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.
--- Bryan
"Obsbedia2" <obsbedia2@aol.com> wrote in message
20021201155720.27245.00000135@mb-ct.aol.com">news:20021201155720.27245.00000135@mb-ct.aol.com...
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,56426,00.html