Xbox One To Include Power Saving Options In Initial Console Set-Up

Good move. No [good] reason it shouldn't have been that way from the start.
 
The Reason they left it on was because at first you could only get it with kinnect. but now of course they sell it without kinect. so this makes some sense now.
 
How else could they have Kinect spy on you when you're not looking? :D
 
Babbster said:
Good move. No [good] reason it shouldn't have been that way from the start.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I had not idea the system was always on by default. And being that I hardly use it I cover it up so it does not get dusty so I could have had fire hazard on my hands.
 
I love how the "features" of the power-saving mode are all negative, while the always-on features are all positive.

Its pretty obvious which one MS wants you to use.
 
Since I have the Kinect, I prefer leaving mine on in the really low power stand by mode. I would also do the same with my home computer but, it starts up fast enough that it is not worth bothering with. (Work computer stays on 24/7 though.) Nice choice for those who want it though.
 
Steve said:
It appears that Microsoft has decided to make end users select an energy-saving option during initial console set-up instead of having to change the setting in the set-up menu.
Click to expand...
You COULD just turn the damn thing off when you're not using it, if it didn't take almost a minute and a half to boot up!!!

Seriously Microsoft, its 2015, put a damn SSD in the thing.
 
You know this option has been there in the settings for quite some time... I used it to do a full reboot when I didn't want to get up :).
 
Probably some ridiculous energy star requirement. More and more home devices and appliances I see do incredibly stupid things which are hard to circumvent.
 
Ducman69 said:
You COULD just turn the damn thing off when you're not using it, if it didn't take almost a minute and a half to boot up!!!

Seriously Microsoft, its 2015, put a damn SSD in the thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, 90 seconds is an intolerable amount of time to have to wait for anything to happen and it's utterly outrageous that people have to be patient for that seemingly endless span while they wait to have their dreadfully vital playtime.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Yes, 90 seconds is an intolerable amount of time to have to wait for anything to happen and it's utterly outrageous that people have to be patient for that seemingly endless span while they wait to have their dreadfully vital playtime.
Click to expand...

For a console bootup, yes, that is an insanely long amount of time.

Remember back in the days of the cartdridge based systems?

Put in the cart, turn the power on, and it is on instantly?

Or even the older CD/DVD based systems. Takes maybe 5-10 seconds for the disc to read and you to be able to start playing.

Now how many years later and the cold bootup time is getting slower and slower? Something is wrong with this picture.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Yes, 90 seconds is an intolerable amount of time to have to wait for anything to happen and it's utterly outrageous that people have to be patient for that seemingly endless span while they wait to have their dreadfully vital playtime.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is that the XBox shouldn't take longer to bootup than I do to finish in the bedroom. :D BTW, my Alienware Alpha "console" now cold boots in 18 seconds thanks to the SSD upgrade. Awww, yeahhhh!

But actually a lot of the very intermittent "stutter" problems you hear people complaining about on the Xbox are likely not even graphical frame drops but rather just performance blips that slow mechanical drives sometimes have. I mean, if SSDs were super expensive, that's one thing, but small ones are dirt cheap now.
cyclone3d said:
Remember back in the days of the cartdridge based systems?

Put in the cart, turn the power on, and it is on instantly?
Click to expand...
I remember putting it in, taking it out, blowing on it, putting it in, taking it out, blowing harder, then putting it in and getting satisfaction. :p
 
cyclone3d said:
For a console bootup, yes, that is an insanely long amount of time.

Remember back in the days of the cartdridge based systems?

Put in the cart, turn the power on, and it is on instantly?

Or even the older CD/DVD based systems. Takes maybe 5-10 seconds for the disc to read and you to be able to start playing.

Now how many years later and the cold bootup time is getting slower and slower? Something is wrong with this picture.
Click to expand...

Actually, it would take around a minute for CD/DVD based consoles to not only boot, but load the game as well (getting through the dev/intro screens to the main menu).
So no, everything from the Sega Saturn to the PS2 really didn't load in just 5-10 seconds.

I will say though, 1.5 minutes for a modern device to boot (not even getting signed in and/or loading the game included) is quite a bit.
Honestly, SSD or eMMC should be in place for the main OS and all games should be stored on a secondary SSD or HDD, internal or external; I get this would increase costs, obviously, but everyone wants an instant bootup with massive storage space, and we don't yet live in an era where we can have our cake and eat it, too, unless you install your own SSD or own a PC. :D
 
Does the Xbox One really take that long to cold boot? My PS4 takes < 30s, I find that acceptable, but if the Xbox One is > 1 minute (As is claimed in this thread), I can see why people would be annoyed by that because it's not competitive with the competition. My Alienware m14x R2 notebook boots in about 17 seconds and that's not even that recent.

The fastest disc-based system I ever owned was the Nintendo GameCube, that thing only takes about 10 seconds before it starts auto-running the inserted disc, or displaying the menu if there is no disc. It's not really a fair comparison because the GameCube didn't have much of an OS to load.
 
Ducman69 said:
All I'm saying is that the XBox shouldn't take longer to bootup than I do to finish in the bedroom. :D BTW, my Alienware Alpha "console" now cold boots in 18 seconds thanks to the SSD upgrade. Awww, yeahhhh!

But actually a lot of the very intermittent "stutter" problems you hear people complaining about on the Xbox are likely not even graphical frame drops but rather just performance blips that slow mechanical drives sometimes have. I mean, if SSDs were super expensive, that's one thing, but small ones are dirt cheap now.

I remember putting it in, taking it out, blowing on it, putting it in, taking it out, blowing harder, then putting it in and getting satisfaction. :p
Click to expand...

And that is what cleaning the contacts on both the cart and the console fixes. Do that, and the old systems were usually good for at least a few months before they would need to be cleaned again.
 
Red Falcon said:
Actually, it would take around a minute for CD/DVD based consoles to not only boot, but load the game as well (getting through the dev/intro screens to the main menu).
So no, everything from the Sega Saturn to the PS2 really didn't load in just 5-10 seconds.

I will say though, 1.5 minutes for a modern device to boot (not even getting signed in and/or loading the game included) is quite a bit.
Honestly, SSD or eMMC should be in place for the main OS and all games should be stored on a secondary SSD or HDD, internal or external; I get this would increase costs, obviously, but everyone wants an instant bootup with massive storage space, and we don't yet live in an era where we can have our cake and eat it, too, unless you install your own SSD or own a PC. :D
Click to expand...

I'll have to double check load times on my PS2 slim. Pretty sure some of the games from a cold boot didn't take any more than 15-20 seconds to be able to hit the start button. A lot of times, the intro screens can be bypassed.

The Dreamcast and TG-16/Turbo Duo systems booted pretty quick from being off. The Gamecube is super quick from being off to be able to start playing. The same for the Wii.

When a console that has pretty much nothing running should not take near as long to boot as a modern PC which has a lot more running.

Maybe it is all because of the slow, super crappy HDDs they put in them.. but what do you expect for bottom of the barrel prices for a "gaming system" that tries to do a lot more than just be able to play games?
 
cyclone3d said:
When a console that has pretty much nothing running should not take near as long to boot as a modern PC which has a lot more running.

Maybe it is all because of the slow, super crappy HDDs they put in them.. but what do you expect for bottom of the barrel prices for a "gaming system" that tries to do a lot more than just be able to play games?
Click to expand...

The problem is is that there actually is a lot running.
These modern consoles are basically low-end, proprietary x86 PCs, which are running full operating systems.

A single HDD, and a portable-class 2.5" no less, is not up to the task of this in a timely fashion in this era.
These aren't like the consoles of old where they just had to load the game after the boot ROM cycle completed, or having to load the game after a short bootup sequence from the device's firmware/embedded-memory (which, back then, was under 50-100MB).

While the XBone and PS4's OSes may not be big themselves, look at everything they are having to load and run after booting up.
2GB of the system RAM is *dedicated* to running just the OS on both consoles, so that means at least 1GB+ is having to load from that slow ass HDD, which in modern processes, would take about 1.5 minutes.
 
sir-gold said:
I love how the "features" of the power-saving mode are all negative, while the always-on features are all positive.

Its pretty obvious which one MS wants you to use.
Click to expand...


MS is absolutely famous for this crap. THey are masters at forcing shitty choices. In GFWL they hid the ability to make a local account, same thing with Windows 10. I just wish they werent so damn blatant.
 
I wonder if you could replace the main HDD with a 500GB SSD and add a 2TB external HDD for more game storage. That should speed things up.

Or why not just throw in a USB stick and enable ReadyBoost. :D
 
Red Falcon said:
The problem is is that there actually is a lot running.
These modern consoles are basically low-end, proprietary x86 PCs, which are running full operating systems.

A single HDD, and a portable-class 2.5" no less, is not up to the task of this in a timely fashion in this era.
These aren't like the consoles of old where they just had to load the game after the boot ROM cycle completed, or having to load the game after a short bootup sequence from the device's firmware/embedded-memory (which, back then, was under 50-100MB).

While the XBone and PS4's OSes may not be big themselves, look at everything they are having to load and run after booting up.
2GB of the system RAM is *dedicated* to running just the OS on both consoles, so that means at least 1GB+ is having to load from that slow ass HDD, which in modern processes, would take about 1.5 minutes.
Click to expand...

Then they should have the OS loaded onto a small SSD and use the HDD only for game storage.

Oh, but that would adds $5 to the build cost.... nm.

The real problem is that these "consoles" are not consoles anymore, and are just overpriced low end PCs running a proprietary OS.
 
cyclone3d said:
Then they should have the OS loaded onto a small SSD and use the HDD only for game storage.

Oh, but that would adds $5 to the build cost.... nm.

The real problem is that these "consoles" are not consoles anymore, and are just overpriced low end PCs running a proprietary OS.
Click to expand...

LOL
You just mimed everything I said... but I'm glad we agree. :D
 
cyclone3d said:
Then they should have the OS loaded onto a small SSD and use the HDD only for game storage.

Oh, but that would adds $5 to the build cost.... nm.

The real problem is that these "consoles" are not consoles anymore, and are just overpriced low end PCs running a proprietary OS.
Click to expand...

$5? How do you figure? Overpriced, low end? How do you figure? Any added cost to the machine, and an SSD will add significant cost and reliability issues, will mean the console will not sell. :rolleyes:
 
ManofGod said:
an SSD will add significant cost and reliability issues, will mean the console will not sell. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Our SSDs are more reliable than our platter drives, as they are more tolerant of shock and tend to run cooler. They don't really add much cost if you're willing to sacrifice a bit of size for performance:

Seagate 320GB Laptop Thin SATA 6Gb/s | Random Read 512KB : 28 MB/s | = $54 on Amazon.com

SanDisk 128GB SATA 6.0GB/s SSD | Random Read: 475 MB/s | $60 on Amazon.com
 
Ducman69 said:
Our SSDs are more reliable than our platter drives, as they are more tolerant of shock and tend to run cooler. They don't really add much cost if you're willing to sacrifice a bit of size for performance:

Seagate 320GB Laptop Thin SATA 6Gb/s | Random Read 512KB : 28 MB/s | = $54 on Amazon.com

SanDisk 128GB SATA 6.0GB/s SSD | Random Read: 475 MB/s | $60 on Amazon.com
Click to expand...

I honestly do not believe that low end SSD's are reliable enough yet to run in a console long term. However, a Hybrid hard drive specifically designed for the Xbox One and PS4 could do a good job long term.

However, any additional cost would be a no go in the console world. (That is a given fact unfortunately.) Oh, and the OS and programs would have to be more customized than they already are just to run correctly in that configuration. I would not be surprised if they considered it and found it unfeasible. At the very least, the SSD would have to be completely hidden for user access.
 
ManofGod said:
$5? How do you figure? Overpriced, low end? How do you figure? Any added cost to the machine, and an SSD will add significant cost and reliability issues, will mean the console will not sell. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They don't necessarily need a physical 1.8" or 2.5" SATA SSD.
Either company could have used eMMC with a 16/32/64GB configuration, and considering they can order parts en masse, I'm sure they could have done this at little to no additional cost.

As for the reliability issues, I would trust any SSD after 2012 far more than any HDD in this era.
SSDs and even eMMC aren't the hodge-podge drives we saw back in 2008-2010.
 
ManofGod said:
Oh, and the OS and programs would have to be more customized than they already are just to run correctly in that configuration. I would not be surprised if they considered it and found it unfeasible.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?
The PS4 uses a modified version of FreeBSD.

They could have the OS drive as the primary mount, and have the secondary (storage) drive mounted anywhere else in the filesystem, and then just point the games to install there.
I'm no programmer, and I can tell you this is easy as pie.

I am sure MS could do the same thing with their proprietary OS.

At the very least, the SSD would have to be completely hidden for user access.
Click to expand...
Um, how is it any different with a single HDD right now? (meaning, your point being...?)
It wouldn't matter, the only change would be a hardware one, not software, and if you mean the drive location, as I've said above, that's trivial at best.
 
Red Falcon said:
Are you kidding me?
The PS4 uses a modified version of FreeBSD.

They could have the OS drive as the primary mount, and have the secondary (storage) drive mounted anywhere else in the filesystem, and then just point the games to install there.
I'm no programmer, and I can tell you this is easy as pie.

I am sure MS could do the same thing with their proprietary OS.


Um, how is it any different with a single HDD right now? (meaning, your point being...?)
It wouldn't matter, the only change would be a hardware one, not software, and if you mean the drive location, as I've said above, that's trivial at best.
Click to expand...

Nope, I mean very specifically that the SSD is 100% hidden from the user. No access, no ability to install anything to it, OS only access with no user access what so ever. Also, having multiple drives in a machine means more points of failure that could occur.

One drive only internally is the best way to go with a console and the most reliable. From what I recall, the PS4 was tried with an SSD and a regular hard drive and little to no difference was found.
 
ManofGod said:
One drive only internally is the best way to go with a console and the most reliable. From what I recall, the PS4 was tried with an SSD and a regular hard drive and little to no difference was found.
Click to expand...

I thought that was the PS3, and if so, that would make sense since the Cell CPU isn't exactly a stellar performer by modern SSD standards.
However, a PS4 should show a difference, and honestly, if it doesn't, it is most likely due to network latency when powering up (license/user/registration checks for features/functions/etc).

Just looked, there is a good-sized difference (as of 2013):

The first tested boot times:

SSD boots in 19.5 seconds
Hybrid boots in 20.3 seconds
Default boots in 25.7 seconds

So with an SSD, you’ll save 6 seconds every time you boot your PS4 up. Worth the upgrade? Don’t decide just yet.

Time it takes to launch disc based game (Knack):

SSD: 34 seconds
Hybrid: 33.7 seconds
Default: 39.7 seconds

So you save another 5 seconds when you load a game (in this case, Knack) from a disc.

Time it takes to launch download based game from hard drive (Killzone):

SSD: 39 seconds
Hybrid: 42 seconds
Default: 60 seconds
Click to expand...

So, what you are saying is basically false.
 
Also, we aren't talking about the PS4 having boot issues, FreeBSD (Morph) is very efficient.
Microsoft's garbage proprietary OS is the issue at hand.
 
Oh, and just to make it clear: I would love to have a 500GB SSD in my Xbox One. However, I would not be willing to pay an additional $175 just for that and it still is not as reliable in the long term compared to a hard drive. (Remember, this is a device that has lots of read and rights and is running all the time. A low end 500GB SSD is low cost because they found ways to cut things down to lower the cost.)

Unfortunately, a 7200 RPM 500 GB Hybrid hard drive is no longer produced that I am aware of. SSDs are still expensive for what you get.
 
Red Falcon said:
Also, we aren't talking about the PS4 having boot issues, FreeBSD (Morph) is very efficient.
Microsoft's garbage proprietary OS is the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

Garbage. :rolleyes: How about so unbiased opinions instead? Yeah, ok. :rolleyes:
 
ManofGod said:
Garbage. :rolleyes: How about so unbiased opinions instead? Yeah, ok. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Um, wat? :confused:

The PS4 boots in about ~30 seconds.
The XBone boots in about 1.5 minutes.

How is that a bias???
One OS is obviously more bloated than the other, especially when the hardware used in both is nearly identical.

Honestly, I don't give two fucks about either of these systems because in the end, they are both low-end proprietary x86 PCs.
I was looking at the this from a technical and observational standpoint, there was no bias between consoles. ;)

Oh, and just to make it clear: I would love to have a 500GB SSD in my Xbox One. However, I would not be willing to pay an additional $175 just for that and it still is not as reliable in the long term compared to a hard drive. (Remember, this is a device that has lots of read and rights and is running all the time. A low end 500GB SSD is low cost because they found ways to cut things down to lower the cost.)

Unfortunately, a 7200 RPM 500 GB Hybrid hard drive is no longer produced that I am aware of. SSDs are still expensive for what you get.
Click to expand...
It depends on the SSD, memory type (SLC/MLC/TLC), controller, and brand being used.
If you are talking about an OCZ SSD, yeah, you get what you pay for. :/

But if we are talking about a Samsung (non-EVO), Corsair, or Intel SSD, then yes, I would trust those far more with any data over a portable-class HDD, especially for heavy-use scenarios.
If you still don't agree, you either need to learn more about modern SSDs, or start using one yourself to get some experience with them. ;)
 
Personally, I do not care about the cold boot time on my Xbox One. I only cold boot it when I need to do a full restart maybe once every couple of weeks. Otherwise, I leave it in the instant on mode since I use my Kinect 2 to control it anyways. Also, the PS4 does far less so of course, it is going to cold boot faster.

The multitasking of the Xbox One is fantastic in my opinion. I also like that the last game you were playing stays running even in the background. Automatic downloads are great and means the game will be ready to go by the time I get home. In other words, we can try to nit pick and find fault or we can enjoy the item and it incredible capabilities.

I tried using a computer on my TV for a few years. Basically, I found it was limited in that capacity since it was not designed for that purpose. Now I have 2 27 inch monitors on my home computer well I have my 360, One and Original on my 50 inch Sony Bravia TV which looks fantastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top