Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!taco!hobbes!kdarling From: kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: CDTV vs CD-I again Message-ID: <1991Apr9.170659.17365@ncsu.edu> Date: 9 Apr 91 17:06:59 GMT References: <1991Apr8.085845.24662@ncsu.edu> <1991Apr8.181613.5507@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System) Organization: North Carolina State University Lines: 63 In <1991Apr8.181613.5507@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >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-) Thanks for the faith ;-). I might be wrong about the blitter being standard, however. No biggie, still leaves the pixel logic. Let me check up on it. As for having "seen no information", I'm not really surprised, altho many people have heard of CD-I. As with CDTV, you have to look. Read EDN, BYTE, Popular Science, or cruise the cdrom and multimedia groups on various nets. I may post references later, but as a very simple start: casual readers should check out Amazing Computing, May 1990, p40, CD-I vs CDTV. Intensely interested readers can buy the book "Compact Disc-Interactive, A Designer's Overview", McGraw-Hill 1988, ISBN 0-07-049816-4. Hackers can call Signetics and order docs for the SCC68070 and SCC66470B chips. > [CDTV] 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. Umm, was that one advantage or two? Yes, that's apparently what's being done, and that's why I'm now hearing backroom horror stories about converted discs: Super-smooth titles require that close attention be paid to exactly WHERE on a CDROM information is stored, because CDROMs are pigs compared to HDs. It's almost a science unto itself to interleave sectors of the audio/video information. Developing/testing an interactive CDROM application requires perfect emulation of a CDROM, in order to know how it will actually playback. That's what CD-I developers do. You do NOT make it look like "a big HD". > 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). I've said before that CDTV will benefit current and future Amiga+CDROM owners by enticing Amiga disc ports, so I agree with your second sentence. I mildly disagree that common consumers will consider the future computer angle. Consider: mass retailers aren't going to point that out. And you sure can't put "Expandable into a real home computer!" on the side of the box... you'd scare away the exact market you're trying to reach! The _point_ of these systems is that they are an _audio/visual component_. Do you think people want to tear apart their setup, then move the player over to a desk where they can plug in a monitor and keyboard? That's like selling an intercom by saying "Expandable to a real telephone... if you unplug it and fit all sorts of optional adapters on!". Ugh. Nope. I think they'll almost all go out and buy a "real" computer instead, maybe even another Amiga. Is that bad? best - kevin