scotth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Henderson) (04/16/91)
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS, U.S.A., 1991 APR 15 -- U. of I. Apple II Resource and Development Team throws wrench in "The Apple Trade-Up Program" at the University of Illinois. After Apple Computer started their own Trade-Up program at the University of Illinois, the U. of I. Apple II Resource and Development Team (A2R&D) responded with a Trade-Up deal of their own. Apple's trade up plan is giving owners of Apple and other forms of computers an opportunity to trade in their current systems for a credit voucher towards a new Macintosh Computer. The A2R&D's program would give owners trading in their machines more CASH than Apple is giving in the form of credit. "I see this as a great opportunity to purchase a Macintosh SE for half of the price that Apple was selling these new," said Scott Henderson, cofounder of the Apple II Resource and Development Team. "However, our initial attempts to purchase these computers was met with heavy resistance." One of the members was able to purchase a Mac SE before the staff at Apple got wind of what was going on. When one other member tried to buy an SE, Apple met the A2R&D's price. After this, the situation got a little ugly. Greg Sellers, an employee of the local Apple Dealer came downstairs from the equipment evaluation room. Mr. Sellers, one of seven Apple Trade Up Program members, came down with a threat that "the campus security had been contacted and would soon arrive." Members of the A2R&D were then asked to leave the building. "Apple Computer must be making A LOT of money on these trade ins," said Derek Taubert, also a cofounder of the A2R&D, "otherwise, they wouldn't care if we offered to purchase these machines. We may ultimately be making a statement that their decison not to support the Apple II community may actually hurt them." All total, the U. of I. Resource and Development Team counted approximately 7 Apple Computer owners who wanted to trade their equipment. The A2R&D was able to purchase one machine and was able to get Apple to raise their offer on an evaluation of another machine. "Our purpose is to help Apple owners receive compensation closer to what their machines are worth today," said Scott Henderson, "but, at the same time, we're also trying to get a good deal for ourselves." The Apple Trade-Up program will continue at the University of Illinois until Thursday, April 18. The A2R&D encourages any other interested individuals to join them in their effort to help prospective Apple users to get a more equittable settlement on their machines before they "Trade-Up." -- = R. Scott Henderson = "Some people claim that there's a = = University of Illinois = woman to blame, but I know it's = = scotth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu = my own damned fault. = = Apple II Forever! = -Jimmy Buffet =
paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) (04/16/91)
scotth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Henderson) writes: >CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS, U.S.A., 1991 APR 15 -- U. of I. Apple II Resource and >Development Team throws wrench in "The Apple Trade-Up Program" at the >University of Illinois. Anyone who cares what Apple is trying to do with their Look & Feel lawsuits should forbear from purchasing any more Apple equipment. Selling what you have and dropping software development of Apple-specific programs would be excellent steps. /pbp -- Paul Pomes UUCP: {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!paul Internet, BITNET: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu US Mail: UofIllinois, CSO, 1304 W Springfield Ave, Urbana, IL 61801-2910
dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr16.012944.24966@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Paul-Pomes@uiuc.edu writes: >Anyone who cares what Apple is trying to do with their Look & Feel lawsuits >should forbear from purchasing any more Apple equipment. Selling what you >have and dropping software development of Apple-specific programs would be >excellent steps. > One question - why? Dropping software development would be the WORST thing any machine user could do, especially if they have had several years of programming experience. Forget that I said that, just answer me why. -- + Derek Taubert --> derek@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu + Author of : GScii + + dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu + {MUCH more to come...} + + "Well, ...lettuce is a transformation of a dead cougar that suffered a + + relapse on a lion's toe. And he swallowed the lion and something happened. + + The ...see, the ...Gloria and Tommy, they're two heads and they're not + + whales. But they escaped with herds of vomit, and things like that." +
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/16/91)
paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes: >Anyone who cares what Apple is trying to do with their Look & Feel lawsuits >should forbear from purchasing any more Apple equipment. Selling what you >have and dropping software development of Apple-specific programs would be >excellent steps. Blech. You too? Hurting the Apple II is hurting the Apple II, not Apple. Hurting the MAC is hurting Apple. Offering people real money (and more than Apple!) for their old machines is a winner of an idea as far as I'm concerned!! I just wish I could pick up a ROM 3 for $250... Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (04/16/91)
>>Anyone who cares what Apple is trying to do with their Look & Feel lawsuits >>should forbear from purchasing any more Apple equipment. Selling what you >>have and dropping software development of Apple-specific programs would be >>excellent steps. >> > >One question - why? Dropping software development would be the WORST thing >any machine user could do, especially if they have had several years of >programming experience. Small word time. Apple is suing Microsoft because MS Windows "looks" like Apple software. Some people think this is bad, because it might mean that any programmer with a GUI would have to send a royalty check to Apple. (More fundamentally, it encourages meaningless differentiation of interfaces, making it more difficult for users to switch from platform to platform.) The people who think Apple's suit is bad would like to HURT Apple. Not buying Apple's products and not developing software for Apple products would be one way of doing that. (Being a Mac developer myself, I would have to note that Apple has done more to discourage small software developers than the FSF will ever be able to do.) -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
rimovsky@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Tony Rimovsky) (04/16/91)
And suddenly I come home, and my roommate has this Macintosh in our room. (Incidently, that brings to total to 2 IIgs's, 1 IBM (hard drive), Mac SE, and an occasional Apple IIe) We were up late last night. Possibly TOO late. But as we sat there and looked at the Mac SE next to one of the IIgs's on the desk, we came to realize truly how ridiculus the MacSE looks. He put it best: It looks like a lunch box. We are contemplating putting eyes on the monitor and a smiley face on the front. It seems to fit. Until it gets set up as a file server though, we do have a nifty alarm clock.....
dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.123324.21596@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: >Small word time. > >Apple is suing Microsoft because MS Windows "looks" like Apple software. >Some people think this is bad, because it might mean that any programmer >with a GUI would have to send a royalty check to Apple. I'm fully aware of that, thank you. > >(More fundamentally, it encourages meaningless differentiation of interfaces, >making it more difficult for users to switch from platform to platform.) > So I suppose this means that people are finally admitting that the mac-based point-and-click interface isn't so bad after all. Seems to me that in the past few years, software was making an attempt to stay away from this, and now they're sorry because the mac went over so well. My point is that the meaningless differentation has always existed. >The people who think Apple's suit is bad would like to HURT Apple. Not buying >Apple's products and not developing software for Apple products would >be one way of doing that. This would be one way of hurting the wrong department, yes. I think a hit-man planted in the slew of apple lawyers would do a better job. -- + Derek Taubert --> derek@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu + Author of : GScii+ + + dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu + and other neat stuff to come + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Access to computers - and anything which might teach you something about + + the way the world works - should be unlimited and total. Always yield to + + the Hands-On Imperative! +
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.123324.21596@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: [various quotes] [stuff re the Apple Microsoft lawsuit] [gives reason why, in his opinion Apple suing MS] >The people who think Apple's suit is bad would like to HURT Apple. Not buying >Apple's products and not developing software for Apple products would >be one way of doing that. I do not want to hurt Apple, and I personally feel that this lawsuit is unacceptable( as are many other "look and feel" ones). Please consider that most R&D in the computer industry is basically the "D". Scientists and mathematicians have been working on many of the problems which commercial vendors then go on to refine in an attempt to market the items. In one case, people are interested in pushing forth Man's understanding of Nature, while on the other side CEO's and bean counters are looking at margins. Apple has lost a lot of goodwill over this lawsuit. Just my 2cents' worth( canadian which is less than 2centsUS). Philip McDunnough philip@utstat.utoronto.ca [my opinions,etc...]
marcc@yoyodyne.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Cooper) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.172151.6398@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) writes: >> >>(More fundamentally, it encourages meaningless differentiation of interfaces, >>making it more difficult for users to switch from platform to platform.) > >So I suppose this means that people are finally admitting that the mac-based >point-and-click interface isn't so bad after all. Seems to me that in the >past few years, software was making an attempt to stay away from this, and >now they're sorry because the mac went over so well. My point is that the >meaningless differentation has always existed. There are some places where a GUI is exaclty the WRONG thing. But I won't get into interface wars. It's a religious issue. > >>The people who think Apple's suit is bad would like to HURT Apple. Not buying >>Apple's products and not developing software for Apple products would >>be one way of doing that. > >This would be one way of hurting the wrong department, yes. I think a >hit-man planted in the slew of apple lawyers would do a better job. While this solution is certainly enticing, and VERY effective in the short term, it's INNEFECTIVE in the long term. Despite geneticists efforts, laywers continue to reproduce. The best solution is probably to not buy Apple products and not support Apple products and TELL APPLE IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that you, and many of similar mmind, will continue to ignore them until they stop it. If Apple suddenly started getting letters that they missed a million dollar sale because of their legal policies, they might think.. > > >-- >+ Derek Taubert --> derek@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu + Author of : GScii+ + >+ dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu + and other neat stuff to come + >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >+ Access to computers - and anything which might teach you something about + >+ the way the world works - should be unlimited and total. Always yield to + >+ the Hands-On Imperative! +
meekins@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy lee meekins) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.173306.25759@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >In article <1991Apr16.123324.21596@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: > >[various quotes] > >[stuff re the Apple Microsoft lawsuit] > >[gives reason why, in his opinion Apple suing MS] > >>The people who think Apple's suit is bad would like to HURT Apple. Not buying >>Apple's products and not developing software for Apple products would >>be one way of doing that. > >I do not want to hurt Apple, and I personally feel that this lawsuit is >unacceptable( as are many other "look and feel" ones). > >Please consider that most R&D in the computer industry is basically >the "D". Scientists and mathematicians have been working on many of >the problems which commercial vendors then go on to refine in an attempt >to market the items. In one case, people are interested in pushing >forth Man's understanding of Nature, while on the other side CEO's >and bean counters are looking at margins. > >Apple has lost a lot of goodwill over this lawsuit. > >Just my 2cents' worth( canadian which is less than 2centsUS). > >Philip McDunnough >philip@utstat.utoronto.ca >[my opinions,etc...] I don't understand why so reecently people have been against Apple for their suit. I think Apple has every right to that suit. Apple developed a very unique interface. Certainly, much of the research was performed at PARC, but we all know Xerox's track record on marketing. Apple borrowed the idea and gave it to the masses. Apple is not suing over the idea!!! Apple is suing about certain small details. There are now hundreds of windowing systems out now, none of which are being challenged by Apple. Why? Because they didn't BLATENTLY steal what Apple had developed. I have seen advertisements in magazines for applications running under both Windows and the HP windowing system. When I first saw these ads, I actually thought they were Macintosh ads because it was an almost exact duplicate. Sheesh, almost everything about the interface was copied from Apple. IBM, Microsoft, and HP saw that Apple had a good thing and instead of developing an alternative, they simply copied what Apple had done. Surprise, Surprise. Right after the suit was filed we find out the chief engineer of Windows *just happened* to have worked at Apple when the Macintosh was developed. Microsoft's/HP's biggest defense in the case is that Apple's way is the intuitive approach and the only approach to windowing systems, therefore they (Apple) cannot own it. All I know, is that my Sun SLC 4/20 and HP 9000/370 at school are running at least 3 different *excellent* windowing systems which work very well, yet in no way are trying to steal what Apple did. Face the facts, Microsoft has not shown one inch of creativity or originality in developing Windows. This brings me to the second point in the lawsuit that everyone seems to be ignoring. Microsoft actually had a contract with Apple so that they could borrow certain ideas from Apple. Microsoft then developed Windows 3.0 (or some such vers) and voided the contract. Apple contends it is just an improvement and must continue to abide by the contract. Apple was until then making money from every copy of Windows being sold. In conclusion, I believe Apple has EVERY RIGHT to sue Microsoft and HP since they blatantly have copied what Apple has done. More recently, dozens of other companies have developed windowing systems which show that there are excellent alternatives to Apple's system. So, why did Microsoft/ HP create a carbon copy of Apple's? It certainly isn't becuase it's the only way to do it. On an aside, after Apple sued Microsoft/HP, Xerox got interested and tried to then sue Apple. Xerox had to drop suit since it was quickly shown that Xerox never tried to protect anything they developed. In other words, they didn't try to stop Apple when they released the Mac, but only jumped on the bandwagon when the suits started. -tim -- +---------------------------S-U-P-P-O-R-T-----------------------------------+ |/ Tim Meekins <<>> Snail Mail: <<>> Apple II \| |> meekins@cis.ohio-state.edu <<>> 8372 Morris Rd. <<>> Forever! <| |\ timm@pro-tcc.cts.com <<>> Hilliard, OH 43026 <<>> /|
frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye) (04/17/91)
I usually keep quiet during these discussions, but this time I can't resist. It strikes me that people are attempting to make a complex issue look simple. Apple is not suing the world for the use of GUI's. It just happens that a) they have the most popular one, and b) the largest independent software developer subsequently produced one which is so similar as to be frightening. When you're "number two", as Apple is in the world of personal computers, and someone produces a tool to make the "number one" product look and feel just like yours, the future of your product is in jeopardy. [ Now, one can argue about whether or not Windows 3.0 is a Mac GUI ripoff. Sure, it looks very similar, but you'd think that in six+ years Microsoft could have produced something better than a product that is just as difficult to program as the Mac, runs like a dog, eats RAM for lunch, and doesn't work for a lot of complex i/o-related applications. THIS they should fight over? ] I get the impression from reading between the lines of some postings here that quite a few people resent the philosophy of Apple, Inc. That's the complex issue I mentioned. Apple has actively worked at being "different" from the IBM world -- in user interface, in system design and performance, in marketing strategy, in emphasis on certain types of applications, and most obviously in pricing structure. It's really not possible, nor fair, to take any of those items and analyze it in isolation. They're all elements of the more general philosophy. Unfortunately, the pricing structure has created such a hostile environment that it doesn't seem possible to discuss the bigger question rationally. ----------------------------- Having said that, I'd like to applaud the people who stood up personally to the absurd rebate program. I wonder if the scheme was dreamt up locally by dealers or was a corporate plan. The prices were an insult, at best, and most departments realized that there was no real value to the buyback offer. I hope that someone at UI purchasing got burned. I hope that the apparent attempt to get around UI and State of Illinois surplus policy is noted and prosecuted. G. David Frye (This seems like a good time to point out that the above opinion is strictly personal and in no way reflects any official position of my department.)
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (04/17/91)
In article <108667@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, meekins@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy lee meekins) writes: > I don't understand why so reecently people have been against Apple for their > suit. I think Apple has every right to that suit. Apple developed a very unique > interface. Certainly, much of the research was performed at PARC, but we all > know Xerox's track record on marketing. Apple borrowed the idea and gave it > to the masses. Apple is not suing over the idea!!! Apple is suing about certain > small details. There are now hundreds of windowing systems out now, none of > which are being challenged by Apple. Why? Because they didn't BLATENTLY steal > what Apple had developed. I have seen advertisements in magazines for > applications running under both Windows and the HP windowing system. When > I first saw these ads, I actually thought they were Macintosh ads because > it was an almost exact duplicate. Sheesh, almost everything about the interface > was copied from Apple. IBM, Microsoft, and HP saw that Apple had a good thing > and instead of developing an alternative, they simply copied what Apple had > done. Surprise, Surprise. Right after the suit was filed we find out the > chief engineer of Windows *just happened* to have worked at Apple when > the Macintosh was developed. Microsoft's/HP's biggest defense in the case I've only used Windows, GEM on the ST, an Amiga, and also a Mac. The closest thing to the environment on the Mac is my ST. Windows doesn't at all look like a Mac. Each window has its own menu bar, there isn't a main menu bar, you don't have drive icons or a trash can. It looks totally different. I've also seen pictures of Nutek's Mac clone ROMS, which use the Motif interface, and this looks a lot like Windows. (on a side note, the first product Nutek is supposed to release is the motif desktop for existing mac owners.) I don't want to start an interface war, but I think the main reason behind Apple's lawsuits is the fact that Windows actually scares them. Just look in a MacWorld, or MacUser. Windows 3.0 is mentioned in about every other article, and in about every column also. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins Question for MAC Users: rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET |||| Power Without What IS the format of a rc1dsanu@miamiu.BITNET / || \ The Price!! MAC HFS floppy disk? R.COLLINS1 on GEnie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (04/18/91)
In article <108667@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> meekins@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy lee meekins) writes: [ more on Apple vs HP/Microsoft ], [quotes me,etc...] >I don't understand why so reecently people have been against Apple for their >suit. I think Apple has every right to that suit. It is not only recently that people have become distressed over these "look and feel" lawsuits. People can always sue. The question is whether or not this helps society. Count the number of lawyers in the US and do the same in Japan, and you will see why the obvious is happening. >In conclusion, I believe Apple has EVERY RIGHT to sue Microsoft and HP >since they blatantly have copied what Apple has done. More recently, >dozens of other companies have developed windowing systems which show that >there are excellent alternatives to Apple's system. So, why did Microsoft/ >HP create a carbon copy of Apple's? It certainly isn't becuase it's >the only way to do it. I'm not a lawyer. As I pointed out, Apple has the right to sue whomever they wish. They seem to be good at it. Other companies have used this tactic in order to intimidate competitors. In the end it typically fails to help anyone. As for Windows3.0 being a carbon copy of the Finder, I simply can't agree. I assume Apple does not either, otherwise people would not be claiming the Finder to be superior to Windows 3.0 . One point you might think about. Overlapping windows have been around a long time, as have mice,etc...Bringing a product to the masses means you are good at marketing. As you noted Xerox was not. Neither are mathematicians who develop many algorithms used by commercial software vendors. Do you want a society of successful marketing types or one that is capable of developing new ideas? If it's the latter, then I would strongly suggest you start pushing for scientists and engineers to have more say over what happens than accountants and lawyers. You really have to wonder about a society that rewards its lawyers and bean counters far more than its researchers and engineers. Philip McDunnough philip@utstat.utoronto.ca
stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Anthony J. Stuckey) (04/18/91)
frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye) writes: >Having said that, I'd like to applaud the people who stood up personally to >the absurd rebate program. I wonder if the scheme was dreamt up locally by >dealers or was a corporate plan. The prices were an insult, at best, and It was a corporate plan.. offered to "six universities in the midwest", and actively promoted by apple (to the point of dorm mail-box flyers). >most departments realized that there was no real value to the buyback offer. >I hope that someone at UI purchasing got burned. I hope that the apparent >attempt to get around UI and State of Illinois surplus policy is noted and >prosecuted. not likely. who'd tell the proper people?? -- Anthony J. Stuckey stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr16.123324.21596@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: >Apple is suing Microsoft because MS Windows "looks" like Apple software. >Some people think this is bad, because it might mean that any programmer >with a GUI would have to send a royalty check to Apple. Just a little point of interest.. One of the first "look and feel" lawsuits to be settled (or to be won by the plaintiff at least) was the maker of Print Shop suing the maker of Print Master.. The two programs acted virtually identically in terms of orderings and looks of the screens, and the Print Shop people won. Please correct me if I have anything wrong here. I actually feel that I do have something slightly wrong, but I don't know what, and I'd appreciate being corrected. -- /unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! WANT ULTIMA VI //e or GS?-mail me.\ \CHEAP CDs info-mail me. McIntosh Junior: The Power to Crush the Other Kids. /
THROOP@GRIN1.BITNET ("Throop,Henry B") (04/18/91)
[unknown writes about Print Shop vs. Print Master suit] One thing you omitted was that I believe some of the Print Shop team moved over to Unison to work on Print Master, and allegedly stole parts of the code. Unison also claimed that although the interfaces were similar, this was the only way to do such a program. Broderbund then brought up Stickybear Printer, which does similar things as both programs, but with a different interface. Henry -- Henry Throop THROOP@GRIN1.BITNET throoph@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) (04/19/91)
In <9104181818.AA20737@apple.com> THROOP@GRIN1.BITNET ("Throop,Henry B") writes: >[unknown writes about Print Shop vs. Print Master suit] ... >code. Unison also claimed that although the interfaces were similar, this >was the only way to do such a program. Broderbund then brought up Stickybear >Printer, which does similar things as both programs, but with a different >interface. We're really moving away from comp.sys.apple2 territory here, but the nail in the coffin for Unison (I thought it was Uniden World, or something like that) was that in two places in their program, it said "Press <Return> to continue." Well, the IBM doesn't have a return key -- it's marked "Enter"; the rest of the PrintMaster code said "Press Enter" as well. Rob -- Robert C. Knauerhase University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign "I get my exercise acting as Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group pallbearer for my friends knauer@cs.uiuc.edu, rck@ces.cwru.edu who exercise..." knauer@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov
meekins@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy lee meekins) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr18.201701.18584@m.cs.uiuc.edu> knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) writes: >We're really moving away from comp.sys.apple2 territory here, but the nail in >the coffin for Unison (I thought it was Uniden World, or something like that) >was that in two places in their program, it said "Press <Return> to continue." >Well, the IBM doesn't have a return key -- it's marked "Enter"; the rest of >the PrintMaster code said "Press Enter" as well. > Hmmm. Sort of like how the IIgs version of King's Quest IV gives the ALT key commands. Gee, and Sierra says the IIgs is too slow to run their games. This ALT screw-up makes it almost obvious that they had some IBM hacker write the GS version. No wonder it didn't run very fast. But, that's getting off the subject... -- +---------------------------S-U-P-P-O-R-T-----------------------------------+ |/ Tim Meekins <<>> Snail Mail: <<>> Apple II \| |> meekins@cis.ohio-state.edu <<>> 8372 Morris Rd. <<>> Forever! <| |\ timm@pro-tcc.cts.com <<>> Hilliard, OH 43026 <<>> /|
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (04/20/91)
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: > >The people who think Apple's suit is bad would like to HURT Apple. Not buying >Apple's products and not developing software for Apple products would >be one way of doing that. > Sorry, but I disagree. I think Apple's suit is bad, and I have no desire to hurt Apple. All I want is free enterprise. Microsoft is not a threat to Apple; it is healthy competition. MS-Windows should have got Apple off their butts to create better system software for its computers. That would have made the users happy. Instead, they decided to go to the courtroom and make the lawyers happy. If anyone is trying to hurt anyone, it's Apple trying to hurt Microsoft and the users of GUI's everywhere. > >Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office > -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
davidbrierley@lynx.northeastern.edu (04/21/91)
The Millipore Corporation has written an IBM-based software package called Maxima that collects and processes data from gas chromatography and high- performance liquid chromatography instruments. It has both the "look-and-feel" of the Mac's GUI *and* Appleworks' file card interface!
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (04/21/91)
In article <109636@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> meekins@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy lee meekins) writes: >Hmmm. Sort of like how the IIgs version of King's Quest IV gives the >ALT key commands. Gee, and Sierra says the IIgs is too slow to run their >games. This ALT screw-up makes it almost obvious that they had some >IBM hacker write the GS version. No wonder it didn't run very fast. Come one, we've discussed this before. King's Quest IV (IIGS version) is based on Sierra's AGI system, not the SCI system that King's Quest V uses. Sierra once tried an SCI implementation for the IIGS but decided that customers would not find the quality acceptable, unless they had more than a 2.5MHz effective CPU clock rate and more than 256KB of RAM, neither requirement met by Apple's stock IIGS product at the time. There are reasons why the IIGS SCI implementation was so slow, but not because of "IBM hacker writing the GS version". Even the IBM version is written primarily in SCI and C. Sierra long ago made, correctly in my opinion, the decision to develop their interactive graphic adventures in a machine-neutral programming language (currently, SCI) which would be compiled and/or interpreted by machine-specific SCI interpreters. Note that this is the same general method used in the old Infocom text adventures, which were coded in ZIL, with a ZIL interpreter provided for each distinct machine platform.
SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU (04/21/91)
Tim Meekens in an earlier article writes: > Hmmm. Sort of like how the IIgs version of King's Quest IV gives the > ALT key commands. Gee, and Sierra says the IIgs is too slow to run their > games. This ALT screw-up makes it almost obvious that they had some > IBM hacker write the GS version. No wonder it didn't run very fast. > But, that's getting off the subject... Ever since Sierra started on its 3-D character animation deveolped in the Kings Quest series, I have totally lost all respect for that company. For starters, everything they made was in that format {ok, here's a guy, lets have him walk around and do stuff} Hey, thats a nice idea, but it grows thin after a while. {Kinda like the mac...} Then they develop this system where they can port it to different platforms real fast to get the product out. Well you know what happens when they standerize a port platform for fast software development - means serious loss of quality for a specific machine. Plus, Sierra has become so obsessed with the IBM that their ports to the other computers pale in comparison. {They love the IBM for its Super-vga and Roland 32 voice sound capabilities} So they have some IBM dweebs slap over to the GS, and because their code isn't efficent and the fact that the code they are porting over is in C or Pascal - or something like that - its end result is a really slow game. So Sierra just throws in the towel because they would rather spend their time making programs for the machine that has over 70% of the market. So while Sierra not making products for the GS came as a disapointment, I really don't care because they were not making anything really to be missed. - Hal | Hal Bouma | Send mail to: SHBoum@Macalstr.edu | Macalester College | and SHBoum@Macalstr.Bitnet | GEnie: H.Bouma | ".Sig Under Construction..."
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (04/21/91)
In article <8930734130FF205A45@MACALSTR.EDU> SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU writes:
[stuff re Sierra...]
It is very important to have these companies return to the GS. For one thing
they are rapidly expanding into the japanese software market, and they are
one of the few companies to be looking at integrating sound, programs, animationand entertainment,etc...They are quite right to insist that the GS is too
slow to deal with their SGI. It is, but the GS has the Ensoniq which provides
wonderful sound capability. I hope they return to the GS world. If their
ports to the Mac are any indication, you'd have to spend $600 for the MT-32
just to get half decent sound as opposed to PC stereo.
Is anyone out there writing something which will enable GS owners to read
text files with embedded sound?
Philip McDunnough
philip@utstat.utoronto.ca
[my opinions,etc...]kenfair@flammulated.rice.edu (Kenneth Jason Fair) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr18.021420.13176@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Anthony J. Stuckey) writes: >frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye) writes: > >>Having said that, I'd like to applaud the people who stood up personally to >>the absurd rebate program. I wonder if the scheme was dreamt up locally by >>dealers or was a corporate plan. The prices were an insult, at best, and >It was a corporate plan.. offered to "six universities in the midwest", >and actively promoted by apple (to the point of dorm mail-box flyers). Apple's buyback offer was also instituted here at Rice University. It wasn't very well publicized, but there were some flyers put up announcing it. From what I heard, the prices were ridiculous (comparable to what other posters have said). All I can say is, I'm happy with my IIGS and I'M NOT TRADING. PERIOD. Ken -- +-----------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+ "God does not play dice with the universe."- Einstein | kenfair@owlnet.rice.edu "God may play dice with the universe, but he does not | America Online: collapse electron probability waveforms."- Fair | Mr Toaster
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (04/23/91)
In article <8930734130FF205A45@MACALSTR.EDU> SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU writes: >They love the IBM for its Super-vga and Roland 32 voice sound capabilities Also for CD-I and the fact that it is the one machine with sufficient capabilities that dominates the home computer software market. >I really don't care because they were not making anything really to be missed. Some of us would dispute that -- have you SEEN and HEARD King's Quest V on a super-VGA machine with sound card and preferably CD-ROM drive? It's nice...