Re: ][, II and //

[dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson)]

Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:

> Quadrajet1 wrote:
> 
> > >What if any difference is there between ][, II and // notations? Or is
> > >it simply ascii aesthetics?
> > >
> >    I just notate the models designation according to what the label
> > looks like on the actual machine.
> >
> > Apple ][ (or II)
> > Apple ][ Plus
> > Apple //e
> > Apple //c
> > Apple IIc Plus
> > Apple IIgs
> > Apple ///
> > Apple /// Plus
> 
> Also, the ][, ][ Plus, and unenhanced //e put "Apple ][" on the screen
> when the machine first booted.

The original Apple ][ doesn't say anything at all, unless it has had a
firwmare change.  At best, it drops into the monitor ROM on startup.
There is no autostart code in the old monitor ROM, and therefore no code
to display the machine name.

If the firmware has been upgraded (autostart ROM) or an Applesoft
firmware card is installed (with appropriate switch setting) then it
will say "APPLE ][".

The Apple ][+ says "APPLE ][", unless it has been downgraded to the old
monitor ROM, or is using an Integer firmware card with old monitor ROM,
in which case it is in the same situation described above.

(Neither machine could say "Apple ][", because a standard machine
doesn't have lowercase characters in the character generator ROM.)

You got the unenhanced IIe right: "Apple ][".

> //c, and enhanced //e put "Apple //" on the screen.

Nope.  The IIc says "Apple //c".  The enhanced IIe says "Apple //e".

> The IIGS puts up "Apple IIGS"

Nope.  The IIgs says "Apple IIgs".

The legend on the front of the case says "Apple IIGS", but the "GS" part
uses smaller capital letters, the same height as the lower case letters
(i.e. "small caps" style).

There is no way to represent this change in style when displaying plain
ASCII text, so "Apple IIgs" is the closest approximation.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
Snail mail: P O Box 27-103, Wellington, New Zealand