cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) (01/17/91)
In article <8158@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes: >Someone should also explain to these people that a TI 99/4A, is a PC. >So is a C64. So is my Amiga. So is their Intel-based MS-DOS machine. >So is a Macintosh. So is an Apple II. So the is Coleco Adam. In >fact, if you stretch it a bit, so is the Famicom. The Atari 8- and 16- >bit machines are certainly PC's. In fact, just about anything that You are wrong, these are not PC's. >computes, sits on your desk, and isn't a workstation can be considered >a personal computer. When IBM named their machine the PC, it was like You are right, these are all examples of personal computers. PCs they are not. That acronym, which about a decade ago stood for "personal computer", no longer means that. If you say "PC" to any random computer person, he/she will almost certainly think of the 'IBM' standard PC. >Ford just came out with a new model called the Car. The whole language >is so ethnocentric! It's as if IBM wanted to say that there never >really were any PC's out there until they invented one. Now's there's I don't see why you think IBM wanted to say that. They simply called it 'The IBM Personal Computer' and I don't see anything ethnocentric about that. It wasn't IBM that invented the current popular usage of the term 'PC'. >all of these freaking magazines out there with PC in the name! They >are not about just any PC's, just in case you never actually opened one >of these pieces of junk up and looked inside and noticed that they are >just as freaking ethnocentric as that humongous "We are so big so we >are our own world and we ignore everybody else because we can get away >with it" company that invented it in the first place. They talk about There is nothing wrong with this, since, unlike you, most people understand the term PC to mean exactly what these magazines mean by it. So the names effectively convey what the magazine is about. >nifty things like multimedia and their fancy sound and graphics as if >they invented it and other PC's (yes, other personal computers) haven't >had sound and graphics for years and years and even though they could >easily have gone out and bought a computer to do this years ago but >they ignored it and only noticed it existed when their freaking single >tasking crippled 640K eight+three letter filesystem excuse for a >computer finally got it! Then, and THEN, they have the audacity to >announce to the rest of the world about any other computer they please >that "It doesn't have much software written for it". I've actually >heard these people say that about Unix systems!! I've actually read in >one of those magazines with "PC" in the title that Unix will never >amount to anything. Apparently they never noticed that Unix has been I've never read such a statement, and I read some of these magazines. I have read, however, predictions that Unix will not amount to a major market force *ON PCs*, which is a possibility. >around for over two decades!! If you listen closely, what they really >mean is that there is no business software, even though there is. The >MS-DOS world has pitifully little support for desktop video (for >example), even though the Amiga (which I happen to be familiar with) >has tons of it. Does that mean that there's no software for the "PC"? >No! Aaaaaagh! Stop calling it a "PC." You sound so unenlightened >when you do that. You sound like you've been brainwashed by one of >those magazines with a "PC" in the name. Talk about your freaking >operating system, instead! Talk about MS-DOS when you are worried No good, for three reasons: 1) Not all machines that run MS-DOS are PCs. The DEC Rainbow runs MS-DOS, but it is not a PC. (Although, the Rainbow does run the PC version of NetHack.) 2) Not all PCs run MS-DOS, although they all could. Many run OS/2 or Unix/Xenix. In the future, eventually MS-DOS will be in use on a minority of PCs, but they will not cease to be PCs. 3) MS-DOS has another name when it's sold by IBM: PC-DOS >about compatiblity. Don't talk about DOS. That's even worse. DOS >means "disk operating system." Every freaking computer that ever spun I agree here. >a disk has a disk operating system. That's as bad as calling it a PC, >and it's even worse that IBM came up with it, because they ALREADY HAD >an operating system (for their mainframes) called DOS. YOU'D THINK >THEY'D LEARN!!!! BUT NO! They keep doing it! So, talk about MS-DOS. >Talk about IBM-PC (PC is ok if you stick an IBM in front of it). Talk Again, no good. The majority of PCs in use today were not made by IBM. Ditto for PCs being sold. Tandy and Compaq each sells more PCs than IBM. They are not IBM-PCs. >about OS/2. Talk about Unix or Xenix. Then, people will respect you. >These operating systems have real names. Just don't...please >don't...say "PC-compatible." Gag. You might as well say "Is this Much as you hate the term, it is a practical one. PC compatibilty deals with more than just the OS or the processor. There are many other aspects of 'PC compatibility'. And since IBM's own machines (the PS/2's) don't meet all these conditions, and so are in fact less 'PC-Compatible' than machines made by, say, Compaq, what other term would you use? >radiator Car compatible?" Please? You're fighting a lost battle. The acronym PC has already had it's meaning altered. And I doubt it will change back to 'personal computer', since the number of PCs around is much greater than the number of all other personal computers combined. The installed base of PCs in the world today is in the 9 digits, and the number sold per year is in the 8 digits. Note the Followup-To:, as this really doesn't belong in rec.games.hack. -- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu -- WBRS (BRiS) -- WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu WBRS@brandeis.bitnet