I have often heard the claim that the Apple /// was intentionally crippled, usually for marketing reasons and always with the implication that it did not have to be done. But is there anything to substantiate that?

Click to expand...

Woz says the limits on compatibility were intentional. I can't say; wasn't there. Wendel Sander was a "real" engineer with a PHD in computer science, so his design for the /// might have simply reflected his idea of a proper computer. The Apple II was (as has been mentioned) quite unusual for the day, and the A/// used the same slots and disk drives as its predecessor, so it was a bit of a mongrel. Not as conventional as IBM's Apple II copy (the original PC), but not as brilliantly minimal as Woz's baby. I was tempted by the Apple/// Plus and its super hi-res interlaced video, but during the short time it was made, I was too broke.

I have a couple of IIGSes in the closet, and some day I'll set them up and see what they can do. Assuming I find some more tuits, that is. Getting a round tuit here is near impossible.