Peter Moore on Xbox
I always liked Peter Moore, and I was sorry when he left Xbox for EA. He’s
given a very good interview on his time at Sega and Microsoft. (He ran the
Xbox game group at Microsoft before moving on to Electronic Arts.) Lots of
insight into the Xbox part of the game industry.
Here he is talking about Rare:
...and you know, Microsoft, we'd had a tough time getting Rare back -
Perfect Dark Zero was a launch title and didn't do as well as Perfect Dark...
but we were trying all kinds of classic Rare stuff and unfortunately I think
the industry had passed Rare by - it's a strong statement but what they were
good at, new consumers didn't care about anymore, and it was tough because
they were trying very hard - Chris and Tim Stamper were still there - to try
and recreate the glory years of Rare, which is the reason Microsoft paid a lot
of money for them and I spent a lot of time getting on a train to Twycross to
meet them. Great people. But their skillsets were from a different time and a
different place and were not applicable in today's market.
Sometimes I need to get a feature into the project I’m working on, but the
developer who owns the feature is too busy to implement it. A trick that seems
to help unblock things is if I hack up an implementation of the feature myself
and work with the owner to refine it.
This is only possible if you have an
engineering culture that allows it, but luckily both Google and Microsoft
cultures allow this, at least at certain times in the product lifecycle when
the tree isn’t frozen.
By implementing the feature myself, I’m (a) reducing
risk, as we can see the feature sort of works, (b) making it much easier for
the overworked feature owner to help me, as they only have to say “change
these 3 things and you’re good to go”, rather than having to take the time to
educate me on how to implement the feature, (c) getting a chance to implement
the feature exactly the way I want it to work.
Now, I can think of a lot of
situations where this approach won’t work: at the end of the schedule where no
new features are allowed, in projects where the developer is so overloaded
that they can’t spare any cycles to review the code at all, or in projects
where people guard the areas they work on.
But I’ve been surprised how well it
works. And it’s getting easier to do, as distributed version control systems
become more common, and people become more comfortable working with multiple
branches and patches.
Ars Technica published an excellent interview with Tim Sweeney on the
Twilight of the GPU.
As the architect of the Unreal Engine series of game engines,
Tim has almost certainly been disclosed on all the upcoming GPUs. Curiously he
only talks about NVIDIA and Larrabee. Is ATI out of the race?
Anyway, Tim says a lot of sensible things:
- Graphics APIs at the DX/OpenGL level are much less important than they were in the fixed-function-GPU era.
- DX9 was the last graphics API that really mattered. Now it’s time to go back to software rasterization.
- It’s OK if NVIDIA’s next-gen GPU still has fixed-function hardware, as long as it doesn’t get in the way of pure-software rendering. (ff hardware will be useful for getting high performance on legacy games and benchmarks.)
- Next-gen NVIDIA will be more Larrabee-like than current-gen NVIDIA.
- Next Gen programming language ought-to-be vectorized C++ for both CPU and GPU.
- Possibly the GPU and CPU will be the same chip on next-gen consoles.
The OpenGL 3.0 spec was released this week, just in time for SigGraph. It
turns out to be a fairly minor update to OpenGL, little more than a
codification of existing vendor extensions. While this disappoints OpenGL
fans, it’s probably the right thing to do. Standards tend to be best when they
codify existing practice, rather than whey they try to invent new ideas.
What about the future?
The fundamental forces are:
- GPUs and CPUs are going to be on the same die
- GPUs are becoming general purpose CPUs.
- CPUs are going massively multicore
Once a GPU is a general purpose CPU, there’s little reason
to provide a standard all-encompasing rendering API. It’s simpler and easier
to give an OS and a C compiler, and a reference rendering pipeline. Then let
the application writer customize the pipeline for their application.
The big unknown is whether any of the next-generation video game consoles
the CPU-based-graphics approach. CPU-based graphics may not be cost
competitive soon enough for the next generation of game consoles.
likely candidate - it’s a natural extension to the current Cell-based PS3.
Microsoft would be very comfortable with a Larrabee-based solution, given
their OS expertiese and their long and profitable relationship with Intel.
Nintendo’s pretty unlikely, as they have made an unbelievable amount of money
betting on low-end graphics. (But they’d switch to CPU-based graphics in an
instant if it provided cost savings. And for what it’s worth, the N64 did have
I just bought another Mac Mini to use as a HTPC (home theater PC). I tried
this a year ago, but was not happy with the results. But since then I’ve
become more comfortable with using OS X, so today I thought I’d try again.
Here’s my quick setup notes:
- I’m using a Mac Mini 1.83 Core 2 Duo with 1 GB of RAM. This is the cheapest Mac Mini that Apple currently sells. I thought about getting an AppleTV, but I think the Mini is easier to modify, has more CPU power for advanced codecs, and can be used as a kid’s computer in the future, if I don’t like using it as an HTPC. I also have dreams of writing a game for the Mini that uses Wiimotes. I think this would be easier to do on a Mini than an AppleTV, even though the AppleTV has a better GPU.
- I’m using “Plex” as for viewing problem movies, and I think it may end up becoming my main movie viewing program. It’s the OSX version of Xbox Media Center. (Which is a semi-legal program for a hacked original Xbox. The Plex version is legal because it doesn’t use the unlicensed Xbox code.) The UI is a little rough. (Actually, by Mac standards it’s very rough. :-) ) Plex has very good codec support and lots of options for playing buggy or non-standard video files.
- I connected my Mac Mini to my media file server using gigabit ethernet. This made Front Row feel much snappier than when I was using an 802.11g wireless connection.
- I installed the Perian plugin adds support for many popular codecs to Quicktime and Front Row.
- I set up my Mac Mini to automatically mount my file server share at startup and when coming out of sleep. Detailed instructions here. Synopsis: Create an AppleScript utility to mount the share, put the utility in your Login Items so that it’s run automatically at startup, and finally use SleepWatcher to run the script after a sleep.
- I added FrontRow to my Login Items (Apple Menu:System Preferences…:Accounts:Login Items) to start Front Row at startup.
- I administer my Mini HTPC using VNC from a second computer. I don’t have a keyboard or mouse hooked up to the HTPC normally. I disabled the Bluetooth keyboard detection dialog using Apple Menu:System Preferences…:Bluetooth:Advanced… then uncheck “Open Bluetooth Setup Assistant at startup when no input device present”.
Things I’m still working on:
- No DVR-MS codec support in Perian, and therfore none in Front Row. I have to use my trusty Xbox 360 or VLC to view my Microsoft Windows Media Center recordings.
This year’s ICFP
contest was a traditional one: Write some code
that solves an optimization problem with finite resources, debug it using
sample data sets, send it in, and the judging team will run it on secret
(presumably more difficult) data sets, and see whose program does the best.
The problem was to create a control program for an idealized Martian rover
that had to drive to home base while avoiding craters, boulders, and moving
I read the problem description at noon on Friday, but didn’t have
time to work on the contest until Saturday morning.
The first task was to
choose a language. On the one hand, the strict time limit argued for an easy-
to-hack “batteries included” language like Python, for which libraries, IDEs,
and cross-platform runtime were all readily available. On the other hand, the
requirement for high performance and ability to correctly handle unknown
inputs argued for a type safe, compiled language like ML or O’Caml.
I spent a
half an hour trying to set up an O’Caml IDE under Eclipse, but unfortunately
was not able to figure out how to get the debuger to work. Then I switched to
Python and the PyDev IDE, and never
ran into a problem that made me consider switching back.
I realize that the
resulting program is much slower than a compiled O’Caml would be, and it
probably has lurking bugs that the O’Caml type system would have found at
compile time. But it’s the best I could do in the limited time available for
It was very pleasant to develop in Python. It’s got a very nice
syntax. I was never at a loss for how to proceed. Either it “just worked”, or
else a quick web search would immediately find a good answer. (Thanks Google!)
The main drawback was that the Python compiler doesn’t catch simple mistakes
like uninitialized variables until run time. Fortunately that wasn’t too much
of a problem for this contest, as the compile-edit-debug cycle was only a few
seconds long, and it only took a few minutes to run a whole test suite.
initial development went smoothly: I wrote was the code to connect to the
simulation server and read simulation data from the server. Then I created
classes for the various types of objects in the world, plus a class to model
the world as a whole. I then wrote a method that examined the current state of
the world and decided what the Martian rover should do next. Finally I wrote a
method that compared the current and desired Martian rover control state, and
sent commands back to the simulation server to update the Martian rover
The meat of the problem is deciding how to move the rover. The
iterative development cycle helped a lot here – by being able to run early
tests, I quickly discovered that the presence of fast-moving enemies put a
premium on high speed movement. You couldn’t cautiously analyze the world and
proceed safely, you had to drive for the goal as quickly as possible.
initial approach was to search for the closest object in the path of the
rover, and steer around it. This worked, but had issues in complicated
environments. Then I switched to an idea from Craig Reynolds’ Not Bumping
Into Things paper: I rendered
the known world into a 1D frame buffer, and examined the buffer to decide
which way to go. That worked well enough that I used it in my submission.
I spent about fourteen hours on the contest: Two hours reading the problem and
getting the IDE together, ten hours over two days programming and debugging,
and about two hours testing the program on the Knoppix environment and
figuring out how to package and submit the results.
Things I wish I had had time to do
- My rover is tuned for the sample data sets. The organizers promised to use significantly different data sets in the real competition. Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to adapt the program to these other data sets, beyond some trivial adjustments based on potential differences in top speed or sensor range.
- I model the world at discreet times, and don’t account for the paths objects take over time. I can get away with this because I’m typically traveling directly towards or away from important obstacles, so their relative motion is low. But I would have trouble navigating through whirling rings of Martians.
- I don’t take any advantage of knowledge of the world outside the current set of sensor data. The game explicitly allows you to remember the world state from run to run during a trial. This could be a big win for path planning when approaching the goal during the second or later trials.
- I don’t do any sort of global path planning. A simple maze around the goal would completely flummox my rover.
I very much enjoyed the contest this year. I look forward to finding out how
well I did, as well as reading the winning programs. The contest results will
be announced at the actual ICFP conference
in late September.
The rules for this year’s ICFP contest have
just been posted. Although the actual problem won’t be posted until Friday
July 11th, the rules themselves are interesting:
- Your code will be run on a 1GB RAM 4GB swap 2GHz single-processor 32-bit AMD x86 Linux environment with no access to the Internet.
- You have to submit source code.
- You may optionally submit an executable as well (useful if for example you use a language that isn’t one of the short list of languages provided by the contest organizers.)
- Teams are limited to 5 members or less.
I have mixed feelings about these rules. The good news is:
- It should be possible for most interested parties to recreate the contest environment by using the contest-provided Live CD. A computer capable of running the contest could be purchased new for around $350.
- It seems that the focus will be on writing code in the language of the contestant’s choice, rather than writing code in the language of the contest organizer’s choice. This wasn’t the case in some previous year’s contests.
- It provides a level playing field in terms of CPU resources available to contestants.
- It ensures that the winning entry is documented. (A few years ago the contest winner never wrote up their entry, which was quite disappointing.)
The bad news is:
- It penalizes contestants with low Internet bandwidth. The Live CD image is not yet available for download, and I anticipate some contestants will have difficulty downloading it in time to compete in the contest.
- It penalizes non-Linux users, who are forced to use an alien development environment and operating system.
- It penalizes languages too obscure to make the contest organizer’s list. That goes against the whole “prove your language is the best” premise of the contest.
- The target system is 32 bits and single core, which is at least five years out of date, and does little to advance the state of the art. This penalizes many languages and runtimes. For example OCaml has a harsh implementation limit on array size in 32 bit runtimes that is relaxed in 64-bit runtimes.
- It seems as if there won’t be any during-the-contest scoring system, so we will have to wait until the ICFP conference to find out how the contestants did.
Still, I’m hopeful that the contest itself will still be enjoyable. I look
forward to reading the actual programming problem on Friday.
I just bought a
Buffalo LinkStation Mini 500GB
Networked Attached Storage (NAS) device. It’s a very small
fanless Linux file server with two 250 GB hard drives, 128 MB of RAM, a 266
MHz ARM CPU and a gigabit Ethernet port.
My reasons for buying a NAS
- I wanted to provide a reliable backup of family photos and documents, and I was getting tired of burning CDs and DVDs.
- I wanted a small Linux-based server I could play with.
My reason for buying the LinkStation Mini
- It’s fanless.
- It’s tiny.
- Buffalo has a good reputation for NAS quality.
- There is a decent sized Buffalo NAS hacking community.
- Fry’s had it on sale. :-)
Setting it up
Setup was very easy – I unpacked the box, pluged everything in, and installed
a CD of utility programs. The main feature of the utility program is that it
helps find the IP address of the NAS. All the actual administration of the NAS
is done via a Web UI.
To RAID or not to RAID
The LinkStation Mini comes with two identical drives, initially set up as
RAID0. This means that files are split across the two drives, which means that
if either drive fails all your files will be lost. Using the Web UI, I
reformatted the drives to RAID1, which means that each file is stored on both
drives. This of course halves the amount of disk space available to store
files, but I thought the added security was worth it. This process of
switching over was fairly easy to do, but it erases all the data on the drives
and it takes about 80 minutes.
RAID1 is more secure than RAID0, but it is not perfectly secure. There’s still
a chance of losing all the data if the controller goes bad, or if the whole
device is stolen or destroyed. So for extra security I will probably end up
buying a second NAS (or USB 2.0 drive), and setting up an automatic backup of
the backup device. The Mini can be set to perform periodic automatic backups
to a second LinkStation for this very reason. Once I do that, I’ll probably
reformat my NAS’s drives back to RAID0 to enjoy the extra storage space.
Getting Access to Linux root
There is a program called acp_commander, that enables you to remotely log
in as root on any Buffalo LinkStation Mini on the same LAN as your PC. Once
logged in as root you can read and write any file on the NAS. You can use this
power to install software and reconfigure your system.
Yes, this is a security hole – it means anyone with access to your local
LAN can bypass all the security on the file server.
Very advanced users can patch the security hole by following the instructions at this web forum.
I think it’s extremely negligent of Buffalo to configure their NAS devices in
this way. Imagine the uproar if Microsoft shipped a product with this kind of
Playing with Linux
Once I obtained root access to the Mini I was able to install additional
software. I installed the
Optware package system,
which gives access to a wide variety of precompiled utility programs, as well
as tools for writing new programs.
(Yeah, I know, it’s crazy to run software on a file server that’s supposed to
be backing up important data. Right now I’m just having fun playing with my
new toy, but eventually I’m going to have to get serious about making it work
From looking at what other people have done, I am thinking that I might set up
a small web server, or perhaps a media server for streaming music and video.
Thinking of the Future
There’s an active LinkStation hacking community at
buffalo.nas-central.org. Unfortunately the Linkstation
Mini is so new that
nobody in the NAS hacking community knows much about it.
now it seems to be similar to a LinkStation Pro Duo,
but only experience will show
if this is true.
The Mini comes with a USB 2.0 port, to which you can attach a printer and/or a
hard disk. While the hard disk isn’t part of a RAID array, it could be used to
back up the RAID array, providing an additional layer of security.
There must be 20 different NAS vendors, although many of them just repackage
reference designs made by the SOC vendors. SOC mean System on Chip. Marvell
seems to be the dominant player in the NAS SOC market these days. A good
overview of available NAS products can be found by visiting
Small Net Builder.
Some brands like Revolution,
Synology cater to
enthusiasts who are interested in using the NAS as a mini Linux server. The
only thing that stopped me from buying those brands is that (a) they’re more
expensive, and (b) they don’t currently have fanless RAID1 form factors.
The Revolution brand is actually owned by Buffalo. They add hardware daughter
boards to standard Buffalo products. The daughter boards have extra flash
chips and I/O connectors. It’s possible that there will be a Revolution “Kuro
box” version of the Mini some day.
The venerable (out-of-production, but still available in stores) Linksys
NSLU2 product is fanless and cheap, and very
popular with hackers, but you need to add hard
drives, and I don’t think its networking performace is very good compared to
more recent products.
Another approach is to use a PC, either running a regular OS like Windows XP,
Windows Server, OSX or Linux, or a special-purpose stripped-down NAS version.
I do have an old PC currently running Windows Media Center that I could use
for this purpose, but I didn’t seriously consider this option because I wanted
something small, low-power, and quiet. (And I was looking for an excuse to
learn how to administer a Linux system anyway.)
Apple makes NAS products too. Their the Airport Extreme and Time Capsule
products both look OK, but neither one supports RAID1. And there doesn’t seem
to be a software hacking community around these products. There is a software
hacking community around the AppleTV, which you could make into a NAS by
adding some USB 2.0 hard drives.
Some routers (like the Apple Airport Extreme mentioned above) have USB 2.0
ports, but I think they avoid advertising themselves as NAS products because
they don’t have enough RAM (or CPU) to act as both routers and file servers.
As a result, these products tend to have relatively low NAS performance.
Some people would laugh at a NAS that has only 240GB of storage. They are more
interested in the high-end NASes that use four or five 1GB disks. When
formatted in RAID5 configuration those NASes have 3GB of usable space. But
they also cost $600 plus the cost of the drive ($160 each). Which is much more
than I wanted to spend. Besides the cost, another drawback is that these
products are nearly as large and noisy as regular PCs. Still, if you’ve got a
lot of video (or are anticipating generating a lot of video in the future) the
larger NASs are the way to go.
A NAS in Every Garage?
While all my friends and I are setting up file servers to store their family’s
videotapes, I’m not sure if the product will become universally popular. I
think it will depend on how people’s secure storage needs evolve.
We’re already seeing small files (email, photos, low-res videos) being stored
in the cloud. It seems like it’s just a matter of time before everything is.
Unless people suddenly come up with compelling new applications that use
dramatically more data (holographic TV perhaps?), it seems likely that
people’s personal storage needs are going to top out in the next decade. If
disk capacity and network bandwidth keep growing at a rapid pace for several
decades beyond that, then it seems inevitable that cloud storage will
eventually take over.
In any event, by the time this happens my little Mini will long since have
been retired. (I remember paying $100 apiece for 1GB Jaz disks back in the
day. It’s amazing how far and how fast storage prices have fallen.) If all
goes well, my my family’s photos and other important documents will still be
I went to the Computer History Museum
today. I saw the Visual Storage exhibit, which is a collection of famous
computers, the Babbage Difference Engine, which is a very elaborate
reproduction of a never-actually-built Victorian era mechanical calculator,
and the PDP-1 demo. This last demo was very special to me, because I finally
got to play the original Spacewar!
game, and meet and chat with Steve
Russell, the main developer.
(Perusing Wikipedia I now realize that Steve was also an early Lisp hacker.
D’Oh!, I was going to ask a question about Lisp on the PDP-1, but I got
There’s a Java Spacewar! emulator, but it doesn’t properly convey the
look of the PDP-1 radar-scope-based display. The scope displays individual
dots, 20,000 times per second. Each dot starts as a fuzzy bright blue-white
dot, but then fades quickly to a dim yellow-green spot, which takes another 10
seconds to fade to black. This means that dim yell0w-green trails form behind
the ships as they fly around. These trails add a lot to the game’s distinctive
look. (In addition, due to time multi-plexing, the stars of the starfield are
much dimmer than the space ships or the sun.) The fuzzyness of the dots means
that the spaceships look much smoother on the PDP-1 scope than they do in the
According to Steve Russel and the other docents, the Java
version also runs faster than a real PDP-1.
I also got to see serveral other
cool PDP-1 hacks, including the original Munching Squares, 4-voice square-wave
computer synthezed music, and the famed Minskeytron. The author of the music
synth program, Peter
present, and explained how he carefully patched into four of the console
lights to make a four-voice D/A converter to get music out of the machine.
They keep all the hacks loaded into the PDP-1 core at the same time, and just
use the front panel to decide which one to jump to. The core memory is non-
volitile. The PDP-1 even booted in a few seconds – just the time it took the
power supply to come up to speed.
The PDP-1 demo is given twice a month, on
the second and fourth Saturdays. I highly recommend it for adults and children
over 12. (It’s 45 minutes long, so younger kids might get bored.)
I recently spent a lot of time using two different in-flight entertainment
systems: one on Eva Air, and another on Virgin Atlantic. For people who
haven’t flown recently, I should explain that these systems consist of a
touch-sensitive TV monitor combined with a remote-control-sized controller.
The systems typically offer music, TV, movies, flight status, and video games.
I believe both systems were based on Linux. I saw the Eva system crash and
reboot, and the Virgin Air system has a number of Linux freeware games.
GUI frameworks were pretty weak – both systems made poor use of the touch
screen and had obvious graphical polish issues. The Virgin system was much
higher resolution, and was 16:9 aspect ratio. I expect it was running on
slightly higher-spec hardware.
Both systems worked pretty well for playing
music and watching TV or movies. The media controls were pretty limited -
neither system allowed seeking to a particular point in a movie, or even
reliably fast forwarding. Both systems provided enough media to entertain your
average customer for the duration of the flight.
One cool feature of the EVA
system was backwards compatibility mode with the older “channel” music system
from the 70’s. The controller came with the traditional “channel” UI. If you
used the channel buttons, the system simply acted like the old system, cycling
through a limited number of preset channels. One nice difference from the old
channel system is that these new virtual channels always started when you
switched to them, rather than having to join the looping presentation at
whatever point it happened to be in.
The game portions of both sysetems were
very weak. None of the games were very good. Perhaps the best game was a port
of the shareware Doom game on the Virgin Atlantic system. (I used an in-flight
entertainment system on Singapore Air many years ago that had Nintendo games.
It was more fun.)
The Virgin system allowed you to order food and drink, which
was nice. Both systems had credit card swipers, and offered some for-pay
Both systems allowed you to make in-flight phone calls. EVA allowed
you to send SMS messages and emails. Both systems allowed you to create “play
lists” of music tracks that would then be played while you did other tasks. I
enjoyed this, but I suspect it’s not used much, as anyone with the
sophistication and interest to use this UI would probably have their own MP3
The Virgin system had two other very nice features: 1) laptop power in
most seats (although only two plugs for every three seats), and 2) Ethernet
connections. Unfortunately the ethernet connections were not yet active.
Virgin allowed you to “chat” between seats. I didn’t try this, but it seems
like it would be fun for some situations (e.g. when a high school class takes
a trip.) I expect that the Doom game can play between seats as well, but
Virgin also had normal mini stereo headphone plugs, which
I think was a good idea. Eva had two kinds of audio plug, but neither one was
the normal mini stereo plug. I tried using “Skull candy” noise-canceling
headphones with the Virgin system, and while they helped suppress the airplane
noise, they didn’t eliminate it completely.
It will be interesting to see how
these systems evolve over time. I think that once in-plane internet access
becomes practical people will prefer to surf the Internet to using most of the
other services. (besides movie watching) And with the in-seat power, I think
many people will prefer using their own laptop to the in-seat system. On the
other hand, the in-seat system is very space efficient. There’s a chance
people will use it as a remote display for their own laptop or mobile phone,
which could then remain tucked away in the carry-on luggage.