Talk:Apple I

Hardware description 2
This article is severely incomplete, as Jan olieslagers mentioned already in 2016. It covers the subject almost entirely like a collector's item, rather than a technical capabilities overview, like with almost every early home computer article. CapnZapp (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * -I've added an Overview section that attempts to describe the hardware more completely. Anything you think is missing?--agr (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, even in its current state, if I compare this article's table of contents to that of, I don't know, let's pick Apple II; there is only one section here that even starts describing the hardware (Overview) while there are nine (9) in the Apple II article. I understand Apple I is significantly more collectable, but this is Wikipedia, and not some collector's site. (I'm thinking of WP:NOT here) - I do not find it encyclopedic to devote much more space to collector details than to the history of Apple I development, its significance for computer and corporate history, its technical capabilities and shortcomings and so on. In other words, I have tagged this article because it does not treat its subject like other home computers of its era. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You're right, it looks like there's way too much here about how valuable the board is. Article sections by word count:

It is certainly worth saying that they are valuable, but this much may be an NPOV problem. This article looks like an auction house brochure. I'm going to try to cut it down and expand the hardware description to the best of my ability. 3df (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to remove the tag requesting more information about the Apple 1's capabilities. I'm not sure what more there is to say. It could run Integer Basic and play some simple games. Any objection?--agr (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's alright to remove now! 3df (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done--agr (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No Consensus to move (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc . talk  07:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

– The computer was only ever called "Apple 1" in the original manuals and all other original product literature that I've been able to find. The "Apple I" designation appears to be a later retronym derived from the Apple II after its appearance a couple of years later. The current "Apple I" page and "Apple 1" redirect page need to be swapped.&#32;Cjs (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Apple I → Apple 1
 * Apple 1 → Apple 1 (disambiguation)
 * There's no way this is uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. There is also Apple One, the subscription service, and Apple I is a common term for the computer. I'm not saying the move shouldn't happen, but there should definitely be a discussion. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  01:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. The common name is Apple I, even if it's a retronym.  O.N.R.  (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even if the original name was indeed Apple 1, Apple I has become the most common name. J I P  &#124; Talk 22:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Another possibility
Looking at the DAB it seems to me that Apple 1 should be a primary redirect to Apple I.

,, , any comments on that possibility? Andrewa (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * noted above there is also an article titled Apple One, so then while one of them might be a primary topic/redirect, how would "one" pick between them?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 10:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This looks like a good idea, as the only other entry with its own article is Apple One, and that uses a different spelling. J I P  &#124; Talk 11:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that 1|[1] can also be considered an alternative "spelling", or at least an alternative form, of both I|[I] and [One].  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 11:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's relevant whether or not 1 and I and One are alternative spellings of the same word. Even if so that doesn't make Apple 1 and Apple I and Apple One alternative spellings of the same name. They may be. Or not.
 * Because that's not the way English works and nor does Wikipedia article naming policy.
 * The article at Apple One is IMO correctly named. That doesn't prevent Apple I being the correct name for that other article, nor does it prevent Apple 1 redirecting to it. Andrewa (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You could be right, and I could be wrong. Since Apple 1 presently titles a dab page and is ambiguous to both Apple One and Apple I, I think it best for Wp readers to leave things as they are. I think the present situation is best in spite of confusing names to help readers find what they are looking for.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 17:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Clare
This sign needs citation 2600:1012:B18A:153D:887C:4D61:194F:D029 (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The claim that it had 456KB of storage must be wrong
Firstly it came from this edit which did not cite any source for this claim and also vandalised the developer's name.

Secondly its storage was as much or as little as the cassette tape allows. A 15-minute tape offers less storage than a 90-minute tape.

So the correct way to fix this would be to remove "456 KB" but keep "cassette tape" for the Storage field. 86.21.18.3 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation style
Some of the page citations in the article use rp, and some use sfn – roughly the same number of each in total. I think that we should standardise the article on one of the two: any preferences as to which? I generally prefer sfn, but would like to check for a consensus before starting on conversion work. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That sounds good! Either is fine. I recently rewrote the article with some sources copied from other ones, so there is some inconsistency. 3df (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, finally – I had a busy two months, it seems! Best, Wham2001 (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)