Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!taco!hobbes!kdarling From: kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: CDTV vs CD-I again (long) Message-ID: <1991Apr8.085845.24662@ncsu.edu> Date: 8 Apr 91 08:58:45 GMT Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System) Organization: North Carolina State University Lines: 90 [Moved over from "DCTV+CDTV = A SMASH HIT"] es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >> mikep@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Mike Powell) writes: >>> As CDTV is pointed primarily as a NTSC device, DCTV would be right at >>> home in the CDTV, and would give it an AMAZING jump on the competition... >> >> A good idea, but I'm afraid that it would hardly "give it an amazing jump" >> on CD-I, which is CDTV's competition. In fact, not even close. >> [ Specs on CD-I video deleted ] >> To be blunt, CD-I gfx is what the basic Amiga gfx should've been by now. >> Perhaps CBM should use CD-I chips. best - kevin > > Kevin, you should take a look at the CDTV before being so judgemental. The thread was about making CDTV gfx better than the capabilities of its competition. To do that, you first have to understand the competition. So I posted specs. An incomplete CD-I summary is: A 68xxx computer with _dual_ video subsystems, each of which has a copper and blitter, DYUV/3/4/7/8/15-bit gfx out of at least 4 million colors; plus hardware special effects between the two and an optional external input. > Yes, the graphics modes are better. But Gail Wellington made a good point: > Who's going to buy a home machine that can't play games? Remember all the discussion about home players on CIS? A lot of people can't imagine paying all that $$ for a game machine, either ;-). Why not just buy a Nintendo or A500 instead? Interactive TV goes beyond games. Nevertheless, whatever gave you the idea that CD-I won't have games? Sierra was demoing CD-I titles long before CDTV, for instance. > Where the blitter? Sigh. Read the specs again. Still, pre-recorded animations even on the Amiga don't use the blitter. But did I mention that CD-I video chips also have a PIXEL calculator onboard? Not for simplistic BIT data, but for PIXELs (4 or 8 bit each) word data manipulation. Very fast and powerful. > The advantage that CDTV has is that it is an Amiga. It has the whole > library of Amiga software if you add a diskdrive. Yes, I've said many times that this is a slight advantage IF it allows CDTV titles to be more easily created. So far that's not very clear. You're also thinking like an Amiga owner, which is _not_ most people. Most home consumers don't even know what an Amiga is, and won't care. The whole idea is not to even think of these machines as computers. But they might care that CDTV is incompatible with all other players. Yet the major sticking point to me still is: it would make more sense to buy an Amiga and add a CDROM drive, than to buy a CDTV and then add on the disk drive, keyboard, mouse, etc... if expansion is your plan. > To make it even better, without any additional hardware > they were doing 1/4 screen (1/2 x 1/2) animation in HAM in 12fps. Nothing special there. Remember, I've seen both CD-I and Amiga gfx. I own both an Amiga and a computer which uses some of the CD-I chips. The Amiga has no corner on colorful animation. Welcome to the 90's. > The big-names are developing for it, including Grolier's, > Sieera On-Line and Psygnosis. I really don't see how CD-I can > possibly succeed. The Amiga operating system has had 4-5 years of > thorough in-use testing and there are already lots of programmers > familiar with programming it. CD-I isn't shipping. It seems like > it keeps getting new and new screen resolutions and nothing ships. Over ten companies are making players; about 200 companies are creating titles; the OS core has been in use since 1983, the CD-I version since 1986; CD-I players have been used around the world for almost a year in business. > Also, Commodore can cut prices a lot better than the CD-I > people can, the CDTV is made of already mass-produced contents. CD-I backers are the largest consumer electronics companies in the world. Even Motorola (CD-I uses the 680x0) is creating new/cheaper CD-I chipsets. The same companies who gave us $150 VCRs will be giving us cheap CD-I players with a large _variety_ of features and configurations (including handheld players, automobile map systems, expansion components, etc). > CD-I was delayed too long. I'd recommend you look at CDTV > and its applications before condemning them. That's like saying the 68030 Amigas were "delayed too long" to sell. Nope. A few months between introductions (Apr vs Sep) won't make much difference. I didn't condemn CDTV or its applications. What I _have_ pointed out are some of CD-I's hardware and market advantages. What you buy is up to you. best - kevin