MikeW50 (mikew50@aol.com) wrote:
: I'm not sure why any one version of the 2 should be picked, but I confess I've
: always used II when it was by itself or generic. Is there a reason other than
: your equally valid preference for choosing // over II, or even ][?
Personally, I generally prefer to use ][ myself, as it leaves very little
doubt about what sort of Apple ][ I am talking about. While Apple ]['s
have been identified using "][", "II", and "//" over the years, the
Macintosh II and Macintosh LC-II (and to everyone's suprise, LC-III!) have
ONLY been identified using "II"...you would NEVER catch any
self-respecting Macincrash identifying itself as a "][".
I also have a tendancy to use "Apple ][e" when referring to my unenhanced
machine, and "Apple //e" when referring to the enhanced machine, which
conforms to the logotype (more or less) on the power-up splash screens.
Which incidentally are...
APPLE ][ on the ][, ][+
Apple ][ on the unenhanced ][e
Apple //c on the ][c
Apple //e on the enhanced ][e
Apple IIgs on the ROM 01 ][gs
--Dave Althoff, ][.
--
/-\ _ _ *** Just a few more weeks!!! ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /XX\_ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ _/XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX