opielask@clutx.clarkson.edu (Scott K. Opiela,,,2684025) (12/01/89)
I want a mac emulator for my ST that is 100 percent legal.
Is this too much to ask? Isn't this the "moral" thing to do?
Isn't this what everyone is trying to do?
I priced the most inexpensive LEGAL mac emulator I could find, please tell
me if there is a more inexpensive way to go:
Spectre 128... $129.95 (retail)
(Now the 128k roms, which can only be
LEGALLY attained from Apple Computer Inc.)
(AND the System and Finder software that
ARE ALSO COPYRIGHTED BY Apple Computer
Inc. for use exclusively on Macs)
(Apple has a nice little package that includes
the 128k roms, and the System software,
PLUS they throw in a Mac Plus for free!
[minus roms and System software]) Mac Plus package... $909 (edu. price)
-----
$1038.95 (LEGAL?)
This is of course excluding the price of the St to run it on.
Doesn't anyone realize this?
--------------------------
Totally "tongue in cheek"...
opielask@clutx.clarkson.edu
naas17@snypotba.bitnetmjv@iris.brown.edu (Marshall Vale) (12/01/89)
In article <1989Nov30.185438.6755@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> opielask@clutx.clarkson.edu (Scott K. Opiela,,,2684025) writes: > (Now the 128k roms, which can only be > LEGALLY attained from Apple Computer Inc.) When I was searching for the ROMS, I did call an authorized Apple dealer and they would sell me ROMs. This might depend on the dealer though. > (AND the System and Finder software that > ARE ALSO COPYRIGHTED BY Apple Computer > Inc. for use exclusively on Macs) You can go into any Apple dealer and purchase the latest system software for around USD$45. > (Apple has a nice little package that includes > the 128k roms, and the System software, > PLUS they throw in a Mac Plus for free! > [minus roms and System software]) Mac Plus package... $909 (edu. price) Not everyone has access to the educational discount. Also take note that you get to use the discount ONCE, that's it (you also can't sell it for a period of time thereafter either.) Also, each university is on a different price reduction level depending on Mac use. Brown is at the highest level, but some other college may have to offer it for several hundred more. Since you would use your one time discount, you'd probably also buy an Imagewriter and (/or only if you're a masochist) a hard drive. Then add that all to the cost of the discounted Mac. I would certainly use my one time discount to choose a set that I would be able to use for a long time (like one from the Mac II line but then, that's me). If Apple really thought that places that sell used HD (and therefore ROMS) were illegal, I doubt that you would see those places still around. For example, say a person has a dead Plus that they want to sell. Joe's Used Macs buys it and then proceeds to gut the dead Plus and sell its parts. That's probably still legal, hence we are able to get ROMS. Don't forget that the Plus has a very short life span left as new apple product. It won't be much time before the SE is bottom of the line and that's around $1400-2000USD with the edu discount! (Add HD and its crazy). I won't even get into want "constitutes" a Mac. ROMS? Apple logo? Chips? I hope this makes everyone feel a bit more legit. -- mjv@iris.brown.edu "And, oh! Father Christmas, if you love me at all, Bring me a big, red india-rubber ball." A.A. Milne "Now We are Six"
dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) (12/10/89)
The note-thread discusses the legality of purchasing Mac ROMS, System, and
Finder.
I have no comment. See next paragraph.
People, please, please be careful about giving legal judgements as
anything but your own personal opinion ("..in my personal opinion .."). Even
that may not be enough. I was told in no uncertain terms that only attorneys
can render legal opinions, and if someone gets upset about what you write,
they can use it against you.
I am not giving you this advice to advocate restraint of free speech,
which I very much favor, nor to mindlessly irritate you. As many people know,
Gadgets is currently involved in a "replevin" action against Data Pacific, and
a "libel" action against Happy Computers, plus their respective presidents.
Many of the comments I have made online are included as exhibits in those
suits and are the actual subjects of those suits. (Curious? Look at the GEnie
conference, May '88, in which I discussed whether or not to do the 128K
Mac emulator.) I am just giving you this advice from some rather bad
personal experience; while expressing your opinion online, *be careful*. I
would recommend spending the bucks to get a legal opinion from a computer
literate attorney (they're broken out by category in the yellow pages)
on how you should word your comments.
I have no comment on ROM procurement / System-Finder procurement.
It is my personal opinion that I made very sure, to the tune of large lawyer
fees, that the ROMs could be had -- call up Pre-Owned Electronics and see.
Still, if you see a license and are bound by it, I think you should stick
to it.
Personally, the thought of someone telling me what I may or may not
do with chips I paid big dollars for is ... you can imagine. I can just see
Radio Shack:"What is your intended use for this 74LS04? An assault weapon?".
Please be careful. While it is one of the first cases, you can *bet*
that more libel actions will be brought by manufacturers whose products are
criticized online, as manufacturers realize the power of the medium. USENET
may be the biggest of them all.
-- thanks, Dave / Gadgets by Small
Suggestions for what toputin a witty address line are welcome. I'm senile.forbes@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Jeff Forbes) (12/11/89)
In article <14888@well.UUCP> dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) writes: > Personally, the thought of someone telling me what I may or may not >do with chips I paid big dollars for is ... you can imagine. I can just see >Radio Shack:"What is your intended use for this 74LS04? An assault weapon?". > Many semiconductor companies have disclaimers that their semiconductors (of any type) may not be used in medical lifesupport equipment, unless certain conditions are met. Jeff
matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) (12/12/89)
In article <1989Dec10.213607.21807@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> forbes@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Jeff Forbes) writes: >Many semiconductor companies have disclaimers that their semiconductors >(of any type) may not be used in medical lifesupport equipment, unless certain >conditions are met. > > Jeff Is that because of moral arguments, or just plainly they know their ICs aren't reliable enough for medical life support equipment, and the certain conditions are backup stuff? Mike