My assertions are:
1) due to the lack of consensus on fundamental terms, such as what IS a
"personal computer", that each person choosing a "FIRST PC" will create
their own set of "requirements", and thus will have a very subjective
choice.
2) Virtually nobody will ever acknowledge that their choices ARE
"subjective"; therefore they will insist that anyone coming up with
alternative choices are "wrong". _I_ posses the only RIGHT answer.
3) Since the majority of people will intermingle their personal needs
with the "requirements", therefore their concept of which was the "first"
will be intertwined with which one they first considered for themselves.
4) As Richard mentioned, "where you sit determines what you see".
Therefore, MOST people's choices will be based on which system they first
saw advertised that met THEIR requirements.
5) As Sam pointed out, it is completely futile to continue the
discussion.
Doug's site is well researched and MAGNIFICENT in its presentation.
But, inevitably, his choices of "requirements" are completely arbitrary.
MOST of them, I agree with! But they are still arbitrary.
For example:
WHY "digital NOT analog"? If there were to exist an analog machine with a
complete operating system, peripherals, office productivity suite, etc.
would that not be a "personal computer"?
What about a requirement of "usefulness"? To MANY PEOPLE, but not all of
us, "personal computer" represents a device for word processing,
spreadsheets, etc. MANY "experts" in the trade would reject inclusion of
any machine without application software availability.
One that is hard for me to personally object to is the requirement of
programmability by the end user. I personally would be loathe to purchase
a machine that I couldn't program, BUT IS THAT PART OF THE DEFINITION?
What percentage of Macintosh users have the facilities and tools, much
less capability, to program their computers? Does that now make THOSE
become "NOT Personal Computers"? It is entirely possible for a
manufacturer to produce a machine comparable to modern "personal
computers" and NOT make available necessary programming tools! Imagine if
you will, if MICROS~1 were to have held a monopoly on programming tools
for WindozeCE, or if Apple were to have declared itself to be sole source
for application software for the IMAC?
His choices for "requirements" are VERY REASONABLE. But still completely
arbitrary. "moveable by one person" WHY? Seems like a good idea, but
what about a computer built into an office desk?
His work is far from unique in being arbitrary. For comparison, consider
how you would define the differences between a microcomputer, a
minicomputer, and a mainframe: my favorite is:
A Microcomputer, you can pick up and carry.
A minicomputer, requires a handtruck.
A mainframe, requires a forklift and a union moving crew.
BTW, yes, Doug DID say that he was selling the domain name. Presumably he
did; or has he merely taken on a new hobby?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin_at_xenosoft.com
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Sellam Ismail wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 CLASSICCMP_at_trailing-edge.COM wrote:
>
> > I *do* like the web page that Sam pointed out
> > ( http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml ). I may not agree with the
> > final positive, but I do agree with all the previous negatives :-).
> > And that Arkay CT-560 looks pretty nifty!
>
> That's Doug Salot's (Yowza) creation. What about his assertion don't you
> agree with? I think he's right on the mark.
>
> Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar_at_siconic.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
>
> Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
> See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
> [Last web site update: 04/03/99]
Received on Thu Apr 22 1999 - 11:55:33 BST