Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca!mroussel
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: What's a PC? (Was: Large weapon damage from monsters)
Message-ID: <1991Jan21.212650.3232@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
References: <8158@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> <1991Jan17.075820.29966@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 1991 21:26:50 GMT

In article <1991Jan17.075820.29966@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>,
Dan Zerkle and Ofer Inbar argue about the merits of calling IBM-style
microcomputers "PC's".  Personally I always preferred the term
microcomputer for a "small desktop system cheap enough to be owned by an
individual who doesn't also own a Rolex", and was just as glad when IBM
appropriated the abomination "PC", but that's just me.

     Now that these gentlemen have brought this up however, what's a PC?
Ofer suggested that everyone knows what a PC is, but I'm not so sure
anymore.  With the profusion of models and processors, just what does a
PC-compatible have to be compatible to?  A base original model IBM PC?
This is not entirely a moot question.  I guess what I'm really asking is
whether there are any de facto standards in the PC world.  My temptation
would be to say that if it runs MS-DOS and every program that makes only
documented OS and BIOS calls, it's compatible, but my impression lately
has been that people (for good reasons) want more than that.  Just what
is the mythical mark against which we measure all comers?

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca