Lots of comments on this video, and other others in this series. Keep them coming! I do have a request though, if I were to do a video on the Apple II/ Mac next, what would you be most interested in? * The Apple II, its cards and how you could expand it. * The Apple IIgs, in-depth about this machine. * The Macintosh Jonathan project, the modular computer that Apple did not make in the end. Or, what else would you prefer to see?
First computer experience ever was on a first gen Apple 2 with programs loaded from a cassette tape. First one I bought was an Apple 2 Plus in 1979. I was going to upgrade to the GS but a friend talked me into the Amiga 1000 instead, best decision ever. I have quite of few quibbles with various conclusions made in this video but none of them rise to the level that is worth wasting anyone else's time with.
Well, my views are subjective and incomplete. I did not own every one of these machines, and I cant really speak with absolute authority on all of this. I was 6 when then Apple II came out, and I was happily noodling around with my Binatone Pong, totally oblivious to the micro revolution over in the states. But hopefully the whole series, episodes 1, 2 and this, give people a decent intsight into the Apple II story?
256kB in the launch GS wasn't out of spec compared to contemporary machines. The Amiga 1000 actually launched with 256kB of memory, and the additional front slot mounted 256 was an extra. The Atari ST originally had a 260ST version, which may or may not have sold a small number with 256kB before being pulled from market.
Yeah, jumped the gun on that, though I THINK I do actually correct myself in the video. I admit, my FIRST Amiga, was an A500 and it had 512kb and I upgraded it to 1mb within six months. But that was in October of 87, so, yeah, a good year after the IIgs launch. The Amiga 1000 did have 256kb on launch, but I thing it was a bit of a rush job, hence its ROMS having to be loaded in from floppies. I have an A1000 now, WITH the 256kb expansion. Guess I should try loading Workbench on it, with 256kb and see how viable that would be. Im guessing it would suck very badly.
The Atari 260ST was actually sold for a very short time but it contained 512Kb of memory and had to load the TOS from floppy. The reason was that the TOS Rom was not ready when the production of the 260ST started. The solution was that all early STs were fitted with at least 512K of Ram regardless if it was a 260 or 520. There was originally a 130ST planned but never made.
@@john_ace Similar issue to the Amiga 1000. Workbench was on ROM, but there was no ROM, so you had to load in Kickstart from floppy and THEN load in workbench, so this was really not ideal. The fight between Commodore and Atari to get to market first with their 16-bit machines, meant corners were cut :/
When I bought my Amiga 1000 the 256k version was not an option, it automatically came with the 256k expansion ram. I later added another 512k ram on a card that went between the CPU and it's socket. The company designing the Amiga was bought by Commodore, who in my opinion absolutely destroyed it afterwards by their poor marketing, thus explaining why it did not fit into their previous lineup.
@@shorttimer874 Im not sure Commodore "destroyed it". But their launch was certainly not ideal. Releasing it with the OS on floppy disks, and with only 256kb of RAM when it obviously needed more, was a rush to market. Question is though, who else could have bought Amiga and did a better job? Atari failed to grasp it, when it was wholly in their hands and would have been taken over by Tramiel. Maybe he could have driven it to be better realised? Apple would not have touched it with a barge pole. I think there were two main flaws with the Amiga on launch, but also, as conceived. 1. It was welded to use on televisions, so its high rez modes used interlacing, which is OK for TV, but shocking for computing use. 2. The case had basically near zero expandability in it, compared to a PC. Apple II had card slots, as did PC, but not poor old Amiga. If it had non flickering high resolution text display from the get go, plus expandability via slots. Then compare it to a 1985 PC, and the PC would have looked rediculous. Remember how long it took Microsoft to get Windows out, and even then it was a twee toy. But anyway, one for another video...
My first real computer was an Apple IIGS. I took it to it's limits, used a lot of expansion slots and got mine running at 7Mhz with the accelerators at the time and had it running off a super fast hard drive eventually. If you have any questions or need details about what that machine was like or anything else regarding it I'll be glad to share as much as I remember. It's been quite a while.
Thats a very kind offer. I certainly am no expert. I have one, and I have extra memory for it, but no accelerator right now and I feel it MUST have a 7mhz or higher CPU as thats what Wozniak meant it to have when he was designing it. Mine feels very sluggish. A great machine though. I'm looking forward to using it more in the near future.
There actually was a GUI available for the Apple IIgs when it launched. It was first called Mouse Desk and also worked on the IIe/c (so only an 8bit OS). It was later renamed Apple II DeskTop and was included on the IIgs system disks before GS/OS (16bit) took over.
As I explored in the video, I know there was the Apple Desktop app, which was the app same as Mouse Desk, right? But I got the impression that it was ONLY 8-bit, written for the Apple II. So, although it was a graphical UI for the Apple II, it did run in its native 16-bit mode? Or do I have that wrong? My assumption was that ProDOS 16, which was actually mainly 8-bit, was the launch OS for the IIgs, whilst GSOS came along a couple of years later.
@@RetronautTech yes you're right, I actually forgot that you mentionned it when I reached the IIgs section. It was indeed 8-bit but I think it was largely used instead of just ProDOS.
@@theodomon2774 Yes, I was aware of it, as a couple of years ago I upgraded my IIe, so I could use it on it. Never got around to getting the mouse card for it though. Think those are maybe a little rare? But I think my gist was, Apple did not make a GUI for the IIgs on launch. Sure, there was ProDOS 16, but that was a text based GUI on a machine AIMED at graphics, and of course the Amiga and ST both had GUIs from the get go (not gecko) one year earlier. Sure, there was Apple Desktop, but I dont think Apple considered it to be the Desktop for the IIgs or they would have bundled it, with it. And Id also say they would not have bothered even making GSOS if they felt Apple Desktop was really going to showcase its ACTUAL abilities. Yep, really need to do a video on the GS. But I have some reviews of Amiga kit to do first!
@@RetronautTech from what I've seen Desktop was bundled with the first IIgs versions but yeah it was only 8-bit so not enough to use the fullness of the IIgs.
@@RetronautTech A point of clarification... "Finder" was a ProDOS16 app that was absolutely 16-bit. It came out shortly after the IIgs launch and ran on ProDOS16 and didn't require GS/OS. You could run 16-bit Finder on a IIgs with 512K. GS/OS came out later and I believe required 1024K (maybe more?) because of new memory requirements for the updated system. But original IIgs finder was out the door first and was a 16-bit GUI.
Interesting idea. I guess for that I need a POLL eh? And for a POLL Id need at least a top 15 list of cards. Hrm... I'll see what I can do. But in the meantime, anyone else here reading this, please comment with your own Top N list of cards.
Faster clock speed doesn't necessarily equate to an overall faster system. I.e. 2.8MHZ on a 16bit system may well be "faster" than 4MHZ on an 8bit one. Twice the bus width, more instructions per cycle, other differences/efficiencies of architecture. Anyhow, great video! Some really strange and wonderful things took place in the development of this line.
Something to consider is that there was a significant clone market for Apple II’s, mostly coming out of Taiwan. These clones were common in Australia, for instance (I had one), and were substantially cheaper (as little as 1/4 the price of a genuine Apple II). There were also a few clones made in the US, but they struggled more, probably because Apple was hostile towards them. They couldn’t do much about the clones coming out of Asia, though.
I understand there was the Laser machines, some of which were actually superior to actual Apple machines. Over here, in UK, I don't recall seeing any clones on sale. I think Apple had a bit of a "the world is the USA" attitude at first. But hey, they were a SMALL company at first, up against the well established Commodore and Tandy, so they had to have a narrow focus to succeed. The world was a lot less global in the 1970s and 80s, so I guess Asia, in particular, simply did not register for them at first.
The main reason why Apple II's were that present on the market (at least, in the US) is that it had an open architecture, enabling hardware and software designers to add capabilities to the machine. Also, open as it was, a huge wave of "clones" were developped in asia, most of them illegally, actually stealing IP from Apple. But that enabled the II to become the standard, and weirdly enabled Apple to sell more machines even if a lot of clones were also sold. This helped Apple sales grow, and history will repeat itself, but against Apple this time, in the next computer war : Macintosh -vs- IBM/Wintel architecture. IBM clones were built illegally by millions, while Apple protected the Macintosh with trade secrets and a powerfull legal team. So while the number Wintel machines were booming, Apple was the only manufacturer of it's architecture. Sure, nobody stole their IP, but they lots the war against the Wintel market. What made them booming with the Apple II mostly killed them with the Mac.
Its true, but then I guess unless you are ALSO a content creator, or licensing EVERY bit of software sold on a platform, then it means nothing to you if it becomes dominant, buy you only actually make only a small percentage of the machines sold for it. So sure IBM one the war in terms of platform adoption, but lost it in terms of a commercial venture, it escape their control. Microsoft, being a software company, merely surfed the largest (platform) waves. Their genius was licensing, not SELLING MSDOS/Windows to IBM, a mistake they had made on the Apple II "giving" MS Basic to Apple for a number of years (one off $ deal for several years, heavily in favour of Apple). But with MSDOS they made sure they were paid for every machine with it. Unless Apple pivoted and focussed on software as well as hardware, not sure how the asian Apple II knock offs really helped them.
Yes, I was going to mention that in the video, I even had a photo of an upgraded IIe -> IIgs, but I decided to skip it, as there was just too much too say, and the video would have been crazy long. I do wonder how many would have gone for that? Wouldn't you really want the new case as well?
@@RetronautTech IIRC The upgrade was $500US, and Apple modified the IIe case. It wasn't a user serviceable upgrade. From the sounds of it, very few people bothered, since you didn't get the better keyboard, mouse and RGB monitor. Other than that, the IIgs case didn't provide anything special.
If you're interested in some of the technical issues with the IIGS, I'd checkout another video titled "The Apple IIGS Megahertz Myth" which helps to dispel a myth that Apple intentionally hobbled it on release. Also the IIGS both borrowed from and also helped to evolve the Mac GUI and I/O (i.e. color, ADB devices, firmware toolbox services, etc). I really think what killed the Apple II line was both Jobs focusing on the Mac and his departure from Apple + Wozniak basically stepping away day-to-day development. The IIGS pretty much died when Apple released the 1MB IIGS in 1989 - basically an incremental vs revolutionary improvement (i.e. same graphics, and kept the 2.8 MHz "fast" mode while the 65816 at this point could reliably run faster.) Also 32-bit machines were just coming to market.
Yes, I did watch that video, and its certainly very insightful. It made me aware of the CPU used, and its somewhat troubled development and tuning up. I noticed recently that the same chip was also used in a Commodore 64 accelerator, released in the late 90s, with the chip clocked at 20mhz! Amazingly, it actually worked really well, in terms of compatibility, however, it was hampered by its late arrival AND tiny user base. Still an interesting link there... Honestly, I think what killed the Apple II was time. It was a machine of the 70s, through and through. A marvel of its time, but in the end it had to give way to newer architectures. The IIgs was a great machine, except for that CPU, which really was too slow for its intended purpose, remember Wozniak specced it, but in the end did not really get the chip he expected, at least at launch and for several years afterwards. Maybe if he had made a cleaner break, and gone for a 68030 or even a 286/386 based machine then things could have been different. IMHO it would have been better to have an Apple IIe on a card, with the stock processor, or maybe the 4mhz one from the IIc? Then keep the real fireworks for the newer CPU + chips. It made me remember an idea some had when the Amiga was launched, that it also should be backwards compatible. But again that would have required a full C64 on a board inside the Amiga, and that would have held it back in terms of cost AND case space. So maybe Commodore did make the right move, forced on them by the Amiga technology they bought in. Another interesting tid-bit. Apparently the designed of the IIgs's sound chip, had plans for the SID chip in the C64 to have 20 voices, but in the end it had to be shelved because of time or costs (not sure which). But of course this idea came to fruition on the IIgs. Again, how wild would it have been for the SID to have had 20 voices, that really would have been a revelation back in 82 :)
You're probably well into your IIgs stand-alone video. :) But just a note that while there were some stability issues on early 65C816 chips that contributed to Apple's decision to run it at 2.6mhz instead of (3-4mhz,) the chip in a year or two was shipping in bulk and would have been quite well-suited up to 8mhz or so if Apple had any interest in making a newer version of the IIgs with the training wheels taken off of the CPU. There were several other factors, of course. "Not competing with the Mac" doesn't seem to be a legitimate concern at that time.
But thats the thing, without that 3 or 4mhz CPU, its not really the leap forward you would need for people to sit up and REALLY take notice. I HAVE used one, and when the stock IIgs is running GSOS, its very sluggish. I think with a 4 or 8mhz CPU, it would then feel more like an Amiga, and Im not talking a 68030 based machine, Im talking an Amiga 500. But anyway, I'll keep my powder dry for the specific video on it...
@@RetronautTech You won't get any argument from me... the IIgs @ 2.6mhz does feel really slow. I was only pointing out that it was a very early design requirement for Apple to run it slow because of the chip yields. It COULD have been bumped up to 8mhz a few years later in an updated motherboard revision... but at that time they chose not to.
Ubhad a friend with one of these. I had an Amiga and thought this was somewhere between an ST and the Ami. I think a lot of bad decisions around the machine, like hobbling the processor speed to sell more Macs, was because of the split of attention between the two 16-bit systems
I'm assuming you mean the IIgs? I watched a recent video and apparently it was less a case of conspiracy and more about hubris. Apparently Wozniak reached out to a chip designer to make a 6502 compatible CPU that could run in 16bit AND 8bit modes. The designer assured him they could get the chip going at 8mhz. But because of design issues with that chip they had to go with the 2.8mhz at launch and for quite a while after. Indeed it NEVER got an upgraded CPU to make it run at the speed it SHOULD have launched at. Its interesting, as if it HAD ran at 8mhz then it would have actually made the Mac look pretty anaemic. But this was not an engineered fail, more of a set of unfortunate circumstances. One of those what could have beens....
@@RetronautTech WDC originated the 65C02, other manufacturers like Rockwell and NCR made their own versions. My IIc's have NCR and Rockwell CPUs. MOS made other improved versions of the 6502, like the 6509 and 65CE02 - I think the 65CE02 was 65C02-compatible but it didn't really see much application. Apart from that I don't think MOS made anything 65C02- or 65C816-compatible.
@@RetronautTech Yes. Microsoft's original reason for the appleII softcard was to be able to run their CP/M software on the appleII without having to port it. I think that was still the case when the C was designed, though they didn't do any hardware for this machine.
Apple Inc made a few design mistakes with the complete series of Apple II computers. Costs could have been reduced if there was a modular build up. What they did, and I think it was for commercial reasons, every time a new model came there was a change in the segments of the computer that could have stayed the same. For instance, the power-supplies kept approximately the same size throughout the years, but is was not the same. The keyboards had long time the same form factor, but there were real changes in how it worked. It could not be replaced by another keyboard from a different model / year. If the cabinets and the power-supplies and the keyboards would NOT have been designed complete new every time a new computer was made, the design and production costs would have been substantial lower. In IBM compatible computers they all used the same distances between mounting holes, that if another manufacturer mede a better motherboard, the old one could be taken out of the cabinet and be replaced. Keyboards and power-supplies idem dito. This lost opportunity was the start of throw-away consumer goods, use one time and then dump it. Apple is now the number one in fighting repairs and producing things that can never be reused again. Actually this is very sad, the numbers of produced equipment almost reach the total number of humans on Earth, but the computers and telephones can no longer be used because of build in planned obsolution.
Well, there is always a tension between re-usability and practicality. And also, it appears an issue to make the proverbial 100 year light bulb which no one needs to replace. Perfect for the customer, terrible for the manufacturer. We, for good and bad, live in a capitalist society. And so, companies exist and like a living thing, they need to eat to survive. So, destroying their own food source ($$$) would be kind of moronic? BTW, I am not defending modern Apple. It has become a company with policies which are very dubious. For instance, why does every peripheral for a Mac seem to cost £130. It used to be £90, but leapt to £130 post COVID. So now just a keyboard costs £130, and its nothing special. I fear they are becoming ever more elitist, or rather only viable for the rich. I WAS very interested in project Jonathan, that modular computer system design I showed. That would have been VERY flexible in terms of keeping it going long term. Say the CPU module got out-moded. Just buy a new one, plug it in, and sell the old one. But, getting that to work, would have been a pretty gordian knot to unravel eh? And the thing that would STILL kill that kind of system, is when you switch from 32-bit to 64-bit OS/Drivers, and when the BUS really holds back performance. It seems, like a crab, computers have to shed their old solid shell from time to time, to grow and we cant get away from that.
That was back when Apple really seemed to care about its legacy. Today not so much. Apple will throw away a product, thus a plaform in a heartbeat if it doesn't move in numbers and that's honestly sad. That still doesn't stop resellers looking to cash in. To think x86 macs are on the way out and many still want and arm and leg for an old Macbook. 😂
Well, I think he was a perfectionist. But sometimes you HAVE to compromise. The core part of a product is its functionality, and having your micro melt down in front of you, well, its not top of most people wish list eh? Making this mistake once with the Apple II was a learning experience. Twice with the Apple III was, well, a face palm. But to then do the same thing with the G4 Cube, well, thats unforgivable, even if it was a good 20 or so years later eh?
Lots of comments on this video, and other others in this series. Keep them coming! I do have a request though, if I were to do a video on the Apple II/ Mac next, what would you be most interested in?
* The Apple II, its cards and how you could expand it.
* The Apple IIgs, in-depth about this machine.
* The Macintosh Jonathan project, the modular computer that Apple did not make in the end.
Or, what else would you prefer to see?
Jonathan please
First computer experience ever was on a first gen Apple 2 with programs loaded from a cassette tape. First one I bought was an Apple 2 Plus in 1979. I was going to upgrade to the GS but a friend talked me into the Amiga 1000 instead, best decision ever.
I have quite of few quibbles with various conclusions made in this video but none of them rise to the level that is worth wasting anyone else's time with.
Well, my views are subjective and incomplete. I did not own every one of these machines, and I cant really speak with absolute authority on all of this. I was 6 when then Apple II came out, and I was happily noodling around with my Binatone Pong, totally oblivious to the micro revolution over in the states.
But hopefully the whole series, episodes 1, 2 and this, give people a decent intsight into the Apple II story?
256kB in the launch GS wasn't out of spec compared to contemporary machines.
The Amiga 1000 actually launched with 256kB of memory, and the additional front slot mounted 256 was an extra.
The Atari ST originally had a 260ST version, which may or may not have sold a small number with 256kB before being pulled from market.
Yeah, jumped the gun on that, though I THINK I do actually correct myself in the video. I admit, my FIRST Amiga, was an A500 and it had 512kb and I upgraded it to 1mb within six months. But that was in October of 87, so, yeah, a good year after the IIgs launch.
The Amiga 1000 did have 256kb on launch, but I thing it was a bit of a rush job, hence its ROMS having to be loaded in from floppies. I have an A1000 now, WITH the 256kb expansion. Guess I should try loading Workbench on it, with 256kb and see how viable that would be. Im guessing it would suck very badly.
The Atari 260ST was actually sold for a very short time but it contained 512Kb of memory and had to load the TOS from floppy. The reason was that the TOS Rom was not ready when the production of the 260ST started. The solution was that all early STs were fitted with at least 512K of Ram regardless if it was a 260 or 520. There was originally a 130ST planned but never made.
@@john_ace Similar issue to the Amiga 1000. Workbench was on ROM, but there was no ROM, so you had to load in Kickstart from floppy and THEN load in workbench, so this was really not ideal. The fight between Commodore and Atari to get to market first with their 16-bit machines, meant corners were cut :/
When I bought my Amiga 1000 the 256k version was not an option, it automatically came with the 256k expansion ram. I later added another 512k ram on a card that went between the CPU and it's socket. The company designing the Amiga was bought by Commodore, who in my opinion absolutely destroyed it afterwards by their poor marketing, thus explaining why it did not fit into their previous lineup.
@@shorttimer874 Im not sure Commodore "destroyed it". But their launch was certainly not ideal. Releasing it with the OS on floppy disks, and with only 256kb of RAM when it obviously needed more, was a rush to market. Question is though, who else could have bought Amiga and did a better job?
Atari failed to grasp it, when it was wholly in their hands and would have been taken over by Tramiel. Maybe he could have driven it to be better realised?
Apple would not have touched it with a barge pole.
I think there were two main flaws with the Amiga on launch, but also, as conceived.
1. It was welded to use on televisions, so its high rez modes used interlacing, which is OK for TV, but shocking for computing use.
2. The case had basically near zero expandability in it, compared to a PC. Apple II had card slots, as did PC, but not poor old Amiga.
If it had non flickering high resolution text display from the get go, plus expandability via slots. Then compare it to a 1985 PC, and the PC would have looked rediculous. Remember how long it took Microsoft to get Windows out, and even then it was a twee toy.
But anyway, one for another video...
100% subscribed. I'm in the UK, got my first Apple II back in 1987 and i'm still writing games for Apple IIs however many years later! Amazing video..
Very kind words. Hopefully I can do more Apple II content soon.
I’ve watched all three chapters now, and I think you’ve done a really good job. Enjoyed it thoroughly.
Thanks, it was certainly a lot of work, but I think worth it in the end.
My first real computer was an Apple IIGS. I took it to it's limits, used a lot of expansion slots and got mine running at 7Mhz with the accelerators at the time and had it running off a super fast hard drive eventually. If you have any questions or need details about what that machine was like or anything else regarding it I'll be glad to share as much as I remember. It's been quite a while.
Thats a very kind offer. I certainly am no expert. I have one, and I have extra memory for it, but no accelerator right now and I feel it MUST have a 7mhz or higher CPU as thats what Wozniak meant it to have when he was designing it. Mine feels very sluggish. A great machine though. I'm looking forward to using it more in the near future.
There actually was a GUI available for the Apple IIgs when it launched. It was first called Mouse Desk and also worked on the IIe/c (so only an 8bit OS). It was later renamed Apple II DeskTop and was included on the IIgs system disks before GS/OS (16bit) took over.
As I explored in the video, I know there was the Apple Desktop app, which was the app same as Mouse Desk, right? But I got the impression that it was ONLY 8-bit, written for the Apple II. So, although it was a graphical UI for the Apple II, it did run in its native 16-bit mode? Or do I have that wrong? My assumption was that ProDOS 16, which was actually mainly 8-bit, was the launch OS for the IIgs, whilst GSOS came along a couple of years later.
@@RetronautTech yes you're right, I actually forgot that you mentionned it when I reached the IIgs section. It was indeed 8-bit but I think it was largely used instead of just ProDOS.
@@theodomon2774 Yes, I was aware of it, as a couple of years ago I upgraded my IIe, so I could use it on it. Never got around to getting the mouse card for it though. Think those are maybe a little rare?
But I think my gist was, Apple did not make a GUI for the IIgs on launch. Sure, there was ProDOS 16, but that was a text based GUI on a machine AIMED at graphics, and of course the Amiga and ST both had GUIs from the get go (not gecko) one year earlier.
Sure, there was Apple Desktop, but I dont think Apple considered it to be the Desktop for the IIgs or they would have bundled it, with it. And Id also say they would not have bothered even making GSOS if they felt Apple Desktop was really going to showcase its ACTUAL abilities.
Yep, really need to do a video on the GS. But I have some reviews of Amiga kit to do first!
@@RetronautTech from what I've seen Desktop was bundled with the first IIgs versions but yeah it was only 8-bit so not enough to use the fullness of the IIgs.
@@RetronautTech A point of clarification... "Finder" was a ProDOS16 app that was absolutely 16-bit. It came out shortly after the IIgs launch and ran on ProDOS16 and didn't require GS/OS. You could run 16-bit Finder on a IIgs with 512K. GS/OS came out later and I believe required 1024K (maybe more?) because of new memory requirements for the updated system. But original IIgs finder was out the door first and was a 16-bit GUI.
Great video. Why don’t you do a top 15 expansion slot countdown or something?
Interesting idea. I guess for that I need a POLL eh? And for a POLL Id need at least a top 15 list of cards. Hrm... I'll see what I can do. But in the meantime, anyone else here reading this, please comment with your own Top N list of cards.
Apple IIc+ was also a reaction to Laser 128EX which had a top speed of 3.6 Mhz
Faster clock speed doesn't necessarily equate to an overall faster system. I.e. 2.8MHZ on a 16bit system may well be "faster" than 4MHZ on an 8bit one. Twice the bus width, more instructions per cycle, other differences/efficiencies of architecture.
Anyhow, great video! Some really strange and wonderful things took place in the development of this line.
Apple's addiction to taking a bite out of its customers is astounding.
Nothing they sold was a value for money.
I had so much fun with my IIgs
Something to consider is that there was a significant clone market for Apple II’s, mostly coming out of Taiwan. These clones were common in Australia, for instance (I had one), and were substantially cheaper (as little as 1/4 the price of a genuine Apple II). There were also a few clones made in the US, but they struggled more, probably because Apple was hostile towards them. They couldn’t do much about the clones coming out of Asia, though.
I understand there was the Laser machines, some of which were actually superior to actual Apple machines. Over here, in UK, I don't recall seeing any clones on sale. I think Apple had a bit of a "the world is the USA" attitude at first. But hey, they were a SMALL company at first, up against the well established Commodore and Tandy, so they had to have a narrow focus to succeed. The world was a lot less global in the 1970s and 80s, so I guess Asia, in particular, simply did not register for them at first.
The main reason why Apple II's were that present on the market (at least, in the US) is that it had an open architecture, enabling hardware and software designers to add capabilities to the machine. Also, open as it was, a huge wave of "clones" were developped in asia, most of them illegally, actually stealing IP from Apple. But that enabled the II to become the standard, and weirdly enabled Apple to sell more machines even if a lot of clones were also sold.
This helped Apple sales grow, and history will repeat itself, but against Apple this time, in the next computer war : Macintosh -vs- IBM/Wintel architecture. IBM clones were built illegally by millions, while Apple protected the Macintosh with trade secrets and a powerfull legal team. So while the number Wintel machines were booming, Apple was the only manufacturer of it's architecture. Sure, nobody stole their IP, but they lots the war against the Wintel market. What made them booming with the Apple II mostly killed them with the Mac.
Its true, but then I guess unless you are ALSO a content creator, or licensing EVERY bit of software sold on a platform, then it means nothing to you if it becomes dominant, buy you only actually make only a small percentage of the machines sold for it. So sure IBM one the war in terms of platform adoption, but lost it in terms of a commercial venture, it escape their control.
Microsoft, being a software company, merely surfed the largest (platform) waves. Their genius was licensing, not SELLING MSDOS/Windows to IBM, a mistake they had made on the Apple II "giving" MS Basic to Apple for a number of years (one off $ deal for several years, heavily in favour of Apple). But with MSDOS they made sure they were paid for every machine with it. Unless Apple pivoted and focussed on software as well as hardware, not sure how the asian Apple II knock offs really helped them.
The Apple IIe also had a IIgs option with a boardswap. But then it would just be a IIgs
Yes, I was going to mention that in the video, I even had a photo of an upgraded IIe -> IIgs, but I decided to skip it, as there was just too much too say, and the video would have been crazy long. I do wonder how many would have gone for that? Wouldn't you really want the new case as well?
@@RetronautTech IIRC The upgrade was $500US, and Apple modified the IIe case. It wasn't a user serviceable upgrade. From the sounds of it, very few people bothered, since you didn't get the better keyboard, mouse and RGB monitor. Other than that, the IIgs case didn't provide anything special.
If you're interested in some of the technical issues with the IIGS, I'd checkout another video titled "The Apple IIGS Megahertz Myth" which helps to dispel a myth that Apple intentionally hobbled it on release. Also the IIGS both borrowed from and also helped to evolve the Mac GUI and I/O (i.e. color, ADB devices, firmware toolbox services, etc). I really think what killed the Apple II line was both Jobs focusing on the Mac and his departure from Apple + Wozniak basically stepping away day-to-day development.
The IIGS pretty much died when Apple released the 1MB IIGS in 1989 - basically an incremental vs revolutionary improvement (i.e. same graphics, and kept the 2.8 MHz "fast" mode while the 65816 at this point could reliably run faster.) Also 32-bit machines were just coming to market.
Yes, I did watch that video, and its certainly very insightful. It made me aware of the CPU used, and its somewhat troubled development and tuning up. I noticed recently that the same chip was also used in a Commodore 64 accelerator, released in the late 90s, with the chip clocked at 20mhz! Amazingly, it actually worked really well, in terms of compatibility, however, it was hampered by its late arrival AND tiny user base. Still an interesting link there...
Honestly, I think what killed the Apple II was time. It was a machine of the 70s, through and through. A marvel of its time, but in the end it had to give way to newer architectures. The IIgs was a great machine, except for that CPU, which really was too slow for its intended purpose, remember Wozniak specced it, but in the end did not really get the chip he expected, at least at launch and for several years afterwards.
Maybe if he had made a cleaner break, and gone for a 68030 or even a 286/386 based machine then things could have been different. IMHO it would have been better to have an Apple IIe on a card, with the stock processor, or maybe the 4mhz one from the IIc? Then keep the real fireworks for the newer CPU + chips.
It made me remember an idea some had when the Amiga was launched, that it also should be backwards compatible. But again that would have required a full C64 on a board inside the Amiga, and that would have held it back in terms of cost AND case space. So maybe Commodore did make the right move, forced on them by the Amiga technology they bought in.
Another interesting tid-bit. Apparently the designed of the IIgs's sound chip, had plans for the SID chip in the C64 to have 20 voices, but in the end it had to be shelved because of time or costs (not sure which). But of course this idea came to fruition on the IIgs. Again, how wild would it have been for the SID to have had 20 voices, that really would have been a revelation back in 82 :)
You're probably well into your IIgs stand-alone video. :) But just a note that while there were some stability issues on early 65C816 chips that contributed to Apple's decision to run it at 2.6mhz instead of (3-4mhz,) the chip in a year or two was shipping in bulk and would have been quite well-suited up to 8mhz or so if Apple had any interest in making a newer version of the IIgs with the training wheels taken off of the CPU. There were several other factors, of course. "Not competing with the Mac" doesn't seem to be a legitimate concern at that time.
But thats the thing, without that 3 or 4mhz CPU, its not really the leap forward you would need for people to sit up and REALLY take notice. I HAVE used one, and when the stock IIgs is running GSOS, its very sluggish. I think with a 4 or 8mhz CPU, it would then feel more like an Amiga, and Im not talking a 68030 based machine, Im talking an Amiga 500.
But anyway, I'll keep my powder dry for the specific video on it...
@@RetronautTech You won't get any argument from me... the IIgs @ 2.6mhz does feel really slow. I was only pointing out that it was a very early design requirement for Apple to run it slow because of the chip yields. It COULD have been bumped up to 8mhz a few years later in an updated motherboard revision... but at that time they chose not to.
Ubhad a friend with one of these. I had an Amiga and thought this was somewhere between an ST and the Ami.
I think a lot of bad decisions around the machine, like hobbling the processor speed to sell more Macs, was because of the split of attention between the two 16-bit systems
I'm assuming you mean the IIgs? I watched a recent video and apparently it was less a case of conspiracy and more about hubris. Apparently Wozniak reached out to a chip designer to make a 6502 compatible CPU that could run in 16bit AND 8bit modes. The designer assured him they could get the chip going at 8mhz. But because of design issues with that chip they had to go with the 2.8mhz at launch and for quite a while after. Indeed it NEVER got an upgraded CPU to make it run at the speed it SHOULD have launched at.
Its interesting, as if it HAD ran at 8mhz then it would have actually made the Mac look pretty anaemic. But this was not an engineered fail, more of a set of unfortunate circumstances. One of those what could have beens....
5:08 - I don't think MOS made a 65C02...
Would you happen to know who made it?
@@RetronautTech WDC originated the 65C02, other manufacturers like Rockwell and NCR made their own versions. My IIc's have NCR and Rockwell CPUs.
MOS made other improved versions of the 6502, like the 6509 and 65CE02 - I think the 65CE02 was 65C02-compatible but it didn't really see much application. Apart from that I don't think MOS made anything 65C02- or 65C816-compatible.
@@tetsujin_144 Ah yes, I do recall reading WDC, why its not said as such in the video. Well, guess it slipped though :/
It would have been nice if Apple also managed to fit the Microsoft CP/M card into the IIc. I wonder if there were any hack mods done for that?
Do you think CP/M would have been as desirable was it once was by the time the IIc was being designed?
@@RetronautTech Yes. Microsoft's original reason for the appleII softcard was to be able to run their CP/M software on the appleII without having to port it. I think that was still the case when the C was designed, though they didn't do any hardware for this machine.
Apple Inc made a few design mistakes with the complete series of Apple II computers. Costs could have been reduced if there was a modular build up. What they did, and I think it was for commercial reasons, every time a new model came there was a change in the segments of the computer that could have stayed the same.
For instance, the power-supplies kept approximately the same size throughout the years, but is was not the same. The keyboards had long time the same form factor, but there were real changes in how it worked. It could not be replaced by another keyboard from a different model / year.
If the cabinets and the power-supplies and the keyboards would NOT have been designed complete new every time a new computer was made, the design and production costs would have been substantial lower. In IBM compatible computers they all used the same distances between mounting holes, that if another manufacturer mede a better motherboard, the old one could be taken out of the cabinet and be replaced. Keyboards and power-supplies idem dito.
This lost opportunity was the start of throw-away consumer goods, use one time and then dump it. Apple is now the number one in fighting repairs and producing things that can never be reused again. Actually this is very sad, the numbers of produced equipment almost reach the total number of humans on Earth, but the computers and telephones can no longer be used because of build in planned obsolution.
Well, there is always a tension between re-usability and practicality. And also, it appears an issue to make the proverbial 100 year light bulb which no one needs to replace. Perfect for the customer, terrible for the manufacturer.
We, for good and bad, live in a capitalist society. And so, companies exist and like a living thing, they need to eat to survive. So, destroying their own food source ($$$) would be kind of moronic?
BTW, I am not defending modern Apple. It has become a company with policies which are very dubious. For instance, why does every peripheral for a Mac seem to cost £130. It used to be £90, but leapt to £130 post COVID. So now just a keyboard costs £130, and its nothing special. I fear they are becoming ever more elitist, or rather only viable for the rich.
I WAS very interested in project Jonathan, that modular computer system design I showed. That would have been VERY flexible in terms of keeping it going long term. Say the CPU module got out-moded. Just buy a new one, plug it in, and sell the old one. But, getting that to work, would have been a pretty gordian knot to unravel eh? And the thing that would STILL kill that kind of system, is when you switch from 32-bit to 64-bit OS/Drivers, and when the BUS really holds back performance.
It seems, like a crab, computers have to shed their old solid shell from time to time, to grow and we cant get away from that.
Did you ever find an Apple II card for the LC? If not, I can send you mine, just pay for shipping.
Nope. Really? That would be epic, if your serious, reach out to me on the channels email address ;)
@@RetronautTech I sent you an email.
That was back when Apple really seemed to care about its legacy. Today not so much. Apple
will throw away a product, thus a plaform in a heartbeat if it doesn't move in numbers and that's honestly sad. That still doesn't stop resellers looking to cash in. To think x86 macs are on the way out and many still want and arm and leg for an old Macbook. 😂
Steve jobs had some paranóias… forbiding a cooling device… really?
Well, I think he was a perfectionist. But sometimes you HAVE to compromise. The core part of a product is its functionality, and having your micro melt down in front of you, well, its not top of most people wish list eh? Making this mistake once with the Apple II was a learning experience. Twice with the Apple III was, well, a face palm. But to then do the same thing with the G4 Cube, well, thats unforgivable, even if it was a good 20 or so years later eh?