Talk:Apple II series
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Apple_II_series".

	This article is part of WikiProject Macintosh. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as an article pertaining to the Macintosh, but is not currently working to improve it. WikiProject Macintosh itself is an attempt to improve, grow, standardize, and attain featured status for Wikipedia's articles related to Macintosh and Apple Inc. We need all your help, so join in today!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of top-importance within Macs for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Apple II series received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is the current Macintosh collaboration! It has been in the spotlight since DATE and will be until such time that it is a featured article candidate, and passes. The Collaboration is managed by WikiProject Macintosh, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Apple Macintosh and Apple Computer.

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

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)

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. Where is the source for this date?

Michael Holley Apple II, Serial Number 2

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

Hurrah! :) Fnagaton 08:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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) 

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)