🚀 go-pugleaf

skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip 'AdaX' Sauls) writes:
>>Also, like CDTV and CD-I, it does not have any provisions for motion
>> video, something I and many consider important. (CDTV has a very limited
>> format just quarter screen 10 fps using it's 4096 colors.)

>Why do you insist on spreading your misinformation everywhere?  Have you ever
>seen a CDTV?  The "format" you refer to is CDXL and it is 1/3 screen at 12 fps.
>As to the number of colors, it supports 4096 using standard hardware and up
>to 2-4M colors (NTSC) using the DCTV add on.

Don't tell that to me. Tell that to the Amiga magazine I got this information
STRAIGHT OUT OF..

>CDTV and CDI do much more with ~8MHz 68000s than an MPC with 386sx and all
>of the "multimedia" add-ons like VGA, SoundBlaster, and CDROM.

In your opinion. I d not think the speed is all that important for the things
these three things do. Perhaps the only advantage of requiring a 386 is
so the Windows can use the 386 capabilities. (remember that many 286-16's are
as fast as a 386SX at 16 MHz. So why not allow them in this standard?)

>> MPC should include some kind of provision for DVI, and the price for
>> DVI should come down. This is the best way to go for multimedia of the
>> future.

>Ha!  Just like the 486 is the best way to go for architectures of the future.
>Are you getting paid by Intel to spread propaganda across the net?

Touchy, touchy, touchy. I am talking about multimedia for IBM's, which is
what this thread was about before you brought your Amiga propaganda into it.
I am not implying the Amiga should be abandoned in favor of DVI. And when
did I say the 486 is the way to go for architectures of the future? I never
said that (in fact, the 586 is probably a better choice, when it comes out.)
Maybe RISC is the way to go. Who knows? (excuse me for getting touchy, but
let's stick to the point of the threads. Leave the propoganda in advocacy or
a thread that calls for it.)

Nish Patel  nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
B
B
B
A