This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
CDTV article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "CDTV" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
My God! You picked up on my typo. Good for you. We are done here. Out. Aloha27 talk 13:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
CDTV article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "CDTV" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
My God! You picked up on my typo. Good for you. We are done here. Out. Aloha27 talk 13:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)