daver2
10k Member
>>> Ebay has them for $60-$100 !
What are some people thinking?!
Dave
What are some people thinking?!
Dave
- VCF South West - June 14 - 16, Davidson-Gundy Alumni Center at University of Texas at Dallas
- VCF West - Aug 2 - 3, Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA
- VCF Midwest - Sept 7 - 8 2024, Schaumburg, IL
- VCF SoCal - Mid February 2025, Location TBD, Southern CA
- VCF East - April 2025, Infoage Museum, Wall NJ
-
Please review our updated Terms and Rules here
Anyone else building an Apple-1 ?
- Thread starter Gary C
- Start date
Gary C
Veteran Member
Dunno, have never played around with a 6800 or any of its direct relations.
IMO, an old 8-bit computer is made desirable firstly by its operating system and then by the software available for it. The Sphere-1 looks interesting from a historical perspective, but there wasn't much of an OS on its 1KB PROM as far as I can determine. It would be cool to own and restore an original machine, but as for functionally cloning the thing I'm not so enthusiastic. Without much of an OS to speak of, the computer, from a technical standpoint, is just another generic 8-bit microprocessor system with a rudimentary character-based video text display. If that is along the lines of something that you'd like to make, then there are a million ways to do better doing your own thing.
I feel the same about the Apple 1. I don't think that it is surprising that the Apple 1 recreations seen here are much less motivated by the machine's utility or technical merits than they are by a desire to create a hardware show-piece as close to the original design as practical.
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
I don't actually disagree at all, really. My only point really in bringing up the Sphere-1 was that if you're going to go through the effort to replicate a mostly useless ancient computer with effectively no software available for it there are other options out there that might deserve more attention than they get.
The Sphere 1 is older than the Apple I, was hugely influential at the time (Byte Magazine was all over it for its first few issues) and, despite being older, was remarkably more modern in at least one useful respect. Unlike the Apple I the Sphere's hardware *can* actually support random full-screen access, so if you're in this to write "interesting" software that would technically run on the ancient original hardware the Sphere-1's design would actually let you pull off a bad version of Tetris or something, unlike the Apple I.
Objectively, sure, it probably makes way more sense to either replicate one of the other roughly contemporary machines that has a lot more software available (either a PET/TRS-80 era machine or, if it *must* be from 1976, I dunno, something like an Altair clone with a VTI card, ala the Poly-88, SOL-20, whatever... or just do the Apple II instead, it's way more interesting) or just do your own thing entirely... if the point is to actually make something "fun" or "interesting" on its own merits. But, sure, if an Apple I is what you want because it's "popular" I guess I won't judge.
(I guess if you want to be cruel, though, it kind of feels like... you know those people that buy kits and blow tens of thousands of dollars and many, many hours of their lives putting together a replica sports car in their garage? The way the Apple I dominates the replica computer market it's like if the most popular model they were blowing the huge bank on wasn't something like a Shelby Cobra or T-bucket Rat Rod, they were all going nuts buying kits to slap together... I dunno, Pontiac Azteks or Trabant 601s.)
A Shelby Cobra kit (minus engine drivetrain wheels and tires or paint) is $20K, once you get the rest and paint it then your double that. A replica Apple I is still much cheaper and you don't have to worry about getting dirty or dropping a tranny on your foot.
Are you saving much money searching for the parts instead of just buying one ready made or is soldering part of the charm?
Are you saving much money searching for the parts instead of just buying one ready made or is soldering part of the charm?
How about an Apple 1 inspired clone? It could have proper memory-mapped video display hardware with Woz's original monitor code in ROM simply modified to drive it. One of the dubious selling points of Woz's hobbled shift-register-memory design is that it handled the scrolling of screen text automatically, in hardware. With a straight-forward memory-mapped design the text scrolling would have to be done in firmware. To support that the video memory will need to be made readable. No technical issues with either of those requirements. The extra code to drive a memory-mapped display means that the augmented monitor would no longer fit into the original 256 bytes of ROM, but an upgrade to just 512 bytes would already give plenty of room.
It probably wouldn't be too hard to modify Woz's cassette-loadable Integer BASIC with the new display driver code either. I'm sure its has been thoroughly disassembled and commented.
So there you can have a 100% work-alike Apple 1 clone, but with the additional capability of proper display control should you wish to program for it.
I'm going to mull this over a bit.............
Gary C
Veteran Member
Judge away, I don't really care either way.
For me its the expression of skill and fun in trying to make something that's fairly accurate and doing by my hand as much as I can reasonably do. The Apple-1 has a halo, that can't be denied and once built will be of interest to other people and can be put on display as an interesting feature but I'm sure I won't spend much time actually programming it.
The Sphere 1 would be an excellent alternative but would exceed most peoples skills to replicate to a hardware level.
twolazy
Veteran Member
Building it and watching it come alive is most the fun. Well to me at least...
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
A version of the Apple I firmware that runs on the Apple II and effectively turns it into an almost 100% compatible clone has been done. Source code is there.
Realistically you could port this to almost any better 6502 computer, subject to memory map limitations.
Edit: for instance, the Commodore 64: https://csdb.dk/release/?id=118857
Last edited:
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
Yes, cars are bigger than and (usually) cost more than computers. I think you may have missed the angle I was taking there.
resman
Veteran Member
The provenance of the Apple 1 is hard to argue, and really the only reason there is to build and own one. As a user experience, it's pretty awful. The whole reason I wrote the Apple 30th Birthday slideshow was to give it something interesting to do without having to actually interact with it.
Kakemoms
Experienced Member
I have to admit I am still building my Apple-1. I started 3 or 4 years ago, so its not finished. But its close.
The board is a Newton replica, first batch I think. I try to get all the original components, at least date correct. Obviously I haven’t managed to get the Torotel crystal, and still looking for an early 5300uF cap.
I also want to make a Mimeo board if I ever get the chance to buy one.
Total cost? Well.. too much! I have probably used over $10000 at this point, but its really about the experience.
The board is a Newton replica, first batch I think. I try to get all the original components, at least date correct. Obviously I haven’t managed to get the Torotel crystal, and still looking for an early 5300uF cap.
I also want to make a Mimeo board if I ever get the chance to buy one.
Total cost? Well.. too much! I have probably used over $10000 at this point, but its really about the experience.
Sure, I could convert my PET-2001 clone this afternoon if I wanted to. I was just detailing the hardware and firmware modifications that would be required to upgrade the original basic design to memory-mapped video but still basically function upon power-on as per the original. This would be something that could be built today in the traditional hardware sense (i.e. no programmable logic or microcontrollers), entirely with current-production parts. It wouldn't be any worse than any other rudimentary home brew single-board 6502 computer, and certainly better than anything with a hex-pad for data input or something without video display capabilities.
Just imagine the sense of satisfaction and pleasure that you could derive, after soldering in all of the parts, from running the original ASCII-art slideshow featuring your hero:
!
I know that sellers will ream you for those obsolete shift registers to the tune of a high two figure sum or even three figures a pop, but what the hell adds up to +10k ?
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
It seems pretty redundant to bother, though, when the parts count wouldn't be any lower than something with a much better UI. I mean, really, the author of the "Woznium Pack" firmware already does a Rev. 0 Apple II kit, and the parts count of the Apple II isn't that much different from that of the Apple I. Comparing the manuals for the Mimeo I Apple I and the Rev. 0 Apple II manual the IC counts are 61 to 89; when you factor in that the Apple II has more ROMs, more RAMs(*), and its cassette interface built-in the two machines are practically a wash in terms of design complexity.
(I mean, sure, I guess if we were redesigning this thing into a "generic" 6502 computer that has a memory-mapped monochrome 40 column text-only display and only really resembles the Apple I in that it boots a version of the Woz monitor instead of a much better machine language monitor we could get the parts count down a ton by using more modern parts/techniques like sharing the same RAM chip between system memory and video refresh, etc... like the Apple II already does... but what advantage would that have over just building a replica of an already better computer? It wouldn't be "designed by Woz" nor look like it's ... taking a deep swallow here... "worth" a quarter of a million bucks.
Or to look at it from the other angle, if you really want a truly authentic Apple I "experience" you can get that on the really simplified work-alike clones like the Briel Replica-1 for much, much cheaper than a parts-and-dates accurate Apple I replica. Yes, I know it irks the "purists" that they use an MCU that's ridiculously faster than the 6502 to generate their video output, but functionally it doesn't matter.)
Heh, that's the irony there, I guess. If you're building a shrine to Woz's genius specifically I'd say the Apple II is what belongs on your altar. I've always kind of felt like the Apple 1 worship is more an "Apple the Company" or even a "Steve Jobs" thing, but, eh, I've definitely only really observed that whole situation from the outside.
resman
Veteran Member
Except that there couldn't be the Apple II without the Apple 1. It's the lessons learned from the Apple 1 that led to the achievement of the Apple II. Being able to demonstrate the progression of technology is part of the appeal of an Apple 1 build - next to an Apple II. And yes, I'm biased since the Apple II was my first.
As someone who has already designed and built two functional clones of better 8-bit machines and currently has a few others underway, I can say that the theoretical Apple I-inspired clone as described, hardware wise, would be like a cut-back and simplified version of my PET-2001 clone. There would be only one 6521 PIA instead of two, no VIA and no IEEE488 port. There need not be a Parallel Port either, but shifting the video to memory-mapped would free up half of the 6521, so you'd gain a "parallel" port at no extra expense. An no, it wouldn't have even half the IC count of that Apple II replica you linked to.
My Woz ASCII art comment was a bit of humor BTW. You are starting to sound like a bit of a dogmatist now.
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
Sorry, not intended, honestly. I think sometimes the scars I bear from suffering through “iWoz” start itching.
Anyway, yes, it’s clear we agree, basically a brain-damaged PET with a ROM transplant could pretend to be an Apple I *pretty* accurately. (Technically any software that writes directly to the PIA to output video will still fail. The Woznium manual says most software uses the echo function of the monitor, though.) My point there was simply such a machine would be neither fish nor fowl: it wouldn’t be of any interest to people interested in a machine that accurately *looks* like an Apple I, while still being more complicated than the huge pile of existing modern single-board computers that can perfectly emulate an Apple I but “cheat” a little on the video output… and the only advantage you get in the end is slightly better options for writing interesting software that only runs on this machine. I mean, sure, I guess if that appeals as the operative spec for a homebrew platform by all means, go for it.
(It’s just… buying the other PIA and VIA isn’t exactly bank busting and you get a library of hundreds of pieces of software and a better BASIC and a full screen editor… but yeah, whatever.)
Gary C
Veteran Member
What can I say
Its fun to build something slightly historic, even if it is a bit crap
Anyway, most of the stuff now assembled. The PCB is the wrong one though and a replacement is on its way. The caps are temporary ones until the correct Sprauge ones are made.
Its fun to build something slightly historic, even if it is a bit crap
Anyway, most of the stuff now assembled. The PCB is the wrong one though and a replacement is on its way. The caps are temporary ones until the correct Sprauge ones are made.
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
Its fun to build something slightly historic, even if it is a bit crap
All smack-talk aside, sincerely, that does look like fun, good luck with your build!
(I’m the klutz who insists on inserting an IC backwards at least once during every project I work on, so I’d be like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs when it comes to installing the shift registers. Check the notches!!!)