wieser@cs-sun-fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) (10/28/90)
>> Does anyone know what amax announces itself as? I would like to have >> my software NOT run when it sees an emulator. >Why are you jealous? >Think about it, you should be proud that someone wants to run mac software on >their non-mac machine. >-------------------------------- >George Lin >a309@mindlink >uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!George_Lin >CAD/CAM engineering @ University Of British Columbia "Jealous"? Not at all. Infact, such a statement is kind of stupid. When I write software, I write it for a specific platform. Think about it, running software on a machine it wasn't designed for is a little like piracy. I have a couple notions to support this. 1)Many software licenses state that the licensee is not allowed to transmit or translate the software in any form. Isn't an emulator synonymous with the words 'translate' or 'copy'? 2)Let's say I wrote a wonderful cad/cam package for various machines. I spent resources to support my software on multiple machines, using the strengths of each. So Joe user, who might have both an Amiga and a Mac has no reason to support me and my efforts if they have an emulator. 3)When I write software, I do so on a machine which supports the task well. If I don't write it for the Amiga, I may not want it running on the Amiga. Software supports the machine it was written for. Why should I (the developer) support users who don't support me? I dislike these religious battles. Computers are tools; I think each brand has its uses/strengths. But when I write software I support the machine and concepts behind it. Emulation can kill good ideas by stealing markets; it doesn't really create them, does it? Ps. Of the several Amiga users I know, all have Amax, only one bought it, and all of them have the 'software' version of Mac ROMs. Kind of like stealing a machine...
jkain@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jeff Kain) (10/28/90)
wieser@cs-sun-fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: >"Jealous"? Not at all. Infact, such a statement is kind of stupid. >When I write software, I write it for a specific platform. Think about it, >running software on a machine it wasn't designed for is a little like >piracy. No, Bernhard, nearly all of the points you make are far more stupid. Emulators do not pirate the software packages they run. If the piece of software running on a machine is purchased and properly licensed, it is legal regardless of which machine is carrying out its instructions. >1)Many software licenses state that the licensee is not allowed to >transmit or translate the software in any form. Isn't an emulator >synonymous with the words 'translate' or 'copy'? Your software is not being translated. The instruction set of the machine being emulated is being translated. If your point were valid, then all software would break its own license, since every machine "translates" machine code into something tangible and useful to the user of the package. >2)Let's say I wrote a wonderful cad/cam package for various machines. >I spent resources to support my software on multiple >machines, using the strengths of each. So Joe user, who might have >both an Amiga and a Mac has no reason to support me and my >efforts if they have an emulator. "Joe User" can support anyone he wants. It's his money. He's giving it to you. Be happy about it. >3)When I write software, I do so on a machine which supports the task > well. If I don't write it for the Amiga, I may not want it running on the >Amiga. Software supports the machine it was written for. >Why should I (the developer) support users who don't support me? By buying your package, he is supporting you! People don't support software authors (directly) by their choice of hardware platforms! If someone pays tens, hundreds, or thousands of dollars for a service I provide, I feel that my obligation is to do my best to ensure that this person will be happy enough to do it again someday. >Emulation can kill good ideas by stealing markets; >it doesn't really create them, does it? Emulation doesn't "steal" markets - it provides competition. Emulation creates a market for better emulators. Which provides even better competition. Comments?? Anyone?? Jeff Kain -- "Quoth the raven, 'Eat my shorts!'" -Edgar Allen Poe / Bart Simpson "We create a leader by locating one in the crowd who is standing up. [...] We designate this victim as a 'stand-up guy' by the simple expedient of sitting down around him." -Arturo Binewski
andrewsr@romulus.rutgers.edu (Rich Andrews) (10/28/90)
> >> Does anyone know what amax announces itself as? I would like to have > >> my software NOT run when it sees an emulator. > > When I write software, I write it for a specific platform. Think about it, > running software on a machine it wasn't designed for is a little like > piracy. I have a couple notions to support this. > 1)Many software licenses state that the licensee is not allowed to > transmit or translate the software in any form. Isn't an emulator > synonymous with the words 'translate' or 'copy'? But, this "emulator" does not do much translating: it turns the Amiga INTO a Mac. There are, of course, some differences including a Recoverable Ram Disk, no AppleTalk, and no color. Your software is NOT translated. It is simply run---just like on a Mac. > 2)Let's say I wrote a wonderful cad/cam package for various machines. > I spent resources to support my software on multiple > machines, using the strengths of each. So Joe user, who might have > both an Amiga and a Mac has no reason to support me and my > efforts if they have an emulator. But, the user who is using the emulator *is* supporting your Mac version, not your Amiga version. Remember, the market for A-MaxII is very small now, and will probably not grow much (at least legally) considering that Apple stopped selling the ROMs. The real question is whether or not ReadySoft can design their own MacROM equivalents before they run out of money. If they do, it will be only a matter of time before they have an emulator with color, AppleTalk, etc. On the other idea: if you had created the software package on both the Amiga and the Mac, then why would you care which version someone bought? What is really happening is that you now have a package than runs on another set of computers (around 2 million) for which you did not have to change a single line of code. I would think that you would like that! > Why should I (the developer) support users who don't support me? But they are supporting you. They have bought your Mac package. (If you are worried about Pirated versions of your software, then you have every right to be upset. But isn't pirating a problem on every computer? And that topic is irrelevant to this discussion.) > concepts behind it. Emulation can kill good ideas by stealing markets; > it doesn't really create them, does it? Yes they do create markets!, I, for one, was not interested in any of the Mac software until I purchased an A-MaxII. For *me*, buying the A-MaxII and the ROMs gave me a Mac for only $300. Not a bad deal considering I am using a 5 year old Amiga. (No, I don't have a Mac drive, but I can download stuff or take my A-MaxII to school and use one of their drives). > > Ps. Of the several Amiga users I know, all have Amax, only one bought it, > and all of them have the 'software' version of Mac ROMs. Kind of like > stealing a machine... That is truly sad. I bought the package, and I bought the ROMs. If you write software to stop me from using software that you write, then that is your choice. But I certainly don't know why you would not want me to *buy* your package! I have a simple solution to those of you who want to stop your code from working on an emulator: write "bad" code that does not use the operating system. For, of all the packages that I have tested, all of the productivity stuff ran great. To the Mac community: I have received an education on the benefits of the Mac through A-MaxII that I would not otherwise have. But, (now donning flame gear), I am even more impressed that my 5 year old box can run Mac stuff too. I still don't understand why Mac users get so defensive about A-MaxII. The market for A-Max is for *Amiga* users who want to run Mac software. Isn't this beneficial to the Mac world? I doubt that people who want a Mac are going to but an Amiga with A-Max! (For now at least). The Mac does not have a "clone" threat until ReadySoft solves some of the major drawbacks to A-Max. I also doubt that Amiga users who want to run Mac software are going to buy a Mac. In effect, the Mac market has seeped into the Amiga market (NOT vica versa). I can understand the Mac community feeling threatened by the POTENTIAL of A-Max. Sure, a card that you could slap into an Amiga 3000 to turn it into a Mac machine rivaling the ][fx in functionality would be very threatining. But that day has not arrived. The Mac community should feel more threatened by the developing Amiga software market than the Mac market running on an Amiga. A-MaxII users are not different from Mac users: they still have to buy Mac software--which helps the Mac market. And, finally, for those of you who keep saying that the Amiga can only do video: the Amiga (with A-MaxII) can run the same software as the MacII--thus, are you saying that the MacII only good for video? -Rich -- // Rich | "Like any good philosophical discussion, the | // \X/ Andrews | conclusion is left unresolved." -McLaughlin | \X/
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (10/28/90)
wieser@cs-sun-fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: >Does anyone know what amax announces itself as? I would like to have >my software NOT run when it sees an emulator. >When I write software, I write it for a specific platform. Think about it, >running software on a machine it wasn't designed for is a little like >piracy. No, it isn't. Provided the user has paid for your software, he is entitled to use it to its full functionality. Your attempt to prevent your customers from running a perfectly runnable program on a platform different from the one you intended it for because you dislike the platform they're using or want them to pay for another copy is at least immoral if not actually illegal. What would you say if the maker of your car installed a timing device that after a few years destroyed your engine or engaged some sort of permanent break system to force you to buy another car? After all, it's entitled to extract as much revenue from you as it can... besides, it has intended its car to be used while it's still new and shiny, and doesn't want its emblem to be seen on a rusty groaner. In fact, the much milder form of planned obsolescence practiced by North American automakers up to the eighties is largely responsible for their tremendous loss of market share to Japan. If that's the way you wish to treat your customers, you don't deserve to have any. >I have a couple notions to support this. >1)Many software licenses state that the licensee is not allowed to >transmit or translate the software in any form. Isn't an emulator >synonymous with the words 'translate' or 'copy'? Translating what? Copying what? Your compiled program will work on the emulator without being copied or translated. The emulation software/hardware itself is also not a copy or a translation of anything, or it would be illegal under the copyright laws. >2)Let's say I wrote a wonderful cad/cam package for various machines. >I spent resources to support my software on multiple >machines, using the strengths of each. So Joe user, who might have >both an Amiga and a Mac has no reason to support me and my >efforts if they have an emulator. Seems a tad arrogant when your software product is infinitely copiable to begin with, and unless you want to hire the desperately-unemployed East German Stasi secret police, you cannot enforce the license's prohibition on copying. If you know a single person who would pay for a copy for each of his platforms of your software, while he could obtain one or more of them illegally, you hang out among much more altruistic people than I do. Of course, you could use hardware locks or copy-protection schemes, but your sales would plummet. Even the software publishers who want only a reasonable payment for a well- made product with unlimited support find it hard to prevent illegal copying and convince users that they have an obligation to pay for what they use. Your approach makes it all the more difficult for non-predatory developers to get compensated for their efforts. >3)When I write software, I do so on a machine which supports the task > well. If I don't write it for the Amiga, I may not want it running on the >Amiga. What if you are a vegeterian and do not wish your program to be used by meat- eaters? Will you customers have to fill out questionnaires on their personal lives and ethical beliefs next? Such an approach is understandable and even right if we're talking about US arms sales, but you can't expect people to provide End-User Certificates to the effect that your precious CAD program will not be sullied by passage through the filthy registers of the Amiga. >Software supports the machine it was written for. >Why should I (the developer) support users who don't support me? Why should the users support a developer who feels no responsibility towards them? >I dislike these religious battles. Computers are tools; I think each brand >has its uses/strengths. But when I write software I support the machine and >concepts behind it. And yet you demand the right to treat certain hardware platforms the way the Old Testament treats the Ishmaelites. >Emulation can kill good ideas by stealing markets; >it doesn't really create them, does it? Yes, it does. An Amiga user who has no Mac and wants to run your program can (a) buy a Mac, (b) buy Amax, (c) give up on running your program. When you make your program Amax-resistant, you deprive the Amiga user of one way of running your program, making it less likely that he'll buy it. Emulation is freedom, a goal towards which the world seems to be moving inexorably. You obstruct its path at your peril.
mlab2@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (10/29/90)
In article <1990Oct27.190254.8511@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>, wieser@cs-sun-fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: >>> Does anyone know what amax announces itself as? I would like to have >>> my software NOT run when it sees an emulator. > >>Why are you jealous? >>Think about it, you should be proud that someone wants to run mac software on >>their non-mac machine. >>-------------------------------- >>George Lin Why is this guy being flamed so vehemently? I don't claim any philosophical reasons to want to snub emulators, but I write shareware I am also a tad bothered by the AMAX owners. From an emotional standpoint, its like wanting to snub those who would have their cake and eat it too. I guess I'm a little more emotional about these things since I write shareware _games_ for the Mac (something the Amiga community certainly has up on us) and I would just like to send them a "This one is for the MAC's"-kind of message. But, oh well, I can live with it. From a more practical side though, what is the likelihood that Amiga owners would send a Mac author shareware money? (About as likely as anyone else? :)) john calhoun
md41@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Marcus Dolengo) (10/29/90)
In article <jkain.657061667@silver> jkain@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jeff Kain) writes: >wieser@cs-sun-fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: > >>2)Let's say I wrote a wonderful cad/cam package for various machines. >>I spent resources to support my software on multiple >>machines, using the strengths of each. So Joe user, who might have >>both an Amiga and a Mac has no reason to support me and my >>efforts if they have an emulator. > >"Joe User" can support anyone he wants. It's his money. He's giving >it to you. Be happy about it. I still dont understand where he gets the idea that "joe user" has no reason to support him. I mean if I had an Amiga with Amax and a mac, and chose to buy the mac version of his software rather than the amiga version, how does he suddenly get the stupid notion I am not supporting him? or is money not enough? >>3)When I write software, I do so on a machine which supports the task >> well. If I don't write it for the Amiga, I may not want it running on the >>Amiga. Software supports the machine it was written for. >>Why should I (the developer) support users who don't support me? > >By buying your package, he is supporting you! People don't support >software authors (directly) by their choice of hardware platforms! >If someone pays tens, hundreds, or thousands of dollars for a service >I provide, I feel that my obligation is to do my best to ensure that >this person will be happy enough to do it again someday. The person with the emulator IS supporting you, while YOU are not supporting HIM. >>Emulation can kill good ideas by stealing markets; >>it doesn't really create them, does it? > >Emulation doesn't "steal" markets - it provides competition. Emulation >creates a market for better emulators. Which provides even better >competition. Not to mention competition because it could provide a better/cheaper computer. if computer X could emulate comp. Y for a much lower price, people could use X and the emulator instead of Y. > >Comments?? Anyone?? > >Jeff Kain > >-- >"Quoth the raven, 'Eat my shorts!'" > > -Edgar Allen Poe / Bart Simpson >"We create a leader by locating one in the crowd who is standing up. [...] We >designate this victim as a 'stand-up guy' by the simple expedient of >sitting down around him." > -Arturo Binewski ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o o | This Space For Rent Only Amiga!! // << md41@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu >> | Amerikkka's Most Wanted \\ // /> <\ | \X/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I think out actions _show_ what's in our hearts." Hobbes Who's the Mack...
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct27.190254.8511@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wieser@cs-sun-fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: >"Jealous"? Not at all. Infact, such a statement is kind of stupid. >When I write software, I write it for a specific platform. Think about it, >running software on a machine it wasn't designed for is a little like >piracy. No, piracy is using software you haven't paid for, not using software in a manner the author hadn't intended. >1)Many software licenses state that the licensee is not allowed to >transmit or translate the software in any form. Isn't an emulator >synonymous with the words 'translate' or 'copy'? This is stupid legal gobbledy-gook written by lawyers and other idiots: the sort of nonsense that leads to things like copy-protected (read unuseable) disks. Most reasonable people expect software "licenses" to be routinely ignored because they impose unreasonable conditions on the user and purchaser of the software. Mosy software licences are not binding contracts between the vendor and the user, anyway, because they are never agreed to by the user. (Hint: despite what software vendors like to claim, opening a shrinkwrap package does not signify agreement.) >2)Let's say I wrote a wonderful cad/cam package for various machines. >I spent resources to support my software on multiple >machines, using the strengths of each. So Joe user, who might have >both an Amiga and a Mac has no reason to support me and my >efforts if they have an emulator. Joe User, who has both a Mac and an Amiga, has no reason to support the development of a second version of your software even without an emulator: he can choose to run the program on only one machine. So what? What makes you think Joe User has any obligation to ensure the success of your future projects? He does not. Joe User has a moral and legal obligation to pay for the copy of the software that he uses. Period. >3)When I write software, I do so on a machine which supports the task > well. If I don't write it for the Amiga, I may not want it running on the >Amiga. Most reporters write stories that are intended to be read. They may not want the stories lining the bottom of bird cages. Therefore, I have just proved, using your own logic, that it should be illegal to line the bottom of bird cages with newspaper. >Software supports the machine it was written for. >Why should I (the developer) support users who don't support me? You shouldn't. But if a user has purchased a (nonpirated) copy of the software, he has already paid to support you. You have no right to dictate what machine he can run that software on any more than an author has the right to dictate what room of the house a customer can read his books in. >Ps. Of the several Amiga users I know, all have Amax, only one bought it, >and all of them have the 'software' version of Mac ROMs. Kind of like >stealing a machine... This is the first thing you have said that makes sense.
hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) (10/31/90)
There is one sure way to KILL any running mac emulator in RAM on any machine. Just find the address of the ROM, and then start at that address, and place 64k or 128k random characters, or plain zeros for that sake. This will surel y crash the machine if the ROM has been copied to RAM, but if the emulator runs using the real stuff, i.e. original (or fake) Macintosh ROMs, then this will do nothing. So just rewrite your program, and go for a clean kill on pirated macintosh ROMs. Povl H. Pedersen eco8941@ecostat.aau.dk / hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu -- ******************************************************* Povl H. Pedersen hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu HP48sx archive maintainer
jgs@merit.edu (John Scudder) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct31.150313.9742@wuarchive.wustl.edu> hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) writes: >There is one sure way to KILL any running mac emulator in RAM on any >machine. Just find the address of the ROM, and then start at that >address, and place 64k or 128k random characters, or plain zeros for >that sake. This will surel y crash the machine if the ROM has been >copied to RAM, but if the emulator runs using the real stuff, i.e. >original (or fake) Macintosh ROMs, then this will do nothing. > >So just rewrite your program, and go for a clean kill on pirated >macintosh ROMs. > >Povl H. Pedersen >eco8941@ecostat.aau.dk / hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu I believe that there is an accelerator board for the SE that caches the ROMs in SE motherboard RAM and puts applications in RAM on the accelerator itself. (Accelerator data bus is 32 bits wide so is twice as fast as the motherboard bus. I'm not sure whose board it is, it was a while ago. GCC, maybe?) The above scheme for killing emulators might also do a fine job of killing these accelerated Macs. It could also potentially kill any new machine Apple chose to build which might cache ROM to RAM (pure speculation on my part; I haven't heard of such a machine). --John Scudder jgs@merit.edu
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct31.150313.9742@wuarchive.wustl.edu> hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) writes: >There is one sure way to KILL any running mac emulator in RAM on any >machine. Just find the address of the ROM, and then start at that >address, and place 64k or 128k random characters, or plain zeros for >that sake. This will surel y crash the machine if the ROM has been >copied to RAM, but if the emulator runs using the real stuff, i.e. >original (or fake) Macintosh ROMs, then this will do nothing. > >So just rewrite your program, and go for a clean kill on pirated >macintosh ROMs. Nope-- there are machines with write-protectable RAM-- I don't know if the AMAX does so, but it could. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more.
wieser@cs-sun-fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) (11/02/90)
This should be a dead topic. Others can bash whatever they want - its not like I spent hours writing my responses and carefully structured every argument. I also didn't included line-by-line commentary as to what I didn't agree with, or carefully read only what I wanted to from peoples responses, ignoring everything else and previous messages. So what happened? I don't want my Mac software to run on emulators. I don't care which. I wanted to know if any net-colleagues had the answer to my question 'What does Amax announce itself as?' What did I get? Various e-mail insults and hate mail. I asked myself, why does this mail come majoritively from academic institutions? I couldn't answer that one... But back to those who misunderstood me or accussed me of using contrived cases when I was following up other hypothetical news articles; Why don't you read all the chains carefully and keep your bible bashing/irrelevant allusions/insults to yourself? There are two main points which people conveniently avoided. A MAJORITY OF AMAX USERS HAVE THE PIRATED SOFTWARE VERSION OF ROMS. CONVERTING A DISK TO AMAX FORMAT IS A CHANGE IN FORM COUNTER TO MOST SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENTS. I don't support piracy (or pirates), and I believe clones/emus are theft. If Amax users buy the ROMs fine, they're hard to find. If Amax users buy a Mac drive, fine. I agree with whoever said I should state 'I do not support emulators', and just like unsupported machines and OS, I want to try realize this and stop execution before a user has the chance to hurt themselves. (Ps. I am not a Mac fanatic, which is why the 'computers are tools' message appears in most of my messages. I know what I wrote, and I'm sure the nets don't need this lazy include everything approach to posting, or critical to the point of stupid attitude.)
jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) (11/02/90)
hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) writes: >There is one sure way to KILL any running mac emulator in RAM on any >machine. Just find the address of the ROM, and then start at that >address, and place 64k or 128k random characters, or plain zeros for >that sake. This will surel y crash the machine if the ROM has been >copied to RAM, but if the emulator runs using the real stuff, i.e. >original (or fake) Macintosh ROMs, then this will do nothing. > >So just rewrite your program, and go for a clean kill on pirated >macintosh ROMs. And be prepared for possible legal consequences and/or subsequent damage to your reputation when your "clean kill" causes someone to lose important data. Remember Microsoft's "Tree of Evil" message? -- Ed Hanway uunet!sisd!jeh This is not an offer to sell securities. For off-road use only. Contains a substantial amount of non-tobacco ingredients. No purchase necessary.
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/03/90)
In article <1990Oct31.140745.12752@cbnewsc.att.com> straka@cbnewsc.att.com (richard.j.straka) writes: >In article <107918@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >I'm not sure if this was the original intent, but if I was a developer of an >application on machine X, and someone runs it on an *IMPERFECT* X emulator >on machine Y, I might be getting a lot of support questions for configuration >Y that would take a LOT of support $$ that were not planned for (a lot more >than for buyers of the software on machine X). Well, the logical way to handle these support questions is simply to say, "sorry, but the product works on the Macintosh. The problem is with your hardware, not with the software. I suggest you contact the hardware manufacturer." I have never used the AMAX or even seen a demo, but I did use the Spectre 128 emulator on my old Atari ST. With the Spectre, the ST has compatability with more Macintosh programs the Mac II does. So I don't think technical support is really a major problem.
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/03/90)
>In article <1990Oct31.150313.9742@wuarchive.wustl.edu> hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) writes: >There is one sure way to KILL any running mac emulator in RAM on any >machine. Just find the address of the ROM, and then start at that >address, and place 64k or 128k random characters, or plain zeros for >that sake. This will surel y crash the machine if the ROM has been >copied to RAM, but if the emulator runs using the real stuff, i.e. >original (or fake) Macintosh ROMs, then this will do nothing. Doesn't the Lisa running MacWorks have the equivalent of the Macintosh ROM in RAM?
vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (11/03/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 2-Nov-90 Re: Wanting to snub > Emulators Ed Hanway@sisd.kodak.com (936) > >So just rewrite your program, and go for a clean kill on pirated > >macintosh ROMs. > And be prepared for possible legal consequences and/or subsequent damage > to your reputation when your "clean kill" causes someone to lose > important data. I thought that that was the point of including appropriate disclaimers. Besides, I don't think you could lose data if you couldn't run the program to create the data in the first place. And I would sincerely hope that no one is advocating hiding the fact that a program may not run on a particular machine... I think word would spread pretty fast.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (11/03/90)
In article <1990Nov2.040936.29686@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wieser@cs-sun-fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: >There are two main points which people conveniently avoided. >A MAJORITY OF AMAX USERS HAVE THE PIRATED SOFTWARE VERSION OF ROMS. >CONVERTING A DISK TO AMAX FORMAT IS A CHANGE IN FORM COUNTER TO MOST >SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENTS. A majority of people using every program, including yours, are using pirate version. So what does your statement prove? That there are just as many Amiga criminals as Mac criminals, etc. >I don't support piracy (or pirates), and I believe clones/emus are theft. >If Amax users buy the ROMs fine, they're hard to find. If Amax >users buy a Mac drive, fine. I agree with whoever said I should >state 'I do not support emulators', and just like unsupported >machines and OS, I want to try realize this and stop execution before a user >has the chance to hurt themselves. > "Has a chance to hurt themselves" I don't get that one. Anyone using an emulator accepts the risk that it might not be perfect. However I'm willing to take that chance. There is one other thing to consider. People who have pirated AMax don't get an adapter to use a Mac disk drive. Amiga disk drive in a shared disk format can only hold 272K each, making transfer from Mac<-->Amiga very difficult. This gives the legitimate AMax valuable. -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu GorbachevAwards++; free (SovietUnion); IndependentRepublics += 15;
dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Francis Heffernan) (11/04/90)
RE Wanting to snub Amax "The majority of AMAX users have pirated ROMS" As an Amiga owner (with a legitimately bought-and-paid-for AMAX with Mac floppy and real, live Mac ROMS), I do not know a single person who USES the pirated version of AMAX. Everyone I know who has/had it ran it a few times and deleted it. It's worthless without the hardware interface. I'd be interested in seeing how you conducted your survey. "Changing a Mac disk to an AMAX disk is a change in form and you can't do it" So's putting your bought-and-paid-for program on a hard drive. If your licensing agreement doesn't allow THAT, screw it. dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis GEnie: D.HEFFERNAN1 "...when Fortran was introduced, it was claimed that Fortran would largely eliminate coding and debugging! Of course, that claim proved to be quite false" - UNIVERSAL ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE, Robert M. Fitz & Larry Crocket
alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) (11/06/90)
wieser@cs-sun-fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: >This should be a dead topic. >There are two main points which people conveniently avoided. >A MAJORITY OF AMAX USERS HAVE THE PIRATED SOFTWARE VERSION OF ROMS. >CONVERTING A DISK TO AMAX FORMAT IS A CHANGE IN FORM COUNTER TO MOST >SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENTS. >I don't support piracy (or pirates), and I believe clones/emus are theft. 1) ST users have been running non-converted, straight Mac applications right off the original Mac floppies for over two years. So, by your own rules, the ST-plus-GCR doesn't violate the Agreement Sanctorum. The ST provides a larger screen, more RAM, a lower price, and a faster execution than a Plus. Until very recently (about three years late) with the advent of the Classic, the ST was the cheapest Mac around. (The STacy is still by far the cheapest portable Macintosh.) 2) The Spectre GCR (for that is the name of the product that turns an ST into a Mac) won't run with copied Mac ROMs. (PROMs draw too much power.) There are literally thousands of 128K ROM sets out for the buying. Why are you convinced that AMAX buyers are pirates? I think, though, you have fallen into the "Mac Uber Alles, and There is no God But Sculley" trap. Competition is HEALTHY, guy: if Apple doesn't realize it, there will be unlicensed competing clones, or they'll be the tiny specialty market most PC mfrs. consider them to be forever. Alex -- Alex Pournelle, freelance thinker Also: Workman & Associates, Data recovery for PCs, Macs, others ...elroy!grian!alex; BIX: alex; voice: (818) 791-7979 fax: (818) 794-2297 bbs: 791-1013; 8N1 24/12/3
hawk@pnet01.cts.com (John Anderson) (11/07/90)
> There is one sure way to KILL any running mac emulator in RAM on any > machine. Just find the address of the ROM, and then start at that > address, and place 64k or 128k random characters, or plain zeros for > that sake. This will surel y crash the machine if the ROM has been > copied to RAM, but if the emulator runs using the real stuff, i.e. > original (or fake) Macintosh ROMs, then this will do nothing. > > So just rewrite your program, and go for a clean kill on pirated > macintosh ROMs. > > Povl H. Pedersen Emulating a Mac on another computer brings in more revenue for Mac software companies. Now that the person has A-Max, or other similar emulator like Spectre, he needs to have software. Just as some people who own real mac will pirate software, emulator people will pirate software too. And just like real mac owners will buy software, emulator people will buy the software they need also. I don't see why everyone is so upset about emulating a Mac. IBM clone people have been doing for quite a long time. I'd say that the reason many software companies stay in business is not because the people with real big-blue machines buy the software, but because the millions who have clones buy the software. This took a while before the clones outnumbered the real IBM owners but now software companies rely on it. If using a mac emulator was so wrong then it would be illegal. I can see that some people are angry or even jealous, I might be too if another computer emulated my Amiga faster than my Amiga normally went. I have a hardware IBM emulator also and have bought all the programs that I use on it and the same for A-Max. Is the real reason some people are angry about A-max is that others tease them that an Amiga can emulate a Mac but a mac can't emulate an Amiga? If they persist, just tell them to grow up.
hofer@urz.unibas.ch (Remo Hofer) (11/07/90)
> There is one sure way to KILL any running mac emulator in RAM on any > machine. Just find the address of the ROM, and then start at that > address, and place 64k or 128k random characters, or plain zeros for > that sake. This will surel y crash the machine if the ROM has been > copied to RAM, but if the emulator runs using the real stuff, i.e. > original (or fake) Macintosh ROMs, then this will do nothing. > > So just rewrite your program, and go for a clean kill on pirated > macintosh ROMs. > > Povl H. Pedersen Have you read the discussion about ROM in RAM in this group? So with your method the program could also crash on a 'future' Mac with the OS copied to RAM Remo Hofer