Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!taco!hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu!kdarling From: kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: The Amiga's Future Message-ID: <1991Jun18.213527.3278@ncsu.edu> Date: 18 Jun 91 21:35:27 GMT References: <1991Jun15.112510.17324@news.iastate.edu> <1991Jun15.121453.5511@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>,<22516@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1991Jun18.124836.28792@news.iastate.edu> Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System) Organization: North Carolina State University Lines: 57 Oddly, I think all three have a good point, but they're coming at it from different user and economic viewpoints: rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > I don't expect Comodore to ever release a 32-bit chipset. I expect them > to work on DIG. I'd rather have add-in boards that are constantly > evolving rather than rely on one companies product. I agree with Ray that the capability of 3td party board additions allows those who need and/or can afford it, to keep up with the latest technology. daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) comments: > Regardless of what Commodore does or does not do in the way of new Amiga > chip sets, RTG (Re-Targetable Graphics [is more important]. Dave agrees, but he's also [correct me if terribly wrong] been hinting that the base graphics will be updated, altho obviously not as much as the graphics in a higher end Amiga version could be. In other words, very expensive video modifications are unsuitable for the lowend market. taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) replies: >I do not agree at all. Every day, I grow increasingly convinced that >DIG/RTG is *NOT* the answer, and that a new, powerful chipset is needed >instead. [because of lowend system sales] And Marc is correct in that if the base gfx is raised to a certain point, _and_ at low price, then the need for RTG support is greatly lessened. How cheaply this could be done on current Amiga architecture, is the Q. The only thing I disagree with, is Marc's: > However, the bulk of Commodore's sales are with the low-end > A500 systems, and Commodore wants to expand their dependence on low-end > systems with the CDTV. The best DIG/RTG-based operating system in the > world will not help the A500 and the CDTV against Japanese competition. > > The CDTV already has color capabilities vastly inferior to the CD-I > products, and a new chipset for the CDTV is going to be needed [...] This is a common mistake made by many here: lumping CDTV in with the Amiga. As long as CBM continues to downplay the Amiga/CDTV connection, then the general public won't connect any CDTV _consumer appliance_ gfx deficiencies to the Amiga _computer_. They will instead remain two distinct markets/products... and what may end up being considered sufficient on one product by people, doesn't always apply to the other. For a wild example: if CBM made a B&W TV set which could only show 16 levels of grey, and also advertised it as "the same gfx as an Amiga!", then the Amiga suffers. If they don't, then only the TV sales suffer. So no, I don't see any absolute reason that lowend Amigas need to keep up with CD-I, or future HDTV capabilities, or etc. There's a need for an Amiga model with those capabilities (via chips or RTG), yes. But there's also a need for an inexpensive model, albeit with somewhat better gfx. regards to all - kevin