Some interesting trademarks registered recently are mentioned here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...intel_brand_dc
including some from AMD but the one which is intriguiing is Intel's VIIV.
Speculation is that it might be part of a new global branding strategy but
there's also the suggestion that it may be for the upcoming dual core
chips. AFAIK trademark registration doesn't include any stylizing of the
characters so it's difficult to figure how it might be used in practice...
but the use for dual P4s (P-IV) might make sense. There are indications
that the dual will actually be layed out as mirrored twin cores (VI + IV
??), which makes sense for a common internal bus. Hmmm, things are abit
slow here just now.<shrug>

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:16:19 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Some interesting trademarks registered recently are mentioned here:
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...intel_brand_dc
>including some from AMD but the one which is intriguiing is Intel's VIIV.
>Speculation is that it might be part of a new global branding strategy but
>there's also the suggestion that it may be for the upcoming dual core
>chips. AFAIK trademark registration doesn't include any stylizing of the
>characters so it's difficult to figure how it might be used in practice...
>but the use for dual P4s (P-IV) might make sense. There are indications
>that the dual will actually be layed out as mirrored twin cores (VI + IV
>??), which makes sense for a common internal bus. Hmmm, things are abit
>slow here just now.<shrug>

VIIV: Viva Intel Inside Vegas

Elvis

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:16:19 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> put finger to keyboard and
composed:

>Some interesting trademarks registered recently are mentioned here:
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...intel_brand_dc
>including some from AMD but the one which is intriguiing is Intel's VIIV.
>Speculation is that it might be part of a new global branding strategy but
>there's also the suggestion that it may be for the upcoming dual core
>chips. AFAIK trademark registration doesn't include any stylizing of the
>characters so it's difficult to figure how it might be used in practice...
>but the use for dual P4s (P-IV) might make sense. There are indications
>that the dual will actually be layed out as mirrored twin cores (VI + IV
>??), which makes sense for a common internal bus. Hmmm, things are abit
>slow here just now.<shrug>

VI-IV = 64 as suggested in the above article.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:46:18 +1100, Franc Zabkar <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:16:19 -0500, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> put finger to keyboard and
>composed:
>
>>Some interesting trademarks registered recently are mentioned here:
>>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...intel_brand_dc
>>including some from AMD but the one which is intriguiing is Intel's VIIV.
>>Speculation is that it might be part of a new global branding strategy but
>>there's also the suggestion that it may be for the upcoming dual core
>>chips. AFAIK trademark registration doesn't include any stylizing of the
>>characters so it's difficult to figure how it might be used in practice...
>>but the use for dual P4s (P-IV) might make sense. There are indications
>>that the dual will actually be layed out as mirrored twin cores (VI + IV
>>??), which makes sense for a common internal bus. Hmmm, things are abit
>>slow here just now.<shrug>
>
>VI-IV = 64 as suggested in the above article.

Well, not really - it's 6-4. If that was their thinking, people are going
to snigger at any ads and figure that some market-bozo at Intel can't do
Roman numerals... IMO.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:
>>VI-IV = 64 as suggested in the above article.
>
>
> Well, not really - it's 6-4. If that was their thinking, people are going
> to snigger at any ads and figure that some market-bozo at Intel can't do
> Roman numerals... IMO.

I think the market bozo will just have the last laugh at the Roman
numeral purists. VIIV is genius, it can be taken so many positive ways,
as has already been shown. It could mean 6 & 4, which is 64. It could be
interpretted as mirror-image letters, which could be interpretted as
dual-cores. It could even be pronounced out and you come up with the
French word "vive", which means "to live".

Most Americans' knowledge of roman numerals peters out beyond ten
anyways. And besides how would you pronounce LXIV? Laxiv (i.e. close to
laxative)?

Yousuf Khan

In article <3DqKd.9394$(E-Mail Removed)>, bbbl67
@ezrs.com says...
> George Macdonald wrote:
> >>VI-IV = 64 as suggested in the above article.
> >
> >
> > Well, not really - it's 6-4. If that was their thinking, people are going
> > to snigger at any ads and figure that some market-bozo at Intel can't do
> > Roman numerals... IMO.
>
> I think the market bozo will just have the last laugh at the Roman
> numeral purists. VIIV is genius, it can be taken so many positive ways,
> as has already been shown. It could mean 6 & 4, which is 64. It could be
> interpretted as mirror-image letters, which could be interpretted as
> dual-cores. It could even be pronounced out and you come up with the
> French word "vive", which means "to live".

"It's Alive!"
- Dr. Frankenstien

> Most Americans' knowledge of roman numerals peters out beyond ten
> anyways. And besides how would you pronounce LXIV? Laxiv (i.e. close to
> laxative)?

How do you pronounce LXIX? Lexus? or... ;-))

--
Keith

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:50:35 -0500, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>>>VI-IV = 64 as suggested in the above article.
>>
>>
>> Well, not really - it's 6-4. If that was their thinking, people are going
>> to snigger at any ads and figure that some market-bozo at Intel can't do
>> Roman numerals... IMO.
>
>I think the market bozo will just have the last laugh at the Roman
>numeral purists. VIIV is genius, it can be taken so many positive ways,
>as has already been shown. It could mean 6 & 4, which is 64. It could be
>interpretted as mirror-image letters, which could be interpretted as
>dual-cores. It could even be pronounced out and you come up with the
>French word "vive", which means "to live".

Hmm, vive is the feminine form of vif, meaning lively, vivacious etc. The
verb "to live" is vivre.

>Most Americans' knowledge of roman numerals peters out beyond ten
>anyways. And besides how would you pronounce LXIV? Laxiv (i.e. close to
>laxative)?

Oh you mean I'm the only one who tries to decode the date of a movie as the
final credits scroll off the screen? On that subject, I *did* see MXM for
1990s on a couple, instead of MCMXC and I still don't know if that's a
"legal" form - anybody have authority on this?:-) As for LXIV, why bother?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, fammacd=!
SPAM^(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:50:35 -0500, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >George Macdonald wrote:
> >>>VI-IV = 64 as suggested in the above article.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, not really - it's 6-4. If that was their thinking, people are going
> >> to snigger at any ads and figure that some market-bozo at Intel can't do
> >> Roman numerals... IMO.
> >
> >I think the market bozo will just have the last laugh at the Roman
> >numeral purists. VIIV is genius, it can be taken so many positive ways,
> >as has already been shown. It could mean 6 & 4, which is 64. It could be
> >interpretted as mirror-image letters, which could be interpretted as
> >dual-cores. It could even be pronounced out and you come up with the
> >French word "vive", which means "to live".
>
> Hmm, vive is the feminine form of vif, meaning lively, vivacious etc. The
> verb "to live" is vivre.
>
> >Most Americans' knowledge of roman numerals peters out beyond ten
> >anyways. And besides how would you pronounce LXIV? Laxiv (i.e. close to
> >laxative)?
>
> Oh you mean I'm the only one who tries to decode the date of a movie as the
> final credits scroll off the screen? On that subject, I *did* see MXM for
> 1990s on a couple, instead of MCMXC and I still don't know if that's a
> "legal" form - anybody have authority on this?:-) As for LXIV, why bother?

Indeed the Romans didn't have the prefix notation. Julius would have
written it LXIIII.

--
Keith
>
>