so you think that because something you will never see looks "amaturish", that it makes that product inferior? can you please show is specific examples and proof that shows an electronic performs better when it's internal components "look nice"?? absolutely dumb statement..lol

"so you think that because something you will never see looks "amaturish", that it makes that product inferior? can you please show is specific examples and proof that shows an electronic performs better when it's internal components "look nice"?? absolutely dumb statement..lol"

The insides of the 360 are poorly built, and how well is it holding up? More specifically, how many have you gone through?

whether you believe it or not, i am on my original launch 360 (December 18,2005), and you can check out my posts on xbox.com about that since i have been posting that whenever threads come up about it. yes, the earlier 360's have had heating issues, but not all of them. people blindly look at forums and say "see, there are tons of posts about faulty 360's". so how many people do you know that have perfectly working products go on forums and start threads saying "hey, my 360 has been running perfect again". of the 10,000,000 xbox360's in the market (let's even say only 8,000,000 are actually bought), of those 8,000,000 take 5% typical failure rate for electronics. you end up with 400,000 faulty 360's. that seems like alot, but not when it is a TYPICAL failure rate. unless you can go on forums and get us the usernames of more than 400,000 unique 360 owners, it is the SAME poeple that are making negative posts about their problematic 360's.

so again, there are MILLIONS of 360 owners that do not have any problems with their consoles, but we are only hearing from the users with problems, and so it automatically skews the numbers, and then people start "estimating" the number of problemtic 360's BASED ON NEGATIVE FORUM POSTS....absolutely dumb and biased.

I have yet to see PS3 Fan give a decent, open-minded comment on this site. A better-designed PCB does not necessarily correlate to performance, which is what I assume he/she is implying here. And if Microsoft should stick to software while Sony should stick to hardware, doesn't that also mean Sony Computer Entertainment's games and the PS3's XMB are garbage?

PS3FAN's comment is obviously fanboy in every nature of the word

hey buddy, are you an engineer? do you endulge in manufacturing PC boards and their layouts for a living? do you know ANYTHING about board revisions and layouts to even say what you said? are you an electrical engineer to even understand ANYTHING in terms of circuitry?

didn't think so... so shut it

While I agree its what the box can do thats important, I thought I would point out to everyone ripping at PS3 Fan that the layout and design of a motherboard is quite important. You can't simply connect wires to components all over the board and assume that its going to deliver the expected performance. Current technology has made it quite necessary to place components on the board in proper locations to maximize performance of the system as a whole. One of the greatest examples of this is that you always want your RAM to be as close as possible to the processors that need it. Additionally, you want to use the best materials appropriate to the job because they improve efficiency and reliability. You can question the fact that I'm saying this, but as a Computer Engineer I work on system design every day...

Wow PS3 Fan. You really are an absolute CUNT.

Its nice to hear that your launch unit is still functional, but I am on I am about to be on my third unit and two have bricked in the last 13 months and neither one was more than 8 months old at the time.... To make it even better yet, I have officially been informed by Microsoft that 9 months is now greater than 12 months! (read on to see what I mean...)

I spent 49 minutes on their customer service lines with "Nick" (the clueless and hopelessly useless account rep) and "Michael" (the worthless and impotent supervisor; who apparently can type about 1,000 words a minute - judging by the constant barrage of keystrokes during our call - but only speak one word per minute; the damn corksucker was probably playing a game while waiting me out!). The long and the short of it was that the best they would offer was a $104 repair bill for my second 360 and then a 12 month repair warranty on the repaired unit.

I kept asking them to explain how a 12 month manufacturer's warranty on the 360 I currently have (manufactured on 7/31/2006) could be "exceeded" in 9 months (as of 4/19/2007). They could not provide any answers beyond the "our warranty policy on repairs is for 90 days or the balance of the original warranty only".

What really threw me for a loop was the fact they would not budge from that position even as I broke it down for them by the relevant dates:

First 360 manufactured on 1/5/2006.
First 360 purchased on 3/5/2006.
First 360 malfunctioned on 9/10/2006 and sent for repairs on 9/14/2006.
First 360 replaced with a different unit, instead of repaired, then returned to me on 9/21/2006.
Second 360 manufactured on 7/31/2006.
Second 360 received on 9/21/2006.
Second 360 malfunctioned on 4/19/2007.

Now, I have no idea what the legality of the situation is, but I fail to understand how a manufacturer can offer a 12 month warranty on a product, then instead of repairing a unit under warranty, send out a separate, newer unit; and then later claim that the warranty does not apply to the replacement unit because it is beyond the original unit's 12 month period! That kind of assinine logic would hold up perfectly fine if I had been returned my original XBox 360 when I sent it in for repairs in Sept. 2006. But seeing as they chose to, instead of repairing the original unit, provide a "new" REFURBED unit with a different manufacturing date (but same fundemental design flaw), I don't see how that decision by Microsoft alleviates their responsibility to honor the manufacturer's warranty on their product. I am sure the attonery general for Missouri with have to help me figure that math out because for the life of me I can't do that math...

By the end of the call I had had more than enough "I'm sorry's" and "Let me see what I can do's" and just went off. Micheal, the witless mute, got to be the ear on the other end of the line for most of it. (I figured "fvck it"...if they are going to extort another $100 from me to fix something they should fix for free, then one of their poorly paid slaves will just have to take one for the team today.)

Basically told him that there would not be a fourth 360 in my future. If the one they send me next breaks that I would be more than happy to just get by with a PS3 only; and that while I actually like working 360's, it is a shame they (MS) are hell bent on destroying the brand with inept Quality Control practices and piss-poor rationalizations to customers. Despite all the good things, MS is well on their way to blowing any chances of "winning" their battle with Sony for console market share and that the 360 is quickly becoming synonymous with "Worst. Reliability. Ever." And in addition to MS's already legendary reputation as "GREEDY" they can now add "MALFESCENT" to the list.

The really sad thing is that I KNOW what is causing the problems (design flaw); and that if people on the internet can figure out the problem faster than the MS engineers, then maybe its time for MS to actually FIRE these dumb asses.

DrRage you are very wrong. The layout of a motherboard can have a significant impact upon the performance of a system and therefore also on the graphics that systems produces. Obviously what is coming out of 360 is good and therefore the motherboard is designed well enough to allow for that. However it is possible that they could improve performance with a new layout, just as it is possible that they could destroy what they already have with a new layout