Talk:Intel Viiv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intel Viiv article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Intel had a point

Although it's a faux pas for Intel to add a (likely unofficial) response to this article, they did have a point that the article was biased. I don't know enough about Viiv to judge whether it was also factually incorrect. But they were correct to object to the old complaint about restricting fair use rights, with the implication being that any DRM which prevents a user from freely copying content is illegal or unethical. It's anti-DRM POV. Rhobite 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platform or DRM in a chip?

I've updated to demonstrate that viiv is a whole platform not a chipset with built-in DRM. The original article was not neutral and seemed to repeat a strong anti-drm POV with no actual understanding of why/how content providers already protect content such as movies. Also the original authors seemed a little angry so the writting did not come over as an encylopedia reference. If you want to be a journalist joint a newspaper or write a blog 62.3.70.68 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the page reads very well now 82.5.140.168 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

However "will not be forced on anybody" does sound a little bit childish. With regards to the factuality of that statement - I don't remember anyone asking if I wanted the films that I buy to be encrypted or not, so I would consider that forced on me. It is likely that there was little if no consultation with members of the public before that restriction was made an (optional) part of the DVD Video standard. If there is very little or no television and film programming available on the platform in a non-restricted way, then surely it is simply common sense that the digital restrictions are "forced upon" the customer, if you have to use those words.

Perhaps the person who original wrote the article in an angry fashion was trying to un-do some of the marketing, and they consider that this brand is not really much more than a dress up of some DRM in your living room. You can't describe a brand or something like this with NPOV if you toe the corporate line, you have to try and add some neutrality to it. Otherwise you're just writing a press-release. Please don't consign anti-DRM activism to the sandal wearing bin just yet.

(please sign your post in talk with 4x~)
Does a PC enforce DRM because CDs you buy are encrypted? I believe the average consumer would not make this statement. You can say the PC is forcing DRM but must people think of something different when the word "force" is used. They think of reapplying copyrights to pirated content. From this perspective VIIV does not enforce DRM. It goes with what the market provides. Daniel.Cardenas 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems the PCPro article has more honest and realistic insight into what Viiv is and is going to be as it evolves - especially compared to the narrow spouted in the overly bias/anti Inquirer articles. It is very evident that Viiv is more than "DRM on a chip". The Inquirer article evidently did not have access to neither the roadmap for Viiv or anybody at Intel to enable them to write a balanced article. 62.3.70.68 20:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

From all evidence DRM is enforced by Viiv but not created. Does anybody have any more NPOV on the way that Viiv protects subscription content but allows full operation or non-DRM media. It seems that there will not be any watermark sniffing or reporting of media use to central servers> Please help by expanding the DRM section. Dr-Jonny 06:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMD Live

The mention of AMD Live! is pretty clearly NPOV. It's also wrong. Live! is a platform, it's just a very open platform. The only absolutely required component is the processor, but that doesn't mean Live = processor. Aluvus 04:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any more information? From existing material there are no compatible services, hardware specifications or software announced. The partners consists of companies that are already partner with AMD in the chipset business or frozen out of Viiv by Intel's promotion of Intel motherboard and graphics technology. If Live is more than a market spoiler then it would be good to find evidence. 62.3.70.68 09:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media Discussion Expansion.

Can we add the expand tag to the Media Discussion part of the article? It now contains only external links and does not feel good. Mugunth 12:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VI IV = 64 ?

"VIIV is literally a bit of marketing jargon Intel derived to compete with the "64" branding on the AMD chips. VI = 6, IV = 4. VIIV = 64."

Is this simply an opinion or has someone from Intel actually said that this is what their marketers were thinking?

VIIV software does not run on 64-bit operating systems, so if VIIV is meant to mean "64" it is certainly a very misleading brand name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.209.215 (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts over article layout

User:Fernvale and an IP editor are currently going back and forth over a revision that in essence inserts more subheadings into the article. Since neither has brought this to Talk, I am doing so. I would encourage each to make a case here; any other interested parties are welcome to join in. Just reverting each other is not productive. — Aluvus t/c 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)