Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rdin.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!rdin!perl
From: perl@rdin.UUCP (Robert Perlberg)
Newsgroups: net.video
Subject: Re: VHS vs. Beta
Message-ID: <471@rdin.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Sep-84 17:28:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: rdin.471
Posted: Mon Sep 10 17:28:14 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Sep-84 09:19:56 EDT
Organization: Resource Dynamics Inc., New York
Lines: 31

>the Beta format is better engineered -- VHS was built to get around the Sony
>patent rights, for the most part.

Give me a break!  I've always considered the VHS system to be
far superior to the Beta system.  Every aspect of Beta makes
it obvious to me that Sony was just trying to push something
out the door before VHS got to market.  VHS is much better thought
out than Beta.  VHS can run for 8 hours.  Beta can only run for
5.  The slight difference in cassette size cannot account for
this.  Sony just coudn't engineer enough quality into an 8 hour
speed.  And look at the speeds.  The progression from single to
one-half to one-third speeds in VHS was as natural as if they
planned it that way, which they probably did.  I can't even remember
the correspondence between the Beta speeds.  They just pushed
it as far as they could in a futile attempt to remain competitive
with the superior VHS system.

More: All Beta cassettes are CHROME.  VHS gets the same quality
from Normal tape.  All Beta's use Dolby.  VHS gets the same quality
without Dolby, and some units give you the option of using Dolby
to further improve the quality.  As far as Beta-HiFi, VHS-HiFi
units are already available.

Is it any wonder that more movies are available in VHS format?
The Sony Betamax sells for the same reason that the IBM PC sells--some
people don't look any further than the name plate.

Robert Perlberg
Resource Dynamics Inc.
New York
philabs!rdin!perl