Re: Adventures in Lasing ;)

[steve@dosius.zzn.com (Dosius)]

supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote in message news:<20030402005915.28382.00000116@mb-ft.aol.com>...
>
> You know, I wonder why the emulators that require
> users to obtain a bootleg genuine Apple ROM image
> are more popular than SimSystem IIe.

Ease of use, I think, and the fact that a lot of systems crash when
SimSystem is used (and it HATES Windows with a passion - even 95!)

> SimSystem IIe was and is one of the best IIe emulators
> and not only that, it didn't require a bootleg Apple ROM.
> Why didn't it succeed?
> 
> What a mystery.

:\

Maybe I could figure out how it pages the ROMs, and allow people to
download SimSystem IIe, then Dapple ][, then run a program (say,
"mksimrom.exe") and make a single file to use the ROM on Dapple ][. 
It would certainly be more legal than downloading ROMs off the
Internet (and btw, one of the best emulation sites just got All Your
Based by the Feds).

> Now if they were in fact using a bootleg Laser ROM,
> that's a different story but most likely they obtained
> a license would be my guess since this emulator
> was sold.

Probably, but I wonder why there was no Central Point copyright on the
SimSystem ROM, if it was the Laser ROM.

> BUT back to SimSystem, this thing was shareware
> the non-registered version was every bit as functional
> as the other emulators and the registered version
> was much more so.

As I have seen.  I'm trying to rival it with Dapple ][, but ...

> Why did anyone bother with those other emulators
> when they could have just used the unregistered
> version of SimSystem?  I'm not saying I advocate
> not registering shareware, just questioning why
> emulator fans who would use the bootleg emulators
> not consider this course of action.

As above.  Even with the patch, sim2e locks up on exit on my 486/133. 
(Not on my 486SX/25, and it didn't on my old 486/66 either.  All
have/had AMI BIOS)

-uso.