15 Apr
1998
15 Apr
'98
6:12 p.m.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (BYTE ~1985 ?) that Soviet made CPUs
(6502 clones?) were so poorly maid that they individually came with a
list of which instuctions worked and which didn't. Also seem to recall
an article on the soviet Apple ][ clone of the time (CPU on a large
daughterboard, pirated ROM, cost approx US $20,000)
-Matt Pritchard
Graphics Engine and Optimization Specialist
MS Age of Empires & Age of Empires ][
-----Original Message-----
From: Hotze [SMTP:photze@batelco.com.bh]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 12:15 PM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: The PC's Soviet?
OK... I was talking to a Ukranian programmer, who told me that in 1968
the
PC was invented, not far from where he worked in Ukrane. Now, that's
4
years before the microprocessor, but is it possible?
And this guy might be dilusional, he's VERY communist, but then
again,
at base, so am I, but with a democratic twist. Anyway, what's the
story
behind this?
Thanks,
Tim D. Hotze
15 Apr
15 Apr
11:26 p.m.
At 05:12 PM 4/15/98 -0500, you wrote:
I seem to recall reading somewhere (BYTE ~1985 ?) that
Soviet made CPUs
(6502 clones?) were so poorly maid that they individually came with a
list of which instuctions worked and which didn't. Also seem to recall
an article on the soviet Apple ][ clone of the time (CPU on a large
daughterboard, pirated ROM, cost approx US $20,000)
I remember that article. The entire motherboard was pirated! Not just
the ROM. The tops of the ICs had been ground off to hide the fact that they
were US made parts.
Joe
-Matt Pritchard
Graphics Engine and Optimization Specialist
MS Age of Empires & Age of Empires ][
-----Original Message-----
From: Hotze [SMTP:photze@batelco.com.bh]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 12:15 PM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: The PC's Soviet?
OK... I was talking to a Ukranian programmer, who told me that in 1968
the
PC was invented, not far from where he worked in Ukrane. Now, that's
4
years before the microprocessor, but is it possible?
And this guy might be dilusional, he's VERY communist, but then
again,
at base, so am I, but with a democratic twist. Anyway, what's the
story
behind this?
Thanks,
Tim D. Hotze
16 Apr
16 Apr
5:24 p.m.
On 15 Apr 98 at 22:26, Joe wrote:
At 05:12 PM 4/15/98 -0500, you wrote:
Were those Honduran OR Malaysian US made parts ? I suppose they could have
been the better quality Japanese US made parts. ; ^ ))
ciao larry
lwalker(a)interlog.com
I seem to recall reading somewhere (BYTE ~1985 ?)
that Soviet made CPUs
(6502 clones?) were so poorly maid that they individually came with a
list of which instuctions worked and which didn't. Also seem to recall
an article on the soviet Apple ][ clone of the time (CPU on a large
daughterboard, pirated ROM, cost approx US $20,000)
I remember that article. The entire motherboard was pirated! Not just
the ROM. The tops of the ICs had been ground off to hide the fact that they
were US made parts.
Joe
22 Apr
22 Apr
4:41 a.m.
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Joe wrote:
How do we know that the $20,000 wasn't the cost of shipping the pirate
motherboards to the Soviet Union from Canada, via Cuba? ;)
Was it not the same in the States, with regards to Apple clones, as it was
in Canada in the early 80s? My own family bought an Apple clone from one
of the bigger (and perhaps more 'reputable'?) Apple cloners in the area.
The ROMs were slightly modified (different name on bootup) and the power
connector on the motherboard was changed, but otherwise I think the
machine was identical to an Apple ][+. And the manuals were bound
photocopies of Apple's manuals with the copyright messages missing (but
the holes for the original ring binding clearly visible). They even sold
bare motherboards, language card boards you could populate yourself, etc.
I still use the photocopied "Apple ][ Reference Manual" I got with the
clone, even though I've now got an original one stashed away somewhere.
There were all kinds of small Apple cloners around, with various Apple
variety and fruit names ("Granny Smith", "McIntosh", "Pear",
etc.). The
only obvious differences between most of these machines and an actual
Apple ][+ was the lack of the Apple logo, and usually the presence of
lower case display (though not necessarily the shift-key mod, which my
machine lacks). Some had additional stuff, though, like function keys and
slightly differently shaped cases. Or maybe a different colour of
plastic.
Maybe I should start collecting Apple clones, seeing as I see them more
frequently than actual Apples (clones were more affordable).
So the Soviets pirated the Apple ][, who didn't?
A shame about the price, though. Why pirate the Apple if your clone is
going to be even MORE expensive than the real thing?
BTW, my clone fell ill a while ago, and I've replaced it with a genuine
Apple //e (the clone is back in its original box). Thanks to
depreciation, the //e was *much* less expensive than the clone was. And
it even had an additional 256K RAM card in it (now populated up to 512K).
:)
Too bad the //e won't work with any of my Z80 cards. :/
Also seem to
recall
an article on the soviet Apple ][ clone of the time (CPU on a large
daughterboard, pirated ROM, cost approx US $20,000)
I remember that article. The entire motherboard was pirated! Not just
the ROM. The tops of the ICs had been ground off to hide the fact that they
were US made parts. Joe
Doug Spence
ds_spenc(a)alcor.concordia.ca
10:21 a.m.
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Doug Spence wrote:
There were all kinds of small Apple cloners around,
with various Apple
variety and fruit names ("Granny Smith", "McIntosh",
"Pear", etc.). The
only obvious differences between most of these machines and an actual
Apple ][+ was the lack of the Apple logo, and usually the presence of
lower case display (though not necessarily the shift-key mod, which my
machine lacks). Some had additional stuff, though, like function keys and
slightly differently shaped cases. Or maybe a different colour of
plastic.
Maybe I should start collecting Apple clones, seeing as I see them more
frequently than actual Apples (clones were more affordable).
I think the clones are more interesting than the real Apples at this
point. They are more varied and in most areas are less common. More
importantly they do have a historical significance.
So the Soviets pirated the Apple ][, who didn't?
A shame about the price, though. Why pirate the Apple if your clone is
going to be even MORE expensive than the real thing?
I think the reason they were so expensive is because the parts required to
build them (chips & stuff) were so hard to obtain that they demanded a
premium price.
BTW, my clone fell ill a while ago, and I've
replaced it with a genuine
Apple //e (the clone is back in its original box). Thanks to
depreciation, the //e was *much* less expensive than the clone was. And
it even had an additional 256K RAM card in it (now populated up to 512K).
:)
Too bad the //e won't work with any of my Z80 cards. :/
Hmmm...why is that? What do you get when you boot it up? I guess it
could be your Z-80 card. I used to have problems running my Microsoft
Softcard //e with my Transwarp II because of some bus conflict I imagine.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't blame me...I voted for Satan.
Coming in September...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details!
[Last web page update: 04/13/98]
29 Apr
29 Apr
4:27 a.m.
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
Yes, they do have significance. At least now that "clone" means "PC"
to
most people. :/
Most of the clones were straight Apple rip-offs, but some of them did
indeed have some character of their own.
When I do a cold boot, I invariably get a screen full of garbage, and the
LED on the top of the Z80 card lights up. The LED will either
stay on, or it will go off after about a second. Subsequent resets may
get a screen full of garbage, with the light on or off. After the third
or fourth reset, the screen will mostly or totally clear, and I'll
get a "CAN'T FIND Z80 SOFTCARD" message. Once that message appears,
that's
usually all that will appear with any future resets, and there will be
no activity from the LED.
Maybe I should
start collecting Apple clones, seeing as I see them more
frequently than actual Apples (clones were more affordable).
I think the clones are more interesting than the real Apples at this
point. They are more varied and in most areas are less common. More
importantly they do have a historical significance. Too bad the
//e won't work with any of my Z80 cards. :/
Hmmm...why is that? What do you get when you boot it up? I guess it could be your Z-80 card.
It could be the //e as well, or it could be the ancient version of CP/M
I've got. Looking through the disk image I've stored on my Amiga, I see
"COPYRIGHT (C) 1979 DIGITAL RESEARCH", and
APPLE ][ CP/M
56K VER. 2.20
(C) 1980 MICROSOFT
I used to have problems running my Microsoft
Softcard //e with my Transwarp II because of some bus conflict I imagine.
Neither of my Z80 cards will work in my //e, with or without any other
boards installed in the system.
My //e motherboard is an 820-0064-A, and it's unenhanced.
Doug Spence
ds_spenc(a)alcor.concordia.ca
22 Apr
22 Apr
10:36 a.m.
There were all kinds of small Apple cloners around, with various Apple
variety and fruit names ("Granny Smith", "McIntosh",
"Pear", etc.). The
only obvious differences between most of these machines and an actual
Apple ][+ was the lack of the Apple logo, and usually the presence of
lower case display (though not necessarily the shift-key mod, which my
machine lacks). Some had additional stuff, though, like function keys and
slightly differently shaped cases. Or maybe a different colour of
plastic.
I fondly remember an issue of BYTE from long ago, that was the April
1st edition, that had a phoney advertisement in it for a 'Lemon
Computer' that looked suspiciously like an Apple ][ (with a rather
distressed and dissheveled user scratching his head . .).
This was long before BYTE became "The World's Computing Authority".
Back then, it still had a sense of humour.
Jeff
29 Apr
29 Apr
3:56 a.m.
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Jeff Kaneko wrote:
I fondly remember an issue of BYTE from long ago, that
was the April
1st edition, that had a phoney advertisement in it for a 'Lemon
Computer' that looked suspiciously like an Apple ][ (with a rather
distressed and dissheveled user scratching his head . .).
Believe it or not, I think there *was* a "Lemon" Apple clone. My father
and I still occasionally joke about it. And we didn't get it from BYTE.
This was long before BYTE became "The World's
Computing Authority".
Back then, it still had a sense of humour.
<s>
Jeff
Doug Spence
ds_spenc(a)alcor.concordia.ca
9758
days inactive
9772
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
dastar＠wco.com -
ds_spenc＠alcor.concordia.ca -
Jeff.Kaneko＠ifrsys.com -
lwalker＠mail.interlog.com -
MPritchard＠EnsembleStudios.com -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net