Re: Resurrecting the Apple I

[et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black)]

"Liam Busey" (buseyl@yahoo.com) writes:
> "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?
> 
I doubt many will share your opinion.

The difference is that the Apple I was made in very limited quantities.
"Fire in the Valley" says "200 or so".

When you subtract those that were trashed, because it was a relatively
primitive computer and better things came along not much later, and
those discared because people didn't realize it was an important computer,
that doesn't leave very many.  Of those remaining, there will be original
or long term owners who won't part with theirs.  Leaving very few that
are available to change hands.

There were a lot more KIM-1's made (I've had one since 1979 and the
magazines were full of articles about them, unlike the Apple I),
and I think the Aim-65 too.  They don't have the initial rarity
of the Apple I, and no, they probably don't carry as much lust-factor
as the Apple I.

Later Apple computers are plentiful.  I once briefly had a III, for
free, and have a real II and a IIGS (both freebies).  If I was collecting,
I could easily have bought a IIC or two, and probably a IIE if I'd
felt the need for one (once I had the II, I stopped paying attention other
than to note that I see Apple II's at rummage and garage sales).  I have
a 512K Mac, and didn't bother keeping my Mac Plus when I realized the
screen was fading out.

    Michael