28-Apr-2024 14:05 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 103 items in your selection (but only 53 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 103]
[News] Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversyANN.lu
Posted on 16-Nov-2000 13:41 GMT by Christian Kemp103 comments
View flat
View list
Elbox responds to attacks on its latest graphics card drivers. Read more below.
  1. The latest Elbox driver for the Voodoo3 chipset is a proprietary and independent software solution written by Elbox programmers, without any support or help on part of any outside team of programmers, developers or companies.
  2. All legal rights for the Voodoo3 driver are property of Elbox Computer company. Actually, P96 authors did not acquire rights for this software (although our driver provides added value to P96, no doubt). We are open to further negotiations.
  3. The Voodoo3 ver. 1.0 driver (available now for MEDIATOR PCI registered users) is 100% compatible with the P96 graphic system.
  4. Elbox does not distribute P96 software, which is available from other sources, e.g. from Amiga OS 3.5 CD-ROMs.
  5. P96 is shareware, paid by the users. Elbox provides expanded capacities for P96 and as for now does not want to be paid for it from P96 authors (the Voodoo3 driver is free for registered users of MEDIATOR PCI).
  6. Development of Elbox Voodoo3 drivers will be continued and updated and they will be made compatible with OTHER graphic systems, too.
  7. If the P96 authors team decide to try to make efforts to block MEDIATOR operation with future P96 graphic system releases (strange enough, as Elbox drivers indirectly helps P96 authors in their own business…), Elbox will provide a completely NEW, modern and expandable graphic system (soon…).
  8. Drivers for other graphic chipsets are under development now and will be provided by Elbox.
  9. Support for all the drivers written by Elbox team of programmers IS and will be provided by Elbox Computer.
  10. Every user of MEDIATOR, who wants to use any graphic card based around a chipset supported by Elbox, will be free to choose which graphic system to use… and then pay the appropriate shareware fee if this is P96.
FOR EVERY 'BAD NEWS' WE HAVE TEN GOOD NEWS.
Mariusz Wloczysiak
ELBOX COMPUTER, Press Department
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 51 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by joel ehret on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
after lots of reflection I think elbox has to sell separatly from the mediator
P96 license according to P96 authors.
Some people are already registered to P96.I think it's not normal to pay a licence twice.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 52 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Pascal Hardyn on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (Andrzej J. Debicki):
I payed for P96 with my pixel 64 two years ago. Now, i'll use a voodoo card with the mediator.
Should i pay another time ????
It's a joke, isn't it ???
IMO, Elbox does not sell graphic cards. By the way, Elbox does pay NOTHING to the P96 team !!!
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 53 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Anders Kjeldsen on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (ShadesOfGrey):
I don't see why Elbox should pay ANYTHING to P96:
1) ELBOX made the driver (NOT P96)
2) P96 is shareware (they sell their package to those who want to buy it)
3) A P96 Voodoo3-driver would only INCREASE P96-users.
4) Should Commodore pay 3-5% of price of EACH Amiga sold, to EVERYONE that were making drivers for Amiga-hardware (including drivers for 3rd party hardware) ?
Getting a license from P96, does that cost anything? (I dunno) Anyway, the case is simple.. If Elbox want their drivers to work with new versions of P96, they should get a license, no matter how. At least -I- don't think it's right to demand money from users AND developers.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 54 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Anders Kjeldsen on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (Anders Kjeldsen):
With developers I meant the developers of the Voodoo3-driver, Elbox.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 55 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Andreas Meyer on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (Anders Kjeldsen):
Yeah, right...
I'd like to know:
How many ppl mailed to P96, saying: Great work , with the V3 driver released now, I would like to register P96 right away.
Elbows releasing this, umm, pre-alpha driver, will only encourage lots of ppl to take a free ride on P96. Even more with their latest press-release in mind.
Nice work again, really impressing and professional...
Andreas
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 56 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Johan Rönnblom):
This kind of bullshit infuriates me. WHO is working on the driver ? Elbox or P96 ? Elbox doesn't even charge for a driver that will make Picasso RTG popular again. Moreover, Elbox doesn't build graphic boards but PCI busses. P96 should have written the needed drivers themselves if they wanted their money back. Everyone (programers, CGX Team and P96 Team) were complaining about the lack of powerful hardware ; now that it's there, they're suddenly quick to ask for a so-called wage. CGX and P96 are dead, long live Elbox RTG.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 57 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Johan Rönnblom):
This kind of bullshit infuriates me. WHO is working on the driver ? Elbox or P96 ? Elbox doesn't even charge for a driver that will make Picasso RTG popular again. Moreover, Elbox doesn't build graphic boards but PCI busses. P96 should have written the needed drivers themselves if they wanted their money back. Everyone (programers, CGX Team and P96 Team) were complaining about the lack of powerful hardware ; now that it's there, they're suddenly quick to ask for a so-called wage. CGX and P96 are dead, long live Elbox RTG.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 58 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Johan Rönnblom):
Wow, don't get me wrong ! I'm not pledging for programers to work for free, like this stupid P96's Alexander Kneer blamed me for. I was a long-standing user of CGX 3, and I didn't hesitate one second to buy CGX 4, whereas too much people out there just decided to burn a copy of the CD. P96 shouldn't blame Elbox for revigorating their dead RTG, precisely when Elbox put THEMSELVES work into it. (P96 license system is a piece of crap, if not robbery.) P96 and CGX eggheads should complain about USERS who are NOT registering or buying their software, which is an obnoxious shame. That's not the fault of Elbox ! I myself gave a try to P96 when I had a CV3D years ago. I was terribly dissapointed by it and decided not to register and switch to CGX, which was way better. When I finally got my BlizzardVision, I had of course no choice but to stay with CGX, and I never regretted it. Now it's perhaps time to switch to something completely new again.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 59 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Bernd Meyer):
I also had a private "conversation" with Alexander Kneer, and believe me : he badly WANTS to be paid, without giving a sh*t about support ! (And how would he be able to give support anyway, since he didn't write the driver himself ?)
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 60 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Daniele Granata on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Johan Rönnblom):
Amiga Inc. do not provide a retagetable graphic system, so hardware producers have
to ask 3rd party software house to develop drivers for their grafic card.
Is this an ELBox fault? Elbox has its own software team that develops the drivers.
Why ElBox have to pay P96 team if they have not working at all on the Voodoo3 driver?
When Amiga Inc. will decide to release an AmigaOS RTG system so this anarchy will be over?
I think that we have to support ElBox, P96, and VFD.
We have to respect any hardware and software developer that work on Classic Amiga
DO NOT BLAME them.
We have to BLAME Amiga Inc. and ask more respect for their users, software and hardware developers.
Amiga Inc do not care about ElBox or any other hardware company that wants to
support Classic Amiga, becouse TAO will kills any development for the Classic Amiga that
will deter attention on the AmigaDE.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 61 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Mike):
I can't agree more.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 62 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Johan Rönnblom):
That's pretty much the other way around ;-)
The overreacted Elbox' statement came out of the frustration from the previous P96's statement.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 63 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Darrin):
> The only fair thing for Elbox to do is state clearly
> that P96 is shareware and encourage people to send off
> the registration fee IF they use it.
*Precisely* !
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 64 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Rafo):
Your example doesn't work, since Elbox does NOT sell their driver. It's more like if they were releasing a free plug-in for a commercial ImageFX.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 65 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (Johan Rönnblom):
NO, NO, NO !!! You just can't ask developers AND consumers to both pay for your "expandable" system !!! What kind of "morality" is there behind this sucking "commercial" behaviour ? Either you ask developers for buying a license to a shareware product that will ultimately be free for end users, either you ask end users to pay a fee to fund the efforts of the original AND the third-party coders !! Begging for both is pure robbery !
Did P96 get paid for being the "official" AmigaOS 3.5 RTG, or what ??
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 66 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Andrzej J. Debicki):
This great idea brings another. Dis actually P96 folks PAY for replicating the CGX API ? I don't think so. Just ask Ralph Schmidt and Frank Mariak about this sensitive issue, you'll see what I mean.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 67 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 38 (Anders Kjeldsen):
Elbox have one shortcoming : they're particularly stubborn indeed. That's what probably makes them still alive in this shitty Amiga world of today.
And please, wake up man ! You're talking about products that don't even exist ! What's really *good* about Elbox is that they actually *keep* their promises (PCI board, graphic drivers, network drivers...), whereas VillageTronic, Phase5 and others (we'll soon know about DCE and Eyetech) promised us nothing but bullshit !
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 68 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (Olivier Fabre):
Bloody murder, of course you have to pay for a Mediator to get the free Voodoo 3 driver ? What the Hell would you do with a Mediator-based driver without a Mediator board ? Reverse engineering ?
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 69 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kaminari on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 49 (Bernd Meyer):
> The same would almost certainly be possible with
> the V3 driver. But it can't be done, because the
> driver is not freely available.
You should tell that to the CGX folks. They're swearing that a Mediator-based Voodoo 3 driver just can't work with CyberGraphX because of bus blah blah bandwidth blah blah registers blah blah limitations blah blah, etc.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 70 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Ralph Schmidt on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 69 (Kaminari):
Blahblah...reading what I and frank said about the issues weeks ago
helps...Blahblah.
Shortening what we said...blahblah...into a one ...blahblah..liner..
blahblah...is..blahblah..not...blahblah...productive..and blahblah..
ignores...blahblah...the...blahblubb..problems..blahblah you`ll
blahblah..get.
Beep...
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 71 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Paolo Chiorazzo on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Mike):
It's crazy! P96 team wants money from a company that make a driver that add value to P96?
But P96 team is fool??? Voodoo3 driver will increase P96 registration WITHOUT A SINGLE LINE CODE written by p96 team.
I use Cgx 4 and, onestly, the only reason i found to register to P96 is the voodoo3 driver MAKED by ELBOX.
P96teamMicrosoft.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 72 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Paochi on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Johan Rönnblom):
You are FOOL!
Elbox developers had created the VOODOO drivers!!! They must be paied by P96Team(at least), because this driver add value to the obsolete P96 software, frozen by ages.
Please...your mentality is perfect for Microsoft crew. Join it.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 73 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Teemu Kärkkäinen on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
I dont think Elbox should pay for P96! If P96 developers are just for the money and not support (there's still some bugs left in P96) then to hell with them. And if they only make an update that cripples the Voodoo driver then who wants to install it anyway??? Not me. If P96 team has any motivation left to go and really start working on P96 again then i really would consider registering it!
Or they could just sell the whole P96 stuff to Elbox for 500DM and shut up for good. That's many times the money they would be getting with an attitude they're having now. Saddens me to see ppl fighting with the future of the classic Amiga in between.
just my five cents. Keep up the good HW work Elbox!
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 74 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Steffen Haeuser on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 66 (Kaminari):
Hi!
There is an essential difference there... P96 does
not need any files from CyberGraphX to run
CGX Apps. It is recoding the API (BTW: The same
exists as a 3rd-party-lib for CGX... Emulating
P96 API...). In case of the Elbox driver it is
reverse engineering how a P96 Driver looks, and
then doing one - still requiring the P96
Archive. By doing this they get - which normally
costs *money* -
* advantages from new features in new P96
versions (in case they come)
* support for 3rd-party-work which relies
on P96 (or CGX) like Warp3D or certain
Shapeshifter/Fusion Direct Drivers
* a working and well tested base framework
Steffen
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 75 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Thomas on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 72 (Paochi):
I agree...
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 76 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 18-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
I have a suggestion which I'm sure will please those who think Elbox
shouldn't pay the p96 team anything:
Let's get a Mediator. Let's look at how it's made, what components
they use, how the circuits are drawn. Let's build our own boards, and
sell them under the name Copy_of_mediator.
Although I'm not a lawyer so don't take my word for it, this will be
perfectly legal as long as we redraw the circuits so they don't look
exactly the same.
Now, let's suggest Elbox should pay us for the great service we've
done them. I mean, we've spread the word about Mediator after all, and
it hasn't cost them a thing. Great idea, don't you think?
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 77 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kay Are Ulvestad on 18-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 76 (Johan Rönnblom):
Actually, Elbox didn't take the P96 system, copy it, sell it under a different
name and then ask for payment from the P96 authors. That course of actions exist
only in you head. What really happened was that Elbox developed a non-commercial
driver for the P96 system to make a certain type of graphics card *not* developed
or distributed by them, work with their PCI interface. This special case is not
covered by P96's very vague development/distribution conditions, and thus the
driver is not illegal. I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with Elbox'
actions. Their attitude can easily be described as uncooporative, or even arrogant.
Still, your comparasion is way off, and has little or no relevance to the actual
events. If you can't make a point based on anything remotely factual, perhaps you
should reconsider your opinion?
-
Kay
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 78 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Darron Cox on 18-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Its all a big shame isnt it the way things have gone. Speaking as a person
who studied Contract Law for several years the only thing i will say is that it really all comes down to who wants to spend more money on better solicitors and also the way they interpret the law and the P96 terms and conditions.
Personally as an Amiga fan i can see both sides of the problem but i do hope it doesnt drag on and make a bigger mess. The Amiga community doesnt need more of this type of 'CRAP'.
Come on guys! Work it out and carry on. Its all for the benefit of Amigans in the short/medium and long term. Its this sort of thing that will end up finishing off what is left of the Classic Amigan Community.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 79 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Anders Kjeldsen on 18-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 55 (Andreas Meyer):
:Yeah, right...
:I'd like to know:
:How many ppl mailed to P96, saying: Great work , with the V3 driver released
:now, I would like to register P96 right away.
So what? It's P96-ppl's own choice that P96 is shareware.. then they should take the consequences, whatever they are. Voodoo-users aren't worse than ppl who uses P96 for other gfx-boards..
:Elbows releasing this, umm, pre-alpha driver, will only encourage lots of ppl
:to take a free ride on P96. Even more with their latest press-release in mind.
:Nice work again, really impressing and professional...
"free ride on p96".. Again, isn't that a consequence of something being shareware?
HOWEVER, Elbox SHOULD have gotten a license before making this driver. Hope they can work something out.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 80 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 18-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 77 (Kay Are Ulvestad):
So you think there would be something wrong about releasing the
reverse engineered mediator and make money off that, without
compensating Elbox? In that case, what do you think would be wrong
about that?
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 81 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Andreas Meyer on 18-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 79 (Anders Kjeldsen):
Hi again,
I really don't see your point...
Releasing P96 as shareware is their choice, you say. Do you think they would
be better off releasing it as crippleware or commercial product ???
You think this would stop ppl from stealing it or what ?
Time for a reality check.
Andreas
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 82 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Kay Are Ulvestad on 18-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 80 (Johan Rönnblom):
Yes of course. That would harm Elbox' business. Might be illegal as well, for all
I know. What's your point?
-
Kay
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 83 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Ian Shurmer on 18-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 80 (Johan Rönnblom):
Well... its probably illegal to do what you describe and it certainly wont do sales of the Mediator any good. However, the really *OBVIOUS* difference between what you say Elbox have done and what Elbox have done is that Elbox have not copied P96 and sold it under a different name, they have merely added to the product. I suppose its kinda similar to somebody creating an expansion module for the Mediator...
Best wishes, *an
|Shurmer
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 84 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 18-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 82 (Kay Are Ulvestad):
Yes, it would harm Elbox' business. Just like Elbox are now harming
p96's business.
You see, the business idea of p96 is to license the software to
various makers of hardware. When a hardware maker, such as Elbox, uses
their software without negotiating a license, their business is
harmed.
Legally, both what Elbox seem to be doing and what I've suggested
would probably hold. But does it hold morally?
Let's look at the consequences. We've already begun seeing them. If
makers of software standards such as p96 or CGX can't get paid for
their work, people will not work on such standards. What happens then,
is that hardware makers such as Elbox will each have to make their own
"standard" that works only with their cards (since releasing them
openly would mean an advantage for their competitors).
There is only one alternative to that scenario. That is to have all
hardware makers pay for the development of standards which work with
all cards. But that can only work as long as all hardware makers
assume responsibility and agree to pay for the work they benefit from.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 85 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Ian Shurmer on 18-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 84 (Johan Rönnblom):
Hi. Sorry if Im being a bit slow here... but are you saying that the only way the Picasso96 authors make money is to licenese the writers of drives for their software? But I was under the impression that most of the drivers were written by the P96 team themselves, and therefore they wont be making money from licensing agreements!
I cannot see how it is fair or moral to make not only the users of P96 pay registration fees but also Elbox (who have written a *FREE* driver out of customer service)? Aren't the P96 authors receiving two seperate incomes from their software then? Surely that isnt moral...
Regards,
Ian
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 86 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Alcemyst on 18-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
ets say i made a G-Force2 driver for the Mediator useing p96 &
put it on Aminet then what..i will have to pay P96 ppl for doing so.
but im not making a penny...
the users useing my driver will pay p96 ppl by registering p96
simple
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 87 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Ian Shurmer on 18-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 86 (Alcemyst):
EXACTLY!!! That is exactly what Im tryin to say...
At least somebody agrees with me.... (c:}
Regards,
Ian
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 88 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by bbuilder on 19-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
I thought Elbox distributed only the Voodoo plugin for P96,
not the actual P96. Was it so?
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 89 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Anders Kjeldsen on 19-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 81 (Andreas Meyer):
:I really don't see your point...
:Releasing P96 as shareware is their choice, you say. Do you think they would
:be better off releasing it as crippleware or commercial product ???
:You think this would stop ppl from stealing it or what ?
I haven't thought about what's being best for them. And it really hasn't got anything to do with my point. And who are stealing from it? the users? in that case, what has that got to do with the voodoo-drivers?
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 90 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Steffen Haeuser on 19-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 86 (Alcemyst):
Hi!
You could not do a GForce 2 Driver even if you wanted. Some data which is
only available against an NDA is needed to do a P96 Driver. But I guess if
Elbox would have payed a license for the Mediator, further drivers would
already be covered. You still had to reach an agreement about an NDA with
the Picasso 96 Team, though, even in that case. Of course I cannot talk for
the P96 people. But doing a driver by reengineering
and at the same time not answering on any emails of the P96 team regarding
legal licensing of the P96 Software is definitely not okay... after all
the Driver still uses the P96 "base" software... this is for what Elbox
would pay for... the usability of the P96 framework... there might be a
price difference between a Driver developed by the P96 team and one licensed
by own developement, but this needs to get NEGOCIATED. Elbox cannot just
decide on their own that no payment is needed and reengineer...
Concerning how P96 team made money: AFAIK the only decent
money ever coming out of it was the license money for the
Drivers for GFX Boards - they were for example payed by Villagetronics.
Steffen
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 91 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Andreas Meyer on 19-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 89 (Anders Kjeldsen):
OK, maybe my English is too bad or I didn't say it clear enough, look:
You said:
So what? It's P96-ppl's own choice that P96 is shareware.. then they should take the consequences, whatever they are. Voodoo-users aren't worse than ppl who uses P96 for other gfx-boards..
I say: Right, they made it ahareware. Right, they should face the consequences. But, they also put up a legal statement about driver development. Potential developers should face that. btw: I never said anything about Voodoo users in special.
You said:
"free ride on p96".. Again, isn't that a consequence of something being shareware?
I say: Having ppl giving it a free ride is NOT a problem of the shareware status, this has nothing to do with being shareware. What is your point saying that? I know only of one way to keep ppl from pirating it: Release it as freeware. And all this has nothing to do with Elbox obviously breaking the rules.
You said:
And who are stealing from it? the users? in that case, what has that got to do with the voodoo-drivers?
I say:
Sigh... of course the users are the ones, not paying, but that does not mean, this isn't foreseeable by Elbox. They should have negotiated with P96, that is all. They cannot release an illegal driver and make it legal by giving it away free. If I distribute copys of the keys to your appartement to thieves, does it make a difference if I charge them for the keys or not?
My point: Elbox broke clearly the P96 rules. They should apologize and negotiate ASAP. All I hear from them is: Don't try to stop us. We are right. We'll do our own RTG system. Their socalled press releases sound like stupid kiddie talk to me.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 92 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Andreas Meyer on 19-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 89 (Anders Kjeldsen):
OK, maybe my English is too bad or I didn't say it clear enough, look:
You said:
So what? It's P96-ppl's own choice that P96 is shareware.. then they should take the consequences, whatever they are. Voodoo-users aren't worse than ppl who uses P96 for other gfx-boards..
I say: Right, they made it ahareware. Right, they should face the consequences. But, they also put up a legal statement about driver development. Potential developers should face that. btw: I never said anything about Voodoo users in special.
You said:
"free ride on p96".. Again, isn't that a consequence of something being shareware?
I say: Having ppl giving it a free ride is NOT a problem of the shareware status, this has nothing to do with being shareware. What is your point saying that? I know only of one way to keep ppl from pirating it: Release it as freeware. And all this has nothing to do with Elbox obviously breaking the rules.
You said:
And who are stealing from it? the users? in that case, what has that got to do with the voodoo-drivers?
I say:
Sigh... of course the users are the ones, not paying, but that does not mean, this isn't foreseeable by Elbox. They should have negotiated with P96, that is all. They cannot release an illegal driver and make it legal by giving it away free. If I distribute copys of the keys to your appartement to thieves, does it make a difference if I charge them for the keys or not?
My point: Elbox broke clearly the P96 rules. They should apologize and negotiate ASAP. All I hear from them is: Don't try to stop us. We are right. We'll do our own RTG system. Their socalled press releases sound like stupid kiddie talk to me.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 93 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Anders Kjeldsen on 19-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 92 (Andreas Meyer):
Ok, I agree with the last thing you said. All the other stuff is probably based on a misunderstanding. You said:
:How many ppl mailed to P96, saying: Great work , with the V3 driver released
:now, I would like to register P96 right away.
meaning? that less people would buy p96 because of voodoo drivers, than other drivers ?
But I absolutely agree, Elbox should get a license. And if they have to pay for that, I wouldn't see any (personal) reason to pay for the picasso-package.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 94 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Andreas Meyer on 19-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 93 (Anders Kjeldsen):
Hi again, nice to see things cleared up a bit ;-)
Me::How many ppl mailed to P96, saying: Great work , with the V3 driver released
Me::now, I would like to register P96 right away.
You:meaning? that less people would buy p96 because of voodoo drivers, than
You:other drivers ?
In a way this is what I wanted to say. I think, most people only got registered with P96 automatically by buying cards, that were bundled with the package. I don't think V3 users make any difference to users of other gfx-cards. Most card owners will take what they can get for free. Forced registration seems to me to be the only way.
But maybe I was a bit too brief on that one, sorry about that. I just was a bit angry about all these moral excuses like: "Free V3 drivers by Elbox don't hurt P96, in fact P96 gets profit from this." Because of that I asked (rather rethorical question) how many registrations P96 got up to now from V3 owners and how many they might get in the future. I think it won't be many (only my opinion). I guess "real" profit can be only made from card manufactureres paying their license fee. Elbox is not a gfx-card manufacturer, but the usability of gfx-cards with the mediator is absolutely crucial for their business, so the P96 legal statement would even hold in court with no big problems.
:But I absolutely agree, Elbox should get a license. And if they have to pay
:for that, I wouldn't see any (personal) reason to pay for the picasso-package.
Best way to me seems: Elbox buys a licence for V3 development and
a) distributes a full P96 package with the mediator (may mean selling it at a higher price)
b) sells the V3driver/P96package bundled independently to interested mediator users
Only that way P96 can really expect some money for their work.
Andreas
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 95 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Toner on 19-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
The P96 authors should be paid. "no work"??? So Elbox wrote the
Voodoo3 driver themselves. They didn't write the rest of it.
Now, why would the P96 authors want to have the P96 user license
fee coming from Elbox? Simple, the shareware sales model simply
did not work. Lots of people use/used P96, but comparatively
few actually paid the shareware fee. What P96 authors want is
to have this shareware fee wrapped into the retail price of the
Mediator, guaranteeing that they get their payment from the end
user and avoid losses to piracy.
Is this bad? Elbox do it themselves with the AllegroCDFS software,
selling it mostly only with their IDE hardware as a dongle.
Since I have an A4000T and my Zorro slots are aloready all full,
I cannot possibly plug in a PowerFlyer 4000 and thus cannot
possibly use AllegroCDFS. Why did Elbox do this hardware tie with
their filesystem? They were obviously afraid that pirates would
use their software without paying for it. Now the Allegro fee
is part of the IDE hardware retail price, and they are guanranteed
their Allegro license fees. P96 authors are asking for this same
license fee guarantee. Village Tronic was happy with the deal and
included the P96 fee as part of the PicassoIV retail price.
And honestly, how many Mediator owners will NOT be getting a graphics card,
and using it only for audio/ethernet?? Maybe a few, but I don't believe
very many. The loss to pirates is why the P96 guys got lazy, there was no
motivation for them to work. If they start getting paid again, perhaps we
may see them to continue development again. Personally, I would happily
pay a fee for an RTG system license as part of the Mediator retail price,
be it P96, or CGX (same issue there I think why they canceled the CGX driver)
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 96 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 19-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 85 (Ian Shurmer):
Ian Shurmer wrote:
: Hi. Sorry if Im being a bit slow here... but are you
: saying that the only way the Picasso96 authors make money
: is to licenese the writers of drives for their software?
Nope. I'm saying that their main income has been from licensing the entire
RTG system, with specific drivers, to various hardware makers. In this
case, Elbox have chosen to write the drivers themselves, and that should of
course be reflected in any agreement between Elbox and p96. But the fact
remains that most of the work isn't in the drivers, but in the RTG system
itself.
: But I was under the impression that most of the drivers
: were written by the P96 team themselves, and therefore
: they wont be making money from licensing agreements!
The license is paid by those who are selling the hardware, of course. And
the reason for this is that this is the only way to make most people pay
for the necessary software development.
: I cannot see how it is fair or moral to make not only the
: users of P96 pay registration fees but also Elbox (who
: have written a *FREE* driver out of customer service)?
: Aren't the P96 authors receiving two seperate incomes
: from their software then?
No, buyers of the Mediator would get a license for p96 included, just like
buyers of a PicassoIV do, or like buyers of CVision/BVision cards get a CGX
license. You could see it as a way to reduce the cost for moral users who
would actually pay the shareware fee, by distributing this cost across
everyone who buys the hardware.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 97 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Roj on 19-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Let's look at this another way:
Say, for instance, a software company, Amiga-X, has a software package that does not support graphics cards, and fails on Amigas that have RTG software installed.
Also, for instance, another company, Y-Amiga, has sold numerous machines, and all of them are equipped with graphics cards. Their customers are screaming for Amiga-X's software. So Y-Amiga adds a driver for X-Amiga's program that allows it to work on all the machines they've sold.
Amiga-X says, "Hey! Wait a second! You're changing our program!" although Y-Amiga hasn't taken any credit for the modification, nor are they charging any more for the product.
Now for my humble opinion:
Both sides have a valid argument. P96 should be paid for in some way or another by the people that eventually use it. Because P96 is shareware, it's the responsibility of the end-user to pay for the privilege. Should 'Y-Amiga' be charged for adding to the functionality of the software? On one hand, both sides need better communication, and Elbox needs to reasonably cooperate with the P96 team. On the other hand, nothing Elbox has done has, in any way, damaged the marketability of P96, nor has it taken money from the authors' pockets for the work they've done.
Bottom line: I think both sides should lighten up a little.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 98 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by the man in the shadows on 19-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Here's my problem about the whole thing. What about those users out there that have a PIV or the Ateo graphics cards and have paid for the shareware that is required? In my opinion, P96 is 100% shareware and the responsibility needs to lay in the hands of the end-user. If Elbox is required to license the software, it should be a license to only certify that it will work with P96 and not the whole program. Case in point, the CV3D is certified to work with P96 due to the fact that the P96 offers the drivers in the download bundle. When you purchased a CV3D, was it bundled with the P96 software? No. From what I've been able to tell, the CV3D was written third party but as a part of the P96 group. Considering the facts, it would need to be up to the retailers to offer bundles of the P96 software (registered versions) for those that want the cards and the software in one shot. Let's look at this though, the software is for the Voodoo3. Voodoo3 cards are abundant. Not all Voodoo3 retailers will offer _anything_ Amiga, that is unless you go to an Amiga dealer. If the end_user goes to an Amiga dealer, that should be the deciding factor of whether to bundle the software or just offer the software as a point of sale. There have been many shareware programs that have been sold commercially and succeeded to remain shareware (just one example-MooVid).
I'm still chuckling at the whole situation though. When does the mudslinging stop.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 99 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Alcemyst on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 94 (Andreas Meyer):
wrong my brother is a police man & im on jury service atm & it would
not hold up in court. the Mediator is a PCI board & it does not need
the voodoo to sell. the voodoo helps sales.
because if what you are saying was fact then if 3DFX went bust & you
could not get any more voodoo's then there would be No PCI busBoards
from any firm for the amiga because a PCI busboard is worth nothing
with our a voodoo..utter crap there are many other gfx cards &
other things to plug in to it like the Dual USB pci card i looked at
over the week end all these things help the sale of the Mediator & any
other PCI busboard made for the amiga
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 100 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Moneyless on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Or did we have more than 100 Postings on 1 subject?
Anonymous, there are 103 items in your selection (but only 53 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 103]
Back to Top