Re: Resurrecting the Apple I

["Liam Busey" <buseyl@yahoo.com>]

"Bryan Villados" <news002@macgeek.org> wrote in message
news:WHfH9.67688$2z1.23482029@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Here's something I don't know to this day... Does the Apple 1 have any
form
> of BASIC? Or does it just run 6502 machine language apps? I'm wondering
> because if the Apple 1 can run stuff the Apple II cannot, then yeah the
> Apple 1 would be cool to play with. However, if everything written for an
> Apple 1 can run on an Apple II, then why bother?
>
> The only thing I can see getting out of an Apple 1 would be playing with
the
> experimental breadboard that was built into it. And, by the looks of the
> clone Apple 1, it lacks it. Also, what's disappointing about the clone
Apple
> 1 is that all the components seemed to be shrunken down to just a few
modern
> chips. The complexity of the Apple 1 in terms of its PCB layout and the
many
> chips on it was something to admire over, especially those huge
capacitors.
> The clone Apple 1 is lacking that visual effect. I keep reading article
> after article about how hardware junkies admire how Steve Wozniak laid out
> the PCB and made it pretty, versus slapping components all over the place
> like your average Wintel-based motherboard.
>
> If this guy's going to clone something, why not use his knowledge and
clone
> an Apple IIe? Make a very tiny form factored Apple IIe, maybe the size of
an
> Apple 5.25 Drive case, with built-in peripherals (clock, RAM, 80-column
> video, mouse port, disk port, serial and printer ports) that would
simulate
> having them occupy slots. And, make it work with a PS/2 keyboard, mouse,
and
> VGA output so someone like myself could use a PC-compatible KVM switchbox.
> You could buy a IIe logic board for 50-cents, pull the Apple licensed ROMs
> off of it and use it in the clone IIe so you don't have to pay Apple a
> licensing fee. End of licensing discussion. I don't think software
emulation
> solves EVERYTHING... There's still a taste for hardware-based Apple IIs.
>

It's pretty mystifying to me that Apple I computers  command so much money.
I guess value is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinnion it was the
original Apple 2 that was the real innovation. Sure the Apple I was a clever
piece of hardware but still it was basically just a SBC with integrated TV
typewriter. If people weren't so crazy about Apple computer, I suspect those
machine's average asking price would be more in line with the likes of MOS
KIMs or Rockwell AIMs.

Does anyone share this opinion?

- Liam Busey