oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (10/11/88)
People have been complaining that there aren't enough cheap, legal
Mac clones. Here is a product idea that addresses one aspect of that
market: inexpensive machines on an existing appletalk net. (This idea
doesn't work for stand-alone machines, but it does for any business that
would like to have a few more macs, but doesn't want to pay mac prices.)
Imagine a machine with a tiny rom, lots of ram, maybe a local disk.
a decent keyboard mouse and screen. It is delivered with some dumb
operating system, (say, for example, CP-M68k, just to name a name,
please do not assume that this is my actual opinion of that operating
system.) This operating system exists in part so the manufacturer can
claim the product has a legitimate use, and is not solely a law-breaking
device. (As the manufacterers of radar detectors claim that there device
does not exist solely to aid lawbreakers.)
When you turn the machine on, it checks over appletalk to see if there
are any machines running a special INIT. If it finds one, it asks that
INIT to send it a copy of the MAC ROMs and system software. From then
on, it behaves like a Mac. If you don't have a multi-machine license from
Apple, then you are possibly breaking the law to use that function.
If you can successfully argue that the computer is the network, then you
are not breaking the law. Most users of such a machine would just leave
it on all the time, since booting would be a little slow.
I wonder how hard it would be to convert Magic Sac or Spectre for the
Atari st to use this scheme.
--- David Phillip Oster --When you asked me to live in sin with you
Arpa: oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu --I didn't know you meant sloth.
Uucp: {uwvax,decvax,ihnp4}!ucbvax!oster%dewey.soe.berkeley.edubob@eecs.nwu.edu (Bob Hablutzel) (10/13/88)
> Imagine a machine with a tiny rom, lots of ram, maybe a local disk. > a decent keyboard mouse and screen. It is delivered with some dumb > operating system, (say, for example, CP-M68k, just to name a name, > please do not assume that this is my actual opinion of that operating > system.) This operating system exists in part so the manufacturer can > claim the product has a legitimate use, and is not solely a law-breaking > device. (As the manufacterers of radar detectors claim that there device > does not exist solely to aid lawbreakers.) > When you turn the machine on, it checks over appletalk to see if there > are any machines running a special INIT. If it finds one, it asks that > INIT to send it a copy of the MAC ROMs and system software. From then > on, it behaves like a Mac. If you don't have a multi-machine license from > Apple, then you are possibly breaking the law to use that function. > If you can successfully argue that the computer is the network, then you > are not breaking the law. Most users of such a machine would just leave > it on all the time, since booting would be a little slow. The only problems I see with this are: 1) Appletalk would have to be built into this machine. Would this be legal? 2) If you just copy the ROM of a machine, you would have to also _exactly_ duplicate the hardware of the machine you are copying from. (I personally assume that the ROM does all kinds of ugly things, since it _knows_ what hardware it will run with. By duplicate exactly, I mean logical appearance, not physical. 3) This scheme would only be practical for large network installations, and would therefore not benefit those who have the most problem affording a Macintosh in the first place. Bob Hablutzel BOB@NUACC.ACNS.NWU.EDU
earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (10/13/88)
In article <10050027@eecs.nwu.edu> bob@eecs.nwu.edu (Bob Hablutzel) writes: > >> When you turn the machine on, it checks over appletalk to see if there >> are any machines running a special INIT. If it finds one, it asks that >> INIT to send it a copy of the MAC ROMs and system software. From then >> on, it behaves like a Mac. > >The only problems I see with this are: > >1) Appletalk would have to be built into this machine. Would this be legal? There are IBM PC boards which speak AppleTalk, as well as several packages for UNIX. I assume one could write an AppleTalk driver for a non-Apple machine without violating any laws, since it appears to have already been done. >2) If you just copy the ROM of a machine, you would have to also _exactly_ > duplicate the hardware of the machine you are copying from. (I personally > assume that the ROM does all kinds of ugly things, since it _knows_ > what hardware it will run with. By duplicate exactly, I mean logical > appearance, not physical. Judging from the large number of IBM PC clones that exist, this process is doable. >3) This scheme would only be practical for large network installations, and > would therefore not benefit those who have the most problem affording > a Macintosh in the first place. But it would so! Assume one could get this AppleTalk ROM-grabber which then becomes a Mac. Assume then that large network installations start buying these machines in large numbers. Apple sales then drop off, and they detect that *competition* now exists. Maybe, just maybe, Apple would be forced to lower its prices, benefiting the little guy. Earle R. Horton. 23 Fletcher Circle, Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4109 Sorry, no fancy stuff, since this program limits my .signature to three