Re: Apple II vs Atari 800

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

David Empson wrote:
> Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Ensor wrote:
> >
> > > "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
> > >  > Apple, in contrast, published *everything* needed to make
> > >  >software, plug-in cards, and even more computers!
> > >
> > > So, you're saying that the Atari Technical manuals I have not 6 feet away
> > > from me are figments of my imagination? :-)
> > >
> > > True they weren't shipped with the machine, but had to be bought seperately,
> > > but they contain full schematics, operating system listings etc....
> > >
> > >
> > > By the time of the XL/XE series machines Atari had stopped publishing such
> > > manuals, but then again so had Apple etc.
> >
> > They *never* stopped making all info available on the Apple II line.
> >
> > It was automatically included with the Apple II and II+.
> >
> > Around the time of the //e (1984+), as the typical user profile shifted
> > toward "application users" instead of "programmer/enthusiasts", the
> > provided documentation became more "user manual"-oriented--but full
> > technical documentation was still available separately.
>
>
> Apple started to reduce the level of detail by the time the IIgs was
> released (1986). There are no official ROM listings for any part of the
> IIgs firmware, nor for the IIc+, but they did publish schematics and
> most other technical details.
>
> The second edition of the IIc Technical Reference doesn't contain any
> ROM listings (even for the original IIc), but the first edition did have
> ROM listsing for the "UniDisk" IIc firmware, and I think I've seen a
> supplement which lists at least one other revision.

I think the mid-1980s marks the turning of the "open" tide at Apple,
for numerous reasons related both to market changes and management
changes.

> (None of Apple's published firmware listings include Applesoft BASIC,
> since that code is copyrighted by Microsoft.)

Of course, Applesoft was one of the first things that the community
reverse-engineered and documented, so the fact that Apple was bound
by licensing agreements did not seriously hamper its exploitation.

> I'm not sure what their policy was with the Apple /// and Lisa, but I'm
> not aware of any publically available ROM listings or schematics of any
> Mac (no point - it wouldn't fit with the general philosophy).

Both were extremely "closed" in comparison the the Apple II.

The Apple /// was apparently kept closed in the mistaken hope that
it would encorage only "legitimate" developers of "business" apps,
as opposed to the free-for-all in the Apple II world.

So much for that idea...

As it turns out, volume is volume.  ;-)

> > So for the Apple II, the details and examples were there from the
> > beginning (the Red Book and the WozPak, for example)--just when
> > they needed to be there.
> >
> > I've often said that the Apple II was the last personal computer
> > for which all the documentation needed to completely understand
> > its hardware and software weighed less than the machine.  ;-)
> > (The Apple //e shipped into the 1990s.)
>
>
> The IIgs certainly wouldn't qualify on that measure. I needed a
> moderately large shelf to hold my nearly complete set of IIgs technical
> documentation.

Exactly...

-michael

NadaPong: Network game demo for Apple II computers!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."