SGI was different, first just the hardware cost a small fortune and you pretty much had to get it all from a reseller. Not to mention there were hardware dependencies for licenses.
Sure MAYBE it was pirated, but I never saw nor heard of it at the time. Eric Freelance 3D and VFX animator http://vimeopro.com/user7979713/3d-work On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Sven Constable <[email protected]> wrote: > and same was with softimage|creative environment on SGI platforms? (Just for > clarification, I jumped into the business in 1999. Even doing some 3D since > the early 90s and knowing some "scenes" back then...I have no insights of > the SGI-warez sector, if any)... > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raffaele > Fragapane > Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 5:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: OT: Yost Group - related to the Naiad/SIGGRAPH discussion > > > > Every and any version of any software has been pirated, not every software > was traded in plain sight by every other person in a classroom though. > You could get a pirated MAX with the splash screen changed with a magazine > at one point. > Same for autoCAD. > > Different years though. piracy wasn't even illegal in most of continental > Europe at the end of the nineties, not yet. > > On 4 Aug 2013 13:08, "Sven Constable" <[email protected]> wrote: > > A bit offtopic:.how about the situation with pirated soft versions around > that time? Even softimage was mainly in SGI area that time, I remember > cracked versions of softimage later on NT. Where there piracy in the earlier > years? In softimage-SGI or pre-internet times? I know about pirated copies > in other businessin the late 80s but just wondering how this was with > softimage back then... > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raffaele > Fragapane > Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 3:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT: Yost Group - related to the Naiad/SIGGRAPH discussion > > > > I remember the same outrage, it was in some magazines and some BBs, but win > 95 was Summer 95, and MAX 1 was announced, not even released I believe, at > SIGGRAPH 95. Max 1.1 was what, a full year later? And it was 1.2 that was > really the big swing shot. > > 3DS R4 was the pre-win95 one (a release I remember for inverse kinematics > and people clamouring now 3ds4dos was as good as Softimage|3D for animation > :) ). > > > > I also have vague memories of people saying 1.0 cracked run on 95, while the > non cracked version didn't, and people being able to tell the pirate-y kids > apart by when they were saying they were running it on 95. Didn't even try > MAX back then, I think I tried it at v2, and then again at v4, but it was > never for me. > > > > Regardless, release time could not have been more than a month or two apart > from win 95 either way :) > > Then you also have all the rumors of 95SP1 breaking the cracks and > surprisingly the following minor release of MAX being crackable on SP1 > again, and everybody using it as proof that the whole cracked MAX scene was > secretly run from inside Kinetix as a promotional move. Whether there's ever > been any truth to it, I have absolutely not the faintest clue. > > > > Ahhh, good times... well, no, not really :p > > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Max 1.0 was released before Windows 95.. I remember the user base > rage a couple of years earlier when they announced they would be > developing the next gen software exclusivly for NT, though now I > cannot figure out where I would have known about that; perhaps usenet > or bbs. > > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Raffaele Fragapane > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Actually Max ran on windows 95 and then 98 as well though it wasn't meant >> to >> I guess, unlike a lot of other software at the time, which was a huge part >> of why it was popular (alongside the whole piracy thing). >> For that alone it was for quite a while relegated as a toy app in people's >> minds. That and the fact it WAS the crashiest DCC app ever to disgrace the >> hard drives of a million users. >> >> The hardware was not a problem for anybody that I remember of, it wasn't >> that bad actually. I remember those days extremely well as they more or >> less >> line up with when I was starting to make a living (and was considering >> buying MAX actually, ended up buying LW). >> I don't remember the HW being a problem at all, if anything MAX was more >> forgiving than a lot of other apps especially on the video card front. >> >> As for Stefan's post I posted it because of its existence, because of the >> fact people like him are coming out of the woodwork has some (not a lot >> maybe) significance. Not because he's right across the line :) >> >> His representation of MAX heroically democratizing 3D Software alone is >> completely rose tinted and forgetful in example. MAX came in trying to >> shoulder Lightwave away in that sector, which had already been doing the >> good work of democratizing since Amiga days. >> 3DS for dos was possibly more significant in those regards. >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau <[email protected]> >> wrote: > >>> Max 1 and 2 must have been a pretty tough time, given that it's a new >>> app that didn't work with any of the DOS plug-ins, and .. was written >>> for Windows NT, which nobody wanted to use or had the hardware for. (8 >>> megs of RAM, are you crazy?) This was a time when people were still a >>> couple years away from giving up hacking their config.sys and >>> autoexec.bat to tweak the 640k DOS memory. Of course XSI had it owns >>> OS choice issues and is still trailing the old SI|3D in animation >>> performance as well. Still, being the vastly popular plug-in platform >>> that it is, Max is the app we all wish we could have made. > > > > > > -- > Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and > let them flee like the dogs they are!
