Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!darkstar!ucscf.UCSC.EDU!davids From: davids@ucscf.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Snubbing Emulators (not Amiga) Message-ID: <8264@darkstar.ucsc.edu> Date: 28 Oct 90 23:29:47 GMT References: <1990Oct28.204712.4261@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> Sender: usenet@darkstar.ucsc.edu Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Lines: 89 In article <1990Oct28.204712.4261@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wieser@cs-sun-fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: .I guess I should provide some rebut to my rebuke. .Ignoring most of the irrelevant stuff; .I would have no problems with emulators if they were created by the company .which originated the machine being emulated. In fact, if Mac ever moves to 88k .based machines, they'll supposedly have their own emulators to be backward .compatible. But, Amax is not by Apple; currently you have to buy the Mac ROMs .to be legal (until such time as RS re-writes them). Amax users I know have .complained that these can be hard to find, so they have them in software (which is .illegal). .Say Amax hardware and software is comparable to a 'clone'. Clones are illegal (in .Canada anyway). So Amax re-writes the ROMs to call it a 'compatible'. Now, as This product doesn't exist. If and when it comes into being, you will have a more valid argument. A product that hasn't been released, announced, or even rumored to exist is a very unstable foundation on which to base a line of reasoning. .most know from the IBM world, this means that some software can't run. Why .should I (as developer) support that portion of users? They're too small to count. If the software won't run under AMax, then why do you need to the software to check to see if its under AMax? I agree that you shouldn't have to support AMax. However, I don't believe anyone here has said you should. What they've been complaining about is your desire for your software to check and see if it's running under AMax, and to refuse to continue if it is. .Beside, I wrote the software to work on the family of machines it was designed for. .According to some software licenses, you can't copy/translate software. I remember .using Amax without a Mac drive, where you had to 'convert' the Mac software to .Amax format. Doesn't this count as a breach of some licenses? You're moving it from one media type to another. This is no more a "conversion" than installing it on a hard drive. It also doesn't account for people who buy Mac compatible floppy drives. .My complaint about Joe user running software on both his Mac and his Amiga was .misunderstood. If I support both platforms, then I don't want him buying one copy .for both. I want him buying the software designed for the specific machine. (More .money for me.) _IF_ you support both platforms? Well, do you or don't you? If you do, your argument's reasonable. If not, then you're basing a line of reasoning on a non-existent product again (see above). .Regarding 'competition'; if the emulator is 'exact' in detail, it's not competition but .theft. Sure, who cares as long as I get the money? Well, if I put resources into Theft? Buying a Macintosh ROM constitutes theft? I thought you said it was legal (again, see above). .creating Macintosh software, specializing to some degree, its like cutting my own .throat to let it run on emultors. Its more of a philosophy; if I support Macintosh by .writing software for it, I promote the concepts behind it. If I supported emulators, I Again, no one who's using an emulator is expecting any sort of special treatment out of you. .am supporting income to the detriment of the emulated platform. So, does it create .markets for Mac developers, or does it hurt them by letting Mac markets loose a .small amount. Look at the IBM clone market. Does it look like MS-DOS developers got hurt? .Apple put money into developing a machine and supporting their developers, so .why shouldn't I support Apple? Computers are tools; you use the ones which best Does Apple pay you? Why would you support a company that doesn't give you anything, while at the same time block people who want to PAY you for your software? .aid your task. Emulation is generally useless because it doesn't provide the full .features of the underlying machine. It does provide a host of other problems. If it handles the job the purchaser wants, then it's not useless. .People should buy the machine which they want to run software on, they'll have .fewer headaches. .(I find great discomfort in seeing people get so sensational and emotional over such .topics). .Bernie As an aside, please format your postings for 80 columns in the future (apologies to the net for not formatting the quoted lines for 80 columns, but I'm not familiar enough with Unix text manipulation utilities to do this).