Jump to content

Talk:da Vinci Systems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Intel 68020"

[edit]

References are made to Intel 68020 Multi Bus 1 computers. As the Multi Bus 1 is a standard created by Intel; but the 68020 is a CPU from Motorola, who actually made the computers -- e.g. Sun? - WAPhelps (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da Vinci Systems used std CPU cards and made custom interface. Telecine Guy 02:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Intel manufacturer claims simply be deleted. It's clearly wrong. Actually, this whole article seems to have been put together wholecloth. Nothing is cited and there my be less obvious inaccuracies. Nxxus (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly in a horrible state right now: needs to be re-organized around the major milestones in development. I don't have the industry knowledge to do that. Do you? I see you contributed to Video Toaster a while back, so.... - Pointillist (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'm actually a lawyer by trade and only have pockets of knowledge in the tech arena. If I see something wrong but within my sphere of knowledge or a way I can contribute, I do what I can. I know there are people out there that literally collect CPUs, so they would know off the top of their head. Also, DaVinci was a very closed system that a handful of Hollywood types used because it was so expensive. The typical desktop PC has more power than it now, but with a refresh it might be industry standard again. I read this in "Creative Cow" magazine a few months ago http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/blackmagic-design-buys-davinci-part-1.--Nxxus (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You may be correct about the Intel/CPU discrepancy as I don't know that specific detail. However as the re-writer of much of this content here, and an ex employee, it might be wise to consider that almost all of this content was written by ex staff members who did know what was happening so its more likely accurate overall than inaccurate overall. It was re-written to change from current to past tense and obvious errors repaired. As the company no longer exists, we must rely on those who knew back then, and citations they can provide, or through new research into those events. Random changes without direct knowledge or research seem to imply history can be re-written to sound better. Peter--Peter.i.chamberlain (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Da Vinci Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]