kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (04/13/91)
In <1991Apr12.125623.8709@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > There is NO way that their [CD-I] price-point can be close to Commodore's. > The Amiga 500, which is what CDTV is, is 4 year old technology. > Those chips in the A500 have been made for over 6 years. > And Commodore makes them themselves. I've already answered you once about this over in c.s.a.misc, but again: CD-I has been in R&D for 5 years by the largest consumer electronics firms in the world, with chips and players manufactured for almost two years now. Ever price the chips in CD audio players, or digital TVs? Darned cheap. The same companies who make those chips, make CD-I chips. They're fairly cheap even right now off the shelf (you can buy the main video chip for example, for about $25... add in a VGA 16million color RAMDAC palette for $15, and a meg of RAM, and you've just built an killer NTSC/PAL card). In consumer-sized mass quantities, the cost will be almost peanuts. > Also, if the CD software for CD-I is being done so intricately, > those CDs are going to cost a heck of a lot of money. I remember similar arguments against audio CD's versus cassettes and LPs :-). But yes, you're right, a lot of money goes into a quality title. That's one of my points. CD-I has Columbia, MCA, et al, who can do that easily. Tell me, what does it cost to make a movie? And what does it cost to rent or buy the tape? (hmmm... renting titles? possible business there...) > Now, we have our own priorities of quality and price, but > if you are selling to the American mass-market, by now I think > we've all discovered that THINKING has very little to do with the > decision to buy. 8) It is glitz and price. Oh I agree. That's partly why C64s, VHS, and IBM clones won out. But wouldn't it be nice, just once, to promote the better technology and have a _good_ standard for home consumers at first? Bearing in mind also, that because far more than just one company is involved, the standard will evolve faster? To use the favorite Beta vs VHS argument, this is a case where VHS is actually better to begin with. Or, from another perspective: I watched IBM clones slow much of computer progress to a virtually stop for a decade. I watched VHS take years to get close to Beta clarity. I'm just getting too old to sit around and watch similar crap happen again in the interactive TV market <grimace>. I think some people see this as an Amiga vs world situation. No. It's simply a market CBM is going into without having the superior technology. That's 100% _backwards_ from the way they got started with the Amiga, yes? I would be ecstatic if they tried again, but with something to be proud of. best wishes - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (04/13/91)
In <1991Apr12.131236.5282@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > [out of order quote] If those big Japanese companies ... Make that "big Japanese, Dutch, and American" companies :-). > What about when CD drives improve in a few years and get better > transfer rates? HDTV? What about cheap MPEG chips and 24bit color vs > RLE compression? What about having a 68040 as the standard processor It seems to me that you're making a great argument against CDTV's existence. Anyway :-), those improved CD drives and HDTV are very likely to come from those same CD-I companies. Realize that all this has already been considered. The MPEG chips had a lot of input from the CD-I people, and Motorola is designing next-generation cpus for CD-I. You can look at it another way: one reason for long CD-I delays was to have the best (and affordable) base technology before intro. CDTV may have forced CD-I to not wait until all players could have MPEG and 68020+ cores (they probably will late next year instead). Feel any better? I don't. I'm mad. > You see, CD-I doesn't make any significant improvements in graphics > rendering, or CD-ROM technology. Instead, it's been kludged on top of > the old hardware except for a few VLSI chips. It doesn't even have a > blitter as standard. I bet CD-I games will fall very short of Amiga games. Uh, one system was designed from scratch for home interactive TV, the other was definitely kludged on top of old hardware. Which one was which, again? Ignoring that highly debatable statement on graphics, I'll tell you a secret: you don't _need_ a blitter when you have a faster cpu, no bitplanes, a one r/w cycle pixel logic combiner, and are not 70% locked out of video ram in the resolutions people will expect to see. And remember, all of CDTV ram is slow Chip ram. Think hard about that. I have. But bless you, you make me think. So I will take your bet, but in a different way than even I had imagined: CDTV will become just another Sega game machine competitor. It will sell okay, but have little impact on true interactive TV. All applications other than games will fall short, sometimes horribly, of CD-I. The only exceptions will be ports of CD-I titles, and on those the gfx suffers. Ports to CD-I of some CDTV games, on the other hand, will become spectacular. > All the faults CD-I has, CDTV also has. The reason > I'd rather have a less capable machine promoted ahead of a mediocre > machine because what's good for Commodore (profit) is good for the Amiga. The core of that argument is that CD-I is mediocre (what does that make CDTV?) and since this is my reply, I get to dismiss that claim out of hand :-) :-). But ouch, you sure know how to put me in a hard spot to reply kindly. Hmmm. So in return, let me grant you the same boon: I suppose you know that because CBM jumped into what was considered a taboo area for 5 yrs by everyone else, Apple has now done an aboutface (*) and announced they will also make players? Please tell me what _your_ reply would be to a Mac fan who says what you did, except concerning an inferior Apple player. No four-letter words allowed ;-) Plus not all markets are smart OR profitable to get into. Would you also promote CBM microwave ovens? And what profits will CBM have if it has to cut them to the bone against CD-I? best - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> (*) Apple hated CD-I, partly because it requires a non-Mac multitasking OS. Nevertheless, they previously had no intention of getting into very wicked territory: home A/V electronics components, against Sony/Philips/et al. But against Commodore at least, they must figure they stand a good chance.
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (04/13/91)
In <s4fgbwp@rpi.edu> kudla@rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: > On the other hand, CD-I has at least as impressive hardware specs as > CDTV, and will cost about the same. At least? <cough> In case you missed it, I'll repeat. Please read closely. (Note: a "plane" is equivalent to a multiplane "playfield" in Amiga parlance) CD-I has two main image planes, each with a full video chip and 512K RAM. Either one _alone_ has modes superior to current Amiga gfx... but they can also be swapped in priority; each can be of almost any mode (see below); and the planes can be color-keyed, dissolved, or overlaid, all in hardware. There is also a cursor plane, and an optional backdrop (external video) plane. Of course, modes can be changed on a line/line basis, just as in the Amiga. The main modes have 4/7/8 bits/pixel from at least 4 million colors. There are also 3/7 bit color RLE modes: the data consists of common color RLE line data (perfect for animation), which the chip decodes/displays on the fly instead of having to have the cpu expand the RLE to normal full data first. Note to experienced graphics programmers: it occurs to me that CAD walkthrus would be a piece of cake using RLE. Think about it: NO polygon color filling needs to be done to slow memory! And the possibilities for a flight sim...?! DUAL chips, too (chorus of "holy sh*t!" heard from knowledgable crowd :) Then there is the Delta-YUV (DYUV) mode, which is superior to HAM [ I've been told the Amiga was originally supposed to have DYUV ] because it allows luminance changes on a per-pixel basis while the color changes slower. As the eye is more sensitive to luminance, the pic looks better. Finally, both planes may be combined to form a 15-bits/pixel direct RGB mode. As one example of neat gfx, you could have a 255-color animation overlaid in hardware on top of a 100,000 color photograph. Impressed yet? I am. The base cpu effectively runs 70% faster than a base A500, and video DMA blocking is minimal, or nil on double-buffering if you it turn off a plane. > Commodore has a chance to win this one if they put some serious effort > and money into marketing this summer, but I also think they should probably > cut the list price before Christmas time so they'll have a strong user > base, product recognition *and* a price advantage. Short term wins, at best. CD-I will be at CES (note to CBM employees asking me questions in email: sorry, I didn't know until today). Just think about what magazines like Consumer Reports are going to say in comparisons <cringe>. All our arguments here on the net won't affect the common buyer. As for price, I really don't know how deep CBM could cut. We'll see. I _haven't_ even mentioned the coming ISDN, virtual reality, remote services, and other star players in the CD-I home interactive arena. Gentlemen, I fear that CBM hasn't a clue what a swift and wide river they stepped into. > Hey, look at me! I've turned into a regular armchair market researcher.... Welcome to the crowd <grin>. Ain't it fun? And I'd like to add... My friends, I'd be more than happy to help discuss areas where CDTV would be beneficial, or ways to improve interactive TV applications on it. I'm chagrined that some have forced me into being against something, when I only wanted to be _for_ something. Political postures are not my bag. But anytime someone promotes CDTV solely because it's from Commodore, I'm gonna jump in. Anytime someone wishes inferior technology on the world simply because it's happened before, I'm gonna jump in. And anytime someone thinks CBM is the last word in graphics chips, _everyone_ should jump in ;-). BTW, you can throw a sack of salt at my marketing opinions, but use much less on any tech specs. regards to all - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> (I'm outa here for a while. You've got the info you need to know now)
roger_earl@outbound.wimsey.bc.ca (Roger Earl) (04/13/91)
Hmmmm, I wouldn't promote CDTV just because it is from Commodore. Plain and simple, I've seen the CDTV and I REALLY liked the approach it takes to applications. People can shout the wonderful glories of CD-I technology as much as they want. Go ahead, tell us (repeatedly the same extremely boring stats) about the technical ability of CD-I. The general public doesn't give a damn. The CDTV is not being marketed as a computer device. When a person sees a CDTV run a multi-media interactive presentation, THATS what will sell it. Commodore already has vast experience (and in my opinion are the leaders in the field) on Multi-media. I'll wait to see CD-I, if indeed the apllication of its technology is as good as CDTV then I might decide in favor of it. In the meantime, CDTV will be hard to beat. **************************************************************************** * "The personal computer market is about the same size as the total potato * * chip market. Next year it will be about half the size of the pet food * * market and is fast approaching the total worldwide sales of pantyhose" * * -James Finke, Pres., Commodore Int'l Ltd.(1982)- * **************************************************************************** Roger Earl = Usenet: roger_earl@outbound.wimsey.bc.ca = GEnie: R.Earl4
ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) (04/14/91)
OK, I've watched certain remarks go far enough. Kevin, your neatly leaving out several factors which put the odds in CD-I's favor... Kevin Darling writes: >The base cpu effectively runs 70% faster than a base A500, and video DMA >blocking is minimal, or nil on double-buffering if you it turn off a plane. The Amiga is well known for it's custom chip's DMA support. The blitter in the Amiga can do things that even a 68030 based MAC can't do. Since CD-I doesn't come standard with a blitter, how do you propose very fast and intensive graphic manipulations in things such as games? Saying "I don't think games is an important part of..." has nothing to do with this conversation, because I can just as easily dismiss CD-I features as unneeded in order to tilt the favor towards CDTV. Fact: CD-I doesn't come standard with a blitter. As a matter of fact, CD-I doesn't come standard with a lot of things. Hey, how about that OS? The Amiga has a much more cleanly constructed, faster, and RAM conservative OS than anything IBM or Apple currently makes. There's another few points in CDTV's favor. It can do more with less overhead and it will need less RAM to do so. Thus...CD-I will *probably* require more memory which adds to the price. You mentioned yourself that none of the under-$1000 CD-I players will come with much in the way of expanison ports (I believe). CDTV sports a very impressive list of expansion ports. Any CDTV buyer can hitch his unit up to a printer, or a modem, or add memory, or add a genlock, or use his VCR, or add a board (which makes up for any CD-I video advantages :) ). Mark another one up for CDTV. Take a walk over to the Atari SIG and ask a few people what having a blitter as an option did for Atari compatibility. I don't care how compatible a blitter option is, it still will bring up software misfires (too slow or too fast of graphics, depending on what your using). Can CD-I step over all of these holes? Well, when they finally start building and selling the things we'll find out. :) I think you may be taking what CD-I backers say to far to heart. I don't disagree that some CD-I players will have all of the features you've gone over *down the line*, but I don't see how most of these features (expansion ports, etc.) along with everything else can be sold in machines costing under-$1000. Thus, most of what CD-I may have to offer will be in the higher end market. Just like computers have levels of markets, so will this. Commodore still lives in the same world as the people who make (will make) CD-I. It's not like Commodore is some type of electronic cripple who can't get up and touch the new electronics out there. CDTV will sell, put money in Commodore's pocket, and THEN they can bring out a board for it (and a new player) that will make up for what advantages CD-I may or may not have over CDTV. >Short term wins, at best. CD-I will be at CES (note to CBM employees asking >me questions in email: sorry, I didn't know until today). Just think about >what magazines like Consumer Reports are going to say in comparisons <cringe>. Try reading some of these "unbiased" magazines from an Amiga user's point of view. According to most, IBM just invented multitasking and multimedia last year. Who knows WHAT they will say? >All our arguments here on the net won't affect the common buyer. As for >price, I really don't know how deep CBM could cut. We'll see. Excuse me? Kevin, have you kept up with Commodore over the past eight years? The very reason why Commodore exists has to do with their ability to outprice anybody in the market when it comes to computer electronics. What makes you think that anybody from Japan can outprice them? Commodore builds their *own* chips over seas too. This brings up another point I'd like to make. You dumped the C64, VHS, and something else into a group of underpowered goods that controlled the market. The Commodore 64 sold because it had better features than anything in the low-end computer market. It was the best in it's market. I don't think CD-I can live in this very same market up against CDTV. The CD-I makers have yet to deliver a unit to compete with CDTV in *this* market. Perhaps Commodore will soon release (in about a year :) ) a high-end CDTV unit with features to compete with CD-I, and perhaps a board will come out for CDTV to upgrade. Think of CDTV as a building block for Commodore's multimedia onslaught. I don't care who builds what for CD-I, it will *not* outprice CDTV in it's own market. A good deal of the word "perhaps" in that sentence, perhaps..but it's all you can say about CD-I too. >I _haven't_ even mentioned the coming ISDN, virtual reality, remote services, >and other star players in the CD-I home interactive arena. Gentlemen, >I fear that CBM hasn't a clue what a swift and wide river they stepped into. The Amiga has played a staring role in some of the more advanced virtual reality projects. CBM does have a clue as to what the public wants in a computer (but they don't know how to market it). IBM doesn't have a clue about how to build a computer. So what? >But anytime someone promotes CDTV solely because it's from Commodore, I'm >gonna jump in. Anytime someone wishes inferior technology on the world >simply because it's happened before, I'm gonna jump in. And anytime someone >thinks CBM is the last word in graphics chips, _everyone_ should jump in ;-). Well welcome to the world of computers! We Amiga users have seen "someone promote MSDOS and Apple computers solely because it's from them." We've seen IBM practicly ram inferior technology down the world's throat. We've seen people pay bloated prices for an Apple simply because people think it's the last word in computers. I'd say it's Commodore's turn to stick their hand in the public's pocket. Maybe CDTV does have *some* less able features than what I'm sure will be a much higher priced CD-I unit, but I hope Commodore sells the socks off it. Why? Because I trust Commodore more with the "future" of multimedia and computer standards than any other (IBM, Apple, Atari). You see, after years of pigs from IBM and Apple (The IIfx is a nice pig, but you have to live high on the hog to own one. :) ), maybe it's time for a company with brains (although they need a marketing transplant) to rule a certain computer market? CDTV is a VERY nice machine. The point is it's HERE and CD-I isn't, no matter how many "production" units you've played with that sell for $1000+. Here's a fact: CDTV exists in a under-$1000 consumer unit. CD-I does exist to a small extent, but in a different level of the market. After years of IBM and Apple TV ads that make it sound like they are God's gift to computers, I *don't care anymore*. If CDTV makes Commodore money, the Amiga line get's an R&D injection, and that makes me happy. For all I care they can use the multimedia market like a cheap hooker for the next two years like Apple has used a computer and it's name to fill the bank with money. In summary: CD-I isn't even here yet, so what you promise as features should be taken with a grain of salt. CD-I, if it does have all those features, will probably not sell for under $1000. CDTV does have it's feature advantages over CD-I. And Commodore can use CDTV profits to boast the Amiga and produce a new CDTV model (if CD-I can deliver on it's features..and that's a BIG if). Or look at it this way...Some CD-I backers use the profits from a poor VHS standard to produce a CD-I player, and Commodore uses profits from a poor (I don't agree with this, but in your words...) CDTV standard to produce Amiga products. Gee, the world isn't so complicated when you look at it through IBM eyes...[Writing that one down...] Tom -- Why purchase a MAC when an Amiga with the same CPU will run 99% of all __ MAC software..and FASTER at that?! The same can be said of the IBM and __/// Atari computers, and I can run those in a window. IBM's greatest sales \XX/ tool is ignorance on the consumer's part. Only the Amiga! DEVO Anyone?
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (04/14/91)
> OK, I've watched certain remarks go far enough. Kevin, your neatly leaving > out several factors which put the odds in CD-I's favor... Hey, I'm only human. Still, I think I've tried _very_ hard not to put any unfair slant on things... altho many people besides myself think I've been given provocation to do so. Ah, but what's life without a little pain? :-) > Since CD-I doesn't come standard with a blitter, how do you propose very > fast and intensive graphic manipulations in things such as games? Since you put so much misplaced emphasis on blitters, and some critical technical comparisons (chip ram access, especially) didn't seem to indicate obvious answers to you, I fear you're asking me the impossible. Umm...okay, if you tell me you know how ANIMs are played back, and/or how to calculate chip ram lockout, then I'll know if you'll understand. Otherwise, honestly we may both be wasting our time, and you'll just have to trust me ;-). Email indicates that those who need to know (programmers), got the picture tho. > Hey, how about that OS? The Amiga has a much more cleanly constructed, > faster, and RAM conservative OS than anything IBM or Apple currently makes. I agree, but wonder why you constantly brought up IBM/Apple. They're not in it. CD-I uses a version of OS-9, honed for six years just for interactive TV. I doubt that you can find a cleaner, tighter or more solid OS for a player. > CDTV sports a very impressive list of expansion ports. Umm. Check out _other_ people's postings in amiga groups on this subject. Much of your message seems to show that you've only read .advocacy articles. > CD-I isn't even here yet, so what you promise as features should > be taken with a grain of salt. CD-I, if it does have all those features, > will probably not sell for under $1000. Well, I don't blame you for disbelieving. It's a lot like trying to explain my Amiga to an IBM owner. It's _always_ easier to shoot the messenger than to believe something you don't wish to :-) Believe me, I didn't/don't want to be that messenger. At the same time, people should know the facts. Those who've kept up on the other c.s.a.xxx groups, know about new 680x0 video systems coming out which use many of the CD-I chips. They sell for under $1000 _with_ DMA 1.44meg drive, DMA SCSI port, 3meg RAM, 5 serial ports, 2 parallel ports, PC keyboard/mouse ports, DMA stereo audio output _and_ input ports, up to 256 colors out of 16 million, and realtime multitasking/user windowing and multiple screens in 100K of code. The makers are tiny companies. I repeat this only because it might persuade you that a <$1000 CD-I system will be _easy_ for the huger companies who brought you digital TV sets, LCD portables, and CD stereos at bargain prices. Too much salt is bad for one :) > If CDTV makes Commodore money, the Amiga > line get's an R&D injection, and that makes me happy. For all I care they > can use the multimedia market like a cheap hooker for the next two years like > Apple has used a computer and it's name to fill the bank with money. With respect, I fear that you're kneejerking here, without thinking of the consequences. I've thought for a year about what CDTV will mean for CBM -- Benefits: First, the Amiga fairly quickly gains a set of CDROM titles; and altho they are not oriented towards _Amiga_ use (eg: data retrieval for use in reports), we still get a massive shot in the arm to Amiga CDROM. Second, it brought in some multimedia studios who had previously ignored the Amiga. Third, it has the potential of prompting CBM to more quickly upgrade Amiga graphics. Fourth, it brings some needed publicity to CBM. Pitfalls: First, the original R&D might've gone into better Amiga graphics; instead we must wait up to a year (according to a recent show report here). Second, CBM'll continuously have to lower prices. That equals lower profit, with all its ramifications. Potentially worst of all: the Amiga has built up a fairly decent reputation... now what will happen to that when people compare CDTV/CD-I output, and someone mentions that CDTV has an Amiga core? Thoughtful discussion welcome. Don't rely just on me. Again, I like Amigas. But I've also been a five-year believer in I-TV, and yes, CD-I. If you think YOU feel bad when Mac users claim to have invented multimedia, then you know how I feel about CDTV. But that's a beef I have with CBM, not anyone here. I've also said that I don't doubt that CDTV will sell... but I also fear that it might not benefit either the Amiga or I-TV in the end; and could hurt. In any case, some keep trying to make this one of those silly "XXs vs Amigas". I'd much rather talk about possible applications. One I just thought of would be a college tour disc for high school students. Others? > Gee, the world isn't so complicated when you look at it through IBM eyes... If you say so! I sure wouldn't know, nor want to. :-) take care - kevin
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (04/15/91)
In article <23487@know.pws.bull.com> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes: > As a matter of fact, CD-I doesn't come standard with a lot of things. Hey, >how about that OS? The Amiga has a much more cleanly constructed, faster, and >RAM conservative OS than anything IBM or Apple currently makes. What on earth does that have to do with CD-I? The operating system in CD-I players is not anything IBM or Apple currently makes. Honest, not every non-Commodore product is IBM or Apple. James Jones
kudla@rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (04/16/91)
I've decided that all of these arguments are pretty pointless because
I'm gonna be buying an a690 at some point just for use as a CD-ROM
drive if nothing else, and the only reason I even care if CDTV takes
off at all is that if it does there'll be lots of new awesome games
for it. :) My next CD player? Probably a tossup between a CD/LD
multiplayer and a CD-I player..... I've already got an Amiga, the 690
will be useful as a CD-ROM player, and the hardware specs and whatnot
of CD-I *are* more impressive. Of course, if a lot of bitchin' games
aren't made for it I might bag it until they are..... the "world
atlas" and "great recipes" discs people keep raving about are about as
interesting to me as the online services which advertise "great movie
reviews" and "convenient plane tickets". Who uses these things?!
Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@rpi.edu>
No more bars! No more cages! Just rollerskating, disco music, and
the occasional light show....