newman.pasa@Xerox.COM (Newman) (08/21/88)
Two computers that are very easy for me to personalize are the Xerox
Lisp machine I use at work and the Apple Macintosh SE I have at home.
The Xerox machine is personalizeable because every part of the software
is available to me. I can change the behavior of any part of the system
by writing a little code and sticking it in my INIT.LISP file. The Mac
is personalizeable thanks to the many shareware utilities that I have;
these allow me to change the behavior of the system by including INITs
in my system folder or by editing the resource fork of a file (usually
the system file) with an appropriate utility.
Would you call either of these machines "personal"? Neither is really
portable in the sense that I can carry it around easily on the spur of
the moment. On the other hand, it is possible to change the behavior of
my machines so greatly that other people will not be able to use them
easily (e.g. by switching to a DVORAK keyboard layout or otherwise
redefining fundamental aspects of the user interface).
I take advantage of the ability to customize the behavior of my
machines. Other users do not. Does this make the computers themselves
any more or less "personal"? In both cases, it requires some technical
expertise to customize these machines; does this make the machines more
or less "personal"? I am the only person that uses either machine; does
this affect their degree of "personal"-ness?
My point is that our definition of "personal" is remarkably imprecise so
far. Dave Taylor says "personal" is the same as customizable. Gary
Ericson says "personal" is portable and versatile. I think I can
personalize something that is not portable (e.g. an office), and I
would call some things personal that I never customize or that are
single-function devices (e.g. a toothbrush). Can we come up with a
more precise definition of the term "personal"?
>>Davemacey@praxis.UUCP (Ian Macey) (08/25/88)
Newman at Xerox writes: > Would you call either of these machines "personal"? Neither is really > portable in the sense that I can carry it around easily on the spur of > the moment. Portability != (doesn't equal) personal. > I take advantage of the ability to customize the behavior of my > machines. Other users do not. Does this make the computers themselves > any more or less "personal"? In both cases, it requires some technical Customise != (doesn't equal) personal. > I am the only person that uses either machine; does this affect > their degree of "personal"-ness? YES YES YES !!!! > My point is that our definition of "personal" is remarkably imprecise so > far -- Can we come up with a more precise definition of the term "personal"? Computers can be divided roughly into the following 'power' classes: 1) Micro computer 2) Mini computer 3) Mainframe 4) Super computer (The precise definition of these classes is of course hotly debated.) A 'personal' computer is one on which you are the sole user. Micro computers are almost always called PCs (personal computers) because they can *only* have one user on them. They do not have to be portable, customised, or anything else - just your own personal machine! If you were really rich you could have a MicroVAX under your desk with one terminal for you, and this too would be your 'personal' computer. The power, physical size etc. are irrelevant. Hope this is clear. Ian Macey, Bath, England.
eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) (08/26/88)
Ian Macey lists four types of computers: > 1) Micro computer > 2) Mini computer > 3) Mainframe > 4) Super computer There's more, but I would like to point out two things. 1) Mini computers are largely a thing of the past, sure lots in obscure dark labs, but these are going to cause catostrophic which we will read about in comp.RISKS some day. They will disappear. 2) Ditto mainframes. (hope I don't lose too many pay checks.) I recommend a paper by Gordon Bell (architect of the PDP-11 and VAX, now at Ardent.) in the book The History of Personal Workstations edited by Adele Goldberg, ACM Press with Addison-Wesley (I think). In the near future there will only be 2 kinds of machines: fast machines (but never fast enough) and fast/cheap machines. Personal computing is the way to go. There will be limits, but they are not completely intractable. Try a GRiD Compass, too bad they are so expensive and have a few problems (just started running Unix). Remember: (half serious) Xerox did it all 10 years ago, and Apple, SUN, and NeXT will market it all. Everything else is catch up. IBM Corp. does not read the net, so they can't be responsive. But then... Eugene Miya
travis@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Travis Marlatte) (08/26/88)
Newman at Xerox referred to personal computers as having attributes like: portable, customizable, and (this was his point) vagueness. Ian Macey responded with: "A 'personal' computer is one on which you are the sole user." Ian went on to say that regardless of size, if you are the only one that can use the computer, it is a personal one. Several articles recently (Communication of the ACM) have been suggesting a definition closer to Newman's. The basic idea is that if the computer fits my personality, then it is personal. A computer - no matter what size or how portable - that behaves the same for everyone that uses it, is not personal. Even the minor customizing that can be done with most command shells still leaves the computer a far cry from fitting my personality. What's the use of having a small computer that only I use? When I use the large multi-user computers at work, I am not aware of the other 200 users logged on. I have my own files, commands, work space, etc. I can customize my environment just as much as on a small IBM. For me, the difference is that I don't have a large box under my desk blowing hot air on my legs. [No, I'm not saying that that is all small PCs are good for. I love 'em.] Conclusion: 1) Computers are becoming more personal. Whether it be on a large or a small computer, most of us are happy to have a few Meg to call our own. 2) The expectations from a personal computer are changing. 3) Computers have a ways to go before the average user will relate to computers in a personal way. Travis Marlatte
mike@cisunx.UUCP (Mike Elliot) (08/27/88)
I missed the original article on this, so I apologize if I am just
restating what someone else already said.
As far as I am concerned, a `personal computer' is a computer whose resources
are too limited to run a multi-user operating system in a pleasant way. By
this definition, an IBM AT is a personal computer, because even though you
can run UNIX or some other multi-user operating system on it, it wouldn't
be a pleasant experience. Now the 386 machines are border-line personal
computers. They're not quite ready for multi-user environments, but they're
damn close.
Mike Elliot
{allegra|bellcore|cadre|psuvax1}!pitt!cisunx!mike
mike@pittvms.bitnet
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more
doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a
new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by
the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in
those who would gain by the new ones.
-Machiavellidaniel@island.UU.NET (Dan Smith) (08/30/88)
Mike Elliot writes: > As far as I am concerned, a `personal computer' is a computer whose > resources are too limited to run a multi-user operating system in a > pleasant way. By this definition, an IBM AT is a personal computer, > because even though you can run UNIX or some other multi-user operating > system on it, it wouldn't be a pleasant experience. Now the 386 > machines are border-line personal computers. They're not quite ready > for multi-user environments, but they're damn close. A "personal computer" is whatever fits comfortably in, on, or below a desk, or a computer that you otherwise have all to yourself. It doesn't matter so much how powerful it is, and I will explain myself. When you call a 386 "border-line", you are damning things by implying "this is a really fast machine, so it must not be a personal computer". In ten years, when I am running my "Personal Computer" (perhaps a future Sun, Mac, or something else we haven't seen yet), I'll have 100-500 Mhz speed (whatever that means...using todays measurements), a television running in a window that can be resized or iconified, a window giving me a set of stereo controls to adjust (FM, equalizer, and so on), Mac Windows, Unix Windows, and so on and so on. My point is that it will be sitting on my desk at home or in my office, and it will be on a lot of desks, and it will be the "Personal Computer" in the year 2000 or so. This is all off the cuff, but hopefully my point is clear :-) DanSmith
DATJN@NEUVM1.BITNET (Jakob Nielsen) (08/30/88)
I would agree with the definition that a personal computer is one that is dedicated to a single user. If an IBM PS/2 is used with Unix to support 5 terminals, then it is not a personal computer even though the same hardware can certainly be used as such. The most important point, however, from my perspective as a user interface specialist, is that a personal computer dedicates all its computing resources to support the user interface: It can give a much broader bandwidth in the human-computer communication than a non-personal computer. Let's take the good old traffic analogi: A bus is like a mainframe: public transportation/computing - the advantage is that other people take care of maintaining it etc. Your own car is like a personal computer. You can get the same servise (actually better) from a taxi, which could perhaps correspond to "de luxe" time shared interfaces, but it is still not as responsive to your needs when you need transportation Christmas Eve etc. Jakob Nielsen
eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) (08/31/88)
Earlier I wrote:
> There will be fast computers and fast/cheap computers.
I feel I must revise this. While reading Kidder and driving around
with a fellow programmer, I conclude there will be a third class of
computer:
The compatible
The compatible isn't the plug compatible, or the clone, it will be a
computer which exactly emulates the object code of dusty machines,
mostly critically needed in life situations: I'm think of FAA air
traffic control, process control (BART, MARTA, the WDC Metro, etc.)
medical, and to a lesser extent things like payroll. The problem being
that these situations have in some cases used very specialized
computers, and real time programming isn't well established. To a
lesser extent this will include dusty card deck payroll programs. We
will see more compatibility modes to make up for this, more virtual
machine front-ends, etc.
Eugene Miyaeugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) (09/01/88)
While I like all the defense for personal computers, I personally find the vision expressed in the three postings I have received as a little disappointing. Sorry, don't take it too personally. First, off, it's not clear to me that we will continue to have increasingly faster cycle times. 100 Mz, 500 MHz, do you know what's going to bound this? Can I just add zeros (I doubt it)? The next obvious thing is parallelism. (great buzzword, used by numerous people who know thing about it, before you use it you should read The Mythical Man-Month and explain the concept of what a Mythical MIPS might mean). Don't get me wrong, I strongly endorse all the research on what Gordon Bell calls Multis (Sequents (we have 3), Encores (1), Flex (JSC and LaRC each have one), and so forths. If you want an impressive demo, I have one which forks 10 real processes working on indexing my parallel processing bibliography (a real use). The problem is that there are still big hurdles. If it were easy, it would have been before. Now, don't get me wrong. During the history of personal workstations conference, we received out first Cray-2 [serial 2003] ($17M, please, this isn't meant to be a brag), and I needed some standalone time for research, so I left the conference, got my hour, and returned. It was mind boggling to me. Here I was, running the "future" Apple 700 (should I use Roman numerals?) Anyway, I think it's going to be EXTREMELY important for users to get standalone time on fast machines as if they were personal computers (this is the more of the same direction of improvement, fine). This will really help develop the software, interaction is where LLNL and LANL got it right. (sure, you have to share at other times, but this is a developing field). Where I think these postings don't do justice is future software and communications. I'm not super-convinced in AI (artistic illusion), but I do think it will be funded, so communications is foremost important. You need to have a computer say on your wrist or a GRiD Compass sized notebook and when you start a computation (hit CR, or what ever), your machine should hunt for available computing resources (agents), to throw at your problem. This idea isn't unique goes back a long time. A computer has to become an extension of your memory, your thinking just as skis must become an extension of your feet while traveling over snow (note the tips and tails of the analogy). There's all sorts of neat references (most recently I read this paper: Condor -- Hunter of Idle Workstations -- great title). There are numerous other problems, but I hope you can get the idea. You need a computational companion. I have a few other ideas, but the real ones (on paper) are internal planning documents and hence, I can't post. But at this moment, my IRIS 4D has a set of windows like this (for testing purposes, again, not a brag, debugging): Crays, an ETA-10, Ardent Titan (thru a Sequent), Stellar (thru an Amdahl), and your usual assortment of VAXen, Convex, Alliant, etc. And if you think this is a lot or neat, there are places with more and bigger. Eugene Miya
macey@praxis.UUCP (Ian Macey) (09/02/88)
Travis Marlatte writes: > The basic idea is that if the computer fits my personality, then it > is personal. A computer - no matter what size or how portable - that > behaves the same for everyone that uses it, is not personal. Even > the minor customizing that can be done with most command shells > still leaves the computer a far cry from fitting my personality. The Penguin English Dictionary defines personal as: "adj of, by or for a particular person, individual; private, intimate ..." If you want a name to describe a computer environment (which can be multi user) which 'fit's your personality' and is *highly* customizable then I don't think it should be 'personal'. For as long as the computer is interacting with more than one user, it is not personal. Think of a login on a multi-user system as an automobile on the road network. Your login = your personal transport (ie your personal automobile). However the machine = the road network, and there's no way you can say you use a personal road network - it's shared with other users (automobile drivers)! On a side issue:- > What's the use of having a small computer that only I use? When I use > the large multi-user computers at work, I am not aware of the other 200 > users logged on. I have my own files, commands, work space, etc. I can > customize my environment just as much as on a small IBM. I find it *very* hard to believe you are unaware of other users. I've used PRIME, DEC, SUN and ICL multi-user computers, and the common element with them all is the constant battle with other users/departments for disk space/resources. Not forgetting of course the depths to which the responce time plummets as more users log on. A PERSONAL computer has only you as it's user, and consequently gives you ALL it's attention. I would much rather use a small personal (only me on it!) computer to work with, networked to some sort of file server. Conclusion: A Personal computer CAN ONLY HAVE ONE user. Ian Macey
rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn) (09/02/88)
My definition of personal computer is simpler. If I can turn it off at will, it is my personal computer. If I must consider the opinions of others, it is not. The ``solution in search of a problem'' only partially explains why computers are a success in some areas, and fail in others. Many of the unexpected failures are due to the people with the problem not understanding that they have a problem. Until they are educated, they will not use or buy the solution. For examples, consider the pocket calculator. Scientists and engineers knew they had a problem --- slide rules cannot add. Businessmen knew they had a problem --- adding machines are not portable. When pocket calculators were invented both groups knew just how to use them, and today's calculators still fit that model. It also explains some of the gaps. Despite powerful benefits, simple facilities like amortization calculations are not built into most business calculators. The PC was a success because of spreadsheets. All business users knew how to use spreadsheets and knew they had a problem --- the columns don't add up automatically. Spreadsheet programs fit right in. Now take a failure, the hoof operated fence cutter. The problem sure exists, and the situation is a life and death matter, but just try to explain this to a cow. Speculating into the future uses for personal computers I would look at problems where people already know how they would use the solution. I expect voice activation of home appliances to be one such. If I could call up my appliances to check things (did I turn off the faucet?) or to start things (I'm leaving the office now. Start cooking dinner.) it solves a problem in a way that everyone understands. Even without the phone connection, just being able to tell the front door to open when my hands are full would be useful. These may evolve from a merger of manufacturing floor voice technologies, various tools for the assistance of handicapped persons, and present remote control facilities. Rob Horn
bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) (09/14/88)
I think of a "personal" computer as one bought by people, for their own use. With commodore 64's, this is generally the case, so it's a "personal computer." With sun's it's not. -Miles
travis@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Travis Marlatte) (09/14/88)
In response to my statement that a personal computer does not need to
be available only to one user, Ian Macey says:
The Penguin English Dictionary defines personal as:
"adj of, by or for a particular person, individual;
private, intimate ..."
Ian then says:
... For as long as the computer is interacting with more than
one user, it is not personal.
My dictionary also has:
2. relating to, directed to, or intended for a particular
person.
Check out the definition of impersonal:
1. without personal reference or connection
(dictionary refences taken from The Random House College Dictionary)
In another dictionary, impersonal is: without reference to any
particular person.
I contend that a personal computer does not have to be portable or
singular. Could I not have a multi-user system in my home - terminals
(of some sort) in every room; interfaced to the security system, the
phone system, and household appliances. My whole family uses it -
without regard for who might be using it in the next room. This sure
seems like a personal system to me!
On singularity Ian Macey says:
Think of a login on a multi-user system as an automobile on the
road network. Your login = your personal transport (ie your
personal automobile). However the machine = the road network,
and there's no way you can say you use a personal road network -
it's shared with other users (automobile drivers)!
Woops! Did I here PERSONAL automobile? Does this mean that my login
gives me some personal characteristics - even on a multi-user
system? You bet! Personal enough? NO!
Why is the machine the road network? If we must continue this
strange analogy, my login is my car key, the machine is the
automobile, the computer network is the road network. My computer is
just as personal as my car. The login .profile (or whatever) is the seat
adjustment, mirror adjustment, steering wheel adjustment, radio station
selector, and all the junk in the glove box. I can drive it back and
forth in my drive way or I can cruise down the road with a million other
drivers.
WHY TODAY'S CARS AND COMPUTERS ARE NOT PERSONAL:
The car, as it comes from the factory, is just like thousands of other
cars. I can order a few special wizzies just for me - power locks, power
seats, custom striping (which looks the same as everyone elses custom
striping). Is this personal? Yes. Personal enough? No.
Once I get the car, I can add my own personal touches. I put
in the latest 1000 watt stereo system with speakers that deliver sound
you can't even hear; I add a digital horn system so I can play tunes for
the whole neighborhood; and a child's safety seat even though I don't
have any children. I can even rip off fenders and paint daisies on the
doors if I want. Isn't this personal? It's portable! Only I can use it if
only I have the keys! Yea, maybe this is getting personal - but the
average Joe does not go to this trouble or expense.
But, I can get different sized vehicles. I can get a fancy one seater. I
can get a fancy two seater. I can get get a school bus if I want to. When
does it stop being personal? Ian would say - the minute you can put more
than one person in it.
To my statement that a multi-user system is just as personal as a
private system, Ian Macey writes:
I find it *very* hard to believe you are unaware of other
users. ... [there is a] constant battle with other
users/departments for disk space/resources.
Good justification for the wrong argument. Your reasoning implies that
there is not enough computing power to go around. An operating system
can be (and has been) built to provide fixed resources to each
user. Each user is effectively isolated from all other users. The trade
off is buying more computing power or balancing the power available.
But what does this have to do with being personal? If I buy the wrong
PC, it may not have enough resources to do what I need either.
NOW HEAR THIS - I am not arguing that multi-user systems are the only
way to go. I am arguing that a personal computer does not HAVE to be
usable by only one person.
I restate - without hesitation - that my definition of a personal
computer is one that is able to fit my personality and lifestyle. This
may be different for different people. I don't care if it shared or
not - as long as it satisfies my needs. I don't care if it is portable
or not - as long as it can be accessed where I want when I want.
Travismacey@praxis.UUCP (Ian Macey) (09/23/88)
Travis Marlatte writes: > In response to my statement that a personal computer does not need to > be available only to one user, Ian Macey says: ( Battle of the dictionary quotes edited out ) Travis then says: > I contend that a personal computer does not have to be portable or > singular. Could I not have a multi-user system in my home - terminals > (of some sort) in every room; interfaced to the security system, the > phone system, and household appliances. My whole family uses it - > without regard for who might be using it in the next room. This sure > seems like a personal system to me! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ooops!!! What's this... looks like we're no longer using a personal computer, but some sort of system! The plot thickens... On singularity I said: Think of a login on a multi-user system as an automobile on the road network. Your login = your personal transport (ie your personal automobile). However the machine = the road network, and there's no way you can say you use a personal road network - it's shared with other users (automobile drivers)! My friend Travis hacks it to bits with: > Woops! Did I here PERSONAL automobile? Does this mean that my login > gives me some personal characteristics - even on a multi-user > system? You bet! Personal enough? NO! Yes, I'll agree you can personalize your login environment. However I think the analogy needs clearing up: > Why is the machine the road network? If we must continue this > strange analogy, my login is my car key, No, your key is your password. > the machine is the automobile, No, your personal login environment (ie the shell you are running, your aliases etc. are the automobile. In case of doubt consider Travis's next statement: > the computer network is the road network. Using Travis's argument so far we get automobile == the machine, and the road system == the computer network, then his arguement states that he moves the machine around the computer network... Travis, have you ever tried forcing a VAX 8000 series down a telephone cable? (They don't like it you know.) However, try doing a remote login down a telephone cable and you'll have fewer problems (if you have the right key/password). Thus in the analogy, automobile == login environment. HENCE: Sure, on a multi-user system you can have a personal login. *But* the computer is *not* personal, because it's not only for (back to my dictionary) 'a particular person', or 'individual'. It's for many people, hence the HARDWARE itself cannot be your personal computer - only a SOFTWARE environment running on a multi user system can ever be personal. This appears to be the point of debate. On a multiuser computer you can have 'personal' software, but the computer hardware itself is not your personal bit of hardware. THUS a personal computer is one with only one user. Finally Travis writes: > I restate - without hesitation - that my definition of a personal > computer is one that is able to fit my personality and lifestyle. This > may be different for different people. I don't care if it shared or > not - as long as it satisfies my needs. I don't care if it is portable > or not - as long as it can be accessed where I want when I want. Which is almost correct, but which should read: I restate - without hesitation - that my definition of a personal login environment is one that is able to fit my personality and lifestyle. This may be different for different people. But my personal login isn't shared, it just satisfies my needs. I don't care if it is portable or not - as long as it can be accessed where I want when I want. Ian
nat@bales.UUCP (Nathaniel Stitt) (09/29/88)
I don't want to jump into the middle of a flame war over what seems to me to be a subjective definition of what a "personal computer" is. Let's just say that each person has their own "personal definition" of "personal computer". Here's mine: For me the main thing that makes a computer "personal" is *OWNERSHIP*. If I own a computer and can do with it as I will then that is a personal computer no matter if it is a TRS-80 or a VAX 8600. As it happens I own a 386 AT clone running multi-user unix. My roommate has an account, I have a dial in modem and many of my friends have accounts, but this is *my* *personal* *computer*. If I want to erase all my friends files and trash the hard disk, well, that is my right. If I want to take out the motherboard and break it into 100 pieces I could do that to. I could even go so far as to erase unix from my hard disk and only use MS-DOS from now on :-> The point is that I get to make all the decisions with respect to my own personal computer. On the other hand, the IBM-XT at work is NOT a personal computer because it belongs to my boss and I have no right to trash all the files, or use it as a boat anchor, or try to run unix instead of MS-DOS even though I am the only one who uses it, because it is *not* *mine*. The fact that computers are getting cheaper does not mean personal computers will disapear, only that they will become more powerful. 15 years from now my personal computer will probably have more CPU and mass storage and remote users than the network of suns where I work today but it will still be my personal computer. I can hardly wait. Nathaniel Stitt
jeff@lorrie.atmos.washington.edu (Jeff Bowden) (09/30/88)
My definition is simple. A computer is a personal computer iff you have the right to turn it off. Jeff