Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.system:4807 comp.sys.mac.misc:11618
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.misc
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!swbatl!george
From: george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544)
Subject: Re: ** Watchout for the Abaton Interfax **
Message-ID: <1991May1.194032.10714@swbatl.sbc.com>
Organization: Southwestern Bell Advanced Technology Laboratory
References: <1991May1.080409.25352@silvlis.com> <1991May1.143507.28736@swbatl.sbc.com> <1991May01.160508.7643@mthvax.cs.miami.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 May 91 19:40:32 GMT

In article <1991May01.160508.7643@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) writes:
>In <1991May1.143507.28736@swbatl.sbc.com> george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) writes:
>
>
>>So?  What's your point?  Are you saying I don't have *legitimate* System 7?
>>I suggest you be careful with your accusations. 
>
>Let's try and not be so childish, ok?

I'm not.  It seems I'm being accused of not having a legitimate copy.  That
is not the case.  I have the right to defend myself.

>>Sorry.  *Legitimate* developers have had 7 for some time now.  There's little
>>reason for them not to release ugrades before or on the official release date.
>>If 7 wasn't so widely available and wasn't in beta for so long, I'd fell 
>>differently.
>
>I disagree. Macs are STILL shipping with System 6.0.7. And until that
>changes, developers are obligated to support THAT system. Now there is
>nothing wrong with re-vamping a software package so that it is compatible
>with System 7, but I think it is rather foolish to add to the confusion of
>"What's compatible with what?" by shipping a system 6 product and a system 7
>product when only one OS is actually shipping. If a dealer sees Excel 3.0,
>they're going to order it, because it's the "Latest and greatest". 
>Most of them would not take the time to consider that the product may
>REQUIRE system 7 to run, because WHO in their right mind would SHIP a product
>before Apple officially releases the OS to support that product. That is a
>waste of resources and time.

Well, if the app is written well, it should function under both 6 and 7.  Some
of the 7 features wouldn't be available under 6, however.  Microsoft Excel 3.0
is an example.

>
>>I've got several product betas that are
>>working fine from companies other than Microsoft.  They'd go into general
>>release as they're bug-free as far as I can tell, but they act like they
>>would be breaking some rule if they started shipping.
>
>Well, some of them would, A-lot of people, including myself, signed
>non-disclosures to get System 7 as well as the technical info about it.
>Now maybe YOU like breaking the law, but I personally, do not. And I don't see
>many developers shipping products for an OS which they're not supposed to
>disclose any information about..

You seem to be accusing me of doing something illegal.  I'm not.  I'm under
non-disclosure also.  I haven't said anthing that isn't public knowledge.
System 7 is coming, the only question is *exactly* when.  Check out some of
the latest Mac magazines.           

System 7 isn't a big secret.

>
>>I don't desire 7 badly since I've had it for some time now.  My gripe is
>>that many vendors are acting like 7 is some big secret.  It isn't.
>
>Well, just because SOME people break their non-disclosures doesn't make it
>allright for EVERYONE to talk.

Again, you accuse me of breaking non-disclosure.  I haven't.  So back off.

-- 
   /   George David Nincehelser        \  george@swbatl.sbc.com     \
  / /   Southwestern Bell Telephone     \  Phone: (314) 235-6544     \
 / / /   Advanced Technology Laboratory  \  Fax:  (314) 235-5797      \
/ / / /\  1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101  \  de asini umbra disceptare \