greyelf@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael J Pender) (11/17/90)
What's to keep an outside agency from coming out with another apple compatible that's BETTER than a IIgs? --- Michael J Pender Jr Box 1942 c/o W.P.I. Part of this D- belongs to greyelf@wpi.bitnet 100 Institute Rd. God... greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu Worcester, Ma 01609 - B. Simpson -- --- Michael J Pender Jr Box 1942 c/o W.P.I. Part of this D- belongs to greyelf@wpi.bitnet 100 Institute Rd. God...
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (11/17/90)
In article <1990Nov16.185208.5471@wpi.WPI.EDU> greyelf@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael J Pender) writes: >What's to keep an outside agency from coming out with another apple >compatible that's BETTER than a IIgs? The fact that it wouldn't sell without Apple support for the II line.
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (11/18/90)
In article <1990Nov16.185208.5471@wpi.WPI.EDU> greyelf@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael J Pender) writes: >What's to keep an outside agency from coming out with another apple >compatible that's BETTER than a IIgs? Copyright and patent laws. bob church bchurch.oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
bill@pro-gateway.cts.com (Bill Long, SysOp) (11/21/90)
In-Reply-To: message from greyelf@wpi.WPI.EDU >What's to keep an outside agency from coming out with another apple >compatible that's BETTER than a IIgs? For one thing, they would have to copy the GS's ROM, which would promptly draw a lawsuit from Apple, I'm sure. | ProLine: bill@pro-gateway |Internet: bill@pro-gateway.cts.com | UUCP: crash!pro-gateway!bill | ARPA: crash!pro-gateway!bill@nosc.mil | BITNET: bill%pro-gateway.cts.com@nosc.mil +----------"Maturity is overrated" - Garfield-------->Pro-Gateway 214/644-5113
kreme@isis.cs.du.edu (Something Completely Different) (11/25/90)
>bill@pro-gateway.cts.com (Bill Long, SysOp) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from greyelf@wpi.WPI.EDU > >>What's to keep an outside agency from coming out with another apple >>compatible that's BETTER than a IIgs? >For one thing, they would have to copy the GS's ROM, which would promptly >draw a lawsuit from Apple, I'm sure. Not necessarily, Insync has evidently figured out a way to duplicate the Mac ROMS for their card without the threat of a lawsuit. Perhaps "duplicate" is not the best word... emulate? Anyway, perhaps there is a way to do something similar with the GS ROMs?? -- | kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu |Growing up leads to growing old, and then to dying, and| |---------------------|dying to me don't sound like all that much fun. | | Dad! It's three o'clock in the morning! Do you know where I am? Calvin |
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (11/26/90)
In article <1990Nov25.084643.20085@isis.cs.du.edu> kreme@isis.UUCP (Something Completely Different) writes: >Not necessarily, Insync has evidently figured out a way to duplicate the Mac >ROMS for their card without the threat of a lawsuit. Perhaps "duplicate" is >not the best word... emulate? Anyway, perhaps there is a way to do something >similar with the GS ROMs?? "Translate" is probably the best word; the Duet works by translating Mac Toolbox calls to GS Toolbox calls. BTW, I thought Cirtech was making the Duet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Alfter _/_ / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
avarg@gnh-applesauce.cts.com (Abel Vargas) (11/28/90)
Even if a company could make a GS clone with impunity, why would they want to? The GS is dificult to program, almost unsupported, outdated hardware? There's much more money in IBM compats.... INET: avarg@gnh-applesauce.cts.com UUCP: crash!pnet01!gnh-applesauce!avarg ARPA: crash!pnet01!gnh-applesauce!avarg@nosc.mil
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (11/29/90)
In article <m0iePxP-00007PC@jartel.info.com> avarg@gnh-applesauce.cts.com (Abel Vargas) writes: > > Even if a company could make a GS clone with impunity, why would they >want to? The GS is dificult to program, almost unsupported, outdated hardware? >There's much more money in IBM compats.... I'm not sure I agree with your technical statements but I think that you have a good point economically. When someone has a product that is in great demand other companies attempt to capitalize on it and get into the act. Even a few weeks of Econ 103 would show the reasons for not developing a GS clone. For whatever the reason people haven't exactly been falling over themselves to buy a GS.
mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.com (Mark Munz) (11/29/90)
In-Reply-To: message from avarg@gnh-applesauce.cts.com -> Even if a company could make a GS clone with impunity, why would th -> want to? The GS is dificult to program, almost unsupported, outdated hardwa -> There's much more money in IBM compats.... Uh.. GS difficult to program? When is the last time you programmed the GS? If you compare it to similar programming on the Macintosh or IBM, I think you'll find that the GS is definitely not that hard. In fact, it's MUCH easier than the Macintosh. (Remember, if you're going to compare GS Desktop programming, you need to compare it to Windows programming or OS/2 programming on the IBM), otherwise you should just compare standard IBM programming to Prodos 8 development (which is child's play). Mark Munz
kreme@isis.cs.du.edu (Jabberwocky) (11/29/90)
In article <2357@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >In article <1990Nov25.084643.20085@isis.cs.du.edu> kreme@isis.UUCP (Something Completely Different) writes: >>Not necessarily, Insync has evidently figured out a way to duplicate the Mac >>ROMS for their card without the threat of a lawsuit. Perhaps "duplicate" is >>not the best word... emulate? Anyway, perhaps there is a way to do something >>similar with the GS ROMs?? > >"Translate" is probably the best word; the Duet works by translating >Mac Toolbox calls to GS Toolbox calls. BTW, I thought Cirtech was >making the Duet. Um.... yeah.... that' what I said, isn;t it? OK, so I DIDN't say it, but that's what I >MEANT<. Old boy got confused. SOrry abou that, it is Cirtech and not Insync that is making the duet card. It it is translating the mac calls to GS.os calls it must be coping the GS/OS calls into some sort of form that the 68000 can use. After all, the Duet does use the 68000 chip, right? Is there any news on the release date yet? An announcement yet (officail)? -- | kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu |Growing up leads to growing old, and then to dying, and| |---------------------|dying to me don't sound like all that much fun. | | Dad! It's three o'clock in the morning! Do you know where I am? Calvin |
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (11/29/90)
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) writes: >For whatever the reason people haven't exactly been falling over themselves >to buy a GS. Why did you think we wanted a clone in the first place? Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (11/30/90)
|>There's much more money in IBM compats.... | |I'm not sure I agree with your technical statements but I think that you have |a good point economically. When someone has a product that is in great demand |other companies attempt to capitalize on it and get into the act. Even a few |weeks of Econ 103 would show the reasons for not developing a GS clone. |For whatever the reason people haven't exactly been falling over themselves |to buy a GS. Not necessarily true. There is alot of easy money in PC clones. But where do machines like the Amiga and the NeXT fit in. These computers weren't designed by big companies (the Amiga was designed by Jay Miner at a small venture company called Amiga...it was originally named the Lorraine). There was some risk involved in making both computers, absolutely no guarantee that they'd ever see any return on the investment. There's considerably more to life (and a free market economy) than what you'll learn in "Econ 103." You'll find that large profits are not the prime motivating factor in many small businesses (I think that you'll find this true of both the Amiga and the NeXT. Their designers didn't go into business saying "gee, we can make HUGE amounts of money on this"...but rather "hey, this is a great idea...let's see how it flies") I don't recomment build strictly a GS clone anyway...let's build a new computer - a modern computer built with the "values" that made the II a success. //e emulation could definitely be done, and GS emulation could be available as a public domain software program (i.e. like the UNIX //e emulator) ---------------------------------- | MARK A. ORR | | $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | | @ LSUVM.BITNET | ----------------------------------
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (11/30/90)
In article <9011291632.AA12526@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: >I don't recomment build strictly a GS clone anyway...let's build a new >computer - a modern computer built with the "values" that made the II a >success. //e emulation could definitely be done, and GS emulation could be >available as a public domain software program (i.e. like the UNIX //e >emulator) As much as I don't like to say it, there's already a "modern computer built with the 'values' that made the II a success". I think the Amiga fits that bill pretty well... So even I, one of the total die-hard Apple II users around [I wanna get a license plate that says "APL24VR"], will probably get an Amiga (or a NeXT) after Apple officially kills the // and after I feel I need a new computer (obviously those are disconnected events)... -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ |WRITE TO ORIGIN ABOUT ULTIMA VI //e and IIGS! Mail me for addresses, & info. | \ "Dammit Bev, is it you inside or is it the clown?" -IT by Stephen King /
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (11/30/90)
In article <9011291632.AA12526@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: >ever see any return on the investment. There's considerably more to life (and >a free market economy) than what you'll learn in "Econ 103." You'll find that >large profits are not the prime motivating factor in many small businesses >(I think that you'll find this true of both the Amiga and the NeXT. Their The Amiga and the Next are not clones. Clones of any sort are developed for one purpose, to get a piece of the action from a hot item. People or companies who develop a computer because they want to create something new ( like the original Apple team ) don't make copies. That would be a contradiction. I realize that there are many of us who believe that a cheap clone of the GS would sell well. However, I believe that most smart hardware companies are going to look at the current sales rather than projected ones. bob church bchurch.oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (11/30/90)
> Even if a company could make a GS clone with impunity, why would they >want to? The GS is dificult to program, almost unsupported, outdated hardware? >There's much more money in IBM compats.... > >INET: avarg@gnh-applesauce.cts.com >UUCP: crash!pnet01!gnh-applesauce!avarg >ARPA: crash!pnet01!gnh-applesauce!avarg@nosc.mil The GS is no more 'outdated hardware' than an IBM compatible. Schools (in the U.S.) still buy one helluva lot more GSs than IBM's. Home users don't seem to want the GS in any number, but there is is still a potential market. The GS is no more difficult to program than an IBM, or a Mac for that matter, and is a damn sight easier than OS/2. So what? UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
rat@madnix.UUCP (David Douthitt) (11/30/90)
bill@pro-gateway.cts.com (Bill Long, SysOp) writes: | | For one thing, they would have to copy the GS's ROM, which would promptly | draw a lawsuit from Apple, I'm sure. Why, why, why! hasn't a decent clone manufacturer used the clean room method and created a new GS ROM (or Apple II ROM) the way Phoenix Associates created their IBM ROM? The way they did it, they just told their programmers "Here's what the ROM has to do, go write one." and sealed them up (how much, I dunno!) until they did. Each completed ROM was sent to engineers OUTSIDE the "Clean Room" to test, and if the ROM failed their compatibility test it was sent back to the programmers with a note telling what the compatibility problem was. If they can do it, Laser can. If they can do it, Franklin could've. Sheesh. -- ! InterNet: deety!rat@spool.cs.wisc.edu ! David Douthitt ! UUCP: ...uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!deety!rat ! Madison, Wisconsin ! {decvax!att}! ! === Apple II Forever === ! Home of Mad Apple Forth and the Tiger Toolbox ! The Stainless Steel Rat
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (12/01/90)
| As much as I don't like to say it, there's already a "modern |computer built with the 'values' that made the II a success". | I think the Amiga fits that bill pretty well... So even I, I'd be curious to hear how you came to that conclusion. On what do you base that claim?? I'd say that the Amiga is not a modern Apple II, but rather a 680x0 based Atari 800. I see very little about the Amiga to lead one to the notion that the Amiga and the Apple II lines are in any way similar. (When I said "values" I didn't mean human values but rather hardware-design values...the erroneous reports that the Amiga is a hackers' machine notwithstanding) ---------------------------------- | MARK A. ORR | | $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | | @ LSUVM.BITNET | ----------------------------------
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (12/01/90)
|The Amiga and the Next are not clones. Clones of any sort are developed for |one purpose, to get a piece of the action from a hot item. People or companies |who develop a computer because they want to create something new ( like the |original Apple team ) don't make copies. That would be a contradiction. I |realize that there are many of us who believe that a cheap clone of the GS |would sell well. However, I believe that most smart hardware companies are |going to look at the current sales rather than projected ones. | |bob church |bchurch.oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu I never insinuated that either the Amiga or the NeXT were clones. I was making the point that just because the state of the market would lead one to believe that a course of action (such as building a new computer or a clone of a less popular model) would not be wise does not mean that they are always correct. The Amiga and the NeXT were designed, built and marketed not out of any love for great sums of money but because they were new and groundbreaking ideas (that could have some profit attached to them). If NeXT were somehow taken from Steve Jobs, he'd start a new company in a shot. What is this obsession over a "cheap GS clone." Is this what people really want? If I were John Sculley, I wouldn't try to market the GS. Why make yourself look like a fool. The GS is so far out of the mainstream (technology wise) that I'd be embarassed to market such a machine. (Of course, Who's fault is that??) When you look at the machines put out by competing companies, the GS looks like a joke. It's only redeeming features are it's Apple II heritage and the Ensoniq (which is quickly becoming a moot point at the hands of PC sound cards like the Roland LAPC-1). The only kind of person who would build a clone of a GS would be one that had recently received a sharp blow to the head. It's doable, but why bother cloning something that is neither popular or technologically remarkable. I, on the other hand, feel that building a new computer with modern parts in the tradition of the Apple II (many slots, ROM BASIC, system monitor, etc...) that maintained partial compatibility (i.e. full IIe compatibility and partial GS compatibility using public domain translators) would be ideal. I say partial because it would be impossible to build a fully compatible machine. Apple holds too many of the patents/copyrights. We'd lose Apple Desktop Bus, the serial drivers (i.e. MIDI capability through the serial ports - kiss programs like SysExGS, Synthlab, and other MIDI applications...but that dosen't mean that they can't be replaced by better ones), the Smartport, etc. ---------------------------------- | MARK A. ORR | | $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | | @ LSUVM.BITNET | ----------------------------------
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (12/01/90)
In <9011301831.AA08600@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: >| As much as I don't like to say it, there's already a "modern >|computer built with the 'values' that made the II a success". >| I think the Amiga fits that bill pretty well... So even I, >(When I said "values" I didn't mean human values but rather hardware-design >values...the erroneous reports that the Amiga is a hackers' machine >notwithstanding) First, a nitpick. PLEASE, when you quote me (or anyone else, I'd say but that's their right to bicker or not bicker), leave the attribution line in! I just think it's annoying to be quoted and not be given "credit" (not quite the right connotation of what I mean) for it. Second, I meant 'human' values... Meaning what we mean by the "hackability" of a machine. I don't often go defending the Amiga, it just seems (from my admittedly limited experience with it) to have the "hackability" quality more so than IBM PCs or Macs... Why do you call the reports that the Amiga is a hackers' machine erroneous? While I would call them sort of traitorous, it sure seems that a lot of former Apple II users have gone to the Amiga rather than the Mac or PC world. -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ |WRITE TO ORIGIN ABOUT ULTIMA VI //e and IIGS! Mail me for addresses, & info. | \ "Dammit Bev, is it you inside or is it the clown?" -IT by Stephen King /
NOWAKO09@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST) (12/01/90)
One thing about the current PC market that bugs me is the number of
different (and incompatible) architectures there are. This is not bad (except in
the eyes of IBM) but it bothers me that we as personal users should have to
choose only one architecture. Each has a use that we may need on occasion,
the strength of the Apple // has been; 1) Flexibility and 2)Expandability.
What other 8 bit machine has survived into the 32bit 90s? I find that amazing
in itself! But let me add these two cents to the discussion on building the
Ultimate Computer. Why not build simply a general purpose platform that allows
any cpu to be plugged in (via cards) and then used? That way what you give
the consumer is not a new computer but EVERY computer on the market! I
realize there are a number of technical hurdles with this...what kind of
data bus, incompatiblity of peripherals, etc..., but in effect what I am
suggesting is building a Universal Emulator in hardware. Then the only thing
we would have to come out with was a new board every couple of years to allow
for new emulations when new architectures come out.
On another note (maybe a different thread) I've noticed in a couple of
months old issue of A+ an ad from one company (Zimco?) selling Mac 128& Mac/SE
motherboards for 100$. I know that both these are dead but couldn't they be
upgraded to the new standards or better yet used somehow with the GS to
achieve what the Duet was suppose to do?
- Joe Nowakowski
-nowako09@snybufvaMQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (12/01/90)
On Thu, 29 Nov 90 06:20:05 GMT Jabberwocky said: > >It it is translating the mac calls to GS.os calls it must be coping the GS/OS >calls into some sort of form that the 68000 can use. After all, the Duet >does use the 68000 chip, right? Is there any news on the release date yet? >An announcement yet (officail)? Well, the way it probably worked is, the 'mac' makes a toolbox call. The 'mac' card ROMs trap that call, change the info sent to the tool so a GS tool can understand it, then tell the GS to make the equivillent tool call with the 'modified' info the 'mac' card ROM's gave it. The GS actually executes the tool, then returns the output back. The 'mac' card takes the output, translates it back to what the 'mac' can understand, and the 'mac' does with it what any mac would do. At least, it sounded good to me :) > >-- >| kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu |Growing up leads to growing old, and then to dying, and| >|---------------------|dying to me don't sound like all that much fun. | >| Dad! It's three o'clock in the morning! Do you know where I am? Calvin | ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (12/01/90)
In article <9011301912.AA13533@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: [lot's of stuff deleted..] >What is this obsession over a "cheap GS clone." Is this what people really >want? If I were John Sculley, I wouldn't try to market the GS. Why make >yourself look like a fool. The GS is so far out of the mainstream (technology >wise) that I'd be embarassed to market such a machine. (Of course, Who's >fault is that??) When you look at the machines put out by competing companies, >the GS looks like a joke. It's only redeeming features are it's Apple II >heritage and the Ensoniq (which is quickly becoming a moot point at the hands >of PC sound cards like the Roland LAPC-1). This is just a bunch of nonsense. I happen to use a NeXT, Mac, and X-terminal at one of my offices. I've used the PS/2's extensively. The Roland card is indeed a very nice OPTIONAL card for non MCA PC's. It costs nearly as much as the GS cpu. I would not be embarassed to market the GS( which I use at my other office) and I resent people who keep being impressed by the quick pace of hardware while putting down those of us who don't care to be in the upgrade race. Get your facts straight. The PC running MS-DOS is hardly at the leading edge and neither is a MacII(). Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
cyliao@hardy.u.washington.edu (Chun-Yao Liao) (12/02/90)
In article <F807F720E55F401C4D@snybufva.bitnet> NOWAKO09@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST) writes: >in itself! But let me add these two cents to the discussion on building the >Ultimate Computer. Why not build simply a general purpose platform that allows >any cpu to be plugged in (via cards) and then used? That way what you give >the consumer is not a new computer but EVERY computer on the market! I >realize there are a number of technical hurdles with this...what kind of >data bus, incompatiblity of peripherals, etc..., but in effect what I am >suggesting is building a Universal Emulator in hardware. Then the only thing >we would have to come out with was a new board every couple of years to allow >for new emulations when new architectures come out. Nice idea, but it "didn't" work. Anybody remember that in around year 83, there was a machine called Dimension? You can run Apple II software/ IBM's, and CP/Ms and/or someothers software on it simply by adding the processor board. Great idea for savings on the similar peripheras needed on each kind computer while you can run all the greatest software of any computer of the time on a single machine. But that same machine didn't sell... cyliao@hardy.u.washington.edu o Q. Who am I? o A. A NeXTed person with "small" HD and OD I am "homeless"!? o An Apple // guy (No Kidding) o A plane pilot (by hope)
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (12/06/90)
Why does everybody keep saying that they'd have to copy Apple's IIgs
ROMs? They'd only have to write their own.
Andrew A. Benson (Internet: aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edu)
(BITNET : aabenson@MTUS5.BITNET)seah@ee.rochester.edu (David Seah) (12/08/90)
In article <1645@madnix.UUCP> rat@madnix.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes: > >bill@pro-gateway.cts.com (Bill Long, SysOp) writes: >| >| For one thing, they would have to copy the GS's ROM, which would promptly >| draw a lawsuit from Apple, I'm sure. > >Why, why, why! hasn't a decent clone manufacturer used the clean room >method and created a new GS ROM (or Apple II ROM) the way Phoenix >Associates created their IBM ROM? > >The way they did it, they just told their programmers "Here's what the >ROM has to do, go write one." and sealed them up (how much, I dunno!) >until they did. Each completed ROM was sent to engineers OUTSIDE the >"Clean Room" to test, and if the ROM failed their compatibility test >it was sent back to the programmers with a note telling what the >compatibility problem was. > >If they can do it, Laser can. If they can do it, Franklin could've. Although I'm not an expert IBM programmer, I have written assembly language utilities for it under MS-DOS. The IBM BIOS is not a complex thing. It does things like "get a character" "print a character", "scroll a text window" and so on. It's roughly comparable to the functionality contained within the F000-FFFF range of the Apple II ROM...which Laser HAS cloned. I conjecture that cloning QuickDraw II and the dozen-odd toolsets would be quite a bit more challenging than cloning a "plot a point on the current text page"-class of low-level routines. I suppose that the firmware itself is relatively simple. Maybe Laser could introduce a "toolless GS" for the FTA :-) --- Dave Seah | Omnidyne Systems-M | INET: seah@ee.rochester.edu | | "User-Friendly Killing Machines" | America Online: AFC DaveS | ^..^ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ yargh! | University of Rochester, Department of Electrical Engineering |
dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) (12/23/90)
In article <90340.003321AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET> AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET writes: >Why does everybody keep saying that they'd have to copy Apple's IIgs >ROMs? They'd only have to write their own. > >Andrew A. Benson (Internet: aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edu) > (BITNET : aabenson@MTUS5.BITNET) There would be 2 large problems if somebody wrote "equivalent" GS ROMs: 1. Future Apple-release system software would not work with it. Through the normal patching of ROM toolsets, we jump into anywhere in our ROM we need to. 2. Some parts of the toolbox, especially QuickDraw II "regions", are covered by patent. Doing something equivalent with a different data structure is not good enough, since regions are stored in several file formats (inside PICTs). -- David A. Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems Apple II System Software Engineer | P.O. Box 875 America Online: Dave Lyons | Cupertino, CA 95015-0875 GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS CompuServe: 72177,3233 Internet/BITNET: dlyons@apple.com UUCP: ...!ames!apple!dlyons My opinions are my own, not Apple's.