Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
I'm a PC, and I'm still running XP (wsj.com)
14 points by jseliger on Oct 8, 2008 | hide | past | favorite | 18 comments


Someone answer me please!

PC stands for 'Personal Computer' - right?

How is that synonymous with an operating system (Windows)???!


It's short form for "IBM PC Compatible", something that was printed on a lot of floppy disks back in the early 1980s. It was used to differentiate between "Atari" (which was a computer), "Apple" (which wasn't a Macintosh), "C64", and "Tandy" in the USA, and certainly others elsewhere in the world.

The primary use of the term among (semi-)technical people has evolved to mean the defacto open standard personal computer platform that has a BIOS and uses the Intel 32 bit / AMD 64 bit instruction set.

The use of PC to literally mean "Personal Computer", a computer used by one person, is falling out of vogue. Apple obviously is running from the term, and as far as I can think the only other non-Windows platforms (Sun, for example) fancy themselves to be "Workstations" -- users and vendors alike would take umbrage at the suggestion that they're mere PCs, even though they're the same size, shape, come with a keyboard and mouse, and are often less powerful.


...(Sun, for example) fancy themselves to be "Workstations" ...

If a train stops at a train station, what happens at a workstation?

I know. The '90s called. They want their joke back.


Even more importantly (the history is interesting but..) it's a word. Words have whatever meaning people give them.


Technically, Macs were the first Personal Computers, then the IBM-clones came out... the clones were what most people had. Then it was just IBM(and clones) vs Mac, and BAM! people thought PCs were IBM-based machines.

Unfortunately for us geeks, Apple is going to continue to use PC to mean non-mac until PC actually means PC for the average person.

/mini-rant


Apple is going to continue to use PC to mean non-mac until PC actually means PC for the average person.

That's an entirely normal marketing move. "A car is just a car, but a Cadillac is a luxury vehicle." Same thing, positioning everything else as being "just" a PC, while suggesting that a Mac is special.

Which it is, really. To anyone outside of our little echo chamber here, a Mac is entirely unlike a PC, and it has nothing to do with Apple's ads. At work they are given a "PC," and it is different from the iMac they see in my children's playroom in almost every way that counts to them.


Technically, Macs were the first Personal Computers

Did you mean the Apple II?


Did you mean the Apple //?

(Also would have accepted Apple ][.)


I think he meant the Micral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micral) although I'd accept the Altair 8800 (which predated the Apple II by two years) as the first Personal Computer to run an operating system that was familiar enough to users for mainstream PC use (by which I mean IMDOS, a stripped down CP/M implementation).


Why yes, yes I did. Thanks.


It just seems so stupid to me - not to mention annoying.


Anecdotal point: I've tried really hard not to jump on the Vista-hating bandwagon, but last night I needed to copy a couple of gigs of data to a flash drive, roll that computer's OS back from Vista to XP, and copy the data back.

Copy time under Vista: approximately 35 minutes.

Copy time under XP: 90 seconds.

Nothing special on the system before or after that should have affected the copy. It was a fairly new Vista install.


Flash memory is high read speed and low write speed so writing from vista and reading to xp is not exactly a fair test.


Penalty! Specious data! 1 point.

Flash memory is slower to write, but a quick survey of 2GB USB thumb drive benchmarks shows their write speed to be about 65% of their read speed, not 4% as reported in this user's results.

There is still more than one order of magnitude of performance missing.


Linus just blogged about how in acutal use ssds are usually vastly slower than advertised he was pleasantly surprised to find one that wasnt in this post http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/10/so-i-got-one-of-...


Bingo! Vista's competitor isn't Apple, it's XP.


well, if you are upgrading, and the only choice is Vista (as it rammed down the throat by MS), Mac Os looks more appealing.


Except Linux doesn't need you to buy new hardware.

Although I concede that if the user in question is not technical then Vista is probably the way to go ;)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: