Talk:Commodore CDTV

"Amiga CDTV"

I don't think the CDTV was ever called the "Amiga CDTV". At most, it was the Commodore CDTV. Commodore intentionally avoided associating the CDTV with the Amiga (whether or not this was a good decision is/was a point of debate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.117.101 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got the original box and it's written "Commodore Amiga CDTV" on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:4708:6200:8D20:3C74:9CA5:5055 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The World's first CD-based home console?

Is the Amiga CDTV the world's first CD based home console, it seems highly probbible being that it was launched in March 1991, there should be a investgation, because I strongly belive, and strongly feel I have reason to belive, that this is the world's first 32 bit game console. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool 82.151.232.181 (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The CDTV is regarded as 16BIT not 32BIT
Mcjakeqcool (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The PC Engine had CD in 1988 (called Turbosomething CD in the US). I do not believe the CDTV was marketed as a console, but if it beat the CD-I to marked it would be the first "68K based consumer oriented device with CD hardware" --Anss123 (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The CDTV was the world's first computer with a CD drive built-in as standard, but it was 16 BIT and therefore could not be the world's first 32 BIT CD console. It was an odd concept, and customers had the option of purchasing the CDTV on its own with the wireless controller (Games/Multimedia console) or you could buy the plus pack; keyboard, mouse, disc drive, monitor, to turn it into a desktop PC. Also worth noting is that at the time, it also emulated an IBM compatible with faster performance than a real IBM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.220.98 (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Emulated an IBM faster than a real IBM". The fastest IBM compatible PC in 1991 was the 486DX CPU. The fastest hardware PC emulator for the Amiga ever used a Cyrix 486SLC CPU which was slower than any 486DX CPU. Software emulators running on a plain MC68000 CPU were dismally slower, even slower than the original IBM PC released in 1981. So I don't see how that is possible in any scenario. 84.49.75.226 (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The scenario is literally physically impossible.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The photo is inaccurate. As a huge fan of the CDTV, I know that all CDTV keyboards are completely black. That looks to me like an Amiga 4000 keyboard painted black. It couldn't even be a CDTV base with A4000 keys because the mechanisms are incompatible. 82.151.232.181 (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's entirely possible it's an A3/4000 keyboard that has been modded to work with the CDTV and the casing has been painted, but they didn't do the keys because it's a bit of a chore to do every single key to invert the colours from white key/black letter to vice-versa. I know it's probably possible, since I've seen CDTV keyboards that have been modded to work with the CD32. 84.49.75.226 (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Screen resolution? Number of colors? etc. etc.?

Resolved

 – Requested info was added.

It is quite unusual for an article like this one to not specify how many distinct colors the system has, how many of them it can display simultaneously, sound and music capabilities and all the other data you can find with the other old computer/console wikipedia articles. --217.232.227.9 (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor cleanup

I'm not going to pore over every bit of back-and-forth between regular editors of this page and the recent sockpuppet edits by an anon (I think some discussion about it on this page was even redacted). I've done a minor cleanup pass on the page, and made some tweaks – sometimes for, sometimes against the positions held by that party – in accordance with WP:MOS, MOS:NUM, and just WP:Common sense or WP:BETTER, however you want to look at it. I hope these are sufficient to resolve the matter (or matters). Please be assured that the attempts to WP:CANVASS me and various others at our user talk pages to side with the anon were recognized for what they were, and that it also became clear that the anon's understanding of MOS:TENSE, etc., was faulty. I did actually find two sentences (in the lead and the first section) with tense problems: When discussing the device as a thing in and of itself – which still exists and is still tinkered with by hobbyists – we use present tense; when discussing its development history, marketing, public reaction, etc., which are events that happened in the past, we use past tense. I've inserted an HTML comment to this effect to hopefully forestall any future editwarring about the matter. Also did some general MOSNUM formatting cleanup, and linked some technical terms, and removed a gross pile of redundancy and blather about acronyms. Toodles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: Also cleaned up the tech specs table (mostly for the WP:ACCESSIBILITY problem that it wasn't using list markup for lists), and made the lead better summarize what this thing is instead of it being mysterious unless you read the entire article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aloha27 and Ebyabe: Pinging previous editors who reverted the anon's rather scattershot changes, since I reinstated a few of them in some form, while leaving many sensibly undone.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no issues with what you've done here. Nice work. My issues were with a banned editor's socks. Regards   Aloha27  talk  03:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"which was" Vs "and"

I was dropped a line on my talk page regarding an edit here. I am uninvolved in that I've not edited this article before, but have dabbled in other Commodore articles.

I'm not sure if the IP editor and I have interacted before, as this is their first edit from that address, so cannot expand on any history between us.

Anyway - they asked me to look at an edit:

developed by Commodore International which was launched in March 1991.

developed by Commodore International and launched in March 1991.

and the rationale of "No, because that's like saying that the company was launched in 1991, which it wasn't" - which was reverted by aloha27 here without an edit summary.

Other changes were made, but the bone of contention is clearly with the above - and I agree with the IP - "which was" is the wrong term to use and in this context applies to the directly previous - "Commodore International". "And" is the better term here.

Also, strictly speaking as per WP:BRD IP is again correct - a change was made by Piriczki here and reverted by IP as noted above. Rather than re-reverting Aloha27 should have begun discussion - just as I'm doing here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

IP editor in question has been reported as yet another sockpuppet of a banned user. Many hours have been wasted on this individual, time that could have been better utilized doing other things on the project. Banned means banned IMO. Revert, block, ignore. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  12:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but you also reverted me. I am not banned. (And please indent your replies!) Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

My reply here certainly was indented. (That's what the colon does) Good day to you.   Aloha27  talk  13:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Your reply here was indented because I indented it, not you. Good day indeed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

My God! You picked up on my typo. Good for you. We are done here. Out.   Aloha27  talk  13:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I picked up on three of the same typos - which is rather a lot for an experienced editor. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Surprised that you also didn't catch the fact you were dealing with a sockpuppet then. The previous section here ought to have alerted you to what had taken place here. Good day.   Aloha27  talk  16:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I made it clear that I had only limited info to deal with. And that still doesn't change the fact that you reverted my edits out of hand, rather than explaining your point of view in the discussion that I had started. It also doesn't change the fact that it was a good edit - rather obviously, because if it wasn't, I wouldn't have reinstated it myself. Also, given that it's now been in place while we are chin-wagging here, it seems likely that you also agree on the validity of the edit - which puts even more doubt on your knee-jerk reaction earlier.

The point I'm trying to make is this:

• Ok, it was a sock-puppet edit and your initial reversion was in that case not against policy.
• However, another uninvolved editor, saw fit to reinstate the edit - considering it a valid improvement to the article. The editor also explained their reasoning in both edit summary and talk page discussion.
• You reverted that edit as well without joining in the discussion, while commenting on the editor - not the edit. That is against policy.
• All I'm after here is you recognise that as soon as another editor gets involved you cannot apply vandalism or SP rules to both - WP itself realises this possibility by also suggesting Try to fix problems in the Wikipedia:Deny recognition article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)