Casady & Greene Says "Goodnight"

powderhound writes "Longtime Mac software publisher Casady & Greene have said their final 'Goodnight.' The publisher of many notable Mac titles such as SpellCatcher, InfoGenie, iData, and Glider Pro, have decided to close the doors on July 3rd. Their web site contains the details of their decision. They will be sorely missed."

Comments

Oh no!

[Roto-Rooter Man]

Does this mean the end of their CEO Charles R. Fulweiler's paranoid leftist rants on the company website?

Re:Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand the moderation here, anyone who knows anything about Casady & Greene knows this was one of the defining aspects of the company.

And from the looks of it, the rants are gone. :(

Re:Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Scatter brained liberals make no sense.

R�ves doux.

[Justen]

Cassady & Greene truly marketed some of the most innovative programs on the Mac. Conflict Catcher rightly earned all of the awards (and hearts) it did over the years. And Cassady & Greene is arguably the grandmother of Apple's "digital hub" strategy: iTunes was borne of SoundJam Pro, originally marketed by C&G. (The original developers of iTunes now work for Apple.)

It's been great.

Goodnight.

justen

Re:R�ves doux.

[Anonymous Coward]

(The original developers of iTunes now work for Apple.)

Wow! Who'd have thought?!

Re:R�ves doux.

[Elderly Isaac]

They must have gotten a pretty penny for SoundJam. C&G had to realize that, with OS X making Conflict Catcher obsolete, SoundJam was their future. Or did they really expect Glider Pro carbon to sell like hotcakes?

I've been scratching my head about C&G's business strategy and expecting this day ever since OS X was announced.

Re:R�ves doux.

[Huge Pi Removal]

They seemed to put a lot of effort into iData, which was probably pretty damn innovative, but no-one seemed to want. Shame. It will soon, however, be offered for free.

They had a raft of OS X utils, but not necessarily ones you'd pay for (e.g. Clone'X: there's freeware/shell commands that do the same thing). I think more importantly, they were a very "morally sound" company, almost to the extent of being complete hippies... but damn cool coding hippies :) Their attitude will probably be missed more than their final software offerings.

Re:R�ves doux.

[cait56]

I bought and received great satisfaction from both Conflict Catcher and SoundJam Pro.

So it is sad to see Cassady & Greene's departure.

But I'm not going to complain about the fact that a) Conflict Catcher is no longer needed and b) Apple bought SoundJam for everyone.

Re:R�ves doux.

[TotallyUseless]

Actually, all C&G did was distribute Soundjam. They were not the developers of it. So while I'm sure C&G got *something* from the sale of Soundjam to Apple, I doubt it was a pretty penny, and it wouldn't surprise me if that was one of the big reasons this is happening now.

Re:R�ves doux.

[cplater]

Boy does that bring back memories. Shortly after Apple purchased SoundJam they have away copies in a lottery at WWDC (2000.) There were a few good prizes, but every one I know won a copy of SoundJam. Bummer for me as I had just anted up for a full copy a few months before WWDC 2000.

Re:R�ves doux.

[Anonymous Coward]

Conflict Causer is the WORST excuse for a useful utility I have ever seen. An incomprehensibly bad replacement for Extensions Manager (interface wise), with a bogus 'Conflict test' feature to boot. I put it right up there with Norton Crashguard in the crapitude scale for causing problems where none existed previously. I say this from experience supporting macs every day for the past 6 years, CC is not used properly by 9.9 of 10 CC users and it actually can cause problems as people add software and OS updates. Good riddance to Conflict Causer, give us Crystal Quest for OS X!

Re:R�ves doux.

[iDrifter]

Right on, it was a piece of junk. It caused me more problems than it was supposed to solve. It was tossed after a month of use in favour of Extensions Overload.

Crystal Quest ruled

[dozer]

Crystal Quest used the mouse better than any other game until the FPSes came along. That was a fun game.

As for the rest of the stuff C&G published, well, I never needed any of it...

Re:Crystal Quest ruled

[Gogo Dodo]

Crystal Quest... does that bring back the memories and hand cramps.

Re:Crystal Quest ruled

[TiMac]

Ahh....and of course, Crystal Crazy. This makes me want to go back and install it on an old machine. :)

Re:Crystal Quest ruled

[commodoresloat]

I wasted so many hours playing that game back in the day. Anyone know of a 68k emulator for OSX that will let me install System 6 and Crystal Quest so I can relive my glory days?

Re:Crystal Quest ruled

[tentoesofterror]

Try these. Vmac works pretty well.

Re:Crystal Quest ruled

[otuz]

vMac and Basilisk works ok. You need a bootable disk image and a rom dump.

Re:Crystal Quest ruled

[commodoresloat]

awesome. I am running it on vmac now with no problems except mouse speed. Thanks!

Did Apple kill them?

[gamgee5273]

I was one of the first Mac users out of my circle of friends and coworkers to use SoundJam (in fact, my 6500/225 still has it installed). I can understand why Apple bought it and turned it into iTunes, but I almost wonder if, when they bought it, did Apple kill C&G?

After OS X came out, I stopped using Conflict Catcher, too (which, yes, is still on my 6500).

Just thinking this through: Apple definitely dealt a mjor blow buying SoundJam off of C&G, but does anyone think of C&G as an OS X developer?

Oh, well. Farewell, C&G. We'll miss you.

Re:Did Apple kill them?

[commodoresloat]

but does anyone think of C&G as an OS X developer?

Certainly C&G doesn't.

Re:Did Apple kill them?

[floor14]

I believe C&G not keeping up to date with the development of the Mac OS market was the main problem. If Conflict Catcher is outdated on OS X then they should have developed another flagship product for the new market. Just my thoughts.

Re:Did Apple kill them?

[tgibbs]

I think that they were a bit too slow joining the OSX bandwagon, and many of their old properties, such as Conflict Catcher, were tied pretty tightly to the old OS. And some features were added by other applications that obviated the need for some of their utilities. For example, Word and Mail now do on-the-fly spell checking and underline typos. This isn't quite as cool as Spellcatcher's instantaneous hash-driven spell checking, but it is close enough.

Sad to see them go

[Nick of NSTime]

I lament the passing of the old-guard Mac publishers. Some are reborn, some fade away forever, and some are eulogized.

I think as Mac OS X becomes more ubiquitous, we'll witness a renaissance of Mac development and publishing. It's already showing with products like Transmit and Hydra (to name just a couple).

Re:Sad to see them go

[Elderly Isaac]

I'm nitpicking, but Transmit (formerly Transit) is older than OS X.

That being said, the OS X development renaissance is already in full bloom, in my opinion. It's a great and fun platform to develop for.

Re:Sad to see them go

[Nick of NSTime]

You're right, Transmit is older than OS X. I actually used it on OS 9. What I was trying to say was that Transmit is an application that substantially improves the Mac OS X experience. That's not just buzz-speak; I find Transmit to be the best FTP app ever, and its OS X version is gold.

Re:Sad to see them go

[sg3000]

And others rise in their place: Omni Group has risen to the top in terms of Mac OS X software developers. OmniGraffle is about as much of a Cocoa experience as you can get!

why?

[trillian42]

I'm pretty new to the Mac world -- an OS X convert... so I've never heard of these guys. But it sounds like the timing might have followed that of the introduction of the new OS. Was their inability to keep going due to something about OS X?

I love this operating system, but I sometimes wonder how much all the goodies that come with it (X11, iTunes, iPhoto, iChat, Safari, Mail.app, Address Book.app, and iCal are all in my Dock) are hurting independent developers who innovated for the platform before Apple got around to incorporating those functions into the OS.

Re:why?

[jellomizer]

Well that is a tough call. A lot of these smaller companies are going out of business because their main focus was making products that filled the gap of the OS. Say a lack of an IM client or a calendar. Now that Apple is coming back they are putting more functionality in their OS to be competitive. So a lot of little guys may be wiped out because they worked on fixing all the small missing apps that the OS should have. I don't think that Apple was trying to find a way to kill the little development companies but it just happened because they were trying to make a better product. As a small software company you have to keep in mind of what you nitch market is, and change when you see you nitch expanding to other competition. So you will have to find a way to transaction to a new type of nitch.

Re:why?

[Nick of NSTime]

This is quite true; it's also why so many companies have abandoned "small software" and moved to enterprise or vertical market software.

The companies not working on large-scale applications are providing apps that offer familiar functionality (like text editing) but with additional features.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

So Apple kills off competition by bundling applications and it's "Apple is adding functionality to their OS. The small software vendors will just have to find a new gig.". Microsoft kills off competition by bundling apps and it's "Microsoft is evil, they are killing off competition. Boycott them! Sue them! Send in the DOJ". For doing the exact same thing. And, save the monopoly bullshit, that's no excuse.

Re:why?

[piecewise]

A good point, because it truly isn't Apple fault these independent software developers are going out of business. Apple's simply improving their own product with features it *should* have.

Why, that'd be like blaming Microsoft for putting out similar companies simply because Microsoft is constantly striving to improve Windows' features and functionality.


Oh, wait.. Well, no wonder there's so much more independent/shareware programs out there for Windows! ;-)

Re:why?

[GlassHeart]

For doing the exact same thing. And, save the monopoly bullshit, that's no excuse.

The monopoly status of Microsoft makes all the difference, as a matter of fact.

Not everybody has a problem with bundling, per se. I do not think it is appropriate to artificially define where an OS ends and where applications begin. Historically, there have been many operating systems far less powerful than Linux or the NT kernel, so it would be rather silly to set a hard limit on where an OS must end.

What was the problem? Their variable pricing. Since the cost of Microsoft Windows is both variable and unavoidable for OEMs, this allows Microsoft to exert extraordinary pressure on them to ban things like pre-installing Netscape. There was very few reasons otherwise for an OEM to not pre-install Netscape, which was free anyway. This is also why simply requiring Microsoft to sell Windows at the same price (as determined by Microsoft) would already greatly reduce the undue influence they have over OEMs.

Software, especially popular software, all tend to grow. If you write Photoshop filters for a living, be prepared that Adobe may one day ship a similar one by default. This isn't really a new thing. More interestingly, consider Linux. Linux may have killed any number of small operating systems for various niches, and if its advocates are to be believed, it may one day kill off Microsoft Windows. Can Microsoft assert some moral right to keep selling Windows, rather than "find a new gig"?

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the cost of Microsoft Windows is both variable and unavoidable for OEMs, this allows Microsoft to exert extraordinary pressure on them to ban things like pre-installing Netscape.

Microsoft offer pricing incentives to OEMs. They do not have to take advantage of these incentives, they choose to. More to the point, before Microsoft gained enough market share to be considered a monopoly, these companies chose to. They are just as much to blame for the situation as Microsoft.

No company has the right to succeed any more than any person does. You keep up or die, end of story. I was commenting about the double standard around here, The bundled apps was just an example to make that point.

Re:why?

[Scudsucker]

They do not have to take advantage of these incentives, they choose to.

Sure, they can choose not to, but that would mean they'd go out of business. If Dell tells Microsoft where to go, Microsoft can charge them more for Windows. How then is Dell supposed to compete with HP and Gateway if their computers suddenly cost $100 more than one from its rivals with the same specs? So no, they *don't* have a choice if they want to stay in business, which is why MS is a monopoly.

I was commenting about the double standard around here, The bundled apps was just an example to make that point.

Apple does what they want with their own systems. Microsoft tells other companies what to do with their systems, a la Netscape. See the difference?

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's try this scenerio. Microsoft makes a hardware platform. They raise the price of Windows to all the present manufacturers, while selling the hardware at or below cost, driving them out of business. Now it is ok for them to bundle whatever apps they want, because they are doing what they want with their systems, not telling others what to do with their systems.

Or we can look at it this way. Because Apple killed off the clones years ago, it's ok for them to kill off software compnies now.

Re:why?

[GlassHeart]

Microsoft makes a hardware platform. They raise the price of Windows to all the present manufacturers, while selling the hardware at or below cost, driving them out of business. Now it is ok for them to bundle whatever apps they want [?]

No, this would be using its monopoly in operating systems to not only enter a new market, but to throttle that market in its favor. This would be a clear violation of anti-trust laws.

Apple is not a monopoly. People have to choose to use Apple products, and can just as easily choose not to.

Note that this is a discussion of the legal aspects of the issue, not anything concerning morality or ethics.

Re:why?

[GlassHeart]

Microsoft offer pricing incentives to OEMs. They do not have to take advantage of these incentives, they choose to.

You use a most interesting definition of the word "choose".

Yes, Dell can certainly "choose" to sell only Linux PCs, and bundle Netscape as much as they want. However, they are likely to lose most of their market share, if not go out of business entirely. If I'm pointing a gun at you, you can certainly "choose" to disobey me. The rest of the world generally uses a more relevant definition for the word, so no, the OEMs have no choice but to play nice with Microsoft to get the lowest possible price for Windows.

I was commenting about the double standard around here

The double standards are enshrined in law. It's very clear that a normal company can do many things that a monopoly cannot do.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm am obviously failing to make my point. It has been said my communication skills suck, I guess that is the case.

Re:why?

[GlassHeart]

I'm am obviously failing to make my point.

No, I think you made your point pretty clearly, which is that companies should be judged by their actions regardless of whether they are a monopoly or not. This is a moral question, to which I offer no argument one way or the other.

I'm merely pointing out that the legal question is different. It does matter a great deal whether or not you are a monopoly. This is because a monopoly is really a singularity in market economy, because their phenomenal success in the market has made them immune from competition. This requires the government to rein in its actions, to protect its potential competitors, the society at large, and sometimes the monopoly from itself.

The PC market remains vibrant even when Apple killed off Mac clones. It would not be nearly the same if Microsoft enters the market unimpeded, and uses Windows to kill off all the other PC makers. Same action, very different results on the market and society.

Re:why?

[Scudsucker]

Microsoft makes a hardware platform. They raise the price of Windows to all the present manufacturers, while selling the hardware at or below cost, driving them out of business.

If there were other viable consumer operating systems for x86, this would be fine, but Be is gone and Linux has a long way to go. Be kept trying to have some OEM's ship BeOS with their computers, but were always denied because the way Microsoft licensed Windows. MS would give out discounts if *all* the computers you shipped had some version of Windows installed on it, and in the cut throat PC business you *had* to have those discounts to compete.

Or we can look at it this way. Because Apple killed off the clones years ago, it's ok for them to kill off software compnies now.

Its not that Apple is trying to stomp on small software developers, but these developers need to be realistic and not depend on a nitch in another company that they don't have control over. Cassidy & Green's greatest software product was arguably Confict Catcher, but they shouldn't depend on the flaws in somebody elses operating system for their own revenue. They had plenty of advance warning that OS X was comming, but either they couldn't or wouldn't plan for it.

Did Apple kill them? I don't think so:

[Andre Breton]

Just as Apple innovated itself out of a crisis they could have come up with stuff that still is badly needed on the Mac.

Like: Even with FfmpegX, OSEX, 42 and the MissingWhateverToolsStuff the whole DVD-ripping-DivX-VCD-area on the Mac still needs some professional software company to engage in that field. This thing is the only I envy Windows-PC users for. They have some good easy to use and fast apps.

Re:Did Apple kill them? I don't think so:

[Elderly Isaac]

Peep DVD2OneX.

Re:Did Apple kill them? I don't think so:

[gamgee5273]

I would respond by making a statement about dada, Mr. Breton, but it would be silly to make a statement about dada. ;)

Anyhow, I agree with you except that DivX isn't good example. It's just not something that I see standing the test of time. I know OS X users who are heavily into burning VCDs from DivX, but they are ones with more Unix experience and are willing to mess around in dark areas more than some (like you and, admittedly, me). But there is still voodoo and mystery surrounding it, and I don't know if a pro package would make things better, or make them worse.

C&G might have looked at DivX or somesuch but, let's be honest: would you be willing to put your company on the line by wading into a grey legal area? Has C&G really done anything slightly risky other than SoundJam (which was, really, rather tame)?

No, Apple didn't kill them. But, where would they head without a killer app of some sort once SoundJam was gone?

sigh

All this talk makes me realize that I miss SoundJam.

But not Conflict Catcher. ;)

Re:Did Apple kill them? I don't think so:

[Andre Breton]

Peep Only makes copies to DVD-R, no options to do DivXs and VCDs/SVCDs/CVDs/bla...

Re:Did Apple kill them? I don't think so:

[Andre Breton]

"except that DivX isn't good example. It's just not something that I see standing the test of time."

Hehe, I see your point, but note that DVD player makers are starting to support some DivX formats (I say "starting" because it seems to not working that perfectly well). And then some stuff only comes as DivX (or Xvid or whatever) and I want to watch it. Two years ago that was really a problem on my old slow iMac. PC users laughed at me and rightly so.

"[...] know OS X users who are heavily into burning VCDs from DivX, but they are ones with more Unix experience and are willing to mess around in dark areas [...]"

But only because there is no software with a Look-Mom-No-Brains-approach like iTunes or so.

"would you be willing to put your company on the line by wading into a grey legal area?"

Yeah, well, obviously dozens of Windows Software producers do that and not only small or unimportant ones?!

Re:Did Apple kill them? I don't think so:

[gamgee5273]

Let me rephrase that: would you put a company who's finances were in C&G's shape into a grey legal area?

If you run a larger software house, maybe you can handle a lawsuit (if it occurs), but C&G was just too small to handle such a risky proposition.

I've not looked at their finances, but I hope that they're treating their employees better than a company forced into bankruptcy from a lawsuit.

It's all a question of politics and cash...I can't blame C&G for playing it safe, even though I would have loved to see another product like SoundJam.

Why? Because of OSX

[ihatewinXP]

Honestly before I saw this article I had not thought about them in years. Aside from the story of SoundJam C&G (which was really OS9) C&G have been absolutely quiet on the OSX front since its release.

OSX killed Extension Manager by way of UNIX, SoundJam by way of buyout, and Spellchecker with built in Cocoa services. All three, but _especially_ extension manager, were near necessities when we were dealing with an extension plauged, mp3 starved, clusterfuck of a system.

So to answer your question: a resounding "yes." OSX killed Cassidy & Greene along with C&G's innability to innovate and capitalize on a system change that they saw coming _years_ in advance (remember Rhapsody? they do).

Their Extension Manager was priceless in my converting to MacOS from Windows, and it is still one of the few applications I have ever paid for.

Re:Why? Because of OSX

[api]

"OSX killed Extension Manager by way of UNIX, SoundJam by way of buyout, and Spellchecker with built in Cocoa services."

Not so fast. C&G SpellCatcher, formerly Thunder 7 is an excellent, unique app that Cocoa services fail to replace because so few applications use Cocoa services. In-line red-squiggle spell checking has changed some things but does little for spell checking the text box I am writing into right now. SpellCatcher captures all text input and can log it if you want to snoop/document. What killed it in part was the unfortunate amount of time it required to port to OS X. Fortunately, the C&G site points to another company that has picked it up.

troll/ To say that Cocoa services replaced SpellCatcher is to say that Spring-loaded folders replaced PopUpFolder, for those who remember it. /troll

Re:Why? Because of OSX

[PCM2]

In-line red-squiggle spell checking has changed some things but does little for spell checking the text box I am writing into right now.

I guess it's time for you to switch to Safari. In Apple's browser, all you have to do is right click on the text box and select "Check Spelling As You Type."

FYI

[Dephex Twin]

C&G made Conflict Catcher, which was a beefed up extension manager. "Extension Manager" per se was the default manager included in the Mac OS.

Re:FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

Conflict Catcher actually predates Extension Manager.

i have to wonder

[burns210]

if apple is shooting itself with the many free programs that come bundled with macos X... The whole sherlock vs. watson thing, where apple made a product VERY similar to a competing program, or their new font management system in Jaguar, which someone said "companies made a living off of", and now that business is gone, integrated into the macos. Jaguar is awesome, and the software that comes with it is top notch, but when do you draw the line between building software in house, and relying on developers to write software for you?

Re:i have to wonder

[berniecase]

That's a good question to ask. I think it has something to do with the market saturation that Apple has. It leaves a lot of people wondering why Apple would want to possibly alienate developers considering how small its share of the market is.

Microsoft has frequently added more and more programs to its arsenal, and has its market share dropped? Nope. Perhaps Apple thinks the same will be true of their efforts. I can only hope so. I see more and more people coming over to the Mac platform, from Windows. This can only be a Good Thing(TM) for Apple.

Re:i have to wonder

[faust2097]

their new font management system in Jaguar, which someone said "companies made a living off of", and now that business is gone, integrated into the macos

as much as I liked C&G, I am not a fan of Extensis. Their updates were continuously late, often buggy and their support was spotty at best. Entire companies used to have to wait months for OS upgrades because they were waiting for new versons of Suitcase. They've gotten their act more together recently but their acquisition of Diamondsoft just seems anticompetitive to me. Besides, Apple hasn't improved their font management at all since they added the font folder back in OS 8 (or was it 9?), it was due for an overhaul.

Now I just need to save up for OpenType fonts to replace my old Type 1s.

Re:i have to wonder

[scrotch]

I see what you're saying. The Watson thing was kind of sketchy, but I think the new system font management is long over due. Previously, you bought a Mac and then really Had to buy other software to get it to do work it's supposed to do out of the box. It was (is) the graphic design computer - you have to be able to work with gobs of fonts. I've got 3 CDs full of fonts, you simply can't just load 'em all up and expect OS 9 to live.

Conflict Catcher was the same way. It was necessary, but shouldn't have been. Hopefully Tech Tool and Disk Warrior (useful as they are now) will go the same way. Hopefully those developers saved enough money to get them through. And hopefully they will be able to put their skills to work on software that does something other than fix a system that should take care of itself.

Re:i have to wonder

[Hes Nikke]

Apple hasn't improved their font management at all since they added the font folder back in OS 8 (or was it 9?), it was due for an overhaul.
it was System 7.0 (or maybe 7.1) and i agree the OS X system needed an overhaul, but the classic system worked just fine.

Re:i have to wonder

[zonker]

last i heard (sketchy memory though, so beware) was that they bought the source to watson and ran with it. when they made a better watson than watson, the original crew got upset... they signed the contract. they knew what they were getting into.

Re:i have to wonder

[Andre Breton]

"[...] their new font management system in Jaguar, which someone said "companies made a living off of", and now that business is gone, integrated into the macos."

The existing font managing tools are so terrible, terrible, terrible I just can't believe it. No way to use them effectivly. I just pray that Apple got it right and that it will work on my old slow Mac. I have a 400 Mhz G3 with 576 MB RAM and plenty of free diskspace, but all solutions choked on my ~5000 fonts. I don't want to use them all at once, just some help to handle them. Oh it's so terrible, terrible... If FontBook (what has Thorsten Lemke to say about the name anyway?) nails it, I'll fly to Cupertino and clean Steve's Mac (Or does he still have that NextStep PC?).

Re:i have to wonder

[Phroggy]

Besides, Apple hasn't improved their font management at all since they added the font folder back in OS 8 (or was it 9?), it was due for an overhaul.

It was 7.1.

Prior to System 7.0, fonts were resources inside the System suitcase which could only be managed via applications like Font/DA Mover, or ResEdit and similar. In 7.0, the System suitcase could be opened in the Finder, which showed the fonts, sounds and keyboard layouts it contained. Each of these could be dragged out of the System suitcase into a font or sound suitcase, or into a folder to create a stand-alone file. Useless trivia: dragging items into or out of a suitcase is the only time you'll see a "Move" progress window in the classic Mac OS Finder.

System 7.1 introduced the Fonts folder, using an interesting hack: all resources in font suitcases or stand-alone font files (new in 7.0) in the Fonts folder were treated as if they were part of the System file itself; these resources were available to all applications. As I recall, the Finder would not allow fonts to be removed from the Fonts folder while applications other than the Finder were running, and new fonts were only available to applications launched after the new fonts were added. Naturally, fonts could no longer be added to the System suitcase.

Only slightly less useless trivia: notice I said ALL resources in font files and font suitcases in the Fonts folder would be used - not just fonts. When I used System 7.1.2 (the first version of the Mac OS to support the PowerPC, mostly via an m68k emulator), I was playing around with ResEdit and discovered how to make color versions of the many black-and-white icons used throughout the system without actually removing or modifying the original icons; I put the color icons into a font suitcase which you can download here if you're feeling so inclined. Simply drop it into the Fonts folder, and you'll have color icons!

Wow. This is all truly worthless. I should be ashamed of myself. Are there any other serious Mac geeks out there who actually remember all of this stuff? Speak up, so that we may all be pitied together.

It occurs to me that when PC users said Macs were toys for computer-illiterate people and couldn't be customized like PCs could, this is the sort of stuff they never imagined, and the reason we smugly laughed at them. Apple's GUI is so nice that people often don't realize there's anything under the hood.

Re:i have to wonder

[tenton]

I remember these days. Shoving fonts in font suitcases to get around the 128 font limit (being too lazy/poor/whatever to buy a font manager). But we were glad that we didn't need to restart the computer to get the fonts to be recognized.

We didn't have no stinkin' Extensions Manager...that showed up in System 7.5 (it was available separately before then, it wasn't an Apple product). We either ponied up for Conflict Catcher (which is still the better Extensions Manager), or we just move stuff manually out of the Extensions folder (or Control Panels folder).

I remember laughing at Windows at the time...it was pre-95 and it wasn't even in the same class compared to System 7 (not that 95 was in the same class...it wasn't).

Re:i have to wonder

[jmenezes]

Wow.
I am not alone.
yes, ResEdit and making simple changes like these were what made the Mac a great learning experience to me, allowing me to get whatever work i needed done, yet also allowing me to play around with the system when i felt so inclined.
Unlike dealing with PCs of the time, which were generally the other way around...play with it go get things to work, and get some work done if the computer felt so inclined....
=/

Re:i have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Jaguar is awesome, and the software that comes with it is top notch, but when do you draw the line between building software in house, and relying on developers to write software for you?

When the developers drop the fucking ball.

Why do we have, for example, fax built in to Panther? Because third-party fax solutions sucked out loud. Why do we have FontBook? Because Suitcase sucked out loud. Why do we have iTunes? Because nobody else built anything like it. Why do we have Sherlock? Because Watson sucked... out... loud.

Re:i have to wonder

[jpkunst]

About those font resources, do you remember that it was also possible to put fonts in applications instead of the system file, using Font/DA mover? Those fonts would be only accessible to the patched application itself, of course. If I remember correctly you could still do this in System 7.

JP

Re:i have to wonder

[Phroggy]

About those font resources, do you remember that it was also possible to put fonts in applications instead of the system file, using Font/DA mover? Those fonts would be only accessible to the patched application itself, of course. If I remember correctly you could still do this in System 7.

You can do it with ResEdit; I wasn't aware that Font/DA Mover would let you copy a font into an application, but perhaps so. Actually, you can put font resources into a document that will be opened by the application - for example, put a font in a SimpleText document, use that font within the document, send it to someone who doesn't have that font installed, and the font will work because the font is available to SimpleText as long as that document is open. And yes, this works in all versions of classic Mac OS as far as I know.

By the way, speaking of fonts, four bitmapped fonts are stored in the ROM and will always be available even if you remove all fonts from your system: Chicago 12, Geneva 9, Geneva 12 and Monaco 9.

Thank You - I meant Conflict Catcher but.......

[Anonymous Coward]

I was not singing the praises of the apple extension manager - I did mean Conflict Catcher (version 8 when I started ;) but for some odd reason.......

dealings with C&G

[presearch]

We contacted them when we were looking for a publisher.
They wanted 85%, wanted to delay payments to us for up to 180 days,
if they wanted new "features" either we had to implement them or
they would pay to have it done and -we- would have the cost deducted
from royalties. We said no thanks.

When talking to them, the SoundJam/iTunes thing happened a few months earlier
and I asked the guy about it. He said that Apple approached them,
with a fixed price. They advised them to take it, or get buried by an Apple product.
He wouldn't say how much they got, but it wasn't a huge number, plus they had
to relinquish the programmers as part of the deal. I like Apple, and I like iTunes
and what it's become, but Apple sort of rolled over them and they never recovered.

Re:dealings with C&G

[PCM2]

I like Apple, and I like iTunes and what it's become, but Apple sort of rolled over them and they never recovered.

Based on your other comments, it sounds like it couldn't have happened to nicer guys. Or more fair-dealing businessmen.

Re:dealings with C&G

[Anonymous Coward]

I had the unfortunate luck to work for them in their summer intern program. Learned a lot about software companies like theirs that has made me steer clear of them ever since.

Re:dealings with C&G

[Slurpee]

He said that Apple approached them,
with a fixed price. They advised them to take it, or get buried by an Apple product.
He wouldn't say how much they got, but it wasn't a huge number, plus they had
to relinquish the programmers as part of the deal. I like Apple, and I like iTunes
and what it's become, but Apple sort of rolled over them and they never recovered

From other sources, including an interview with C&G Vice President Bonnie Mitchel in the Wall Street Journal, it sounds as if you are badly mistaken.

C&G was never rolled by Apple. Apple never stole any of their developers. Apple did not threaten to release a product that would kill C&G.

C&G has only ever sold and marketed products that other people have made (otherwise known as publishing). They do not make or produce software themselves. If you create a nice product, they will sell it for you (for a cut of course). They don't own that product, just as a games publisher does not own the games they publish.

In this case the guy who developed SJ decided to accept a job at Apple. He *never* worked for SJ, but once had a partnership with them to sell his product.

It sounds like Apple did a nice thing and paid C&G for the rights to market/sell SJ. They could have gotton the guy to build iTunes himself. C&G only stopped selling the product after the developer asked them to. This was a decision by the *developer* and it sounds like C&G did not have a leg to stand on. It was *not* their product, but the developers. (I make the assumption that the developer fulfilled all contractual arrangements with C&G)

Don't blame Apple because a developer decided to take his software to someone who could make it go really really far (which Apple has done!).

Re:dealings with C&G

[presearch]

Could be that the WSJ article was PR spin.
I had thought that SoundJam being bought by Apple would
have been a windfall. I just wrote what the guy told me.

HyperSpell

[kuwan]

Not so fast. C&G SpellCatcher, formerly Thunder 7 is an excellent, unique app that Cocoa services fail to replace because so few applications use Cocoa services.

That's what HyperSpell is for. It lets you access OS X's spellchecker from any application, and it's free.

--
This post checked with HyperSpell

I Agree

[ihatewinXP]

Maybe if we went back in time and told C&G that cocoa services would be shit and that the promise of system wide spell checking would still be a pipe dream 3 years later then they would have developed _something_ for the OSX arena. In my eyes the promise of system wide spell checking through built in cocoa services (at that point called YellowBox ;) probably had a very big influence on their decision to not update SpellCatcher.

But that promise is eeking its way into existence. Using OmniWeb there would be little squiggles all through this text box with 'right-click corrections' to boot.

Sad but...

[coolmacdude]

C&G were giants on OS 9. They had many award winning products some of which I used. However, I haven't heard anything about them in the last few years. Aside from Soundjam becoming iTunes, they haven't really had one breakout product since the transition to OS X. I had thought they just dissolved a while ago since I had not heard of them in so long. Sad to see them go, but they really didn't have much invested in the X software arena.

Glider Pro...

[PowerMacG4]

I still have my Glider Pro CD
Brings back memories
/me cries

oh nooooo

[ivre]

who will catch all my conflicts now :'-(

My summer job at C&G

[superflippy]

I worked for Casady & Greene one summer during college. I typed product registration info into the database, answered phones, beta tested, stuck labels on disks (OK, that should date me), whatever needed to be done. Working there was great - everyone really was like family, and the programmers' dedication to their craft was inspiring. I was always amazed that software created in a little storefront next to the pizza parlor in my neighborhood was so globally popular (my friends in college played Crystal Quest and Glider).

Some random memories of C&G:
- Seeing my first IBM computer with a full-color monitor and GUI. The PC tech support guy was amused that I thought all IBM's had green screens.
- Beta testing a paint program that simulated natural media. It was at least as good as Aldus SuperPaint, the Mac favorite at the time, but for some reason I never heard of it again.
- The intraoffice instant messaging system that one of the programmers built. Everyone spent so much time sending messages to each other, the boss shut it down after just a few days.

Adios

[XnetZERO]

I could never understand why Conflict Catcher was so popular. In fact, the first thing I'd do when troubleshooting the Classic Mac OS was remove CC if it was installed. IMHO, it caused more problems than it solved and many times left your system crippled. Apple's extension manager made troubleshooting extension and control panel conflicts a breeze...

Re:Adios

[mark-ss]

I have to agree. A colleague just spent a day and half trying to figure out why he was getting random freezes. He was using Conflict Catcher (against my advice), and everytime he ran it, it told him a different extension to pull out. .....then he found out the random and intermittent freezes (no cursor movement) were caused by a failing mouse (short in the cord)! I've "forbidden" him to use CC again.

open source, .mac, osx

[Kerouassady]

All these things were the downfall of Casady and Greene. We still use Spell Catcher X on our photographers' laptops because Adobe hasn't put a spell check into the File Info window and our photographers are the kind that need a spell check on their captions. There was a place they filled a gap. Spell Catcher X is really a powerful tool and far beyond just a spell checker. That is an example of how to add value to a software that's previous functionality has been subsumed by the growth of the OS.

I always waited for Conflict Catcher to do the same. There was room for it. It would have need to be completely rewritten, but the basic concept is sound (looking for conflicts). If they'd had found a way to do a Clean-Install System/User Merge under OS 10, CC would have easily regained its throne.

I don't think C&G had the reources or maybe even the dedication to make the kind of investment leap to really make their tools valuable for OS 10 users. Between the explosion of freeware apps and open source projects, and cheap hosting on .Mac or free from Sourceforge, the competition just exploded. That's why, as an independent publisher or developer, you really have to inovate if you still want to make a living off shareware.

They were always more a publisher than developer, so and with resources like Sourceforge and .Mac, and the popularity of sites like Versiontracker and MacUpdate, the necessity of a developer needing a publisher has drastically reduced.

At least most of their developers have taken their software with them.

Re:open source, .mac, osx

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have need to be completely rewritten, but the basic concept is sound (looking for conflicts).

Mac OS X does not have conflicts. It's not possible for Mac OS X to have a conflict, Debbie.

speaking of Glider

[zephc]

if anyone still has a Newton 2K or 2001 and wants to play Glider, a friend of mine ported it, its available here. Send him some $$ if u get it, he's getting married soon and u know how that goes :)

Re:speaking of Glider

[bobrk]

Glider is really cool, but what is the name of the song that plays in the background? I can't find a reference to it anywhere. And just when I thought it was just "The Glider Song", one of my kid's toys plays it, too.

Conflict catcher's idiosyncrasies

[GPS Pilot]

Did you ever get the sense that Conflict Catcher was causing crashes? Or did you ever do a conflict test, and go through umpteen restarts, and it seemed like you were definitively and reproducibly narrowing down the cause of the crash to one culprit, but after the very last restart of the test, when everything had been disabled except the last suspect, you didn't get the crash/non-crash that you were expecting -- rendering the whole test worthless?

One trick I did with CC was a "reverse psychology" test: rather than using CC to determine which combination of extensions caused a crash, I would use it to determine which combination of extensions enabled a feature or a performance boost. But this type of test also often failed for the reasons mentioned above.

Automated conflict testing was a great concept that Conflict Catcher, in theory, should have done very well...

Re:Conflict catcher's idiosyncrasies

[yroJJory]

Did you ever get the sense that Conflict Catcher was causing crashes?

Kinda like CrashGuard caused most of 'em?

Mission: Thunderbolt

[Figz]

Mission: Thunderbolt was/is a great game. I fired up Classic yesterday to play it again, for old-times sake. But I realized, I only have version 1.0. Does anyone know where I can get version 1.0.6? Share your memories about Mission: Thunderbolt here. I'll never forget the Icky Lumps, Giant Tentacular Horrors, Two-Headed Radioactive Swamp Creatures, Snagglepusses, Floating Eyes, Needlenoses, Bug-Eyed Monsters, Many-Armed Things......

Re:Mission: Thunderbolt

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh...I thought i was the only one. I've still got Mission Thunderbolt on my Classic partition too. I even did up my own decoder sheet since I was always misplaceing that pink sheet. After a while I memeorized it. Damn I'm a nerd. Anyone play the sequel, Mission Firestorm?

Possible last sale?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any place where I can buy a copy of Glider Pro X? I played Glider 4 long time ago and it's the reason I tried to get a Mac while I was still in middle school.

Re:Conflict Catcher

[tgibbs]

I don't think I ever saw a problem that was due to Conflict Catcher itself. Its automated search for extension conflicts was very effective, while doing this manually with Apple's Extensions Manager was a big chore. But of course, you had to have enough sense to know that the results were meaningless if your problem was not actually due to an extension conflict. And 3-way conflicts were still really difficult.

Re:Crystal Quest -- SCREENSHOTS

[blakespot]

Crystal Quest. Gaming at its most simple and purest form. Great stuff. It was available for many platforms other than the Mac as well. Here's some links...

- B&W Mac title screen
- Screenshot (Apple IIgs version)
- Screenshot (PalmOS version - color)
- Screenshot (PalmOS version - B&W)
- Screenshot (GameBoy version)
- Pic of floppy ("Green, Inc.")
- Box it came in (Apple IIgs version)
- Game promo pamphlet (Apple IIgs version)
- Patrick Buckland photo (author)
- Amiga screenshot of Diamond Thief, a Crystal Quest clone

blakespot

Keep It Simple Spreadsheet

[dpbsmith]

Anyone remember "K.I.S.S." (Keep It Simple Spreadsheet?) A failure, to be sure, but a noble one. Spreadsheets got completely ossified around, oh, 1992 or so. Various innovative ideas were tried (MUSE, Javelin, oh heck what was the NeXTstep-based one? Improv. Even Wingz had some interesting ideas in it).

K.I.S.S. had a really bad name. I bought it at MacWorld. I'm just geeky enough to be intimidated by attractive women ten years younger than me, so I couldn't bring myself to say something like "I want a KISS" or anything like that. It took about twenty seconds of stammering and pointing to convey my meaning. "Uh, the um spreadsheet with the, acronym, kay, eye, ess, ess, back there..."

And the product was interesting--but it WASN'T a spreadsheet. And it wasn't easy to use.

But, darn it all, it was so nice to see people trying to apply some fresh thinking.

Re:Keep It Simple Spreadsheet

[Typoboy]

Yeah, I remember that! It used flowcharts instead of @FORMULAS(). The developer (an aquaintance) showed it at macworld and I took a demo home. (didn't buy it)

Seemed like a good idea at the time, but I didn't have much use for spreadsheets then.. Nowadays, I think the 'helper' features in excel probably make things something near easy enough, i.e. you can press a single button to sum a row.

All of those spreadsheets you mention have interesting features. There's so little innovation these days. When I think of the things I worked on, or saw demoed, or even purchased that either never saw the light of day or faded under the crush of 'good enough' software from MS or others... it makes me sad.

Why did I purchase Office X ? Because it's good enough. It's stable. It reads and writes the files I need to work with. I'd love to switch to open solutions.. but for example, openoffice is still X11 based.

It's sad to see old timers go..