I think 3DS will crush both.

You know what kind of bothers me? The negative reactions this thread has garnered. Why? well, the points brought up are completely reasonable concerns, and based on what I'm seeing, Microsoft has done nothing to quell those fears.

They're not adding any extra value to their premium online service like PSN is doing.
They're focusing a lot on Kinect and outside of Gears of War, aren't bothering to get many exclusives.

And to make it worse, Their PR is doing NOTHING to make the nextbox appealing. All of the rumors are claiming the Xbox to be a weaker console than the PS4, There are many people claiming it will block used games and they've done nothing to confirm or deny (and as we all know, doubt is more dangerous than certainty), and much of the rumors are stating it comes with Kinect 2.0, which was a SALES juggernaut but failed pretty hardcore critically (tonnes of potential, no games worth having outside of Dance Central).

So why in the world would I support them? they've done nothing to sway me, and their nextbox is looking like it will continue their current trend of 'pretty much crap and nothing to look forward to.'

At least with PS4, the only complaint (and it's a biggie), is a complete lack of backwards compatibility. That hurts the value a tonne when you realize how much many of us have put into our PS3's. At least the PS3 is reliable and Sony will continue to support it, so I'll just not get rid of it. my Xbox, however, is NOT reliable and given the lack of reasons to own an Xbox (multiplat games I can get on PS3 and exclusives I don't care about), so unless they really turn it around and HURRY UP and quell the rumors, I see no reason to support them, and given their terrible track rate, I don't trust them. Even if I DO get a Nextbox, it wont be until at least 6 months after release to ensure the damn thing works well.

You cant compare a handheld to a console. 

All valid points but my main reason for distrust is n.4

The 360 started off really well in regards to game variety but it went out of steam fairly fast. I don't think you can sugar coat MS treating gamers like that, only investing in the couple of titles that are huge sellers.

Objectively, I cannot show any faith in the new Xbox knowing MS will shortly focus only on the couple or three titles that sell COD numbers.

I can. Can't you see it? I've already done it =P *Tangles up 9087's hair*

Since PS3 is last, your decision as to what can or can not compare has been vetoed. I say its cool to do so. When PS3 takes 2nd, you can change the rules if you like :)

Pretty much exactly how I feel. Most people will never admit it though.

Hopefully, I will not be banned again for talking negatively of Microsoft since this site seems to be dominated by Microsoft fans and supporters, whatever. Or hopefully nobody will claim that there is something wrong with me and I live in a different world or planet while I am a 33 year old Professor at University of Connecticut with a completely normal life except that I travel every year accross three continents for family visits, seminars and work! The only downside may be is that I have been using technology for the last 25 years, and like being a geek at times! But here I am just trying to make a serious point, talking to adults and mature youth. So if you are not, please disregard because I have no energy to deal with minors or evil-minded immature souls (not that I am claiming anyone is!)

Anyways... I basically agree with both of your points. PS3 was worth its price, but whether or not if it was, is rarely relevant. People have priorities, alternatives, and expectations. Entertainment at that price point is priority to very few people, who can find a similar alternative at lower (entry or overall) price levels, and/or may expect that its price will eventually come down. So did it! In economy, demand is a bitch.

Microsoft is a company that I used to like in the Bill Gates era. But ever since the release of XP (and incidentally Pentium 4), many things started to go down. The NT Core is extremely inefficient compared to the classic Win 9x core but they had to do it because it was lacking many vital features, even compared with the legacy Amiga Systems. Linux never had such problems, and Linux Core was always way more efficient.

I remember having 32 MB with my Win98 system, which worked like a charm! People upgraded to 64 MB just to switch to XP, and their system was horribly slow and bogged down! Horror stories! You had to have at least 256 MB RAM to have an experience comparable to 16 MB on Windows 98. This is rock bottom of efficiency. Of course when computers got more muscle, such inefficiencies were masked but thankfully XP got a lot more stable with SP2 but it still was never as efficient as Linux or Win9x.

Technical inefficiency is bearable to some degree but forcing a new operating system and new completely new UI every X years is just ridiculous. MS is being nothing but a bully by forcing people to use their absurd Metro Interface, using 20-30 GB for Windows installations, and removing much of the customization options. Well, I'd be still fine if I were given choice!

They are using the bully tactics by simply freezing development for older platforms. As I had stated earlier, there are no new versions of Internet Explorer or Direct X or Sky Drive for Windows XP, while every other developer still supports it? Why? Because Microsoft doesn't make money from those software, they just use them to leverage people's migration from older Windows versions to the very latest one. Others will earn money with further market share and Windows XP is on 1/3 of the PCs still.

That's the problem though. If there are so many people (obliged to) using Windows, you cannot justify being a merciless capitalistic company. You have to act, at least in part, with public interest. You have to support Windows XP, which is used by 1/3 of the PC Crowd out there. Also it is a very well known fact, if everybody else (even the smallest firms) support it, and you are not supporting your own legacy operating system, which is ranked 1st or 2nd in global usage, then you are just being malicious.

Another thing I want to mention that somebody was mocking... Puppy Linux is an ideal operating system for netbooks. It does support Ubuntu repositories, extremely easy for dual boot configuration, unbelivably fast and efficient (taking about 200 MB space for everything including office programs, codec etc whatsoever). There is nothing that it can't do with ease that windows can, at least for casual use. If you still insist on mocking it, then try KNOPPIX, which is also as fast, but a full featured operating system, much like windows, but ten times faster and more efficient (just give it a try). Also Windows 7 Starter is genuinely slow for netbooks. I have had 3 netbooks with similar configuration and WinXP, Win7  and Puppy. Puppy is leagues over the other two but XP is faster of the remaining two. 7, even after all the removal of the bloatware etc still lags and is very inconsistent. XP is at least tolerable with javascripts turned off etc...

Please if you intend to ban me, give me a warning first! and I will shut up! Every website has different reaches of democracy and maturity after all. I have never been a troll, and never will I. If you check my post per day count, you'll see "zero" (which is a misleading rounding, but makes the point).

Now I am certain you are disconnected from reality.

These were my main issues with the Nextbox reveal. MS really dropped the ball.