Talk:Apple IIc

This entry had originally been just a blank

This entry had originally been just a blank (empty) page that automatically redirected you to the Apple II family. I wanted to see that change, so I did just that and changed it--writing up a entire entry on the Apple IIc computer from the ground up. Why? The Apple II line is probably the most important and historically relevant in the history of personal computers, and I've not seen that reflected on Wikipedia. For that reason, and my own personal fondness, interest, experience and knowledge of the machine, I've made it my personal goal of sorts to expand its presence here.

I feel each machine in the Apple II family line deserves its own entry in Wikipedia, rather than just a short blurb written as a few lines of text in the page mentioned above. It is afterall the computer that started it all, the literal grandfather of the personal computer industry we see before us today. I started with the Apple IIe last month (it being the longest lived machine in the line, and at Apple in general) and this article on the Apple IIc is now my second entry, and hopefully not the last.

I've tried to make this article more encyclopedic than a technical in nature. I'll shortly be adding a sprinkling of pictures relating to some the major topics mentioned in the article, making it more interesting. Like any other it's not necessarily finished or flawless, but I hope this contribution will be useful to those who are curious about the history of this model. --Mitchell Spector (--Apple2gs 06:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC))

Apple IIc pricing

I would like to know more about the price of the Apple IIc when it was introduced.

At introduction, it cost US$1,295 for just the Apple IIc--this included the computer itself, an external powersupply, RF modulator, and some introductory manuals and disks. Other peripherals cost extra, although back then you could make due hooking it to your television set and have a ready to use system out of the box (a joystick for games would be the only thing missing).

I have a price list from Apple Canada dated October 1984. In Canadian dollars, the IIc was listed for CDN$1,795, a 9" monochrome IIc screen CDN$315 (with stand an additional CDN$60), carrying case CDN$60, mouse CDN$155, external IIc 5.25 $515. An "Apple IIc starter system" is listed for CDN$1,995 but doesn't specify what it includes.Apple2gs 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Technical Reference Manual

I don't understand why you removed the Bibliography section which cites THE source for understanding the Apple IIC (Apple IIC Technical Reference Manual)? I would think that single source, written by Apple, would be mandatory.

Secondarily, I think your revision of the "long book quote" which explains how to use the PEEK command in Applesoft BASIC makes it more obscure for the less technical user as to what to do. It removes clarity.

Will discuss this here before doing any reverts. -- Quartermaster 11:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I felt it draws attention away from the focus of that section, which is just to simply list the chronology of revisions. It is also a bit redundant since it restates what's below, but mainly it goes against the encyclopedic style of the article...it just breaks into these instructions for typing Applesoft commands in the middle of the article.

I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea, but the article is intended for straight backround information (historical and technical) about the Apple IIc--what it is, how it came to be, its history, etc; not act as a tutorial or FAQ on using it. Maybe we can put it that book quote at the end of the article, with a footer note near the top of the revision section saying "See section below for details on determining specific IIc ROM revision" or something like that. --Apple2gs 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The "intention" of an article relates to an author, and Wikipedia is not author based. Second, how is listing the means by which one determines the version of the ROM a "tutorial" or an "FAQ"? The original source (The Technical Reference Manual) is neither a tutorial nor an FAQ. "Tutorial" and "FAQ" are just terms you're throwing about and not logically connected to anything.

I think you're taking a proprietary interest in this article, and not looking at the bigger picture of what makes a good Wikipedia entry. This is not your personal article. Thoroughness is a good thing and not a bad thing. Else I'd write something like "The Apple IIC was really cool and people liked it." Even listing the ROM versions would be suspect with such an opinion that the article is not an FAQ nor a tutorial; why list the ROM versions at all? A more thorough documentation of a subject is a good thing. One can argue about style and organization, but wholesale deletion of a documented fact (with included citation) is bad form.

Finally, you don't even mention the deletion of the Bibliography with the inclusion of the Apple IIC Technical Reference Manual which I find totally and unambiguously warranted to include. Using it as a a source for where the directions for determining the ROM version is not only well within Wikipedia policy and philosophy, but an unambiguous good idea. I'm going to go back and add that since I can see nothing that would warrant otherwise.

I'm also going to work on creating a "How to determine revision version" section followed by the listing of versions section. Can't see how that would be a bad thing.

Though I assume everyone is working in good faith, I sense you've got a proprietary interest in this article clouding your judgement, as well as being antithetical to Wikipedia's philosophy. -- Quartermaster 23:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As the creator of the article, it should come as no surprise I have more interest in watching over changes and additions made here more than any other Wikipedia contributors, but never to the point I've ever considered it under my sole ownership, or where I would be blocking any and all changes. I find it offensive to be accused of that, and frankly, your tone overly harsh and bordering on insulting. I did not (and still do not) feel what you added blended in well, so I reworked it into something much more simplified and condensed. I removed the bibliography because there no longer was a direct quote from the technical reference manual, making it unnecessary. My article or not, I am just as much in my right to modify newly added text as you are, so long as it benefits and isn't detrimental in any way. I apologize if you felt I was doing otherwise but you're free to again rework it, and allow others to tweak it as well. Nothing is set in stone here, I thought that is what Wikipedia is all about--change. Hey, I wrote several pharagraphs in the opening of the main "Apple II" article only to have the entire work erased by someone who didn't agree (ditto for several other articles not even related to the Apple II), and no, I wasn't happy about it, but I certainly wasn't rude and unjustly accusing of the person who made those changes.

And speaking of changes, I'll be doing some momentarily as I see you've made an error or two within the IIc revision section. For example, you've incorrectly made the serial port timing bug inclusive and associated with the "ROM 255" firmware. FYI, IIc's manufactured after November/December 1984 not only corrected the serial port bug, but still continued to ship with the original ROM 255. You cannot automatically assume the original firmware equals a faulty serial port.

(Amusing anecdote... My //c had the serial port bug, and the store said the problem was my 'environment'. They even sent a rep to see the bug in action, no help. Then a guy at a little computer store told me that S. Jobs lived a few blocks from me so I sent him a letter, voila, they took the //c back, they wondered how I did that, I didn't tell them. Also, when using a 1200 baud modem the bug manifested itself by printing a capital 'M' on the screen instead of performing a line feed (or carriage return, I forget). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazookus (talk • contribs) 16:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm opened to and welcome changes, I would love to see the article grow, that's why I put it up on Wikipedia instead of publishing it privately on a website. And I don't mind if you disagree with me, but please don't be so quick to prejudge my intensions. I hope I didn't sound too harsh in my own reply, I'd really would like to work together on the article. In retrospect I think I was a little too quick to tweak/remove your contribution, I should have re-read it a second time to let it sink in (unless of course it's a glaring error). :) --Apple2gs 04:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll chime in with apologies for my unintended tone (always hard in plain text). We apple lovers are a testy and protective bunch. I just walked away for a couple of weeks (vacation) and decided not to do any wiki work so things in my head could settle. All edits are looking nice, clean, and informative. The article is evolving quite nicely on all fronts, I must say. --Quartermaster 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over current Apple IIc images

Okay. Every photograph and scanned image used in this article has been symatically removed, apparently (and unjustly in my opinion) over the minor technicality of incorrect permission/copyright tagging choosen--not the images themselves. Most of these images have had permission cleared from their original source, or are considered fair use images that were used as promotional material by Apple Computer over 20 years ago. In the case of the Apple IIc image taken from the cover of the Apple IIc owner's guide, Apple gave permission to reproduce it and the entire manual.

So I ask, can someone assist in selecting the correct tags so these can stay in place? I must say I am getting extremely turned off by having piece of these articles ripped out that I spent days creating (yes, photos and their captions do make up the article) every other day by automated bots or other Wikipedia users. I put them here to grow, and to share information in regards to these orphaned machines, not see this information blocked. I do value Wikipedia's respect for copyrights, and agree with the basic principle, but people here are TOO over eager to remove images before even verifying their status.

If necessary, I can go through the trouble of photographing these machines from my own collection (as I've already done for the Apple IIc Plus article) but that takes several hours, sometimes days, of work. Hopefully it won't come to that, which is why I would prefer to get some assistance in choosing the correct tags for the existing images. Thanks--Apple2gs 00:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Copyright statuses were verified, and the images were deleted under official Wikipedia image policy by an administrator. If you want to open a dispute, please do so, but not here. The current images being used are from the Wikimedia Commons, a preferred source of images since Wikipedia is meant to be free-content only, not Copyrighted material that has had "permission" to be used. Anywho, no point in disputing this here. — Wackymacs 07:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also...I actually prefer the user-made images to Apple's press material, since it fits in here more. It gives Wikipedia something unique, instead of stuff from Apple everyone has seen before. — Wackymacs 07:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is years later, but I find it sad that all of the photos show the Apple IIc incorrectly resting flat rather than with the handle extended to prop up the computer. The user's manual was crystal clear that it should not be used without the handle extended for airflow, and I can attest that it became dangerously hot when used flat. Not to mention hard to type on. My Apple IIc is in storage in another state, but I would invite someone to take some photos in the correct position and upload to Wikimedia commons. — wanderingstan (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

As the creator of this article, I had originally selected professional promotional photos of the Apple IIc (with fair copyright usage) correctly displayed, and without UV discoloration. I could try again all these years later, but there always seems to be some reason for some over zealot editor to pull them down. Not to gloss over the importance of copyrights and permissions, but even with all the necessary steps taken and tags applied, there's always some technicality (it's frustrating to find your photos removed days or months later). I could take a photo of one of my own IIc's (I have an original 1984 model, with beige keycaps, and the 9" Monitor //c with stand) but it's discolored. Like the photos in my IIc Plus article, I suppose I could use Photoshop to whiten things up, but it's preferable to show untouched vintage photos and/or undiscolored hardware.--Apple2gs (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The name

The article states the 'c' in the name came from the form factor. (The //c was relatively compact.) However, the first review I remember (probably either from Incider or A+) stated the 'c' was a reference to the 65C02. Will 06:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Screen-photo of Apple IIc in "2010"

Hi,

I have a screen-photo of the IIc on the beach in "2010".

I am willing to upload it to the wikipedia if anyone wants to include it in the article.

http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/pb/images/2010.jpg

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)

Apple IIc Memory Expansion

Apple2History.org says the ROM changed a number of things about how the IIc worked. In addition they indicate a new motherboard was released with a memory slot as further delineated by Apple.

Given, 1) that it had a new ROM that added abilities to the IIc and not just bug fixes, 2) that it came with a brand new motherboard with a new RAM slot, and 3) further changed the case color, it seems to me that this was a brand new machine. Perhaps not an entirely different machine, but then the Macintosh 128K & 512K are two different machines, yet the only difference is one has extra RAM (coincidentally the main difference in the IIc mem. exp. as well).

I think the only issue is criteria as to what constitutes a new model. If Apple marketed the Platinum IIc Memory expansion as a unique model that would close the deal – and it's hard for me to believe that Apple didn't do that in both packaging and marketing. Surely they didn't make all those improvements under the table – in context of the era, that's enough to get existing IIc owners to buy the upgrade. It certainly was enough to get people to buy a new Mac (or a motherboard upgrade). Had these been Macs, they almost surely would have been given individual model designations. Instead they were treated like the later PowerBook G3 Series, a support debacle in which all 3 identical-looking models were simply called PowerBook G3, yet were wildly different machines under the hood.

I'm not as knowledgeable about the the Apple II, so I defer to the consensus, but it seems like the current delineation is misleading.--Mac128 (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Memory Expandable IIc" was never been seen as a new model, just simply a minor revision of the original IIc (i.e. a standardized and user-friendly way to add RAM). Well, not so "user-friendly" since you had to unscrew the case, figure how to pry it apart and void your warranty in the process. Most users had Apple dealers install the card to avoid this; in fact, if you purchased the optional memory card you were entitled to a FREE motherboard swap just to accommodate the new card--it's like the new motherboard was built for the card, not visa-versa. Feature and functionality wise, the new ROM added zero changes--basically it just contained the firmware for the optional memory card (which normally was contained on the card itself for the II+/IIe, as in the case of its exact equivalent Apple II Memory Expansion Card--aka Slinky RAM). Other changes in the ROM were just shuffling virtual devices around (AppleTalk-device hooks kicked out, Slinky RAM to slot 4, Mouse to slot 7). If you didn't have the memory card installed, functionally it was identical to the previous Apple IIc/ROM 0.

Honestly the UniDisk 3.5 capable ROM IIc had far more features and changes than the memory expandable IIc. As for the new motherboard, it basically just had a 34-pin slot added, that's about it. And the chip count reduced, as it used four 64Kx4 DRAMs to make up its 128K RAM (instead well over a dozen 64Kx1's). The case color did not change, it was still snow-white, just as I mentioned in the article. Any beige plastic bits were changed to grey, that's all (i.e. the keycaps, drive latch and the connectors on the external powersupply). The name of the computer remained the same, it still said "The Apple //c" on the product label, "//c" top side and Apple IIc on the box and manual. Apple never promoted or marketed it as a brand new machine (a la IIGS or IIc Plus). They did announce it, but it was generally sold and marketed as the same old 1984 Apple IIc. Incidentally, the person who bought a never-opened Apple IIc on eBay for $2,500 turned out to be a memory expandable IIc. I don't think he knew it, or even the persons who wrote up about his unique purchase. Check out the pictures of the box, you won't see anything that makes it stand out as a NEW model (anymore, than say, different revisions of the original Bondi blue iMac...like the rev A/B).

It was certainly a stand out revision I have to admit, the keyboard (though few people may notice it) had that nice clicker feeling and the expansion slot is nice, if you can find one of those RAM cards these days. But to historically categorize it as another Apple II model doesn't fit. I wouldn't mind other's takes on this mind you. I authored the entire Apple IIc article, including the section on the IIc revisions, as well as the Apple IIe and Apple IIc Plus article (and the IIgs revisions section). They haven't changed much from when I first wrote them up 2 years back, so I'm opened to other person's interpretations and look back on the history.Apple2gs (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Expansion Capabilities

I recently made changes to Expansion capabilities which were immediately reverted by Apple2gs. In particular I pointed out how the IIc was the only computer sold by Apple which Apple did not support for external hard drives. Apple's lack of support seemed notable to me. As written, the IIc seems as capable as any of the IIc line, which is not true. And just try to find a hard drive for a IIc today! Regardless of one's position on this matter I also separated musical digital synthesis from the same paragraph as hard disks. Two completely different ideas which should never be compiled into the same paragraph. If the idea of Wiki is to improve articles, then edits should simply not be thrown out wholesale, but rather EDITED, keeping the good, discussing the questionable and deleting the obviously bad. I find in particular the Apple II section is completely biased, overly technical and does not tend to reflect a clear picture to anyone without familiarity with the computers in the first place, much less a contextual perspective. And yes I am pointing the finger at one particular editor. Nevertheless, I will float these ideas to the general community to build a consensus before I make any other changes on the Apple II pages, unless they are statements of fact with verifiable references, something all of the Apple II entries lack in spades.--Mac128 (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I'm opened to and actually welcome edits. However if I see something that is technical or historically incorrect I will immediately take it out, as I would hope anyone else would do. The same goes for anything that is biased or too much based on opinion than fact, although in that case I will instead try rewording it. Though let's look at what you added (I'm not trying to be sarcastic saying that incidentally, I just want you to understand why I took it out):

"Apple never offered a compatible hard drive for the IIc, the only computer for which they did not. Though by 1986 Apple introduced SCSI options for every computer family it ever manufactured, the emerging standard was never included in any upgrades to the IIc, further dooming it to obscurity."

You thought it important to note that Apple did not release a Smartport based hardisk solution for the Apple IIc themselves. While that may be true, it's becomes an irrelevant point when we know a handful of third party companies DID offer Smartport hardisks for the IIc. The option was there, it just did not come Apple. With the iMac, Apple did not produce a floppy drive for it but third parties sold an external iMac USB floppy drive. Simply because Apple did not provide the product solution, doesn't mean the product solution wasn't there. I did change the line to "external hard drives were produced by third parties..." after your edit, to make it clear hardisk for the IIc did not come from Apple, but third parties. It's just trivia information as far as I see it, had Apple officially sold a hardisk for the IIc instead of leaving it to third parties it would not have changed history.

I found the wording in that edit a bit biased too: "dooming it to obscurity"? And regardless of the wording, how does the Apple IIc not having a hardisk as standard being a failing? This wasn't a Macintosh, or even the Apple IIgs for that matter. On those systems as hardisk was an absolute necessity to get serious use out of them--you try running GS System 6 off floppy disks, nevermind even adding TrueType fonts, a couple of Desk Accessories, a few GS/OS drivers, etc. The 8-bit Apple II ran very comfortably off floppy disks, and the vast majority of the software for the Apple II, II+, IIe, IIc and IIc+ was hard-coded to run off 5.25 floppy diskettes. A hardisk for the 8-bit Apple II (including the IIc) was a luxury...NOT a necessity. The only thing that doomed the Apple IIc into obscurity was Apple's ignoring the Apple II line and pushing the Macintosh instead.--Apple2gs (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Apple //c versus IIc

All the Apple literature at the time (and the boot screen, IIRC) said "Apple //c". But this article uses "IIc". I see some historical websites do the same. What's the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffr (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Apple was funny that way, for the numeral two they've used (in print, on the case and the screen display) square brackets, roman numerals and forward slashes interchangeably. The original Apple II was "Apple ][". Following that the Apple III was "Apple ///", and the e and c models were written as "Apple //e" and "Apple //c". Later they switched to "Apple II". They even seemed to go back and forth on that, in 1986 the original Apple IIGS motherboard had "Apple //GS" silk-screened on it, while the 1989 motherboard wrote it as "Apple IIGS". In the end I think they settled on the more professional and less stylized roman numeral "II". When I wrote this article (I'm the one who created the IIc article and the others in the II series), or discuss any Apple model, I simply use: Apple I, Apple II, Apple III. Writing "Apple //c" or "Apple ][c" is akin to writing out Commodore 64 as "C=64".

Might be worth a mention in the main Apple II family article mentioning the different stylization Apple used for "II" (if it's not there already). -- Apple2gs (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Could any of those slashes have in fact been italics instead? Apple IIc or IIGS? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Notebook?

Where the lead calls the IIc “notebook-sized,” is that referring to a notebook computer or an actual notebook? Seems an important distinction. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Colour

The article talks about the unique "fog" colour. My experience is that older Macintoshes tend to yellow with age. The headline image is great, but is it representative of the machine's colour when it was new? From what I can find the IIc Plus was noticeably greyer, and the contemporary adverts I can find are't helpful (one of them shows a IIc with yellow keys). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm the original author of this particular Wikipedia article, but not the photographs that were added later on. Or for that matter, I also did not add the bit about the "fog" coloring. I'll admit I've seen that fog term published elsewhere in the past, but could never quite understand how it correlates to the IIc's color scheme. To me, "snow white" (or even pure white) best suits a description the IIc's color, and what I originally wrote.

And yes, as the IIc's case discolors over the years from UV light or high temperature, that pure white color starts to turn yellowish-beige, or even brown in extreme cases. The keyboard, drive latch and cabling were originally light beige or grey (probably the only part I'd consider possibly "fog") but those too can discolor over time. The spacebar more so than the rest. In the main photo the 'Reset' button or IIc's rear monitor stand better represent the original/unblemished IIc color. The IIc Plus was originally platinum/light grey like the Apple IIGS and early Macintoshes (circa 1987 to 1997). Wouldn't be a bad idea to replace the IIc photo with something from Apple's promotional ads, assuming fair use of copyrights can apply. --Apple2gs (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I remember the Apple IIc being whiter than the Apple II+ or Apple IIe, but it was never pure white. I would describe it as being off-white in its original color. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The Apple II and II Plus case were painted (it likely under went a special treatment, so it did not flake or chip off) and were never white, they were a creamy pale beige. The original Apple IIe case was also painted in more or less the same color scheme. The later Apple IIe's (circa 1984 onward) used color dye injected ABS plastic case molds, with a light beige coloring, a little darker than the painted cases. Same with the Apple IIc case, except its color dye was dubbed "snow white", and fairly close to it, but likely just a tad off white as you say (my IIc's have long since discolored, but the reset key retain its original color, mostly...yes, just a tad off). The "fog" description is misleading, that was what I've head Apple describe for their platinum color scheme (an extremely pale/light grey). And yes, unfortunately the plastic cases of the IIe, IIc, IIc Plus and IIGS all are affected by UV light and heat, and generally turn yellowish. Incidentally, that main photo for the IIc in the article is needs to be change, the coloring does not at all represent the machine.--Apple2gs (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Snow White is the name of the design language. It is not the name of a color. The off-white color of the IIc is called "fog". Very shortly after, they abandoned the "fog" color in favor of the slightly darker "platinum" color. The IIc Plus, for example, was "platinum" colored. RyanDesign (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "Snow White" is indeed the name of the design language, but the origin of the name itself stems back to the Apple IIc and its white-as-snow coloring, or snow white. The Apple IIc was the very first product at Apple to use Frog Design's styling. They choose to dye inject the modeled plastic a pure white color (the keyboard, floppy drive latch and powercord were light beige) and thus where it got its name! There weren't many more products done in that snow white color, off hand I remember the ImageWriter II printer, the UniDisk 3.5, perhaps the early Apple modem. The design itself remained until the late 90's, the Apple IIGS carried over a lot of the look of the Apple IIc (except in platinum of course). At any rate, there are many sources that explicitly state "Snow White" name came from the IIc's case color, including several Apple books, publications, magazines and even the Apple II History site: https://www.apple2history.org/history/ah08/ and I quote...

During the time the IIc was under development, Apple was working on a change in the look of their products. They planned a more European styling, and a color scheme called “Snow White”. The IIc would be the first product with the new appearance and color.

I recall the term "fog" was used to describe the light-grey "platinum" color that first appeared with the Apple IIGS. The Apple IIc's coloring was indeed pure or snow white (it's hard to see that now since those AB plastic cases have yellowed over the years from UV lighting and heat, but I've owned IIc's back in the 80's and remember their color well).--Apple2gs (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)