On the Edge by Brian Bagnall

[Chris++]

I've just finished reading this book. In case anyone's ever wondered about it, I highly recommend it. (Of course, for all I know, I'm preaching to the choir, and you've all already read it.)

 

While Bagnall's grammar isn't the greatest, the interview excerpts and general Commodore facts are fascinating. He seems to get excessively down on Commodore toward the end, melodramatically calling typical business blunders "Commodore Curses," but the majority of the book is pretty gripping to anyone who rates the C64 higher than any early '80s computer.

 

Incidentally, I never quite realized the extent of modern-day Apple revisionism. Commodore was, for instance, the first company to show a personal computer (the PET 2001); and Chuck Peddle, who worked for MOS and then Commodore, and who designed the 6502, helped out Wozniak (and Mr. Overrated himself, ol' Salesman Jobs) when Apple decided to use the 6502 instead of coming up with their own chip. Apparently, nobody paid much attention when the first Apple was brought to trade shows, as it didn't even have a comprehensible on-screen interface yet, let alone BASIC -- it just displayed some kind of arcane-looking ML monitor.

 

I remember that among fellow C64 owners and the "older people" (twenties onward ) at user-group meetings in the '80s, the Apple II was known as "overpriced and underperforming" compared with the C64 and Atari 400/800/etc. I can't claim to know anything about it, though. There must have been something to it besides the durability Keatah often cites. Can anyone explain to a lamer why the Apple II was so frequently used as a development system? (That's a serious question, not a sarcastic one, in case my fatigued brain isn't yielding clear words...it was a very popular computer for the development of games that ran on, it seems, everything else.)

 

Bear in mind that this post has highlighted the Apple-revisionism stuff because of a personal bias (I'm one of those guys who won't even let an Apple product into the house); that material, however, comprises but a fraction of the interesting historical bits in the book. It's just that Commodore is so often left out when technological pioneers are discussed, simply because the company doesn't exist anymore. Imagine if that criterion were applied across the board.

 

Anyway, Bagnall did an extremely impressive researching job.

 

("Across the board." Heh heh heh.)

 

 

Edited June 12, 2016 by Chris++

[Keatah]

Much of the Apple 2 series' magic comes from just how bare metal it is. It might have well been built of discrete parts, having nearly 100 chips - much of which were simple 74LS logic parts. It is far closer to the single board computers (KIM-1, RCA COSMAC VIP) that preceded it than it is to the C64 or Atari 400/800. It had no custom chips. No video chip. No sound chip. No integration whatsoever. It could be cloned with off the shelf parts. And it had the shortest processing pathway from typing a key till the character was displayed. The "bare-metal'ness" of the machine and its monochromatic fixed font made it feel very much like a dumb terminal. This promoted a feeling of you and your code. The machine was invisible.

 

It had instant access to BASIC or Machine Language through the monitor right away on power up. Literally instantly! It took only 3-4 seconds to load DOS from a diskette - the Disk II was pretty quick for its time. It had optional ROM boards allowing a mini-Assembler and varied editors and additional firmware routines to be added to the machine. Or they could be loaded into RAM, at cost of temporarily consuming that RAM. Not impossible on the other 8-bit machines. But it was encouraged and made easy in the 2 series.

 

It had a very open bus. Including 8 expansions slots. And what signals weren't available there were available by using a micro-clip that could be placed on any IC. And the pop-top allowed instant access to 100% of the circuitry. Great for hobbyists and the pioneering types. The Apple II was not initially marketed as a toy or a business computer or for that matter for any specific market. There were no preconceived notions of what you could or could not do with the computer.

 

80 columns were available too, initially as an add-on, and standard later. You could get a 16K "Language Card", essentially more RAM that could be set up to accept DOS or a different Language like PASCAL, or FORTRAN, or LOGO, even 2 versions of BASIC (Applesoft with Floating Point math, or faster Integer BASIC). And of course CP/M by way of a Z-80 card. Let us not forget the different versions and 3rd-party DOS'es. It was almost a fun sport customizing them to do neat things.

 

Perhaps the best thing about the Apple 2 series was the amount of technical information that came with the machine. You would typically get about 800 pages of reference material spread across 4 or 5 manuals depending if you got the Disk II drive and Family System or not. You got theory of ops, schematics, hand-holding tutorials in BASIC, great overviews of the machine hardware, firmware listings, memory map, and even a guide a total newbie layperson could follow to get the system up and running. The documentation was outstanding across the board. Optional books were published that described the waveforms expected at each and every pin of each and every IC.

 

The documentation was superb and above all other machines of the time. To me, a kid then, it felt like an instructor was right beside me. And if this invisible instructor couldn't answer my question I could look in another manual and "consult" with an entire technical team. And this excellent documentation extended to peripheral cards, too, like the basic serial and parallel cards.

 

The Apple II and II+ came at a time when do-it-yourself types and hobbyists were "graduating" from hardware-only experiments to hardware-software experiments. All these features and flavors combined with the stellar documentation mixed together to appeal to the intelligent technical crowed. Developers just sucked this up left and right.

 

Personally, me myself, when working on BBS software back in the day, the machine felt like it never got in the way of letting you do what you wanted to. You thought it, you typed it, it worked. I never felt bogged down with it. I felt like I was working with the processor and memory array and that was it. Nothing else to color my perceptions. Naturally, the interpreted BASIC was slow, but not the editing features, you could zip around and get to any line number and position in that line quickly. Even faster with a fast-repeat mod. I did have fun seeing some of my early BASIC programs be put into a compiler and get converted to Assembly Language. That was a real kick.

 

You could also purchase a type-ahead buffer and a programmable function key strip. And of course printer buffers that eliminated tying up the computer while you made a long printout. And accelerator cards, realtime clocks, hard disk interfaces and drives that could support 4 OS'es out of the box - PASCAL, DOS, PRODOS, CP/M. 320K battery-backed RAM disks. 6502, Z80, 6809, 68000, 8086/PC plug in boards.. A/D & D/A, IEEE interfaces, data acquisition interfaces.. So much additional hardware was available. And most peripheral cards came with a socketed ROM that could be modified and customized if needed.

 

This is not to say other machines at the time couldn't do these things. They could. But something was always getting in the way or slowing down the work flow.

All these features and amenities and accommodations added up to make for the most versatile and customizable system of the era. None of it was fanboi-ism or any of that "..because apple" stuff. It was too early for that. The machine was solid, reliable, didn't get in the way of a developer's thought process. Like its successor, the IBM PC, it got the job done.

 

People wanted the machine for its capabilities, not because there were ads that showed flashy graphics or games.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Keatah

[Chris++]

Much of the Apple 2 series' magic...

 

What a fascinating post. Thank you for taking the time to share all of that information. I sure appreciate it! (Superbly written, as usual. Do you happen to have a website, web log, etc.?)

[Keatah]

I just spew forth stuff here on AA and into my personal journal. No blog or anything like that. No time for it all.

[MarkO]

I have the Kindle Version of "On the Edge by Brian Bagnall" that I bought 3 years ago, or so..

 

 

Commodore was the leader in Getting Computers to the People, "Computers for the Masses, Not the Classes"..

 

But I was surprised to learn from the book that:

 

The Pet Sold really well in Europe, and got Commodore a much better return, so they sold few Pets here, and a lot over there..

 

To save costs on the Vic-20 and C64, they use the less advanced BASIC v2.00, rather than the BASIC v4.00 the Pet used.. The Vic-20 and especially the C64 Were Power Houses in RAM, Graphics and Sound, but the limited BASIC, the Poor Expansion Options ( C1541 Drives ) caused a Superior Machine to the Apple ][, to be Much Harder to do anything Practical Data Processing ( Word Processing/Data Base ) with..

 

 

Commodore provided some great products, but Fell Short in other Areas.. Over All we are all better off, for Commodore having been part of the Computer Revolution...

 

 

I still have my SX-64, and other Commodores I acquired, along the way, as well as my original Apple ][e, plus a few more Apple ][ I acquired along the way..

 

( Disclaimer: I was the Apple ][ owner of my family, the rest had the C64, except the Math Teaching Uncle that had the Atari 400 and 800 )

 

MarkO

Edited June 21, 2016 by MarkO

[carlsson]

To be honest, besides the commands for handling the disk drive, I don't know what BASIC V4 has to offer over V2. Besides the V2 in VIC/C64 is rather a stripped down V4 than the old V2 version in the earlier PET/CBM computers. There is this other site that has a version tree of various Microsoft BASIC dialects that has conducted so.

[MarkO]

To be honest, besides the commands for handling the disk drive, I don't know what BASIC V4 has to offer over V2. Besides the V2 in VIC/C64 is rather a stripped down V4 than the old V2 version in the earlier PET/CBM computers. There is this other site that has a version tree of various Microsoft BASIC dialects that has conducted so.

I never used a Pet, so I don't know what v4.0 had that v2.0 didn't.. Some of the Pets had Graphics, so were there any Graphics Commands?

 

MarkO

[+SpiceWare]

I never used a Pet, so I don't know what v4.0 had that v2.0 didn't.. Some of the Pets had Graphics, so were there any Graphics Commands?

 

MarkO

Don't believe so - from wiki:

V4.0: PET/CBM 4000/8000 series (and late version PET 2001s)

• disk operations: DLOAD,DSAVE,COPY,SCRATCH, etc. (15 in all)
• disk error-channel variables: DS,DS$
• greatly improved garbage-collection performance[9]

V4+ : CBM-II series (aka B, P range)

• memory management: BANK
• more disk operations: BLOAD, BSAVE,DCLEAR
• formatted printing: PRINT USING,PUDEF
• error trapping: DISPOSE
• alternative branching: ELSE
• dynamic error handling: TRAP,RESUME,ERR$()
• flexible DATA read: RESTORE [linenumber]
• string search function: INSTR

Looks like all the graphics commands came with 3.5 (C16/116 & Plus 4) and 7.0 (C128).

[MarkO]

 

Don't believe so - from wiki:

 

Looks like all the graphics commands came with 3.5 (C16/116 & Plus 4) and 7.0 (C128).

 

So the reference about BASIC v2.0 verses v4.0 in "On the Edge by Brian Bagnall", must refer to the DOS Commands...

 

Thanks for Looking that Up...

 

 

MarkO

[carlsson]

Umm.. I don't know any PET model with built-in graphic capacities. Some had 3rd party solutions involving redefinable character sets and similar which could be used to simulate higher resolution graphics, but nothing in hardware from Commodore.

 

As far as I can tell, BASIC V4 adds these commands:

 

APPEND - to write additional data to the end of a sequential file

BACKUP - to duplicate the content of one disk to another (same device, so for dual drives)

COLLECT - to validate and garbage collect a disk, otherwise done by OPEN 1,8,15,"V0"

CONCAT - to combine two sequential files into one

COPY - to copy one file to either drive within the same device (single or dual drives)

DCLOSE - to close one or more files open on a particular device

DIRECTORY - to read the directory of a drive without overwriting the BASIC program

DLOAD - to load a program from disk, without requirement to specify device number

DOPEN - to open a file on a disk drive, sequential or random access

DSAVE - to save a file to disk

HEADER - to format a blank disk or clear an old disk, otherwise done by OPEN 1,8,15,"N0:name,id"

RECORD - to position the pointer in a random access file

RENAME - to rename a file, otherwise done by OPEN 1,8,15,"R0:new=old"

SCRATCH - to remove a file from disk, otherwise done by OPEN 1,8,15,"S0:file"

DS$ - reserved variable which holds the last error message from the disk drive

 

Basically all of these are syntactic sugar, commands that add zero functionality but may appear easier to use for beginners who are afraid to learn even the slightest complex syntax. Some may take a little more rewriting to get to work in earlier BASIC versions, but to be honest, how often do you concatenate sequential files? The BACKUP command might be useful though, the DS$ variable too.

 

So no, users of the VIC-20 and C64 are not missing a great lot and if this enabled Commodore to sell each computer say $10 cheaper, I can't blame them. If V4 had advanced commands for AUTO, RENUMBER, TRACE, IF ELSE etc, it would be a different matter

[+SpiceWare]

Basically all of these are syntactic sugar, commands that add zero functionality but may appear easier to use for beginners who are afraid to learn even the slightest complex syntax.

Going from the PETs at my high school to my VIC 20 in '81 I really missed DIRECTORY as LOAD"$",8 would wipe out any program that was in memory. DS$ value was useful as well.

 

Once I bought a C=64 it didn't matter as much as the DOS Wedge would load into the 4K RAM found just after the BASIC ROM and before the IO chips and KERNEL ROM.

[MarkO]

Going from the PETs at my high school to my VIC 20 in '81 I really missed DIRECTORY as LOAD"$",8 would wipe out any program that was in memory. DS$ value was useful as well.

 

Once I bought a C=64 it didn't matter as much as the DOS Wedge would load into the 4K RAM found just after the BASIC ROM and before the IO chips and KERNEL ROM.

 

I used the DOSWEDGE on my SX-64, until I got the Epyx FASTLOAD Cartridge, with the Built in WEDGE...

 

MarkO

[carlsson]

IIRC, the 1540/1541 test diskette has a DOS wedge for the VIC-20 too, but due to its memory limitations it might not be something you load and keep resident in valuable RAM. Then again, only rich brats had floppy drives with their VIC-20's so not too many users were affected. Actually I think a few third party cartridge extentions like BUTI and BUTI Plus had built-in wedge, not sure if Commodore's own did.

[FifthPlayer]

Can anyone explain to a lamer why the Apple II was so frequently used as a development system? (That's a serious question, not a sarcastic one, in case my fatigued brain isn't yielding clear words...it was a very popular computer for the development of games that ran on, it seems, everything else.)

 

 

To add one bit to the excellent summary Keetah wrote above: the Apple II had far and away the best floppy disk system. Compared to Commodore and Atari, it was high-density and above all it was FAST. That, plus easy 80 columns and easy hardware expansion (for adding memory, RAM disks, adapter cards to download code to the target system, etc), made the Apple II desirable as a cross-development machine.

 

The Atari 800 was my preferred 8-bit computer in the early '80s, but it's easy to see the Apple II was the best productivity machine out of all the 6502-based systems, and certainly the most hackable.

Edited July 6, 2016 by FifthPlayer

[carlsson]

Fast yes, but is 140K per disk side high density when the Commodore drives squeeze in 166K not counting the directory track? Compared to the Atari 8-bits, perhaps it is.

[Keatah]

Personally I'd rather take the 140K and gain reliability. And the Disk II was very reliable - much more than the 1541 and even the lesser density 810.

[BassGuitari]

The thing I love about the Apple II is that it's like a bridge between the old hobbyist kit systems of the mid '70s and PCs as we know them. The Apple's hobbyist/computer club lineage can be seen most obviously in how open it is, with *tons* of documentation that's dry as toast and yet also approachable and digestible. I don't think I've ever seen another set of system manuals that tell you how to build you own expansion cards, for instance (not that I'm necessarily inclined to do that, but that's the level of detail the Apple docs get down to).

Speaking of "openness," that's a great feature of the Apple. All it takes to add cards or play with expansion is to pop the cover off. The Atari 800 practically requires you to dismantle the case to do that, and the TRS-80 and VIC-20 and C64 are totally closed and reliant on expansion ports, cartridges, or external peripherals. With the Apple, expansion or customization is a snap. And there were cards for just about everything--language cards, 80-column cards, serial cards, cards that added Z80 processors, cards that added RAM, cards that did a combination of those things, and more.

The Disk II system was fast, reliable, and simple as hell to use--just pop in the disk and turn the computer on. The Atari disk systems were also simple to use, but slower and less reliable, and the disk loading commands of the Commodores and TI-99/4a are cumbersome by comparison (TRS-80 Disk Extended Color BASIC is a little more straightforward at least). The tradeoff is that the Disk II is dumb and contains no DOS, unlike the 1541, so you have to boot a DOS disk every time you want to use it, or put DOS on all your disks.

I own and have used Apples, VIC-20s, C64s, Ataris, TIs, TRS-80s--Model I, Model II, and Color--IBM/PCs, and other, "minor" systems like Aquarius, Timex/Sinclair 1000, and TRS-80 MC-10. I enjoy them all, but I think the greatest advantage of the Apple is its flexibility. It's not hard to see why, of all those systems, the Apple enjoyed such enduring success and use.

Edited July 6, 2016 by BassGuitari

[iKarith]

Far be it from me to suggest that the Apple // isn't THE 8 bit platform (if you know my history, I needn't get into that), but I don't know if I would say that the Commodore 8 bit systems weren't open.

 

It's true that the Apples were a bit MORE open, with Apple even documenting mods that required a soldering iron. They got a little less open than that long before the Mac, but it was an open architecture and you could just pop the cover to get into the thing. But then, you had to since the expansion was done via riser cards rather than external connectors.

 

I think a major reason why there's more documentation for the Apple than the Commodore systems is probably due in part to how few models there were. Consider: The Apple ][ and ][+ are functionally the same machine with different ROM. And with the language card, either machine can be the other. That takes you from the introduction of the Apple ][ in 1977 up through 1983. One machine, albeit with multiple variant configurations.

 

In 1983 comes the Apple ][e. Fundamentally the same machine, only now there's a standard for 80 column (duplicating the major 3rd party standard for the older system) and a standard upgrade to 128k. Still the same basic hardware, though. The Apple //c changed the hardware a little, but it was almost the same as a //e with a specific set of upgrades installed. And that carries you forward to the Apple IIgs, which again maintains that same underlying hardware as a compatibility path.

 

How many computers did Commodore produce in that time frame? The PET, CBM-II, VIC-20, C-64, C-128, C16/Plus4 are the ones I know about. Multiple variants exist of all of these, and they're generally not just about how much RAM is installed. The CBM-II could be had with a VIC-II! I think there's some compatibility between the PET and CBM-II, but I'm no more interested in those machines than I am in the Apple ][+ and older on the Apple side, so they may be functionally similar enough hardware-wise to be counted together like the Apple ][ and ][+, I dunno.

 

Hardware on each of these systems is different from the others, though. It's true IEC peripherals for older systems work fine with newer ones, and generally the reverse is true with certain caveats (like that the 1571 is functionally a 1541 on a C64.) And all of the Commodore machines can talk to IEEE-488, if indirectly. But the hardware architecture of the machines is very different. The VIC 20 cart port for example is totally different than the C64s, and that's for the best mechanically speaking. The older PET didn't even have that kind of bus expansion port. And the Plus4/C16 were ... what was Commodore thinking making a new machine that was both an upgrade and a downgrade, with no backward compatibility to speak of for software?

 

If you stop and look at the players in the 8 bit market, they really all had ONE truly stand-out machine of the era, with perhaps one other that did pretty well too. For Commodore that was the C64 and perhaps VIC-20 in the runner up position. For Apple it was really the ][+, even if the //e appears to have won out as the most popular machine out there. That's largely because Apple flooded schools with the things, and because the //e was a backwards-compatible almost pure superset of the ][+. Which is why I have no interest in the ][+ today. The //e is still a dime a dozen, eBait notwithstanding, and I could count on one hand the programs that require the older hardware, if I cared enough to find out what they were.

 

Outside the US it's much the same--Sinclair had the Spectrum and Atari's is functionally the Atari 800, for example.

[MarkO]

Personally I'd rather take the 140K and gain reliability. And the Disk II was very reliable - much more than the 1541 and even the lesser density 810.

 

 

And the 140K was the Worst Case Scenario...

 

The Original Shugart SA390s ( SA400s minus the Electronics ) were limited to 35 Tracks, but the ALPS and most all the Clones could do 40 Tracks... DOS 3.3 could be Patched to recognize the 40 Tracks, and with a Moderate to Slow Drive Speed, some Copy Protection Schemes used 18 Sectors per Track, so you could get a bit more data on the "typical" Apple ][ Drive...

 

MarkO

[Keatah]

The thing I love about the Apple II is that it's like a bridge between the old hobbyist kit systems of the mid '70s and PCs as we know them. The Apple's hobbyist/computer club lineage can be seen most obviously in how open it is, with *tons* of documentation that's dry as toast and yet also approachable and digestible. I don't think I've ever seen another set of system manuals that tell you how to build you own expansion cards, for instance (not that I'm necessarily inclined to do that, but that's the level of detail the Apple docs get down to).

 

Speaking of "openness," that's a great feature of the Apple. All it takes to add cards or play with expansion is to pop the cover off. The Atari 800 practically requires you to dismantle the case to do that, and the TRS-80 and VIC-20 and C64 are totally closed and reliant on expansion ports, cartridges, or external peripherals. With the Apple, expansion or customization is a snap. And there were cards for just about everything--language cards, 80-column cards, serial cards, cards that added Z80 processors, cards that added RAM, cards that did a combination of those things, and more.

 

The Disk II system was fast, reliable, and simple as hell to use--just pop in the disk and turn the computer on. The Atari disk systems were also simple to use, but slower and less reliable, and the disk loading commands of the Commodores and TI-99/4a are cumbersome by comparison (TRS-80 Disk Extended Color BASIC is a little more straightforward at least). The tradeoff is that the Disk II is dumb and contains no DOS, unlike the 1541, so you have to boot a DOS disk every time you want to use it, or put DOS on all your disks.

 

I own and have used Apples, VIC-20s, C64s, Ataris, TIs, TRS-80s--Model I, Model II, and Color--IBM/PCs, and other, "minor" systems like Aquarius, Timex/Sinclair 1000, and TRS-80 MC-10. I enjoy them all, but I think the greatest advantage of the Apple is its flexibility. It's not hard to see why, of all those systems, the Apple enjoyed such enduring success and use.

 

Yes all that. And allow me to emphasize that the Apple II was not like a bridge between single-board hobbyist kits and complete PC's. IT WAS THE BRIDGE. In fact, for a short time, the critical time, you could get an Apple both as a kit and as a completed unit.

 

As I've written before, the documentation is excellent. Best of all the micros. And the expansion capabilities were unmatched. You could even mess around with the keyboard encoder and text and how it behaved if you wanted to. Think lowercase, 80 columns, and the Enhancer II with macros and a type-ahead buffer, among other various hacks key repeat spead and remapping.

 

The reliability of the DISK II was simply outstanding. It gave users confidence and freedom. It was fast, being able to duplicate an entire disk in 25 seconds.

 

Yes, despite having to load DOS into memory upon startup, DOS 3.x was really nice. It simply added commands to BASIC. Typically a user would learn BASIC through and through and use the cassette tape. Then the they'd upgrade to the (rather expensive) Disk II. It integrated nicely, and you'd learn an additional add-on command set, like LOAD SAVE BRUN BLOAD CATALOG PR#6 and others. The commands felt 100% like they were built into the machine.

 

And most important, having DOS load each time meant you could use many different varieties like memory-lite versions that were missing commands. Or ones that focused on fast access, like a fastload cartridge. Or added new commands that might, for instance, focus on textfile operations. Even patched DOS'es for accessing a hard disk.

 

And if you forgot to load DOS, you could type in a minimalistic version in an emergency, enough to save that 500-line program you were working on. All was not lost!

 

And you could put DOS into ROM if you wanted, via the ROM+ card from Mountain Hardware.

[Keatah]

I would be remiss to not mention the significance of the C64. The C64 (and Vic-20) were the best of the low-cost micros. These machines allowed people to have computers whom would not be able to afford an Apple. And we must not ever overlook that.

[BassGuitari]

 

I think a major reason why there's more documentation for the Apple than the Commodore systems is probably due in part to how few models there were. Consider: The Apple ][ and ][+ are functionally the same machine with different ROM. And with the language card, either machine can be the other. That takes you from the introduction of the Apple ][ in 1977 up through 1983. One machine, albeit with multiple variant configurations.

That's an interesting point, and well reasoned, but I'm talking about even before the IIe came out. The manuals that came with the ][ or ][+ alone are Comp Sci classes unto themselves, and we haven't even hit 1980 yet.

 

I would be remiss to not mention the significance of the C64. The C64 (and Vic-20) were the best of the low-cost micros. These machines allowed people to have computers whom would not be able to afford an Apple. And we must not ever overlook that.

Or that the Commodore 64 smoked the Apple in the games department.

 

[Keatah]

That's an interesting point, and well reasoned, but I'm talking about even before the IIe came out. The manuals that came with the ][ or ][+ alone are Comp Sci classes unto themselves, and we haven't even hit 1980 yet.

 

That's true. Between the 800 page stack of manuals that came with my II+ outfit and the "Getting Started with TRS-80 Basic" book there was no need to take a computer course. While never marketed AS a comp-sci course in retrospect it could've actually been one, and you got the hardware for free. It also helped that your local grocery store was likely to have magazines that were technical and even covered programming. Something you don't see today.

 

The included books were a godsend. Like my prayers were heard and a whole machine called Silicon Valley was created so that I may enjoy computers up front and personal. You see, the public school system was of zero help. Students had to have like an "A" in order to get into the computer lab, let alone take a computer course. "C" or even "B+" wouldn't cut it. Math wizards only. The computer lab in my high-school was totally off limits to normal kids.

 

It seemed like the school system was still stuck in the slide-rule era from the space program where engineering and tech were still considered elite, with rocket science and all that.

 

https://archive.org/details/Getting_Started_with_TRS-80_Basic_1981_Tandy

ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.com/pub/apple_II/documentation/misc/Apple%20Computer%20Family%20System%20Alt.pdf

ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.com/pub/apple_II/documentation/hardware/machines/a2_reference_manual_alt.pdf

ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.com/pub/apple_II/documentation/programming/basic/The%20Applesoft%20Tutorial_HQ%20(color).pdf

ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.com/pub/apple_II/documentation/os/dos/DOS%20Manual.pdf

ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.com/pub/apple_II/documentation/programming/basic/Applesoft%20BASIC%20Programming%20Reference%20Manual%20-%20Apple%20Computer.pdf

ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.com/pub/apple_II/documentation/os/dos/Beneath%20Apple%20DOS%20-%204th%20Ed.pdf

 

[Keatah]

I thought Apple made a good decision when it updated the II+ to the //e. They considered the most popular add-in features of the time that were likely to (still) be in demand in the future.

 

1- 80 Column card + 64K RAM + Double HiRes graphics upgrade (card in auxiliary slot)

2- 48K to 64K upgrade, or built-in 16K language card (on mainboard)

3- Cleaned up back panel for easier mounting of serial/parallel and other port connectors

4- Extra functionality and support for memory expansion cards.

5- Additional cursor control keys

6- More accessible joystick connector

7- Replacement of those stupid 3M velcro-like plastic clips

8- Numeric keypad connector

9- Lowercase character set, and working shift-key mod

 

And as IC fabrication technology permitted, a good reduction in chip count.

 

Eventually they did another update, the Enhancement Kit, providing MouseText character set for text-based GUI. Addition of a 65C02 with more instructions and much less power consumption. There were also minor firmware tweaks.

 

And they ended with the //e Platinum which was essentially adding a numeric keypad and sported a slightly further reduction in chip count.

 

It was nice that 99% of the software remained compatible all the way from the 1970's up to the end in Nevember 1993. Not bad for a 1MHz computer!

[MarkO]

I would be remiss to not mention the significance of the C64. The C64 (and Vic-20) were the best of the low-cost micros. These machines allowed people to have computers whom would not be able to afford an Apple. And we must not ever overlook that.

 

Compared to the Apple ][. the Only Things I was envious of on the C64 was the VIC-II and SID.. Including such Powerful Capabilities in the "stock" Machine, means that Lots software utilized them....

 

Yes, the Apple ][ is so expandable, in that you can add the Super Sprite Card and MockingBoard, but how many of each of those were sold, compared to the Total Number of Apple ][s??

 

Just for Fun, Someone should Rig Up a Disk II on the C64, to see just how fast you could load stuff.....

 

MarkO