Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!munnari!moncskermit!basser!metro!ipso!runx!clubmac
From: clubmac@runx.OZ (Sydney University Macintosh Society)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Should 64K ROMs be supported?
Message-ID: <575@runx.OZ>
Date: Wed, 7-Jan-87 11:39:20 EST
Article-I.D.: runx.575
Posted: Wed Jan  7 11:39:20 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Jan-87 22:46:10 EST
References: <542@runx.OZ> <246@cascade.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Lines: 67


In article <246@cascade.STANFORD.EDU> leeke@cascade.STANFORD.EDU 
(Steven D. Leeke) writes:

   >Just because I don't have the money to upgrade to the new ROMS I'm a
   >software pirate?  You seem to have a great ability to offend a maximal
   >amount of people with a minimal amount of effort.  Why don't you put your
   >brain in gear and think about the implications of what you are writing?

   Your pronounced lack of character is indicated in the above. Perhaps you
   should re-read what I wrote? I *NEVER* said anything to the effect that
   ALL vanilla Mac-owners are pirates! I simply stated an observation based
   on considerably more experience in this area than you (judging from your
   reaction). There are a *LOT* of people with 512K Macs who aren't pirates,
   *BUT* there are a *LOT* that have insufficient funds to purchase software,
   and so 'acquire' it by another means.

   >I can not afford to upgrade my Mac to the new ROM/drive ( because I am
   >a graduate student in EE - which has nothing to do with your statement
   >anyway, but just for completeness I put it in ).  I can not afford a lot
   >of software AND I DO WITHOUT IF I CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT!!!  On top
   >of that, I doubt that the folks in my lab who still have vanilla Macs would
   >be cited for a 'lack of brains'.  Nor are we casual users.  We just don't
   >have the money to spend or choose to spend in that way.
   
   OK, so you can't afford $300 for a ROM/Drive upgrade. Can I infer from this
   that you cannot afford much software for your Mac? If so, why should a
   developer hold back behind the wall of compatibility, if there is an
   affordable (within the bounds of the price of the software being developed)
   upgrade? Certainly, US$300 is in the 'ball-park' of Mac software? If you
   can afford software like Lightspeed C, MS Word, Nosy-II, can't you afford
   to at least upgrade the ROMs/Drive of your old Mac 512K ?
   
   >One reason people often give for 'righteous pirating' is high prices. Well,
   >software prices may be screwed up (thanks to Borland and the Mac in general
   >that's changing) but HIGH PRICES DO NOT EXCUSE PIRATING.
   
   I agree. But piracy of all forms of work will continue so long as it is
   advantageous to do so. There are guys in a local Apple // users group with
   300+ disks of pirated games! These people are silly, because 90% of the
   games will get played once and never see the disk drive again unless for
   copying.

   To reduce software piracy, developers have to take the first step off the
   merry-go-round of developer vs. pirate (anyone remember Beneath Apple Dos?).
   Otherwise, creativity will be stifled because money is wasted in producing
   banal protection schemes.

   Another thing, how many University students using Macs do you know that
   don't have a 'bootleg' copy of the latest Copy II Mac? You may be an
   exception, but most likely you have a copy, too. Correct me if I'm wrong,
   of course! (Just keep a civil tongue)

   >We had to suffer through your Max Speaks garbage and now this.  Why don't
   >you do many folks a favor and think twice before you post another thing to
   >the net.  I'll resist the temptation to really flame and hope an increase
   >in maturity over the next few years will to your ability to contribute
   >positively to the net.

   I agree that the Max Speaks posting was wrong, and it won't be repeated by
   me at least. HOWEVER, the ratio of requests for more Max outweighed the
   abuse (such as your uninspired monosyllabism) by 57 to 3!

   In addition, judging from your previous postings to the net, you wouldn't
   be missed.

   Apologies: To all readers other than Steven Leak, please accept my apologies
	      for mixing flame with my argument.