Talk:Apple II/Archive 1

Apple II Plus

The entry for the Apple II family incorrectly states that the Apple II Plus "...used newer chips that reduced the overall component count. It also included the Applesoft BASIC programming language..."

In fact, the Apple II Plus was the current Apple II main board with the Applesoft ROMs installed.

It was not until the Apple //e that functions on the main board were combined into a small number of LSI parts.

-Michael Mahon (mjmahon@aol.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.252.130 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 September 2003

How to do the II?

Uh, in the main article, shouldn't some or all of the references be Apple ][ (close-square-bracket, open-square-bracket), not Apple II (uppercase I, uppercase I?) It is possible that the very latest models such as the IIgs may have used the letter I, but certainly the earlier ones used the idiosyncratic two-bracket designation (just the the Apple /// used three slashes). Dpbsmith 23:22, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this is just a image thing - a common approximation of the style of printing II to removing half the serifs off the top of the letters? Dysprosia 23:35, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I added a short paragraph in the intro about this. It seems to have been a gimmick to use names that looked "modern" by use of punctuation characters, which at the time looked "computerish", so a number of renditions were used. The IIe I remember using was written ][e, and the IIc was written //c. --Delirium 11:26, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

In the intro note about typographical styles of the 'II', it states that 'IIgs' was written as it appears in the text. The 'official' way to write it was to use small caps for the 'gs'. --142.176.0.36

This has been discussed before. It was represented in a variety of ways. Sometimes it was a small caps "GS," but sometimes it was simply "gs." Next time, sign your post (~~~ or ~~~~). — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:11, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

The IIgs was also released in a 'Woz' limited edition early in its history (my family had one) but I don't remember if the system was different than the regular release in any way. Korvac 21:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first 50,000 Apple IIGS's shipped with the "Woz" signature case (those produced in 1986 and early/mid 1987). They are 100% identical to plain case machines apart from the extra printing on the lid of the case. One interesting thing is if you filled out the registeration card and mailed it in you'd receive back a (copied) letter from Wozinak and a certificate of authenticity. Contrary to what people on eBay might say, none of these were hand-written signatures (it was machine printed) and they are not particulary rare. The authenticity papers are likely to be harder to find these days however.--Apple2gs 04:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information! Korvac 18:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title "Apple II family (8-bit)" isn't quite right since we are including the GS (and rightfully so)! Yes the GS only had an 8 bit Data bus, but the processor was 16 bit. I vote to remove the "(8-bit)" designation in the title, but wanted to get some thoughts. --PZ 06:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First production Apple II computers

When I was going to the College of San Mateo (CA, USA) I worked at a local computer store, Allied Computers. Chet Harris, the store owner, was trying to set up a chain like the Byte Shops and Computer Land.

One of our customers at Allied Computer was Bill Kelly. He was working for Regis McKenna Advertising on the Apple II introduction. He has a web page that talks about the early days at Apple Computer. He had worked on the Intel account and had a Intel SDK-80 evaluation board that he gave me in exchange for a power supply for his prototype Apple II board. (I still have that SDK-80 board with tiny BASIC.)

We sold Apple II main boards before the plastic case was ready. The boards were available around April 1977. Apple had difficulty with the plastic case. The early prototype (and production} units did not have the vent slots on the case.

Allied Computer was a distributor for Apple and Chet had tried to interest Mike Markala in investing in his enterprise but Mr. Markala was going with Apple. He got Mike Markala to come to his store to demo the Apple II computers. I sat at a table with him for several hours demonstrating the Apple II.

One Saturday Chet came in with the first two Apple II computers built, Serial number 1 and 2. (I think this was in June 1977.) Chet Harris had gone to the Apple factory in Cupertino to pick them up. He sold #1 to a friend of his and I took #2 home with me. I hooked it up to our color TV and loaded various games. I showed the system to friends for a week or so until the power supply died. It went back to Apple and I never saw that unit again.

In October 2005 I told this story to Bruce Damer and he knew where serial number 2 ended up. Bruce visited Jef Raskin (formerly with Apple Computer) in January 2005 and got to see Jef's Apple 1 and Apple II serial number 2.

June 5, 1977 is a ~~Saturday~~ Sunday. Where is the source for this date?

Michael Holley Apple II, Serial Number 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtpc6800 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 January 2006

The Wired article on the introduction of the Apple II on June 5, 1977 is wrong. It gives its source as apple2history.org but that site states it was Friday June 10, 1977 not Sunday June 5. The Computer History Museum also gives the June 10, 1977 date. I updated the page, here is the old reference

"June 5, 1977: From a Little Apple a Mighty Industry Grows". June 5, 2007. Archived from the original on May 28 2009. Retrieved June 2, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of changes made

I've done a good bit of editing on this over the past little while -- the Apple II is a much-loved part of my past, and the first (and only) computer I've ever known inside and out. Most of the changes comes from personal experience and knowledge. Of course, I have also polished up the prose a fair bit (I write for a living and was the editor of II Alive back in the day). Hope these changes are satisfactory. -- Jerry Kindall 04:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Europlus Apple II

There's no mention of the Europlus Apple II on this article, anyone like to add one? — Wackymacs 08:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK well I ended up doing it myself... — Wackymacs 14:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family or series?

"Apple II family" sounds like the The Addams Family or Henry VIII family. What is the rational? At first reading, I am of the opinion to move the article to "Apple II series". --Charles Gaudette 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC) PS. One thing to moving the article is the large number of articles and pages that link to this article. A redirect will handle most, but you never know until you look at each page. I still think it should be done, but let's factor this into any move. --Charles Gaudette 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support name change. Although you can have a "family" of computers..."series" is the most popular term, and sounds better. — Wackymacs 15:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think family was more appropriate, as multiple models were sold simultaneously, and they were meant to be a complimentary product line. But whatever. 69.125.110.223 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Computer used the term 'family' when referring to the Apple II models. 139.67.67.45 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Apple II Plus.jpg

I see that Image:Apple II Plus.jpg is up for deletion. I have a complete Apple II Plus computer (with joysticks and Hayes micromodem too). If we cannot find a image already in Commons, then I'll clean it up and photograph it. Please do place something else if it is available. I am not sure when this might get done by me — priorities, priorities, … --Charles Gaudette 21:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please photograph your II+, there isn't a picture on the Commons...and I couldn't find any anywhere else. Thanks! — Wackymacs 21:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found one on Flickr that was released into the Creative Commons license, so that is now in the article. However, its not that great, so you could still take your own if you wanted. — Wackymacs 08:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links cleanup

I think the "External Links" section needs to be cleaned-up - how many of those website links are actually necessary? We should just leave important links and take out redundant ones, if two or more links serve the same purpose (perhaps they describe the History, Functionality, etc... of the Apple II.) Does anyone feel that way too? –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 18:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some links that weren't needed. :-) — Wackymacs 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. Thank ya! =) –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some links, and I removed others. Overall, I tried to follow the Wikipedia External links guidelines:

web pages that existed to sell products were removed
web pages that added very little encyclopaedic information were removed
one web page no longer existed, and was removed

The links that I added are to sites that have much more additional information on the Apple II beyond the Wikipedia page. Many existing sites on this Wikipedia page, such as A2Central.com, also link to other Apple II sites not shown on this Wikipedia page, thus acting as a hub. 139.67.20.88 (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Development History

The article is looking pretty long right now, but I think the Apple II is worth the long page. What about adding a short development history section? A few sources I've found: http://apple2history.org/history/ah03.html (multiple pages) http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Apple_II_Mouse_Card.txt&topic=Apple%20II&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium (an interesting bit about the Apple II mouse card) Although there isn't nearly as many interesting and zany stories as the Macintosh development (with crazy Steve Jobs) there are some interesting tidbits. What does everyone else think?

Making the page overly long can be avoided by creating another article, such as Apple II development history, and providing a short synopsis (e.g. one paragraph) in the article and then linking to the main article. If the information is encyclopedic, then it should definately be written. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life after death?

I think the section header Life after death should be reworded to something else - the Apple II isn't really dead. Any ideas - I can't think of any right now. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 23:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apple II survey

I'm conducting a survey about the Apple II -- any former users are invited to participate!

Come to User:Applephreak/survey

Applephreak 18:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still used today?

The article claims that some Apple IIs are still in use in classrooms. I'm in no position to proof this, but question whether they are been 'used', or are used as artefacts for teaching history? Markb 09:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is "original research" and shouldn't be used, but at least one of the schools (very small, very rural) my wife worked as a teacher still used them for typing class. The rest of the Apple IIs, Quadras, etc. either were surplused out or in storage. One lonely Mac Classic had a new career as a doorstop at a different school. :^) 128.241.45.241 17:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used an Apple IIe as recently as 2001 in a physics class at Rutgers University. It controlled some sort of experiment, but I don't remember the details. The mechanical engineers used QBASIC to control their pie cutter assembly machine, and another engineering department (ceramics?) used Turbo Pascal for some sort of analysis. If you think that's old, Fortran 77 was just barely being phased out during my tenure (late 90s) for...Fortran 95, so all this old stuff is common in the offices of academic graybeards. One of my electrical engineering professors still used Tom's Window Manager for his daily work; for the uninitiated, think of TWM as an interface that rejected everything learned from Microsoft Windows, Apple Macintosh, and Xerox PARC. Whelkman 00:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pretty much any old computers still operational may be in use somewhere, classrooms or otherwise. I'd say it's not notable unless it's part of a curiculum somewhere, otherwise it's misleading and should be deleted. Rogdor (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCSD Memory Management on the Apple ][+

The UCSD P-system had a curious approach to memory management, which became even more curious on the Apple III.

Does anyone know what this quote refers to? There should probably be a link to something.

63.236.253.100 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Binary prefixes

Recently changes have been made to this article to use binary prefixes (KiB, MiB, kibibyte, mebibyte etc). The majority of reliable sources for this article do not use binary prefixes. If you have any thoughts/opinions then this specific topic is being discussed on the following talk page Manual of Style (dates and numbers) in the sections to do with "binary prefixes". Fnagaton 10:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) uses the binary units kilobyte (KB) and megabyte (MB) as defined in ANSI/IEEE Standard 1084-1986 and IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000. -- SWTPC6800 04:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! :) Fnag aton 08:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unitron - error !!

Hi, everyone !

The Unitron mentioned directs to a link of another company (another Unitron, not the Brazilian one).

Clarification.

My edit summary was to state that it has not passed the GA process, meaning that it cannot possibly have a legitimate A class ranking, as A class > GA class. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Apple2 BSOD.jpg

Image:Apple2 BSOD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Atlantic 86 game instructons

I need a copy of the instructons for the apple game NOrth Atlantic 86 to print, Where can I find or do you have a copy I can print please contact me @ sd1701e@aol.com. Thanks Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.99.180 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally not the place to ask. talk pages are for discussion about the corresponding article—not even about the subject of the article (except where it pertains to the development of the article).
überRegenbogen (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost too much love

Not intending to Apple-bash here, but some of the claims near the top of the article were heavy on the "revolutionary" rhetoric and loose on the facts. Claims as the first personal computer and first mass market don't match up with the actual history folks. There's lots that was great about the Apple II in the real facts without creating debatable embellishments. Rogdor (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Apple Model Navigation bar?

Just some thoughts on the new navigation bar (box section at bottom of page) that's been added to each Apple II article. I find it a bit confusing and rather unnecessary. You have 3 boxes but there are *6* categories listed within them--all I really noticed is the header at the top of each box, and assumed everything inside the box was part of that category. Few people are going to notice the labels below glancing through the articles.

And when you consider there were only six Apple II models released, why is it necessary to have a navigation bar to sort through them? (might be useful for the Macintosh, where there are probably over a hundred models in existence, not the Apple II). You should also keep in mind very few of the models had replacements or successors. For example, the Apple IIGS did not replace any Apple II model (the IIc and IIe still stuck around for years after) and nothing else came after it to succeed it. Ditto for the Apple IIe and Apple IIc Plus, nothing officially replaced them. This bar also auto-hides the list of Apple hardware from before 1988, which clearly shows this:

Apple I · Apple II family (II, II Plus, II Europlus, II J-Plus, IIe, IIc, IIGS, IIc Plus) · Apple III family (Apple III, III Plus)

That's the whole Apple II family, in chronological order. I can just click on the name to jump from model to model. In any case, it's a nice idea but it doesn't work (I tried tweaking it, but then realized it may get even more confusing). Thought I'd discuss it here first...Apple2gs (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Good idea to discuss it first, BTW. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it either, put it back the way it was. Remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.169.202.4 (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the navigation bar has now been extended to most (all?) Macintosh models. Works for those, but I still don't at all agree with it including the Apple II series, especially since it claims the Macintosh was logical and official replacement for some Apple II models (i.e. "Replacement" in the bar states the Macintosh LC was the successor to the Apple IIe and Apple IIc Plus??). Here's my suggestion: Rename the bar "Macintosh Model Navigation" and REMOVE it from the Apple II and Apple III articles. You can keep the Apple Lisa within the same context, after all it was not only a cousin of the Macintosh, it became the Macintosh XL and even ran Mac software with a special boot disk. The Apple III incidentally is a direct cousin of the Apple II, however it is NOT part of the Apple II family (again, as the bar states). Another issue I have with the navigation bar is it creates a myth about the evolution of the Apple II, that somehow it evolved into the Macintosh! (i.e. Apple 1->Macintosh LC, if you follow it's path). The fact of the matter is the Apple 1 evolved into the Apple II, then into the Apple II Plus (the Apple III and III Plus were a spin-off platform, which died prematurely), into the Apple IIe, the IIc and finally IIc plus. The Apple IIgs was another spin-off in a sense but managed to transparently and seemlessly integrate Apple II compatibility, making it an offical Apple II. Apple prematurely killed off the line, it certainly did NOT evolve into the Macintosh LC with IIe Card. Ironically, like the Apple III, it was a meant to migrate people off the Apple II platform, and also like it, kept Apple II and the host platform system very segregated.

So, I propose removing the bar from the following articles: Apple III, Apple II Family, Apple II Plus, Apple IIe, Apple IIc, Apple IIGS, Apple IIc Plus. Then rename it Macintosh Model Navigation for the remaining Mac and Lisa models.Apple2gs (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the bar from the Apple II and III articles, it just didn't fit in since most Apple II models were simply stand alone models, and often had no successors/replacements. And it bothers me that it pretty much states the Apple I, II and III just were just evolutionary stepping stones to the Macintosh. The Apple II didn't evolve into the Macintosh, Apple cut that line and let it wither and die off. However, here's an idea for a more plain Apple II navigation bar, if someone wants to add it back. Still, adding this bar (anywhere in the article!) seems to automatically collapse the "Apple hardware before 1988" table, which is far more useful. If there's a way to keep it from affecting the 1988 bar, I think this revised bar could be OK.Apple2gs (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EXAMPLE:

My 2 cents, which I think were overlooked on the IIe page: the purpose of this navigational table is to help those who are unfamiliar with the Apple model development navigate through the timetable of hardware introductions. THe Apple III is clearly a member of the Apple II family, just like the Apple I is. They are Apple operating systems versus Lisa or Macintosh. Lisa is the precursor to the Macintosh from which much is derived and Lisa is listed as such on the Mac 128K page. The fact is the III is based on the original AppleDos, designed to be backward compatible with the II Plus and the subsequent developments that went into the III's Apple SOS ultimately were folded back into the IIe's ProDos (in the same way the IIGS isn't really a II due to it's GS/OS but is otherwise backwards compatible). Furthermore, with all due respect, the IIGS WAS MOST DEFINITELY AN EVOLUTIONARY STEPPING STONE TO THE MACINTOSH: it borrowed most of the Macintosh Toolbox even paralleling the Mac OS System development. That is the trail a prospective reader needs to follow. That is why it should be the next logical Family member, rather than listing the IIe as the successor model and family member which doesn't help the reader at all. These navigational menus should help the uninformed follow the path of hardware development and the respective relationships between them, not just groups the obvious families together in a static way. For those who have never heard of an Apple II before, much less the I or III, the navigation box is an extremely useful guide through a historical development of a product. Wiki articles are littered with dozens of links and if someone does not have guide from model to the next they have no course to follow. I'm not going to get into an UDO war with anyone, but MANY have worked on these pages and I would certainly like to see a few more opinions here. Though I do respect Apple2gs' opinions on the subject and agree the Apple situation could be better addressed, so I'll not worry about it for now as there are more than enough graphical navigational aids on the pages now. Also, all of this is history now. The fact is, there is a history of product development which in inexorably intertwined with the Macintosh and Apple II, ultimately leading to the demise of one. Trying to hide the relationship between the two should not be the goal, but rather finding a way to emphasize that Apple let the II wither on the vine. However, trying to make the II family as distinct a creature from the I or the III as the II is to the Mac, is Steve Jobs-like revisionist history and has no place in academia.--Mac128 (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As for renaming the navigation box to "Macintosh", just because the Apple II folks don't want to use it, there are plenty of other Apple Products that may, including the Newton, and current iPods, Apple TV, iPhone, etc. SO DON'T USE IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT. Further, just as Apple2gs is so protective of the Apple II legacy and segregating it from the rest of the Apple product lines, The Lisa is NO evolutionary step to the Macintosh and should not be included under a Macintosh banner. Finally if the link between the Macintosh LC and Apple IIe is not clear to Apple II enthusiasts, then I shake my head in your general direction.--Mac128 (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple II among the first home computers

The introduction to the Apple II article stated that it was the first and most successful home computer. That is false; it was preceded by the original Apple I (see the related article) and along with the Apple II, the first Radio Shack TRS-80 computer (Model I) and Commodore PET were all introduced in 1977. They were referred to as the "1977 Trinity". The following year Atari entered the market with their 400 and 800 series PC's.

I changed the wording accordingly to reflect these facts.

Richard Rodriguez, West Covina, California, USA 198.188.168.84 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In fact based on the general bias of this article which views the subsequent developments of the Apple II line as mere "minor" changes but completely separate and unrelated from the Apple I (and Apple III for that matter), I would suggest that the Apple I is nothing more than an Apple II without a case. The only differences (besides a case and integrated keyboard) are more RAM, color graphics and expansion slots. Such changes in other Apple II models are deemed trivial in this article.--Mac128 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the Apple II also has a very different memory architecture from the Apple I. (The ROM and video RAM aren't even in the same place.) They are not compatible machines.
—überRegenbogen (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bell & Howell

Why is the Bell & Howell model relegated to the equivalent of a minor footnote in the Clone section? It should be included in the II Plus section at a minimum, if not its own, but certainly not in the currently confusing placement in the Clone section. Honestly, how many times in Apple's history did they manufacture a product for anyone else, much less license their technology (or produce a computer in black for that matter)?--Mac128 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation

What is the most common abbreviation for "Apple II"? Thanks. SharkD (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double lo-res graphics on a 65kB IIe

"The 1 K 80-column card also enabled one new graphics mode, Double Lo-Res (80×48 pixels)."

I question this. The double density graphics modes require bridging a pair of pins on the aux slot (connecting annunciator 3 to the input disables the suppression of 80-column mode for graphics lines). The later stock 64k cards bridged these connections; the earlier stock 64k cards had a jumper for it; the stock 1k card (iirc) did not offer it at all (nor did the earliest IIe boards even support the double density graphics modes). It certainly would be possible to run a jumper wire to enable it (on a revision B or later board, of course); but if anyone ever bothered, it was just for the fun of it. (Software that used double-lo-res-mode was vanishingly rare.)
—überRegenbogen (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More explanation for those not already acquainted with the subject?

After finishing this article I knew a lot more about the minutiae of Wozniak's innovations than what the Apple II actually did. What precisely made it so well-liked in education? What kind of users didn't mind the lack of a mouse and GUI until late in the 80s? What kind of users preferred it to the Macintosh or Windows-based machines? What could it run/do that those machines couldn't? What programs existed for it and not other machines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.205.155 (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was popular in education because Apple donated tons of Apple II's to schools (at least where I lived, in Los Gatos, California). Kids used them at school and then told their parents they needed one "to do their programming homework."

The lack of a GUI and mouse was ubiquitous with home computers until the Mac arrived. So most users weren't put off by their absence with the Apple II, since none of its home computer peers (Commodore 64, IBM PC, Atari 8-bit family) had GUIs or mice either. And the earliest Macs weren't exactly peers with other home computers because they were (a) comparatively expensive and (b) monochrome. So, actually, the Mac was the oddball out since it had a GUI and a mouse.

I'm sure most users wanted a Mac when they came out, but the Apple II had two big advantages. An Apple II (a) was much cheaper and (b) had a huge software base (including video games, which is what most kids wanted a computer for in the first place). Windows didn't become a major OS until Windows 3.0, which came out in 1990. So the Apple II had most of the 1980s to dominate the market. What made it more popular than PCs was probably 2 factors: (1) it was cheaper (especially than true IBM PCs, clones ranged all over the place) and (2) the Apple II was considered more of a "game" home computer, while the IBM was more business oriented. Since children were a big influence on which home computer system to buy, the Apple II usually won out over the PCs (though PC clones were huge, they were more popular with businesses).

The Apple II wasn't more powerful than Windows-based machines or Macs, but it had a loyal following because it had been around longer, users were familiar with it and games came out for it that didn't come out for other home computer systems. For example, most Apple II games would come out for the C64 or Atari, but almost none made it to the Mac. The same was true for IBM PC (though that changed in the late DOS days). And like I pointed out, Windows didn't become a hit until the early 1990s, but even then all the decent games were still DOS based. It wasn't until Windows 95 that decent games were Windows based.

So, there were a number of factors that kept the Apple II a hit (installed software base, education, price, familiarity). But I don't have references for any of this, this is just my personal experience—I grew up in Silicon Valley and worked in a software store: I saw it all happen. I hope this answers your questions. If not, ask more. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another trait worth pointing out, that made the Apple II so popular compared to the competition of the 70's and 80's (e.g. Commodore, Atari, Macintosh, Tandy, etc) was it being an OPENED system, and in more than one way. First whereas other systems were screwed shut with a sticker "No user services parts inside -- caution, high voltage -- do not open", the Apple II had a lid that just popped off, I mean you didn't even need a screwdriver or force, it actually invited you inside! And when you did pop open that lid, you saw the entire motherboard and every chip on it, along with 8 expansion slots. You could interface the Apple II with just about anything imaginable, just design an interface card, or better yet, buy one already on the market. A testament to that openness and growth factor--did you know today, there are Compact Flash interface cards for the Apple II? Ethernet network controllers? VGA graphic cards? Music synthesizers, IDE and SCSI controllers? Someone is even working on adding USB to the Apple II.

And then there's the openness in software. I'm not a programmer personally, but from what I know, you could really program on the metal, get deep inside the machines features and software itself. There wasn't anything limiting you, like say on a Macintosh with its strict Toolbox rules. And don't forget how it was expandable with memory, some computers were stuck with as 2K, 5K, or 16K RAM. The Apple II could easily, back then, jump up to 64K RAM by just popping chips on the motherboard. Later on you could add expansion cards to add several megabytes. There's much more to say on the subject, but thought I'd add that important fact to the discussion. Apple2gs (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small correction to the comment above. The Apple II's were accessible, but the architecture was not open. You had to buy an Apple II from Apple, whereas with an IBM, you could buy it from several different vendors and clone makers. The PC has a very open system (because IBM chose to use COTS products for the PC). The Apple architecture was very closed, but expandable. Cards and various other peripherals could be added to the Apple II, but that's not the same as an open architecture.

And adding memory to the Apple II was not as simple as popping a few chips off the board and adding new ones. Normally extra memory had to added via a plug-in card into one of the slots (this was normal for the Apple IIe, the real work-horse of the line). So, the Apple II was upgradable and extensible, but not open.

As far as "programming to metal" goes, the Apple II wasn't any more open than any of the other home computer-era computers (C64, Atari, IBM PC, etc.). As I said, the Mac was a different kind of machine and programming to the metal wasn't really an option since programs as a whole had to be written differently to interoperate with the operating system. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your correction, "open" is a poor choice of words because it sounds like open architecture. Yes, accessible is more fitting for what I was trying to get across. Still, at the same time, you're forgetting there were several different vendors and clone makers of the Apple II for a number of years--that is, until Apple sued them (all but two, VTech/Laser and Franklin). The Apple II clone market was pretty huge, it lasted up until the Apple IIe/IIc era in fact (VTech started working on a IIgs clone, but it was never released, likely due to copyright issues). The original Apple II and II Plus were made up of generic parts, there were no custom chips, and Apple documented everything in the early days.

Memory on the original Apple II was just simply popping chips into the motherboard. Just pop in some 4K or 16K DRAMs, set a jumper block (on the early boards; I think it auto-detected on later ones) and that was it. This was only up to 48K, to get to 64K required plugging in a Language Card with that last 16K RAM. By the time of the IIe higher and above, you had to plug memory into an expansion card, so then it was different.

Software, I think "programming on the metal" was again a poor choice of words. I'm thinking in terms of something of a lower level language accessibility, like the System Monitor that was built-in and always there, allowing you to get into programs in a way you couldn't on a Commodore 64. It was more accessible than other systems in this sense too, allowing you to tinker and see what programs and the computer were doing.Apple2gs (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Writer word processing software, on Apple IIe computers, was used by my high school for the purpose of writing, transcribing, and editing school newspaper articles. --Vorik111 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity in article

Using the free cycles to do video transfer does not really even begin to qualify as a "clever engineering trick", but is rather the obvious thing to do. Commodore 64 does the same. Also, Apple sucks! --93.106.7.207 (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, this "obvious" trick totally eluded IBM, when they designed the ghastly excuse for hardware engineering that was the CGA card—which forced you to either wait for VBI to modify the display, or do something horrendously jarring like blank the screen or fill it with a burst of noise.
—überRegenbogen (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Clever" is a WP:Peacock term here anyway, it really doesn't have any place in the article, regardless of one's feelings. --LjL (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know Apple fans are dedicated but YIPES!.

"Its popularity bootstrapped the entire computer game and educational software markets and began the boom in the word processor and computer printer markets."

This is just one of the many subjective questionable statements in this article. There are too many to list.

I am not anti-Apple, but there WERE a FEW other computer companies around during this thing's lifespan - Atari, Commodore, Texas Instruments, Tandy, etc, etc.

You are allotting WAY TOO MUCH credit to one computer (through a fan's eyes), when in actuality all of these computer companies converged in time and all helped shape the modern computer through trial and error.

Please consider that a child doing a report on early home computers would read your article and proclaim in his research that "Its popularity bootstrapped the ENTIRE computer game and educational software markets...". Is that REALLY true?

This thing needs a serious fair-minded read-through.

Agree the language and references need work, however that last quote may not be far off. Major efforts were made by Apple (especially in the US & Britain) to try to get this machine into every classroom and small business. As a result this was the first computer that many people living in the 80s ever saw and subsequently were 'hooked' by, leading directly to the development of the larger PC market. This may explain (though not excuse) some of the over-generalizations. Lacrimulae (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Price in today's dollars

The article writes:"The original retail price of the computer was US$1298[9] (with 4 kB of RAM) and US$2638 (with the maximum 48 kB of RAM)". On the site [Inflation] tells that between 1978 and 2008, the inflation in the United States was 326%. Then, in today's dollars, US$1298 x 3.26 = US$4231.98 ~ US$4232. Today we can by a computerwith 1,000 more potency for four times less money. Progress was astoining in home computers!Agre22 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

cast aluminum case, not cast-iron 'chassis'? basis 108, clones

error in 2nd paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_series#Clones ?

I found this conflicting page:

http://a2clones.com/apple_clones_1/basis_108/

"Basis 108 is a shining example of German "over" engineering. The case, for example, is made of heavy cast aluminum, and while other companies sought only to mimic the look and feel of the Apple II, Basis decided to build something altogether better."

Many photos suggest author should recognize aluminum, though photos may be from only literature, not from the page author's personal handling of the PC.

found via

http://images.google.com/images?q=cast+%7C+aluminum+%7C+iron+%22Basis+108%22+apple+%7C+clone 2z2z (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality photographs of Apple II in article?

Would anyone else agree the photographs in this article, representing the Apple II (which historically speaking, is the literal grandfather of the personal computer industry and plays a huge role) are, well, anywhere from mediocre to just poor? It's not that the machines are unattractive, the photographs are. These are the ones I have issue with...

The main photograph is of an original 1977 Apple II. Fair enough. However the two Disk II drives are stacked on top (rather to the side) and the Apple logo on each drive is hidden by stickers. Then stacked on top of this tower is an out of place, date wise, Monitor II display from 1984 with discoloration. And it's all floating in empty black space.

The Apple IIe shown is the European model (look closely at the size and shape of the Return or Shift keys). There are stickers on it and worst of all, you can clearly see several Macintosh computers all around it in the background. There's also a cartoon with nudity on the screen. Just a tad unprofessional for an encyclopedic photograph? ;)

The Apple IIc, while not bad, has a bit too much unrelated clutter in the background. It's shown on a shelf almost in a storage like state, rather then set up in a home or office.

The Apple IIGS. A little too bare, it's just the CPU case. Maybe a photograph showing an RGB display, keyboard, mouse and 3.5 floppy drive? (the one below shows just that, but like the IIe above, has all these Macintosh computers cluttering the background). It also suffers from discoloration or low lighting making it appear that way.

Example of an Apple II clone (Jiama clone). So discolored and dirty, it looks like it came out of a landfill. :)

I apologize if I'm being a little to critical and nitpicking here (especially if any of the photos I'm criticizing were taken by a Wikipedia user), I just think the Apple II has a lot of historical importance and it should be well represented and displayed in Wikipedia. Would anyone object if I replaced any of these photos? Either I could scan promotional material from Apple Computer (I have dozens of original pamphlets and brochures) or I can take new photographs. I do have every model of the Apple II family in my personal collection. As an example, I could photograph my 1978 Apple II, with a Disk II drive and 9" monochrome screen (one of the vintage boxy looking displays you'd see in the 70's).--Apple2gs (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the present photos. I wouldn't scan any old printed Apple material though; copyright would come into play here. Taking good photos of your own Apple and peripherals and uploading them would be the optimum solution. Salmanazar (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think having the best photos is important. :) So this sort of discussion seems like a good idea to me.

Unfortunately, per Salmanazar, we can't use promotional images, as they are generally under copyright restrictions, and don't meet our requirements for fair use. We do have different pictures of the Apple IIc (with monitor and with LCD), but they don't show the computer in situ, as the existing one does. So I guess the issue here is whether it is better to show it in situ or on its own. I was also intending to take photos of my IIgs, as it is a Woz version, so I'll do that today and see how they come out.

For the IIe, we have alternative pictures of the enhanced IIe and the Platinum, but I'm not that happy with either, and neither has the duodisk and monitor. I can probably do that (I think I have some duodisks around, and monitors aren't a problem), but it depends a bit on if we want a full setup or just the case.

With the straight II, I've found photos are hard to come by - I don't like the black backgrounds, myself, but that's more personal taste, and the photo is a valued image, so others seem fond of it. I'd have no problems looking at any alternatives you want to try, though. The drives on top of the case were a common configuration, but I think I'd also prefer them on the side. :)

I agree about the clone. I only have one clone, myself, but it is a dual processor model and a straight clone would be better. - Bilby (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus after 35 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apple II series → Apple II — No real need for "series" or "family" here; the common name suffices to identify the subject, as with ZX Spectrum and others. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 00:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the first article is also called "Apple II", and the IIgs is very different from the other members of the series. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apple IIGS has its own article, so there's no confusion there. Presently, Apple II redirects here needlessly, when the short title adequately covers the subject material. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 00:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I'd like to consider it a bit, but my main reservation is that every computer in the sequence bar the Apple II has its own article (Apple II Plus, Apple IIe, Apple IIc, Apple IIc Plus, Apple IIe Card and Apple IIGS) and thus there's an argument for reserving Apple II for a dedicated article just about that computer. I guess it depends a bit on whether users would expect Apple II to refer to the particular model of computer or the line of Apple II-compatible computers. Either way, I think the lead needs to be rewritten, as looking at it now it seems to be a mix of the single computer and the series. - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Against For the reasons Bilby mentioned, every Apple II in the series has it's own article. The fact that an article on the actual Apple II hasn't been written as well yet does not belay the fact that it's simply the first in a series of computers. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (under condition of a created list) The series comes from the Apple II. The article should be about the Apple II, how many people are going to actually type in "Apple II series"? If one is searching for a specific one, then you will get it. The fact that it is a series should be reflected in a "List of Apple II series computers" or similar (which would also require a synopsis of the series in a header section). Chaosdruid (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

started the page on the first model in the series.

I removed the redirect and stubbed an article on the eponymous model in the series. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or should I have started a split-article discussion first? It seems pretty obvious that if the other models have articles, the first one should, too. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here's a question...

How was colour implemented in PAL (or SECAM) areas? Seeing as on the NTSC original was based on an essentially monochrome computer abusing the standard's AM-based colour system, did it therefore, like the CGA PCs, require use of a dedicated NTSC-standard composite video monitor rather than a TV with an RF or composite input? Or were some additional chips/software tricks implemented to generate colour images under these TV systems with colour encoding systems distinctly different from both NTSC and each other? (I don't see anything about it in the article, at least not whilst skimming it) 31.185.217.37 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

32KB language card?

The article says that II+s all had 16KB language cards, and in the case of everyone I knew, that was true. However, everyone who knew me knew a guy who had a 32KB language card. Now, mine was a clone, and not only did it have to be plugged into slot 0, it had to be plugged into an IC socket on the mobo. Would any such card work on an original? If so, the language will need tweaked. AngusCA (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]