4 ms·

You're hopelessly, utterly wrong. I refer you to, for just one of millions of examples, the Apple II reference manual: https://archive.org/details/applerefjan7

You're hopelessly, utterly wrong. I refer you to, for just one of millions of examples, the Apple II reference manual: https://archive.org/details/applerefjan78 https://archive.org/details/applerefjan78. The early culture of PCs was one of end-user fixing and upgrading by default, often primarily.

robotresearcher 11y ago
> the Apple II reference manual And then the Mac was sealed. You needed a special tool just to open the case. I upgraded the RAM in my Atari ST by solder-sucking 16*(16+2) through-holes and soldering the additional chips and caps myself. Not exactly modular by design.
megaman22 11y ago
The early history of PCs included sending away for a box of parts and a manual and then soldering the pieces together yourself. And then when you put the kit together, there was no software, so you had to write it yourself. Also, there was no keyboard, so you had to input the machine code for your software directly into RAM using toggle switches. And there was no real display, just a few LEDs that you could blink on and off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800#Description
JohnBooty 11y ago
I'm very aware of that. For brevity's sake, I talked about IBM PC hardware because that's what our current x86 hardware is directly descended from. (If you typed your post on some crazy descendant of the 6502 and/or the Apple II's architecture... then I stand corrected, and please share details of your setup!)
- felixgallo 11y ago
  This was also true for all x86 ancestor hardware. For example, the IBM XT came with a technical reference manual that provided the schematics and source code (https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_ibmpcxt150ferenceApr83_26321497 https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_ibmpcxt150ferenceApr83...). In fact, the fundamental success of the PC/XT line was that it had increased user-expandability and maintainability over the competitors, as documented extensively in all accounts of the period. And we're all typing on crazy descendants of the Apple II architecture, because pieces of it informed all subsequent architectures: "It was also decided along the way that the machine would have an "open" architecture, like that of the Apple family. IBM would include slots under the cover of the machine that could accommodate plug-in boards that would add features or even change the entire personality of the PC. And, to make it relatively easy for outside companies to participate in the building of the PC market, IBM would publish a Technical Reference Manual with the entire set of electrical schematics for the machine and a full explanation and printout of the ROM-based BIOS (Basic input Output System) that provides the hooks into the machine for hardware and software. The ROM BIOS and the IBM logo were actually the only elements of the entire machine that bore an IBM copyright." (http://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v10n11/298_IBM_colossus_of_Armonk.php http://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v10n11/298_IBM_coloss...) Frankly, your lack of understanding of the history you're so confidently asserting facts about is beyond shocking. I'm sorry if that seems mean-spirited, but there's no other way to put it.

robotresearcher 11y ago

> the Apple II reference manual And then the Mac was sealed. You needed a special tool just to open the case. I upgraded the RAM in my Atari ST by solder-sucking 16*(16+2) through-holes and soldering the additional chips and caps myself. Not exactly modular by design.

megaman22 11y ago

The early history of PCs included sending away for a box of parts and a manual and then soldering the pieces together yourself. And then when you put the kit together, there was no software, so you had to write it yourself. Also, there was no keyboard, so you had to input the machine code for your software directly into RAM using toggle switches. And there was no real display, just a few LEDs that you could blink on and off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800#Description

JohnBooty 11y ago

I'm very aware of that. For brevity's sake, I talked about IBM PC hardware because that's what our current x86 hardware is directly descended from. (If you typed your post on some crazy descendant of the 6502 and/or the Apple II's architecture... then I stand corrected, and please share details of your setup!)

felixgallo 11y ago
This was also true for all x86 ancestor hardware. For example, the IBM XT came with a technical reference manual that provided the schematics and source code (https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_ibmpcxt150ferenceApr83_26321497 https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_ibmpcxt150ferenceApr83...). In fact, the fundamental success of the PC/XT line was that it had increased user-expandability and maintainability over the competitors, as documented extensively in all accounts of the period. And we're all typing on crazy descendants of the Apple II architecture, because pieces of it informed all subsequent architectures: "It was also decided along the way that the machine would have an "open" architecture, like that of the Apple family. IBM would include slots under the cover of the machine that could accommodate plug-in boards that would add features or even change the entire personality of the PC. And, to make it relatively easy for outside companies to participate in the building of the PC market, IBM would publish a Technical Reference Manual with the entire set of electrical schematics for the machine and a full explanation and printout of the ROM-based BIOS (Basic input Output System) that provides the hooks into the machine for hardware and software. The ROM BIOS and the IBM logo were actually the only elements of the entire machine that bore an IBM copyright." (http://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v10n11/298_IBM_colossus_of_Armonk.php http://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v10n11/298_IBM_coloss...) Frankly, your lack of understanding of the history you're so confidently asserting facts about is beyond shocking. I'm sorry if that seems mean-spirited, but there's no other way to put it.