This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This entry had originally been just a blank (empty) page that automatically redirected you to the Apple II family. I wanted to see that change, so I did just that and changed it--writing up a entire entry on the Apple IIc computer from the ground up. Why? The Apple II line is probably the most important and historically relevant in the history of personal computers, and I've not seen that reflected on Wikipedia. For that reason, and my own personal fondness, interest, experience and knowledge of the machine, I've made it my personal goal of sorts to expand its presence here.
I feel each machine in the Apple II family line deserves its own entry in Wikipedia, rather than just a short blurb written as a few lines of text in the page mentioned above. It is afterall the computer that started it all, the literal grandfather of the personal computer industry we see before us today. I started with the Apple IIe last month (it being the longest lived machine in the line, and at Apple in general) and this article on the Apple IIc is now my second entry, and hopefully not the last.
I've tried to make this article more encyclopedic than a technical in nature. I'll shortly be adding a sprinkling of pictures relating to some the major topics mentioned in the article, making it more interesting. Like any other it's not necessarily finished or flawless, but I hope this contribution will be useful to those who are curious about the history of this model. --Mitchell Spector (-- Apple2gs 06:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
I don't understand why you removed the Bibliography section which cites THE source for understanding the Apple IIC (Apple IIC Technical Reference Manual)? I would think that single source, written by Apple, would be mandatory.
Secondarily, I think your revision of the "long book quote" which explains how to use the PEEK command in Applesoft BASIC makes it more obscure for the less technical user as to what to do. It removes clarity.
Will discuss this here before doing any reverts. -- Quartermaster 11:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Every photograph and scanned image used in this article has been symatically removed, apparently (and unjustly in my opinion) over the minor technicality of incorrect permission/copyright tagging choosen--not the images themselves. Most of these images have had permission cleared from their original source, or are considered fair use images that were used as promotional material by Apple Computer over 20 years ago. In the case of the Apple IIc image taken from the cover of the Apple IIc owner's guide, Apple gave permission to reproduce it and the entire manual.
So I ask, can someone assist in selecting the correct tags so these can stay in place? I must say I am getting extremely turned off by having piece of these articles ripped out that I spent days creating (yes, photos and their captions do make up the article) every other day by automated bots or other Wikipedia users. I put them here to grow, and to share information in regards to these orphaned machines, not see this information blocked. I do value Wikipedia's respect for copyrights, and agree with the basic principle, but people here are TOO over eager to remove images before even verifying their status.
If necessary, I can go through the trouble of photographing these machines from my own collection (as I've already done for the Apple IIc Plus article) but that takes several hours, sometimes days, of work. Hopefully it won't come to that, which is why I would prefer to get some assistance in choosing the correct tags for the existing images. Thanks-- Apple2gs 00:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The article states the 'c' in the name came from the form factor. (The //c was relatively compact.) However, the first review I remember (probably either from Incider or A+) stated the 'c' was a reference to the 65C02. Will 06:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I have a screen-photo of the IIc on the beach in "2010".
I am willing to upload it to the wikipedia if anyone wants to include it in the article.
http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/pb/images/2010.jpg
Recently changes have been made to this article to use binary prefixes (KiB, MiB, kibibyte, mebibyte etc). The majority of reliable sources for this article do not use binary prefixes. If you have any thoughts/opinions then this specific topic is being discussed on the following talk page Manual of Style (dates and numbers) in the sections to do with "binary prefixes". Fnagaton 10:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Apple2History.org says the ROM changed a number of things about how the IIc worked. In addition they indicate a new motherboard was released with a memory slot as further delineated by Apple.
Given, 1) that it had a new ROM that added abilities to the IIc and not just bug fixes, 2) that it came with a brand new motherboard with a new RAM slot, and 3) further changed the case color, it seems to me that this was a brand new machine. Perhaps not an entirely different machine, but then the Macintosh 128K & 512K are two different machines, yet the only difference is one has extra RAM (coincidentally the main difference in the IIc mem. exp. as well).
I think the only issue is criteria as to what constitutes a new model. If Apple marketed the Platinum IIc Memory expansion as a unique model that would close the deal – and it's hard for me to believe that Apple didn't do that in both packaging and marketing. Surely they didn't make all those improvements under the table – in context of the era, that's enough to get existing IIc owners to buy the upgrade. It certainly was enough to get people to buy a new Mac (or a motherboard upgrade). Had these been Macs, they almost surely would have been given individual model designations. Instead they were treated like the later PowerBook G3 Series, a support debacle in which all 3 identical-looking models were simply called PowerBook G3, yet were wildly different machines under the hood.
I'm not as knowledgeable about the the Apple II, so I defer to the consensus, but it seems like the current delineation is misleading.--Mac128 (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I recently made changes to Expansion capabilities which were immediately reverted by Apple2gs. In particular I pointed out how the IIc was the only computer sold by Apple which Apple did not support for external hard drives. Apple's lack of support seemed notable to me. As written, the IIc seems as capable as any of the IIc line, which is not true. And just try to find a hard drive for a IIc today! Regardless of one's position on this matter I also separated musical digital synthesis from the same paragraph as hard disks. Two completely different ideas which should never be compiled into the same paragraph. If the idea of Wiki is to improve articles, then edits should simply not be thrown out wholesale, but rather EDITED, keeping the good, discussing the questionable and deleting the obviously bad. I find in particular the Apple II section is completely biased, overly technical and does not tend to reflect a clear picture to anyone without familiarity with the computers in the first place, much less a contextual perspective. And yes I am pointing the finger at one particular editor. Nevertheless, I will float these ideas to the general community to build a consensus before I make any other changes on the Apple II pages, unless they are statements of fact with verifiable references, something all of the Apple II entries lack in spades.-- Mac128 ( talk) 18:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
All the Apple literature at the time (and the boot screen, IIRC) said "Apple //c". But this article uses "IIc". I see some historical websites do the same. What's the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffr ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Where the lead calls the IIc “notebook-sized,” is that referring to a notebook computer or an actual notebook? Seems an important distinction. — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 05:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The article talks about the unique "fog" colour. My experience is that older Macintoshes tend to yellow with age. The headline image is great, but is it representative of the machine's colour when it was new? From what I can find the IIc Plus was noticeably greyer, and the contemporary adverts I can find are't helpful (one of them shows a IIc with yellow keys). - Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This entry had originally been just a blank (empty) page that automatically redirected you to the Apple II family. I wanted to see that change, so I did just that and changed it--writing up a entire entry on the Apple IIc computer from the ground up. Why? The Apple II line is probably the most important and historically relevant in the history of personal computers, and I've not seen that reflected on Wikipedia. For that reason, and my own personal fondness, interest, experience and knowledge of the machine, I've made it my personal goal of sorts to expand its presence here.
I feel each machine in the Apple II family line deserves its own entry in Wikipedia, rather than just a short blurb written as a few lines of text in the page mentioned above. It is afterall the computer that started it all, the literal grandfather of the personal computer industry we see before us today. I started with the Apple IIe last month (it being the longest lived machine in the line, and at Apple in general) and this article on the Apple IIc is now my second entry, and hopefully not the last.
I've tried to make this article more encyclopedic than a technical in nature. I'll shortly be adding a sprinkling of pictures relating to some the major topics mentioned in the article, making it more interesting. Like any other it's not necessarily finished or flawless, but I hope this contribution will be useful to those who are curious about the history of this model. --Mitchell Spector (-- Apple2gs 06:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
I don't understand why you removed the Bibliography section which cites THE source for understanding the Apple IIC (Apple IIC Technical Reference Manual)? I would think that single source, written by Apple, would be mandatory.
Secondarily, I think your revision of the "long book quote" which explains how to use the PEEK command in Applesoft BASIC makes it more obscure for the less technical user as to what to do. It removes clarity.
Will discuss this here before doing any reverts. -- Quartermaster 11:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Every photograph and scanned image used in this article has been symatically removed, apparently (and unjustly in my opinion) over the minor technicality of incorrect permission/copyright tagging choosen--not the images themselves. Most of these images have had permission cleared from their original source, or are considered fair use images that were used as promotional material by Apple Computer over 20 years ago. In the case of the Apple IIc image taken from the cover of the Apple IIc owner's guide, Apple gave permission to reproduce it and the entire manual.
So I ask, can someone assist in selecting the correct tags so these can stay in place? I must say I am getting extremely turned off by having piece of these articles ripped out that I spent days creating (yes, photos and their captions do make up the article) every other day by automated bots or other Wikipedia users. I put them here to grow, and to share information in regards to these orphaned machines, not see this information blocked. I do value Wikipedia's respect for copyrights, and agree with the basic principle, but people here are TOO over eager to remove images before even verifying their status.
If necessary, I can go through the trouble of photographing these machines from my own collection (as I've already done for the Apple IIc Plus article) but that takes several hours, sometimes days, of work. Hopefully it won't come to that, which is why I would prefer to get some assistance in choosing the correct tags for the existing images. Thanks-- Apple2gs 00:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The article states the 'c' in the name came from the form factor. (The //c was relatively compact.) However, the first review I remember (probably either from Incider or A+) stated the 'c' was a reference to the 65C02. Will 06:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I have a screen-photo of the IIc on the beach in "2010".
I am willing to upload it to the wikipedia if anyone wants to include it in the article.
http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/pb/images/2010.jpg
Recently changes have been made to this article to use binary prefixes (KiB, MiB, kibibyte, mebibyte etc). The majority of reliable sources for this article do not use binary prefixes. If you have any thoughts/opinions then this specific topic is being discussed on the following talk page Manual of Style (dates and numbers) in the sections to do with "binary prefixes". Fnagaton 10:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Apple2History.org says the ROM changed a number of things about how the IIc worked. In addition they indicate a new motherboard was released with a memory slot as further delineated by Apple.
Given, 1) that it had a new ROM that added abilities to the IIc and not just bug fixes, 2) that it came with a brand new motherboard with a new RAM slot, and 3) further changed the case color, it seems to me that this was a brand new machine. Perhaps not an entirely different machine, but then the Macintosh 128K & 512K are two different machines, yet the only difference is one has extra RAM (coincidentally the main difference in the IIc mem. exp. as well).
I think the only issue is criteria as to what constitutes a new model. If Apple marketed the Platinum IIc Memory expansion as a unique model that would close the deal – and it's hard for me to believe that Apple didn't do that in both packaging and marketing. Surely they didn't make all those improvements under the table – in context of the era, that's enough to get existing IIc owners to buy the upgrade. It certainly was enough to get people to buy a new Mac (or a motherboard upgrade). Had these been Macs, they almost surely would have been given individual model designations. Instead they were treated like the later PowerBook G3 Series, a support debacle in which all 3 identical-looking models were simply called PowerBook G3, yet were wildly different machines under the hood.
I'm not as knowledgeable about the the Apple II, so I defer to the consensus, but it seems like the current delineation is misleading.--Mac128 (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I recently made changes to Expansion capabilities which were immediately reverted by Apple2gs. In particular I pointed out how the IIc was the only computer sold by Apple which Apple did not support for external hard drives. Apple's lack of support seemed notable to me. As written, the IIc seems as capable as any of the IIc line, which is not true. And just try to find a hard drive for a IIc today! Regardless of one's position on this matter I also separated musical digital synthesis from the same paragraph as hard disks. Two completely different ideas which should never be compiled into the same paragraph. If the idea of Wiki is to improve articles, then edits should simply not be thrown out wholesale, but rather EDITED, keeping the good, discussing the questionable and deleting the obviously bad. I find in particular the Apple II section is completely biased, overly technical and does not tend to reflect a clear picture to anyone without familiarity with the computers in the first place, much less a contextual perspective. And yes I am pointing the finger at one particular editor. Nevertheless, I will float these ideas to the general community to build a consensus before I make any other changes on the Apple II pages, unless they are statements of fact with verifiable references, something all of the Apple II entries lack in spades.-- Mac128 ( talk) 18:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
All the Apple literature at the time (and the boot screen, IIRC) said "Apple //c". But this article uses "IIc". I see some historical websites do the same. What's the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffr ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Where the lead calls the IIc “notebook-sized,” is that referring to a notebook computer or an actual notebook? Seems an important distinction. — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 05:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The article talks about the unique "fog" colour. My experience is that older Macintoshes tend to yellow with age. The headline image is great, but is it representative of the machine's colour when it was new? From what I can find the IIc Plus was noticeably greyer, and the contemporary adverts I can find are't helpful (one of them shows a IIc with yellow keys). - Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)