Talk:Apple I

message: This article is severely incomplete, as Jan olieslagers mentioned already in 2016. It covers the subject almost entirely like a collector's item, rather than a technical capabilities overview, like with almost every early home computer article. CapnZapp (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: -I've added an Overview section that attempts to describe the hardware more completely. Anything you think is missing?--agr (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. However, even in its current state, if I compare this article's table of contents to that of, I don't know, let's pick Apple II; there is only one section here that even starts describing the hardware (Overview) while there are nine (9) in the Apple II article. I understand Apple I is significantly more collectable, but this is Wikipedia, and not some collector's site. (I'm thinking of WP:NOT here) - I do not find it encyclopedic to devote much more space to collector details than to the history of Apple I development, its significance for computer and corporate history, its technical capabilities and shortcomings and so on. In other words, I have tagged this article because it does not treat its subject like other home computers of its era. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to remove the tag requesting more information about the Apple 1's capabilities. I'm not sure what more there is to say. It could run Integer Basic and play some simple games. Any objection?--agr (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's alright to remove now! 3df (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done--agr (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardware description 2 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: No Consensus to move (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 07:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 January 2023 

message: This sign needs citation 2600:1012:B18A:153D:887C:4D61:194F:D029 (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clare  

message: Firstly it came from this edit which did not cite any source for this claim and also vandalised the developer's name.
Secondly its storage was as much or as little as the cassette tape allows. A 15-minute tape offers less storage than a 90-minute tape. 
So the correct way to fix this would be to remove "456 KB" but keep "cassette tape" for the Storage field. 86.21.18.3 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The claim that it had 456KB of storage must be wrong 

message: Some of the page citations in the article use , and some use  – roughly the same number of each in total.  I think that we should standardise the article on one of the two: any preferences as to which?  I generally prefer sfn, but would like to check for a consensus before starting on conversion work.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good! Either is fine. I recently rewrote the article with some sources copied from other ones, so there is some inconsistency. 3df (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , finally – I had a busy two months, it seems! Best, Wham2001 (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style