worse than shovelware
6 messages in this thread
My friend Allen just came over to show me a new disc he got. He said he almost
got me one too. The disk is "Mr CDrom Hobby Grab Bag Disk" 'published' by Max
Systems of Winter Garden FL. It turns out that it is the same disc as "Romware
Magazine" Vol.1 number 5 that I picked up about a year or so ago under its own
name. Nowhere on the disc is there any reference that this is a re-issue of
another disk. Maybe another question is whether it is even a legal knockoff or
totally bootleg, but in any event it is deceptive. I guess we'll have to be
even more observant in the future…
Chris, That disc has a dataset that I published. The Stamp dataset was
done in exactly 48 hours. That included my getting a library card to
find out about stamps. I seem to remember a Jane's Aircraft demo on
that disc that was pretty good. The best part was the Movie database
with pictures. The original price for that disc was free. It was a
givaway at the 1991 CD-ROM Expo in Washington, D.C. Cheers, John
It was very good disc John. Even better with a personal demonstration from
you. <grin>
Thank you, Albert, The most interesting aspect of this disc was the
disc label design. I believe that hardly anyone reads the Volume and
Issue information printed on the label. The disc graphics were very
similiar to the York Peppermint Patty foil cover. This would be used
to determine which version the user had when calling customer
support. The question would be posed,"Does it look like a Baby Ruth?,
No? How about a York Peppermint Patty?" Cheers, John
I wasn't complaining abt the quality of the disk, I was complaining about
re-issuing the disk under different dress and name without clearly marking that
it was a re-issue of the same disk. A person doesn't need to buy two copies
(even if it wasn't originally free). The disk itself is fine.
One thing I have been trying to figure out; did they silkscreen over your
original silkscreening? Or were they blank? The producers ID etched at the hub
even shows the same batch number. If the silkscreened over, they did a good
job. There is no evidence of the lower silkscreen.
Chris, It was probably a repress. They apparently bought the rights to the disc
from Nimbus. It would be more difficult to re-label an already labeled disc as
it would raise questions as to why you were doing this. I know for a fact that
we ran out of Vol 5 and there were no discs pressed that had no labels.
You are right. Discs should have certain things on the label to inform the
consumer as to: 1. What system it runs on; 2. Whether it is a repress of an
older disc; 3. Whether the docs are on the disc; 4. Date of publication; 5. Who
published it.
Cheers, John