Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc From: rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) Subject: Re: CDTV News Message-ID: <1991Jun21.120117.15274@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu Organization: The Internet References: <30115@know.pws.bull.com> <1991Jun21.041029.23416@ncsu.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 12:01:17 GMT Lines: 29 In article <1991Jun21.041029.23416@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >So it's a little exasperating to try to keep people informed, and then have >someone like Ray continuously put his *own* words of doom into *my* mouth. When have I ever put words into your mouth. I may make comments like "Just because CD-I has better specs that doesn't mean CDTV is a failure.", but I never said "According to Kevin, CDTV is a failure." Why quote specs in the first place if not to somehow show one product is superior than another. We all do it, and we all know specs have little to do with what the consumer buys, especially when the home shopping club can sell 100 CGA 4.77/7mhz IBMs in one night for $1000 a piece. Sure, HAM isn't 24bit, but it is by no means 16-color CGA either. When I convert GIF pics with HAMLAB they look damn good, and I _have_ seen 24-bit displays so I can compare them. If CD-I delivers all it promises and for below $1000 I might be impressed, however if Commodore actually markets CDTV correctly, it may not matter anyway. I think what probably irritates a lot of CD-I developers most, is that Commodore "a near backrupt company" (as most people like to think) did in 2 years what CD-I has failed to produce in 6. > best regards! - kevin -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /