Re: I'm at a loss for words

[smentzer@pacbell.net (Steve Mentzer)]

In article <swhite-2410961220030001@pulm-mac2.bsd.uchicago.edu>, 
swhite@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu says...
>
>In article <54gi5v$531@client2.news.psi.net>, smentzer@pacbell.net (Steve
>Mentzer) wrote:
>
>
>> Well, I also had an ibm pc/xt, pc/at, pcJr, clone 286,386,486,pentium
>> and guess what... I have *pirated* warez sitting at home. I have yet
>> to buy a copy of Ultima. And guess what, IBM PC warez have *always* been
>> easier to pirate than c64 or apple games. Any programmer will know that 
this
>> was due to the fact that you could do non standard sector schemes, nibble
>> counting, half tracking/spiraling and many other things with an Apple II
>> that would prevent the successful duplication of software!
>
>
>It certainly didn't stop you, did it, thief?
>
>

You know, actually I bought close to 100 software titles during my days of 
using an apple II. And I probably pirated twice that amount. The funny thing
is that I bought what I liked.  

BTW, labeling me as a thief is doing no more to validate your argument that 
calling me random explicatives. While the "label" thief may have some merit
in a legal and moral sense, I dont expect you or anyone else to side with me
and quite frankly, I dont care. 

When you consider the vast number of "copied" or "bought once, installed many" 
versions of Windows v3.1 and 95 in use, I think your argument loses a little
weight. I guess that makes an unimaginable number of businesses and 
individuals responsible for the downfall of microsoft.. hmmm.. they haven't 
gone away... hmmm..  and they also admit that the number of pirated copies 
of windows software put them where they are today.. ill shut up now..

Lets get something straight. You *anti-pirate* people have repeatedly 
attempted to brand anyone who "pirates" warez as pyschopath, immoral thugs
who are viscously attempting to kill an entire software industry. I have
*never* once denied that what I do is *wrong* in a legal and moral sense.

But, why is it that *every* one of my points has been completely rebuffed 
because of you labeling me as a thief? Are all my points invalid (such as 
software availability etc).

Its really good to know that there are so many "saints" out there. For some
odd reason, I think you all live in amish country though...


>> THE THING THAT KILLED APPLE WAS APPLE COMPUTERS' ARROGANT NON-LICENSING OF
>> APPLE II ROMS, NON-EXISTANT DEVELOPER SUPPORT AND OVERPRICING.
>
>
>Developer support: Apple was the first company to make its entire firmware
>and hardware schematics available to casual users. Reference manuals were
>free or at low cost. Apple branded assemblers were available very early
>and were used by many, until they were supplanted by better third-party
>tools. BASIC was included in the machine. Apple Pascal was available at a
>low cost. Apple was the one of the first companies to seed selected
>developers with cash and equipment. Since most developers at that time
>were small operations, Apple's policy made sense.
>

Good point, but the apple // as a "home" computer did not begin to really pick 
up steam until the early-mid eighties. Anything before that was really a
slow "hobbyist" build up of support. True, Apple did support the developers, 
but the majority of money that was made on the Apple // line was 
home/educational support services. The apple // only made it as far as it did 
because it was poised as a "home" computer.. PROOF: take a look at the number
of spreadsheet, word processing and database products compared to the number
of games available.  case closed.


>If Apple is to be criticized for neglecting developers, that charge isn't
>valid until the late 1980's, and then in regards to the Mac. Over the
>early life of the Apple II, Apple easily had the most forward-looking
>policy towards developers. Compare their actions to that of Texas
>Instruments when TI came out with their little computer.
>

And what happened to TI and their line of computers? I think the 99/4a
is in the same group of products as the apple //.

>Overpricing: It's called a market economy. Apple charged what the market
>was willing to pay. Not that this ever stopped you, eh pirate?
>

So, you advocate "screwing" the public? Do you mind the government paying
$800.00 for a hammer, $1200.00 for a toliet seat, $200.00 an hour for contract 
labor?  The government is willing to pay for it... does that make it right?


>Licensing: Apple is the first computer company to license its ROMs to
>other parties, since it has now licensed the Macintosh ROMs.
>

Hmmmm.. 13 years after its introduction, apple finally licenses its rom's 
to other companies? That was mighty white of them.  Could it have something
to do with slipping market share for the mac? Or was the CEO having a good
hair day?


>The IBM PC ROM wasn't licensed, it was cloned by Phoenix and other
>companies using "clean-room" techniques. That cloning had to survive a
>stiff legal challenge from IBM. The first couple generations of cloned
>ROMs were NOT 100% compatible, to the grief of those who bought early PC
>clones (TI, Tandy, etc.).


Yes, and if IBM would have won that battle, I *guarantee* that the PC would
have never become as popular as it is today. 

>CPM machines didn't have a ROM for anything other than the most low level 
>BIOS stuff.

Where does this fit into the picture?

> Atari, Commodore, TI, etc. NEVER allowed their ROMs to be licensed.

And the CEO's of all those companies are flipping burgers somewhere..

>
>YOU get a clue, and some facts as well, thief.
>

There we go with the thief argument. I am beginning to see a pattern here. 
If you couldn't call me a thief, you wouldn't have an argument.


smentzer@pacbell.net