dewhirst@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (04/17/91)
I am posting this in the two groups where I think it will reach the people it concerns the most (terrible sentence). I recently purchased an Abaton Interfax 24/96 modem. The CDEV (not panel, cdeve) that comes with it to set up the fax routines on startup is NOT compatible with system 7.0. Everex (company that makes it) claims about the software update: "It is done, but we are not releasing it until 7.0 comes out" (voice converstaion via tech support) I primarily wanted to warn developers and beta-testers about this. For those of us still stuck with 6.xx it is no problem. But I have a couple of friends who are developers and using 7.0b4 (or later, not sure) and who were thinking about a purchasing the same. It really kind of miffed me that the software was incompatible, since my experience on machines runnin system 7.xx has been that there are very few things that aren't (at least the things that matter) Normally, sw incompatibilties are not that much of a problem, but since the Abaton Interfax's most powerful feature is the background receiving of faxes (controlled by the cdev) one of the primary features of the device is disabled until they release the new version of the cdev. (Honestly, judging by voice intonation of the support rep I talked to, etc., I am relatively certain that the 7.xx version of the control panel is NOT finished. What would be the purpose in withholding it? ) -- Rob Dewhirst Sysop: The MacRocosm BBS - (913) 841-9446 < --Best route AOL:Echopapa <-- Okay route FAX 9138652639 <-- So so route dewhirst@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu <-- Yuck! "A computer without a modem is like a sportscar without wheels -- it's fun to sit behind, but it won't take you anywhere!"
macman@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chris Silverberg) (04/17/91)
In an article dewhirst@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu rambles: >I recently purchased an Abaton Interfax 24/96 modem. The CDEV (not panel, >cdeve) that comes with it to set up the fax routines on startup is NOT >compatible with system 7.0. Everex (company that makes it) claims about >the software update: "It is done, but we are not releasing it until 7.0 >comes out." I primarily wanted to warn developers and beta-testers about this. >For those of us still stuck with 6.xx it is no problem. But I have a couple >of friends who are developers and using 7.0b4 (or later, not sure) and who >were thinking about a purchasing the same. It really kind of miffed me that >the software was incompatible, since my experience on machines runnin system >7.xx has been that there are very few things that aren't (at least the things > that matter) This is a pretty unfair post. System 7.0 is UNRELEASED software, that has been through many updates recently, and it is quite understandable that companies would rather not release an update to their software if it might simply break in a later beta version. If software came out that was incompatible with System 5.x, as many are, i'm sure you wouldn't be complaining about incompatibilities, however you do see the justice in complaining about incompatibilities with something that hasn't been released. Fact is, there are other software packages that will have to be updated to be compatible with 7.0... MANY companies have their 7.0 updates sitting on simply waiting for May 13th... let's not get on Abaton's case about a reasonable policy. - Chris =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Chris Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu Worcester Polytechnic Institute Main Street USA 508-832-7725 (sysop) America Online: TfChris WMUG BBS 508-832-5844 (sysop)
emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com (Mark Hartman) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr17.143302.6948@wpi.WPI.EDU> macman@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chris Silverberg) writes: >In an article dewhirst@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu rambles: > >>I recently purchased an Abaton Interfax 24/96 modem. The CDEV (not panel, >>cdeve) that comes with it to set up the fax routines on startup is NOT >>compatible with system 7.0. Everex (company that makes it) claims about >>the software update: "It is done, but we are not releasing it until 7.0 >>comes out." I primarily wanted to warn developers and beta-testers about this. >>For those of us still stuck with 6.xx it is no problem. But I have a couple >>of friends who are developers and using 7.0b4 (or later, not sure) and who >>were thinking about a purchasing the same. It really kind of miffed me that >>the software was incompatible, since my experience on machines runnin system >>7.xx has been that there are very few things that aren't (at least the things >> that matter) > >This is a pretty unfair post. System 7.0 is UNRELEASED software, that has >been through many updates recently, and it is quite understandable that >companies would rather not release an update to their software if it might >simply break in a later beta version. > Understandable? Yes, if we're talking about general release. However, they won't even talk to developers who need their fax modem running while they're developing on the new - and currently fairly solid - beta release. I was stonewalled with "it's just our policy." I can tell you that it will be "just my policy" never to buy products from Abaton or Everex (their parent company) again. >If software came out that was incompatible with System 5.x, as many are, i'm >sure you wouldn't be complaining about incompatibilities, however you do >see the justice in complaining about incompatibilities with something that >hasn't been released. In fact, given the special and ongoing effort that Apple has put out to make sure that every developer has the information to make their products ready for System 7 while staying compatible with System 6... no, I don't see the justice in it. Not in the least. > >Fact is, there are other software packages that will have to be updated to >be compatible with 7.0... MANY companies have their 7.0 updates sitting on >simply waiting for May 13th... let's not get on Abaton's case about a >reasonable policy. If it WERE a reasonable policy, Chris, none of us would be getting on Abaton's case. However, it is a policy which cannot be justified by any reasonable standard (given the information available to Abaton before the fact), and one which does not take into consideration that if any of us wanted a separate, stand-alone machine to do faxes with, we'd probably have bought a fax machine. -- Mark Hartman, N6BMO "What are you just standing there for? Where Applelink: N1083 or BINARY.TREE do you think you are, DIS-ney World??" Internet: emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com -- General Knowledge, from uucp: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!emmayche CRANIUM COMMAND
rae@alias.com (Reid Ellis) (04/25/91)
Mark Hartman <emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com> writes: >Understandable? Yes, if we're talking about general release. However, they >won't even talk to developers who need their fax modem running while they're >developing on the new - and currently fairly solid - beta release. I was >stonewalled with "it's just our policy." Well, let's not pick on *ONLY* Abaton, then. How about CE Software? Have you tried to get a 32-bit clean version of Quickmail's QuickInit? The reply we got was "it will ship the same time System 7 ships". I guess that's just their policy too. Lovely :(. So now I have to turn off 32-bit mode and reboot just to read mail and then turn 32-bit mode back on and reboot again to do any real work? Ug. [I need all 20 Meg of RAM, thank you very much] Needless to say, I'm not a happy customer. Reid -- Reid Ellis 1 Trefan Street Apt. E, Toronto ON, M5A 3A9 rae@utcs.toronto.edu || rae@alias.com CDA0610@applelink.apple.com || +1 416 362 9181 [work]
rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) (05/01/91)
In <1991Apr25.062500.13237@alias.com> rae@alias.com (Reid Ellis) writes: >Well, let's not pick on *ONLY* Abaton, then. How about CE Software? >Have you tried to get a 32-bit clean version of Quickmail's QuickInit? >The reply we got was "it will ship the same time System 7 ships". I >guess that's just their policy too. Lovely :(. So now I have to turn >off 32-bit mode and reboot just to read mail and then turn 32-bit mode >back on and reboot again to do any real work? Ug. [I need all 20 Meg of >RAM, thank you very much] Needless to say, I'm not a happy customer. Well, I happen to agree with CE. I mean REALLY, you expect them to support a product not even shipping? It's not their problem that you picked up a beta of some operating system which only developers are supposed to have anyway. I mean, really, get real! Roby -- Internet : rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| "You don't have to suffer to be a poet. Adolescence is enough suffering for anyone." -- John Ciardi
george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr30.232823.29984@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) writes: >In <1991Apr25.062500.13237@alias.com> rae@alias.com (Reid Ellis) writes: > > >>Well, let's not pick on *ONLY* Abaton, then. How about CE Software? >>Have you tried to get a 32-bit clean version of Quickmail's QuickInit? >>The reply we got was "it will ship the same time System 7 ships". I >>guess that's just their policy too. Lovely :(. So now I have to turn >>off 32-bit mode and reboot just to read mail and then turn 32-bit mode >>back on and reboot again to do any real work? Ug. [I need all 20 Meg of >>RAM, thank you very much] Needless to say, I'm not a happy customer. > >Well, I happen to agree with CE. I mean REALLY, you expect them to support a >product not even shipping? It's not their problem that you picked up a beta >of some operating system which only developers are supposed to have anyway. >I mean, really, get real! > Well, considering Microsoft is now shipping a product that uses the features of System 7, I'd have to say the "we can't release it till System 7 is released" excuse is pretty lame. More than developers have legit copies of System 7. Major customers have them, too. -- / George David Nincehelser \ george@swbatl.sbc.com \ / / Southwestern Bell Telephone \ Phone: (314) 235-6544 \ / / / Advanced Technology Laboratory \ Fax: (314) 235-5797 \ / / / /\ 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101 \ de asini umbra disceptare \
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (05/01/91)
In article <1991May1.005715.3439@swbatl.sbc.com> george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) writes: >In article <1991Apr30.232823.29984@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) writes: >>In <1991Apr25.062500.13237@alias.com> rae@alias.com (Reid Ellis) writes: >> >> >>>Well, let's not pick on *ONLY* Abaton, then. How about CE Software? >>>Have you tried to get a 32-bit clean version of Quickmail's QuickInit? >>>The reply we got was "it will ship the same time System 7 ships". I [...] >>Well, I happen to agree with CE. I mean REALLY, you expect them to support a >>product not even shipping? It's not their problem that you picked up a beta >>of some operating system which only developers are supposed to have anyway. >>I mean, really, get real! >> >Well, considering Microsoft is now shipping a product that uses the features >of System 7, I'd have to say the "we can't release it till System 7 is >released" excuse is pretty lame. Like he said, get real. Microsoft has vastly more resources available than CE has. Microsoft's answer up to the point they shipped Excel 3.0 was "We're shipping no new versions until System 7 releases". Does it sound less lame when they use the same reason? The difference is that Microsoft probably had the resource to prepare quicker to the changes between "Final Candidate" 1 through n. I guess it wasn't lame while Microsoft was using it, but is lame when you expect small companies to have the resource to react as fast as a huge company. > >More than developers have legit copies of System 7. Major customers have >them, too. Wrong. Major customers who have *legitimate* copies of System 7 *beta* or *FC* are customers with in-house development activity who have signed up as developers or beta sites. If they have chosen to treat this as an advance oportunity for End-User activity, they are still *supposed* to realise that they are in advance of release. There is *no* logical reason to expect developers to have releases compatible with OS which haven't been released. There is every reason to expect them to make the effort to prepare for the release but no reason to expect them to anticipate. Remember, Microsoft has shown their willingness to release an 'a' release to correct the bugs, maybe CE cannot afford that. Microsoft is a poor example historically. They have often had programs which failed with new releases. One time they *appear* to be ready and you hold them up as an example to castigate others. In the past Microsoft has been "GOOD" because they provided releases to correct problems with new releases within weeks instead of months. Just because you desire System 7 so badly, lets not change the rules. A "good" developer will have compatible releases at release of System 7 or within a few weeks. A "bad" developer will require months to be compatible. jim -- __ __ / o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com | Proud / / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco +1.408.991.6115 | MacIIsi /__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 | owner
george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) (05/01/91)
In article <1991May1.080409.25352@silvlis.com> jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes: > >Like he said, get real. Microsoft has vastly more resources available >than CE has. Poor excuse and illogical. Small companies can often respond quicker than larger companies. Why? Because their leaner and meaner. >Microsoft's answer up to the point they shipped Excel 3.0 was "We're >shipping no new versions until System 7 releases". Does it sound less >lame when they use the same reason? No, but they are releasing their upgrade before the official release. Actions mean much more than words. >The difference is that Microsoft probably had the resource to prepare >quicker to the changes between "Final Candidate" 1 through n. The changes weren't that drastic and unforseen. >>More than developers have legit copies of System 7. Major customers have >>them, too. > >Wrong. Major customers who have *legitimate* copies of System 7 *beta* >or *FC* are customers with in-house development activity who have >signed up as developers or beta sites. If they have chosen to treat >this as an advance oportunity for End-User activity, they are still >*supposed* to realise that they are in advance of release. So? What's your point? Are you saying I don't have *legitimate* System 7? I suggest you be careful with your accusations. >There is *no* logical reason to expect developers to have releases >compatible with OS which haven't been released. There is every >reason to expect them to make the effort to prepare for the release >but no reason to expect them to anticipate. Sorry. *Legitimate* developers have had 7 for some time now. There's little reason for them not to release ugrades before or on the official release date. If 7 wasn't so widely available and wasn't in beta for so long, I'd fell differently. >Remember, Microsoft has shown their willingness to release an 'a' >release to correct the bugs, maybe CE cannot afford that. I have releases from CE going up to 'h' to correct problems. Obviously CE is continuosly upgrading their product. >Microsoft is a poor example historically. They have often had >programs which failed with new releases. One time they *appear* >to be ready and you hold them up as an example to castigate >others. So? What's wrong with Microsoft finally getting it right? Using your logic, Microsoft should have always had the clout to get it right. Why the change of argument? Microsoft isn't the only one getting it right, they're just the only ones I know of who are actually shipping. I've got several product betas that are working fine from companies other than Microsoft. They'd go into general release as they're bug-free as far as I can tell, but they act like they would be breaking some rule if they started shipping. I don't think there is such a rule since Microsoft is now shipping. Either that or Microsoft has just invited some more litigation from Apple. >Just because you desire System 7 so badly, lets not change the >rules. A "good" developer will have compatible releases at >release of System 7 or within a few weeks. A "bad" developer >will require months to be compatible. I don't desire 7 badly since I've had it for some time now. My gripe is that many vendors are acting like 7 is some big secret. It isn't. One company I was looking into lost a sale when I asked them if their product was 7 compatible. The said no. I asked them if they planned to be 7 compatible, and, if so, roughly when. They said they didn't know to both parts. There's no excuse for these kind of answers. Either they plan to upgrade or they don't. A yes or no would be sufficient. BTW, I have no gripe with CE or Abaton, they've served me quite well (although 32-bit clean isn't one of my major concerns). -- / George David Nincehelser \ george@swbatl.sbc.com \ / / Southwestern Bell Telephone \ Phone: (314) 235-6544 \ / / / Advanced Technology Laboratory \ Fax: (314) 235-5797 \ / / / /\ 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101 \ de asini umbra disceptare \
rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) (05/01/91)
In <1991May1.143507.28736@swbatl.sbc.com> george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) writes: >So? What's your point? Are you saying I don't have *legitimate* System 7? >I suggest you be careful with your accusations. Let's try and not be so childish, ok? >Sorry. *Legitimate* developers have had 7 for some time now. There's little >reason for them not to release ugrades before or on the official release date. >If 7 wasn't so widely available and wasn't in beta for so long, I'd fell >differently. I disagree. Macs are STILL shipping with System 6.0.7. And until that changes, developers are obligated to support THAT system. Now there is nothing wrong with re-vamping a software package so that it is compatible with System 7, but I think it is rather foolish to add to the confusion of "What's compatible with what?" by shipping a system 6 product and a system 7 product when only one OS is actually shipping. If a dealer sees Excel 3.0, they're going to order it, because it's the "Latest and greatest". Most of them would not take the time to consider that the product may REQUIRE system 7 to run, because WHO in their right mind would SHIP a product before Apple officially releases the OS to support that product. That is a waste of resources and time. >I've got several product betas that are >working fine from companies other than Microsoft. They'd go into general >release as they're bug-free as far as I can tell, but they act like they >would be breaking some rule if they started shipping. Well, some of them would, A-lot of people, including myself, signed non-disclosures to get System 7 as well as the technical info about it. Now maybe YOU like breaking the law, but I personally, do not. And I don't see many developers shipping products for an OS which they're not supposed to disclose any information about.. >I don't desire 7 badly since I've had it for some time now. My gripe is >that many vendors are acting like 7 is some big secret. It isn't. Well, just because SOME people break their non-disclosures doesn't make it allright for EVERYONE to talk. --Roby -- Internet : rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| "You don't have to suffer to be a poet. Adolescence is enough suffering for anyone." -- John Ciardi
rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) (05/01/91)
In <1991May1.143507.28736@swbatl.sbc.com> george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) writes: >So? What's your point? Are you saying I don't have *legitimate* System 7? >I suggest you be careful with your accusations. >I've got several product betas that are >working fine from companies other than Microsoft. They'd go into general >release as they're bug-free as far as I can tell, but they act like they >would be breaking some rule if they started shipping. ok, well, let me put it to you this way... There is NO way that ANYONE can have a legitimate copy of System 7 without signing a non-disclosure. Even when they were given out at Mac World, you had to sign a non-disclosure agreement before you could walk in the door. So, assuming that you have a LEGIT copy of System 7, someone in your company had to have signed a non-disclosure, before receiving the CD. I suggest you read the non-disclosures guidelines for talking about System 7 as well as announcing products for it, and so on. Then, perhaps, you will understand why many companies are not discussing or shipping their products for system 7 yet. Now if you DON'T have a non-disclosure than I would have to say that you don't have a legit copy of System 7, in which case, you have no reason to complain about developers that are in accordance with the law, since you, quite obviously aren't. The world does not "owe you a living." -- Internet : rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| "You don't have to suffer to be a poet. Adolescence is enough suffering for anyone." -- John Ciardi
MacUserLabs@cup.portal.com (Stephan - Somogyi) (05/02/91)
rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) writes: >Well, I happen to agree with CE. I mean REALLY, you expect them to >support a product not even shipping? It's not their problem that you >picked up a beta of some operating system which only developers are >supposed to have anyway. I mean, really, get real! The tech note on 32-Bit cleanliness was released in October of 1989. It is not even slightly defensible that a major commercial product is not 32-bit clean by now. 32-bit cleanliness is NOT a 7.0 issue. QuickMail doesn't run under A/UX for this reason either, something that has caused a co-worker of mine no end of consternation. Vendors should not be forced to support unreleased system software. They should, however, have the wherewithall to follow widely publicized (and authoritative) guidelines and recommendations. ______________________________________________________________________ Stephan Somogyi No. No. No. I'm NOT with MIS. MacUser
george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May01.160508.7643@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) writes: >In <1991May1.143507.28736@swbatl.sbc.com> george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) writes: > > >>So? What's your point? Are you saying I don't have *legitimate* System 7? >>I suggest you be careful with your accusations. > >Let's try and not be so childish, ok? I'm not. It seems I'm being accused of not having a legitimate copy. That is not the case. I have the right to defend myself. >>Sorry. *Legitimate* developers have had 7 for some time now. There's little >>reason for them not to release ugrades before or on the official release date. >>If 7 wasn't so widely available and wasn't in beta for so long, I'd fell >>differently. > >I disagree. Macs are STILL shipping with System 6.0.7. And until that >changes, developers are obligated to support THAT system. Now there is >nothing wrong with re-vamping a software package so that it is compatible >with System 7, but I think it is rather foolish to add to the confusion of >"What's compatible with what?" by shipping a system 6 product and a system 7 >product when only one OS is actually shipping. If a dealer sees Excel 3.0, >they're going to order it, because it's the "Latest and greatest". >Most of them would not take the time to consider that the product may >REQUIRE system 7 to run, because WHO in their right mind would SHIP a product >before Apple officially releases the OS to support that product. That is a >waste of resources and time. Well, if the app is written well, it should function under both 6 and 7. Some of the 7 features wouldn't be available under 6, however. Microsoft Excel 3.0 is an example. > >>I've got several product betas that are >>working fine from companies other than Microsoft. They'd go into general >>release as they're bug-free as far as I can tell, but they act like they >>would be breaking some rule if they started shipping. > >Well, some of them would, A-lot of people, including myself, signed >non-disclosures to get System 7 as well as the technical info about it. >Now maybe YOU like breaking the law, but I personally, do not. And I don't see >many developers shipping products for an OS which they're not supposed to >disclose any information about.. You seem to be accusing me of doing something illegal. I'm not. I'm under non-disclosure also. I haven't said anthing that isn't public knowledge. System 7 is coming, the only question is *exactly* when. Check out some of the latest Mac magazines. System 7 isn't a big secret. > >>I don't desire 7 badly since I've had it for some time now. My gripe is >>that many vendors are acting like 7 is some big secret. It isn't. > >Well, just because SOME people break their non-disclosures doesn't make it >allright for EVERYONE to talk. Again, you accuse me of breaking non-disclosure. I haven't. So back off. -- / George David Nincehelser \ george@swbatl.sbc.com \ / / Southwestern Bell Telephone \ Phone: (314) 235-6544 \ / / / Advanced Technology Laboratory \ Fax: (314) 235-5797 \ / / / /\ 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101 \ de asini umbra disceptare \
george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May01.163100.8093@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) writes: >In <1991May1.143507.28736@swbatl.sbc.com> george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) writes: > >>So? What's your point? Are you saying I don't have *legitimate* System 7? >>I suggest you be careful with your accusations. > >>I've got several product betas that are >>working fine from companies other than Microsoft. They'd go into general >>release as they're bug-free as far as I can tell, but they act like they >>would be breaking some rule if they started shipping. > > >ok, well, let me put it to you this way... > >There is NO way that ANYONE can have a legitimate copy of System 7 without >signing a non-disclosure. Even when they were given out at Mac World, you >had to sign a non-disclosure agreement before you could walk in the door. So? I'm under non-disclosure, and I haven't said anthing that isn't public knowledge. > >So, assuming that you have a LEGIT copy of System 7, someone in your company >had to have signed a non-disclosure, before receiving the CD. I suggest you >read the non-disclosures guidelines for talking about System 7 as well as >announcing products for it, and so on. Then, perhaps, you will understand why >many companies are not discussing or shipping their products for system 7 yet. Yes, but it is silly to deny its existance when it is so widely discussed. Companies such as Microsoft are already shipping System 7 usable products. It's in their manuals, too. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you call Microsoft. > >Now if you DON'T have a non-disclosure than I would have to say that you >don't have a legit copy of System 7, in which case, you have no reason to >complain about developers that are in accordance with the law, since you, >quite obviously aren't. I'm in accordance with the law. As I've said, I've said nothing that isn't publicly available. >The world does not "owe you a living." I'm doing quite fine, thank you. And I am living within the law. -- / George David Nincehelser \ george@swbatl.sbc.com \ / / Southwestern Bell Telephone \ Phone: (314) 235-6544 \ / / / Advanced Technology Laboratory \ Fax: (314) 235-5797 \ / / / /\ 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101 \ de asini umbra disceptare \
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May01.163100.8093@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) writes: >ok, well, let me put it to you this way... > >There is NO way that ANYONE can have a legitimate copy of System 7 without >signing a non-disclosure. Even when they were given out at Mac World, you >had to sign a non-disclosure agreement before you could walk in the door. > >So, assuming that you have a LEGIT copy of System 7, someone in your company >had to have signed a non-disclosure, before receiving the CD. I suggest you >read the non-disclosures guidelines for talking about System 7 as well as >announcing products for it, and so on. Then, perhaps, you will understand why >many companies are not discussing or shipping their products for system 7 yet. Funny. I have the May '90 alpha release, and there is no prohibition about talking about System 7.0, only about giving it away. No one in the company signed any separate nondisclosure about System 7.0. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) (05/02/91)
In <1991May1.214012.365@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >Funny. I have the May '90 alpha release, and there is no prohibition about >talking about System 7.0, only about giving it away. >No one in the company signed any separate nondisclosure about System 7.0. >-- >Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu > .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus. Funny... Usually Apple doesn't send out alpha copies.. They are generally use internally. Anyways... I never said we couldn't DISCUSS system 7, I mean after all, between Mac Week and Apple Employees, they've discussed it till the cows came home. But as far as I was told, System 7 was provided to developers as a courtesy for them to get their products up to par by the time it's released. It was NOT intended to be installed on EVERY machine in the office (Machines not used for development, IE: clerical functions, etc), making many machines have problems, and in turn causing the developer to have to pester other companies, who are scurrying to ready THEIR OWN products, to have them stop and ship them an Alpha or Beta copy, because THEY couldn't wait to install System 7 everywhere in the office. Now who's fault is that? --Roby -- Internet : rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| "You don't have to suffer to be a poet. Adolescence is enough suffering for anyone." -- John Ciardi
george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May01.231623.13064@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) writes: >Funny... Usually Apple doesn't send out alpha copies.. They are generally >use internally. Anyways... I never said we couldn't DISCUSS system 7, I mean >after all, between Mac Week and Apple Employees, they've discussed it till >the cows came home. But as far as I was told, System 7 was provided to >developers as a courtesy for them to get their products up to par by the >time it's released. It was NOT intended to be installed on EVERY machine in >the office (Machines not used for development, IE: clerical functions, etc), >making many machines have problems, and in turn causing the >developer to have to pester other companies, who are scurrying to ready THEIR >OWN products, to have them stop and ship them an Alpha or Beta copy, because >THEY couldn't wait to install System 7 everywhere in the office. >Now who's fault is that? And who said any different?!?!?! Apparently you assumed that I had this installed on "production" machines. I'm not sure how you got that impression, but it is wrong. We have several test machines on our network that we are using to determine what works and what doesn't with 7. That way we will be prepared when 7 arrives for the rest of the company (my department supports several internal Mac-based applications). We need to know who is going to support their products and when. If they won't make a commitment, we'll buy are products elsewhere. Yes, those other developers are working hard, but so are we. We don't want to play games, we just want some kind of commitment....not this "Well, we don't know what you're talking about, and even if we did, we won't tell you". I suggest you be clear on what people are trying to do and why before you go making half-cocked accusations. -- / George David Nincehelser \ george@swbatl.sbc.com \ / / Southwestern Bell Telephone \ Phone: (314) 235-6544 \ / / / Advanced Technology Laboratory \ Fax: (314) 235-5797 \ / / / /\ 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101 \ de asini umbra disceptare \
rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) (05/02/91)
In <1991May2.011240.20370@swbatl.sbc.com> george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) writes: >I'm not sure how you got that impression, but it is wrong. We have several >test machines on our network that we are using to determine what works and >what doesn't with 7. That way we will be prepared when 7 arrives for the >rest of the company (my department supports several internal Mac-based >applications). We need to know who is going to support their products and >when. If they won't make a commitment, we'll buy are products elsewhere. >Yes, those other developers are working hard, but so are we. We don't want >to play games, we just want some kind of commitment....not this "Well, we >don't know what you're talking about, and even if we did, we won't tell you". > >I suggest you be clear on what people are trying to do and why before you go >making half-cocked accusations. In the instance of "installing System 7 on non-development related machines" I wasn't referring to YOU, george. I was more referring to other companies that I've been dealing with over the last few months, as well as about 4 of my customers. Sorry if the finger looked like it was pointing in your direction. It wasn't. --Roby -- Internet : rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| "You don't have to suffer to be a poet. Adolescence is enough suffering for anyone." -- John Ciardi
maxc1158@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Greg Penetrante) (05/02/91)
All things considered, it was MacWeek (or MacLeak) that leaked and exposed info about System 7 before any human outside of Apple could sniff a beta. SO... Just because MacLeak LEAKS private information doesn't mean that everyone has to talk.. but then again, the world is never a perfect place and look at the news media as a perfect example! :)
bitting-douglas@cs.yale.edu (Douglas Bitting) (05/04/91)
Okie, people... shall we agree to disagree on this??? I don't really think we are getting anywhere in this discussion... just a bunch of people taking things wrong and getting rubbed the wrong way. Some developers do things one way, some do things another. Whether or not this is a good thing (tm) is up to you. Bantering around personal insults isn't going to convince anyone one way or another... and it certainly isn't very enlightening... :-) G'day, -- Doug Bitting | "And we know that in all things God works PO Box 3043 Yale Station | for the good of those who love him..." New Haven, CT 06520 | --Romans 8:28 bitting@cs.yale.edu +------------------------------------------
rae@alias.com (Reid Ellis) (05/05/91)
I just wanted to mention the major reason that CE Software's QuickMail
is not compatible with System 7 -- it's not 32-bit clean. Note that
this is also a problem under A/UX, so it's not really a matter of a
company supporting a non-released version of system software; it's
more a matter of a company NOT FIXING A BUG in their software.
What do you have to do to make yourself 32-bit dirty? [that's not a
rhetorical question, I'm trying to remember..] Lessee, one way is to
set bits in the highest byte of a handle to mark a handle as locked or
whatever instead of using Toolbox calls to do it [LockHandle() etc].
Another has to do with NuBus boards that have to call SwapMMUMode() or
something and are passing addresses to functions around [which can
have a "dirty" byte in it] -- these guys have to call StripAddress()
on the addresses i think.
Anyways, I was NOT asking CE Software to be compatible with System 7
per se -- rather, I want them to FIX THEIR BUGS. And, basically, they
said "we're not fixing our bugs until System 7 is released."
I mean, really, what does the release date of a version of system
software have to do with fixing bugs in your own software? 32-bit
cleanliness has been around a LOT longer than rumours about/copies of
System 7.0{d,a,b,fc}[0-9]+.
Reid
--
Reid Ellis
rae@utcs.toronto.edu || rae@alias.com
CDA0610@applelink.apple.com || +1 416 362 9181 [work]klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) (05/07/91)
There was a 32-bit clean (QM32?) fix on AppleLink, and other sources (Sumex?) a while back. Steve Klingsporn