Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Oct 2010 16:00 UTC
In the News An interesting discussion is currently raging through the world of computing, or more accurately, through the world of bloggers and analysts. It basically comes down to this: should the iPad be included in laptop and desktop sales figures? If it is included - Apple becomes the largest PC manufacturer in the United States. But, if the iPad should be included - why not the modern smartphone?
Thread beginning with comment 445519
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Special vs General
by WereCatf on Mon 18th Oct 2010 18:03 UTC in reply to "Special vs General"
Member since:

A general purpose computer, in addition to web browsing, ought to be capable of all the other "general" computing tasks like word processing, spreadsheets, database management, financial management, photo, sound, and video editing, programming, playing games, etc. and it should be able to do them all acceptably well [for its time period].

Obviously, the user doesn't have to do every one of those things, but the hardware and OS should be capable of doing them decently.

So, if there is no OS or the OS is not capable of these things/doesn't allow them then it's not a PC? Thus, a desktop computer without an OS installed is in fact not a PC until there is an OS on it? My my, that's a rather arbitrary definition and doesn't quite work well.

The fact is, OS can be removed and/or changed in most cases, including smartphones. By your definition they'd be PCs once the OS can handle it, and a desktop computer wouldn't be a PC if there was no OS yet on it.

Also, the performance of the computer in question either doesn't define what is a PC and what isn't: even an old i386 is still a PC even though it's inadequate by today's standards. Just as is a modern low-end desktop computer; even if it didn't play all the latest games and CAD applications it's still a PC.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Special vs General
by telns on Mon 18th Oct 2010 18:46 in reply to "RE: Special vs General"
telns Member since:

I very specifically mentioned "for its time period."

The 386 time period was quite a while ago. Can you imagine anyone selling a new i386-based device now for anything other than highly specialized tasks? I didn't say 386s aren't PCs. When they were sold, they fit the bill for all the general computing I mentioned.

The OS is an important part of what makes a computer general purpose or special purpose. I had in mind a Mackie processor a friend uses. It is absolutely standard, commercial off-the-shelf PC hardware on the inside, but the OS it runs is D8B. By your definition it is a PC, by mine it is a special purpose tool.

My argument is that PCs are general purpose tools, and to be that they have to run general purpose OSs. Stick on a highly specific specialized OS (ala D8B), and it may cease to be what I would label a personal computer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Special vs General
by WereCatf on Mon 18th Oct 2010 19:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Special vs General"
WereCatf Member since:

My argument is that PCs are general purpose tools, and to be that they have to run general purpose OSs.

That's what I was saying: by your definition unless it runs an OS capable of all the most common general usage tasks then it's not a PC. And on the other hand, when it does run such an OS it is a PC, by your very argument.

That just places yet another dilemma in front of you: that would mean my Nokia N900 is indeed a PC as it runs Linux, with all the capabilities of any other Linux distro. And for example a PlayStation3 was a PC every time it was running Linux as OtherOS. And there's plenty and plenty of other examples around.

Reply Parent Score: 2