mwm@eris.UUCP (05/20/87)
In article <683@mipos3.UUCP> ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons V. Ogden) writes:
<If Personal Computer is a machine that works on 1-user mode, the PDP-8 is
<probably a PC predating your MITS 8800, as widely available non-custom
<machine (I used one! but not until '77).
Nah, a Personal Computer is a machine that you can reboot whenever you
want to, without notifying anyone. At least, that's the quick&easy
test. The idea is that a personal computer is personal: "one's own".
Something that only you will be using, and can therefore do with as
you want. The "who do I have to tell if I reboot it" is the qad test.
By that measure, a z80 box running a well-used BBS isn't a personal
computer; as you'll probably have tell whoever is using it that it's
going down. On the other hand, our new systems (VAX 8800's last time
around) are my PC's as they show up, because I'm applying our tweaks
to the kernel and testing them. I reboot them whenever I want to test
a new kernel. They're even under my desk (by two floors).
<mike
P.S. - this has been redirected to comp.misc, where it belongs.
--
How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer
While people stand there gawking? mwm@berkeley.edu
How many times do you have to fall ucbvax!mwm
Before you end up walking? mwm@ucbjade.BITNETrgoodman@cit-vax.UUCP (05/21/87)
When I appllied for a summer job, people who said PC experience were referring
to IBM-PC's, not PC's in general.
Ron Goodman
--
rgoodman@cit-vax.caltech.edu _______ _________ _________ |
rgoodman@cit-vax.bitnet / \#/ \#/ | Pasadena
rgoodman@cit-vax.uucp |alifornia |nstitute |echnology | California
\_______ ___/#\___ of | | U. S. A.brad@looking.UUCP (05/21/87)
A personal computer (a term created in the 70s) was a computer that could be purchased by a typical individual. What makes a PC is not the hardware, it's the marketing and the economics. Thus an Altair 8800 was a personal computer, but a PDP-8 was not. Even though people picked up used minicomputers, they remained minicomputers, aimed at the corporate market. In later times, when PCs got the attention of the corporate market the definition changed to refer to a machine aimed at a single user. Some preferred the term desktop computer. Today, you can't give some PDP-11s away, but they're not personal computers because they weren't aimed that way. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (05/21/87)
In article <2765@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> rgoodman@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Ron Carl Goodman) writes:
<When I appllied for a summer job, people who said PC experience were referring
<to IBM-PC's, not PC's in general.
In that case, they're helping IBM in it's attempt to convince people
that it invented the term "Personal Computer," the concepts attached
to it, and the acronym PC.
Since none of this is remotely true, this attempt is a bad thing, and
people supporting it by said misuse should be corrected ASAP.
<mike
--
How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer
While people stand there gawking? mwm@berkeley.edu
How many times do you have to fall ucbvax!mwm
Before you end up walking? mwm@ucbjade.BITNETddyment@water.UUCP (05/21/87)
The very first Data General Nova (built in 1969) was sold to a doctor in
the Boston area who just wanted to play with it to learn about computers;
I have always considered that to be the first "Personal Computer" sale.
Note that this was the fancy low-profile machine that won the industrial
design award (and of which only a few were actually built), not the more
conventional rack-mounted version that became the mainstay of the DG
product line.
Data General Novas later appeared in both the Niemann-Marcus (sp?) catalog
and the annual Christmas gift suggestions issue of Playboy. Both of these
were long before Altairs.
But my own first personal computer (in my private office; no one else using
it) was the PDP-8, in 1967. The PDP-8/s, which came along slightly later,
was the first machine to sell for under $10,000.
[the above reminiscence from a former software manager at DEC, and vice-
president of DG Canada]
--
Doug Dyment, Computer Science, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
ARPA: ddyment%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa home: 519/888-7895
CSNET: ddyment%water@waterloo.csnet office: 519/888-4451
USENET: {ihnp4,utzoo,decvax,allegra,..}!watmath!water!ddymenttoma@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Thomas Almy) (05/21/87)
Nope, a personal computer is one that you can put your arms around and hug. ( :-) , of course!) Tom Almy
ybmcu@cunyvm.bitnet.UUCP (05/21/87)
In article <3650@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) says: > >In article <683@mipos3.UUCP> ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons V. Ogden) writes: ><If Personal Computer is a machine that works on 1-user mode, the PDP-8 is ><probably a PC predating your MITS 8800, as widely available non-custom ><machine (I used one! but not until '77). > >Nah, a Personal Computer is a machine that you can reboot whenever you >want to, without notifying anyone. At least, that's the quick&easy >test. The idea is that a personal computer is personal: "one's own". >Something that only you will be using, and can therefore do with as >you want. The "who do I have to tell if I reboot it" is the qad test. By that definition, the largest computer I know of as a "personal computer" was an IBM 360/75 (one of the largest machines in the 360 series.) When I was at Columbia in the late 60's, we had just upgraded from the 75 to a 360/91, and the 75 was sitting idle until we were able to use it as the front end processor in an ASP complex. As long as it was just sitting, a group of us wrote some code to allow it to be used as a desk calculator (enter arithmetic operations on the console, and let it print the results.) Everything was entered through the switches on the console (no assembler, no operating system, no nothing.) The hard part wasn't the arithmetic routines, but with no operating system we had to write all the I/O and interrupt drivers. However, since nobody cared what happened, I guess it was a personal computer, although it was about a thousand square feet of one. Ben Yalow City University of New York BITNET: YBMCU@CUNYVM Pick a gateway, any gateway ...
socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (x6251)) (05/21/87)
In article <3650@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >In article <683@mipos3.UUCP> ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons V. Ogden) writes: ><If Personal Computer is a machine that works on 1-user mode, the PDP-8 is ><probably a PC predating your MITS 8800, >Nah, a Personal Computer is a machine that you can reboot whenever you >want to, without notifying anyone. At least, that's the quick&easy By this definition you did define the PDP-8. Talk about personal. Here's a story for you about personal. There was this high-school computer club in the late 60's called R.E.S.I.S.T.O.R.S. They used PDP-8s and others. One day a DEC Field Engineer (machine fixer) was having trouble with a PDP-8. A RESISTOR member was nearby and in frustration the FE said (I paraphrase): "It's yours if you can carry it away." Well, the kid did! And, DEC let him (the club) keep it. BTW this is not you average portable (of 1987). For example: the CORE memory stack was larger (and heavier) than the average colour monitor of today. It stood on top of (part of) a box larger than a PC-AT. To say nothing else: "Who said an ant can't move a rubber tree plant!" -- UUCP:...!amdahl!drivax!socha WAT Iron'75 "Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." A. Einstein
randyg@iscuva.UUCP (05/22/87)
In article <3650@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >Nah, a Personal Computer is a machine that you can reboot whenever you >want to, without notifying anyone. At least, that's the quick&easy >test. The idea is that a personal computer is personal: "one's own". >Something that only you will be using, and can therefore do with as >you want. The "who do I have to tell if I reboot it" is the qad test. > I used a PDP-8I in 1973. It is about the size of an AT, with the power of a good pocket calculator. You rebooted it by entering four commands via the front panel, and feeding a paper tape through the teletype paper reader. You then prayed for ten minutes. If you were without sin, the paper tape didn't tear. You then loaded in more paper tapes. once in a while, you managed to get everything in. You never shut off the machine after that. I vaguely remember working with a HP computer ( with core, nonetheless!) about the size of a packing crate that was a single user in the late '60's/early '70's. Anyone else remember that? I don't mind drug testing(assuming they exclude junk food, I am 50% McDonalds by weight) but the potential for abuse in office politics is mind boggling. A lot of companies avoid litigation problems by handling such things sub-rosa. An employee might be accused,demoted, fired or degraded, without ever knowing that the real reason was that he flunked a drug test...or someone SAID he did. (Companies like that are notorious for never checking validity of complaints). Everyone has thier own horror stories about office politics, and I bet there are very few folks that are particularly happy adding an atomic bomb class weapon like drug testing to the office wars. I would be very nervous about working for a company like that unless they were quite serious about due process and employee rights. Getting trashed is something that happens to everyone occasionally... ending up a nuclear shadow on the wall is another matter entirely. (P.S. To the person who asked an applicant about Symdeb vs printf... the best answer should have been Pfix plus for 3.0 and Codeview for 4.0, tho an occasional printf helps ... I can't imagine ANYONE preferring Symdeb. What were you doing asking an middle level manager that question anyways? Only immediate managers of programmers should be knowledgable of technical details, otherwise they'll be irresistably tempted to use thier position to play Guru, without having the current knowledge to qualify. A lot of companies have gone down the tubes because a VP made a decision that should have been left to a programmer). Randy Gordon "Tao ku tse fun pee"
colin@vu-vlsi.UUCP (Colin Kelley) (05/22/87)
In article <3664@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer) writes: ><someone else>: ><When I appllied for a summer job, people who said PC experience were referring ><to IBM-PC's, not PC's in general. > >In that case, they're helping IBM in it's attempt to convince people >that it invented the term "Personal Computer," the concepts attached >to it, and the acronym PC. Was the mnemonic "PC" in wide use before IBM introduced theirs? I'm sure some people referred to Personal Computers, but wasn't the term Home Computer most popular back in the late 70s? -Colin Kelley ..{cbmvax,pyrnj,bpa}!vu-vlsi!colin English trivia: acronyms are _words_ made up of initials, like "scuba" or "radar"...initials which are spelled out, like "PC" or "IBM" :-), are mnemonics.
kludge@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Scott Dorsey) (05/22/87)
In article <525@iscuva.ISCS.COM> randyg@iscuva.UUCP (Randy Gordon) writes: >I vaguely remember working with a HP computer ( with core, nonetheless!) >about the size of a packing crate that was a single user in the late >'60's/early '70's. Anyone else remember that? Was this an HP 2100 by any chance? I learned assembly on this machine. Clear the P register, put the starting address in the S register, internal preset, external preset, put the paper tape in the high-speed reader, loader enable, run, loader enable, run. When the tape stops you get this nice editor/assembler. Or even (wow!) Fortran, where you get to compile your program to an intermediate code, then load the second pass of the compiler, then reload the intermediate tape, then load the object tape that the second pass prints out and run it. My high-school had one. They later got a multiuser "Montana" BASIC that handled 4 users with 16K. And you complain about your IBM-PC only having 640K. -- Scott Dorsey Kaptain_Kludge ICS Programming Lab (Where old terminals go to die), Rich 110, Georgia Institute of Technology, Box 36681, Atlanta, Georgia 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!kludge
ken@rochester.ARPA (Ken Yap) (05/23/87)
Uh oh, I can see where this discussion is heading: "Does anybody remember the Kludgetron-13 and a half? Had mercury lines for registers. Used to eat metal tapes for breakfast. We had to sacrifice a virgin to it every week. Eventually the school ran out of virgins and we had to decommission it." Don't get me wrong. I'm enjoying the postings (as long as they are unique). I just wonder if there should be a comp.computers.nostalgia. Still, this is comp.misc, I suppose. Ken :-)
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (05/23/87)
In article <28013@rochester.ARPA> ken@rochester.UUCP (Ken Yap) writes:
<"Does anybody remember the Kludgetron-13 and a half? Had mercury lines
<for registers. Used to eat metal tapes for breakfast. We had to
<sacrifice a virgin to it every week. Eventually the school ran out of
<virgins and we had to decommission it."
Yeah, I remember that creature. We found that sacrificing male virgins
worked equally well, and cut down on the lines for access to the
machine.
<mike
P.S. :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
--
How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer
While people stand there gawking? mwm@berkeley.edu
How many times do you have to fall ucbvax!mwm
Before you end up walking? mwm@ucbjade.BITNETcej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys) (05/23/87)
In article <852@vu-vlsi.UUCP>, colin@vu-vlsi.UUCP (Colin Kelley) writes: > Was the mnemonic "PC" in wide use before IBM introduced theirs? I'm sure > some people referred to Personal Computers, but wasn't the term > Home Computer most popular back in the late 70s? > -Colin Kelley ..{cbmvax,pyrnj,bpa}!vu-vlsi!colin> When I bought my Apple II way back in 1978 (:-)) I went looking for a personal-computer (lowercase) as opposed to a mini-computer, or a main-frame. Many sales people called them Home Computers. I was talking about a class of computer, and they were talking about a type of product. Later, when IBM first released their IBM-PC, and put the lock on PC, most all of the people that I talked to about it (who knew computers) felt like I did, that the WORD personal-computer was in common, though maybe limited, usage and IBM couldn't use it. Unless initials and what they stand for are different enough? Llewellyn Jones
mel1@houxa.UUCP (05/24/87)
I think we all owe IBM one on the name "Personal Computer".
They added the weight of IBM to the concept that one could do
professional and useful work with what til then were considered
to be "toys", "home computers", "micro computers".
Before IBM entered the market, you couldn't even think of getting
a "home computer" for office or personal use. The few who tried
to show how useful an Apple II or S100 box was as a tool were
viewed as being a bit off.
IBM's choice of the name "Personal Computer" was a genius at work.
It exactly expresses the concept and coming from IBM, legitimized it.
I'll leave the legalities to the lawyers, and the functional arguments
to the academics. But, PC belongs to IBM by right.
Mel Haas , odyssey!meljbwaters@bsu-cs.UUCP (J. Brian Waters) (05/24/87)
In article <852@vu-vlsi.UUCP>, colin@vu-vlsi.UUCP (Colin Kelley) writes: > Was the mnemonic "PC" in wide use before IBM introduced theirs? I'm sure > some people referred to Personal Computers, but wasn't the term Home Computer > most popular back in the late 70s? > > -Colin Kelley ..{cbmvax,pyrnj,bpa}!vu-vlsi!colin The term I remember being most used before IBM gained domanince of the micro market, was microcomputers, a quick check of some old KiloBauds, Dr. Dobbs and Bytes, Interface Ages, Creative Computings etc. seemed to confirm this. It seems to me then that using the term PC even (and especially when) refering to other computers is in a way a tribute to IBM's marketing power. Thus I still only use it in refering to the IBM micro and its clones, though now that other companies are using the term for non-compatiables such as the Amiga, I fear it is a losing battle. ---- J. Brian Waters UUCP: {ihnp4 | seismo}!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!jbwaters
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (05/25/87)
In article <587@ll1.UUCP> cej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys) writes: <In article <852@vu-vlsi.UUCP>, colin@vu-vlsi.UUCP (Colin Kelley) writes: <> Was the mnemonic "PC" in wide use before IBM introduced theirs? I'm sure <> some people referred to Personal Computers, but wasn't the term <> Home Computer most popular back in the late 70s? < < Later, when IBM first released their IBM-PC, and put the <lock on PC, most all of the people that I talked to about it (who <knew computers) felt like I did, that the WORD personal-computer was <in common, though maybe limited, usage and IBM couldn't use it. < < Unless initials and what they stand for are different enough? I think that the ACM Special Interest Group on Personal Computers (SIGPC, natch) significantly predates the introduction of the IBM PC. Someone might verify that for me, though. Of course, if it didn't, I wanna know why they called it SIGPC. If being used by one of the two largest organizations of professional programmers & CS types int the US doesn't qualify for prior use, I'd sure like to know what does. And I agree with Colin; I recall several outbursts in the micro mags about IBM attempting to co-opt the phrase "personal computer" as their own. <mike -- How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer While people stand there gawking? mwm@berkeley.edu How many times do you have to fall ucbvax!mwm Before you end up walking? mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (05/25/87)
in article <716@bsu-cs.UUCP>, jbwaters@bsu-cs.UUCP (J. Brian Waters) says: > Summary: micro > > In article <852@vu-vlsi.UUCP>, colin@vu-vlsi.UUCP (Colin Kelley) writes: >> Was the mnemonic "PC" in wide use before IBM introduced theirs? I'm sure >> some people referred to Personal Computers, but wasn't the term Home Computer >> most popular back in the late 70s? >> >> -Colin Kelley ..{cbmvax,pyrnj,bpa}!vu-vlsi!colin > > The term I remember being most used before IBM gained domanince of the micro > market, was microcomputers, a quick check of some old KiloBauds, Dr. Dobbs and > Bytes, Interface Ages, Creative Computings etc. seemed to confirm this. It > seems to me then that using the term PC even (and especially when) refering to > other computers is in a way a tribute to IBM's marketing power. Thus I still > only use it in refering to the IBM micro and its clones, though now that other > companies are using the term for non-compatiables such as the Amiga, I fear it > is a losing battle. > J. Brian Waters UUCP: {ihnp4 | seismo}!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!jbwaters I recall hearing the term used in reference to microcomputers long before the IBM machines were created. Basically, a Microcomputer was any of the set of small computers based on microprocessors, like an Altair, PET, IMSAI, whatever. A Personal Computer (PET = Personal Electronic Transactor) was a subset of Microcomputer; a member of the set of ready-to-run computers like the PET, Apple II, Exidy Sorcerer, etc. that you could go to a store, buy, plug in, and use immediately. They didn't have to be built from a kit or put together from a set of separate circuit boards by an expert. A Home Computer is a subset of Personal Computer; a computer appropriate for the home that maybe hooks up to your TV and is very good at playing video games, maybe not so good at performing business-related functions. I'm sure IBM's prevalence has caused some of this history to be rewritten, and while the distinctions were never that clear, they're been downright cloudy for some time, like ever since Apple built the first Mac; a machine that caught on for home users as an Appliance Computer before it was used for any kind of business use, even though it was far more powerful than the business PCs (IBMs PC[XT]) that prevailed at the time. And now we have Atari STs and Amiga 500s in the traditional Home Computer price range (under $1000 for a complete working system) that are quite a bit more powerful than the average business computer. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga Usenet: {ihnp4|caip|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh "The A2000 Guy" BIX : hazy "These are the days of miracle and wonder" -P. Simon
jjbaker@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU (Thanbo) (05/25/87)
In article <28013@rochester.ARPA>, ken@rochester.ARPA (Ken Yap) writes: > Uh oh, I can see where this discussion is heading: > > "Does anybody remember the Kludgetron-13 and a half? Had mercury lines > for registers. Used to eat metal tapes for breakfast. We had to > sacrifice a virgin to it every week. Eventually the school ran out of > virgins and we had to decommission it." OK, I'll try to cut this short for those who are impatient. Way back in the early 1950's there were a number of small programmable computers on the market ranging in size from a large desk to a VAX 8700. These generally possessed a few hundred to 4,000 words of 5-10 decimal digits. None of the sold more than a few dozen units except for the IBM [boo, hiss] Type 650. IBM didn't officially want people to use the machine alone, but nany installations did anyway. It had 2000 words of [ny succ(N) key just died, so I'n substituting N] nagnetic drun nenory, punched-cards as the only I/O, leased for $3750/nonth, had 44 instructions, and sold 1800 units. I just wrote a thesis on this nachine, along with a sinulation of it tor run on Vaxen with Unix. If anyone's interested, send ne enail in the next two weeks, after that send to ny adviser, Nike Nahoney, at princeton!mind!msm. Thanbo '87 {allegra,rutgers,ihnp4}!princeton!phoenix!jjbaker
atsg@ssc-vax.UUCP (05/26/87)
PC = Pussy Cat. Any kid can tell you that.
mwm@eris.UUCP (05/27/87)
In article <474@houxa.UUCP> mel1@houxa.UUCP (M.HAAS) writes:
<I'll leave the legalities to the lawyers, and the functional arguments
<to the academics. But, PC belongs to IBM by right.
You should have checked with someone other than the lawyers for the
facts, too.
<I think we all owe IBM one on the name "Personal Computer".
<They added the weight of IBM to the concept that one could do
<professional and useful work with what til then were considered
<to be "toys", "home computers", "micro computers".
Well, not by everyone. Some people were calling them personal
computers before IBM announced theirs.
<Before IBM entered the market, you couldn't even think of getting
<a "home computer" for office or personal use. The few who tried
<to show how useful an Apple II or S100 box was as a tool were
<viewed as being a bit off.
The Apple ][, yeah - making it do real work was hard. Not impossible
after you dropped a z80 CP/M card into it, but still not easy. People
who were using it as an integral part of their music studio will
probably jump all over me for that, but I consider that a rather
special case.
On the other hand, S100 boxes were for real. A fair number of
companies made a living peddling z80 S100 boxes to lawyers & the like,
for doing the same kinds of things that are now done on IBM PC's. I
saw those same boxes doing real-time data acquisition. Finally, there
were multi-user (remember MP/M?) z80 systems serving small offices
before there was an IBM-PC.
The better of those z80 boxes (especially the ones running at 6MHz)
ran rings around the IBM-PC. Considering that the first IBM-PC's came
with 16 or 64K, and zero, one or two floppies (you got a cassette if
you chose zero floppies) whereas a typical office system of the time
had up to 512K, an 8" DSDD floppy and a small hard disk, you tell me
which were the "toys," and which were the real business machines.
I won't even mention the 6809 world. Multitasking with MMU's was
common, and a 2MHz 6809 makes a 5MHz 8088 look sick. They were used
for DA, data entry and clerical work before the IBM-PC, and well after
the XT, at least where the people doing the buying knew they needed
multitasking and were on their toes.
<IBM's choice of the name "Personal Computer" was a genius at work.
<It exactly expresses the concept and coming from IBM, legitimized it.
"Genius," yes. Sorta like Hitler. But if the term "Personal Computer"
belongs to IBM, its because they "stole it, fair and square."
<mike
--
How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer
While people stand there gawking? mwm@berkeley.edu
How many times do you have to fall ucbvax!mwm
Before you end up walking? mwm@ucbjade.BITNETekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons V. Ogden) (05/27/87)
In article <474@houxa.UUCP> version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site mipos3.UUCP mipos3!intelca!amd!amdcad!ames!lll-tis!ptsfa!ihnp4!homxb!houxm!houxa!mel1 mel1@houxa.UUCP (M.HAAS) writes: >I think we all owe IBM one on the name "Personal Computer". > >IBM's choice of the name "Personal Computer" was a genius at work. >It exactly expresses the concept and coming from IBM, legitimized it. > You give IBM too much credit. Back in 1977, I took a class at MIT (6.033, at that time), we talked about "Personal Computers". Around 1979, I used a Xerox Star machine, (with all the ICON stuff that people now think of as an apple invention), and we referred to it as a "personal computer". IBM popularized it, may be a stroke of marketing genius, not a creative one. -- Call 202-4561414, ask for Ron.
boykin@custom.UUCP (05/28/87)
In article <474@houxa.UUCP>, mel1@houxa.UUCP (M.HAAS) writes: > I think we all owe IBM one on the name "Personal Computer". ... > > IBM's choice of the name "Personal Computer" was a genius at work. > It exactly expresses the concept and coming from IBM, legitimized it. > > I'll leave the legalities to the lawyers, and the functional arguments > to the academics. But, PC belongs to IBM by right. > > Mel Haas , odyssey!mel IBM did ***NOT*** invent the phrase "Personal Computer". As a user of one of the original "Personal computers" (a MITS ALTAIR system) I can tell you that the phrase has been around for alot longer than IBM even knew what it meant! Let's not give credit to IBM for yet another "non-invention" (my favorite is that most credit IBM for virtual memory, which they didn't invent either). Whether or not IBM has 'legitimized' the PC market place or not is another story. I apologize, but I've gotten sensitive to everyone giving credit for IBM "inventing" personal computers! Joe Boykin Custom Software Systems ...{necntc, frog}!custom!boykin
neighorn@qiclab.UUCP (05/28/87)
In article <338@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> jjbaker@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU (Thanbo) writes: >nany installations did anyway. It had 2000 words of [ny succ(N) key just >died, so I'n substituting N] nagnetic drun nenory, punched-cards as the only >I/O, leased for $3750/nonth, had 44 instructions, and sold 1800 units. >I just wrote a thesis on this nachine, along with a sinulation of it tor >run on Vaxen with Unix. If anyone's interested, send ne enail in the >next two weeks, after that send to ny adviser, Nike Nahoney, at >princeton!mind!msm. ^ ^ ^ Hey! You fixed your 'm' key! And while online too! Thanks for one of the most entertaining messages I have seen in a long time. 'nagnetic drun nenory' - This is getting posted on our computer room bulletin board. I hope you don't mind! :-) Given your situation, you did a fine job completing the message. -- Steven C. Neighorn tektronix!{psu-cs,reed}!qiclab!neighorn Portland Public Schools "Where we train young Star Fighters to defend the (503) 249-2000 ext 337 frontier against Xur and the Ko-dan Armada"
dean@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (05/29/87)
In article <470@qiclab.UUCP> neighorn@qiclab.UUCP (Steven C. Neighorn) writes: #In article <338@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> jjbaker@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU (Thanbo) writes: #>run on Vaxen with Unix. If anyone's interested, send ne enail in the #>next two weeks, after that send to ny adviser, Nike Nahoney, at #>princeton!mind!msm. # ^ ^ ^ # # Hey! You fixed your 'm' key! And while online too! #Steven C. Neighorn tektronix!{psu-cs,reed}!qiclab!neighorn _I_ bet the 'm' key's still bust and the last line was yanked from another file. -Dean (dean@violet.berkeley.edu)
bsteve@gorgo.UUCP (05/29/87)
Mel Haas (odyssey!mel) writes: >I think we all owe IBM one on the name "Personal Computer". You CAN'T BE SERIOUS! > The few who tried >to show how useful an Apple II or S100 box was as a tool were >viewed as being a bit off. I suppose this is the key to the success of Apple Computer?...that the thousands and thousands that they sold before the PC was even a dirty thought at IBM were to deranged individuals. Not bloody likely. >IBM's choice of the name "Personal Computer" was a genius at work. >It exactly expresses the concept and coming from IBM, legitimized it. "BRING ME A BUCKET!" Ok, this is too much. UTTER Pontification. >I'll leave the legalities to the lawyers, and the functional arguments >to the academics. But, PC belongs to IBM by right. Boy, we really found a live one here. The concept of the personal computer dates back quite a ways and is most likely attributable to Richard Andree (now deseased) some 25 years ago. As for you Mel, I suggest that you take two Thorazine and call me in the morning. Steve Blasingame (Oklahoma City) ihnp4!gorgo!bsteve [Oklahoma : where the wind comes sweeping down the plains and sucks up your house and car]
ems@apple.UUCP (05/30/87)
In article <3664@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: > In article <2765@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> rgoodman@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Ron Carl Goodman) writes: > <When I appllied for a summer job, people who said PC experience were referring > <to IBM-PC's, not PC's in general. > > In that case, they're helping IBM in it's attempt to convince people > that it invented the term "Personal Computer," the concepts attached > to it, and the acronym PC. > > Since none of this is remotely true, this attempt is a bad thing, and > people supporting it by said misuse should be corrected ASAP. > It also is a usage that will crumble under the pressure of technological change. PC is often used in the sense of IBM/PC compatible machine, i.e. an MSDOS machine. Since Macintosh is now capable of running MSDOS (in addition to CP/M86 (sold be someone ...) and UN*X) that makes a Mac an IBM/PC compatible... This bizzare realization hit me some time after Apple announced the Mac SE. So even if the term PC could be restricted to IBM/PC compatibles, the restriction would fail as more folks run more different OS's on their machines. -- E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
ems@apple.UUCP (05/30/87)
In article <474@houxa.UUCP>, mel1@houxa.UUCP (M.HAAS) writes: > I think we all owe IBM one on the name "Personal Computer". > They added the weight of IBM to the concept that one could do > professional and useful work with what til then were considered > to be "toys", "home computers", "micro computers". Generally true. IBM did lend legitimacy. > > Before IBM entered the market, you couldn't even think of getting > a "home computer" for office or personal use. The few who tried A surprisingly large number did. That is part of why Apple grew so large so quick. > to show how useful an Apple II or S100 box was as a tool were > viewed as being a bit off. > > IBM's choice of the name "Personal Computer" was a genius at work. > It exactly expresses the concept and coming from IBM, legitimized it. > > I'll leave the legalities to the lawyers, and the functional arguments > to the academics. But, PC belongs to IBM by right. Sorry, but IBM did not invent the term Personal Computer, nor PC as an abbreviation. It was in common use to describe 'home computers' long before IBM entered the market. (At the time I worked on Mainframe computers. I only joined Apple in the last year or so. This is a memory unclouded by bias.) There were many folks who were upset that IBM could try to trademark such a common name. Personal Computer belongs to the people, just as personal computers do. If it is a small box bought by an individual then it is a PC, regardless of manufacturer or operating system. If it runs MSDOS then it is an IBM/PC compatible (roughly.) -- E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
jjbaker@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU (Thanbo) (05/31/87)
In article <470@qiclab.UUCP>, neighorn@qiclab.UUCP (Steven C. Neighorn) writes: > In article <338@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> jjbaker@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU (Thanbo) writes: > >run on Vaxen with Unix. If anyone's interested, send ne enail in the > >next two weeks, after that send to ny adviser, Nike Nahoney, at > >princeton!mind!msm. > ^ ^ ^ > Hey! You fixed your 'm' key! And while online too! Thanks I was sitting in a room full of PC's (yes IBM PC XT370s) and switched keyboards. More difficult than it sounds, since this is a theft-conscious academic environment that locks keyboards to individual computers. (as if anyone would want their own honest-to-goodness IBM keyboard in isolation 8-)) Thanbo {allegra,ihnp4,rutgers}!princeton!phoenix!jjbaker
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (06/02/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) Re: IBM invented the term 'Personal Computer' with the introduction of its 8088 based system. Advertisement from Kilobaud Magazine, February, 1978, issue 14, pg 63 "Apple II, the personal computer" Same issue, pg 103, Ad from Addison-Wesley Publishing: "BASIC and the Personal Computer" by Thomas A. Dwyer and Margot Critchfield. -Barry Shein, Boston University
aad+@andrew.cmu.edu (Anthony A. Datri) (06/02/87)
The DECSYSTEM-2020 -- the Ultimate Personal Computer
doug@edge.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (06/03/87)
Well, I don't understand what the big deal is. Like Humpty Dumpty might have said, a PC is whatever you say it is. As for the historical usage... In the long-ago days before the IBM PC was introduced, there were these other personally-owned microcomputers. When it was necessary to refer to them collectively, they were oftentimes called "micros". The news media in particular preferred the terms "home computer" and "personal computer". But we who owned such things wouldn't stoop to such generic terms. After all, we were no less chauvinistic about our choice of computer brand than modern-day hackers. Thus, in my camp, they were TRS-80s. Of course, there were those deranged folks who insisted that microcomputers were called Apples. But we paid no attention to them, nor they to us. [There were a small number of people who owned other brands, but since they weren't TRS-80s and they weren't Apples, those weren't really computers.] One day a strange thing happened. IBM introduced a micro, and didn't give it a high-falutin' name. They just called it a Personal Computer. A modest name for an obvious dud of a machine. Jeez, the name couldn't even be trademarked. In the *real* micro world every advertisement in a magazine ended with a lengthy trademark acknowledgement like, "Tandy, Radio Shack, TRS-80, and TRSDOS are trademarks of Tandy Corp." or "Apple, Apple ][, and Applesoft are trademarks of Apple Computer." How was IBM ever going to compete when just *anybody* could use the term "PC" in an ad without acknowledging whose computer was being referred to? What was going to stop somebody from coming out with a magazine called "PC"? IBM has obviously paid the price for its oversight on this matter :-) -- Doug Pardee, Edge Computer Corp; ihnp4!mot!edge!doug, seismo!ism780c!edge!doug
rhubbs@watdcsu.UUCP (06/04/87)
In article <YUkl3Jy00WABshQ0Fq@andrew.cmu.edu> aad+@andrew.cmu.edu (Anthony A. Datri) writes: >The DECSYSTEM-2020 -- the Ultimate Personal Computer What is a 2020, and just how good is it. Give us details. We all seek "THE PERFECT MACHINE SO LETS HERE ALL THE VITALS"
ctp@pop.utexas.edu (Clyde T. Poole) (06/08/87)
In article <3447@watdcsu.UUCP> rhubbs@watdcsu.UUCP (R.Hubbs ) writes: >In article <YUkl3Jy00WABshQ0Fq@andrew.cmu.edu> aad+@andrew.cmu.edu (Anthony A. Datri) writes: >>The DECSYSTEM-2020 -- the Ultimate Personal Computer > >What is a 2020, and just how good is it. >Give us details. We all seek "THE PERFECT MACHINE SO LETS HERE ALL THE VITALS" The following is from the 1981 edition of the DECSYSTEM-20 Technical Summary: System Architecture The KS10 microprogrammed central processor forms the basis for the DECSYSTEM-2020 computer system. The DECSYSTEM-2020 consists of four major subsystems: KS10 CPU and memory Console and diagnostic microprocessor UNIBUS Adapters Peripheral controllers KS10 Technology The KS10 uses low-power Schottky TTL and features a four-bit data path slice microprocessor to provide full TOPS-20 functionality at low cost. The KS10 Central Processing Unit The KS10 central processing unit consists of four extended hex modules. They are: The Data Path Executive (DPE) module that contains dat path, registers, cache, PI system, and Dispatch ROM The Data Path Memory (DPM) Module that contains bus interface, processor status flags, paging, cache directory, and shift counter The Control RAM Address (CRA) Module that contains next microcode address logic, microcode leading hardware, and 2Kx36 Bits of microcode The Control RAM Memory (CRM) Module that contains 2Kx60 bits of microcode and so on for a few pages... I will be glad to send a copy of the full text to anyone who wants it for some reason :-). I don't have the installation manual so I can't give you the power and size, but let's just say that it take more power than an IBM-PC and is bigger than a bread box. If you live in a cold climate it might help heat your house. One of the nice things about this machine was that it could run either TOPS-10 or TOPS-20. The original poster may (?) have been joking but I know of at least two people who have 2020's as "personal" computers. ----- Clyde T. Poole, Computing Resources Manager ARPA: ctp@sally.utexas.edu VOICE: (512) 471-9551 UUCP: {harvard,ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!ctp CIS: 75226,3135 Overland: UT at Austin, Department of Computer Sciences Taylor Hall 2.124, Austin, TX 78712-1188 "Life is a bitch ... and then you die"