I tend to agree with you. (I actually started writing a defense of my initial position and realized that I was wrong!) I think some would like to dismiss the Ap

I tend to agree with you. (I actually started writing a defense of my initial position and realized that I was wrong!) I think some would like to dismiss the Apple ][ as, say, merely being the luckiest of a bunch of similarly conceived products that came out around the same time (e.g. the Commodore Pet was announced earlier but delivered later, and the TRS-80 came out slightly afterwards), but then not only was the Apple ][ more successful, it was also dramatically superior technically (e.g. its expansion bus allowed for self-configuring cards that could even slave the computer, which led to products like the DTACK 68k board that turned a humble Apple ][ into a workstation-class computer back in 1980. http://www.easy68k.com/paulrsm/dg/ http://www.easy68k.com/paulrsm/dg/