Hacker News Reader

Comment by pvg | Hacker News Reader

I wonder why an Apple I? Are they perhaps concerned about IP-related problems with the ROM and other firmware in the II? They're pretty similar but the latter is still easily recognizable as a personal computer and the former not so much.

View on HN

The Apple II is significantly more complex. In particular, its video output architecture is constructed around the DRAM refresh cycle, making it difficult to replicate without duplicating most of the original system.

Wasn't the Apple I originally shipped as a kit that you had to put together? I think it's trying to recreate that same idea, but with easier assembly.

That could be it, although I guess they also have some earlier kit that seems to be capable of more. But maybe this can too - the 'screenshots' on that page show things an Apple I doesn't do as it is, like display lower case letters. I just have a hard time seeing how the end result can hold a kid's interest. An Apple II can be made to fill the screen with rude words in a line of code!

Don't have to worry about a case?

If I ordered an Apple II replica I'd expect an apple II case and keyboard which might present IP and manufacturing issues.

I think it's intended to be a kit for children rather than a strict 'replica'. A no-solder kit that ends up pretending to be some ancient computer can pretend to be more or less any kind of ancient computer.

It's a lot easier (not to mention cheaper) to get a working Apple II. Lots of folks out there want the chance to meet around with an Apple I for less than $100k.

It's supposed to be a kit for kids, not really a thing for collectors. It's historically important but I find it hard to come up with a more limited and boring computer of similar vintage. It's basically a prototype idea a few of which they managed to sell to hobbyists. What do kids or non-kids do with this thing after they've plugged it together?

That depends on what you mean by "similar vintage" of the Apple I. The Apple I was actually one of the more exciting computers when the Steves presented it at the Homebrew Computer Club in 1976. Remember it was competing with things like the Altair and IMSAI, not the graphical home computers of the 1980s like the Commodore 64.

Heh, no, I think it depends on what I mean by 'boring' and it's 'not of great interest, as a working, interactive thing, to learners today'. A fully realized Altair or IMSAI is a system that runs BASIC and CP/M - not just a box with switches and blinkenlights. A fully realized Apple I is... an Apple ][. I'd put the minimum required level of retro-PC non-boringness somewhere around 'should be easy to make it infinitely yell BUTTFACE at you shortly after booting'. An Apple I that just drops you into monitor ROM seems well below that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com