If you've been tuning in for any length of time, you probably know that, despite the fact that we last played a console game when the Atari 2600 reigned supreme, we here at the AtAT studios are somewhat obsessed with the Great Xbox 2 Processor Controversy. Well, okay, technically the Controversy isn't all that Great; generally speaking, the population of planet earth believes that Microsoft's upcoming Xbox 2 will built around a PowerPC-derived chip, whereas industry analyst and dizzy moon unit Rob Enderle is completely and 100% sure it won't be. And sure, this has some semi-direct relevance to the Mac-vs.-Wintel debate, since Microsoft switching from Intel's x86 architecture to the PowerPC would speak volumes about which way Redmond thinks the wind blows, processor-wise. But honestly, the real reason why we're so enthralled is because we just can't stop wondering if Enderle will miraculously be right for once in his life. After all, he claims that Microsoft itself told him flat-out that the Xbox 2 G5 rumors were false. We can't just write that off, can we?

Well, maybe he misheard what they said or something. Because now, on top of all the other (largely circumstantial) evidence that Enderle's vision of an AMD-based Xbox 2 is the product of some sort of severe mental disconnect, faithful viewer David Poves has another bone to toss on the heap: The Register is reporting that Microsoft has decided not to include backwards compatibility in the Xbox 2. That's right; assuming that "sources close to the company" are correct, people who shell out for an Xbox 2 won't be able to use them to play existing Xbox games.

This actually comes as quite a shock to us; isn't Microsoft the king of obsessive backwards compatibility? We were always under the impression that that's why Windows 9x tended to crash twice if you made anything that might be possibly construed as a sudden movement less than thirty feet away. And in the console market, we're guessing that this alleged decision may not sit well with the customers, who have PlayStation 2 units that can happily accept PlayStation discs and spit out a rollicking good time. (And the upcoming PlayStation 3 is said to be backwards-compatible with games for PlayStations 2 and 1.) Microsoft, however, cites market research indicating that "in the end only ten per cent of PlayStation 2 buyers factored backward compatibility into their purchasing decision," and figures that's a low enough count of customers to alienate to just chuck the whole prospect altogether.

And this all comes back to the Great Xbox 2 Processor Controversy, because if the Xbox 2 were sticking with an x86-based chip as Enderle claims, one would think that backwards compatibility would be a cakewalk; Microsoft presumably wouldn't risk losing 10% of its potential market by locking out Xbox 1 games unless there were a good reason to do so. And if you've ever tried to play a processor- and graphics-intensive Windows game in Virtual PC and subsequently felt like lashing out at the world before turning the gun on yourself, you've experienced the "good reason" right there.

As far as evidence goes, it's still just circumstantial-- and based on rumor, no less-- but the obvious inference is that Microsoft hasn't been able to wrangle acceptable x86 emulation performance from its PowerPC-based Xbox 2 to be able to tout backwards compatibility as a selling point. For what it's worth, The Reg notes that Microsoft has since denied the "no backwards compatibility" rumors, but only in that "Microsoft hasn't made any announcements" manner that always smacks more of damage control than an actual denial. (Remember, McDonalds issued one of those when there were rumors of a digital song giveaway-- which, despite a last-minute change of players, turned out to be real.) And yet, despite the overwhelming odds, we're still rooting for Enderle to have made this single correct prediction, just for once in his life.

Why, yes, we are Cubs fans. However could you tell?