Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!sagpd1!monty
From: monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Cheesy Amiga Video
Message-ID: <928@sagpd1.UUCP>
Date: 7 Sep 90 19:49:04 GMT
References: <29435@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <939@iceman.jcu.oz>
Reply-To: monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine)
Organization: Scientific Atlanta, Government Products Div, San Diego, CA
Lines: 49

In article <939@iceman.jcu.oz> cpca@iceman.jcu.oz (C Adams) writes:
>I agree with Marc completely.  I have just read an article about the new
>Amiga CD-TV and it too has the exact same video standard as the old Amiga 500
>(if it's lucky it might have ECS which is a very slight improvement...)
                             ^^^^
	This would be a waste for the area that the CDTV is targeted. In 
	fact the guidelines for development for the CDTV clearly state
	that even hi-res should be avoided. The CDTV is intended to display
	on a standard TV. Have you seen hi-res on a standard TV???? The guide
	lines go further and state you should use large point fonts (I think
	it was 24 Pt or better) the crux is that the CDTV is NOT A COMPUTER!
	it is a home entertainment/multimedia center. All of us crying about
	this new system not having whiz bang graphics modes misses the point.

>Not only are Commodore way behind on graphics standards (I have read the
>latest IBM i486 line will have a new standard better than VGA), but IBM now
>have multi-tasking, virtual memory and hardware memory protection with 
>Windows 3.0. I have seen the a3000 and it's 4 colour workbench pales
                                             ^^^^^^^^
	I may be wrong on this one, but.. I thoughty 2.0 supported 8 color
	workbench screens.

>compared to Windows 256 colours, even though it is a huge improvement.
>
>With all this stuff about the Amiga being "the machine" for multimedia, I
>am wondering why?  It's graphics are worse and IBM/Mac have/will have much
>more software available for them given the recent crush of multimedia hype.
>
>2.0 was a chance to change that and put virtual memory/memory protection into
>the system.  It wouldn't have mattered if some software was broken, at least
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	To whom wouldn't it have mattered? What would happen to all the faithful
	developers that are still hanging on when they suddenly have products 
	that have lost their market? Why would virtual memory make the Amiga
	suddenly attractive to Lotus/Borland. The last I saw the brain dead 
	architecture that they currently write for does not have virtual memory.

>developers like Lotus/Borland might have considered porting some of their
>excellent software to the 3000.  As it is, I think the a3000 will probably
>be continued to be ignored in mainstream magazines etc.

	The best cure for this lack of coverage is for loyal Amiga writers
	to submit article to these publications that intelligently point
	out the pros and cons of the three leading systems in multimedia.

	Of course it would help for CBM to buy more/some ad's in these
	mainstream publications, at least it couldn't hurt.

	Monty Saine