Comments Locked

26 Comments

Back to Article

  • ceefka - Saturday, August 27, 2005 - link

    This sounds like something that needs a lot of MHz:

    quote:

    If the speculative load ends up being valid, then business is as usual, otherwise the result must be thrown away and the load executed after the store is complete.
  • bhtooefr - Friday, August 26, 2005 - link

    Well?

    A laptop can definitely meet the VIIV requirements.

    Pentium M Yonah? Check.
    i945GM? Check.
    Intel network? Last I checked, that was possible. Check.
    HD Audio? Well, a single SPDIF would do the trick... Check.
    Remote? Laptops had IR ports in the past, and they can have them now. Check.
  • bhtooefr - Friday, August 26, 2005 - link

    Replying to myself...

    Add a 2915ABG to that, and you'll have a Centrino VIIV.
  • sprockkets - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    If all that is happening is the lights and video out turn off, then that isn't instant on and off, that's just like turning off the screen and light on a PDA.


  • joex444 - Friday, August 26, 2005 - link

    exactly what instant on/off means from intel
  • johnsonx - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    June 2005: Intel inks a deal with Apple to provide CPUs for next-gen Macs, claims "we're not Microsoft's bitch any more!"

    August 2005: Intel agrees they are in fact Microsoft's bitch by requiring MCE as the centerpiece of their V//V marchitecture.
  • Leper Messiah - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    Anyone else noticing the trend of all intel crap? You MUST have intel NICs, you MUST have intel drivers, etc. Thats 1) depressing, because they might not have the best drivers out there, and basically says no to SI SATA...meh.
  • Joepublic2 - Friday, August 26, 2005 - link

    Why would you not want an intel NIC? Their networking producs are excellent. Intel's drivers are also generally excellent. I do agree that forcing vendors to use their entry level graphics, RAID and audio solutions is pretty stubborn.
  • joex444 - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    If you were Intel, it makes sense. Somebody gets a Realtek NIC in their formerly VIIV PC, then it isnt a VIIV PC and if that PC needs to be fixed, Intel can refuse help on the grounds its not VIIV and therefore unsupported.
  • PeteRoy - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    It's overkill to have a dual core processor for digital home theater, vive or not.

    I mean this thing probably sits in the living room playing movies, music and pictures.

    Why do you need a dual core processor for that? Home Theater can do just as fine with a 2Ghz Celeron and 512MB of RAM.
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    Transcoding. It's one thing to play back a movie (and HD content is going to really struggle on a Celeron 2.0 GHz); to convert from say MPEG2 to MPEG4 on the fly is something else entirely. What formats are supported is anyone's guess right now, but anyone that has done DivX, Xvid, or WMV9 encoding can attest to the fact that it requires a speedy CPU to function properly.
  • joex444 - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    If I read this article right, the transcoding is done through Windows MCE's own transcoder. Actually, if VIIV PC were attached to an HDTV, it wouldn't have to transcode since it could just decode it there. What it would need to transcode for is if there is an external box that sits in the living room and the VIIV PC is out back sending the external box what it needs to display the content on the HDTV. Well, in that case, with the gigabit NIC required in VIIV, why can't they just decode it on the VIIV PC, and send the uncompressed video to the external box? At 1280x720 24fps (23.976 if you prefer), that's roughly 510Mbits/sec [63.3MB/sec], and it is constant. From what I've seen of gigabit switches, they can handle that in practice (often going upwards of 800Mbits/sec). A review on another website of a Netgear GS108 showed without jumbo frames it gets 550Mbits/sec constant, and when increased it can get 750Mbits/sec average, with it not dropping below 700; another setting averages 600-650 with it dropping to 480 -- that setting wouldn't be acceptable.
  • tanekaha - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    Surprise!..:(
    Intel and microsoft started together.
    If ya want all of this media centre goodness ya gotta have intel and microsoft.
    With their marketing and installed base this is bad for the competition.
    I suspect heavy DRM also
    :(
    just my 0.2
    Tanekaha
  • ElFenix - Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - link

    so motherboard makers will put truly crappy components onto the board, save the OEM $0.05 per computer, and then consumers will play them on their plastic $150 5.1 audio systems from wally world, never knowing what they are missing out on and assuming that the hissing they hear means that they have a high power system.
  • Calin - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    If you really really want high quality from that kind of devices, you should use the digital (SPDIF) output to feed your audio system.
    It won't be cheap, as just the digital entries for audio systems tend to look like a $100 hike in price (that might come from other directions also, but by their description, almost all the audio systems have the same 20Hz to 20kHz frequency response and the same unbelievably high power)
  • dwalton - Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - link

    Anybody who really cares about high quality sound, will put in the research needed to make sure any prospective VIIV certified system has quality components.

    Anybody who would buy a crappy VIIV and audio system and would think they were really listening to a high quality system would probably be stepping up from an already crappier system.
  • jamesbond007 - Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - link

    The 'Instant On/Off' bit is kind of misleading. One would think that by the terms selected, the machine would be entirely on or off. I think they would be smarter to call it some sort of 'PowerSaver' feature instead.
  • Marsumane - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    With their luck people will be using "instant off" then unplugging their machine thinking it is safe to move or do whatever they planned on doing by cutting the machine's power.
  • PrinceGaz - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link

    Yes, I expect many many people will press the 'Instant Off' button, then unplug it. Fortunately Windows is fairly tolerant of being suddenly powered down these days, but do it too often and you're sure to run into trouble sooner or later.
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    Instant On/off?? I guess the only advantage is for lazy people who don't want to press the button to turn off the monitor, but wants to still turn it off(I know it doesn't make sense). I hoped it would actually turn off, kinda like post-hibernation mode.
  • mlittl3 - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    Guys, the instant off feature is not a power saving feature in my opinion. It's so you don't have glaring LEDs lighting up your living room when you have company over for a cup of tea. Everyone complains about bright blue, orange, green, whatever in their living room distracting people from the room's fen shui - ness.

    However, the article says that the drivers must support instant-off. This sounds like different hardware components power down when not in use. Now that is an energy saver if that's what it means.
  • dwalton - Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - link

    "The 'Instant On/Off' bit is kind of misleading. One would think that by the terms selected, the machine would be entirely on or off. I think they would be smarter to call it some sort of 'PowerSaver' feature instead."

    Why did the article concentrate on the "off" part of the "Instant On/Off" feature. I would rather know how "instant" is the "On" feature.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - link

    The on feature works the same way as the off feature, it is truly instant, it just turns the monitor and LEDs back on. Remember, since nothing really turns off, turning it back on is just as quick.

    Take care,
    Anand
  • Zirconium - Thursday, August 25, 2005 - link

    In the article, you say, "Eventually if you left the system untouched it would power down." Once it powers down, does it not start up instantly? Or does Intel/Microsoft have another trick up its sleave?
  • jm20 - Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - link

    I doubt it would even save power. Turning off the monitor and LED lights will have minimal impact on power saving, except if you have a CRT.
  • ElFenix - Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - link

    big LCDs use up quite a bit of power, about as much as a mid-size CRT.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now