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 <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>


--
/ 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        *                                              /

