Talk:Apple II

Apple II was 8-bit, but the whole family wasn't (right?)
The first sentence states that the Apple II family was a line of 8-bit computers, but as far as I'm aware, the Apple IIgs was 16-bit; its Wiki article agrees, but also confusingly says it was "16/32-bit." I assume this article currently says 8-bit for a reason, so I'm not comfortable leaping in to change it; if someone that knows better wishes to, though, please do. :) —Xyzzy☥the☥Avatar 08:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, technically, the Apple II would have been an "8/16-bit" computer (like most other home computers of its generation)... an 8-bit CPU with a 16-bit address bus. 24.119.145.33 (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That opening sentence is clearly false, unless "Apple II family" only refers to the Apple II, II+, IIe, IIc and IIc+. Despite its radical differences, the Apple IIGS is part of the Apple II family and a true 16-bit computer. The IIGS CPU, the 65C816, has internal registers that are 16-bit wide and it has a 24-bit address bus (versus the 6502/65C02's 8-bit internal registers, and 16-bit address bus). That sentence needs to be changed.--Apple2gs (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your change here. Looks good to me. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 15:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Timeline
The TL looks atrocious. Any chance of redoing it, preferably using a program that uses proper image scaling? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.193.65.17 (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I believe it was created using the Wikipedia timeline tool, that creates images like the one in this article (I think it's in CSS). The only way to improve it would to be change the tool so it spits out something like svg images, but that wouldn't allow for the clickable hotspots it has now. Anyone else have any suggestions? The OP has a point: it does look pretty poor. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 02:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about the "Timeline of Apple II family models" with the year marked graph, or the "Apple Model Navigation" bar? If it's the latter, I'm not pleased with the way it looks either. It's also inaccurate, it claims the Mac-based Apple IIe Card is the successor to the Apple IIGS, or that the Apple III is the successor to the original 1977 Apple II . And if you continue to follow it, it claims the entire Apple II line's evolution leads to the Macintosh Color Classic. A proper Apple II family tree would look something like this (although perhaps exclude the Apple III, since officially it was another product line, a cousin of the Apple II). --Apple2gs (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Apple II-->Apple II Plus-->Apple III-->Apple IIe |       |                                          Apple III+     |--->Apple IIGS-->Apple X                                                         | Apple IIc-->Apple IIc+


 * This discussion inspired me to start this:


 * If you zoom way in, you see it gets crisper and crisper. Compare it with this one:


 * Anyone like it any better? If so, I'll finish it up and upload it. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 02:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Timeline complete
Despite the incredibly underwhelming response to my redo of the Apple II timeline, I finished it.

If there is no objection in the next few days, I'll go ahead and replace the current image with this new one.

There are some minor differences, but they make for a stronger timeline. For example, I moved the Apple IIe card down, since it's a peripheral for the Mac LC, and I added another identifier in the legend. Discuss. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 20:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, even though I finished my SVG version of the timeline, I'm not going to replace the current one. Even though mine is arguably easier to read, the big deal breaker is usability.


 * With the current one, if the user clicks on a computer model name (e.g. Apple I, Apple II, etc.), they are brought to the apple

article. With my version, because of how the wiki software works, when a user clicks on an Apple model, they are instead brought to the SVG page. From THERE they must click again to get to the SVG image alone, then from there they can click on the model numbers and go to the articles, but that is far too much work. In this case, usability trumps readability, so mine with remain unused.


 * If anyone wants to discuss this further, please do so. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Did the IIe really come before the IIc??65.215.93.238 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Nudity in image??
Ok, is it just me or is there nudity in the image that says Zig Zag on the monitor? Its very pixelated and partly cut off, but the right side of the image appears to me to show a hand, and a womens upper torso and breasts. Not complaining, I just wondered if this was correct or is my mind just dirty! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.131.10 (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Citations still needed
I grew up with the Apple II and when reading this article there are currently 17 unreferenced citations needed on this page. Is this just POV or can someone cite these claims? 172.56.6.65 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Apple II series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925003021/http://apple2history.org/history/ah04.html to http://apple2history.org/history/ah04.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201122002/http://apple2history.org/history/ah05.html to http://apple2history.org/history/ah05.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724182533/http://training.esri.com/campus/library/Bibliography/RecordDetail.cfm?ID=16159 to http://training.esri.com/campus/library/Bibliography/RecordDetail.cfm?ID=16159
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524200043/http://www.theapplecollection.com/Collection/AppleMovies/movies9.html to http://www.theapplecollection.com/Collection/AppleMovies/movies9.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725175706/http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctech/2005-January/037465.html to http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctech/2005-January/037465.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110206102726/http://www.citypages.com/content/printVersion/1740595/ to http://www.citypages.com/content/printVersion/1740595/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Remember, this is a series overview
Lots of unsourced opinions and tangents and details have snuck into this. The article is meant to give an overview of the series, with links to other articles, and not get be wandering around though odd minutia. I've been cleaning out some of the things that don't belong here, parenthetical asides, etc. If you think I removed something that's key, please put it back. Dgpop (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Split proposed
The section on clones takes up nearly half of the article. For an article on the Apple II series proper, this section really ought to be spun-off into its own page, say Apple II clones. A lot has been written in newspapers and journals about said clones, especially regarding Apple's litigious attitude toward many of them (see the Franklin Ace 100), so it definitely stands up as a notable topic of its own. DigitalIceAge (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with that. I assumes it should cover clones of all Apple ][ models, extension cards and peripherals. Dhrm77 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Current subsection is unreadable and making it its own article would encourage more structure. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  09:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I second that opinion. This section is far too lengthy in contrast to the main Apple II article, and deserves a spin-off as an independent article. There already is a list of Apple II clones that can be linked in the new article, and I suggest adding a sub-section about licensed Apple II "compatibles" (i.e. legal clones), such as the Franklin and Laser. Might be a worthy place to write about OEM Apple II's like the Bell & Howell Apple II Plus, or add-on compatibility boards like the TrackStar and PDS Apple IIe Card.--Apple2gs (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2024

 * 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: moved. (non-admin closure) Toadette Edit! 14:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

– "Apple II" is the shortest, most obvious name for this entire line of computers. That hundreds of links to Apple II series are renamed to Apple II clearly demonstrates this, as do hundreds of links to "Apple II" which really should be to the series. Manual upkeep of this goes around in circles and isn't productive. It's better to go with the natural, shortest name. Dgpop (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Apple II series → Apple II
 * Apple II → Apple II (1977 computer)


 * Support: The Apple II line of computers was in production for over a decade but the original 1977 model was only relevant for a small portion of that time span. It's practically confusing for editors to link to "Apple II" in, for instance, a page about a piece of software and for that link to direct to the 1977 model when in fact that software only supported later II models like the e, gs, and c. If "Macintosh" and "Amiga" all direct to special pages which provide an overview of those computer lines, there's no reason why the same should not be true of the Apple II series. The 1977 Apple II shouldn't represent the Apple II series as a whole, in the same way that the Mac 128K or Amiga 1000 don't represent those computer lines as a whole. SociusMono1976 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - I would agree the searchable term "Apple II" on Wikipedia should refer to the entire Apple II computer line, not one specific model. Certainly, back in the late 70's, "Apple II" referred to one unique machine (there wasn't even much of a distinction between the II and II Plus, they're almost seen as the same machine), especially since it was considered a one off. You had the Apple I, Apple II, Apple III, and so on. The same was true of the original 1984 Macintosh, or the first Star Wars film. Like those things, the name only became ubiquitous after it evolved into a whole series unexpectedly. All said, having the 1977 Apple II article named "Apple II" is like we're living back between 1977-1982. Made sense in that period, but not in present time.


 * When I first came aboard Wikipedia in 2005, there were only two Apple II computer articles: the Apple II Plus and Apple IIGS. I expanded on that by creating and writing the articles for the Apple IIe, Apple IIc and Apple IIc Plus. I was planning to write an Apple II article to fill in that missing gap next, and thought of a name other than "Apple II", but someone beat me to it. That's all good, but I would agree on changing it now to something more specific. Though perhaps a differing name than what's being suggested? How about "Apple II (original model)"? Putting it below to make my proposed alternative name visible...


 * Apple II → Apple II (original model)


 * Calling it "(1977 Computer)" almost implies there should be a "1979 computer" and "1983 computer" article and so on. The important bit to emphasize is it's the ORIGINAL or VERY FIRST Apple II model, the year is far less relevant--Apple2gs (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2024 (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.