Is video relevant? (was: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were the 80s

From: Fred Cisin <cisin_at_xenosoft.com>
Date: Fri Apr 23 15:44:55 1999

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Derek Peschel wrote:
> 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 of
> 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, because
> 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.
Received on Fri Apr 23 1999 - 15:44:55 BST