ta-dw30@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (David Worenklein) (05/15/91)
Seems to me that, by trying to protect the information, Apple just ended up
with a blown FTP server and a very frustrated mjohnson (not to mention hundreds
of irate Mac fanatics.) And I'm sure they realize that, as soon as someone on
your block gets System 7, you'll be right over w/ a dozen disks, despite the
fact that that's not Kosher. So why doesn't Apple just say "Go ahead. Give it
to anyone in the U.S. We give up." Somebody even mentioned that Apple
Australia did just that!
If someone at Apple says "fine, just leave us alone" I'll e-mail System 7 to
the first four people to ask for it, provided that they promise to send it to
five other people who ask for it.
But before you send me e-mail (let's see how flooded my mailbox gets), I must
warn everyone:
1) I don't even _have_ System 7 (I'm not even using 6.0.7!)
2) I wouldn't do it without Apple's O.K.
Apple, if you don't like the program, don't even bother responding to this
message. (Seems to me they have 102 other things to worry about.) I'll take a
"no comment" as a "we have legitamite (sp?) reasons for not accepting this
plan, but are currently much too busy to tell them to you."
===============================================================================
David C Worenklein | No one could tell me where my soul might be;
Columbia College '93 | I searched for God, but he eluded me;
in the City of New York | I sought my brother out, and found all three. -Crosbysjhg9320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Maximum Slackness ) (05/15/91)
ta-dw30@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (David Worenklein) writes: (Stuff Deleted...) >fact that that's not Kosher. So why doesn't Apple just say "Go ahead. Give it >to anyone in the U.S. We give up." The reason why Apple must not, and simply cannot do that, and remain in business, is for copyright protection of their intellectual property. While their policy does not make sense when reasonable people behave in a reasonable manner, losing control over the distribution of their software would weaken their position in litigation. When a company allows any instance of the free use of their intellectual property, they often forfeit exclusive rights to its usage when questions as to who owns what show up in front of a Judge. Examples include: Baggies PC '286 I'm not endorsing or condemming this, it just is as it is. Sorry if this is too off topic. E-mail me if you want to continue with this discussion. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ No matter what you do, somebody always knew that you would... ==============================================================================
rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May15.012545.18398@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, ta-dw30@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (David Worenklein) writes: > If someone at Apple says "fine, just leave us alone" I'll e-mail System 7 to > the first four people to ask for it, provided that they promise to send it to > five other people who ask for it. (!!!!) Two things to remember are that (a) the net is not homogeneous--it's comprised of a number of sub-nets; and (b) not all of these sub-nets have bandwidth in the megabit range. I'd hate to see how your 8-megabyte messages are handled in their first hop at 2400 or 9600 baud. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem, 8 megs would take just over seven hours to transmit at 2400 baud. Just under two hours at 9600 baud--and let's not forget all the sub- nets that connect to the backbone at 9600. And we thought alt.sex.pictures was bad! All this assumes one gets clean lines and advertised performance out of the modems. To wit: what we DON'T need are people emailing massive amounts of garbage all over the place. Get a bit of exercise and walk down to your friendly local computer store and con a salesman into letting you copy it. Barring that, call local universities and users groups and see if they have any arrangements. Make arrangements with THEM to distribute four copies to other people, if someone will make one copy for you. THEN use email productively to advertise your generosity. I would wager that EVEN standing in lines, and making five copies of System 7, you'll still come in with a lower overall time investment than downloading it at 2400 baud. :-) Based on the Compatibility Checker I just ran, the odds are good that System 7.0 will break your favorite piece of software; unless you are a developer, there's not much benefit in being the very first one on your block to have it, until you get the associated product upgrades. --- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@cactus.org UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (05/15/91)
In article <6944@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >Based on the Compatibility Checker I just ran, the odds are good that >System 7.0 will break your favorite piece of software; unless you are a >developer, there's not much benefit in being the very first one on your block >to have it, until you get the associated product upgrades. Based on using a lot of stuff for over a year with various versions of 7, not all that many applications break if you leave off 32-bit quickdraw and virtual memory. If the compatibility checker stack says it isn't compatible, believe it. If it says it doesn't know, then give it a try. I'll bet you get a lot more of the latter than the former. -- Mark Wilkins -- ******* "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude!" ********** *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Mark R. Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu {uunet}!jarthur!wilkins * ****** MARK.WILKINS on AppleLink ****** MWilkins on America Online ******
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (05/16/91)
In article <6944@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: > >Based on the Compatibility Checker I just ran, the odds are good that >System 7.0 will break your favorite piece of software; unless you are a >developer, there's not much benefit in being the very first one on your block >to have it, until you get the associated product upgrades. The checker lies like a rug. Apple made, IMO, a big mistake in accepting mfgr's word for it rather than testing themselves-- it looks like the mfgrs said that things wouldn't work just to get customers to shell out the $$ for an upgrade. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) (05/16/91)
Matthew Russotto: |The checker lies like a rug. Apple made, IMO, a big mistake in accepting |mfgr's word for it rather than testing themselves-- it looks like the mfgrs |said that things wouldn't work just to get customers to shell out the $$ for |an upgrade. Um, hate to disagree, but there are about 165 people here to set you straight. They tested System 7 with "over 777" pieces of software compiling the reports. (source: Roger Heinen) In many cases, they tracked down the exact nature and location of incompatibilities and provided detailed upgrade plans to those software authors. In most cases, they provide contact instructions for users who want to upgrade. In some cases, the authors could not be contacted. Note that your definitions might be different: Apple would not claim a piece of software was "compatible" or "mostly compatible" if it crashed randomly but infrequently. In the case of MacWrite II, "mostly compatible" means that it doesn't work right with True Type fonts bigger than 127 points. As best I know (and I am not one of the testers) avoiding fonts >127 points means that MacWrite II doesn't have any problems. The attitude was definitely "better safe than sorry" -- especially since precious data might be lost. Apple also elected not to provide detailed reports of exactly what the problems were in its stack. This definitely hampers the cheapskate who won't upgrade his/her software, but has the side-effect of making the stack fit on less than 100 disks. bill coderre and if you think developers don't appreciate this kind of service even more than users, you obviously weren't at the conference Monday.
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (05/16/91)
In article <1991May15.185019.1395@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes... >In article <6944@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >> >>Based on the Compatibility Checker I just ran, the odds are good that >>System 7.0 will break your favorite piece of software; unless you are a >The checker lies like a rug. Apple made, IMO, a big mistake in accepting >mfgr's word for it rather than testing themselves-- it looks like the mfgrs >said that things wouldn't work just to get customers to shell out the $$ for >an upgrade. I would put this differently. I have succesfully used several of the programs that were in the "must upgrade" category without noticing a problem. Agreed that the checker should have been based on test data rather than mfg data; I think that a more significant concern is with the many non-commercial utilities that the checker doesn't know about. I have found a few that have trouble with the new file system. Bottomline: be careful. If it crashes, check with the author/publisher. Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (05/16/91)
In article <52925@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: >Matthew Russotto: >|The checker lies like a rug. Apple made, IMO, a big mistake in accepting >|mfgr's word for it rather than testing themselves-- it looks like the mfgrs >|said that things wouldn't work just to get customers to shell out the $$ for >|an upgrade. >Um, hate to disagree, but there are about 165 people here to set you >straight. They tested System 7 with "over 777" pieces of software >compiling the reports. (source: Roger Heinen) My source is the compatibility checker stack itself.... --- Macintosh System 7 has proven compatible with most recent versions of the most widely used Macintosh software. The developers of these products have provided Apple with the information that appears in this report. --- >Note that your definitions might be different: Apple would not claim a >piece of software was "compatible" or "mostly compatible" if it >crashed randomly but infrequently. In the case of MacWrite II, "mostly >compatible" means that it doesn't work right with True Type fonts >bigger than 127 points. As best I know (and I am not one of the >testers) avoiding fonts >127 points means that MacWrite II doesn't >have any problems. > >The attitude was definitely "better safe than sorry" -- especially >since precious data might be lost. > >Apple also elected not to provide detailed reports of exactly what the >problems were in its stack. This definitely hampers the cheapskate who >won't upgrade his/her software, but has the side-effect of making the >stack fit on less than 100 disks. Cheapskate? I have 21 pieces of software listed as 'Must Upgrade'. Figure out the price of THAT! Some, like Silverlining, is obvious crap-- SilverLining works, except that you can't unmount volumes (DeskTop manager interferes). SUM Tools works. Even HyperCard 2.0 works. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) (05/16/91)
sjhg9320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Maximum Slackness ) writes:
MS> When a company
MS> allows any instance of the free use of their intellectual property, they
MS> often forfeit exclusive rights to its usage when questions as to who
MS> owns what show up in front of a Judge.
MS> Examples include: Baggies
MS> PC
MS> '286
Ahhh... Those are trademarks(tm). Copyright and trademark law are entirely
separate.
If Apple permited unrestricted distribution, then (i) they couldn't persuade
anyone to purchaase a license (who's going to buy the cow when they can get the
milk for free), and (ii) they couldn't as easily prevent other m anufacturers from
distributing the software with their products (can you say Amiga? I knew you
could).
* Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com (1:109/421.4218)pejacoby@mmm.serc.3m.com (Paul E. Jacoby) (05/16/91)
In article <1991May15.185019.1395@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <6944@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >> >>Based on the Compatibility Checker I just ran, the odds are good that >>System 7.0 will break your favorite piece of software; unless you are a > >The checker lies like a rug. Apple made, IMO, a big mistake in accepting >mfgr's word for it rather than testing themselves-- it looks like the mfgrs >said that things wouldn't work just to get customers to shell out the $$ for >an upgrade. >-- >Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu I won't comment on who is right and who is wrong, but I do note that tht MacWeek System 7.0 Survival Guide gives different information on a number of products. For example, StuffIt Deluxe is shown as "OK" with an update pending to 'take better advantage of 7.0 features', whereas the Compatibility Checker shows NO compatibility and version 3.0 required. (Version 2.1 should be the next update). I think this is a matter of (1) when did the manufacturers give Apple the info [plans change, betas change, products change] and (2) there is no means in the Compatibility Checker for saying "you don't have to, but you will want our new version for it's neato new toys." Any number of things I have run that are marked Incompatible actually work fine. -- | Paul E. Jacoby, 3M Company | | | Maplewood, MN 55144-1000 | Parachuting? Why jump out of a | | => pejacoby@3m.com | perfectly good airplane? | | (612) 737-3211 | |
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) (05/17/91)
I said: |>The attitude was definitely "better safe than sorry" -- especially |>since precious data might be lost. Matthew Russotto: |Some, like Silverlining, is obvious crap-- SilverLining works, except that |you can't unmount volumes (DeskTop manager interferes). |SUM Tools works. Even HyperCard 2.0 works. Once again, I want to point out the problem of definitions. Apple defines "compatible" as "never malfunctions, always works at least as well as before." By that definition, SilverLining is obviously NOT "compatible." That incompatibility seems to affect unmounting drives, but MIGHT JUST POSSIBLY cause major data loss. I don't know, and neither do you, but would it make sense to tell millions of users that it does work when it clearly has problems? Come on now. You and I are hackers, and are much more capable of telling which programs "actually" work. We also know enough to back up our data (90% of users DON'T!) frequently, don't we? You should suggest that Apple provide more detailed compatibility information next time. Or call the tech support for the software. Incidentally, I do know some of the people who tested third-party applications for the compatibility checker. WHY the checker claims that the info is supplied by the manufacturer, I dunno. Probably some lawyer involved. bill coderre
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (05/17/91)
In article <52962@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: >I said: >|>The attitude was definitely "better safe than sorry" -- especially >|>since precious data might be lost. > >Matthew Russotto: >|Some, like Silverlining, is obvious crap-- SilverLining works, except that >|you can't unmount volumes (DeskTop manager interferes). >|SUM Tools works. Even HyperCard 2.0 works. > >Once again, I want to point out the problem of definitions. Apple >defines "compatible" as "never malfunctions, always works at least as >well as before." > >By that definition, SilverLining is obviously NOT "compatible." That >incompatibility seems to affect unmounting drives, but MIGHT JUST >POSSIBLY cause major data loss. I don't know, and neither do you, but >would it make sense to tell millions of users that it does work when >it clearly has problems? It ought to get a 'mostly compatible'-- telling me that my DISK DRIVER isn't compatible sets off a red flag-- I am not about to go back to hacking up HDSC Setup and lose my partitions (and certainly the average user wouldn't!). If I was an average user, I'd say "SilverLining isn't compatible? I can't use my disk! Forget this crap." -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
francis@daisy.uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (05/17/91)
In article <52962@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: Incidentally, I do know some of the people who tested third-party applications for the compatibility checker. WHY the checker claims that the info is supplied by the manufacturer, I dunno. Probably some lawyer involved. Probably a dumb lawyer: if the information is wrong, and the manufacturer is damaged thereby, Apple might be liable. -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Welcome to the Real World. Enjoy the | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | show. | \============================================================================/
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (05/17/91)
In article <FRANCIS.91May16203904@daisy.uchicago.edu> francis@daisy.uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) writes: >In article <52962@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: > > Incidentally, I do know some of the people who tested third-party > applications for the compatibility checker. WHY the checker claims > that the info is supplied by the manufacturer, I dunno. Probably some > lawyer involved. > >Probably a dumb lawyer: if the information is wrong, and the >manufacturer is damaged thereby, Apple might be liable. Well, I do know that as an Apple Partner I've been showered with requests to send in compatibility information about the software I write so that it can be included in the compatibility checker stack. Probably it's a combination of both. After all, Apple can't check everything. -- Mark Wilkins -- ******* "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude!" ********** *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Mark R. Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu {uunet}!jarthur!wilkins * ****** MARK.WILKINS on AppleLink ****** MWilkins on America Online ******
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) (05/18/91)
Matthew Russotto: |>I said: |>|>The attitude was definitely "better safe than sorry" -- especially |>|>since precious data might be lost. |> |[Silver Lining] ought to get a 'mostly compatible'-- telling me that my DISK DRIVER isn't |compatible sets off a red flag-- I am not about to go back to hacking up |HDSC Setup and lose my partitions (and certainly the average user wouldn't!). |If I was an average user, I'd say |"SilverLining isn't compatible? I can't use my disk! Forget this crap." Apple could never get away with lying to make the compat report look good. Oh boy, couldn't they! I agree that Silver Lining sounds like it ought to be called "Mostly Compatible," since until recently, no one ever unmounted HD's but turned the damn machine off with them mounted. There probably was something else that we don't know about that forced the issue. Either that, or it was a typo. And I still think that a "better safe than sorry" approach is the right one when one is dealing with millions of users, most of which have no clue what a disk driver is. I used to support those kinda people, and lemme tell you: I would never allow someone to say "go right ahead" if there was the slightest chance that it might break. No way. In any case, ascribing evil motives to Apple, or even the software companies, is overly paranoid. After all, a lotta people are gonna buy the FIRST whatevers that are fully 7.0 studly. Guaranteed permanent marketshare. bill coderre part of the evil plan, such as it were
aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Alan D.) (05/29/91)
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <52925@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: >>Matthew Russotto: >>|The checker lies like a rug. Apple made, IMO, a big mistake in accepting >>|mfgr's word for it rather than testing themselves-- it looks like the mfgrs >>|said that things wouldn't work just to get customers to shell out the $$ for >>|an upgrade. >>Note that your definitions might be different: Apple would not claim a >>piece of software was "compatible" or "mostly compatible" if it >>crashed randomly but infrequently. In the case of MacWrite II, "mostly >>compatible" means that it doesn't work right with True Type fonts >>bigger than 127 points. As best I know (and I am not one of the >>testers) avoiding fonts >127 points means that MacWrite II doesn't >>have any problems. >> >>Apple also elected not to provide detailed reports of exactly what the >>problems were in its stack. This definitely hampers the cheapskate who >>won't upgrade his/her software, but has the side-effect of making the >>stack fit on less than 100 disks. >Cheapskate? I have 21 pieces of software listed as 'Must Upgrade'. Figure >out the price of THAT! While I feel the same way... The fact is that you can't tell whether the problem with the software will be a little thing, like MacWrite's problem, or a major thing that will completely trash your hard drive. And, for the first time, Apple tried to find out where those problems might arise... >Some, like Silverlining, is obvious crap-- SilverLining works, except that >you can't unmount volumes (DeskTop manager interferes). Well, if you can't unmount volumes (I have the same problem), it doesn't work, now, does it? And I think I remember hearing somewhere that there were other problems under VM... Or maybe 32bit addressing... Not sure. But just the same, would you say that Silverlining works with System 7, when you can't unmount volumes??? I could with DM under 6.0.x... And, a little hint. If you really have to unmount a volume, DiskTop 4.01 works. :) Not a flame, I'm just tired of hearing people torch Apple for including a compatibility checker that feels "better safe than sorry"... How would you feel if Apple had told you things were fine, and a program trashed your drive? Better or worse? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Who, me? Nope, I didn't say that. Must have been my evil twin Who am I? aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu <Alan D.> Where am I? Brandeis University Box 3130 Waltham, MA 02254-9110 When am I? 9-5, M-F, Rain-Shine Why am I? Whaddyawant, a philosopher? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
kenh@eclectic.COM (Ken Hancock) (06/05/91)
In article <aland.675495436@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu writes: >>Cheapskate? I have 21 pieces of software listed as 'Must Upgrade'. Figure >>out the price of THAT! > >While I feel the same way... The fact is that you can't tell whether >the problem with the software will be a little thing, like MacWrite's >problem, or a major thing that will completely trash your hard drive. >And, for the first time, Apple tried to find out where those problems >might arise... For the paranoid, the compatibility checker is great. I used it myself just to see what I was supposedly supposed to upgrade. I then filed it in the back of the noggin' for future reference. Just because you read something that says you have to upgrade, doesn't mean you have to do it. Simple example: Get out an envelope. Address it to Ken Hancock. Place $500 cash in the envelope. Mail it to me. Betcha I don't get a dime. (Though I'd love to lose this bet :-) ) The best thing to do is call up each developer for which you have an "incompatible" piece of software and ask them EXACTLY what the problem is. Most of the time, it'll be something fairly trivial that can be solved by shuffling things around, etc. True, it might have been nice if Apple verified everything instead of depending on the developers, but then 7.0 would have been delayed another couple months, by then the information would have been out of date, they'd have to revise it, 7.0 would be delayed another month, etc. etc. Trust me...recursion can be a truly ugly thing sometimes... Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@eclectic.com Isle Systems | Compuserve: >INTERNET: kenh@eclectic.com Macintosh Consulting | AOL: KHancock | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?
klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) (06/06/91)
Stop bitching about Apple. It's not Apple's job to baby-sit developers. Shit, they had several copies out for EACH AND EVERY developer that was registered -- a9, b1, and b4, and you could get interim versions if you bugged the right people. Even if you weren't a registered developer, I knew of people who managed to get it. So, the point is -- with all the drafts of Inside Mac, all the updates to the interfaces, all the sample programs and code, and all the CD's that were pressed, Apple did something unprecedented -- they let their development community in on something that would usually take place behind closed doors -- a major new version (note not "re-write") of the Macintosh Operating System. Now, quit bitching. Developers had 2-3 years to plan for this, and frankly, if you don't have updates really damn soon now, perhaps you should think about not ordering products from those developers again. Don't know about you. Like saying that Chevy is responsible for making sure that each and every driver wears his/her seat belt and drives on the right side of the road (well, in America) when you drive a Nova. I think Apple is to be heralded for their decision to have a basically open development of System 7.0 -- if Apple made sure every damn application out there worked (and I read figures of something like 90-something % backwards compatibility), you would still be stuck with 6.0.X. Developers who follow the rules reap the rewards of compatibility. Supposedly, developers who still mess up and have significant (ahem, Microsoft) products on the platform have Apple babysit for them, but geez -- to be so arrogant to think that everyone spins around your product!??! Grow out of it. Apple did a wonderful job, and DTS and the 7.0 team is to be commended. Stop bitching at Apple and start bitching at the people who caused the problem, and evidently aren't fixing it -- the developer of the product that remains incompatible. They had time to come out with a version that is, believe me. <pant, pant> Steve Klingsporn
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (06/06/91)
People are complaining that programs listed as incompatible
work fine for them.
Many of them work fine for me also:
as long as I stay in 24bit mode.
as long as they are on my Apple disk.
as long as I don't use VM.
It's obvious to *me* that Apple's notion of "compatible"
includes all of the operational possibilities now possible
with System 7.0.
I've already found several programs Apple found incompatible
that work fine in 24 bit mode, and don't work in 32 bit mode.
I upgraded my non-Apple disk.
I decided I didn't need the ones that wouldn't run in VM.
I don't *yet* find a need to run in 32 bit mode.
I'm doing fine with 5 Meg RAM and 10 Meg VM and have found
zero disagreement with Apple's evaluation of programs.
I agree with Apple saying that it must run in 32 bit mode
with VM before it's called "compatible".
And still I'm doing fine using many "incompatible" programs
in the mode I am using them.
jim
--
__ __
/ o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com | Proud | Sys-
/ / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco +1.408.991.6115 | MacIIsi | tem
/__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 | owner | 7walkerb@arcturus.cs.rpi.edu (Bob Walker) (06/06/91)
In article <15355@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) writes: > <stuf deleted> > > >Grow out of it. Apple did a wonderful job, and DTS and the 7.0 team >is to be commended. Stop bitching at Apple and start bitching >at the people who caused the problem, and evidently aren't fixing it -- >the developer of the product that remains incompatible. They had time to >come out with a version that is, believe me. > > ><pant, pant> > >Steve Klingsporn On the other hand, it would have been nice for Apple to have made sure that all of its own products worked under System 7 on May 13. The 8.24GC card didn't. MacX doesn't, and there isn't going to be an upgrade until August, and then we get to pay $95 just to have the program work again. At least when MicroSoft charges $130 for an upgrade you get increased functionality! - bob
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (06/07/91)
In article <3!whzbb@rpi.edu> walkerb@arcturus.cs.rpi.edu (Bob Walker) writes: >In article <15355@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) writes: >>is to be commended. Stop bitching at Apple and start bitching >>at the people who caused the problem, and evidently aren't fixing it -- >>the developer of the product that remains incompatible. They had time to >>come out with a version that is, believe me. >On the other hand, it would have been nice for Apple to have made sure that >all of its own products worked under System 7 on May 13. The 8.24GC card >didn't. MacX doesn't, and there isn't going to be an upgrade until >August, and then we get to pay $95 just to have the program work again. Let's add: Sade MPW AppleShare Server MacTCP to the list of *Apple* products broken in one way or another under system 7, NONE of them with upgrades available (except to the select few). In fact, the ONLY apps I use that are broken under system 7 are from Apple. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
pejacoby@mmm.serc.3m.com (Paul E. Jacoby) (06/07/91)
In article <15355@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) writes: > >Stop bitching about Apple. >It's not Apple's job to baby-sit developers. Shit, they had several >copies out for EACH AND EVERY developer that was registered -- a9, b1, >and b4, and you could get interim versions if you bugged the right people. [ [various paragraphs urging us to bitch at developers, not Apple] Steve, While I agree with the intent of your article, I have to disagree with your tone. I can't help but notice that you are acting as if you ARE Apple, as if you had the full inside-story on System 7.0 through all of it's lifetime. Why do I have a hard time beleiving that? Why do you appear to be apologizing for Apple, defending Apple, as if you were an authority on and in Apple? Perhaps the most telling sign; a .sig: Steve Klingsporn Goof (and Apple wanna-be!!) I can't say truer words have been spoken of late. -- | Paul E. Jacoby, 3M Company, 3M Center, 235-3F-27 | | Maplewood, MN 55144-1000 .-----------------------------------| | => pejacoby@3m.com | I am _not_ the editor of | | (612) 737-3211 | the Radio Times. |
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) (06/14/91)
klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) writes: |Stop bitching about Apple. |It's not Apple's job to baby-sit developers. Shit, they had several |copies out for EACH AND EVERY developer that was registered -- a9, b1, |and b4, and you could get interim versions if you bugged the right people. |Even if you weren't a registered developer, I knew of people who managed |to get it. I'd just like to add two facts to this list: 1: Many programs developed new bugs as later System 7 betas were issued. 2: Apple did significant amounts of testing of 3rd party apps, and contacted developers with specific information about becoming compatible. I think the best plan here is one of patience. It would be silly to expect no programs to break, considering the vast amounts of changes to the OS. And developers need time to test their products and make damn sure that everything works ok. Apple is not in the baby-sitting business, but does care about users and developers, and tries to make life as simple as possible for them. bill coderre well, there is apple daycare, but I don't think they take anyone old enough to program.