pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au (11/06/90)
There has been lots of discussion both here and in comp.sys.mac.misc about Mac v Next, Mac Emulation Mac boards ona Next etc The thing is that Apple's Macintosh is SOFTWARE. The hardware/software combination is put together reasonably well, byut we all know that we can buy cheaper hardware elsewhere. Why can't we purchase "Macintosh" for NeXT, IBM, Suns, VaxStations etc? Apple system software and Apple ROMs could not be more than say 20% of the cost of a Mac, say $250, freeing all users to run Mac software on whatever platform they liked? *====*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===* Phil Ryan ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics Canberra, Australia pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au phone:(61 6) 249 4678 fax:(61 6) 249 0741
q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov6.114141.3280@csc.anu.oz.au>, pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au writes: > The thing is that Apple's Macintosh is SOFTWARE. The hardware/software > combination is put together reasonably well, byut we all know that we can > buy cheaper hardware elsewhere. > > Why can't we purchase "Macintosh" for NeXT, IBM, Suns, VaxStations etc? > Apple system software and Apple ROMs could not be more than say 20% of the > cost of a Mac, say $250, freeing all users to run Mac software on whatever > platform they liked? Simple, because then Apple would lose a HUGE market share. Look at the IBM clone market. IBM allowed other people to manufacture the BIOS and other components of IBM systems, so people did the obvious thing, buy the separate parts and make their own. IBM's share of the PC market fell something like 40% due to that decision. Apple doesn't want the Mac to become a 'generic' computer. Thus, they vigorously protect their ROM code. If you want to go and 'reverse engineer' the Mac Toolbox, go ahead. Apple can't do much. But that is a pretty ridiculous project. (Look at how few companies produced Apple II clones. 2. Only one is now still around. Laser) Therefore, the only real option is to do what the Amacs cards do. Buy a mac, yank the ROMS, and stick them in whatever Mac emulator board you have. That is the only legal option unless Apple wants to license out their ROM code (not a snowball's chance in ....) -- Joel Sumner GENIE:JOEL.SUMNER These opinions are q4kx@cornella.ccs.cornell.edu q4kx@cornella warranted for 90 days or q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu q4kx@crnlvax5 60,000 miles. Whichever .................................................... comes first. Never test for an error condition that you can't handle.
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (11/07/90)
In <1990Nov6.160855.864@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) writes: >Simple, because then Apple would lose a HUGE market share. Look at the IBM This is true. They might even be put out of business if they didn't do something about their prices >clone market. IBM allowed other people to manufacture the BIOS and other >components of IBM systems, so people did the obvious thing, buy the separate >parts and make their own. IBM's share of the PC market fell something like 40% #include "std/disclaimer" Yes, but what we must consider also is how big that market is. Would the numbers of IBM's being sold be what it is now if they hadn't let others manufacture their own? If IBM had done the same as Apple does, would they be selling as many machines as they are now? I doubt it very much. All the competition has engineered a dramatic decrease in prices for PC's, along with a very quickly increasing abilities. If IBM had been left to do it, you'd see exactly what you see at Apple, very slowly maturing machines with HUGE prices on their heads. You can go out and buy very decent, and FAST systems quite cheaply for PC's. Now if Apple had done this, we'd have Macs that are inexpensive, and have twice-three times the power that there are now, and there would most likely be an increase in the numbers being sold, and even if Apple did loose their market share, they'd be forced to make better machines, at better prices, and would most likely be selling much more of them. >'reverse engineer' the Mac Toolbox, go ahead. Apple can't do much. But that >is a pretty ridiculous project. (Look at how few companies produced Apple II >clones. 2. Only one is now still around. Laser) Therefore, the only real Actually, there was Franklin, Laser, and I hear there is a clone in the Soviet Union of the II's. I've also heard that cloning is VERY big over in southeast asia, and that you can get whatever kind of Apple II that you want there, CHEAP (this from someone who was there). Of course, I don't think they are quite on the legal side. :) -k
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/07/90)
------ In article <5974@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes... >In <1990Nov6.160855.864@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) writes: > >>Simple, because then Apple would lose a HUGE market share. Look at the IBM > >This is true. They might even be put out of business if they didn't >do something about their prices > >>clone market. IBM allowed other people to manufacture the BIOS and other >>components of IBM systems, so people did the obvious thing, buy the separate >>parts and make their own. IBM's share of the PC market fell something like 40% > >#include "std/disclaimer" > >Yes, but what we must consider also is how big that market is. Would >the numbers of IBM's being sold be what it is now if they hadn't let >others manufacture their own? If IBM had done the same as Apple does, >would they be selling as many machines as they are now? I doubt it >very much. All the competition has engineered a dramatic decrease in >prices for PC's, along with a very quickly increasing abilities. If >IBM had been left to do it, you'd see exactly what you see at Apple, >very slowly maturing machines with HUGE prices on their heads. HUGE prices? Compare Apple to IBM (not clones) prices. Apple's prices are no "HUGER" than IBM's (or Compaq's). It is not clear to me that the cloning of IBM PC's has led to particularly lower prices at IBM. Rather, you can buy an IBM clone for less than an IBM. Remember: we're talking about the effect of cloning on the original manufacturer. As for "slowly maturing machines", do you call the PS/2 line a leap forward in innovation? I don't. Also, as far as I know, IBM did not let "others manufacture their own". Rather somebody (Phoenix?) cracked the ROM BIOS. In any case IBM has made most of their money from mainframes/workstations, not PC's. Thus they could afford to lose market share in the PC market. Apple cannot: all they sell are PC's. Of course there was the rumor earlier this year that Apple was going to buy Cray. :-> Hey, as Judy Tenuta says: "it could happen!". :-> Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William L Nussbaum) (11/07/90)
In <5974@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: >In <1990Nov6.160855.864@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) writes: >>'reverse engineer' the Mac Toolbox, go ahead. Apple can't do much. But that >>is a pretty ridiculous project. (Look at how few companies produced Apple II >>clones. 2. Only one is now still around. Laser) Therefore, the only real >Actually, there was Franklin, Laser, and I hear there is a clone in >the Soviet Union of the II's. I've also heard that cloning is VERY >big over in southeast asia, and that you can get whatever kind of >Apple II that you want there, CHEAP (this from someone who was there). >Of course, I don't think they are quite on the legal side. :) ...but these Apple II clones were "clones" - copies -- not compatibles. PC clones exist without legal problems because IBM published the BIOS code. Apple didn't do the same; though I don't remember how Franklin and Laser avoided problems, Apple's protected its rights to the Mac ROMs and system software pretty thoroughly. Apparently, someone has done some work on reconstructing the Mac toolbox code as libraries for Unix machines, and, although it's incomplete and apparently not without bugs that present major problems, the routines ARE being written without knowledge of Apple's code... whatever, whenever - Lee | William illiam Lee Nussbaum, Jr. | >> InterNet: wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | >> CompuServe: 72401.3554 (@compuserve.com) | <attach usual non-representation disclaimer>
jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) (11/07/90)
/ comp.sys.next / q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) / Nov 6, 1990 / > Look at the IBM > clone market. IBM allowed other people to manufacture the BIOS and other > components of IBM systems, so people did the obvious thing, buy the separate > parts and make their own. IBM's share of the PC market fell something > like 40% due to that decision. But look how the market grew because of that decision. It's better to have 40% of a 10-unit market than 100% of a 1-unit market, is it not? Jacob -- Jacob Gore Jacob@Gore.Com boulder!gore!jacob
py@meadow.uucp (Peter Yeung) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov6.230749.10160@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >------ >In article <5974@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes... > >>In <1990Nov6.160855.864@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) writes: > >HUGE prices? Compare Apple to IBM (not clones) prices. Apple's prices are no >"HUGER" than IBM's (or Compaq's). It is not clear to me that the cloning of >IBM PC's has led to particularly lower prices at IBM. Rather, you can buy an >IBM clone for less than an IBM. > At least with lesser means can buy a PC clone for their personal use. I think one should also considering the availability of PC software v.s that of the Mac. > >In any case IBM has made most of their money from mainframes/workstations, not >PC's. Thus they could afford to lose market share in the PC market. Apple I don't think IBM's revenue on WORKSTATIONS (System 6000 and RT) is significant in terms of % of total revenue. However, I rmembered reading that the revenue from the PC (or PS/2) side of IBM's operations account for something like 20% of its total revenue (some correct me on that?). -- Peter Yeung Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center 2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300 Mississauga, Ont. L5N 1V8 Phone: (416) 542-6300 Fax: (416) 858-2233
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (11/08/90)
wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William L Nussbaum) writes: > ...but these Apple II clones were "clones" - copies -- not compatibles. PC > clones exist without legal problems because IBM published the BIOS code. Appl > didn't do the same; though I don't remember how Franklin and Laser avoided > problems... Apple *did* publish the source code to both the regular and autostart Apple II(+) ROMS. However, this has nothing to do with the clones. Had a clonemaker copied the ROM code from any publication it would still be an illegal copy. Phoenix reverse engineered the PC's ROM, just as Laser probably reverse engineered the Apple II's autostart ROM. cjs curt@cynic.UUCP | "The unconscious self is the real genius. curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | Your breathing goes wrong the minute your {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!cynic!curt | conscious self meddles with it." --GBS
slfields@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Scott L Fields) (11/09/90)
In article <P6Tas1w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: >wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William L Nussbaum) writes: > >> ...but these Apple II clones were "clones" - copies -- not compatibles. PC >> clones exist without legal problems because IBM published the BIOS code. Appl >> didn't do the same; though I don't remember how Franklin and Laser avoided >> problems... > >Apple *did* publish the source code to both the regular and autostart >Apple II(+) ROMS. However, this has nothing to do with the clones. >Had a clonemaker copied the ROM code from any publication it would >still be an illegal copy. Actually, that is not true. Apple published the code to their roms for the apple ][/][+/][e but only for the built in routines and startup. The code for the basic was not included since that belongs to microsoft. {the case may be different for the ][ since as far as I know integer basic was all apples.
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov6.160855.864@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) writes: >In article <1990Nov6.114141.3280@csc.anu.oz.au>, >pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au writes: >> The thing is that Apple's Macintosh is SOFTWARE. The hardware/software >> combination is put together reasonably well, byut we all know that we can >> buy cheaper hardware elsewhere. >> >> Why can't we purchase "Macintosh" for NeXT, IBM, Suns, VaxStations etc? >> Apple system software and Apple ROMs could not be more than say 20% of the >> cost of a Mac, say $250, freeing all users to run Mac software on whatever >> platform they liked? > >Simple, because then Apple would lose a HUGE market share. Look at the IBM >clone market. IBM allowed other people to manufacture the BIOS and other >components of IBM systems, so people did the obvious thing, buy the separate -stuff deleted- IBM did *NOT* let anyone manufacture its BIOS or any other part of the IBM PC. The compatible BIOSs (sp?) were done with a clean room approach dont get that confused. This is why IBM was/is so pissed of at clone makers. KeNT - I want a NeXT VeRY BaD. -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov7.002438.12949@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William L Nussbaum) writes: >In <5974@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: >>In <1990Nov6.160855.864@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) writes: > >>>'reverse engineer' the Mac Toolbox, go ahead. Apple can't do much. But that >>>is a pretty ridiculous project. (Look at how few companies produced Apple II >>>clones. 2. Only one is now still around. Laser) Therefore, the only real >>Actually, there was Franklin, Laser, and I hear there is a clone in >>the Soviet Union of the II's. I've also heard that cloning is VERY >>big over in southeast asia, and that you can get whatever kind of >>Apple II that you want there, CHEAP (this from someone who was there). >>Of course, I don't think they are quite on the legal side. :) > >...but these Apple II clones were "clones" - copies -- not compatibles. PC >clones exist without legal problems because IBM published the BIOS code. Apple -STUFF DELETED- Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Clones exist because the IBM BIOS was reversed engineered by Phoenix Tech. and DTK of Taiwan. They used a clean room approach. IBM sued and lost because clean room engineering IS legal and NON-INFRINGING. Don't confuse the facts IBM was/is pissed at clone makers. IBM wants royalties from XT/AT sales if you want to license their MCA. The payment they seek IS retroactive, IS BIOS and bus related. > >whatever, whenever > > - Lee > >| William illiam Lee Nussbaum, Jr. >| >> InterNet: wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu >| >> CompuServe: 72401.3554 (@compuserve.com) >| <attach usual non-representation disclaimer> KeNT - I WaNT a NeXT Bad. -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */
peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) (11/13/90)
In article <1990Nov6.160855.864@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) writes: > Therefore, the only real >option is to do what the Amacs cards do. Buy a mac, yank the ROMS, and stick >them in whatever Mac emulator board you have. That is the only legal option >unless Apple wants to license out their ROM code Hmm, what about MacWorks for the Lisa/MacXL that Sun Remarketing is, as far as I know, still selling? Contains a Mac+ ROM image, for all practical purposes. I still have a copy of the original MacWorks disk, and you can bet that as soon as I get myself a NeXT machine I'll try writing something to read that image in (actually, I think you have to link it, too, but the linker is part of the boot sector image). I suggested that option to Dave Small back when he was working on the original MagicSac thing, but he never did anything with it. Note that MacWorks comes with the system software normally bundled with a Mac+. The original one even came with MacWrite and MacPaint. I'm not sure what the current price is, probably around $250. -- Steve Peltz Internet: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu PLATO/NovaNET: peltz/s/cerl
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (11/13/90)
There's been a lot of "wouldn't it be nice if..." but is anyone actually TRYING to write this? The "it shouldn't be that hard" rationalization: Both machines use the same architecture. You should be able to drop Mac code in a Mach task and expect it to run until it wants something. When UNIX code wants something, it executes a 680x0 TRAP instruction. When Mac code wants something, it executes an "A-line" unimplemented instruction. A UNIX process that does this gets a SIGEMT signal. Great! Just write a SIGEMT handler that looks at its return address and does The Right Thing with the registers. I tried calling a procedure with an "A-line" instruction in it--with handle 7 nostop noprint --and gdb still wouldn't transfer control to my SIGEMT handler. Grr... -=EPS=-
aries@rhi.hi.is (Reynir Hugason) (11/19/90)
Well, I've been following this thread for a while now and to be frank I'm
having serious doubts whether this Mac2Next thing would work, with technical
issues set aside.
The two most obvious questions it raises in my head are:
(1) Isn't the Macintosh ToolBox interface protected by copyright laws?
To back up my point, for example the Xerox Smalltalk-80 class library
IS protected by copyright and it makes no difference (as far as I can
see) whether or not I actually write my own version of it's methods or
not. I'm still copying there class-library. Am I not?
(2) Is anybody mad enough to take on their legal department?
That's all folks...
By the way why not write a NeXT clone for the Mac FX (F*cking eXpensive) :-)
Mimir (aries@rhi.hi.is) - Aries, Inc.
/// With greetings from Sweet Mama Jankins ... and her friends.fozzard@alumni.colorado.edu (Richard Fozzard) (11/20/90)
In article <2420@krafla.rhi.hi.is> aries@rhi.hi.is (Reynir Hugason) writes: >The two most obvious questions it raises in my head are: > > (1) Isn't the Macintosh ToolBox interface protected by copyright laws? > To back up my point, for example the Xerox Smalltalk-80 class library > IS protected by copyright and it makes no difference (as far as I can > see) whether or not I actually write my own version of it's methods or > not. I'm still copying there class-library. Am I not? > > (2) Is anybody mad enough to take on their legal department? Apparently someone is. The following is an excerpt from Abacus's press release back in Feb '90. I have the whole press release if anyone is interested, but know nothing else about this product. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Abacus Research and Development, Inc. (ARDI) is pleased to announce the impending release of ROMlib(tm) V1.0, a set of C library routines with the same syntax and semantics as the routines available on Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh(tm) Plus computer. ROMlib-V1.0 provides all the routines documented in "Inside Macintosh" Volumes I-IV with a few exceptions noted below. Although ROMlib-V1.0 will only be available for use in X11 environments, there is little dependence on X11, and experimental versions exist that write directly to Sun "bwtwo"s and IBM PC "VGA"s. ROMlib-V1.0, ARDI's first product is useful for company's whose IS departments wish to run programs that were developed in-house on Macintoshes on the myriad of UNIX(tm)/X11 available. ROMlib-V1.0 is also useful for Independent Software Vendors that have written applications on the Macintosh and would like to be out in front, shipping applications into the UNIX market without the delay of a complete or partial rewrite. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It's too bad this is only for X, but they do seem to imply that it's not really dependent on X. Maybe someone could jump on this and convert these routines for a NeXT. Could help woo a lot of Mac users with a big invest- ment in software, methinks. -- ======================================================================== Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers" Univ of Colorado/CIRES/NOAA R/E/FS 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu (303)497-6011 or 444-3168
jack@Taffy.rice.edu (Jack W. Howarth) (11/20/90)
In article <30018@boulder.Colorado.EDU> fozzard@alumni.colorado.edu (Richard Fozzard) writes: >Apparently someone is. The following is an excerpt from Abacus's press release >back in Feb '90. I have the whole press release if anyone is interested, but >know nothing else about this product. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Abacus Research and Development, Inc. (ARDI) is pleased to announce the >impending release of ROMlib(tm) V1.0, a set of C library routines with the >same syntax and semantics as the routines available on Apple Computer Inc.'s >Macintosh(tm) Plus computer. ROMlib-V1.0 provides all the routines documented >in "Inside Macintosh" Volumes I-IV with a few exceptions noted below. Although >ROMlib-V1.0 will only be available for use in X11 environments, there is little >dependence on X11, and experimental versions exist that write directly to >Sun "bwtwo"s and IBM PC "VGA"s. ROMlib-V1.0, ARDI's first product is useful >for company's whose IS departments wish to run programs that were developed >in-house on Macintoshes on the myriad of UNIX(tm)/X11 available. ROMlib-V1.0 >is also useful for Independent Software Vendors that have written applications >on the Macintosh and would like to be out in front, shipping applications >into the UNIX market without the delay of a complete or partial rewrite. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >It's too bad this is only for X, but they do seem to imply that it's not >really dependent on X. Maybe someone could jump on this and convert these >routines for a NeXT. Could help woo a lot of Mac users with a big invest- >ment in software, methinks. >-- >======================================================================== >Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers" >Univ of Colorado/CIRES/NOAA R/E/FS 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 >fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu (303)497-6011 or 444-3168 The problem with companies that promise Mac emulation without using Mac ROMs is they too often "talk the talk, but don't walk the walk" as it were. The recently announced Taiwanese SPARC laptop is a case in point. When they showed it at Comdex they declined to demonstrate the Mac emulation due to Apple's legal presence. There was also a company on the PC side which claimed a couple of years ago to have a Mac emulation that would allow programmers to recompile code straight on the PC and run under their lib routines and it too seems to have vanished into a black hole. Jack
amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov20.042706.29356@rice.edu> jack@Taffy.rice.edu (Jack W. Howarth) writes: [about ARDI's ROMlib] >The problem with companies that promise Mac emulation without using Mac ROMs >is they too often "talk the talk, but don't walk the walk" as it were. Well, ARDI is for real--I was a beta tester for them in a previous life. I don't know how they're marketing efforts have been going, since there seem to be very few people willing to invest in them, thanks to Apple legal intimidation. The ROMlib software itself was extrememly slick, though. [about SPARC laptop] >When they showed it at Comdex they declined to demonstrate the Mac >emulation due to Apple's legal presence. Seems understandable, especially since it's not in production yet. At some point, though, someone will probably decide to play "Truth or Dare" with Apple's legal department, which ought to be real interesting... -- Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda -- UNIX: The only operating system that can be destroyed by mail.
wieser@cs-sun-fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) (11/26/90)
Hopefully the legal pussyfooting around patent and copyright issues will be resolved eventually; and hopefully this means death to 'software clones'. I don't want to argue flaws in total concept or utility, I DO want to say that being a NeXT AND Mac fan/user, I don't think this kind of piracy is necessary. Like really, NeXT is a developers machine, it is sooo much easier to develop software for the NeXT. NeXT is geared towards developers now, so that it can get a good software based before NeXT seriously decides to invade the commercial markets. Why waste time arguing/writing/using emulators? I'd rather see applications ported to the NeXT, or data transferred through gateways... NeXT software should be NeXTy, not Macy. ( Seems kind of like a step backwards...) -- (------------------------------------------------------------------------) ( Bernie Wieser, wieser@cpsc.ucalgary.ca, BSWieser@uncamult.BITNET ) ( 4rth Year Dbl.Mgr Cpsc Clhc University of Calgary | ) ( S/H Developer Dept. of Psychology, " " " \|/ )