Reasonable definition of "Multimedia" 1985-1992
 

It seems we need a reasonable definition of the term "Multimedia" and what it meant between 1985 and 1992 when the Amiga was still in production. A certain thread was started and the question of what a "multimedia computer" priced and designed for the electronics consumer could do by 1992 seems to be in contention.

First, I think we can say that it is unreasonable to attach or force modern ideas of what multimedia means today to Amiga computers built in the years mentioned above.

I would submit that in 1985 I could view graphics and photos on an Amiga in a variety of different color depths including HAM mode. I could do this while listening to 4 channel stereo music. I could view animated graphics and I could manipulate and create both graphics and music. I give a little bit of room for software development. In 1985 the Amiga had the capability but lacked some software needed to fully realize the machine's potential. D-Paint was ready for sale at the very beginning.

The Mac (1984) couldn't match any of this. The PC? Well, if you were willing to invest $8,000 to $10,000 in your x386 machine (x486 available in 1989) you could easily surpass what the Amiga could do but I wish to be practical insofar as what "home" consumers had available to them. I seem to recall that for many years, "$2,500" was the price point for consumers to own "high-end" computer equipment.

However, none of that has anything to do with the definition. What would you expect a "multimedia computer" to be able to do between 1985 and 1992?

Also, lets not cover ground already discussed in that previous, and now locked, thread. Just a reasonable definition of what a "multimedia computer" could be expected to do (or was expected to do) between 1985 and 1992, the life of the original Amiga hardware before Commodore went toes-up.

Note: The Newtek Video Toaster was available in 1990. However, the first(?) external sound card for the Amiga, the Toccata, wasn't available until 1994, so we're limited to the Paula chip.

I'd argue that the standard dictionary definition is probably sufficient for what the term itself means:
As for what it means in terms of computers between 1985 and 1992, that depends. In computer use the word has largely been used as a marketing term introduced by PC vendors around the time that PC's started having the abilities required to do multimedia applications (as in the definition above). However, that is mostly marketing fluff.

In my opinion it can easily be argued that any system that is capable of combining audio & video interactively can qualify as being multimedia capable. Considering everything this would include systems such as the Atari 8-bit, the C64, Amstrad CPC and even the Apple-II and ZX-Spectrum (as well as others, this isn't an exhaustive list).

However, in reality the 8-bit systems were not really used for such applications - primarily due to storage limitations. The first actual multimedia style applications widely used probably arrived only on the 16 bit systems and the PC. An early contender for what I'd qualify as a pure 'multimedia system' would be the CDTV, but that has more to do with the style of software that was pushed on the system rather than it's capabilities.
I'd say this is always true, regardless of platform :)
Given enough money, you could technically do multimedia before the Amiga was launched. Not in the home sphere, though. It's also rather questionable if multimedia was actually done on these far more expensive systems as the nature of multimedia really only makes it useful if many people can use such applications.

Having some proof of concept sit somewhere on a super mini/super computer somewhere while no one is actually using it utterly defeats the point. Kind of like how you can argue that Formula one cars are the worst cars ever - statistically no one get to use them so they're pointless for all but bragging rights ;)
Well, this is the crux. The problem with the question is that it's going to be very subjective. Multimedia really doesn't mean that much special (most systems from the late 1970's onwards can do it) so you end up with arguments about what the minimum viable system for multimedia is. Some people will argue that the Amiga fits the bill because of it's relatively advanced graphics/sound combo for 1985, others might argue you really need CD-ROM storage levels and yet others might argue that even that is not enough. One question, a hundred answers.

Personally, I'd argue that from a technical perspective, the first systems that could be seen as multimedia is probably the A1000 or the Mindwalker, but the first systems that were actually multimedia focussed by design were probably the CDTV and CDI. "Multimedia PC's" were technically more capable, but far less focussed on actually multimedia.

CGI workstations and macs, amiga for some toaster stuff 89-94..
Most other things were green screens, and tapes with digital time markers.

If we argue multimedia that is in reach for regular ppl, I’d say it was not until cdroms became cheap. Even simple video editing takes hardware grunt or specialized cards up until ~ 1998

The “DivX” hack was in the right time and place for storage, distribution and hardware in reach for regular ppl... and that really took off.

All great points. Does MS Encarta count as multimedia? Well, the marketing said it did and was a multimedia "experience." It came standard on canned PCs in 1995/96 as produced by Packy-Bell like the first real PC I had in 1996.

CD32/CDTV? We had the Hutchinson's Multimedia Encyclopedia, among other multimedia titles.

I mentioned earlier that some leeway is in order for the software and hardware that became available after 1992 since the hardware was already capable of running it.

I would consider the 9 FINGERS demo (1993) as an Amiga multimedia presentation and all that was needed was an A500 to run it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4M7e79XTYk

"Multimedia" in computing for me will be always tied to the arrival of the CD-ROM. I know that this is an industry designation, not a literal one (like in a dictionary) but it actually works well and everyone is used to it.

In context of this thread (and the locked one) I don't feel the need to mix this term in. For me it's enough to say that Amiga was the best home computer in regard to AV capabilities during the ~1986~1991 period.

Agreed. What else can really be said? The Amiga got a CDROM drive in the form of the A570 in 1992. Was that the first? What kind of multimedia was available on CDROM to Amiga users who installed that drive? I don't honestly know. I'm sure it could read, but not play, the CD32/CDTV discs. However, I think it was used mostly for storage, yes?

Sounds about right to me.

reductio ad absurdum
A c64 can do MS Encarta, it just means that FM sound is very bad quality and there will be a lot of casettes

A TI81 calculator can do MS encharta, it just means that FM sound is removed, all videos are 3 frames in 1 colour dithered and is sliced up in 4kb parts.

Right. My point was, we had an "Encarta-like" multimedia encyclopedia on CD32/CDTV. We didn't need Encarta. However, did it qualify as "multimedia?" Yes. CDROMs and music CDs are a type of media. Multimedia includes both software and hardware beyond the ability to work with soft-media formats (IFF, HAM, MOD) I would think.

I had an A570 and it could natively run CDTV discs. You could actually boot such CD's directly and it would start you up in the CDTV splash screen rather than the Kickstart screen. IIRC you could even use the CDTV controller on the system, though I never did that.

The A570 was not the first CD-ROM drive for a computer though. Grolier's Electronic Encyclopedia is commonly stated to have been the first commercially available CD-ROM disc and was released by Sony and Philips in 1985. It wasn't a platform specific CD though, it was just the text of the encyclopedia on a CD-ROM.

Now THAT is extremely interesting. I mentioned the A570 since it was readily connectable to probably all the Amiga models. I imagine you could have put any commercially available CDROM drive in an A3000 or an A4000 if it was SCSI.

What about Music CDs? There's a player available in OS3.5/3.9. I'm sure we had software back in '92 that could play them as well, didn't we?

Follow-up: Yes, Audio CDs could be played via CDTV-Player v2.30 or earlier by 1992 or 1993 as a single example of available software.

A570 is only for A500 :(

A570 and CDTV could both always play audio CD's as far as I'm aware, so that should've been available from at least 1991.

Ok - thanks for the clarification. Good to know. I should have realized the A570 as A500-only. Anyway, it all sounds like multimedia to me.

There was also the BBC Domesday project in 1986, as per the wiki its described as a Multimedia project.
Again, you needed serious cash to purchase such a system, so much so that it only ended up in schools with money to burn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c6-nUEcOaM

There was one at an Itec training center that I attended circa 1988 but the Laserdisc player broken after only 2 years use and they were not going to pay to have it repaired.

The advent of the CDTV and Phillips CDI brought CD multimedia to the AVERAGE consumer but the market just wasnt really interested at the time.

My guess is that it was with MS Encarta that MS tried to generate interest in a CDROM multimedia experience. Besides that, there wasn't much interest in the format at all. Music and storage - that was the use of CD media until the DVD came along, then Blu-Ray.

I might as well note the reason why the multimedia CDROM failed to generate interest. In 1990, Tim Berners-Lee developed HTML, the World Wide Web, and the first web browser, OmniWeb. It would provide the same service and multimedia experience promised by the CDROM, cheaper and better, and it used the Internet.

I'm not so sure I'd qualify the very early web as better or cheaper than CD-ROM based multimedia, to be honest ;)

More interesting perhaps, as far as I remember it, the web only really started getting traction around 1995-1996, which might be a bit late for our discussion about early multimedia. I'm not even that sure that multimedia didn't gain much traction. I can distinctly remember a lot of people I knew using those super-boring "hypertext CD-roms". To be fair there, I don't have any data on use - this is just anecdotal.

I'm a simple person. Multimedia = multiple forms of media. Graphics are a media. Audio is a media. Games are part of the multimedia family of software. So to me, most computers have been providing multimedia software.

What differs is when people actually care to use the term. In the 85-92 era? Nobody cared. I'm sure the term already existed, in IT-land terms tend to be coined eons before they actually become practical. Today? Nobody cares. It is only that sweet spot in history where people were blown away by an encyclopedia on cdrom where the term really had any traction.

I had a class in school which was named "Multimedia"; must have been in 96/97. To this day I don't really know what that class was about. I faffed around a little with early html and got a passing grade.

A minor note perhaps, but perhaps this thread ought to be moved out of off-topic. It'll eventually be removed if it stays here and becomes inactive and I think it's actually an interesting thread, so that would be a shame.

---
Did a bit more digging on the term and it turns out it's a much older idea than I thought. Apparently it was first used in the 1960's to describe the combination of video, text and audio.