Re: II+ vs IIe (was Re: Apple IIe working?)

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Jeff Blakeney writes ...
> 
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 04:55:29 -0600, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >David Empson writes ...
> >
> >> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Given the "Apple ][" display, this sounds like the normal startup for a II+.
> >>
> >> Haven't we had this discussion recently?  An Apple ][+ has a boot
> >> heading of "APPLE ][".
> >
> >??? That appears to be what I said.
> 
>   You said "Apple ]["
> David said "APPLE ]["
> 
> The difference is the case of the letters.

 ....

and


David Empson wrote:
> 
 ....
> 
> You said "Apple ][".  I said "APPLE ][".  Your example was mixed case,
> mine uppercase only.

 ....

     Oh, right, _case_! Was focusing on the "]["; but, yes; earlier IIe's showed
"Apple ][". Thanks for the clarification.

     The original poster's discription

>>
When I start it, I see Apple ][ at the top of the screen
<<

was automatically translated to mean "APPLE ][" and an Apple II+ because "Apple ]["
is not in quotes and because he/she said there is an interest in purchasing a IIe.

     Since the original poster (Softshare) requested an email response, I've sent
Softshare an email which mentions your observations and corrects the II+
assumption.

     So, ...


APPLE ][  ---> Apple II+
Apple ][  ---> Apple IIe
Apple //e ---> Apple IIe Enhanced


 ....

> > > If it is mixed case, then it must be a IIe, and this is what the
> > > original poster indicated he was looking to buy.
> >
> >     Well, yes. However, the "Apple ][" comes from a description by the user of
> > the startup screen of a currently owned machine.
> 
> No, it was a IIe he was thinking of buying.  Quote from original
> article, first paragraph:
 ....

     Of course, for most of the questions, it would not matter whether one or both
of the currently owned machines is a II+ or an early IIe. (But, mainly out of
curiosity, I asked Softshare exactly what the start screens show.)

     The exception could be how one does a Reset-- even there, if pressing Reset
does not work, you would try pressing Cntrl-Reset.



> 
> > > The ][+ also needs CTRL-RESET.  Only early original Apple ][ machines
> > > were able to be reset with RESET by itself.
> >
> >      Our 1981 II+ and every other II+ I've seen came with a plain Reset.
> > Possibly the Control-Reset feature was added towards the end of the II+
> > production cycle.
> 
> Every Apple ][+ we had at high school (first one bought in 1980, which I
> was using in '81) required Ctrl-Reset.  At least the first two had a
> switch on the underside of the keyboard to select whether CTRL was
> needed.  I didn't look as closely at the later ones (we got five newer
> ones in '82, which were replaced by IIe machines in '83).

     Checked our old KB circuit board-- there is definitely a 3-hole pattern there
for a little slide switch; but, no switch. It seems likely that some II+'s with the
switch must have been sold in the US. Evidently, the number was small in comparison
to the models without the switch.


> This _might_ have been an international vs US issue, but I'm not sure if
> there was an international version of the II+ 
 ....

     Yes; the presence of a switch to enable Ctrl-Reset could relate to product
distribution. For one thing, there would be huge numbers of II+'s already in use in
the US by 1980; so, Apple might wish to avoid confusion by just leaving the switch
off in for-US models.

     Anyway, it's interesting that Apple did so much messing around with the
keyboard and still managed to produce such a piece of junk. The machines-- as
Steve's II+ system sales slip posting drives home-- were _not_ cheap. A good
quality KB (e.g. one using reed key switches, with auto-repeat, ...) would have
cost, maybe, $25 more per machine and saved countless Apple II's from the junk
heap.



Rubywand