Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!scslwide!wsgw!headgw!cvgw!yamanaka From: yamanaka@cv.sony.co.jp (Brian Yamanaka) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.multimedia Subject: Re: CDTV Motion Video Message-ID: Date: 17 Jun 91 01:17:11 GMT Sender: news@cv.sony.co.jp (Usenet News System) Organization: Sony Corporation, Consumer Video Group Lines: 146 In article James_Hastings-Trew@tptbbs.UUCP (James Hastings-Trew) writes: >In a message dated Sat 15 Jun 91 01:46, Yamanaka@cv.sony.co.jp (brian Yaman >wrote: > > YY> Apple has always excelled in software creation. Anyone who has used > YY> the Mac can see that in the elegance of its interface. Of course > YY> they can't seem to get pre-emptive "multi-tasking" to work. But they > YY> excel in human interfacing and application program interfaces. > >I disagree. While a GUI is great for beginner and casual users, the Mac's >total lack of scripting abilities and lack of multitasking really prevents >the machine from being a machine for serious work. Given the same task and >relatively equal harware capabilities, a multi-media creator working with >Amiga systems will always be able to produce a given project faster and >cheaper than a creator with a Macintosh. AmigaDOS scripts and Arexx give us >the edge to massage large amounts of data without a lot of time consuming >operator intervention. This gives the Amiga an undisputed competitive edge. The idea with the Mac is that the multi-media creator doesn't want to worry about the scripting and learning AREXX to do serious work. They just want to do the creating. I've used the Mac to meet a lot of deadlines because it was easier on the Mac. I'm not talking programming here, because the average user doens't wnat to program. They want a polished finished product. I'd agree that I can process a lot more data on the Amiga with scripts and AREXX (that's why I like UNIX), but I wouldn't say I could get the data into presentable form for a business meeting. And I wouldn't say that AREXX and Amiga DOS scripts don't require user intervnetion. There hasn't been a single DOS script I've used that had to be modified in some way to deal with a different hardware configuration or to deal with some conflict in ASSIGN's. >Quick Time sounds neat, but the hardware itself is lacking - no Mac I have >ever worked with can play sounds and access the hard-drive at the same time >without serious system performance degradation. Pray-tell how Quick Time >allows the simultaneous decompression of video frames, updates the display, >and plays back digitized sound at the same time on a machine that cannot move >the mouse and read the directory of a floppy at the same time? The assertion >that "any Mac can display compressed video" with Quick Time is bogus - only >the fastest, most pumped up, most accelerated machines have the ability to do >this with any credibility. I didn't imply in any way that the Mac is superior in any way to an Amiga in terms of processing power. Geez, I work with one everyday and am still wanting to be able to format a floppy while doing something else. But QuickTime did amaze me, more so because of my experiences of how slow a Mac is. > YY> I think we can no longer say that Apple produces only expensive > YY> systems. QuickTime puts multi-media in the reach of many with the > YY> LC, and Super Mac has unveiled a $500 video capture and playback board > YY> for it. > >*Ahem*. Who said the LC was inexpensive? Oh yeah... Apple did. Must be true! An LC may not be as cheap as a comparable Amiga 500, yet they sold a lot of them. Look at the Classic, I would never consider buying one over an Amiga, yet Apple couldn't keep up with the demand for this unit. > > YY> Of course the Amiga still has many hardware advantages that a Mac > YY> doesn't, so Commodore is not out of the game yet. As I said in > YY> another post, we just need better resolution and colors with greater > YY> OS support. That would really make the Amiga the best solution. > >We already have good colour/resolution options on the Amiga - at great prices >too. The OS support is a red-herring issue. All application developers at >some time or other whine that "XYZ support should be built into the OS." This >seems to be the approach that Apple takes with their system software. stuff deleted... > >The list goes on and on. Apple seems to be intent on not allowing any >creative force in the Mac development community to keep any kind of >advantage. I wonder why developers are leaving the Mac in droves for Windows >and DOS? Maybe because IBM does not seem intent on stealing all their best >ideas. Could it be because there are only 6 million Macs compared to 30+ million PC compoatibles. Most programmers I've talked to dislike the MS Windows programming environment. Of course it's a matter of taste. >What would Digital Creations think if Commodore suddenly created a similar >technology and incorporated that into the hardware/OS of the Amiga? I think that stealing technology from another software writer would be wrong, but should not inhibit the enhancement of the computer. How can other writers take advantage of something like outline fonts if he can't depend on it always being supportted by the system software? By incorporating it into the OS the software writer can worry more about what he does with the fonts than how to create them. I don't want to start a flame war here. I think that happens all too much here. It just seems to me that we can't all live in an Amiga only world. Everyone has to be aware of developments on the other platforms and see how these ideas can help the Amiga. >Why am I disgressing to this discussion of Apple's software policies >regarding their OS? Because I see things like video/audio formats and >solutions to be more of an APPLICATIONS problem, not a OS problem. Commodore >is there to sanction file formats (IFF, SMUS, etc.) so that we do not turn >into a wilderness of file format incompatibilities (how much development time >is wasted in each Mac appliation to make it compatible with TIFF, PICT, >PAINT, EPS, WORD, WRITE, etc. etc.) Let the free market decide which >video/audio/authoring solutions are the best. I'm not sure how the Mac handles data (still learning) but it provides a service that appears similar to IFF through the scrapbook. Even if I have two word processors and one can't understand the others files, if I cut and paste directly between the two, at least the text will appear. The formatting will have been lost, but the data is still there. I think this has to do with resources as text and formatting are probably stored in different resource areas. The app can just deal witht he information it can handle. Of course there is the difference between PICT and PAINT, but that's because one deals with structured drawings and the other with bitmaps. Again I don't advocate that what Apple does is the only way or even a better way. Just that we need to be aware of what goes on in other systems. I have the oppurtunity to work on both platforms and can honsetly say I prefer programming on the Amiga. Multi-tasking, message passing, etc. are things I think are indispensible, but these features matter little to the general consumer. Remember we are not living in a programmers only world. If we want the Amiga to continue growing we have to sell more Amigas and to do that we need more software. To get more software we need more tools and support for the application writer. I think that Commodore is heading towards that, especially with the inclusion of AREXX in 2.0. But we have to keep an open mind and keep out eyes open. Any further discussion should be moved to another area and I always welcome e-mail. Remember I don't want this to digress into another Mac vs. Amiga flame war. I've had enough of that stuff. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Brian YAMANAKA (aka The VISCA dude) |"I knew I should have made that Sony Corporation, Personal Video Group | left turn at Albuquerque." Email: yamanaka@cv.sony.co.jp | -Bugs Bunny Phone: +81-3-5488-6160 | FAX: +81-3-5488-6469 |Hawaii,Illinois,Japan...what's next?