wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) (07/17/90)
I wanted to know what is the general consensus in this newsgroup about piracy in the C64 world, since in the Amiga newsgroup, it is condemned heartily. do you feel this kills computers? or is it just wrong, plain and simple? -Mark Dolengo
jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu (Joe Greco) (07/18/90)
In comp.sys.cbm article <1990Jul16.222043.7094@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) wrote: :I wanted to know what is the general consensus in this newsgroup about piracy :in the C64 world, since in the Amiga newsgroup, it is condemned heartily. :do you feel this kills computers? or is it just wrong, plain and simple? By definition, piracy is the unauthorized duplication of a copyrighted work, and to me this suggests a legal aspect. In this area, I believe that there are fairly few grey areas - right and wrong are defined by law. What is the point of asking this? ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee - Department of Mathematics jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu USnail: Joe Greco Voice: 414/321-6184 9905 W. Montana Ave. Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS) West Allis, WI 53227-3329 #include <witty_and_humorous_saying.h> Disclaimer: I don't speak for the Math Department, the University, or myself.
wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) (07/18/90)
the reason why I asked is basically to find out if anyone here believes piracy is killing the 64 <like it supposedly killed Atari>. On a few BBS's I'm on, we've gotten into a discussion about it and several people feel that piracy is helping add fuel to the demise of the 64. -Mark Dolengo
petrino@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (07/19/90)
In article <5105@uwm.edu>, jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu (Joe Greco) writes: > In comp.sys.cbm article <1990Jul16.222043.7094@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) wrote: > :I wanted to know what is the general consensus in this newsgroup about piracy > :in the C64 world, since in the Amiga newsgroup, it is condemned heartily. > :do you feel this kills computers? or is it just wrong, plain and simple? > > By definition, piracy is the unauthorized duplication of a copyrighted work, > and to me this suggests a legal aspect. In this area, I believe that there > are fairly few grey areas - right and wrong are defined by law. > > What is the point of asking this? > > .... Joe > IMHO, the question was how do we feel about piracy as opposed to the legality of the act. Although for some, these two things may be inseperable, illegal = bad... therefore no do, I don't see it that way. We all make "moral" decisions as to what laws/codes we live by. As far as I am concerned, piracy is acceptable. I have pirated software, I have used pirated software, and at least 90% of the people I know(w/ pc's) own/use pirated software. I have no problem with that, or with anyone who does (or doesn't) partake. My decision. I also can't drive 55 :) Disclaimer: This statement solely represents my opinion, not that of the University of Kansas, the computer center, or any of my colleagues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \ / Jack Petrino (DRAGON) int: PETRINO@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU |\^--^/| Systems Testing bit: PETRINO@UKANVAX < O O > University of Kansas vox: (913)864-0443 \/ \/ Computer Center fax: (913)864-0485 / oo \ \ .. / "Rock U Like a HURRICANE" (CBR1000F) -----------------------------------------------------------------------
jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu (Joe Greco) (07/20/90)
In comp.sys.cbm article <1990Jul18.150659.30066@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) wrote: :the reason why I asked is basically to find out if anyone here believes piracy :is killing the 64 <like it supposedly killed Atari>. On a few BBS's I'm on, :we've gotten into a discussion about it and several people feel that piracy is :helping add fuel to the demise of the 64. If piracy were a major factor in the demise of a machine, the 64 would have been dead around 1983. Protection, piracy, and copiers have been around at least that long. What really kills a machine? Obsolescense. The 64 was designed with a disk interface that was obsolete when it was introduced. 8 bit micros are actually becoming difficult to find. Look at prices. I paid perhaps $1400 for my initial setup of 64, 1540, and 1525. Nowadays, you can get a clone with HD and minimal VGA for that price. I can build a pc532 for around that price. A perfect example is my Commodore calculator. In the '70's, it was a nice calculator. In the '90's, they integrate twice the functionality into a wristwatch at half the price. What brought about the demise of this model of calculator? Software piracy? No. Better technology and other improvements. I'm as favorable towards Commodore as the next fellow. Perhaps more so. I learned most of what I know about computing on them. Knowledge which has served me well. But it is my opinion that the 64 was a wonder machine in the early 80's, and unfortunately it is just outdated in the early 90's. ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee - Department of Mathematics jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu USnail: Joe Greco Voice: 414/321-6184 9905 W. Montana Ave. Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS) West Allis, WI 53227-3329 #include <witty_and_humorous_saying.h> Disclaimer: I don't speak for the Math Department, the University, or myself.
eric@uoft02.utoledo.edu (07/20/90)
> In article <5105@uwm.edu>, jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu (Joe Greco) writes: > In comp.sys.cbm article <1990Jul16.222043.7094@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) wrote: > :I wanted to know what is the general consensus in this newsgroup about piracy > :in the C64 world, since in the Amiga newsgroup, it is condemned heartily. > :do you feel this kills computers? or is it just wrong, plain and simple? > I think it has more of an effect on killing the computer magazines and books that offer software than on the computer maker itself. People start sharing their software out of mags/books, and not buying the mags/books, so the mags and books don't make a profit and go under. Thus the lack of new books/mags for the c64/c128. Notice the computer is not much affected by all this. My Personal view is that most piracy is bad. However, I don't think it is what's hurting the computer makers. Eric Jon ROSTETTER ERIC@UOFT02.bitnet or ERIC@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU A mind is not a terrible thing to waste, but to waste a mind is a terrible thing
kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (07/22/90)
In <1990Jul18.150659.30066@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) writes:
-> the reason why I asked is basically to find out if anyone here
-> believes piracy is killing the 64 <like it supposedly killed
-> Atari>. On a few BBS's I'm on, we've gotten into a discussion about
-> it and several people feel that piracy is helping add fuel to the
-> demise of the 64.
The Atari died because of real bad marketing and technical s3upport
that made Commodore look godlike. In some regards, the 800 was
actually a better machine, especially considering the 5 year age
difference. But, the software for it mostly sucked.
As for piracy and the 64..... I'll put it this way. When I had my 64,
up to about four years ago, I had about 200 disks worth of stuff for
it and quite a bit of it was pirated. Two months ago I decided it
would be fun to have a 64-compatible machine so I bought the 128. And
every piece of software I have for it is legal, even the games. I may
still go out and pirate some stuff that I buy and find I can't back
up, just to prove a point that copy protection is the wrong way to do
things. But the userbase here has matured a lot, and there's a ton of
good, interesting, fun software out there in the public domain. Not
bad, considering that when I was running a pirate board way back when,
PD was automatically labeled as crap.
There'll always be at least a few avid Commodore users, and I do
believe there's enough software out there that no one person could
even acquire a majority of it. But there probably won't be a
QLINK come 1995 or so, and the ever-profit-oriented magazines will
probably be going away much sooner. The 64 is not a new machine, and
there aren't millions and millions of people constantly adding stuff
on to it to save it from obsolescence as they did the IBM-PC. But
there are still lots of us left, and still lots of people writing
and enjoying 8-bit software. Piracy is not much of an issue anymore,
I think, and in the next few years I expect it to become rampant once
more as the software houses shift all their production to the 16 and
32 bit platforms.
As an aside, at the moment I'm using the "Common Sense" software that
was included with my 1670 because I can't get Desterm to run (it just
freezes at the white on black opening screen). Is there something I'm
doing wrong? If no one notices this I'll just post another article in
a couple days, no biggie.
--
Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu>
Throw out your gold teeth and see how they roll;
the answer they reveal: life is unreal.kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (07/22/90)
In <1990Jul18.150659.30066@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) writes:
-> the reason why I asked is basically to find out if anyone here
-> believes piracy is killing the 64 <like it supposedly killed
-> Atari>. On a few BBS's I'm on, we've gotten into a discussion about
-> it and several people feel that piracy is helping add fuel to the
-> demise of the 64.
The Atari died because of real bad marketing and technical s3upport
that made Commodore look godlike. In some regards, the 800 was
actually a better machine, especially considering the 5 year age
difference. But, the software for it mostly sucked.
As for piracy and the 64..... I'll put it this way. When I had my 64,
up to about four years ago, I had about 200 disks worth of stuff for
it and quite a bit of it was pirated. Two months ago I decided it
would be fun to have a 64-compatible machine so I bought the 128. And
every piece of software I have for it is legal, even the games. I may
still go out and pirate some stuff that I buy and find I can't back
up, just to prove a point that copy protection is the wrong way to do
things. But the userbase here has matured a lot, and there's a ton of
good, interesting, fun software out there in the public domain. Not
bad, considering that when I was running a pirate board way back when,
PD was automatically labeled as crap.
There'll always be at least a few avid Commodore users, and I do
believe there's enough software out there that no one person could
even acquire a majority of it. But there probably won't be a
QLINK come 1995 or so, and the ever-profit-oriented magazines will
probably be going away much sooner. The 64 is not a new machine, and
there aren't millions and millions of people constantly adding stuff
on to it to save it from obsolescence as they did the IBM-PC. But
there are still lots of us left, and still lots of people writing
and enjoying 8-bit software. Piracy is not much of an issue anymore,
I think, and in the next few years I expect it to become rampant once
more as the software houses shift all their production to the 16 and
32 bit platforms.
As an aside, at the moment I'm using the "Common Sense" software that
was included with my 1670 (IT SUCKS!!) because I can't get Desterm to
run (it just freezes at the white on black opening screen). Is there
something I'm doing wrong? If no one notices this I'll just post
another article in a couple days, no biggie.
--
Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu>
Throw out your gold teeth and see how they roll;
the answer they reveal: life is unreal.jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu (Joe Greco) (07/22/90)
In comp.sys.cbm article <24987.26a58f60@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, petrino@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote: :IMHO, the question was how do we feel about piracy as opposed to the :legality of the act. Although for some, these two things may be :inseperable, illegal = bad... therefore no do, I don't see it that :way. We all make "moral" decisions as to what laws/codes we live by. :As far as I am concerned, piracy is acceptable. I have pirated :software, I have used pirated software, and at least 90% of the people :I know(w/ pc's) own/use pirated software. I have no problem with that, :or with anyone who does (or doesn't) partake. My decision. The question, if I recall, was if we felt it was responsible for the "decline" of the 64. Your argument here suggests that it indeed is not, for if most PC owners use pirated software, you must recognize that the PC is one of the most popular machines around. I'd suggest that pirating hasn't hurt IBM popularity at all.... as a matter of fact, might enhance it. :-) I would, however, not consider piracy to be acceptable. It is merely a fact of life. I am a software author, so I do have some interest in legality and morality. Perhaps more relevant to the original question, I believe piracy can do a very good job of discouraging software authors from writing software for a machine. Some of my experiences with LEGITIMATE owners of my products were bad enough to make my toes curl up. I finally got exasperated with the pirates and put a backdoor into my BBS, distributed it, and waited until it was sufficiently pirated. Then I went around about 2am one morning and formatted lots of disk drives. I admit, it was petty. But also satisfying. Most software authors don't have such recourse. I wasn't asking a lot of money for the BBS. $5 was all. To have 10 systems running the software, and three legitimate systems is inexcusable. $5 isn't going to break anybody's back. From what I have seen, this is typical of most software users. : I also can't drive 55 :) Neither can I. My car seems to like the 56-57 range, unless there's someone tailgating me, in which case it seems to go even faster. heheh ... Joe (a disgruntled ex-c64 programmer) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee - Department of Mathematics jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu USnail: Joe Greco Voice: 414/321-6184 9905 W. Montana Ave. Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS) West Allis, WI 53227-3329 #include <witty_and_humorous_saying.h> Disclaimer: I don't speak for the Math Department, the University, or myself.
wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) (07/22/90)
alot of pirates are kinda angry because recently in the "elite" world, there hasn't been alot of games released. because of this, alot of groups are doing re-releases <which is surprising to me since this is virtually blasphemous in the "elite" world> and alot of people are saying/ranting about the 64's death. I guess the barometer is easy enoug: when Qlink dies, the 64 is officially dead <r when they are finally discontinued> -Mark Dolengo
ejp@icd.ab.com (Ed Prochak) (07/25/90)
In article <5187@uwm.edu>, jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu (Joe Greco) writes: > In comp.sys.cbm article <1990Jul18.150659.30066@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) wrote: > > What really kills a machine? Obsolescense. The 64 was designed with a disk > interface that was obsolete when it was introduced. 8 bit micros are > actually becoming difficult to find. Look at prices. I paid perhaps $1400 > for my initial setup of 64, 1540, and 1525. Nowadays, you can get a clone > with HD and minimal VGA for that price. I can build a pc532 for around that > price. > > A perfect example is my Commodore calculator. In the '70's, it was a nice > calculator. In the '90's, they integrate twice the functionality into a > wristwatch at half the price. What brought about the demise of this model > of calculator? Software piracy? No. Better technology and other > improvements. > > I'm as favorable towards Commodore as the next fellow. Perhaps more so. I > learned most of what I know about computing on them. Knowledge which has > served me well. But it is my opinion that the 64 was a wonder machine in > the early 80's, and unfortunately it is just outdated in the early 90's. > > ... Joe > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Joe Greco - University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee - Department of Mathematics From the little I have seen of PC clones, the only advantage is the large storage of the hard drive. In quite a few graphics applications the 64 can still beat a clone. That's because of the graphics hardware built into the 64. Granted, games have been the main applications really using this strength of the 64, but some of these are really amazing. Generally, I am of the opinion that the hardware advances have been so great so fast, that much of what is "technologically" obsolete is still useful. My reason is that developers moved onto newer platforms before the previous platform was fully exploited. I will keep my 64 for a while yet. Edward J. Prochak Voice: work-(216)646-4663 home-(216)349-1821 Email: {cwjcc,pyramid,decvax,uunet}!ejp@icd.ab.com USmail: Allen-Bradley, 747 Alpha Drive, Highland Heights,OH 44143 Wellington: ENGINEERING is "the ability to do for one dollar, what any damn fool can do for two."
jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu (Joe Greco) (07/25/90)
In comp.sys.cbm article <1564@abvax.UUCP>, ejp@icd.ab.com (Ed Prochak) wrote:
:From the little I have seen of PC clones, the only advantage is the
:large storage of the hard drive. In quite a few graphics applications
:the 64 can still beat a clone. That's because of the graphics hardware
:built into the 64. Granted, games have been the main applications
:really using this strength of the 64, but some of these are really
:amazing.
It's nice to have a single graphics option. One set of routines will always
work. Having to deal with several levels of display capability from a
multitude of vendors is a real bummer. A hard disk is a definite advantage.
Having a predefined standard for a machine would also help.
:Generally, I am of the opinion that the hardware advances have been
:so great so fast, that much of what is "technologically" obsolete is
:still useful. My reason is that developers moved onto newer platforms
:before the previous platform was fully exploited.
IBM just dropped support for our PC RT's. They are still some of the most
useful (IMHO) machines around this campus. They run Xwindows, NFS, have
most of the niceties of our large public campus machines and they aren't
crowded all the time.
:I will keep my 64 for a while yet.
Me too. But mostly as a terminal. I still like it, I just don't have the
time anymore. :-(
:Edward J. Prochak Voice: work-(216)646-4663 home-(216)349-1821
: Email: {cwjcc,pyramid,decvax,uunet}!ejp@icd.ab.com
:USmail: Allen-Bradley, 747 Alpha Drive, Highland Heights,OH 44143
:Wellington: ENGINEERING is "the ability to do for one dollar,
: what any damn fool can do for two."
Isn't that backwards?
... Joe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Greco - University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee - Department of Mathematics
jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu USnail: Joe Greco
Voice: 414/321-6184 9905 W. Montana Ave.
Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS) West Allis, WI 53227-3329
#include <witty_and_humorous_saying.h>
Disclaimer: I don't speak for the Math Department, the University, or myself.Perry.Stokes@samba.acs.unc.edu (BBS Account) (07/26/90)
In response to a message by Joe Greco, Ed Prochak wrote: > From the little I have seen of PC clones, the only advantage is the > large storage of the hard drive. Oh Really? I guess you've not heard of CMD making SCSI drives for the C=64 that can handle upto 700MB of storage. Not to mention the fact that a c64 with 20MB harddrive has more space than a 20MB IBM harddrive. Your average c64 game can fit on one double sided 1541 disk. <340K total> The average IBM game <gathered from experience and my disk box> takes up much more than that. So If I can fit 20 IBM games on a 20 MB PC harddrive Its a safe bet that you can fit get 3 times that on your 20MB c64 drive. After all there is a large difference between 64K and 640K. Another thing to consider is the fact that a 20MB harddrive for the c64 costs the same as an IBM XT with a 20MB drive. > In quite a few graphics applications the 64 can still beat a clone. Could you elaborate on this statement? Which graphics configuration are you speaking of? Sure the cheapest color setup <being CGA> does not look a whole hell of a lot better than a c64 but it can at least do decent 80 columns. Paint Show Plus looks much better on my CGA monitor than doodle looks on a c64. Gif files look much nicer on the same monitor for my IBM and they don't take 20 minutes to print on the screen. ANSI graphics look MUCH nicer than Commodore Color Graphics. Don't get me wrong; I like my c64 a whole lot and use it daily even though I have an XT and am about to close a deal on a 25 MHz 386 w/ vga. Its the best 8bit I've seen and is much cheaper <and useable> than an Apple II. I just wish people would quit acting as if it is the best computer in the world. Perry Stokes
jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu (Joe Greco) (07/29/90)
In comp.sys.cbm article <631@beguine.UUCP>, Perry.Stokes@samba.acs.unc.edu (BBS Account) wrote: :Oh Really? I guess you've not heard of CMD making SCSI drives for the C=64 :that can handle upto 700MB of storage. Not to mention the fact that a c64 :with 20MB harddrive has more space than a 20MB IBM harddrive. What miracle of compression technology allows this? As far as I've seen, 20*1024*1024 bytes always is 20*1024*1024, allowing for differences in bad sector allocations and all... :Your average c64 game can fit on one double sided 1541 disk. <340K total> : :The average IBM game <gathered from experience and my disk box> takes up much :more than that. : :So If I can fit 20 IBM games on a 20 MB PC harddrive Its a safe bet that you :can fit get 3 times that on your 20MB c64 drive. After all there is a large :difference between 64K and 640K. And I can actually fit one or two 10-megabyte Xwindow based games on a 20-megabyte harddrive. The size of a program tends to be based on the complexity of the computer and the intelligence of the compiler. Most IBM programs are compiled. Most 64 programs are written in assembly (at least games and the like). This is due to limited speed and limited memory: any assembly guru will happily spend a few hours why assembly code is so much more efficient than compiled code. :Another thing to consider is the fact that a 20MB harddrive for the c64 :costs the same as an IBM XT with a 20MB drive. Last I looked, a 20Mb for the 64 was ~$600. A ballpark figure for an ST225 might be about $200. Kindly let me in on the secret. My figures are a little old, but I have a hard time believing it. :Could you elaborate on this statement? Which graphics configuration are :you speaking of? Sure the cheapest color setup <being CGA> does not look :a whole hell of a lot better than a c64 but it can at least do decent 80 :columns. You're right, it looks worse. :Paint Show Plus looks much better on my CGA monitor than doodle looks on a c64. Use the same monitor. :Gif files look much nicer on the same monitor for my IBM and they don't take :20 minutes to print on the screen. Don't use a GIF reader in BASIC. If you used a BASIC GIF reader on an IBM, it'd take 30 minutes. ;-) :ANSI graphics look MUCH nicer than Commodore Color Graphics. I don't believe the ANSI graphics standard was around in 1977 when Commodore introduced the PET. Commodore engineered a most efficient line-graphics system on a machine that had no hires capability. By the way, my opinion of ANSI is quite low. :Don't get me wrong; I like my c64 a whole lot and use it daily even though :I have an XT and am about to close a deal on a 25 MHz 386 w/ vga. Don't make so many opinionated statements. I work on machines ranging from a VIC-20 which has a grand resolution of something like 192*172 and 8/16 colors and perhaps .01 MFLOPS (grin) to IBM RS/6000's with a resolution of over 1024*1024 and many colors and something more than 20 MFLOPS. The 64 is neither of these extremes. It is a very successful, popular machine. It is a reasonable machine. It's growing older. It will die, eventually. But it's still kicking. :Its the best 8bit I've seen and is much cheaper <and useable> than an Apple II. : :I just wish people would quit acting as if it is the best computer in the world. I don't think anybody is. It's one of the better 8 bit machines and a lot of people out there would like to see it stay around. And it will; there's a very large investment in it. There's always something that's better or worse, and for many people the 64 is a good compromise. Now, I'm just wondering what all this has to do with the original question? :Perry Stokes ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee - Department of Mathematics jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu USnail: Joe Greco Voice: 414/321-6184 9905 W. Montana Ave. Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS) West Allis, WI 53227-3329 #include <witty_and_humorous_saying.h> Disclaimer: I don't speak for the Math Department, the University, or myself.
grx0644@uoft02.utoledo.edu (07/29/90)
In article <5415@uwm.edu>, Joe Greco writes: > over 1024*1024 and many colors and something more than 20 MFLOPS. The 64 is ^^^^^^ I must be out of touch with the newest computer terms, so could someone send me a definition of MFLOPS. -- +------------------------------------------------------+------------+ | |\/\/\/| | This ******| | | | "Hey Dude, Don't have a cow!" |************| | | (o)(o) - Bart |** Space ***| | | _) |* Is *******| | | ,___| --------------------------------------------+-----+ For *| | | / InterNet: Grx0644@uoft02.utoledo.edu |******| | /____\ BitNet : Grx0644@uoft02.BitNet | Rent | | Snail Mail : 1432 Frontenac St, Toledo, OH 43607 |******| +------------------------------------------------------------+------+ |Quote -- | | "Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?" | | -- Monty Python | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
jpoplaws@telesci.UUCP (Joseph E Poplawski) (07/30/90)
In article <1990Jul22.074738.22756@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) writes: > >alot of pirates are kinda angry because recently in the "elite" world, there >hasn't been alot of games released. And what is wrong with the Elite's holding out on games? If someone wants it that bad, then let them crack it themselves. Being a former member of ESI (EagleSoft) with Gunner, Mitch, MJH, and the rest, I can tell you that they have specific reasons for holding out. I personally had over 8000 disks of Commodore 64/128/Amiga Software at one time and ran 3 different pirate BBS's including Tower of The Anark, Sorcery Palace I, Sorcery Palace II, and King Tuts Tomb, and I always had the newest software available but kept it away from many people until certain dates until the remainder of the Elite's got a hold of it and had a chance to play and master it. Why give it to the peons before they got to play? As a matter of fact, I can remember giving quite a few originals to Mitch while at Gunner's house for him to crack. We had Gunship months before we released it... >because of this, alot of groups are doing >re-releases <which is surprising to me since this is virtually blasphemous in >the "elite" world> This is usually done by the Elite-want-to-be's who want to cop off of another persons crack. It is even more sickening when they take off the original title screen. This is another reason for the "holding out" of the newest software by the Elite's, they would like to see some of these peon pirate groups make a successful crack of their own. >and alot of people are saying/ranting about the 64's death. >I guess the barometer is easy enoug: when Qlink dies, the 64 is officially dead ><r when they are finally discontinued> But even after Qlink, the 64 will be around for years. It has lived a long life and in my opinion was the best machine of its type for its time. The new software will stop coming out, but the old software and the pirated software will be around for a long time, making the 64 live even longer. I still have my original 64 from years ago and a half or dozen others that I will be using in addition to my other machines for a long time. Even my little brother and sister have a ball with them... But then again, you may be right about Qlink and the death of the 64. I would not know I have never even logged onto Qlink... (never found a need to, I always found what I wanted off of ESI-HQ) Well enough rambling... -Jo -- ...!princeton!pyrnj!telesci!fantasci!jep jep@fantasci.uucp jpoplaws@telesci.uucp -- ...!princeton!pyrnj!telesci!fantasci!jep jep@fantasci.uucp jpoplaws@telesci.uucp
ged@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Ged) (07/31/90)
jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu (Joe Greco) writes: [deleted nonsense] >:Gif files look much nicer on the same monitor for my IBM and they don't take >:20 minutes to print on the screen. >Don't use a GIF reader in BASIC. If you used a BASIC GIF reader on an IBM, >it'd take 30 minutes. ;-) Maybe you should write a shareware program and make lots of money. I know lots of people that would eat it up. >Now, I'm just wondering what all this has to do with the original question? Good question. Maybe you were just trying to start an arguement. -- ********************* *This space for rent* *********************
kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (07/31/90)
In <1339@telesci.UUCP> jpoplaws@telesci.UUCP (Joseph E Poplawski) writes:
JEP> And what is wrong with the Elite's holding out on games? If
JEP> someone wants it that bad, then let them crack it themselves.
And that's exactly what I learned to do. Along with helping bust
"elite" people. Especially amusing (and fun to see slapped with a
fine or lost equipment) were those who actually charged money for
their cracked software.
I don't have a problem with piracy on the 64 at all. But I was (and
am) very, very anti-elite. You don't need to be elite to get new
stuff... like everyone else in the world, I had Indoor Sports with the
'87 copyright in early to mid '86, Marble Madness months and months
ahead of time, etc, etc. (By the way, I haven't pirated anything n the
64 since mid-87 when I moved and left my 64 behind; now that I have a
128, no one I know has an 8-bit anyway and there is too much PD
software for me to go through without worrying about "warez".)
And whenever I got something from someone who was afraid to give it
out because they were afraid they'd lose their source, I stripped the
"elite" asshole's titles, credits, greetings, everything relating to
him, and distributed it as if it were just a broken original on my
board, which was open to anyone who could come up with a broken piece
of software no matter how "old" or "lame".
I especially pitied those who bragged about their associations with
the "elite" crowd.
JEP> (EagleSoft) with Gunner, Mitch, MJH, and the rest, I can tell you that
JEP> But then again, you may be right about Qlink and the death of the
JEP> 64. I would not know I have never even logged onto Qlink...
JEP> (never found a need to, I always found what I wanted off of
JEP> ESI-HQ)
Qlink was cheaper, especially when it became dangerous to phreak and
they still had person to person file transfers. But people don't use
Qlink to trade Elite Warez (tm) anymore, so far as I can tell. They
use it as a real support group. I'm sure those who pirate these days
are more prone to use Sneakernet what with all the ten-second disk
copiers around these days.
As long as I have your attention.... Can you explain to me how a
non-conformist, non-kiss-ass institution like teenage software piracy
turned into a deal where your average kid had to beg, plead, kiss ass,
and often play the scapegoat just to get the attention of one of the
nauseous pseudo-hackers? Just curious.
--
Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu>
But he said, "Leave me alone, I'm a family man
And my bark is much worse than my bite..."wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) (08/07/90)
In article <1339@telesci.UUCP> jpoplaws@telesci.UUCP (Joseph E Poplawski) writes: >In article <1990Jul22.074738.22756@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wlj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Wayne L Jebian) writes: >> >>alot of pirates are kinda angry because recently in the "elite" world, there >>hasn't been alot of games released. > >And what is wrong with the Elite's holding out on games? If someone wants it >that bad, then let them crack it themselves. Being a former member of ESI >(EagleSoft) with Gunner, Mitch, MJH, and the rest, I can tell you that they <stuff deleted>s 1- many elites dont actually play the games and for the last 3 years, if the game aint 0-1 daze, it aint worth crap on the BBS and its been upped already 2- the reason games havent been released is that nothing is being cracked except for the lame 1 file 120 block programs, etc. there hasn't been much activity recently other than Microleague baseball ][ >>because of this, alot of groups are doing >>re-releases <which is surprising to me since this is virtually blasphemous >>in the elite world d> > >This is usually done by the Elite-want-to-be's who want to cop off of another >persons crack. It is even more sickening when they take off the original >title screen. This is another reason for the "holding out" of the newest >software by the Elite's, they would like to see some of these peon pirate groups >make a successful crack of their own. Nonono, its not just the wanna bees- NEC did a rerelease and in case you didnt know, they are one of the most highly regarded elite groups in the country, taking over from where ESI left off when they went Amiga >>and alot of people are saying/ranting about the 64's death. >>I guess the barometer is easy enoug: when Qlink dies, the 64 is officially dead >><r when they are finally discontinued> > >But even after Qlink, the 64 will be around for years. It has lived a long >life and in my opinion was the best machine of its type for its time. The >new software will stop coming out, but the old software and the pirated software >will be around for a long time, making the 64 live even longer. I still have >my original 64 from years ago and a half or dozen others that I will be using >in addition to my other machines for a long time. Even my little brother and >sister have a ball with them... > >But then again, you may be right about Qlink and the death of the 64. I would >not know I have never even logged onto Qlink... (never found a need to, I >always found what I wanted off of ESI-HQ) > >Well enough rambling... > >-Jo >-- >...!princeton!pyrnj!telesci!fantasci!jep >jep@fantasci.uucp jpoplaws@telesci.uucp >-- >...!princeton!pyrnj!telesci!fantasci!jep >jep@fantasci.uucp jpoplaws@telesci.uucp -Mark Dolengo
jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu (Joe Greco) (08/07/90)
In comp.sys.cbm article <1990Jul30.185020.6299@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US>, ged@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Ged) wrote: :>:Gif files look much nicer on the same monitor for my IBM and they don't take :>:20 minutes to print on the screen. :>Don't use a GIF reader in BASIC. If you used a BASIC GIF reader on an IBM, :>it'd take 30 minutes. ;-) :Maybe you should write a shareware program and make lots of money. :I know lots of people that would eat it up. As past experience has shown, shareware basically stinks. Besides, I'm not a graphics or sound (for that matter) guru. My specialty is telecommunications and Kernal level I/O. :>Now, I'm just wondering what all this has to do with the original question? : :Good question. Maybe you were just trying to start an arguement. No, I just wasn't in the mood to listen to such opinionated ****. So I interjected a few opposing opinions. ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee - Department of Mathematics jgreco@archimedes.math.uwm.edu USnail: Joe Greco Voice: 414/321-6184 9905 W. Montana Ave. Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS) West Allis, WI 53227-3329 #include <witty_and_humorous_saying.h> Disclaimer: I don't speak for the Math Department, the University, or myself.