviews have praised the PS3's hardware reliability) However, as the Xbox 360 has a reported near 1-in-3 failrate, it requires an article.

Also, If you look at the recent changes made to the page, a lot of them have been done by him. This is ridiculous as most of the edits are completely pointless and it is just him making the page "his" and only having it the way he likes it. If he thought he could get away with it I bet he would completely delete any reference to hardware faults on this console but ensure they were noted on the Wii/PS3 pages.

Well, thats my thoughts on the matter. Chocobogamer (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How to best deal with a Destructive Authoritarian Editor

When an article is faced with a zealot editor hellbent of destructive editing, micromanaging and authoritarian deleting the work of other I've found that the best way to prevent and solve this is buttress and reinforce the sections of the article that they person wants to burn. So expand the text and back it up with numerous links to quality eternal sources and that section of the article can survive and end up being much stronger that before the edit waring. Hopefully they will lose interest and move on.

Also be wary of the three revert rule and feel free to report a violation of it or any personal attacks if they stoop to that level. Never return a personal attack and note that person's actions to be used evidence to be used against them later on. --8bitJake (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In-Game Guide Button

I believe the article needs a section that will detail the non-game specific features available via The Guide. Chat, invites, friends managment and the other os-level features that are game-agnostic.

Anyone want to take a stab adding it?

Wageslave (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not noteworthy.--8bitJake (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The features available via The Guide software are unique and distinguishing in the industry. Perhaps I'll take the time to write something shortly...

Wageslave (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wageslave, and believe the article can be updated to reflect the unique features of the guide button. SAcit777 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Who keeps bastardising the hardware section so that it fits the mind of low IQd casuals?

Seriously, we used to have detailed technical specs made for real gamers, but as time went on, people thought it was great to cater more for the idiot market that Nintendo has brought about. Heck, we even had at least a description of the main components in the system. Revert it back so true gamers dont suffer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.68.32 (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Xbox

Want to share your knowledge and help to improve articles regarding Xbox and Xbox 360? Then join WikiProject Xbox. Thanks. BW21. --Blackwatch21 (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

technical problems

this is the area that has been receiving most crit on this page, when it has a very in-depth article of its own. I think that constant bickering on this page should not occur and changes should only be made on the fault page itself. I have therefore (since re-organising the sections more logically) put the technical problems link underneath development (as its probably a development problem. also, its not a subsection as, IMO, it only needs a minor mention on the page due to the incredible detail of the seperate article), and removed any other information regarding this from the main page (except for the fact Microsoft have extended the warranty and the fact problems exist). I would like everyone's opinion who has criticised the constant changes on this page, before any reverting is made. I personally think its better to keep it this way as the changes on both pages have been irritating and the information on the page is probably too controversial and biased to keep on the main page. i'm not trying to 'delete' the fact the console has incredibly poor reliability, i just feel that more important edits need to be done on this page to bring it back to brilliant and not arguing over the faults. Chocobogamer (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Chocobogamer, I am convinced that you mean well, with your approach, but still I do not agree with your edit, which just seems to be about "hiding" the technical problems article from the casual user. What use is the Technical Problems article if nobody who visits the Xbox 360 article is aware of its existence! This is an important issue for many Xbox 360 users, and that should warrant it get's enough coverage! Not just a single sentence with a "hidden link" in it, which in no way gives any hint about the full article that is behind it. Your edit is more insidious than anything that Wageslave ever has dared to do. Please re-consider your stand! Mahjongg (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, however it was written a lot nastier than it needed to be!

If you bothered to read the paragraph above you I am not trying to hide it. I'm just trying to make sure that this page only has relevant information on it. Its probably only a matter of time until the 'neutrality' of this page is argued, and its all about that tiny section!! I have therefore removed the bit about SquareTrade's failrate. This information is, although relevant to the main article on faults, only a statistic and it is not, as such, neutral - its an 'investigation' into the failrate and therefore looking at the bad side of the console and not the good side. It is still on the other page, but this article needs to be neutral. It should only say what MS are doing about it IMO. Failrate stats should be only on the main failure article for people interested in it. There has to be a way we can club together and find a way so that the information is completely neutral AND relevant. Chocobogamer (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Chocobogamer's edit are worthwhile. The article is overly neg-POV, as is the technical page itself. No one is "hiding" anything. The whole article on Xbox 360 doesnt have to focus and revolve around early heat issues.

Beyond that, please mahjongg, do not make your arguments based on your personal opinion of the value of my edits.

Wageslave (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In that one reply he decided he would attack both of us in one go. Isn't Wiki supposed to be against that sort of stuff? Chocobogamer (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Chockobogamer, am I supposed to be the "he" in "he decided he would...", or do you mean wageslave? If you mean me, then be sure my intention was not to "attack" you personally, but just to start a discussion, and make my position clear. If you think it was "nasty" in any way, then I can olnly imagine you mean the last sentence (the sentences before it seem to me to rather be just a bland summing up of my point of view). Yes, I used the word "insidious", but not to "attack" your, but rather to make it very clear that your approach has an even bigger impact on the visiting public than the "death by a thousand cuts" (as someone else, very appropriately, called it) approach Wageslave has been attempting for the last year or so, in his attempts to remove all and any comments about technical problems with the Xbox 360 from the visitings public view.

I was quite concerned about your edit, but rather than starting another edit war about it, I decided to do the "right" thing, and come here to voice my concern. Let me be clear, I do not want to "attack" anybody, not Wageslave, not you, but I simply do not accept that the technical problems with the Xbox 360 are simply "swept under the carpet" like this. And I see that someone else (dibol) has been bolder than me, and has just re-created the paragraph "Xbox 360 technical problems".

I am NOT against keeping the contents of the paragraph "technical problems" in the main article short and to the point, so I do not have a real problem with removing superfluous stuff that is repeated in the main article, as long as a casual reader, when glimpsing through the article is aware there is also the "technical problems" article, and your edits made that very unlikely. With best regards Mahjongg (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wageslave has been attempting for the last year or so, in his attempts to remove all and any comments about technical problems with the Xbox 360 from the visitings public view."

There is a constant flow of negative-POV material flowing into these two (xbox_techinical_problems) pages. Both pages are under this constant creep to be about -only- the heat-issues. Yes, I've been editing these pages (for more than a year I'd think) to try and maintain some reasonable level of neutrality and equality.

The issues are known. They have been stated in the article. But every time someone farts new re-telling of the same story (traffic trolls) onto the web, someone thinks its worthwhile repeating here.

The failure rates need to be mentioned, but so does the fix. And the warranty repairs. And thats it, not the neg-POV commentary and uncited blogspam.

Wageslave (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK fair enough. I did realise it wasnt you who put it all back in, and I'm grateful you put your reply on here first. I wasn't trying to cover it up just trying to avoid the controversy. However I realise now that I deleted too much information and upon looking at it it did seem that way. I am not backtracking - I said from the start on here I'm not trying to hide it, just trying to make sure the article is neutral. The only real thing that caused me a problem since other things have been cut, is having the statistic on there, as its not strictly a fair statistic - it appears that it only covers US consoles and pre-falcon systems. I'm not by any means saying its more or less reliable in other countries, however, it could be - the EU uses a different current/voltage system to the US. Also, of the Elites returned, how many were using HDMI etc?

Logically using HDMI and optical (digital) audio is probably the least likely way to cause a RROD (yes I am using it lol) as it doesnt have to convert Digital to Analogue and that means using less resources. Has this been researched?

Therefore IMO, the article and statistic is probably not researched enough for a mention on the main 360 article. I hope you all agree with me and the section can stay as it is until another problem/hardware revision comes to light.

I made the edit to try and keep the peace and neutrality and I hope at last I have done this. (the long way round) Chocobogamer (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that correctly quoting the squaretrade data is worthwhile. However, it is important to do so accurately, to be concise, and to avoid NegPOV commentary in the process. Wageslave (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

@gaygamer33, Okay, then let me just answer your questions. You might not know, but I am actually an electronic engineer who develops microprocessor based systems, and I have been doing that for a quarter of a century or so now, so I do know a bit about this stuff, and what is likely to be the cause of the problems and what is not. First let me give my opinion on your thoughts, you say "it appears that it only covers US consoles", and " the EU uses a different current/voltage system to the US. ", well to the latter I can say, we certainly do (I say "we", because I'm European). We use 240 Volts here, not 110 Volt (used to be 220Volt, but the voltage has been slowly increased over the last ten years, and we are now at 240 Volt). Also we use 50 Hz, not 60 Hz, like the US. But all this makes little or no difference, as the "brick" (power supply) of the Xbox 360 converts any mains voltage to a much lower DC voltage, an that voltage is the same worldwide, for all Xbox 360 systems, so no, the problems caused by heathy dissipation should be exactly the same for all Xbox 360 systems, independent of the mains voltage.

Secondly you state that "Logically using HDMI and optical (digital) audio is probably the least likely way to cause a RROD (yes I am using it lol) as it doesnt have to convert Digital to Analogue", well, yes, when using HDMI there is no digital to analog conversion needed, but that is actually quite irrelevant, as the energy needed to drive the digital video port probably is equal to the energy needed for DA conversion, which by the way is an extremely tiny amount compared to the total energy expenditure of the Xbox 360, probably much less than 1/100th of 1 percent, and actually even when the A/D converter is not used, it is still turned on.

Actually in a way it's more the opposite that is somewhat true, as using HDMI would imply that you are using a high resolution monitor, which would logically imply that the Xbox video chip would render a high resolution picture, with much more pixels than in a TV image, which would mean the video chip has much more work to do so it would run hotter, only I think the Xbox does not work like that, it probably renders its pictures always in the same resolution, and only downscales them to a lower resolution for TV output, anyway, I assume the actual final output signal has little to do with the total energy used, as ill explain further on.

The energy used in a IC can be thought of as being roughly equal to the number of transistors that switch on or off per unit of time, so the "subsystem" with the largest amount of transistors that switch at the largest frequency would have the largest effect on power consumption (although the voltage the transistors switch is also a factor, that is why the mega chips in a system like the Xbox, or a modern PC are powered with a very low voltage, the "normal" voltage for computer logic is 5 Volt, but large chips are often powered with (much) lower voltages, like 3,3 Volt, or 1,8 Volt, or even lower), But to come to the point, the largest number of transistors are undoubtedly in the GPU and CPU (graphics processing unit and Central processing units) the large chips that have the heatsinks on them to lead the energy (in the form of heat) away from them. There largest factor that determines the amount of energy spent is probably how "hard the GPU must work", the CPU not so much as it simply always crunches code, at roughly the same speed, but the GPU can be set to do more or less "work", and how much work is needed depends on the complexity of the picture that is rendered, and how quickly that picture changes (in frames per second), so some scenes in for example Halo 3, the GPU needs to work much "harder" than in other scenes, and some games tax the GPU harder than other games. Because the GPU is the most energy hungry of the electronics in the Xbox 360 this has a huge impact.

So this has a large consequence for the exergy the Xbox uses, a second factor might be how fast the DVD needs to rotate to read the needed data, so if the DVD is used a lot the energy used also goes up.

If the Xbox needs to "down-convert" the picture then that also uses some energy, but in all probability not a large fraction of the total, as it's just a function of the GPU, and uses just a fraction of it's capabilities (and thus transistors). So in conclusion, whether HDMI is used or not is probably irrelevant for the energy used. Now for the later Xbox 360's, with "64 micrometer" scale chips, does switching to a higher density change the power consumption, al other things being equal, well, Yes, but not by a very large amount, and only if doing so also implies lowering the core voltage of the chip. You see, it all depends on the tiny internal capacitors that are filled (charged) or de-charged (emptied) when a transistor (pair) switches on an off inside a chip.

You see, without the "leaking" of transistor switches, a transistor switch only needs energy to charge or de-charge these internal capacities, the "leakage" becomes a factor because a transistor switch is not "ideal", and even when it's turned "off" when a voltage is applied it still "leaks" a tiny bit of current, the higher the voltage the more it leaks, and because a chip like the GPU contains tens of millions transistors all the tiny trickles together amount to a considerable amount, and how much depends on the voltage used to power these transistors. Also a chip with a lower density has larger internal capacitors, larger capacitors mean larger tun on currents, and to charge these capacitors quickly enough (high switching speed), you need a fair amount of "push", or voltage. So lowering the size of the transistors (and thus capacitors) inside the chip lowers the current (and energy used) because of two reasons,

IF you also lower the feeding voltage, and you CAN lower the voltage because with smaller capacitors you need less "push" (voltage) to fill them, plus lowering the voltage also reduces the leakage (in a modern chip leakage can amount to 20% of the total current used).

So Yes, because the power voltage can be lowered, and less leakage occurs the total power used can drop somewhat, but not dramatically, a drop in power used of say 15% can be expected.

Does that have a big impact, I don't think it does, but it certainly will help somewhat, the biggest problem with the heat inside the Xbox 360 is not that it's hot inside though! As long as the chips remain at a temperature below a certain reasonable limit it has limited effect on the durability and failure rate.

What IS a problem though is when the temperature varies quickly, and by a considerable degree, and unfortunately that is exactly what happens inside an Xbox 360! Because the GPU sometimes generates more heat than at other times, so the temperature inside the Xbox can raise and drop a considerable amount in a short time. And THAT _is_ a problem, because when the temperature rises some material expand, (some more than other materials metals versus ceramics and plastics) and when the temperature drops again, the material shrink again. This constant expanding and shrinking is probably what is causing all the problems, not the high temperatures themselves per-se, although some problems ( "dried out" capacitors with a dramatic loss in capacitance due to "boiling out electrolyte fluids" etc ) are caused by it.

So to conclude this long story, and to come back to your last statement "Therefore IMO, the article and statistic is probably not researched enough for a mention ", sorry nice try but no cigar, all Xbox 360's everywhere (except perhaps in the sahara) probably have the same principal problems, and thus the same error-rate, as those in the USA, which also can be seen by the reactions worldwide, as the error rate, (and thus the amount of complaints) is similar in Europe as it is in the USA. Mahjongg (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is exactly the problem with the Wikipedia article on this topic. We should not be including conjecture and guesses in this article. I'm sure we all have our own opinions on the matter, but we should only be including _verifiable_ and reputable information from _on the record_ sources from outlets that are reputable and/or in a position to know.

A good example of things not to include: Anonymous-sourced blog stories. Known traffic-trolls, liars and plagiarists. Second-hand-reporting (ie: repeating the before-mentioned articles).

Lets include the facts that are known. Wageslave (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Puh-lease, you have been trying to sweep the damn thing under the rug on June/July 2007 and have been in constant denial ever since G4 did a televised report on the damn thing, ya hypocrite.Dibol (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is exactly this kind of passive aggressive insults towards other editors why Wageslave should be banned from editing Xbox related articles. Remember to document his insults and abuses to be used in his Aribration hearing. --8bitJake (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Xbox 360 and 1080p

The article needs to make clear the Xbox 360's capability of rendering output at 1080p. Take a moment to search the article, and you'll find that the only mention of "1080p" is on the core and the Backwards Compatibility section.

Somewhere in the article a clear statment needs to be made about the ability of the console to output 1080p. Across all versions, and in new games.

Perhaps the hardware description should be altered.

Wageslave (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not every game can do 1080p. --8bitJake (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article, there's not a lot said about the console's hardware features, particularly compared to the section on software - there's more said about XNA than about the console itself. You'd expect basic details like the fact that the console supports HDMI output, or that game discs are DVDs.

Also, on a related note, I'm not sure that the comment in the section on backwards compatibility is even accurate. I was under the impression that original xbox games were rendered in 480p and upscaled to HD, not rendered in HD, although I'll double check this on my system when I get chance. James pic (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

XBox 360 with a Wii Controller

Microsoft appears to be planning a wii-type controller for the X-box 360. Development on this does not appear to be advanced enough to be mention on this page yet, but it might be something to keep in mind.Refer to: http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20080408/xbox-360-with-a-wii-controller/ --SAcit777 (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much any story that ends with a question mark cannot be used as a source. It denotes rumour, speculations, crystal balling.... xenocidic (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft is not ready to show off the "Newton" controller yet. It is actually a 3d Mouse or Flying Mouse. Wait a couple months. --8bitJake (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what was in the MTV article. Wageslave (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GA

I passed this article for Good Article status. It was referenced well, well-written, met all the requirements. Good job! Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Game Library Section needs improvement

The game library section seems to be too narrow in scope, and deals with a specific period in time (launch). Also, it seems a bit Neg-POV when it says "Only" as if presuming that was too few or not enough.

Perhaps saying something like "Xbox 360 has won Z,X,Y awards and has N titles in Y genres" and/or (with proper citations) "The Average industry review scores for the top X exclusive titles is Y" ---- based on review scores, would be good objective relevant information.

Has anyone seen such objective information on Metacritic or Gameranking scores?

Wageslave (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To prevent fanboy wars, it's best to keep comparisons to the other consoles in Console Wars and only focus on the subject matter at hand. But I do agree the section could do with some beefing up. xenocidic (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, instead of mentioning the others specifically, general statements are better.

Wageslave (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it can be confusing when you edit your prior statements after they've already been replied to. Using ~~strikethrough~~ (<s></s> would be better. xenocidic (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"The" Xbox 360...

I noticed recently that the opening line "The Xbox 360 is..." was changed to just "Xbox 360 is..." Having "the" is grammatically correct and consistent with several other articles on video game consoles. The omission of "the" in the opening sentence not only contradicts a widely accepted standard brought on by a lengthy discussion, but contradicts the article itself, which uses the grammatically-correct "the" in another several other sentences. Please post your thoughts on the matter. Just64helpin (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur, "The" seems correct. Wageslave (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Xbox data to Xbox 360

Does anyone know how to transfer the data from Xbox to Xbox 360? ROWikian (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you are talking about game save data files. There are unlicensed third party products like the ones made by Datel but that just seams like a big pain. --8bitJake (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you can use those products to transfer from a Xbox to Xbox, or a 360 to 360, but the original Xbox and the 360 use two completely different interfaces and hard and software. AP Shinobi (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)