9 Jun
2024
9 Jun
'24
2:21 a.m.
I believe the term was coined at PARC and was to distinguish between a time-sharing system
and a computer which was “yours” when you put your disk pack on it and sat in the room
where you were. Thus the Alto and Dorados were personal as they melded to their user, when
being used by that user, and then to the next user when the new pack was
installed. Time-sharing systems were pretty much not customizable and were certainly
shared.
..
--
Kenton A. Hoover
kenton(a)nemersonhoover.org
shibumi(a)mail.marchordie.org
+1 415 830 5843
On Jun 5, 2024 at 06:50 -0700, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>rg>,
wrote:
On 6/5/2024 9:33 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general
purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the
masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine
was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing,
it's not a "personal computer"?
I think the term "personal computer" is impossible to define. Its
meaning will mean something different to just about anybody. Kinda
like "intelligence". Some accept IQ as a measurement. Some accept
membership in Mensa as a measure of very high IQ. I, on the other
hand, I see membership in Mensa a a factor requiring the subtraction
of at least 50 points from IQ because they were stupid enough to pay
someone for it. :-)
bill
On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means
ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only
personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe.
To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal
computer. The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses. The
second is "intended for" the masses.