Indeed, computers back then didn't come with any kind of permanent storage. With the Altair you had to manually enter software byte by byte with the 8 switches on the front, one for each bit.
If you were REALLY cool, you had an ASR-33 with a Paper Tape reader, so, after you toggled the bootloader into RAM, you could spend the next 10 minutes (re)loading MS BASIC from paper (or mylar) tape.
f Chuck helped Woz with this problem he never came up with a good solution because the problem was finally solved by the availability of 2Mhz DRAMS that permitted the seamless interleaving of CPU and refresh cycles.
Right.
And now that I think about it, the GGP was conflating the Apple 1, which had no video interleaving, because it used a "glass TTY"-type display, using SHIFT REGISTERS for the "video RAM", vs. the Apple ][, which used the system DRAM in an "interleaved" timing fashion.
"However, to make a working computer, users still had to add a case, power supply transformers, power switch, ASCII keyboard, and composite video display."
It didn't have a power switch to flip. And Wozniak couldn't even get the thing to work properly without help from MOS/Commodore's Chuck Peddle.
As always, Apple's contribution to early computing is severely overblown by revisionists.
For a good history of early personal computers (particularly those where the 6502 is involved), check out the book "Commodore: A Company on the Edge"- the first half is basically about the father of personal computers, Chuck Peddle.
Ok, I'll give you that it was just a motherboard. However, once a user hooked up a power supply, keyboard, and composite monitor (or RF modulator and TV), then they instantly had a working system, which didn't require toggling in a bootloader everytime the power was removed.
So, Woz asked for some help with something that was ultimately due to an errata in the MOS Technology 6502 datasheet. So?
My dad had an Apple ][ plus, and I remember distinctly that it had the schematics on the lid. Though that might be different for the earlier models.
Sorry, false memory. I have a ][+ in quiet repose in my "computer museum" (read: "pile of old computers") in the next room. Nothing on the inside of the lid but beige paint.
Apple customers are people who usually don't know much, if anything, about the technology inside the box; more significantly, they don't *want* to know, and don't care about it.
Sorry, you are dead wrong.
Not only am I an embedded developer with over 30 years of experience; but I also know several EEs who are Mac-only. And yes, they are EEs with digital expertise.
Now before you punish-mod me into oblivion; let me explain:
I just happened to look at my security logs about a week ago, and there has been a steady (and I DO mean steady!) stream of ne'er-do-wells banging on my ssh port (yes, I use port 22. Call me smug).
The logfiles (that only went back to January, mind you) had SO many login attempts that I literally couldn't email them to a friend due to a 15 MB email attachment limit!
I gave up trying to convert the logs to PDF at 6,000+ pages (!!!)
Not one successful login, other than my own. And there were dictionary attacks, Kerebos Attacks, attempts at root, some sort of attack to try and get Mach to spit out SOMETHING; you name it; people (bots) tried. And tried. And tried.
So yes, I feel a bit smug at this point.
Contrast with my friend's Dell running fully-patched XP SP3, with TWO firewall/AV packages running: Opened up an RDC port: BLAM!!! Hosed in a few days with some horrible thing that is completely and utterly un-killable. Keeps spawning SVCHOST.EXE processes, and the quicker you try to eradicate them, the more aggressively it spawns more! Never seen anything like it. No choice to "wipe and reload".
Are you sure it wasn't a clone? There were NO Apple ][, ][+,//c,//e or IIgs computers with a schematic, block diagram, or anything else for that matter, on the lid, or anywhere else. Schematics were in the owner's manual (and I think that even disappeared with the//c or//e).
No, I'm sure it wasn't a clone, and who knows, I may be misremembering - I sold that thing in 1986 to buy an Amiga 500 (took that long to pay it off!). I don't know what else I would be thinking of - I certainly couldn't open my Amiga 500 (other than the little trap door in the bottom). *shrug* Who knows. I'm probably just getting senile. It's to the point where with my home projects, I want to check out even older tech than I once had - I want to get an old Altair 8800 or IMSAI 8080 to play with, and figure out how those monsters worked. Definitely before my time, but they look like a lot of fun. They are sadly expensive these days - so few are still working.:(
Not as expensive as my Apple 1...;-) I keep threatening to fix it up and sell it; but so far...
The problem with old S-100 bus systems would be getting one to WORK. They hardly worked reliably when they were new, let alone after al the timing gimick capacitors have aged for 40 years...
I had schematics for the ][ and the entire annotated source code for that and Apple DOS 3.2/3.3.
I can go one better: I actually assembled DOS 3.3 on a regular basis, and made several, several modifications to same, all the way down to the RWTS (Read-Write Track and Sector) and Nibble-handling routines.
In fact, I created a custom version of Randy Wigginton's TED-II Weekend Assembler that could assemble to and from disk; because that was the ONLY way you could assemble something as huge as DOS...
And these weren't pirate, Apple happily published them.
BZZT! Wrong! Apple didn't sue the shit out of the people who DID publish the source. I think it was the Apple Pugetsound guys (the "CALL A.P.P.L.E." user group, or maybe it was Bob Sander-Cederlof...); but it WAS at least partially "pirated" (actually, disassembled from object code). IIRC, the DOS 3.3 manual had some bits and pieces of source; but certainly NOT the entire source code listing.
Woz was a freaking genius with how much he did with so little hardware.
You'll get no quibble from me on that point!!!
You wanted to add lower case? Just run this wire here. Optionally bypass the write protect for floppies? Just put a three pole switch here. You want to extend the BASIC? Sure, here's these hooks (and Beagle Brothers made insane use of that).
So did I. I even created a virtual-memory and Applesoft BASIC "Overlay" system using that wonderful "Ampersand" hook!!!
The Apple I was the prototype for that and I salute it. I never had one, though of course now I wish I did!
Not to brag; but I do... Had it since 1976. One owner (me).
Also funny how it's utterly unlike the Apple of today. I remember when the first Mac came out, completely unexpandable, and The Steve declared that it would never have more than 128K of RAM because that was more than enough for anyone.
Actually, that was a price-point decision. RAM wasn't so cheap back then...
Which was ridiculous, because my Apple ][ had 16x that much already.
Your Apple ][ had 2 MB of RAM?!?! Where did you put the auxiliary power supply?!? Perhaps you mean Apple IIgs, right?
The 6502 processor was fast, clean and easy to program. My first assembly programs were on it. The assembly language was simpler and almost as fast as Z-80, and the apple BIOS permitted much more elegant control of the screen. It was so nice, it persisted into the Vic 20s, a much newer machine with a tidier construction and layout.
The 6502 was eventually surpassed by the 6809, which lead into the notorious 8088 and then x86 range.
None of them beat the 6502 for intuitive assembly code. It was almost as clean as the PDP-11.
Not sure what you mean by surpassed. They are not related in any way. And since the 6502 was also used in the Commodore 64, the best-selling single personal computer model of all time (6510 was a 6502 with just additional IO ports integrated), it was't surpassed in sales or use before long into the growth of the x86 PC era.
Do agree that the 6502 was a nice and simple processor to program with assembly.
What's amazing is that the 6502 core lives on in many custom and semi-custom microcontrollers. For example, a LOT of webcam controllers are actually 6502-based (with a BUNCH of specialized hardware around the core).
In fact, I read somewhere a few years ago, that the 6502 was actually the largest-selling CPU core in the world.
Too bad the 65816 never caught on. I actually have a 65802 (the 8-bit bus version of the 65816) in my Apple ][.
The 6502 processor was fast, clean and easy to program. My first assembly programs were on it. The assembly language was simpler and almost as fast as Z-80, and the apple BIOS permitted much more elegant control of the screen. It was so nice, it persisted into the Vic 20s, a much newer machine with a tidier construction and layout.
The 6502 was eventually surpassed by the 6809, which lead into the notorious 8088 and then x86 range.
None of them beat the 6502 for intuitive assembly code. It was almost as clean as the PDP-11.
I can't tell you how many tens-of-thousands of lines of 6502 assembly I wrote for the Apple 1, Apple ][, Commodore 64 (6510, but still the same core), as well as a bunch of my own embedded designs.
I also wrote a lot of assembler for 6801, 6805, 6809, 68HC11 (6801 core) and some 8085 and 8048/8051 stuff, too.
Other than a "6" at the beginning, the 6809 really has more in common with the 68000 than the 6502. Quite the cool beast; I really wish that Mot. had made some microcontrollers based on the 6809. REALLY cool architecture, with DUAL STACKS, concatenatable accumulators, 16 bit index registers, etc.
But I loved me some 6502... I could program a sunny day in that thing in assembler!
The other computers that could be purchased at that time had rows of LEDs and switches on their front panels, and they needed them. The Apple was quite sophisticated for a single board computer - Altair and IMSAI used that many ICs just to make a CPU chip talk to a bus.
Those S-100 bus computers WERE all trying to be PDP-8 clones. The only one that wasn't was the Processor Technology SOL-20. Pretty slick for an S-100 bus system, actually.
But you are right; the Apple 1 was pretty much the first computer where you could sit down, flip on the power, and start computing!
Considering the size of the wiring diagramS for my Osbourne, I'm kinda doubting that. Also my ][e had no such info. Clarification please? Like was it a block diagram for the slots 'n' ports or suchlike?
I have no idea - I couldn't then (and can't now) read wiring diagrams. *shrug* It was an Apple//e - the first version, not the later one with a numeric keypad.
Are you sure it wasn't a clone? There were NO Apple ][, ][+,//c,//e or IIgs computers with a schematic, block diagram, or anything else for that matter, on the lid, or anywhere else. Schematics were in the owner's manual (and I think that even disappeared with the//c or//e).
A successful company [with] a product others are still playing catchup with?
Don't make me laugh. The only one playing catchup in the PC market today is Apple.
Are you insane, or just Trolling?
Let's just examine Thunderbolt. Or howabout the Unibody construction? Still no? Howabout illuminated keyboards, Firewire Target Disk Mode (which is REALLY quite nice!)? Not there yet? I won't even go into the fact that Apple completely revolutionized the Smartphone, and broke the backs of the Cell carriers.
Then there's the Macbook Air. Not my cup of blood; but still revolutionary when it was released.
And then there's that whole tablet thing. No one even comes close to the battery life, number of apps, overall performance, oh, and price. And don't EVEN try to compare the iPad to the unmitigated shit that Android tablets are!
It all comes down to this: If Apple is playing "catchup", why is it that every single other computing-device company can't COPY their products fast enough?
Apple ][ computers had their wiring diagram on the inside of the lid
WTF are you smoking, and can I have some?
Apple ][ computers NEVER had a schematic (or anything else) on the inside of the lid. The schematic was in the "Red Book"; but not on the lid.
And I think I know from experience. Not only do I OWN an Apple 1; but the first Apple ][ I ever saw/programmed was s/n 0013 (!!!). It was part of the first production run. So old it didn't even have the "cooling slots" in the top!
And subsequently, I sold Apple ][s for a couple of years, and they didn't have a schematic on the lid, either...
I'm not sure what computer you are think of; but it is not an Apple ][.
Jobs only ever cared about the user experience and that's why Apple dominates.
100% of fanboi bigots adds up to a market share of 7.2% as Eilleen Regina sang That don't impress me much
...And I hasten to add that 100% of the Linux fanboi bigots (which I assume you are) add up to a market share around 1%. So, what is your point, again?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, computers back then didn't come with any kind of permanent storage. With the Altair you had to manually enter software byte by byte with the 8 switches on the front, one for each bit.
If you were REALLY cool, you had an ASR-33 with a Paper Tape reader, so, after you toggled the bootloader into RAM, you could spend the next 10 minutes (re)loading MS BASIC from paper (or mylar) tape.
THEN you could start programming.
f Chuck helped Woz with this problem he never came up with a good solution because the problem was finally solved by the availability of 2Mhz DRAMS that permitted the seamless interleaving of CPU and refresh cycles.
Right.
And now that I think about it, the GGP was conflating the Apple 1, which had no video interleaving, because it used a "glass TTY"-type display, using SHIFT REGISTERS for the "video RAM", vs. the Apple ][, which used the system DRAM in an "interleaved" timing fashion.
Wrong. From wikipedia:
"However, to make a working computer, users still had to add a case, power supply transformers, power switch, ASCII keyboard, and composite video display."
It didn't have a power switch to flip. And Wozniak couldn't even get the thing to work properly without help from MOS/Commodore's Chuck Peddle.
As always, Apple's contribution to early computing is severely overblown by revisionists.
For a good history of early personal computers (particularly those where the 6502 is involved), check out the book "Commodore: A Company on the Edge"- the first half is basically about the father of personal computers, Chuck Peddle.
Ok, I'll give you that it was just a motherboard. However, once a user hooked up a power supply, keyboard, and composite monitor (or RF modulator and TV), then they instantly had a working system, which didn't require toggling in a bootloader everytime the power was removed.
So, Woz asked for some help with something that was ultimately due to an errata in the MOS Technology 6502 datasheet. So?
Someone went as far as to stick a 170MB IDE drive on an Apple ][e... DIY guide in the link.
That's nothing!
Woz told me about a year ago that Wendell Sanders (STILL working for Apple!) boots his Apple 1 off of his iPod!!!
Yes, I said Apple ONE.
My dad had an Apple ][ plus, and I remember distinctly that it had the schematics on the lid. Though that might be different for the earlier models.
Sorry, false memory. I have a ][+ in quiet repose in my "computer museum" (read: "pile of old computers") in the next room. Nothing on the inside of the lid but beige paint.
Nice Examples! Besides Thunderbolt, they also popularized USB, and to a certain extent Firewire
Actually, they created FireWire in a partnership with Sony, just like they created Thunderbolt in a partnership with Intel.
I forgot those accomplishments.
Apple customers are people who usually don't know much, if anything, about the technology inside the box; more significantly, they don't *want* to know, and don't care about it.
Sorry, you are dead wrong.
Not only am I an embedded developer with over 30 years of experience; but I also know several EEs who are Mac-only. And yes, they are EEs with digital expertise.
I have a Mac.
Now before you punish-mod me into oblivion; let me explain:
I just happened to look at my security logs about a week ago, and there has been a steady (and I DO mean steady!) stream of ne'er-do-wells banging on my ssh port (yes, I use port 22. Call me smug).
The logfiles (that only went back to January, mind you) had SO many login attempts that I literally couldn't email them to a friend due to a 15 MB email attachment limit!
I gave up trying to convert the logs to PDF at 6,000+ pages (!!!) Not one successful login, other than my own. And there were dictionary attacks, Kerebos Attacks, attempts at root, some sort of attack to try and get Mach to spit out SOMETHING; you name it; people (bots) tried. And tried. And tried.
So yes, I feel a bit smug at this point.
Contrast with my friend's Dell running fully-patched XP SP3, with TWO firewall/AV packages running: Opened up an RDC port: BLAM!!! Hosed in a few days with some horrible thing that is completely and utterly un-killable. Keeps spawning SVCHOST.EXE processes, and the quicker you try to eradicate them, the more aggressively it spawns more! Never seen anything like it. No choice to "wipe and reload".
Ick.
Are you sure it wasn't a clone? There were NO Apple ][, ][+, //c, //e or IIgs computers with a schematic, block diagram, or anything else for that matter, on the lid, or anywhere else. Schematics were in the owner's manual (and I think that even disappeared with the //c or //e).
No, I'm sure it wasn't a clone, and who knows, I may be misremembering - I sold that thing in 1986 to buy an Amiga 500 (took that long to pay it off!). I don't know what else I would be thinking of - I certainly couldn't open my Amiga 500 (other than the little trap door in the bottom). *shrug* Who knows. I'm probably just getting senile. It's to the point where with my home projects, I want to check out even older tech than I once had - I want to get an old Altair 8800 or IMSAI 8080 to play with, and figure out how those monsters worked. Definitely before my time, but they look like a lot of fun. They are sadly expensive these days - so few are still working. :(
Not as expensive as my Apple 1... ;-) I keep threatening to fix it up and sell it; but so far...
The problem with old S-100 bus systems would be getting one to WORK. They hardly worked reliably when they were new, let alone after al the timing gimick capacitors have aged for 40 years...
I had schematics for the ][ and the entire annotated source code for that and Apple DOS 3.2/3.3.
I can go one better: I actually assembled DOS 3.3 on a regular basis, and made several, several modifications to same, all the way down to the RWTS (Read-Write Track and Sector) and Nibble-handling routines.
In fact, I created a custom version of Randy Wigginton's TED-II Weekend Assembler that could assemble to and from disk; because that was the ONLY way you could assemble something as huge as DOS...
And these weren't pirate, Apple happily published them.
BZZT! Wrong! Apple didn't sue the shit out of the people who DID publish the source. I think it was the Apple Pugetsound guys (the "CALL A.P.P.L.E." user group, or maybe it was Bob Sander-Cederlof...); but it WAS at least partially "pirated" (actually, disassembled from object code). IIRC, the DOS 3.3 manual had some bits and pieces of source; but certainly NOT the entire source code listing.
Woz was a freaking genius with how much he did with so little hardware.
You'll get no quibble from me on that point!!!
You wanted to add lower case? Just run this wire here. Optionally bypass the write protect for floppies? Just put a three pole switch here. You want to extend the BASIC? Sure, here's these hooks (and Beagle Brothers made insane use of that).
So did I. I even created a virtual-memory and Applesoft BASIC "Overlay" system using that wonderful "Ampersand" hook!!!
The Apple I was the prototype for that and I salute it. I never had one, though of course now I wish I did!
Not to brag; but I do... Had it since 1976. One owner (me).
Also funny how it's utterly unlike the Apple of today. I remember when the first Mac came out, completely unexpandable, and The Steve declared that it would never have more than 128K of RAM because that was more than enough for anyone.
Actually, that was a price-point decision. RAM wasn't so cheap back then...
Which was ridiculous, because my Apple ][ had 16x that much already.
Your Apple ][ had 2 MB of RAM?!?! Where did you put the auxiliary power supply?!? Perhaps you mean Apple IIgs, right?
Yes I'm old.
Bet I'm older...
The 6502 processor was fast, clean and easy to program. My first assembly programs were on it. The assembly language was simpler and almost as fast as Z-80, and the apple BIOS permitted much more elegant control of the screen. It was so nice, it persisted into the Vic 20s, a much newer machine with a tidier construction and layout. The 6502 was eventually surpassed by the 6809, which lead into the notorious 8088 and then x86 range. None of them beat the 6502 for intuitive assembly code. It was almost as clean as the PDP-11.
Not sure what you mean by surpassed. They are not related in any way. And since the 6502 was also used in the Commodore 64, the best-selling single personal computer model of all time (6510 was a 6502 with just additional IO ports integrated), it was't surpassed in sales or use before long into the growth of the x86 PC era.
Do agree that the 6502 was a nice and simple processor to program with assembly.
What's amazing is that the 6502 core lives on in many custom and semi-custom microcontrollers. For example, a LOT of webcam controllers are actually 6502-based (with a BUNCH of specialized hardware around the core).
In fact, I read somewhere a few years ago, that the 6502 was actually the largest-selling CPU core in the world.
Too bad the 65816 never caught on. I actually have a 65802 (the 8-bit bus version of the 65816) in my Apple ][.
The 6502 processor was fast, clean and easy to program. My first assembly programs were on it. The assembly language was simpler and almost as fast as Z-80, and the apple BIOS permitted much more elegant control of the screen. It was so nice, it persisted into the Vic 20s, a much newer machine with a tidier construction and layout. The 6502 was eventually surpassed by the 6809, which lead into the notorious 8088 and then x86 range. None of them beat the 6502 for intuitive assembly code. It was almost as clean as the PDP-11.
I can't tell you how many tens-of-thousands of lines of 6502 assembly I wrote for the Apple 1, Apple ][, Commodore 64 (6510, but still the same core), as well as a bunch of my own embedded designs.
I also wrote a lot of assembler for 6801, 6805, 6809, 68HC11 (6801 core) and some 8085 and 8048/8051 stuff, too.
Other than a "6" at the beginning, the 6809 really has more in common with the 68000 than the 6502. Quite the cool beast; I really wish that Mot. had made some microcontrollers based on the 6809. REALLY cool architecture, with DUAL STACKS, concatenatable accumulators, 16 bit index registers, etc.
But I loved me some 6502... I could program a sunny day in that thing in assembler!
http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/processors/the-truth-about-benders-brain I didn't realize that Apple would be responsible for Bender's MOS 6502 brain. Apparently David X Cohen programmed assembly for the Apple ][ in high school.
There are ALWAYS tons of Apple/Mac/6502 jokes and references in Futurama.
And Apple still does not provide a keyboard standard. You have to pay to get one. At least it comes with the case.
The only Apple computer that doesn't come with a keyboard is the Mac mini.
Stop trolling, fucktard.
The other computers that could be purchased at that time had rows of LEDs and switches on their front panels, and they needed them. The Apple was quite sophisticated for a single board computer - Altair and IMSAI used that many ICs just to make a CPU chip talk to a bus.
Those S-100 bus computers WERE all trying to be PDP-8 clones. The only one that wasn't was the Processor Technology SOL-20. Pretty slick for an S-100 bus system, actually.
But you are right; the Apple 1 was pretty much the first computer where you could sit down, flip on the power, and start computing!
Makes me wanna get my Apple 1 fired up again...
Replica I
Pfft!
I am the original owner of a REAL Apple 1, from 1976. The first computer I ever saw...
Considering the size of the wiring diagramS for my Osbourne, I'm kinda doubting that. Also my ][e had no such info. Clarification please? Like was it a block diagram for the slots 'n' ports or suchlike?
I have no idea - I couldn't then (and can't now) read wiring diagrams. *shrug* It was an Apple //e - the first version, not the later one with a numeric keypad.
Are you sure it wasn't a clone? There were NO Apple ][, ][+, //c, //e or IIgs computers with a schematic, block diagram, or anything else for that matter, on the lid, or anywhere else. Schematics were in the owner's manual (and I think that even disappeared with the //c or //e).
It was on the inside lid of my Apple //e (first version, not second with the numeric keypad).
Sorry, I worked in a H.S. computer lab with a PILE of Apple //e computers.
Not ONE of them with a schematic on the lid.
Riiight. Apple is the world's second-largest corporation. Microshaft is 3rd? That's the kind of "catchup" I can believe in .
I'm pretty sure that MS isn't 3rd. More like 5th. Chevron is right behind Apple.
A successful company [with] a product others are still playing catchup with?
Don't make me laugh. The only one playing catchup in the PC market today is Apple.
Are you insane, or just Trolling?
Let's just examine Thunderbolt. Or howabout the Unibody construction? Still no? Howabout illuminated keyboards, Firewire Target Disk Mode (which is REALLY quite nice!)? Not there yet? I won't even go into the fact that Apple completely revolutionized the Smartphone, and broke the backs of the Cell carriers.
Then there's the Macbook Air. Not my cup of blood; but still revolutionary when it was released.
And then there's that whole tablet thing. No one even comes close to the battery life, number of apps, overall performance, oh, and price. And don't EVEN try to compare the iPad to the unmitigated shit that Android tablets are!
It all comes down to this: If Apple is playing "catchup", why is it that every single other computing-device company can't COPY their products fast enough?
Apple ][ computers had their wiring diagram on the inside of the lid
WTF are you smoking, and can I have some?
Apple ][ computers NEVER had a schematic (or anything else) on the inside of the lid. The schematic was in the "Red Book"; but not on the lid.
And I think I know from experience. Not only do I OWN an Apple 1; but the first Apple ][ I ever saw/programmed was s/n 0013 (!!!). It was part of the first production run. So old it didn't even have the "cooling slots" in the top!
And subsequently, I sold Apple ][s for a couple of years, and they didn't have a schematic on the lid, either...
I'm not sure what computer you are think of; but it is not an Apple ][.
Is this outdated, insecure format still in use? I hope that much modern and better open XPS format will supersede PDF.
That was meant as a joke, right?
It isn't PDF that is inherently insecure; it's just ADOBE's implementation of the PDF spec that is wildly insecure.
Read what this popular blogger has repeatedly pointed out about Paul Thurott's talents and track record.
What a tool.
Jobs only ever cared about the user experience and that's why Apple dominates.
100% of fanboi bigots adds up to a market share of 7.2% as Eilleen Regina sang That don't impress me much
...And I hasten to add that 100% of the Linux fanboi bigots (which I assume you are) add up to a market share around 1%. So, what is your point, again?
Only caveat though.... he's no spring chicken himself.
At 60, he still has at least 20 more years of viability with today's medical technology; and in 20 years, who knows?
And, not to be unkind to SJ; but you will note that, despite Woz's obvious obesity, that he isn't ravaged by Cancer, like some CEOs we know...