I'm a big fan of the Replica One computer. I own an L-Star. I like to brag and say I have a genuine Apple I computer. LOL

But seriously, I wonder why no one has put the same work into reproducing the Apple ][?

I own several. I've seen the schematics and, IIRC, most of it is built with components still made today.

I don't have the engineering skills to do it myself. But even though Woz had some wonky (genius?) design decisions for it, it's so well documented that I'm surprised no one has tackled this.

Recently, I got a Harlequin board from eBay (the ZX Spectrum design that was reverse-engineered by Chris Smith)...

We need a hero to stand up and do for the Apple ][ what others have done for the ZX Spectrum, Apple 1, etc.

I post this in fun, but I am genuinely curious as to why it's never happened.

_________________
Cat; the other white meat.

Some years ago, Mike Willegal went through the trouble of replicating a Revision 0 motherboard from scratch, but I'm not sure how many he made.

http://www.willegal.net/appleii/appleii-recreation.htm

I'm assuming that to be the hard part. Populating the board and finding a decent power supply, case and keyboard shouldn't be a huge deal. I wonder if assembling and selling them for a small profit could get a person into some legal trouble?

Mike B.

I've wondered about the legal issue too, actually.

That might be a reason. As much as I love the original Apple, it's hard calling it revolutionary or even proprietary since it was about as simple as you can get to have a computer. Well, no video option would be simpler.

Also, Woz wrote the monitor before there was Apple.

What Chris Smith did for the ZX Spectrum was completely reverse-engineer the ULA using discrete components. So, hard to claim copyright on that.

I just wished someone would do that for the Apple ][.

I've also wondered if you created a SBC with the same memory mapping, and reproduced the video segment, how much of an Apple ][ would you have? Of course, minus the slots and expansion which is what gave Apple an advantage. But you wouldn't need the slots to use it.

Seems to me that a modern replica could be made to run even on 3v3. Without FPGA/CPLD.

_________________
Cat; the other white meat.

There are several FPGA-based reimplementations of the Apple ][:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150124041906/http://alexfreed.com/FPGApple/revisited.html
http://www.applelogic.org/CarteBlancheII.html

I think I've seen some others, as well.

True. But there's something more nostalgic about not using FPGA.

I forgot to mention that we now have the C64 Reloaded too. Although, it's not the SID, VIC-II, etc. but just a new motherboard with better power requirements.

One day I vow to do this with Apple II. That is, when I'm not longer a n00b.

_________________
Cat; the other white meat.

The Apple II and the Acorn Atom are good examples of machines which didn't use custom silicon, so can be rebuilt fairly readily. Not sure if the video output of the II is still a useful format though.

Well, define useful.

To me, the beauty of the Apple ][ is that it was made with standard parts (still made today) AND it was insanely popular. Tons of great software for it. So, despite the crazy video formats, there's no lack of programs to use it.

_________________
Cat; the other white meat.

Oh, I just meant that the colour output is very NTSC-specific - not sure how easy it is to display that these days.

Well, it uses NTSC artifacts to "cheat" to get colors. I know this is still possible to do because I've done it before with PIC microcontrollers.

Granted, however, it's less effective on modern TV's. That would be the hard part. Reproducing the color and graphic format on modern TV's with discrete logic.

Still, would be an interesting challenge.

I think you would have to run at 1 MHz too. Because of the way it uses DMA (or a form of it) to access video memory. I think if you got much faster than that you couldn't drive NTSC directly.

Of course, there were accelerator cards made. Not sure how they handled that.

But for me, a stock ][e with 128K would be all I'd ever want. Fortunately, I own several ][e's.

_________________
Cat; the other white meat.

I've got only one Apple ][e, but I also have a IIc+ and 2 1978-vintage Apple ][ machines

Oh, and the Apple ][e has the Carte Blanche card that I linked to earlier, set up to give me VGA output, as well as a CFFA card; that makes it a bit more practical to use.

I've been collecting vintage computers for years. I have over 60 of them.

But, I don't have a CFFA card. I do it the hard way by transferring over serial to a real disk. I guess I need to fix that one day.

_________________
Cat; the other white meat.

Unlikely. All of Apple's patents from that era have expired. So now the only thing holding a legal clone back is the Microsoft/Apple copyright on the firmware.

I wouldn't mind finding a replica II somewhere. I know about Mike Willegal's Revision 0 board, and it's very interesting (although I would rather build a IIe of that type). But I think I would be perfectly fine with a 'Replica IIe' more in the Briel style (I built a Briel Replica I), i.e. no FPGA, just standard components, but modern ones - i.e. a greatly reduced number of parts. But with slots, yes, I would want it to be completely compatible (or as much as) otherwise. Hm, a Basis 108 clone with modern parts.. 128KB Z80/6502 CP/M-Apple IIe compatible. Or just a Replica IIe, Briel style, with slots, and a modern version 'microsoft' Z80 card.
Not sure how best to handle floppies. Probably not by using actual old Apple floppy drives. My old II+ clone has some issues with those.

That would be MS/Applesoft BASIC, I presume? That's the one part of the Apple II I for one don't care about. I never want to program in BASIC ever again, and I never did on the Apple II (I programmed a lot on the Apple II in the eighties, but never in BASIC).