Hello

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I

Lol, I have seen that before. Wiki is not exactly reliable, which is why I want to hear more information by posting this question on the forum, for a better clarification.

LOL yourself - the wiki cites outside sources. Why would you think the word of a single member of this forum would be more reliable?

At any rate, the Apple I's were not prebuilt and did not come standard with a keyboard and mouse. The original packaging was basically just a circuit board - no case. That's why all the cases you see them in are different, with the most famous picture being of an obviously homemade wooden case.

But again, why on earth would you take my word for it?

So are you saying that Wiki is 100% reliable?

Lol, how funny! I don't suppose you knew that any ignorant people can edit ANY wiki page?

Just because the members of the community as you claimed are reliable don't mean that Wiki is reliable in general.

When I view the wiki page, I don't see anything that says "Hey look, this information is totally reliable because we are the members of the Apple forum, plz believe us! lolol".

Oh, by the way, not all sources cited in the wiki page are reliable either.

Unbelievable... If you don't want to trust Wiki; how about just typing "Apple History" or "Apple 1" into Google?

There are literally HUNDREDS of results that you would get... that all state the same information.

...It is Possible to receive wrong information ANYWHERE; even on an Apple forum.

Looks like you're just trolling at this point. If you really want info on Apple's history and don't trust online sources, then get some books:
Like These

The authoritative history of Apple is found in Encyclopedia Titanica.

"When you bought an Apple 1 back in 1976 it came fully pre-built. Not only did it contain a circuit board and a big brown box with the hand-carved letters APPLE on the case, it had a full functioning keyboard with reset and clear screen keys, heavy duty power supply, and hi-fidelity cassette tape built-in." (free excerpt provided by permission, any other uses are strictly forbidden)

I am the author, editor and sales leader for Encyclopedia Titanica and can assure you that anything you might read on the internet is probably a bunch of hooey. So, if you want authoritative revisionist history be sure to only read it in Encyclopedia Titanica. Want to buy a set?

As one of the few Apple-1 original owners back in 1976, I cannot agree with mmphosis and his quoted comment.

The Apple-1 that I bought from the Byte Shop back then did NOT have a "big brown box with the hand-carved letters APPLE on the case", nor did it have "a full functioning keyboard with reset and clear screen keys", or a "hi-fidelity cassette tape built-in".

The Apple-1 computer that I bought had the main circuit board with all components installed including the power supply, but not the PS transformers, plus the cassette interface card and the instructions. The ASCII keyboard, the power transformers, the case, the cassette player, the TV (monitor), the reset and clear buttons, etc. were purchased separately and assembled by me to complete the computer. A second Apple-1 I bought as a clearance item in 1977 was similar. Joe Torzewski, the only other original Apple-1 owner that I've met in person, bought his computer the same way. Maybe SOME Apple-1 computers were sold as a completed unit, but these weren't put together by Wozniak and Jobs as such. They built the Apple-1s as only the circuit board.

As previously stated, not all information on the internet is true.

I think he was being facetious.

Yeah. We all know that the Apple I circuit board originally came coated with a thick layer of a fruit-flavored candy, not in a wooden box. One of the facts lost to history at this point is just how many licks it took to get to the center, as so far as can be determined none of the original Apple I owners ever had the patience to make it without biting. The only hope would be to find one in its original wrapper, but even then it would undoubtedly be spoiled by now.

--Peace

I agree with you iceandfire and I am glad you wrote. I was joking in my false comment quoted from a fictitious set of hard covered encyclopedias. There is no Encyclopedia Titanica except in my imagination.

I don't think that the internet is any more or less false than TV news reports, newspapers, revisionist history books, and other information that is not easily qualified. Fortunately, the internet provides us ways in which to dispute false claims, sometimes provide better information than was previously available, and may even reveal many ways of viewing many realities available to us.

Not all information is true, not all information is false. Information may be considered fuzzy. What is true for you?

And we further the Applefritter Forum when a newcomer asks a question by ridiculing him? Can anyone explain why someone would do this? Were the trash-talkers just concealing their ignorance? Proving their superiority? Trying to discourage beginners? Hmmm....

> And we further the Applefritter Forum when a newcomer asks a question by ridiculing him?

No.

> Can anyone explain why someone would do this?

Anger. I hear: I want to learn about the Apple-1 and the internet is not a reliable source for information. I call B.S. on that.

> Were the trash-talkers just concealing their ignorance?

Nope, my ignorance is in plain text. Except, for the word joking

> Proving their superiority?

I humbly disagree.

> Trying to discourage beginners?

Trying is lying. I encourage. And, I try not to assume.

Goodbye.

Watch the language --DrW

Okay, one vote for ignorance... any others?

Clearly this thread has outlived this usefulness. All I can say is personally, I think it's pretty reasonable to lampoon someone who says (fairly aggressively) "I don't believe what I read in any static source on the Internet, so I asked *you*, random people on the Internet who I'm in no better (indeed, probably a worse) position to fact check then the Wikipedia link one of you idiots (don't you know any ignorant person can edit Wikipedia, stupid?) gave me to please tell me in your own words an incredibly basic fact about the first product produced by a company who's origin is possibly the most obsessively documented and repeated piece of folklore in the entire computer industry.".

It could well be the O.P. had a "genuine interest" and was suffering under the handicap of a language barrier or something that made his reply to the initial attempt to enlighten him (the URL of the Wikipedia article) seem like trolling, but... whatever.

--Peace

Before I made this thread, I was googling the history of Apple 1. I've found so many information (mostly came from Wiki), indeed, so I've came here to ask you geeks (lol) the same thing I was looking for and get answers just to be 100% sure, that's it. What is amazing is that geeks usually give accurate information which is another reason why I made this thread.

Yes, not everything you see on the Internet is correct, but think about Wiki, ANYBODY can edit wiki! Even kids can!
My point is that the actual internet pages showing information (the ones nobody can edit but the authors) are usually more correct than wiki pages. Reasons:

Wiki is free, it can be influential since anybody can edit. When ignorant or religious people think they are correct, they will change information. Even CIA has changed information on wiki, because they wanted to protect themselves, how funny is that? So in conclusion is that wiki not usually credible! It's almost impossible to prove whether wiki info is correct or not.

Host a website (not free), only authors can put information on it. Usually credible! Unless hackers change info on websites (lol) but that's rare anyway.

On the other side, books, usually credible also.

If I was rich, I would of course buy a book about Apple 1...

Anyway, doesn't matter now because I have my answers, thank you for your time again!

This has gotten to be more of a debate on the quality of information on the internet than about your actual quest for info, but I must point out a few things: People tend to correct mistakes more than create them. People also know many facts but may have no way to show them, either due to financial or technical means of running their own site. Simply because Wikipedia allows community editing does not specifically disqualify the information that is put into it. As I stated, people tend to correct mistakes more than cause them. By allowing the general public (who are most likely to not have the technical expertise or money to run their own site) to edit simple informational pages Wikipedia can actually draw in a much larger, and possibly more informed, base to create their database. Kinda like the "more eyes" argument for open source.

Would you know if the CIA had edited wiki pages if the site did not keep detailed records of every change? How credible is a website with no (public!) log of all changes, as you suggest? The methods used by Wikipedia help show who and when falsified information is added. A private website will give you NONE of that information.

I agree, Wikipedia is an *awesome* resource. It seems that nearly any subject can be found on there.

And just because Webster makes the dictionary...does that make Webster right?

We live in a time where any information can be falsified. At least Wikipedia keeps a log, as Jon pointed out.

Reading through some of the posts here I remembered a study concluding that overall Wikipedia was as accurate a resource as Encyclopedia Brittanica. I found the link to that article.
The OP should note that while anyone can edit (read: vandalize) an article, so can anyone else, and as the article above notes, the overall trend is towards accuracy.

What I find interesting about Wikipedia is how much it reflects the overall still in parents basement culture of the internet as witnessed by Wiki Groaning.

Of course, in this context the fact that Wikipedia is written largely by nerds with no life means that it's an absolutely *fabulous* place to go if you're looking for information about obscure home/hobbyist computer systems. ;^) Admittedly how detailed the articles are tends to be a direct measurement of either how popular the system was and/or how awesome the video games available for it were, but even the losers usually have at least two fanatical nerds filtering each other's updates for off-by-one errors on the memory map listings and whatnot.

--Peace