| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 2012-01-20 21.40.00.jpg | 861.83 KB |
| 2012-01-20 21.40.33.jpg | 688.64 KB |
| 2012-01-20 21.40.47.jpg | 1.09 MB |
| 2012-01-20 21.41.42.jpg | 596.6 KB |
| 2012-01-20 21.41.59.jpg | 735.92 KB |
OK I came into another Apple II not plus...i think.
As you can see by the serial number, bottom sticker etc.. It is definitely a late computer as ID'd by the made in singapore motherboard, and red label
But, did they stop using the week/year id format on the motherboard corner?
Also, it is id'd as an a2s1 and 71*** on the bottom
Is it a II? IIplus ugraded motherboard?
Any help would be great.
thnks
hello 1Mhz,
sorry but the focus on most pictures is rather poor - but as far as it is viewed - by me opinion this CASE is an old APPLEII - but it seems the board has been swapped later by some service with a rather new board from week 13 of 1985. This is cute because in 1983 the //e was launched and therefor it seems to me that some seviceguy just swapped the former original board. By the case label there should be a 16 K populated board inside that probably later hed been upgraded to 48k - but usually the 16k populated boards stopped to be sold somewhere in 1980 or 1981.... I dont remember any board to be sold with only 16kB in 1985 due to the fact that in that days nothing with less than 64 KB was sold off anymore....
the summary is just up to my limited knowledge and guesses....
regards speedyG
Like Speedy said, the photos are kind of blurry.
If you could take the two cards out and then take clear pictures of the MB it would help to see exactly what kind of board it is.
By ebaybrad at 2012-01-21
By ebaybrad at 2012-01-21
820-0044-d motherboard
hello 1MHZ,
thanks for the detail pictures.... the details in fact really raise the number of riddels instead of solving them...
at the one hand the board itself is etched clearly from a run of 1979... but the printed code in the corner instead of the usual handmarking claims the board to be assembled in 13th week of 1985... where did this PCB stay in that meantime from 1979 till 1985 ???
the code at the bottom of the case indicate an apple II from 1979 or 1980 too....
this apple must have a cute story.... the most trustable explanation to me - is that the PCB remained "naked" or assembled but without assemblycode somewhere in the shelf as sparepart together with the case and at the end of the appleII assembly and due to the introduction of the apple //e in 1983 the set of PCB and case remained "forgotten" somewhere in the backpart of the shelf.... this is cute to the data of the company-history because in 1985 the war was between Jobs and Wozniak and related to that incident probably a appleII came back for repair with totaly dead board and damaged case ( maybe a fire in a house ) and the owner refused to take an upgrade to the //e but instead insisted to get again an apple II ... and therefor the guys pulled of the PCB and the case from the sparepartshelf and assembled it in 1985 with the code printed or the just added the datecode to the assembled board ( with a stamp ? )... take the one or the other option of explanation...
there must be a kind of story similar to this guess to explain the difference of the 5 years between the PCB being etched and the assembly or at least the marking of the datecode with five years delay.....
anyhow in this case the identification of the board is more important to the run of the etching and the run itself and not to the datecode of assembly ( which only indicates some strange kind of delay ) and therefor the run is related to the type and version.... especially because it also identifies itself to be a rev.d with RFI which was rather common in the end of 1979 and the middle of 1980...
sincerely speedyG
It's just an Apple service board. The II Plus mobo was available as a service part well into 80's.
what is a service board? a
ii or
ii+ board?
service boards were usually AII+ boards...
HI 1MHz,
Judging from the hole pattern in the form of "N" pattern close to the 6502 processor, the motherboard should be Apple II plus design. A true Apple II motherboard has an IC attached at that position and has three 16K jumper blocks. The last Apple II motherboards should be dated at around 79XX and from around 84XX onward, the motherboards from normal assembly line should be IIe.
I agree with SFahley that it should be a service board.
The motherboard should be a service part just because the production date is well after Apple stopped sales of the II/II+. I momentarily entertained the thought that Apple might have been willing to put a batch together out of parts if someone would have been willing to order a large enough number but then those would have had to be RFI machines which this machine clearly is not.
The Apple II boards didn't have to have 16K jumpers or a 79 or earlier date. They sold the II alongside the II+ into 1981. I have a II with it's original Rev 7 motherboard made in November of 1980. Since they were advertizing the II in 1981, there should even be a few RFI IIs out there.
Sorry Wayne that its you again....
please take a look at the reply #3 above and then take a precise view at the upper photograph....
i assume that you read the white printed text ? I mean : "APPLE II MAIN LOGIC BD RFI" .... got it ?
please explain because i´m to stupid to unterdstand how can it be
allthough that the board is clearly RFI ?
I guess you remember that those boards that are not RFI don´t contain that three magic letters at the end ??
In fact the module is not in the photos - but the board is clearly RFI !
In fact there is a difference between the boards that where prepared to bear RFI module and those that haven´t been designed for use with that module and sure : the case is from an old computer ( see picture 2012-01-20 21.41.42.jpg ).... but we should be able to make a difference between the old case and the motherboard that was later swapped in .... shouldn´t we ?
if you go along the entire thread above you might recognize that for example i refused further information after the first photos issued ( see reply #1 ) - and mentioned the missing focus .... then after the second set of the photos were published i allready mentioned ( see reply #5 ) that there is a difference between the case and the board and the fact that the board probably should identify as service-spare-part.
see message #5:
We can even mention that beside of the fact that the board had been etched from a run of a film from 79 the populated ROM-chips indicate that the board probably was assembled in 1980 allthough this is no explanation for the fact of the datestamp from 13th week of 1985 ( see pic 2012-01-20 21.40.33.jpg above ).... that still remains without explanation....
regards speedyG
I'll explain then. If you'll reread my statement you'll see that I didn't say that it's not a RFI motherboard, I said it's a not a RFI machine. In fact it's a RFI motherboard in a non-RFI case.There's more to a RFI machine than just the motherboard. Apple used a metal shield at the rear of the case which clamped between the motherboard and baseplate with 4 machine screws thereby grounding the shielding. Without the RFI baseplate it can't be made RFI compliant so it's therefore not an RFI machine and could not have been sold by Apple after January 1981 as is.
Wayne
[quote=speedyG]Sorry Wayne that its you again....
please take a look at the reply #3 above and then take a precise view at the upper photograph....
i assume that you read the white printed text ? I mean : "APPLE II MAIN LOGIC BD RFI" .... got it ?
please explain because i´m to stupid to unterdstand how can it be
allthough that the board is clearly RFI ?
I guess you remember that those boards that are not RFI don´t contain that three magic letters at the end ??
In fact the module is not in the photos - but the board is clearly RFI !
In fact there is a difference between the boards that where prepared to bear RFI module and those that haven´t been designed for use with that module and sure : the case is from an old computer ( see picture 2012-01-20 21.41.42.jpg ).... but we should be able to make a difference between the old case and the motherboard that was later swapped in .... shouldn´t we ?
if you go along the entire thread above you might recognize that for example i refused further information after the first photos issued ( see reply #1 ) - and mentioned the missing focus .... then after the second set of the photos were published i allready mentioned ( see reply #5 ) that there is a difference between the case and the board and the fact that the board probably should identify as service-spare-part.
see message #5: