[mtfeeney = Baron]

Yeah, not having backward compatibility now is pretty inexcusable unless there's a really good reason.  Maybe it was because they weren't going to use discs at all?  If so, maybe it'll change now that they've changed so many other aspects.

[RHat]

In this case, there actually is a pretty good reason from a techical standpoint - the One operates on an entirely different instruction set than the 360, and the operating systems don't seem to have any relation to each other.

[Crunch]

In this case, there actually is a pretty good reason from a techical standpoint - the One operates on an entirely different instruction set than the 360, and the operating systems don't seem to have any relation to each other.

I know that with the PS3 backwards compatibility required what was essentially a separate PS2 inside the box and was removed to let them drop the price point enough to compete with the 360.

I'm generally the last person to defend Microsoft (I feel that they rush buggy, untested products out to the public, refuse to fix QC issues that they've known about for years and tend to use the leverage of controlling the OS to push smaller competitors with superior products out of business) but in this case I don't think they can be faulted. If you want backward compatibility hold on to your 360, that's why there's still a PS2 hanging out in my entertainment center next to my PS3.

[PeterSmith]

However, while the Xbox 360 is definitely better than the Xbox, and the Xbone is better than the 360, those improvements aren't the giant leaps that occurred in previous consoles.

Vast improvements? No. Significant changes in the processors? Oh yeah. The XBox 360 used a version of the PowerPC processor to drive itself, the XBox One uses an x86-64 processor. This level of difference is pre-Intel Macs versus then-current Windows PCs. You can emulate, but they rarely ever worked well.