Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!taco!hobbes!kdarling From: kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: CDTV- Let's clear the air... Message-ID: <1991Apr9.101605.7964@ncsu.edu> Date: 9 Apr 91 10:16:05 GMT References: <23238@know.pws.bull.com> Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System) Organization: North Carolina State University Lines: 150 ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes: > I'm hoping we can clear the air about CDTV vs CD-I so everybody knows > what is going on. Yes, the more information, the better. I've been following CD-I for years (I first used a CD-I player in 1988, about the same time I bought my Amiga) and believe I know more than a fair amount about the capabilities of both. Small disclaimer: CD-I video excited me so much, that I'm now involved in helping with two new personal computers which use some of the chipset. That includes working with Amiga developers in porting apps over to them. And in the future, that might include creating a card for the Amiga. In any case, it wouldn't hurt me one iota if everyone bought CDTVs. > 1. Is Commodore still rumored to be selling the chips to 3rd parties for Interestingly, about two days ago I noticed an AP report whose last line read that CBM was willing to license the chips. This was the FIRST time I'd seen anything other than wishful rumors. Unforch, I cannot re-find it. I did hear a few months back that CBM was working on a less expensive chipset. Whether true or not, or connected with CDTV or not, I cannot say. > 2. I hear that CDTV currently provides for (in the OS, I guess) 1/4 screen > full motion video. What graphic mode is this in and how good does it look? > Weren't people like GVP doing full motion video by simply reading the stuff > off of hard disk, Whatever an A500 could do, that's what CDTV can do. As I told Ethan in email (and he then said here), one limitation is the max disc data xfr rate. This is approximately 170K bytes/second. You can figure things from there. However, there are other factors to take into account... for example, if audio data is also being streamed off the disc, anywhere from 12% (AM radio quality) to 50% (Hi-Fi) to 100% (CD-Audio) of the xfr rate is used up. I'm barely scratching the surface of what you need to know; when I get more spare time I'll try to catch you up on the details. > 3. Isn't a TV incapable of displaying detail much beyond that of the Amiga's > graphic ability? If so, what advantage will the higher resolution of CD-I > have over CDTV? In other words, will people be able to notice a better image > produced by CD-I? This is a good question, but the best quick response is: if the current Amiga color resolutions are sufficient, then why is there so much interest in the addon NTSC cards now being sold by Amiga third parties? > 4. What features does CDTV have that CD-I doesn't? IE: The video ports, > expansion ports, ability to hitch up drives, better sound, etc? > 5. What features does CD-I have that CDTV doesn't? Umm. The terminology doesn't invite easy comparisons here. "CDTV" is a specific name for CBM stuff right now. "CD-I" (beyond the base features covered in previous articles) is more like "CD-A". You wouldn't ask "what options do all audio disc players have"... you'd look at each model instead. CDTV has all the usual Amiga key/mouse/floppy/ser/par ports, plus MIDI, plus a DMA slot (SCSI, etc), and a video slot (for genlocks,etc). The obvious advantage is that all base machines have the same ports. CD-I? It will depend on the model you buy (cost, feature level, handheld or not, etc), just as with today's CD-Audio players. Some will have MIDI; some will have genlocks built-in; some will have expansion connectors for the other oomputer peripherals. Depends on the consumer's needs/$$. > 6. Is the blitter in CD-I faster than the famous Amiga blitter with all > it's hardwired instructions and such? Unknown, as I haven't been able to get docs. To be honest, I'm not positive all CD-I players will come with one. I do not think a blitter is critical here, altho I can argue pro/con. Ask me this again later. > 7. What is the projected cost of CD-I [?] The price breakpoint in a consumer's mind has been calculated at $999, which is why both CD-I and CDTV are retail tagged at that. The original plan (1988) for CD-I was that Sony/Philips would underwrite any extra cost themselves... however, I severely doubt think that will be necessary now. CDROM drive, RAM and video chip costs have dropped dramatically since then. Again, it will depend on the model/brandname. Certainly many units will be under $1000. Portables will be more, I'm sure. The projection is for units to drop down to the $400-500 range within a year or two of release. > [...] and is it as "cleanly constructed" OS-wise as the Amiga? > I heard that CD-I is has a poorly constructed WINDOWS OS with all kinds > of extensions hanging off it. Being that WINDOWS is a memory and CPU hog, > shouldn't it cut down on what CD-I can do in comparison to CDTV? Yikes. I think some have confused CD-I with Microsoft/Intel's DVI for PCs! CD-I is for interactive-video standalone units, and was conceived of in 1985 by Sony and Philips, who created the CDROM and CD-Audio discs/standards. The OS won't matter to consumers, but since you ask, it's a version of OS-9 (CD-I is a 68xxx-based computer). They wanted a small, fast and solid realtime multitasking OS. The A-V parts were created for interactive TV. I'm sure you're aware that OS-9 is as cleanly constructed as you can get. > 8. I heard that CD-I was still at least two years away? When will a unit > aimed at the home market and costing under $1000 be shipping? No, it's two years _late_ . First consumer sales were planned for 1988. Heck, Computer Shopper carried coverage of EA and Aegis working on CD-I as far back as 1986! Part of the delay was because they realized that it was critical that the first applications be as good as possible at intro. It does take a _long_ time to create a truly beautiful interactive disc. Simply porting over data/games is a cruel hoax of Interactive TV potential. A good disc can be an interactive odyssey, not simply dry facts/graphics. > 10. What other reasons, if any, can one give to justify CDTV being a much > more able multimedia device than CD-I? Technically, none that I can think of; sorry. But how about if I twist around and argue for CDTV for a while? Here we go: The best thing going for CDTV, as others have said, is the fact that some Amiga applications (games mostly; remember this is interactive TV, not a home computer) can be ported quickly. And yep, there are a lot of Amiga programmers. OTOH, high quality titles require much audio/video work and equipment for gathering data. For example, a CD-I studio often has PCs w/digitizers, 32-bit color Macs for touchup, Sun workstations for programming, all networked together with CD-I emulators. (There are also much lower cost development setups, but we're talking commerical studios). Now, visualize say, a Civil War buff club creating their own low-volume history discs from stuff they know or have, using AmigaVision (or CanDo). THAT could be exciting, if CBM makes mastering discs cheap/simple enough. > [...] now I am hearing that this thing is some type of video wizard that > will blow the socks off of CDTV. The video difference will be quickly apparent in some titles, but I don't think it will be the single most important factor, just as it wasn't for most consumers when buying home VCRs or PCs (us techno-junkies aside ;-). What _will_ be important is the interest-quality, selection, cost, advertising and availability of players and titles. We can only wait and see about the title situation. The player part seems to be heavily tipped in favor of CD-I, altho Commodore could make a C64 style attempt at flooding inexpensive players into the marketplace. I would be a heckuva lot happier if CBM simply made CD-I players instead. The most important thing about CD-I is that there will be price/feature competition from many player manufacturers. I like that a lot. > jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu (Jonathan David Abbey) adds: > Still and all though, it grieves me that CD-I should be so far in advance > of the Amiga technologically speaking... It grieves me too! It could be a whole different slant if CBM had the better technology. A good thing about CDTV is that it may have finally pushed CD-I out the door. A good thing about CD-I is that it may push CBM into upgrading Amiga gfx (and add MIDI??). Both things are winners to me. The only personal beef I have against CDTV is that it messed up a high baseline I-TV disc standardization... and worse, gave an excuse for Apple to throw in their own hat. What next, MSDOS home players? Arrrgh! :-) So in return for a quick buck from CBM devotees and unaware consumers, Nolan Bushnell has opened a Pandora's Box that I think will hurt us all, and _Commodore_ could lose more than anyone in the end. Think about it. Hey, but then again, maybe I just worry too much . Regards - kevin (Not a student. I'm 37 yrs old :)