v067qklp@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Danielle T Mazzotta) (01/06/91)
Considering the success all the IBM-PC Clone makers have had over the past years, some friends and I were wondering why the same hasn't been done for the Macintosh series. Is the hardware significantly more expensive for clone-makers to get a hold of, is the hardware more difficult to "emulate/copy" or is it political? Just wondering.. --Danielle
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (01/07/91)
In article <53576@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, v067qklp@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Danielle T Mazzotta) writes: |> Considering the success all the IBM-PC Clone makers have had over the past |> years, some friends and I were wondering why the same hasn't been done for the |> Macintosh series. Is the hardware significantly more expensive for |> clone-makers to get a hold of, is the hardware more difficult to "emulate/copy" |> or is it political? Here is something you might look out for. I recently saw a magazine with an article about building your own Mac. (Sorry, I don't have the name - but it's the sort of magazine you should find in a good electronics store: I saw the magazin in Fry's Electronics.) The article was no doubt written before the Classic appeared, because the author (who also happened to be selling some of the needed parts) put the price of parts at $400 + plus a logic board from any of the compact models (original, Plus, SE, SE/30). This meant you could make a Plus-equivalent for about $700 - no great deal when you can get a "real" Classic for the same price. The key observation here is that "official" Apple parts are used wherever there's a chance of suing for copyright/patent violation. This is exactly what Apple did to someone who tried to produce a Plus clone. I don't know why they bothered - I tried one of these machines, and it had a lot of problems. Perhaps they simply wanted to frighten anyone else off the idea of trying to reverse-engineer the Mac. By contrast, the original PC design was very simple to reverse-engineer, and IBM didn't rush in with lawsuits at the first sign of cloning. Building a clone market based on "legal" logic boards is not feasible for 2 reasons: the price (even for reconditioned parts) of the boards is too high, and the volume of such boards available is too low. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) (01/07/91)
Speaking of mac clones, has anyone seen one of these yet? Taken without permission from the December 17, 1990 Electronic Engineering Times, page 2: Mac software to run on PCs -------------------------- Cupertino, Calif. -- Hydra Systems said it has a technology that will allow IBM PCs to run Macintosh software faster than Apple's own Macintosh Classic is capable of doing. The product, called Hydra One, is a full-sized IBM PC card based on Motorola's 68000 processor and proprietary software. The system uses the PC's own peripherals to run the Mac software. Ok, so what's the scoop? Introductory price, time to market, hardware requirements, system software and compatibility issues, etc. Does it use real Mac ROMS, or the emulation software from the guys in New Mexico? What level of Mac does it emulate (512, Plus, SE, Classic)? And the real question: which would be better (cheap, fast, compatible), an old Atari ST with a GBS Spectre GCR, or an old mono XT with a Hydra? Steve Wootton stevew@ecn.purdue.edu stevew@pur-ee.uucp stevew%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm.bitnet
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (01/07/91)
In article <1991Jan6.210746.24130@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) writes... >Cupertino, Calif. -- Hydra Systems said it has a technology that will allow >IBM PCs to run Macintosh software faster than Apple's own Macintosh Classic >is capable of doing. The product, called Hydra One, is a full-sized IBM PC >card based on Motorola's 68000 processor and proprietary software. The >system uses the PC's own peripherals to run the Mac software. >And the real question: which would be better (cheap, fast, compatible), an >old Atari ST with a GBS Spectre GCR, or an old mono XT with a Hydra? If the answer isn't "buy a used Mac", I'll pay the difference! (Sorry, but I won't cover solutions that include "software"-based ROMS.) Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)
gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) (01/07/91)
Danielle T Mazzotta Wrote: > >Considering the success all the IBM-PC Clone makers have had over the past >years, some friends and I were wondering why the same hasn't been done for the >Macintosh series. Is the hardware significantly more expensive for >clone-makers to get a hold of, is the hardware more difficult to "emulate/copy" >or is it political? The reason is that IBM made the PC an "open" system. There was freely available documentation on every phase of the system. It was available for less than $100. and IBM asked for no licencse fees. IBM encouraged third party hardware and software developers. The did not discourage cpu cloners. When PHOENIX cloned their bios (rom) chips by taking the book describing all the bios calls and what they did, IBM did not sue PHOENIX. Apple on the other hand has been the exact oposite. They have kept their "secrets" close to themselves and have sued everyone they could for anything they could. They have used the power of the lawsuit to force companies into bankruptcy. Franklin Computer for example. Franklin made Apple II clones that were better than Apple's. They were forced into chapter 11 by an Apple suit. They ended up selling some of their technology to Apple, pulled themselves out of chapter 11 and are happliy making IBM clones. Apple Prodos contains many features Apple bought from Franklin's FDOS. Most companies sued by Apple have either decided to give in, or give up. The notable exceptions are Microsoft and H.P. (flame alert --- flame alert --- flame alert) Apple is not above copying other peoples work too. The Apple symbol was "copied" (and paid for after APPLE lost a copyright suit) from Apple Records. The name MacIntosh was "copied" (and latter paid for) from a manufacture of stereo equipment. The Mac interface (GUI) was "copied" from the Xerox PARC systems. Apple is currently being sued by H.P. and Xerox because they pattented the Mac GUI as an original work, while it is clearly and by their own admission a derivative work. This is what happens when two "techies" start making money and hire lawyers. Disclamier -- The above are opinions and "facts as I remember them". They are for your personal ammusment and are not to be taken as "The Truth". They are also not intended as either libel or slander......................... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Geoffrey S. Mendelson | Computer Software Consulting | Dr. | | (215) 242-8712 | IBM Mainframes, Unix, PCs, Macs | Who | | uunet!gsm001!gsm | Available Now!, Call Today! | Fan too!|
JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (Josh Hayes) (01/07/91)
Well, to add a little fuel to the fire.... Murph Sewall's most recent VAPORWARE column in info-mac digest contained a snippet claiming that Apple was negotiating with third-party types to sell the mac ROMs to them for development purposes; it also cautioned that these would almost certainly be old ROMs, 128K or maybe even (gasp!) 64K....I can dig out the putative source if anyone is interested, but the thing is, see, there might be a market for low-end mac clones developing in a few years. But remember, it's only VAPORWARE. Caveat emptor. Josh Hayes Zoology, Miami University Oxford OH 45056 jahayes@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu
lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) (01/08/91)
gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes, in part, >Apple on the other hand has been the exact oposite. They have kept their >"secrets" close to themselves and have sued everyone they could for anything >they could. > >They have used the power of the lawsuit to force companies into bankruptcy. >Franklin Computer for example. Franklin made Apple II clones that were >better than Apple's. They were forced into chapter 11 by an Apple suit. >They ended up selling some of their technology to Apple, pulled themselves >out of chapter 11 and are happliy making IBM clones. Apple Prodos contains >many features Apple bought from Franklin's FDOS. If I remember correctly, one of the prime pieces of evidence used in the Apple vs Franklin lawsuit was the fact that the ROMs in the Franklin were direct duplicates of the Apple II ROMs--Franklin didn't even bother to remove the names of the apple programmers which were recorded as part of the data on the ROM. Now I'm not claiming that Apple's "Sue 'Em" mentality is justified, but the Franklin lawsuit was an issue of software piracy, not a "Look & Feel" case. Disclaimer: This is off of memory, so I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect. Lawrence Miller
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (01/08/91)
In article <1991Jan7.202106.5113@midway.uchicago.edu>, lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) writes: > If I remember correctly, one of the prime pieces of evidence used in the Apple > vs Franklin lawsuit was the fact that the ROMs in the Franklin were direct > duplicates of the Apple II ROMs--Franklin didn't even bother to remove the > names of the apple programmers which were recorded as part of the data on the > ROM. Now I'm not claiming that Apple's "Sue 'Em" mentality is justified, but > the Franklin lawsuit was an issue of software piracy, not a "Look & Feel" case. > > Disclaimer: This is off of memory, so I could be wrong. Feel free to correct > me if I'm incorrect. If this is wrong, I'd be interested to hear too. The story I heard was they even copied the copyright notice... -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (01/08/91)
-- | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes |
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (01/08/91)
In article <1991Jan7.025124.11924@gsm001.uucp> gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: > >Danielle T Mazzotta >Wrote: >> >>Considering the success all the IBM-PC Clone makers have had over the past >>years, some friends and I were wondering why the same hasn't been done for the >>Macintosh series. Is the hardware significantly more expensive for >>clone-makers to get a hold of, is the hardware more difficult to "emulate/copy" >>or is it political? > >The reason is that IBM made the PC an "open" system. There was freely >available documentation on every phase of the system. It was available for >less than $100. and IBM asked for no licencse fees. Inside Mac I-V documents the software pretty completely-- at least what you would need to make a ROM code. > >IBM encouraged third party hardware and software developers. The did not >discourage cpu cloners. When PHOENIX cloned their bios (rom) chips by >taking the book describing all the bios calls and what they did, IBM did >not sue PHOENIX. IBM sued everybody before Phoenix, which is why Phoenix went through great pains to make Phoenix lawsuit-proof. Has anyone taken Inside Mac and written a ROM which implements it, and been sued for it? >They have used the power of the lawsuit to force companies into bankruptcy. >Franklin Computer for example. Franklin made Apple II clones that were >better than Apple's. They were forced into chapter 11 by an Apple suit. Sure-- they went and stole Apple's Monitor ROMS (and probably Applesoft or Integer BASIC too) >They ended up selling some of their technology to Apple, pulled themselves >out of chapter 11 and are happliy making IBM clones. Apple Prodos contains >many features Apple bought from Franklin's FDOS. Like what? Prodos is based pretty strongly on SOS from the Apple /// >Apple is not above copying other peoples work too. The Apple symbol was >"copied" (and paid for after APPLE lost a copyright suit) from Apple Records. This is a trademark suit, and trademarks don't conflict unless there is danger of confusion (hence the settlement by Apple that said that they wouldn't make music products-- Apple Records complained about the GS and the CD-ROM, don't know the outcome of that). >The name MacIntosh was "copied" (and latter paid for) from a manufacture of >stereo equipment. Yep-- it was licensed, and then bought outright-- not stolen. (and there was never any intent to steal it.) > The Mac interface (GUI) was "copied" from the Xerox PARC >systems. Apple is currently being sued by H.P. and Xerox because they >pattented the Mac GUI as an original work, while it is clearly and by their >own admission a derivative work. I thought the Xerox suit was dismissed. In any case, patents can be based on prior art, as long as that prior art is documented. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (01/09/91)
In article <1991Jan8.010357.4297@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: In article <1991Jan7.025124.11924@gsm001.uucp> gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: [...] Inside Mac I-V documents the software pretty completely-- at least what you would need to make a ROM code. What about trap #s? I didn't think they were in there... (You can find them pretty easily, I suppose.) [Mentioning the Franklin suit] >They ended up selling some of their technology to Apple, pulled themselves >out of chapter 11 and are happliy making IBM clones. Apple Prodos contains >many features Apple bought from Franklin's FDOS. Like what? Prodos is based pretty strongly on SOS from the Apple /// First of all, I believe I saw a (new) Franklin Apple II clone sometime after the suit (about Fall '86). Secondly, I'm not sure there ever was such a thing as FDOS--the Franklin we had came with Apple's DOS 3.3. (Or as near as makes no difference--the RWTS subroutine worked the same, and all the formatting was the same, so it can't be that different.) -- | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes |
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (01/09/91)
In article <FRANCIS.91Jan8140642@arthur.uchicago.edu> francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) writes: >In article <1991Jan8.010357.4297@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: > > In article <1991Jan7.025124.11924@gsm001.uucp> gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: > [...] > > Inside Mac I-V documents the software pretty completely-- at least what you > would need to make a ROM code. > >What about trap #s? I didn't think they were in there... (You can find >them pretty easily, I suppose.) Check out the appendices of Inside Mac.... > [Mentioning the Franklin suit] > > >They ended up selling some of their technology to Apple, pulled themselves > >out of chapter 11 and are happliy making IBM clones. Apple Prodos contains > >many features Apple bought from Franklin's FDOS. > > Like what? Prodos is based pretty strongly on SOS from the Apple /// > >First of all, I believe I saw a (new) Franklin Apple II clone sometime after >the suit (about Fall '86). Yeah. It was crap-- really ancient technology, unreliable, and incompatible. > Secondly, I'm not sure there ever was such >a thing as FDOS--the Franklin we had came with Apple's DOS 3.3. (Or >as near as makes no difference--the RWTS subroutine worked the same, >and all the formatting was the same, so it can't be that different.) You could say the same of Prodos (the directory is different, but not the formatting) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) (01/09/91)
francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) writes: > In article <1991Jan7.025124.11924@gsm001.uucp> gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: > [...] > > Inside Mac I-V documents the software pretty completely-- at least what you > would need to make a ROM code. Sorry, I never said anything about Inside Mac. I own one, I use one, but I ain't gonna program one. > > >They ended up selling some of their technology to Apple, pulled themselves > >out of chapter 11 and are happliy making IBM clones. Apple Prodos contains > >many features Apple bought from Franklin's FDOS. > > Like what? Prodos is based pretty strongly on SOS from the Apple /// > >First of all, I believe I saw a (new) Franklin Apple II clone sometime after >the suit (about Fall '86). Secondly, I'm not sure there ever was such >a thing as FDOS--the Franklin we had came with Apple's DOS 3.3. (Or >as near as makes no difference--the RWTS subroutine worked the same, >and all the formatting was the same, so it can't be that different.) The Franklin I bought used in 1985 had Franklin ROMs in it. They were Apple compatible, but not direct copies of the Apple Roms. I have no idea how much they changed, but they were not BIT FOR BIT copies. My machine came with FDOS. I may even have a copy of it around, but I doubt it. I lent my archive copies of all the good Apple II stuff out to somebody who moved away with them and left no forwarding address....... If your dealer sold a Franklin with Apple dos, FDOS, or PC dos was up to him. Though I doubt they would have sold it with PC dos or PRODOS. PRODOS checked the ROMS to prevent it from running on Franklins. There was a patch that was published in an Apple II magazine (not related to Apple Computer) to allow it to work. Apple DOS did not check and ran fine on Franklins. The machine I bought came with Apple DOS, FDOS, diagnostics and lots of software of dubious origin. I never used it much because I ran CPM on the machine and almost never ran anything else. But my Franklin days were short. I bought an AMPRO CPM system, and my girfriend got the Franklin. The AMPRO was replaced in about 2 months by a Zenith 286 machine and an AMIGA 1000. But I digress................... and if you don't know, PC dos did not run on Franklins, but after "THE SUIT" there was a lot of Franklin stuff floating around. It was packaged in some of the most bizzare ways.......................... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Geoffrey S. Mendelson | Computer Software Consulting | Dr. | | (215) 242-8712 | IBM Mainframes, Unix, PCs, Macs | Who | | uunet!gsm001!gsm | | Fan too!|
d88-jwa@dront.nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) (01/11/91)
In article <> francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) writes: >What about trap #s? I didn't think they were in there... (You can find >them pretty easily, I suppose.) They are in IM-Xref and several TechNotes... H+ Jon W{tte, Stockholm, Sweden, h+@nada.kth.se