23 Apr
1999
23 Apr
'99
12:24 p.m.
I have to agree that the argument is not pivotin around a single point.
I've always thought of computers intended for home use as being personal
computers. This doesn't mean that they can't be applied to non-home tasks,
but if they're designed, packaged, and marketed for home use, they probably
ought to be considered personal. The same can be true if they were designed
to be used by a single individual, as opposed to several even if at
different times. This doesn't mean that if it can be used by more than one
individual it's not a personal computer. Likewise, if it's priced such that
a normal, rational (not to imply that we users are either of these things)
person could easily consider and justify owning one, it's probably a
personal computer.
Whether it had video-game-capable graphics is another issue. NOT EVERYONE
WANTS HIS COMPUTER TO BE A HOT GAME MACHINE. That doesn't say that everyone
who has a computer well suited for video games has a game machine, but it
also doesn't say that every "game machine," be it Atari or Z-whatever, must
be excluded from consideration as a personal computer.
Frankly, I've completely lost track of why this was being discussed. I was,
at one point indicating that what was listed at the "first" personal
computer was really pretty expensive for "personal" consumption at the time
at which it, or, rather, its plans were being marketed.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, April 23, 1999 2:57 PM
Subject: Is video relevant? (was: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines
(Was:And what were the 80s
because
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Derek Peschel wrote:
of
The argument is getting out of control
OK
> because the arguers are trying to
> make the same point (to be a personal computer, a machine must have video
> capability as an integral part of its construction) using different
> definitions of "video capability". So I wanted to point out that the
> two definitions didn't match.
> The issue of "integral part" is different. I didn't mean that the
S-100
> machines had no video capability, I mean that it wasn't an integral part
> the system because you had to install it. A
manufacturer (like SOL? I
> think) might install the video for you and sell the result as a
package --
> that's an interesting borderline case. But
S-100 is clearly different
from
> a single board (like the Apple ][ motherboard) in
which the video
circuitry
can't be
easily changed or removed.
Excuse me?
Am I misunderstanding you?
Or are you saying that a machine that is sold without video is NOT a
"personal computer", even if a video card is sold separately?
And that if the DEALER installs the video card, that it is still a
"borderline case" for being a PC?
By THAT reasoning, virtually NONE of the "PC Compatible" could be more
than "borderline"! It would mean that NONE of my 80x86 machines are PCs!
(I purchased the video cards separately, and installed them in all of
them, INCLUDING the 5150s.)
> Actually, this whole "First PC" argument is getting out of control,
> everyone is free to use a different definition.
The the argument
> degenerates into a "My definition is right!" argument. That's the
reason
I
don't get
involved.
THAT part is inarguable. Unless a definition becomes externally impoised,
it will always remain subjective.