This page is a wiki. Please login or create an account to begin editing.


34 posts / 0 new
Last post
olePigeon's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 15
Stop linking torrents to warez

You guys are going to get Macintosh Garden shut down before it even really gets going.

I'm not a moderator or admin, this is just a friendly warning.

Comments

Balrog's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Apr 24

Please point out such links, I've removed the ones I've seen but there may be more.

And not all torrents are warez; bittorrent is an accepted method of transferring data. But if there are links to warez, please point them out.

milmacman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 11

I would tend to agree. However, I also do think that we should also try to define what is abandonware, and what is "warez."

My personal take is this: for stuff that runs on OS 9.x or earlier and there isn't support for OS X, it is probably abandonware, and definitely so if the title is out of print/superseded by several versions or if the copies out on the market are being sold strictly by second or third-hand groups. We can also include as abandonware titles wherein the original publisher is out of business or hasn't put out versions of that title to market in recent years (e.g. as part of a "Classics" pack or upgraded for current equipment).

As examples:

a.) I would probably classify Acrobat 5.0 as abandonware as there are several newer releases and the publisher has stopped supporting Mac Classic as a platform years ago.
b.) Mac OS 7.6 and Mac OS 8.x, while still being held by Apple, I would consider to be abandonware because not only are those versions at least 10 years old, Apple has obsoleted the PPC platform overall starting as of three and half years ago. To my knowledge, Apple is not selling 7.6 or 8.x through its stores or authorised resellers, and they've released all the updates (7.6.1, 8.1, 8.5.1, and 8.6) for free through their own "old downloads" page.

"Warez" on the other hand would be stuff that can be obtained through the publisher and/or the version of the same title supports OS X 10.2.8 or later. For example, I would consider Photoshop 5.5 to be abandonware, but Photoshop CS would be "warez."

I say OS X 10.2.8 (Jaguar) as the proposed cutoff point simply because while there are stuff that can run on both Jaguar and Tiger/Leopard/Snow Leopard, a great deal of the programs have been superseded by much newer programs that are designed for modern versions of Mac OS X without requiring the use of Rosetta or another virtualisation program. So, that cuts out any version of these programs put out in the last four years.

In a couple of years, we can perhaps look to start including the last parts of OS 9.2.x and OS X 10.0/10.1/10.2 as those systems along with the computers capable of running them will be far obsoleted--much like how Mac OS 7 is today.

In addition, I would also like to see communities such as ours work with software firms to get obviously-outdated stuff (e.g. programs released for 68k Macs and even early PPC stuff) to be released publicly, preferably through sites like the Mac Garden. After all, there is a growing crowd of not just emulation/retro-computing enthusiasts, but people who'd also like to see significant programs digitally preserved for posterity.

If the title is still in print through the original publisher and/or can run on current Macs (e.g. those put out within the last, say, 4 years) with or without Rosetta support, we should be directing to sites where such titles can be obtained legally. We should also do the same wherein the original publisher or successor (if the publisher merged or otherwise is currently part of a current software company) puts out the titles that support the classic Mac OS back on the market AND they are not freely distributable. This of course would include any title hosted here that is put back to market for sale.

Edit: Replaced 'xxx 7' with 'Mac OS 7'. - IIGS User

olePigeon's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 15

However, I also do think that we should also try to define what is abandonware, and what is "warez."

You don't have to, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does that for you; 17 U.S.C. §1201(a)(1)(A)(B):

“... computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace."

Meaning games like StarCraft and the original Diablo are not considered abandware. Blizzard still publishes and sells the game for both Windows and Macintosh, regardless of their original published date.

milmacman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 11

For our American users, that would work. However, I remain of the opinion that we should nevertheless carry our own definition on-site, as I am quite certain not everybody who visits the Garden is accessing it from within the United States.

Euryale's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jul 22

Let's make it easy,
since MacGarden is focused towards Mac Classic, (from System 1.0 to 9.x)
lets just stop posting any software that runs on Mac OS X,

...and watch out for some software that still runs on OS9 and is not abandonware
like Adobe PageMaker 7 and that kind of programas.

Balrog's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Apr 24

What about Mac OS X abandonware? There's plenty of that, usually from small / now defunct companies.

milmacman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 11

That's a valid point, particularly now as stuff for the earliest versions of OS X (10.0 and 10.1) run only on PowerPC, which Apple has deprecated in favour of Intel, and the current version of OS X (10.6) dropping all PowerPC support.

I do agree with Euryale in that we need to be extremely careful about anything that can run natively on OS X, as the chances of that being not abandonware are much higher. Further, we probably should verify that such titles from small/defunct companies are truly no longer on the general market. I do believe that by and large, stuff that will only run on OS 9.x or earlier is more likely to be in the clear, and failing any other sign, stuff that will run on 680x0 Macs can be presumed to be abandonware.

As for verifying whether a title (and a specific version of said title) is currently available or out of print, how about this:

-First, we as a community should verify that the title in question cannot be run natively on recent OS X Macs (for now, let's say this would include all Macs from January 2005 or later). If it does, we don't host it, and if it's already uploaded, we remove it.
-We then check to see if the title can be obtained new from the firm itself or its successor company (many firms have been bought or merged into larger software companies)--either bought as a new title or freely downloadable under legacy support). I don't see a problem with us hosting stuff that a company such as Adobe or Apple has already put out for free download, so we can include those.
-If nothing comes up, we check distributors such as Apple, Amazon, etc. to see if the title can still be bought new directly though them.
-If nothing comes up there (e.g. there are only used titles and/or the title can only be bought through eBay or Amazon sellers), I would say there's a good chance that the title is out of print and difficult to find, and very likely abandonware.

More importantly though, I do recommend we be vigilant on the titles, and particularly so if a version is released back into the market (a case of this with regular PCs was the re-release of the original SimCity and SimCity 2000 as part of a game pack). If that's the case, we should recommend that a visitor to this site purchase the game pack from the publisher and run it per their recommended instructions. In addition, we should also be aware if/when a company will reassert its copyright on the questioned version, and if there appear to be issues elsewhere, we archive or remove the program from public download.

Euryale's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jul 22

Well, I guess if we don't want Macgarden to be in trouble,
then either a line has to be drawn, meaning No Mac OSX software uploads just to be safe,
or someone has to check and approve what users upload to the site before it gets posted,
the easiest way is to set a new uploads rule.

Else a new Mac OS X category might be added so it would be a lot easier to keep track of
only Mac OS X software.

themacmeister's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Oct 26

I don't think Adobe Framemaker 7.0 qualifies, as they do not sell it anymore, it is not supported, and does not run (well) under OSX (runs under Classic - what doesn't?).

Please feel free to delete my post regarding Framemaker 7.0 (with ONE seed!) if you think it appropriate... it is one rare "abandonware" title tho...

Euryale's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jul 22

I 'm talking about this Adobe PageMaker 7 :
http://www.adobe.com/products/pagemaker/

which was here some time ago and it was deleted (good thing I got it before it was deleted Smile )
because it was not abandonware, and I just mentioned it as an example.

watchsmart's picture
Offline
Watcher
Joined: 2009 Apr 10

I think the difficulty, Euryale, is that we have no way of checking? You suggested that someone checks and approves everything. But against what criteria are we checking it?

Euryale's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jul 22

I guess checking with the program's Publisher or Google
like the Adobe's PageMaker I mentioned as an example,
most warez are easy to find if they're still sold by the Publishers/Authors
(of course that would require a little extra work on the Admins or Moderators in turn)

-I wouldn't count resellers like Amazon or eBay-

** OR **

..that's why I would opt for an added category for Mac OS X only since most warez still on sale
are for that OS, and it would be easy for us/users to id them.

The warez that have come up so far for Classic Mac (OS7-9) have been really easy to weed out
since there have been just very few of them.

I've noticed that the software that have arise the "warez/abandonware conflict"
are the newer ones, so if they are just posted (for us to check) but not released (thedownload links)
like a "quarantine" for a week before the Admins "release" the download links,
based on any comment or warning from us, regarding the thread/game in question,
we would be adding an extra layer of security for MacGarden..
(this would only apply to new Mac OS X-compatible posts)

(Gee! guess I'm tripping here Tongue)

IIGS_User's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Apr 8

Amazon? If they list used items only then the listed item must be abandonware...

Attila's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Apr 22

It's easy to tell on Amazon whether something is available new or not; if the only way to order it is to click to see buying options from "Amazon sellers" then it's no longer available new, at least not from Amazon.

IIGS_User's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Apr 8

Ah, Ok, that's the difference: Amazon or "Amazon sellers"...

bertyboy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jun 14

We all get caught out, and it does take more than a quick check on Amazon. Original developers, publishers and distributors (usually a number of, depending on locale) all get taken over, even after they have gone out of business - selling the "book" as part of their assets.

So I usually have to search Amazon, Google, all the usual big developers and distributors (Aspyr, Virtual Programming, etc, etc.), and then macupdate, macgamefiles, insidemacgames and gamedb to find if there are any more companies associated with the product. It's sometimes only then I discover that a publisher only offers the game as a digital download, which never came up on Amazon or Google.

Attila's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Apr 22

And we should be happy when something isn't abandonware!

bertyboy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jun 14

Should of added, Wikipedia is a good guide as to the companies involved in a game, and if any other (unrelated) company has bought the rights to the game.

We also need to do some research as to when the game / product was last sold (as new). Virtual PC v7 came up recently, it was sold as part of Office 2004 Professional until May 2008. Is it abandonware ? Despite maybe not being available as new, it's still too recent to be considered "abandoned". Sometimes this means trawling through archive.org.

olePigeon's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 15

Maybe that should be made a Sticky since it's the only clearly defined, legal definition of what's considered abandonware.

bertyboy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jun 14

We have a DMCA in the UK too.

Of course the US users have the 6th ammendment (as I remember it) that prohibits the government passing laws (like DMCA) that interferes with freedom of speech and other such articles of the constitution (like ripping content from media that you legally own including purchased materials).

And the DMCA only relates to the bypassing of security systems (on media that you legally own). But you're right, it's a good indication on what may be deemed acceptable behaviour.

olePigeon's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 15

Apple has historically been very controlling of the Mac ROMs, but I was wondering if copying Mac ROMs would fall under this exception. For people who run these games on emulators, maybe we can put together a repository of vintage Mac ROMs for hardware emulation. Seems to me the ROM would fall under the exception as it pertains to emulating the Mac hardware to run the software.

bertyboy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jun 14

It's something Apple has vigorously disallowed for over 30 years. Even for the Apple II (and Apple I - until Woz published it).

But the good news is that we have a lot of vintage mac users, and between us we could find ROMs for almost anything. As long as we swapped them in secret, by email or similar. My only ROMs come from just some of the Macs I've owned, Plus, SE FD/HD, IIci, Quadra 700. Unfortunately I seem to have lost the ROM images from my old Classic II, IIsi, PBG3, PBG4.

turtlecroc's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Oct 18

"I would probably classify Acrobat 5.0 as abandonware..."

I want to add that many software publishers are *actively* making older versions of their software obsolete. They're not just adding new features. They're deliberately modifying the format so older versions won't work with stuff created using newer versions, and it's done to every version as it comes out. This goes for Acrobat, Illustrator, Flash, MS Word, etc. etc. etc. It's a deliberate business plan to ensure that people keep buying their stuff. Adobe is one of the biggest offenders. If Photoshop 5 was all you ever needed to edit images (which in fact it is), then there would be no need for PS5.5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,....... that is, unless they made sure *not* to add features that would allow the current version to read stuff saved in *future* versions, or to make the latest version backward-compatible. And *someone* is bound to buy the latest version--and start spreading new-format files that are incompatible with older versions of the software.

Think about it. Thousands of people have built their careers on specific programs, e.g. Photoshop, Word, etc. If they didn't keep pumping out newer versions--and deliberately ensure that older versions would quickly become obsolete--they'd be out of a job. Hence, 'abandonware' should include all that older stuff. Certainly Acrobat 5 which can't even open many new PDFs, much less do anything with them.

turtlecroc's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Oct 18

Btw, i forgot to grab the ROM image from my Quadra700 before drop-kicking it. Also for my Q650. Anyone have those..? And, how to get them to me..? Thanks.

bertyboy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jun 14

Certainly Acrobat 5 which can't even open many new PDFs, much less do anything with them.

I fear that you don't help your cause by having a complete lack of understanding as to exactly what Acrobat is used for. I don't think I've ever used Acrobat to open a PDF, no matter what version of Acrobat or version of PDF.

mk2rx's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Mar 17

turtlecroc this page may be of help it has been up years...

http://web.tiscali.it/magazzinocartoniani/

xy's picture
xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

bertyboy, is there, for Mac OS 9, actually an alternative to Acrobat or Acrobat Reader for opening PDFs?I also have GhostView which is better for opening TeX made PDFs. However, I would actually be glad to know about a further alternative. Acrobat indeed sometimes just does not read or print and has mysterious postscript errors.

bertyboy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jun 14

Well, (the free) Acrobat Reader should probably be made available here, either as a direct download or as a link to the page an Adobe's site (if it still exists).
But, the Adobe Reader 4 or 5 installer is available on every OS9 install CD. If you have OS9 you've got a suitable version of Adobe Reader already. Further, if you have a version of Mac OSX up to 10.2, the Acrobat Reader came with that too, as a Carbonised app, so it runs in OS9 too.

xy's picture
xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

Acrobat Reader from version 3 to version 9 can be downloaded here:
http://mac.oldapps.com/adobe_reader.php

If I recall it correctly, my Mac OS 9.1 CD installs Acrobat Reader 4. But I am not sure. It's been a long time I installed my system.

However, is there actually a difference in using Acrobat Reader over Acrobat in just opening PDFs? I cannot imagine so. Thus, my question was, is there an alternative to Adobe products despite GhostView? I don't use Mac OS X. Don't like it.

bertyboy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jun 14

I don't know any alternatives to Acrobat Reader for OS9. Although there must surely be some freeware / shareware PDF viewers without the enormous memory (and disk) footprint of Acrobat Reader.

I'm pretty certain my MDD came with Acrobat v5.05 on the install discs for OSX 10.2 and OS 9.2.2.

Just to clarify, Acrobat Reader opens PDFs. Acrobat opens Word document files, HTML files, XML files, etc and creates PDFs. I believe it can open and read PDFs, but you can't modify them, and this tiny fraction of the functionality does not warrant making it abandonware.

xy's picture
xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

Yes, Adobe Acrobat does open PDFs the same way Adobe Acrobat Reader does. Before I bought the Acrobat I used the Acrobat Reader, and I never saw a difference in performance, despite the fact that Acrobat Reader uses less RAM and is faster in starting up because its smaller. But since, as you say, Acrobat Reader uses a lot of memory, too, I've kicked it off my hard drive and use the Acrobat all the time for opening up PDFs.

Acrobat sometimes sucks with multilingual TeX files, and it needs ages to make a PDF from a TeX file. GhostScript is much faster here, but less good in quality. Sometimes Acrobat cannot handle complicated foreign TeX fonts.

As a matter of fact, the Acrobat can modify PDFs, at least PDFs created by itself, but only very little. Acrobat Reader cannot modify anything.

Of course, OmniPage, PageMaker 7 and InDesign, etc. can import PDFs. GraphicConverter 6.x can open PDFs on Mac OS X but not on Mac OS 9.

I've searched the entire web for a fast alternative to the Adobe Reader or the Acrobat for Mac OS 9 but have not found any. Jaws PDF Creator and Print2PDF can make PDFs but not read them. Jaws 3.4 actually is great: it can make PDFs out of files with OTF fonts something Acrobat 5 cannot. However, Jaws is not abandonware yet. It still seems to be sold.

xy's picture
xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

The free Goldberg 2.5 is supposed to open PDFs. I haven't checked on this yet. The application is available on this website.

xy's picture
xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

I've now tested Goldberg. Like GraphicConverter it does not open PDFs on Mac OS Classic but only on Mac OS X.