Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!es1
From: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Subject: Re: CDTV vs CD-I again (long)
Message-ID: <1991Apr8.181613.5507@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Organization: Columbia University
References: <1991Apr8.085845.24662@ncsu.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1991 18:16:13 GMT

In article <1991Apr8.085845.24662@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes:

>  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.
>
	I take these on faith. I myself have seen no information
at all about CD-I from anywhere. 8-)

>> 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.
>
	You're using the argument that if it isn't one extreme it
is the other. Either people have to only want games or want none.
That isn't the case. True applications will be crucial for its
success, but I don't believe people will buy one of these systems
(either one) unless they also play good games. People will be
shelling out a lot of money, and they are certainly going to want
the most they can get.

>> 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.

	It has two clear advantages, the strength of those
advantages is what is the question. One is that the applications
can be developed on a 2500 or 3000 with a big HD and then placed
on a CD. That's what is being done. CDTV runs a modified WB1.3
and has the CD mounted as a file system, so it is truly looked at
by the CDTV/A500 as a big HD.

>  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.

	CDTV is its own product line, so the Amiga's popularity
isn't essential. CDTV is available. It will be throughout
California and Chicago in quantity (it is already available in
limited quantity) in a week. Two more weeks and they'll add from
their list of I believe 7 major cities. When the ads come out,
then everyone will know what a CDTV is (if they do it right 8).

>  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.
>
	Right. So just do it! CBM is making an A500 add-on, and
the Xetec drive was able to run all but one CDTV application that
was available at the show (for 2000 and 3000 owners). So, CDTV
can be bought by those who don't want a real computer, those who
might want one in the future. Also, CDTV applications can be run
on, and sold for, the entire line of Amiga computers. That is an
installed base of 2.5 million machines. (I do know that they have
to buy the CD-ROM first).

	-- Ethan

Q: How many Comp Sci majors does it take to change a lightbulb
A: None. It's a hardware problem.