This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of popular culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Apple II was 8-bit, but the whole family wasn't (right?)
The first sentence states that the Apple II family was a line of 8-bit computers, but as far as I'm aware, the Apple IIgs was 16-bit; its Wiki article agrees, but also confusingly says it was "16/32-bit." I assume this article currently says 8-bit for a reason, so I'm not comfortable leaping in to change it; if someone that knows better wishes to, though, please do. :) —Xyzzy☥the☥Avatar 08:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, technically, the Apple II would have been an "8/16-bit" computer (like most other home computers of its generation)... an 8-bit CPU with a 16-bit address bus. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
That opening sentence is clearly false, unless "Apple II family" only refers to the Apple II, II+, IIe, IIc and IIc+. Despite its radical differences, the Apple IIGS is part of the Apple II family and a true 16-bit computer. The IIGS CPU, the 65C816, has internal registers that are 16-bit wide and it has a 24-bit address bus (versus the 6502/65C02's 8-bit internal registers, and 16-bit address bus). That sentence needs to be changed.--Apple2gs (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The TL looks atrocious. Any chance of redoing it, preferably using a program that uses proper image scaling? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I believe it was created using the Wikipedia timeline tool, that creates images like the one in this article (I think it's in CSS). The only way to improve it would to be change the tool so it spits out something like svg images, but that wouldn't allow for the clickable hotspots it has now. Anyone else have any suggestions? The OP has a point: it does look pretty poor. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Are we talking about the "Timeline of Apple II family models" with the year marked graph, or the "Apple Model Navigation" bar? If it's the latter, I'm not pleased with the way it looks either. It's also inaccurate, it claims the Mac-based Apple IIe Card is the successor to the Apple IIGS, or that the Apple III is the successor to the original 1977 Apple II . And if you continue to follow it, it claims the entire Apple II line's evolution leads to the Macintosh Color Classic. A proper Apple II family tree would look something like this (although perhaps exclude the Apple III, since officially it was another product line, a cousin of the Apple II). --Apple2gs (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Apple II-->Apple II Plus-->Apple III-->Apple IIe
Apple III+ |----------->Apple IIGS
Apple IIc-->Apple IIc+
This discussion inspired me to start this:
If you zoom way in, you see it gets crisper and crisper. Compare it with this one:
Anyone like it any better? If so, I'll finish it up and upload it. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Despite the incredibly underwhelming response to my redo of the Apple II timeline, I finished it.
If there is no objection in the next few days, I'll go ahead and replace the current image with this new one.
There are some minor differences, but they make for a stronger timeline. For example, I moved the Apple IIe card down, since it's a peripheral for the Mac LC, and I added another identifier in the legend. Discuss. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, even though I finished my SVG version of the timeline, I'm not going to replace the current one. Even though mine is arguably easier to read, the big deal breaker is usability.
With the current one, if the user clicks on a computer model name (e.g. Apple I, Apple II, etc.), they are brought to the relevant article. With my version, because of how the wiki software works, when a user clicks on an Apple model, they are instead brought to the SVG page. From THERE they must click again to get to the SVG image alone, then from there they can click on the model numbers and go to the articles, but that is far too much work. In this case, usability trumps readability, so mine with remain unused.
If anyone wants to discuss this further, please do so. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)