Was there an upgrade path for original Apple II users? If so how far could one go before having to buy a whole new computer?
II
Plus
IIe
IIe enhanced
IIe Platinum
IIgs
II
Plus
IIe
IIe enhanced
IIe Platinum
IIgs
Upgrade Path For Apple II
You've just about got the breaking points listed.
The original ][ machines could add ][+ ROMs to get Applesoft, which was a requirement for several programs. Likewise, they could be expanded with memory up to 64k,which became a requirement later. An 80 column card (and whatever other peripherals desired... Z80, printer card, serial, etc.) often rounded out the machine.
Then the //e came along. It had a standard 80 column card and came with 64k memory standard; most had 128k. It had new ROMs and character set that started to allow software that was specifically targeted for it to be incompatible with the earlier machines. A little later came the enhanced //e, which had an updated CPU with a couple new instructions. So the //e (especially the enhanced one) was a departure point where it started to become important to "upgrade." The IIc was effectively a //e in a smaller case with some built-in peripherals (serial ports, 128k memory, etc.), so it could run all the //e-specific software.
The IIgs of course was another departure... new ROMs, 16bit CPU, more memory standard, etc. If software was written specifically for it, there was no looking back. A new motherboard was sold for a time that would upgrade the //e's case to actually become a IIgs. All the old adapter cards remained compatible.
The original ][ machines could add ][+ ROMs to get Applesoft, which was a requirement for several programs. Likewise, they could be expanded with memory up to 64k,which became a requirement later. An 80 column card (and whatever other peripherals desired... Z80, printer card, serial, etc.) often rounded out the machine.
Then the //e came along. It had a standard 80 column card and came with 64k memory standard; most had 128k. It had new ROMs and character set that started to allow software that was specifically targeted for it to be incompatible with the earlier machines. A little later came the enhanced //e, which had an updated CPU with a couple new instructions. So the //e (especially the enhanced one) was a departure point where it started to become important to "upgrade." The IIc was effectively a //e in a smaller case with some built-in peripherals (serial ports, 128k memory, etc.), so it could run all the //e-specific software.
The IIgs of course was another departure... new ROMs, 16bit CPU, more memory standard, etc. If software was written specifically for it, there was no looking back. A new motherboard was sold for a time that would upgrade the //e's case to actually become a IIgs. All the old adapter cards remained compatible.
and as a side note the //c came BEFORE the enhanced //e. It was because of the //c that they came out with the "enhanced" //e. I always thought that was an oxymoron since the e in the //e name meant enhanced in the first place, since it was improvement, or "enhanced", beyond what the II+ was.
Basically the "enhanced" //e was a //c in the //e case with slots on the motherboard to allow for additional upgrades to the machine, just like the original II, II+ and //e.
Just my two cents worth,
Dean
Basically the "enhanced" //e was a //c in the //e case with slots on the motherboard to allow for additional upgrades to the machine, just like the original II, II+ and //e.
Just my two cents worth,
Dean
Thanks! So to paraphrase, the ][ could be upgraded to a ][+?
Could an upgraded ][ and ][+ be upgraded to a //e? If so, how much further could you take an original Apple ][?
The //e could be upgraded to a //e enhanced. Could both be upgraded to a IIe Platinum (without the extended keyboard of course)?
The //e, enhanced and platinum could all be upgraded to a IIGS?
Could //e cards be used in an upgraded ][ or ][+ or were they totally incompatible?
Were IIGS cards compatible with the //e?
You'd think all of this would be in the incredibly detailed wikipedia Apple II pages, or Apple2.org, but if it is, it's not easy to find ...
> So to paraphrase, the ][ could be upgraded to a ][+?
Yes. Later ]['s used the same motherboard as early ][+'s. Just more RAM, and Integer BASIC instead of Applesoft BASIC.
> Could an upgraded ][ and ][+ be upgraded to a //e? If so, how much further could you take an original Apple ][?
It depends upon what you mean by an upgrade. A motherboard swap was certainly possible, albeit drastic. You could also upgrade the memory, throw in an 80-column card, and do the lowercase mod to have similar functionality to a //e. Albeit, some software would be incompatible.
> The //e could be upgraded to a //e enhanced. Could both be upgraded to a IIe Platinum (without the extended keyboard of course)?
Yes and yes. There were kits to enhance a standard //e. The platinum was a IIe in a different case and with a different keyboard. You could even buy an number pad if you really wanted it. (The motheboard design changed over the years, but that was a production issue not a features or performance issue.)
> The //e, enhanced and platinum could all be upgraded to a IIGS?
It depends upon what you mean by upgrade. A motherboard swap was certainly possible, albeit drastic. Apple even provided a replacement baseplate so that the ports would be exposed.
> Could //e cards be used in an upgraded ][ or ][+ or were they totally incompatible?
The Apple bus was pretty much compatible, with two differences. The slot for the 80 column card/memory card was unique to the IIe. Certain (all?) slot 0 cards would not work in the //e.
> Were IIGS cards compatible with the //e?
To my knowledge, all IIgs Apple bus cards worked in the //e. Well, except accelerator cards (but those had to be tied into the CPU as well as the Apple bus). Certain Apple bus cards had trouble with the IIgs (e.g. CP/M cards). Apple IIgs memory slot cards would not work in the IIe. But I think that the only non-RAM card for that slot was the RAMFast SCSI card.
> You'd think all of this would be in the incredibly detailed wikipedia Apple II pages, or Apple2.org, but if it is, it's not easy to find ...
csa2 is a far more definitive source of information.
Yes. Later ]['s used the same motherboard as early ][+'s. Just more RAM, and Integer BASIC instead of Applesoft BASIC.
> Could an upgraded ][ and ][+ be upgraded to a //e? If so, how much further could you take an original Apple ][?
It depends upon what you mean by an upgrade. A motherboard swap was certainly possible, albeit drastic. You could also upgrade the memory, throw in an 80-column card, and do the lowercase mod to have similar functionality to a //e. Albeit, some software would be incompatible.
> The //e could be upgraded to a //e enhanced. Could both be upgraded to a IIe Platinum (without the extended keyboard of course)?
Yes and yes. There were kits to enhance a standard //e. The platinum was a IIe in a different case and with a different keyboard. You could even buy an number pad if you really wanted it. (The motheboard design changed over the years, but that was a production issue not a features or performance issue.)
> The //e, enhanced and platinum could all be upgraded to a IIGS?
It depends upon what you mean by upgrade. A motherboard swap was certainly possible, albeit drastic. Apple even provided a replacement baseplate so that the ports would be exposed.
> Could //e cards be used in an upgraded ][ or ][+ or were they totally incompatible?
The Apple bus was pretty much compatible, with two differences. The slot for the 80 column card/memory card was unique to the IIe. Certain (all?) slot 0 cards would not work in the //e.
> Were IIGS cards compatible with the //e?
To my knowledge, all IIgs Apple bus cards worked in the //e. Well, except accelerator cards (but those had to be tied into the CPU as well as the Apple bus). Certain Apple bus cards had trouble with the IIgs (e.g. CP/M cards). Apple IIgs memory slot cards would not work in the IIe. But I think that the only non-RAM card for that slot was the RAMFast SCSI card.
> You'd think all of this would be in the incredibly detailed wikipedia Apple II pages, or Apple2.org, but if it is, it's not easy to find ...
csa2 is a far more definitive source of information.
I have a feeling that most people who write the Wikipedia page are of the "younger set" and didn't actually use the II's back in the 70's and 80's when they were first released, but rather later as part of the "retro thing." That's the case for me, in fact.
OTOH, csa2 goes back to 1990 and is dominated by college students/faculty, as are most all Usenet newsgroups of the period.
I don't know about that. The pedigree of Apples was basically that everything was backwards compatible. You could always go backwards (i.e. an adapter card was compatible with every machine unless it was built for a specific model... aux slot, mem slot, slot 0, etc.), but if you had an older machine, Steve, Steve and Co. expected you to buy something new to keep up. As we've said, there were complete motherboard "upgrades" that one could perform. But in general, with a few exceptions where ROM swaps were possible, you didn't upgrade from one model of Apple II to the next.
Which was a double-edged sword, IMO, and what ultimately killed the family of computers.
No what actually killed the Apple II line of computers was Apple Computer not backwards compatibility. They didn't want the Apple II, especially the GS, competing with the Macintosh and taking sales away from what they thought of as the new flagship computer for the company. If you remember the Mac line had backwards compatibility also, all the way up until System 10.5 which no longer supports the Classic environment.
Dean
That was due to the architecture of the Mac-- using toolbox calls and not accessing hardware directly. They couldn't even change anything in the Apple II without everyone's programs breaking, hence why there were never faster processor speeds, new CPUs, enhanced gfx modes, etc. The IIgs, of course, did bring in speed, new cpu, and gfx, but Apple engineers had to spend a lot of time making it compatible with the //e. Not a lot of programs were made to work just on the IIgs. Why bother, said developers, when it already runs the existing II software, and it that software is compatible with all the rest of the II family. Therefore, the innovation which could have happened on the IIGS with its enhanced graphics, sound and CPU, for the most part, did not happen.
Disaclaimer: the above paragraph is a summary of what I've read in various Usenet posts, and is not something I've come up with on my own, though I do agree with it.