Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Xbox 360 Kinect Said To Add Internet Explorer Browsing

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the browse-and-play dept.

Internet Explorer 143

TheGift73 writes in with this link about IE 9 coming to an Xbox 360 near you. "Microsoft is currently testing a modified version of Internet Explorer 9 on its Xbox 360 console, according to our sources. The Xbox 360 currently includes Bing voice search, but it's limited to media results. Microsoft's new Internet Explorer browser for Xbox will expand on this functionality to open up a full browser for the console. We are told that the browser will let Xbox users surf all parts of the web straight from their living rooms."

cancel ×

143 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

nigger box (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965177)

Niggers, niggers, niggers. I haaaaaaaate niggers!

And kikes, too.

virus (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965181)

what to do when xbox gets a virus?

Re:virus (0)

magicdev (2637061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965191)

Considering that 360 can only run signed executables, and that IE9 is actually the safest web browser around (especially it's sandbox and other security features), I'd say it's quite unlikely.

Re:virus (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965227)

[citation needed[

P.S.: Hi there, DCTechGuysIn140Bytes.

Re:virus (4, Informative)

Xacid (560407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965241)

Re:virus (4, Insightful)

Sylak (1611137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965279)

NSS said that “Internet Explorer 9 was by far the best at protecting against socially-engineered malware

Meaning what? Malware that you need to activate yourself because you're a moron?

Re:virus (2)

Tx (96709) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965425)

Yes; from the NSS labs report: "Recent studies show that users are four times more likely to be tricked into downloading malware than be compromised by an exploit ." and " Note: This study does not evaluate browser security related to vulnerabilities in plug -ins or the browsers themselves.".

Seems quite a stretch to claim IE9 is the "safest web browser" based on a report that specifically does not test browser or plug-in vulnerabilities, even if PEBKAC vulnerabilities are more prevalent, although maybe the poster who claimed that had some other source.

Re:virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965827)

Let's see: Wikipedia says Xbox LIVE has about 40 million members. Internet Explorer hasn't had the best history when it comes to exploits.
Hmmmm, I imagine it will be a fun challenge for a virus writer. Exactly how much personal information do you think they could steal?

Re:virus (0)

WhiteArmor (2637119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965989)

Internet Explorer has had very solid security record after IE5. ActiveX was a big mess, but it was innovative technology that even Google is trying to replicate with their embedded binaries now. It's also the reason why Microsoft spend so much time hardening IE's security. Now a days when the most attacked vector is third party software like Flash and PDF Reader, IE is almost the only browser capable of blocking these attacks. Firefox still has NO SANDBOX AT ALL. It's like having sex with a prostitute in Cambodia - when the hiv rate is almost 20% among the sex workers, only an idiot would have sex without a condom.

Re:virus (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 2 years ago | (#39967297)

Internet Explorer hasn't had the best history when it comes to exploits.

Which makes it even more impressive that Sony can overtake Microsoft as the undisputed exploit king, and that's been achieved without the help of IE!

Re:virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965437)

Apparently. The cited link above specifically stated "Excluded from the test were typical browser vulnerabilities, as well as sites that integrate nasty clickjacking or drive-by downloads. All included websites required user action".

Pretty sure IE would end up dead last if real tests were used, and not "Hey, dipshit, this site is fake."

Re:virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965893)

and with noscript, Firefox is practically immune to clickjacking attempts (it has a built in click-jacker detector, even if you enable scripts)

Re:virus (2)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966789)

I love when they compare the newest version of IE to 7 full versions previous of Firefox. It always makes for such an objective comparison.

Re:virus (1)

kharbour (559204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39968215)

I love when they compare the newest version of IE to 7 full versions previous of Firefox. It always makes for such an objective comparison.

At the rate Firefox versions come out these days, I'd say it's a fair comparison.

Re:virus (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39969109)

IE 9 was made in 2010 so its a fair comparison.

IE 10 should be compared to web browsers today.

Microsoft is a virus (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965273)

"and that IE9 is actually the safest web browser around"

show me the source code or I call bullshit. Same with Opera, fuck the claims about security, how many remote exploits are patched every few weeks by Microshit? Like I would trust proprietary blob shit!

Re:Microsoft is a virus (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965405)

"and that IE9 is actually the safest web browser around"

show me the source code or I call bullshit. Same with Opera, fuck the claims about security, how many remote exploits are patched every few weeks by Microshit? Like I would trust proprietary blob shit!

Duh. So if they don't release patches, it was more secure? Also: nobody is going to show you source code. People don't even care that you have an opinion that you post anonymously.

Re:virus (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965445)

Brand new account made to claim that IE9 is the most secure browser.
Are you shills even trying?

Re:virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965351)

install norton antivirus and turn it into a paperweight?

Re:virus (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965379)

I suspect it won't do Flash or ActiveX, so it'll probably be reasonably safe. No bridge to outside world is completely safe of course, but if you limit the active content to JavaScript it probably won't be too bad. IE isn't nearly as full of holes as it used to be (not much worse than any other browser these days, really) and a lot of what is there for holes are in ActiveX. Add to that the fact that the XBox won't run unsigned code, it doesn't run Windows so any exploit would have to be completely retooled, and the fact that while there are a fair number of XBoxes out there, it's only a fraction of the number of Windows PCs; and I suspect not too many people will be willing to devote the effort to put nasties in the wild. Who know though. Maybe someone will figure out how to own the things.

Re:virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39967477)

what to do when xbox gets a virus?

Woah, seriously, I don't think everyone here quite understands the importance of the AC's post just now. No, really, look at it and think about it for a few minutes.

Do you see it? No, man, look at it harder. When I tell you, you're going to feel so stupid that you didn't get it sooner.

Give up? It's the first significant post to an article about Microsoft, and it's not from the MS shill vats! Look at it! Even two whole minutes after the article was posted, the shills didn't march out with a pre-written, marketing-department-screened post, and something like this got in before them!

I mean... wow. Just... wow. They must've realized Microsoft isn't paying them well enough.

Re:virus (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39967927)

i submitted this same story addressing this same angle, but they ran someone else's submission instead. probably thought it was trolling.

Oh really? (5, Insightful)

robcfg (1005359) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965203)

"We are told that the browser will let Xbox users surf all parts of the web straight from their living rooms." Does that include YouTube for example? As far as I remember you have to be a XBox Live Gold Member to use the YouTube application...

Re:Oh really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965317)

And Netflix, and Xfinity App, etc etc etc... All of these would then become instantly available through the use of an internet browser that can surf all parts of the web. Unless they are going to require an Xbox Live Gold membership to be able to use the browser....

Re:Oh really? (1)

mlk (18543) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965373)

Only if it supports Flash, which I don't think it will.

I think it will be a Gold feature.

Re:Oh really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39966219)

Youtube doesn't need Flash, so the question is still relevant.

Re:Oh really? (1)

garrettg84 (1826802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965375)

I wonder if this will allow Hulu "Web Only" content. I cant understand how getting Hulu over the internet is not automatically classified as 'Web Only' but there are shows that will not stream to the XBOX360 and **MUST** be watched in a browser.

Re:Oh really? (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965413)

Mostly stuff that Hulu just links to the network's website. I ran into this when I changed to FIOS and forgot to setup "Criminal Minds" to record. It's not on On Demand, and Hulu lists it on their site, but only links to cbs.com, so I couldn't use the XBox. We just watched it on my wife's laptop, but I definitely would have preferred the TV.

How to hook a laptop up to a TV (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965671)

We just watched it on my wife's laptop, but I definitely would have preferred the TV.

Does your laptop have HDMI, DVI, or VGA out? If so, use the TV as an external monitor for your laptop [pineight.com] .

Re:Oh really? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965919)

"Web only" is rather correct. "Internet" is generally the TCP/IP stack, "Web" is just one of the many applications that use the internet.
They could have used a more obvious name like "Webbrowser only" though.

Re:Oh really? (0)

garrettg84 (1826802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39967389)

Irritating. Take your correctness somewhere else. Ever seen a link on the 'web' to something like SSH, or a UNC path to a windows/samba share, how about an email link? These are not 'web' but still exist within the 'web'. Your concept of what the "web" or internet has evolved into is outdated. Yes, I understand what HTTP is as well as most other common protocols out there, and yes I know the tcp/ip stack up and down. Another thing about these streaming sites like Hulu - likely, they are not even using HTTP for the media. Some other application/media server normally handles the streaming to try to keep it as proprietary and controlled as possible. Even if "web browser only" was more correct, I wouldn't need flash/silverlight

You appear to be oversimplifying and over complicating the matter at the same time. Stop. Nobody cares. Next time, try to contribute something.

Re:Oh really? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39968361)

Right, that's what I should have commented on your post complaining about Hulu getting the term "web only" wrong.

Re:Oh really? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965403)

And Netflix, and Xfinity App, etc etc etc... All of these would then become instantly available through the use of an internet browser that can surf all parts of the web. Unless they are going to require an Xbox Live Gold membership to be able to use the browser....

That's my guess. I refuse to pay M$ money every month to use something I've already paid for (or received as a gift). Nearly all Internet functions, with the exception of updates, require a Gold Membership to use. We use our Wii for things like Netflix at no extra costs and the 360 for Kinnect games.

Re:Oh really? (1)

Tmann72 (2473512) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965581)

I have no doubt that the browser will be a gold feature as well. So it probably won't matter.

Re:Oh really? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965327)

You're assuming that the browser is going to have what it takes to support Youtube. But if they bone it hard enough it won't be able to go there, or to lots of other sites.

Re:Oh really? (1)

ThinkWeak (958195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965363)

"We are told that the browser will let Xbox users surf all parts of the web straight from their living rooms." Does that include YouTube for example? As far as I remember you have to be a XBox Live Gold Member to use the YouTube application...

I'm not trying to be rude, but do people actually buy an Xbox and not have a Gold membership? It equates to something like $5 per month for access to demos, weekly arcade games, an indie game market, promo videos, media streaming, a stable staging environment for multiplayer gaming across games, etc.

Not to burst your bubble, but you'll probably need a Gold membership to use the IE browser anyways. Hopefully they launch Skype soon. That's my only real complaint.

Re:Oh really? (1)

robcfg (1005359) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965395)

"We are told that the browser will let Xbox users surf all parts of the web straight from their living rooms." Does that include YouTube for example? As far as I remember you have to be a XBox Live Gold Member to use the YouTube application...

I'm not trying to be rude, but do people actually buy an Xbox and not have a Gold membership? It equates to something like $5 per month for access to demos, weekly arcade games, an indie game market, promo videos, media streaming, a stable staging environment for multiplayer gaming across games, etc. Not to burst your bubble, but you'll probably need a Gold membership to use the IE browser anyways. Hopefully they launch Skype soon. That's my only real complaint.

For me the key point is why do I have to pay for something that is free? I mean, I can watch youtube without restrictions on my Windows PC but I have to pay extra to do the same on the 360. And I don't have a gold account because I'm not into online gaming, but I'd like to watch youtube in my living room tv.

Re:Oh really? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966275)

Exactly. I'd have no problems paying $5 a month if I was an avid online player on the xbox 360, because I'm actually using Microsoft's servers.

But to watch YouTube? That's plain ridiculous. It'd be like having to pay Apple $5 a month to be able to surf the web on my iPad.

Ugh. I better shut up. Don't want to give them ideas.

Re:Oh really? (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39969045)

It'd be like having to pay Apple $5 a month to be able to surf the web on my iPad.

Ugh. I better shut up. Don't want to give them ideas.

You forgot to account for the Apple Tax. It will probably be $10 total.

Re:Oh really? (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39969003)

I am curious. What kind and how much of the traffic that comes from an Xbox 360 actually goes through Microsoft's network?

Re:Oh really? (1)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965533)

I'm not trying to be rude, but do people actually buy an Xbox and not have a Gold membership? It equates to something like $5 per month for access to demos, weekly arcade games, an indie game market, promo videos, media streaming, a stable staging environment for multiplayer gaming across games, etc. Not to burst your bubble, but you'll probably need a Gold membership to use the IE browser anyways. Hopefully they launch Skype soon. That's my only real complaint.

Well I'm guessing that people that have more than one console are MUCH less likely to pay for Gold membership. All the things you mentioned you can do for free on the wii or ps3. The only part that would be worth the gold would be multiplayer in a game you couldn't get on another platform. Which does happen, just not often.

Re:Oh really? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965727)

an indie game market

All the things you mentioned you can do for free on the wii or ps3.

Unless you're talking about Homebrew Channel on Wii, Wii and PlayStation 3 don't really have an indie game market comparable to Xbox Live Indie Games or the iOS App Store that copied XBLIG. Nintendo still insists [warioworld.com] on WiiWare developers having a dedicated office and "relevant game industry experience" (a previous commercial game on another platform), and indie developers operating out of home offices can't necessarily afford those.

Re:Oh really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965991)

See PS3 minis.

Re:Oh really? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966401)

Where's the signup page to become a PS3 minis developer? This press release [eventnewscenter.com] mentions "SCEA Third Party Relations", but all I get when I visit the URL in the press release [scea.com] is "YOU ARE NOT AUTHORISED TO ACCESS THIS SITE".

Re:Oh really? (1)

LtGordon (1421725) | more than 2 years ago | (#39967715)

Can someone please explain to me why Sony doesn't do more to encourage indie games? As best I can tell, because Sony makes most of their profit from game sales, they don't want to risk allowing a new market to compete with the money-makers, which is logical.

My feeling, though, is that opening up new markets and capabilties can only increase the demand for the console, which in turn should at least balance out a theoretical loss in game sales: Nobody buys a console specifically for indie games, but for many it's definitely an influencing factor, and these additional buyers are almost certain to buy something. Indie apps hasn't exactly killed Android.

Re:Oh really? (1)

phriedom (561200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39969475)

But the thing that Xbox Live has over Wii or PS3, or even the PC for that matter, is the built-in voice communication, separate and compatible with the games and apps, so you can join up in a Party, then fire up Netflix together or go into a game together and have the chat continue to work through the loading screens and not interfere with the application sound. Playing with people you know, even if you only know them from Xbox Live, is so much better. It works so much better that I know some people who wanted to play Killzone together on their PS3s, and they fired up their Xboxen just to provide the communication.

Re:Oh really? (1)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965809)

Since when is a gold account required for buying Live Arcade and indie games? Almost all of demos are available for silver members as well, though some have/had timed exclusivity to gold members (which is BS in my opinion)

Re:Oh really? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966251)

I don't mind paying for something that requires servers that MS has to maintain, like multiplayer gaming.

However, paying to do things like watch Netflix, YouTube, or use a web browser is too far, because I'm not actually using Microsoft's servers to do any of that. Why should I have to pay monthly for it?

I know it's not much money, it's more about principle than anything else. I hardly even use my Xbox 360 anymore because I got tired of all the nickel and diming and crippled games. Anyone who has ever compared Team Fortress 2 on the PC with the Xbox version will know what I'm talking about.

Gaming on the PC is far superior; unfortunately publishers using excessive DRM and requiring $600 video cards are frustrating even some of the strongest holdouts over to consoles, so it's become a niche market.

Re:Oh really? (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39969277)

Gaming on the PC is far superior; unfortunately publishers using excessive DRM and requiring $600 video cards are frustrating even some of the strongest holdouts over to consoles, so it's become a niche market.

$600 video card? I think I spend $250 and I have yet to run into a game that I couldn't run on the highest graphics settings. You are forgetting that consoles are holding back game graphics. Today, most game companies build with consoles in mind. The graphics card in consoles are not upgradable. Even if a console had the best available graphics cards at the time of creation, consoles tend to go years without a new console coming out. That said, it doesn't really bother me. Graphics have gotten to the point that while better graphics are always welcome, the current graphics are sufficiently pleasing. I would rather game companies focus on better AI. Of course, I guess the console would eventually hold that back too.

Re:Oh really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39966273)

The Gold membership is why I stopped buying things for my 360. Multiplayer should never be behind a paywall. They keep throwing in all these features that are utterly useless if you just use the system to play games and try to use that to justify the price, but ultimately they're just the troll under the bridge charging you a toll to use your internet connection. The fact that large sections of content for a game can suddenly disappear because you didn't pay Microsoft their monthly bribe is stupid. I don't care how little that bribe is, it's a terrible precedent which MS has already tried to expand upon.

Anyone else remember when Games For Windows Live required a Gold subscription and ultimately just locked away features that were standard in PC games? They'll charge for whatever players will accept, and that's ultimately the problem. Too many people just accept it because "it's not that much."

Re:Oh really? (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966299)

I'm not trying to be rude, but do people actually buy an Xbox and not have a Gold membership? It equates to something like $5 per month for access to demos

Wrong

weekly arcade games

Wrong

an indie game market

Wrong

promo videos

Wrong

media streaming

From PC to XBox - Wrong
From Netflix et al - Right

a stable staging environment for multiplayer gaming across games

Right

Not trying to be an arse, just want to clarify a few things ;)

Re:Oh really? (1)

ThinkWeak (958195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39969571)

I guess I'm oblivious to what I'm paying for then. I just thought those were perks to the online gaming. Here's the official list [xbox.com]

I don't see it mentioned, but do Silver Accounts get the 500mb "cloud backup" too?

Re:Oh really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39967943)

I already paid Microsoft a huge pile of money for an Xbox. I sure the hell am no paying them a regular fee. Is money so worthless to you that you don't mind being milked dry by dozens of people? As someone pointed out, most of the thing you listed are free already. It does make me a big angry that I can't use Netflix on my Xbox when it came as a free app on a box costing 1/5 the price, but that's how the scam works.

I hope it lets me use Bing search (4, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965385)

I hope it lets me use Bing search. Having Bing search on my TV in my living room would be a dream come true.

Get an EeeBox (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965773)

If your Xbox disappoints, then get a different box. Buy an ASUS EeeBox, plug its HDMI out into your HDTV's HDMI in, get a wireless keyboard, and you have Bing search.

Re:Get an EeeBox (4, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966859)

I want it via a genuine Microsoft product. Only then will I get the full Bing experience.

EeeBox with genuine Windows (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39968911)

It took me all of five seconds to Google for an EeeBox that comes with a genuine Windows 7 Home Premium operating system.

Re:I hope it lets me use Bing search (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39967225)

Bing? I have Google as my home page on my TV (and no xbox, it's a real PC). Why would anyone deliberately use Bing? The only times I've been to Bing is by accident (like forgetting to change BT's or a new browser's default search).

Re:I hope it lets me use Bing search (0)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39969369)

The MS shills are really out in full force on this post. Trying to bump that horrible search engine and the names is all that's happening. I'm not using either name rather intentionally.

Oh, and putting internet exploder on the console is plain dumb. I give it less than a day before there is a mass zombie army of those things spamming pron advert emails. I'd be willing to guess that other console makers considered similar ideas, and rejected them because of the possibility of doing just that. MS has never cared about the consumer as much as they cared about revenues, customers are just an afterthought..

Re:Oh really? (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965607)

"We are told that the browser will let Xbox users surf all parts of the web straight from their living rooms."

I already do that, it's called "PC" and stands in my living room right besides the television...yes, I know you only quoted that part.

Statistically nobody has an HTPC (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965817)

surf all parts of the web straight from their living rooms

Except CronoCloud [slashdot.org] and several [slashdot.org] other [slashdot.org] users [slashdot.org] keep telling me that statistically nobody [slashdot.org] wants to do that. Therefore, publishers tend not to cater to the HTPC market.

Re:Statistically nobody has an HTPC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965927)

That's because most people just plug in their old laptop instead of buying an HTPC. I work with a bunch of engineers, but even the guys in their 50's have their old laptop hooked up to their TV. It's just a VGA cable and a sound cable.

Re:Statistically nobody has an HTPC (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966571)

That's because most people just plug in their old laptop instead of buying an HTPC. [...] It's just a VGA cable and a sound cable.

Except I'm told that a lot of people either A. have a desktop and no laptop, B. have an SDTV and no HDTV, C. have an HDTV with only HDMI input and no VGA and an old laptop with only VGA output and no HDMI, or D. don't know what that blue D-shaped port on the back of the TV is useful for. I've tried to address D on my page [pineight.com] , but how can the others be addressed?

Re:Statistically nobody has an HTPC (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966301)

I'm about as geek as you can get, but have no desire to surf the web on a TV. Web surfing is a more personal thing; I'd rather do it on a desktop, laptop, or tablet than on a big TV.

Re:Statistically nobody has an HTPC (1)

Fishead (658061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966597)

I picked up an Acer Revo a while back because it had a fiber optic audio connection to the amp, and sat nice and quiet next to the TV.

Fast forward a year, and now I'm surfing the web reclined on the couch.

I could go 6 feet that way and sit at a more powerful computer on a desk, or sit up and use a more powerful laptop, but... I'm sitting at the lowest powered machine in the house whining when it chokes on something. Sucks to be lazy...

If I didn't know any better, I'd guess Microsoft is trying to realize their dream of owning a closed platform. The only thing they're missing now is an "office" package.

Re:Oh really? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966485)

"We are told that the browser will let Xbox users surf all parts of the web straight from their living rooms." Does that include YouTube for example?

I'm already watching YouTube in my living room on my TV, but I don't have an X-Box. I have an old PC running kubuntu that's using the TV as a monitor, which is pretty much all an X-Box is except the X-Box is using a different OS.

The PC-TV combo is great for old DOS games under DosBox, too. Now if I could get the old Windows games to play I'd be set.

A new era (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965209)

Xbox, open Brazzers.

Re:A new era (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965401)

Scroll up, scroll down, scroll up, scroll down, scroll up, scroll down, scroll up, scroll down, I can't see a thing damnit!

Re:A new era (1)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39967947)

Hey its a kinnect. You can use motion too. Thrust your hips rapidly to fast forward?

Finally, soft mods for the 360! (4, Interesting)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965233)

Thank you, Microsoft.

Re:Finally, soft mods for the 360! (2)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965303)

It probably won't have ActiveX support. So you can bet that will close up most security loopholes right there.

Re:Finally, soft mods for the 360! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965419)

I'd welcome it too if I had one.

JavaScript can let you do a fair number of things.
If the browser is quick to start, it won't be an issue to have your own web server on your network that has a bunch of apps on it that you can do whatever with, be it some games or whatever.

I done the same on PSP.
I made a horribly convoluted old-style webcam girl of the 90s remote desktop application for basic interaction with PC.
Well, not so convoluted, but a Flash VNC would have likely been better.
Only problem is PSP is slow at rendering images. So I had to make an image queue which it loaded the most recent one of.
Simple keyboard all around the screen, input control, done. Stemmed from a text editor that stored in cache.
Haven't used it in forever though.
I was in the process of writing a basic proxy that collapsed all sites in to a really tall site so I could read things easier without the need to either zoom or horizontal scroll. Never did bother.
I could likely do it with a userscript even easier now that I think about it.

Oh the things you do when you are bored.

Just now? (4, Informative)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965323)

I'm not a Sony fan, but didn't the PS3 come stock with a web browser? I always assumed the 360 did as well. Really MS? It took you this long to put a browser on it?

Re:Just now? (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965389)

antitrust and so fourth prevented it but relly if you think bought i everyone else has one so it would not be.

Re:Just now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965439)

English motherfucker, do you speak it?

Re:Just now? (1)

Tmann72 (2473512) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965609)

Do you have any source material to vouch that the anti-trust case prevented them from putting a browser on the system sooner? I'm curious as I never thought of it that way before.

Re:Just now? (1)

ifrag (984323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965407)

I'm not a Sony fan, but didn't the PS3 come stock with a web browser?

Yes, it does, and the PS3 one supports watching videos on Youtube as well. Although, overall it's a bit of a pain to use, certainly not an ideal way to browse. And if there was a way to get it to do 1080 for Youtube I never managed to find it.

All this trying to make consoles general purpose has been rather useless. The only thing the consoles do well is games and in the PS3/Xbox case they are also good enough for watching movies. Anything else and you are better off using a PC.

Re:Just now? (1)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965839)

Does the PS3 browser support HTML 5? It's been forever since I tired to browse YouTube on my PS3, but I thought at one point most of the videos didn't work because they required a newer version of Flash (which, from what I remember, hasn't been updated in ages).

Re:Just now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965411)

The WII had a decent browser (Opera 9) 5 years ago.

Re:Just now? (1)

mlk (18543) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965415)

Both PS3 and Wii have a browser. They both suck. Opera, while lovely, is a pain to control and PS3 one was crippled in fun new ways.

Re:Just now? (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965429)

The web browser on the PS3 is garbage, looks terrible on my TV screen, and the text hard to read. It has very limited features, and works poorly with sites like Facebook. Not sure how well it does with multimedia sites, since I've only dabbled with it a little bit. Maybe they've made improvements since the last time I used it, but if I want to look something up quickly, I'd rather use my iPhone because the Safari mobile browser is 10x better than the PS3 browser.

Re:Just now? (1)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965593)

Not sure how well it does with multimedia sites, since I've only dabbled with it a little bit.

It works fine with at least some media sites. I've tested it with pandora and youtube and they seem to work fine.

Re:Just now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39968515)

Shit. I'll take IE 6 over it

Re:Just now? (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965453)

The PS3 had an awful port of old Netfront (dumb phone browser engine) to the PS3. Some months ago they upgraded it to a more recent version of Netfront that is based on Webkit. It is a modern engine but still very slow on the PS3

Re:Just now? (1)

Nghtmr9999 (2634759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966095)

I can understand wanting to browse the from the comfort of your living room, but it just seems like PCs would be better. How good are the browsers on consoles anyway, I haven't used one?

Re:Just now? (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966359)

Largely bad. They're just there so you can check a few sites quickly. For a serious Web session, stick to a PC.

Re:Just now? (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966417)

I'm not a Sony fan, but didn't the PS3 come stock with a web browser?

Yes, it did, but it was pretty bad. I tried it a few times for various things, I was severely underwhelmed. There's very, very few things that I would want to browse on my TV over my PC, and those few things didn't even work well (eg, streaming video). It's also a pain typing with a controller any of the 3 controllers and an on-screen keyboard.

I always assumed the 360 did as well. Really MS? It took you this long to put a browser on it?

I had the same thought when the current gen of consoles first came out. But at this point, with the prevalence of browsers on smartphones and tablets, I don't think browsers on the console is a good idea, especially given the quality of the PS3/Wii browsers. Throw in the fact that Xbox360, PS3, and to a lesser degree, the Wii, all have native apps to do most things people would want (Hulu, Facebook, Netflix, etc), and browsers on consoles become a very niche feature that will mostly be ignored.

Re:Just now? (1)

c (8461) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966553)

The PS3? Heck, even the Wii comes with a browser. A shitty one, granted, but even Lynx is better than nothing...

Re:Just now? (1)

c9brown (1828396) | more than 2 years ago | (#39968291)

I was browsing on my Dreamcast in 1999.

Only now? (4, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965361)

Only now they're adding a web browser to their console?

Dreamcast: been there, done that, back in friggin' 1999.

Re:Only now? (1)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965869)

I believe that Saturn had a web browser before that (and the company that built that one went on to develop the Dreamcast's browser).

Re:Only now? (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966387)

Although it didn't have a web browser, the SNES was network-capable with the correct peripherals. Not sure if it could access anything outside gaming networks though.

Re:Only now? (1)

SoVi3t (633947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966635)

Damn you beat me to it. Seriously, the ability to surf the web on a 360 should have been a day one feature. This entire console gen was a serious letdown for me.

IE9?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965461)

What did my X-Box do to deserve Internet Explorer 9?

I promise it'll stop and be good.

Web Development (0)

Nghtmr9999 (2634759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965591)

No doubt Internet Explorer on the Xbox 360 will add additional lines of styling to the "Internet Explorer Only" CSS Stylesheets

Re:Web Development (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966395)

No more so than for phone-based browsers.

XBOX360 Antivirus anyone? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39965711)

I predict XBOX 360 Antivirus being released about a day after this happens. Internet has no place in a Microsoft product.

Why not Windows Media Player? (1)

landoltjp (676315) | more than 2 years ago | (#39968503)

Really? I can't really get that jacked up about surfing the web on my XBox. However, given that it's tied into my home stereo, why not ditch the silly Windows Media Player set up required now (tethered to a PC in the home) and run the entire app right on the XBox? the xbox can already see my music library; I would love to control it, maybe add some tracks, from WMP.

OR (and this wouldn't be bad), how about iTunes on the XBox? That would be kinda cool

Can't wait for www.jailbreakmyxbox360.com (1)

steppin_razor_LA (236684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39969113)

:)

Good news an bad news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39969663)

aaaaaaand youtube on the box filters gobs of content (try looking up a music video on your PC/Tablet and then do the same on your box), and it is so fricking slow I don't even bother using it.

Well at least one can browse the pr0n sites "hands free" now.........

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>