aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) (10/14/90)
>>> I'm wondering if there has been any news about a mac
emulator for the NeXT. I saw the post about the mac emulator
a while ago, and was wondering if any progress had been made.
Keith Perkins
Texas A&M University
I gravely doubt if we will ever see a Mac emulator for the NeXT, for the
same reason that there are no Mac clones. The Mac toolkit, for that
matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary.
Furthermore, the way Mac toolbox calls are executed (direct ROM
addressing to the routines on the ROM chips) makes me doubt that it
would be feasible. I know nothing about emulating other computers, but
it seems to me that it would be especially difficult for the Mac
even if you did know their secret ROM code and had a license to boot.
I may be wrong here, though... any feedback?scott@NIC.GAC.EDU (10/14/90)
aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) writes: >I gravely doubt if we will ever see a Mac emulator for the NeXT, for the >same reason that there are no Mac clones. The Mac toolkit, for that >matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary. >Furthermore, the way Mac toolbox calls are executed (direct ROM >addressing to the routines on the ROM chips) makes me doubt that it >would be feasible. I know nothing about emulating other computers, but >it seems to me that it would be especially difficult for the Mac >even if you did know their secret ROM code and had a license to boot. ^^^^^^^ > >I may be wrong here, though... any feedback? If someone had a license to use the Mac ROM code, Mac emulation would be fairly trivial on the NeXT. Then, we would have MacNeXT. The reason I say trivial is because the Mac is really not that different from a NeXT, you just toss in memory management. There's no real support for coprocessors on the Mac (I do not count the IWM, or any of that slime). Reword that: No real _requirement_ for coprocessors. Thus, the essential hardware of the NeXT is nearly identical. Rewrite the display code to look elsewhere in memory, and the io code to look elsewhere for disks and printer, and you have a black, cubic Mac. Of course, that's not that interesting, because you really want a NeXT running Mac software. That's where the memory management abilities of the NeXT come in. Just map the ROM code to wherever the Mac expects if to reside, map out a page for the screen, and do some magic to get that into a window, and you're very nearly done. Most of the drivers (on the Mac side) for everything are easy enough, because they've been done for all the different hard drives and display adapters out there. Now, what would _really_ be neat is to build in something to map the window stuff in the Mac emulator to NeXT windows, menus to NeXT menus, scrollbars to NeXT scrollbars . . . Then, you'd essentially have a multitasking Mac/NeXT mutant, which would be even more amazing once you added MacX . . . scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer (Stuart) NeXT Campus Consultant (Not much, really) GAC Undergrad (Horrid. Simply Horrid. I mean the work!) <I still speak for nobody>
torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (10/15/90)
aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) writes: >Furthermore, the way Mac toolbox calls are executed (direct ROM >addressing to the routines on the ROM chips) makes me doubt that it >would be feasible. I know nothing about emulating other computers, but Actually, Mac Toolbox calls are executed using the 68K's A-line trap mechanism. Every toolbox call has a unique trap number (encoded in the low 9-bits of the trap instruction), which is used to index into a RAM-based table of absolute ROM addresses. Hence, a vendor of an alternative ROM would only have to make sure the RAM-based table pointed to the correct locations in their own ROM. Now, apparently, some Apple OS code checks for absolute ROM addresses, but if a vendor were selling a viable system, they'd have to rewrite that anyway. (This is all assuming that Apple doesn't come round and license its code, which actually looks more and more likely now that Apple management is getting more pragmatic) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "The All Blacks? Who are they? - some plebian
mdeale@spica.acs.calpoly.edu (Myron (the one in Calif.) Deale) (10/15/90)
In article <asF2q4w163w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca> aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) writes: >>>> I'm wondering if there has been any news about a mac >emulator for the NeXT. I saw the post about the mac emulator >a while ago, and was wondering if any progress had been made. > >Keith Perkins > >I gravely doubt if we will ever see a Mac emulator for the NeXT, for the >same reason that there are no Mac clones. The Mac toolkit, for that Not to contradict you ... >matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary. >Furthermore, the way Mac toolbox calls are executed (direct ROM >addressing to the routines on the ROM chips) makes me doubt that it ... but, the '030 and '040 have Memory Management Units built in which should enable you to keep the existing (logical) ROM addresses, etc., while physically placing the executable anywhere. Lots of other problems to solve though, I would guess. >would be feasible. I know nothing about emulating other computers, but >it seems to me that it would be especially difficult for the Mac >even if you did know their secret ROM code and had a license to boot. -Myron
asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) (10/15/90)
> I gravely doubt if we will ever see a Mac emulator for the NeXT, for the > same reason that there are no Mac clones. The Mac toolkit, for that > matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary. > Furthermore, the way Mac toolbox calls are executed (direct ROM > addressing to the routines on the ROM chips) makes me doubt that it > would be feasible. I know nothing about emulating other computers, but > it seems to me that it would be especially difficult for the Mac > even if you did know their secret ROM code and had a license to boot. > > I may be wrong here, though... any feedback? I was thinking the same thing until moments ago when I remembered that there is a Mac emulator that runs on Atari computers. I've heard from utterly unreliable sources that it works brilliantly, but nevertheless, it does sell and would appear to work. So perhaps the question should be rephrased... "How does one get away with creating a Mac emulator and who is doing it for the NeXT". ======================================================================== Adam Smith Genius - Graphic Artist - Bad Mood Guy The Chameleon Papers Vancouver, BC CANADA "Human beings are a great disappointment to me and it doesn't help one bit that I am one." (Deko 64) ========================================================================
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (10/15/90)
----- In article <R1X2q1w163w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca>, asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) writes... >> I gravely doubt if we will ever see a Mac emulator for the NeXT, for the >> same reason that there are no Mac clones. The Mac toolkit, for that >> matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary. [...] > >I was thinking the same thing until moments ago when I remembered that there >is a Mac emulator that runs on Atari computers. I've heard from utterly >unreliable sources that it works brilliantly, but nevertheless, it does sell >and would appear to work. I believe that the Atari emulators require a Mac ROM to work. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
beaucham@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (10/15/90)
>I gravely doubt if we will ever see a Mac emulator for the NeXT, for the >same reason that there are no Mac clones. The Mac toolkit, for that >matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary. There is a product for the Atari ST which allows the Atari to run Mac programs "faster than a Mac Plus". It is called "Spectre GCR". (A flyer I picked up at the NAMM show doesn't give their address, but they have ads in Atari magazines.) Anyway, they say it "works by taking the two ROM chips out of a Macintosh. These ROM chips have the 'soul of the Mac' on them...By putting them into the Atari, using the Spectre [40,000 lines of code], the Atari learns how to be a Mac... From ads in Computer Shopper, [the chips] usually go for $125 a whole set." The code evidentally allows the Atari to switch between Mac mode and Atari mode at the push of a button. Perhaps someone could adapt the same strategy to the NeXT.
soward@ms.uky.edu (John Soward) (10/15/90)
AMAX for the amiga emulates a mac, by providing a simple little interface where you an plug in a set of mac Roms, availible from Apple or from a dead mac...and since it uses the hardware amiga graphics it show superior speed at most tasks...so I wonder what a 68040 mac with a NeXTDimension display would do? -- ________________________________________________________________________ / 'It would be so perfect if she just fell out the window!' / / John@ukpr.uky.edu : soward@s.ms.uky.edu : sysjohn@ukcc.uky.edu / /_______________________________________________________________________/
a976@mindlink.UUCP (Ron Tarrant) (10/15/90)
> beaucham@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > Msg-ID: <72100014@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu> > Posted: 15 Oct 90 04:18:00 GMT > > > > > >I gravely doubt if we will ever see a Mac emulator for the NeXT, for the > >same reason that there are no Mac clones. The Mac toolkit, for that > >matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary. > > There is a product for the Atari ST which allows the Atari to run Mac > programs "faster than a Mac Plus". It is called "Spectre GCR". (A There is also a Mac emulator for the Amiga called A-Max. You have to buy the ROMs but other than that... In fact, someone has written a software emulation of a Mac for the Amiga as well. It's highly illegal, I think, since the package also contains a utility copying the Mac ROM image onto a harddrive. -Ron Tarrant a976@Mindlink.UUCP
lex@philica.ica.philips.nl (Lex van Sonderen) (10/15/90)
1) History The Mac emulators started off with Magic Sac and Aladdin, both running on the Atari ST. Both systems used a copy of the 64K roms (from the original Macintosh and the Fat Mac) read into RAM, and a lot of patches and fixes. Magic Sac was known for it's crashes, but Aladdin was fairly stable. However, you only had an 'old' Mac. After that, Spectre came for the Atari and AMax for the Amiga, they both worked with original 128K MacPlus/Mac 512KE roms. These roms are fairly widely available because of Apple rom upgrade sets. They are more reliable than Aladin. They are not available as sofware- only versions (maybe because the rom code is trickier). 2) Problems As far as I know there is no color support on either of these emulators, so you at best have a black-and-white MacPlus. There are no emulators for newer Macs (SE, SE/30, II and beyond). The roms are harder to get, and probably a lot trickier to copy-and-patch. It is going to take a smart guy to make a colour/gray mac emulator. Another disadvantage is that the emulators take over the machine completely, there is no Mac Window or fast-switch option, and you have to do a reboot to get back to native mode. A 'Mac Window' approach would make making an emulation considerably more difficult. Making a good Mac emulator inevitably will get you into deep trouble with the Apple Thought Police. 3) Hope The more different Macintoshes come out, the easier it becomes to make an emulator (it is thanks to the excellence of the Mac software that these emulators work). Macintosh software cannot make any assumption on what kind of machine it is running, so as soon as the roms are 'ported' to the NeXT, all software will be running. A lot of Mac software also runs under AUX (Apple Unix). 4) Other Hope Abacus Research and Development (ARDI) is developing a package called 'Executor' which is a program that allows you to run Macintosh programs on Sun-3. I do not know it's current status, I do know they took the effort to re-engineer the Mac toolbox, so it does not need roms, and they possibly cannot be sued by Apple. I have never seen it, so I know barely what I am talking about :-). This could be ported to the NeXT if we convince them. 5) Conclusion Do not hold your breath for a nice Mac emulator on the NeXT. It is easier, more reliable and possible the same price to buy a Plus and a NeXT. I think I'll buy a Mac Portable or a sexy Outbound (Mac Compatible Portable) which will do until that portable NeXT comes. Lex van Sonderen lex@ica.philips.nl
bruce@atncpc.UUCP (Bruce Henderson) (10/15/90)
In article <2718c9b5.1722@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>, mdeale@spica.acs.calpoly.edu (Myron (the one in Calif.) Deale) writes: > > > In article <asF2q4w163w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca> aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) writes: > >>>> I'm wondering if there has been any news about a mac > >emulator for the NeXT. I saw the post about the mac emulator > >a while ago, and was wondering if any progress had been made. > > > >matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary. > >Furthermore, the way Mac toolbox calls are executed (direct ROM > >addressing to the routines on the ROM chips) makes me doubt that it > > ... but, the '030 and '040 have Memory Management Units built > in which should enable you to keep the existing (logical) ROM addresses, > etc., while physically placing the executable anywhere. > Lots of other problems to solve though, I would guess. > Not to ruin anyones day.... But as a person who FORMERLY spent many years working on Mac software, some of it down in the nasty driver and system patch level, I need to inform you that the "Guts" of the macintosh (toolbox) are one of the largest hacks in the entire computer industry. When you boot system 6.0.5, much of the ROM has been patched out into RAM patches, and the whole thing is incredibly address dependant. Stuff in the system code blind jumps to locations in memorey, etc. And it has NO PROVISIONS for the '030 or '040 addressing scheme. I am actually quite sure that they software disable the '030 addressing at certian points in the ROMs, just so that thier screwey heap manager will work. Trust me, what we don't need is a Mac emulator, I left that crap behind for a good reason. If I wanted a mac, I would have paid my huge sum of cash to finance Sculley's mega million a year salary. If you want nice apps on the NeXT.... Go write some, please! Bruce Henderson Official Spud of the 1991 Bonsal Games
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (10/15/90)
In article <72100014@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu>, beaucham@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >>I gravely doubt if we will ever see a Mac emulator for the NeXT, for the >>same reason that there are no Mac clones. The Mac toolkit, for that >>matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary. You never know. Apple is putting their next-generation portable in the hands of a Japanese company. >There is a product for the Atari ST which allows the Atari to run Mac >programs "faster than a Mac Plus". It is called "Spectre GCR". (A flyer I >picked up at the NAMM show doesn't give their address, but they have ads >in Atari magazines.) Anyway, they say it "works by taking the two ROM >chips out of a Macintosh. Not to be rude, but with the Mac Classic listing at $999, and the MacPlus going to be sold at firesale prices, it might be cheaper just to purchase a low-end Mac, and figure out how to get your NeXT to talk to it.Maybe the better software hack is getting AppleTalk protocols to run on the NeXT machine.
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (10/16/90)
In article <asF2q4w163w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca>, aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) writes: >>>> I'm wondering if there has been any news about a mac > emulator for the NeXT. I saw the post about the mac emulator > a while ago, and was wondering if any progress had been made. > > Keith Perkins > Texas A&M University > > > > I gravely doubt if we will ever see a Mac emulator for the NeXT, for the > same reason that there are no Mac clones. The Mac toolkit, for that > matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary. > Furthermore, the way Mac toolbox calls are executed (direct ROM > addressing to the routines on the ROM chips) makes me doubt that it > would be feasible. I know nothing about emulating other computers, but > it seems to me that it would be especially difficult for the Mac > even if you did know their secret ROM code and had a license to boot. > > I may be wrong here, though... any feedback? Well, there are full functional MAC emulators for the Atari ST and for Amiga. At least the ST MAC emulator is very popular and they are improving it all the time. So I don't know why wouldn't it be possible for NeXT, too... Jouni
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (10/16/90)
by sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney): | beaucham@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes: |#> I gravely doubt if we will ever see a Mac emulator for the NeXT, for the |#> same reason that there are no Mac clones. The Mac toolkit, for that |#> matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary. | | You never know. Apple is putting their next-generation portable in the | hands of a Japanese company. | |# There is a product for the Atari ST which allows the Atari to run Mac |# programs "faster than a Mac Plus". It is called "Spectre GCR". (A flyer |# I picked up at the NAMM show doesn't give their address, but they have |# ads in Atari magazines.) Anyway, they say it "works by taking the two |# ROM chips out of a Macintosh. | | Not to be rude, but with the Mac Classic listing at $999, and the MacPlus | going to be sold at firesale prices, it might be cheaper just to purchase a | low-end Mac, and figure out how to get your NeXT to talk to it. Maybe the | better software hack is getting AppleTalk protocols to run on the NeXT | machine. There is already a free package to do AppleTalk protocols on UNIX boxes. It even includes file serving and print spooling. Apparently noone in this group has heard about a little company working on cloning the Mac ROMs (Plus level). At this point, they have real live software running on Suns to 1) allow compiling of Mac source code and 2) use Mac binaries. The author posted to a Mac newsgroup not too long ago and said that he'll try to get code running on any hardware you like but he can't afford to go out and buy everyones' favorite machine. (ie, get NeXT to lend him a machine for a while and you may very well have a Mac emulator running.) I can't remember for sure, but I believe X Windows was also required. -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| A fanatic is one who sticks to |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | his guns -- whether they are | U | - Ackphtth | loaded or not.
baffico@adobe.COM (Tom Baffico) (10/16/90)
In article <72100014@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu> beaucham@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >>matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary. > >There is a product for the Atari ST which allows the Atari to run Mac >programs "faster than a Mac Plus". It is called "Spectre GCR". (A flyer I >picked up at the NAMM show doesn't give their address, but they have ads >in Atari magazines.) Anyway, they say it "works by taking the two ROM >chips out of a Macintosh. [stuff deleted] >[the chips] usually go for $125 a whole set." The code evidentally allows Even though this discussion no longer is relevant to the NeXT, this may be of interest: In MacWeek 10/9/90 page 10 there is an article on Dennis Hayes arrested for selling counterfeit Mac ROMs. He made $500,000 since 1988 selling 128K Mac Plus ROM sets. These ROMs "were for use in Mac emulators for Atari ST and Amiga computers." Dennis now faces fines of up to $775,000 and 26 years in prison. Follow ups to comp.sys.mac please...
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (10/16/90)
----- In article <3349.2719f905@cc.helsinki.fi>, jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes... [...] >Well, there are full functional MAC emulators for the Atari ST and for >Amiga. At least the ST MAC emulator is very popular and they are >improving it all the time. So I don't know why wouldn't it be possible >for NeXT, too... As has been said, these require Mac ROMs. Apple has not made too big a deal about Atari/Amiga emulators which require these (usually blackmarket) ROMs, probably because they don't see it as worth the effort. _However_, if a Unix-based emulator came out, I think Apple would think it was worth the effort and would launch an attack on the ROM sources and any emulator writer which required the ROMs. Look at what happened to the fellow who was illegally producing Mac ROMs. He just got major fines and jail time. But of course if Apple did pursue legal action, the Next community would benefit immensely, since it would give them something else to flame Apple about, something they love doing. :-> Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (10/16/90)
In article <1990Oct15.193307.11492@d.cs.okstate.edu> minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: > There is already a free package to do AppleTalk protocols on UNIX boxes. Some parts of that free package require access to the Ethernet "below IP"--either DLI (DEC) or NIT (Sun) interfaces. It looks like Mach 2.0 started to implement DLI but to my knowledge there's no kernel support in NeXT 1.0[a]. I'll be very disappointed if some sort of Data Link access isn't provided in 2.0. As an aside, it's obviously possible to create an environment that fools Mac applications into thinking they're running under the "real" MacOS. What do you think A/UX does? The "Mac environment" is implemented as a single UNIX process in which Mac applications aren't allowed to touch the hardware directly. -=EPS=-
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (10/16/90)
/*************************************************************/ /* */ /* The war on drugs is a joke!!! Why is it that you can't */ /* get a Cuban cigar in the U.S. and you can buy a ROCK of */ /* COCAINE in any city if you look? Also, how come they */ /* never seize any ships bringing the stuff into the */ /* country? Interesting questions? I say somebody is */ /* getting paid! (No flames please, just food for thought.) */ /* */ -- /* -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 */
chris@island.uu.net (Chris King) (10/17/90)
In article <1990Oct15.192648.17194@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >----- >In article <3349.2719f905@cc.helsinki.fi>, jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes... >[...] >>Well, there are full functional MAC emulators for the Atari ST and for >>Amiga. At least the ST MAC emulator is very popular and they are >>improving it all the time. So I don't know why wouldn't it be possible >>for NeXT, too... > >As has been said, these require Mac ROMs. Apple has not made too big a deal >about Atari/Amiga emulators which require these (usually blackmarket) ROMs, >probably because they don't see it as worth the effort. > I read something in the paper just last week (or maybe saw it on the TV news) about a guy getting a serious jail term for blackmarketing MAC roms for these emulators. Chris King Island Graphics Corp. San Rafael Ca. {sun,ucbcad,uunet}!island!chris
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (10/17/90)
Sorry for the previos post with no text - mail system must be acting funny
Well emulators are possible on any platform to simulate any other platform
the question is is it economical. The NeXT should be able to emulate a
Mac, since a Mac is mostly generic 680x0 hardware. There are emulators on
the Amiga and Atari that work very well but, they require a set of Mac
ROMs which used to be easy to get and I think still are i.e. find a dead
Mac and do a ROM transplant.
I don't know why anyone would think that a Mac couldn't be emulated when
what you really want is something to run the Mac OS which is most 680x0
hardware with a hand full of TTL, Mac ROMs, and a software driver.
I mean if you can get a Mac, Sun Sparcstation, NeXT to run IBM PC software
ala SoftPC then why not another machine. BTW SoftPC is in the NeXT
catalog and will be available in 1Q91.
I also have a question. What about 3rd party drives for a NeXT Station.
I want to buy one since I can get the educational price from San Jose State.
But the problem is I don't have ~5000.00 for the one with the 340Mb drive.
I could get some money for a 3rd party SCSI drive. My other alternative
is to use the 386 PC I have as a file server for the NeXT; i.e. get a big,
fast drive, an Ethernet card, Tops or something and use the PC as a NeXT
server. Will this work??????
Kent.
/*************************************************************/
/* */
/* The war on drugs is a joke!!! Why is it that you can't */
/* get a Cuban cigar in the U.S. and you can buy a ROCK of */
/* COCAINE in any city if you look? Also, how come they */
/* never seize any ships bringing the stuff into the */
/* country? Interesting questions? I say somebody is */
/* getting paid! (No flames please, just food for thought.) */
/* */
--
/* -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 */gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (10/17/90)
----- In article <e0Xu02TV022t01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes... [..] > >I don't know why anyone would think that a Mac couldn't be emulated when >what you really want is something to run the Mac OS which is most 680x0 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >hardware with a hand full of TTL, Mac ROMs, and a software driver. Bear in mind that it is not legal to run Apple System Software on non-Apple machines; check out the license on Mac system software sometime. This could of course be challenged in court, but I think it is reasonable to assume that it will hold up unless and until it's sucessfully challenged. Now, this wouldn't mean that the FBI is going to break into your home and check out your computing habits. But it might mean that Apple could sucessfully stop any emulator makers which required the use of Apple system software. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
lane@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU (Christopher Lane) (10/17/90)
Here's another pointless line of pursuit: Why not use the DSP input port (and whatever additional hardware is necessary) and appropriate software to emulate a Macintosh display. This way you could buy a display-less Macintosh LC when they become available, slip it under your slab, connect its built-in video port to the DSP port and bring up the MacOS on a virtual, configurable screen built out of a NextStep window. You'd only be able cut and paste bitmaps from the Macintosh to the NeXT, but this seems simpler than full Mac emulation. And of course with a color NeXTstation, you could emulate a color Mac display. - Christopher -------
velasco@kingkong.ucsd.edu (Gabriel Velasco) (10/18/90)
There are Mac emulators for the Atari and the Amiga. I have personally seen
the Mac emulator for the Amiga running. The legal version for the Amiga
consists of software and hardware. The hardware is to allow you to remove the
ROM's from your Mac to be read by the Amiga through this hardware device. The
pirated version that I saw loaded a binary image file of the Mac ROM's into
memory and worked from there. You have to have a Mac in the first place to do
it legally with the Amiga emulator. Or, you must at least be able to by the OS
ROM's. The company that makes the Amiga Mac emulator does not sell the ROM's.
--
________________________________________________
<>___, / / | ... and he called out and said, "Gabriel, give |
/___/ __ / _ __ ' _ / | this man an understanding of the vision." |
/\__/\(_/\/__)\/ (_/_(/_/|_ |_______________________________________Dan_8:16_|dgb@unislc.uucp (Douglas Barrett) (10/20/90)
From article <asF2q4w163w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca>, by aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno): > I gravely doubt if we will ever see a Mac emulator for the NeXT, for the > same reason that there are no Mac clones. The Mac toolkit, for that > [....] > would be feasible. I know nothing about emulating other computers, but > it seems to me that it would be especially difficult for the Mac > even if you did know their secret ROM code and had a license to boot. > > I may be wrong here, though... any feedback? There exist good, all be it slow mac emulators for the Atari and Amiga lines. By good I mean most of the stuff works. I do not own one but to avoid the problems you mention I assume the products come sans the mac ROMs, or with mac ROMs salvaged from otherwise useless machines. Note: the ROMs are copy righted. Thus they are protected forever. And apple is only too happy to sue if your copy cat looks too much like their copy cat. So yes you can get a mac emulator on anything as long as you use mac ROMs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Barrett I speak for myself Unix Systems Programmer Unisys SLC Utah
unhd (Thomas J. Baker) (10/20/90)
My friend, an Amiga nut, runs AMAX, a mac emulator, on his Amiga. It is
completely software driven and the new version he's been telling me about
supports sound and 256K roms. It is the equivalent to a MacII, except for
the color, I think. I can get a demo and post a more thorough description
if anyone wants but I know it doesn't require Mac roms. It reads them from
disk and puts them into memory. The reason I know in the first place is
that I was going to buy a MacIIsi and he kept trying to convert me to an
Amiga. I know I want a NeXT though.
Summary: There is no reason (barring politics) why a mac emulator couldn't
be made for a NeXT.
tjb
____________________________________________________________________________
| Thomas J. Baker INTERNET: tjb@unhd.unh.edu |
| Computing and Information Services USENET: uunet!unhd!tjb |
| Kingsbury Hall, University of New Hampshire BITNET: T_BAKER@UNHH.BITNET |
| Durham, NH 03824 Voice: (603) 862-4490 |
| |
| "But I'm well read and I've heard it said |
| a hundred times, maybe less, maybe more..." |
|__________________________________________________________________________|gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (10/21/90)
----- In article <1990Oct20.140447.13096@uunet!unhd>, tjb@uunet!unhd (Thomas J. Baker) writes... >My friend, an Amiga nut, runs AMAX, a mac emulator, on his Amiga. It is >completely software driven and the new version he's been telling me about >supports sound and 256K roms. It is the equivalent to a MacII, except for >the color, I think. I can get a demo and post a more thorough description >if anyone wants but I know it doesn't require Mac roms. It reads them from ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >disk and puts them into memory. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Danger, danger Will Robinson: the above technique is HIGHLY illegal. Whether you like Apple or not, their ROMs are their property. Copying them is a BIG no-no. In fact if you do it big scale, you could end up in the Big House. (check out this or last week's MacWeek for an article about a ROM copier; he's facing big fines and possible prison). >Summary: There is no reason (barring politics) why a mac emulator couldn't > be made for a NeXT. Maybe, maybe not. But if it's done in the above manner, one thing stopping you would be the law. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
pat@cscnj (Patrick Hester) (10/23/90)
In article <R1X2q1w163w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca> asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca writes: > I was thinking the same thing until moments ago when I remembered that there > is a Mac emulator that runs on Atari computers. I've heard from utterly > unreliable sources that it works brilliantly, but nevertheless, it does sell > and would appear to work. This brings up another question: Is anyone working on an Atari ST emulator for the NeXT? I've been thinking about getting a slab, but I'd have to get rid of my ST (maximum computers allowed in this house rule). I'd sure like to be able to keep some of the great games software! -- 8=====8 =8(/\/) --<-@ 8=====8 (201)-562-6533 rutgers!cscnj!pat
csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod ) (10/23/90)
torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) writes: >>Furthermore, the way Mac toolbox calls are executed (direct ROM >>addressing to the routines on the ROM chips) makes me doubt that it >>would be feasible. I know nothing about emulating other computers, but There are excellent Mac emulators for the Atari ST and Amiga series of computers - which proves it can be done. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Claus Brod, Am Felsenkeller 2, Things. Take. Time. D-8772 Marktheidenfeld, West Germany (Piet Hein) csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de ----------------------------------------------------------------------
mdl@duke.cs.duke.edu (Michael D. Landis) (10/26/90)
In article <asF2q4w163w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca> Anthony Berno writes: >>>> I'm wondering if there has been any news about a mac emulator >Keith Perkins >Texas A&M University > >I gravely doubt if we will ever see a Mac emulator for the NeXT, for the >same reason that there are no Mac clones. The Mac toolkit, for that >matter the entire operating system, is entirely proprietary. >Furthermore, the way Mac toolbox calls are executed (direct ROM >addressing to the routines on the ROM chips) makes me doubt that it >would be feasible. I know nothing about emulating other computers, but >it seems to me that it would be especially difficult for the Mac >even if you did know their secret ROM code and had a license to boot. > >I may be wrong here, though... any feedback? Seems like, if you had a set of routines that did the equivalent of Mac things, but in the NeXT environment, and if you knew the entry points in the roms, then you could write a program to load a Mac binary file, re-link the entry points to transfer control to the new routines, and possibly do some other address translation, etc for IO, and then run the program. You may also need another process running to map the "Mac" screen memory onto the NeXT display, and to do any other memory- mapped IO. This memory-mapped IO would be slow, but the new routines should not have a speed problem. Seems I recall someone mentioning a DOS program loader for UNIX systems that did the same sort of thing to get PC compatability. Only there, they had to translate instructions as well. All of this assumes that no one does code modification anymore. I don't know whether or not people out there in the real world still do such nasty things or not. In any case, I feel that you could probably make a Mac Emulator without in any way using the Mac roms. For that matter, you might as well change some of the "look-and-feel" as well, but maintain compatability of course. Am I being foolish?? -- mike -- Mike Landis, Dept. of Computer Science, Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27706 Internet: mdl@cs.duke.edu Phone: 919-660-6520 or 919-493-0559
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (10/26/90)
In article <1990Oct20.140447.13096@uunet!unhd> tjb@unhd.UUCP (Thomas J. Baker) writes: >My friend, an Amiga nut, runs AMAX, a mac emulator, on his Amiga. It is >completely software driven and the new version he's been telling me about >supports sound and 256K roms. It is the equivalent to a MacII, except for AMax II adds a lot of enhancements, such as hard drive support, MIDI support and digitized sound support, BUT it doesn't give you anything more than the Mac Plus you used to have. The reason is that it is very hard to find even the Mac Plus 128K ROMs. To find the 512K Mac II roms would be even harder. > >Summary: There is no reason (barring politics) why a mac emulator couldn't > be made for a NeXT. Actually, it is more than just politics. You see, AMax is illegal. The catch is that the crime isn't on ReadySoft (the manufacturer's) part, but on the users and the dealers who sell the Mac ROMs. The dealers sign agreements about selling the ROMs and the Mac System license agreement states that you need permission in writing from Apple to use it on an emulator. Fat chance of getting that permission! > >tjb > >____________________________________________________________________________ >| Thomas J. Baker INTERNET: tjb@unhd.unh.edu | >| Computing and Information Services USENET: uunet!unhd!tjb | >| Kingsbury Hall, University of New Hampshire BITNET: T_BAKER@UNHH.BITNET | >| Durham, NH 03824 Voice: (603) 862-4490 | >| | >| "But I'm well read and I've heard it said | >| a hundred times, maybe less, maybe more..." | >|__________________________________________________________________________| -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu GorbachevAwards++; free (SovietUnion); IndependentRepublics += 15;
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (10/26/90)
In article <656892267@macbeth.cs.duke.edu>, mdl@duke.cs.duke.edu (Michael D. Landis) writes: |> Seems like, if you had a set of routines that did the equivalent of Mac |> things, but in the NeXT environment, and if you knew the entry points |> in the roms, then you could write a program to load a Mac binary file, |> re-link the entry points to transfer control to the new routines, and |> possibly do some other address translation, etc for IO, and then run |> the program. Actually, the ROM addresses aren't built into the code. System/toolbox calls are by invalid instruction traps. The trap dispatcher uses a table of ROM addresses (potentially overwritten for RAM-based patches). The advantage of this approach is there is no load-time overhead (compared with dynamic linking), but at the expense of extra overhead for trap dispatching (if you have performance-critical code, you can dynamically look up the address of any routines used in it to cut out the trap dispatcher). I don't want to get into any debate about whether this is a good or bad technique - just adding a data point. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (10/27/90)
In article <1990Oct25.231753.20491@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > In article <1990Oct20.140447.13096@uunet!unhd> tjb@unhd.UUCP (Thomas J. Baker) writes: >> >>Summary: There is no reason (barring politics) why a mac emulator couldn't >> be made for a NeXT. > > Actually, it is more than just politics. You see, AMax is > illegal. The catch is that the crime isn't on ReadySoft (the > manufacturer's) part, but on the users and the dealers who sell > the Mac ROMs. The dealers sign agreements about selling the ROMs > and the Mac System license agreement states that you need > permission in writing from Apple to use it on an emulator. Fat > chance of getting that permission! >> >>tjb > > -- Ethan > > Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu Hmm. As far as I have understood, Spectre 128 and Spectre CGR MAC-emulators are widely available for the Atari ST, and they come with MAC-roms plugged in! How is this possible, then?
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (10/28/90)
In article <3701.2728707d@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >Hmm. As far as I have understood, Spectre 128 and Spectre CGR >MAC-emulators are widely available for the Atari ST, and they come with >MAC-roms plugged in! How is this possible, then? I can't speak for the Atari lines, but there is a pirate version of AMax which includes AMax and the ROMs already placed in software. That is totally illegal. -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu GorbachevAwards++; free (SovietUnion); IndependentRepublics += 15;
c162-bn@danube.Berkeley.EDU (Axel K. Olmos) (10/28/90)
Spectre 128, the Macintosh emulator for the Atari ST does NOT come with roms plugged in. You can purchase them with roms from some dealers, but the roms are a separate item. Macintosh emulation for the Next should be easy! If you Next owners really want it, I suggest you talk to Dave Small of Gadgets By Small. He is the master Macintosh Emulator Creator. Good Luck, Hopefully a future NeXT owner, Ax "You've got another thing comin'" Axel K. Olmos UCB EECS/C
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (10/29/90)
In article <1990Oct27.192835.4652@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > In article <3701.2728707d@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >>Hmm. As far as I have understood, Spectre 128 and Spectre CGR >>MAC-emulators are widely available for the Atari ST, and they come with >>MAC-roms plugged in! How is this possible, then? > > I can't speak for the Atari lines, but there is a pirate > version of AMax which includes AMax and the ROMs already placed > in software. That is totally illegal. > > -- Ethan Of course THAT is illegal. But I doubt the ORIGINAL AMax (or Spectre on the ST) is illegal. If you pirate one program it doesn't make the original program illegal! (There is also a pirated version of Spectre 128 which is purely software based. The original Spectre needs the MAC ROMs and the developers of Spectre 128 of course don't like their product being pirated.) Jouni
dgb@unislc.uucp (Douglas Barrett) (10/29/90)
From article <1990Oct21.045745.4446@midway.uchicago.edu>, by gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu: > ----- >>if anyone wants but I know it doesn't require Mac roms. It reads them from > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>disk and puts them into memory. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Danger, danger Will Robinson: the above technique is HIGHLY illegal. Whether > you like Apple or not, their ROMs are their property. Copying them is a BIG The technique described above does not *require* the copying of Mac ROMs. It is legal to sell an app which contains calls into what on the Mac is os space. it is legal to write software to perform exactly the same function as existing software (ie rewrite the os from its external spec, yes reverse engineer the sucker). these software only emulators (if done legally) preload an app with Mac os calls so that the calls are into the space of the emulator's written from scratch new os calls. all quite legal. difficult to keep 100% compatible. slow. so it all hinges on what is on disc. if it *is* (as stated above) really the Mac os it can only be done with Apple's ok. if the stuff on disc is a clone - then no problem. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Barrett I speak for myself Unix Systmes Programmer Unisys SLC Utah
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (10/30/90)
In article <3713.272b0e5d@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <1990Oct27.192835.4652@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >> >> I can't speak for the Atari lines, but there is a pirate >> version of AMax which includes AMax and the ROMs already placed >> in software. That is totally illegal. >> >> -- Ethan > >Of course THAT is illegal. But I doubt the ORIGINAL AMax (or Spectre on >the ST) is illegal. If you pirate one program it doesn't make the >original program illegal! > Actually using the real version is illegal because Apple's System Software License Agreement specifically forbids running the Apple System on an emulator. This means that all emulators of the Mac which don't re-write the system software will be illegal. -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu GorbachevAwards++; free (SovietUnion); IndependentRepublics += 15;
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct29.164632.12639@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: |> Actually using the real version is illegal because |>Apple's System Software License Agreement specifically forbids |>running the Apple System on an emulator. This means that all |>emulators of the Mac which don't re-write the system software |>will be illegal. |> -- Ethan I wonder if that part would hold up in court? While it seems in line with copyright laws for a company to be able to say "It is illegal for you to copy this" it does not seem reasonable for them to be able to say "And you may only use it on this hardware." If I buy a Sears electric screwdriver, they may be able to tell me I can't duplicate it and sell it, but they can't tell me I can only use it on Sears screws. Part of the problem here is that we are on real hazy ground. Nobody who made the laws anticipated anything like software when they made them. In many cases, the courts seem to work by analogy to existing things (books for instance). However, I don't know that there is anything else at all like the software/hardware relationship out there. Jim Mann Stratus Computer jmann@es.stratus.com
mingo@well.sf.ca.us (Charles Hawkins Mingo) (10/31/90)
In article <2883@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >In article <1990Oct29.164632.12639@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, >es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >|> Actually using the real version is illegal because >|>Apple's System Software License Agreement specifically forbids >|>running the Apple System on an emulator. This means that all >|>emulators of the Mac which don't re-write the system software >|>will be illegal. > >I wonder if that part would hold up in court? While it seems in line >with copyright laws for a company to be able to say "It is illegal for >you to copy this" it does not seem reasonable for them to be able to say >"And you may only use it on this hardware." If I buy a Sears electric >screwdriver, they may be able to tell me I can't duplicate it and sell it, >but they can't tell me I can only use it on Sears screws. Ah, but Sears is selling you the screwdriver; Apple is only selling you a license to use their software. Courts have readily recognized most conditions placed on software licenses (for example, prohibiting nonarchival copies; requiring it to be run on a single CPU at a time, etc.). Its only reasonable for Apple to restrict system software to their CPU's, as they put a lot of work in it, and they give it away. It's only purpose is to sell more macs. >However, I don't know that there is anything else at all like the >software/hardware relationship out there. Think of prerecorded videotapes, which also involve a limited license. You can't (legally) duplicate them, charge admission for a screening, or rent them out (special versions sold to video staors have different license). Copyright law is frequently updated, and is specifically designed to cover computer software. (For example, last month Congress was debating bill to ban software rentals (a noncontroversial subject), but they couldn't agree whether Nintendo would be covered. Ergo, the bill died.) -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Charlie Mingo Internet: mingo@well.sf.ca.us 2209 Washington Circle #2 mingo@cup.portal.com Washington, DC 20037 CI$: 71340,2152 AT&T: 202/785-2089
esink@turia.dit.upm.es (Eric Wayne Sink) (10/31/90)
The biggest problem with a Mac emulator, that I know of, is Apple's
licensing of System software. Even if you get legal ROM's, which are
tough to come by, Apple's system software license specifies that it
can only be run on Apple-produced hardware, or else it is a violation
of license. Obviously Apple has not cared about AMAX, or the ST
thing, but I'm quite sure that a NeXT Mac emulator would offend their
lawyers.
I'd love to see one anyway... :-)
Eric W. Sink Residence: C/Brasil,4 - 9B
Departamento de Telematica 28850 Torrejon de Ardoz
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Madrid) SPAIN
esink@turia.dit.upm.es {011 341} 677-4429fausett@ra.radc.af.mil (Mark L. Fausett) (11/02/90)
In <21421@well.sf.ca.us> mingo@well.sf.ca.us (Charles Hawkins Mingo) writes: >>>>>>>>>STUFF DELETED<<<<<<<<< > Think of prerecorded videotapes, which also involve a limited license. >You can't (legally) duplicate them, charge admission for a screening, or >rent them out (special versions sold to video staors have different license). But the question is whether the license on the video tape should be able to limit you to only playing the video tape on a particular brand of VCR. Mark Fausett fausett@aivax.radc.af.mil
fausett@ra.radc.af.mil (Mark L. Fausett) (11/02/90)
In <389@goya.dit.upm.es> esink@turia.dit.upm.es (Eric Wayne Sink) writes: >>>>>>>>STUFF DELETED<<<<<<<< >Obviously Apple has not cared about AMAX, or the ST >thing, but I'm quite sure that a NeXT Mac emulator would offend their >lawyers. The fact that Apple hasn't cared about AMAX or the ST emulator may seriously hinder any attempt by apple to care about a NeXT emulator. >I'd love to see one anyway... :-) Me too. Mark Fausett fausett@aivax.radc.af.mil
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/02/90)
----- In article <fausett.657476815@ra>, fausett@ra.radc.af.mil (Mark L. Fausett) writes... >In <389@goya.dit.upm.es> esink@turia.dit.upm.es (Eric Wayne Sink) writes: > >>>>>>>>>STUFF DELETED<<<<<<<< > >>Obviously Apple has not cared about AMAX, or the ST >>thing, but I'm quite sure that a NeXT Mac emulator would offend their >>lawyers. > >The fact that Apple hasn't cared about AMAX or the ST emulator may seriously >hinder any attempt by apple to care about a NeXT emulator. I see. So Apple should sue everyone who might possibly infringe on an Apple copyright or patent, no matter how small or unimportant that person may be? Well, that should at least keep the lawyers busy. Actually, given Apple's extensive legal department, if your argument were true, I think we would have seen the emulator makers sued long ago. Just because you don't sue EVERY copyright infringer doesn't mean you lose your copyright. Apple has been vigorously pursuing ROM cloners, Mac cloners, etc. Think about it: McDonald's goes after many people for using the name "McDonalds" for a restaurant (even for people whose own name is McDonalds, I've heard). But if they choose not to sue a couple of restaurants in Okyfoke, PA, because it just isn't worth it doesn't mean that they can't sue someone else from infringing on their trademark. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
mingo@cup.portal.com (Charles Hawkins Mingo) (11/05/90)
>fausett@aivax.radc.af.mil (Mark Fausett) writes: > >> Think of prerecorded videotapes, which also involve a limited license. >>You can't (legally) duplicate them, charge admission for a screening, or >>rent them out (special versions sold to video staors have different license). > >But the question is whether the license on the video tape should be able >to limit you to only playing the video tape on a particular brand of VCR. The import of the comparison with videotapes was that software licenses can (and often do) contain restrictive conditions concerning use. You may be aware that Nintendo game cartridges are sold subject to the condition that they only be used on Nintendo machines, and this restriction has been repeatedly upheld. Software licenses are simply a contract between the vendor and the purchaser; courts routinely enforce such conditions, absent any overriding public policy considerations (which no one has suggested here).
mingo@cup.portal.com (Charles Hawkins Mingo) (11/05/90)
>In article <fausett.657476815@ra>, fausett@ra.radc.af.mil (Mark L. Fausett) wr i >tes... > >>In <389@goya.dit.upm.es> esink@turia.dit.upm.es (Eric Wayne Sink) writes: >> >>>>>>>>>>STUFF DELETED<<<<<<<< >> >>>Obviously Apple has not cared about AMAX, or the ST >>>thing, but I'm quite sure that a NeXT Mac emulator would offend their >>>lawyers. >> >>The fact that Apple hasn't cared about AMAX or the ST emulator may seriously >>hinder any attempt by apple to care about a NeXT emulator. > > >I see. So Apple should sue everyone who might possibly infringe on an Apple >copyright or patent, no matter how small or unimportant that person may be? >Well, that should at least keep the lawyers busy. Generally speaking, if you don't defend your patent/copyright/trademark you run the risk that your rights may no longer be recognized (or even if still recognized, they may become unenforcible against past infringers, who had reasonably assumed they couldn't have been infringing your patents, because you hadn't objected to what they were doing.) For example, under patent law you have about a year to object to a specific infringement, before a statute of limitations runs. >Actually, given Apple's extensive legal department, if your argument were true , >I think we would have seen the emulator makers sued long ago. Just because yo u >don't sue EVERY copyright infringer doesn't mean you lose your copyright. >Apple has been vigorously pursuing ROM cloners, Mac cloners, etc. If you permit your copyright to pass into the public domain, you may indeed lose your rights. > >Think about it: McDonald's goes after many people for using the name >"McDonalds" for a restaurant (even for people whose own name is McDonalds, I'v e >heard). But if they choose not to sue a couple of restaurants in Okyfoke, PA, >because it just isn't worth it doesn't mean that they can't sue someone else >from infringing on their trademark. Oh? Perhaps you may have noticed those Sanka commercials where they always say "Sanka-brand coffee"? Perhaps you may recall certain now-defunct trademarks, such as Formica(tm) or Band-Aid(tm), which lost their protected status because they had become generic terms. Why do you think advertisers persistantly use the (tm) symbol after their trademarks? To use your example, McDonald's runs the risk of being unable to enforce their trademark in the Okyfoke region by permitting another usage. To paraphrase someone, intellectual property "is like two cannibals on a desert island: eat or be eaten."
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/06/90)
------ In article <35602@cup.portal.com>, mingo@cup.portal.com (Charles Hawkins Mingo) writes... [...] >>Actually, given Apple's extensive legal department, if your argument were true >, >>I think we would have seen the emulator makers sued long ago. Just because yo >u >>don't sue EVERY copyright infringer doesn't mean you lose your copyright. >>Apple has been vigorously pursuing ROM cloners, Mac cloners, etc. > > If you permit your copyright to pass into the public domain, you may >indeed lose your rights. That's right folks! It's alternate reality time! :-> If it's not clear to you that Apple has made strenuous efforts to protect their copyrights -- efforts which would have certainly included action against AMAX, et al. had they been necessary -- then you must be in an alternate history, where Apple was purchased by the FSF in early 1987. In MY reality, Apple seems to have made great effort to protect their copyrights. Or else Apple has been hiring their lawyers off late night TV ads. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio) (11/13/90)
Okay, so I've ordered my NeXTstation and I've bought Mac ROMs from somone with a dead Mac. What should I need to do to get this emulator thing working? Can people send me the names and addresses of the companies that put these things out for the Amiga and Atari? I've seen SoftPC on a Slab here at CMU. I'd like to run both PC and Mac emulation on the Slab, so I never have to touch another machine. -- Doug DeJulio dd26@andrew.cmu.edu