Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hptsug2!taylor
From: macey@praxis.UUCP (Ian Macey)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: "Personal" Computers
Message-ID: <454@hptsug2.HP.COM>
Date: 25 Aug 88 01:36:45 GMT
Sender: taylor@hptsug2.HP.COM
Organization: Praxis Systems plc, Bath, UK
Lines: 42
Approved: taylor@hplabs

Newman at Xerox writes:

> Would you call either of these machines "personal"?  Neither is really
> portable in the sense that I can carry it around easily on the spur of
> the moment.

Portability != (doesn't equal) personal.

> I take advantage of the ability to customize the behavior of my
> machines.  Other users do not.  Does this make the computers themselves
> any more or less "personal"?  In both cases, it requires some technical

Customise != (doesn't equal) personal.

> I am the only person that uses either machine; does this affect 
> their degree of "personal"-ness?

YES YES YES !!!!

> My point is that our definition of "personal" is remarkably imprecise so
> far --  Can we come up with a more precise definition of the term "personal"?

Computers can be divided roughly into the following 'power' classes:

1) Micro computer
2) Mini computer
3) Mainframe
4) Super computer

(The precise definition of these classes is of course hotly debated.)

A 'personal' computer is one on which you are the sole user. Micro
computers are almost always called PCs (personal computers) because they
can *only* have one user on them. They do not have to be portable,
customised, or anything else - just your own personal machine!

If you were really rich you could have a MicroVAX under your desk with
one terminal for you, and this too would be your 'personal' computer.
The power, physical size etc. are irrelevant.

Hope this is clear.

Ian Macey,  Bath, England.