Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!bellcore!rutgers!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmger!peterk From: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: CDTV-Real Stuff! Message-ID: <1119@cbmger.UUCP> Date: 16 Apr 91 06:55:15 GMT References: <1991Apr12.065004.19162@ncsu.edu> <1991Apr14.221857.6806@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Apr15.131009.14068@ncsu.edu> Reply-To: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) Organization: Commodore Bueromaschinen GmbH, West Germany Lines: 59 In article <1991Apr15.131009.14068@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >> >>> Unfortunately it didn't also copy the video technology or disc standard. >> >>If it had, it wouldn't be an Amiga. It might or might not be a better product >>for all of that, but Commodore is (rightly) sticking to the knitting here. > >Ah, but it _isn't_ an Amiga. .... > >The only reasons in this case to stick with existing technology were to greatly >lessen R&D costs, and so that current authoring tools could be used. Sure, >some Amigas will be sold to new authors, but the number will be very tiny. Hmm, don't you share my impression that it is a *BIG* benefit that developers are able to use the current authoring tools for CDTV titles? The Amiga OS and the applications based on it matured for now six years, and looking especially at the graphics and sound tools necessary for CD development, you can well say that the Amiga competes for the best development platform in the industry. And remember: There may exist some more nifty platforms (Mac IIfx with 24-bit graphics), but *they aren't video compatible* from the first moment, so with them another conversion step gets necessary. And when looking at CD-I, well they use OS/9 as OS, which is a very nice, fast and effective multitasking OS, but up to now it's mainly used in industry for process control and such stuff (because of its realtime capability). There yet has to be built a basis of graphics and sound tools for this OS platform, whereas the CDTV developer can choose from a wide variety of long-matured software. >Put it another way: if the player had a _Mac_ core, what real benefits would >Mac owners gain? Can you think of any? What if it had an Atari core? Any? No way, because these platforms aren't as much made for this application as is the Amiga from day one. >Okay, some say: well, it'll make CBM some money they can use for the Amiga. >Hey, that could be said even if CBM had used their PC clones as the core. I think they chose the better alternative :-), see above. > OTOH, it's diverting personnel and >advertising funds from the Amiga itself, which is what most of us care about. No no no! You see, as CDTV and Amiga are so closely related, every development for a CDTV can *easily* be downstripped to be used on a normal Amiga with only floppies instead of 600 MB CD-ROM. And you ask what CDTV will pay for the normal Amiga? Well, you'll get a nice CD-ROM drive with supporting software (diverse filesystems) to dive into the already existing computer-oriented CD-ROM market. And with some emulation software you probably will even be able to run true CDTV titles on an Amiga. You see, it's a difference: The normal customer shall not see the CDTV as an Amiga, BUT we all here who know about it, we know that they are nearly identical. And so my conclusion is that every development for one of the two also pays for the other, there is no trade-off to be made. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk