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 445543
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
My 2 cents
by Shkaba on Mon 18th Oct 2010 18:53 UTC
Shkaba
Member since:
2006-06-22

DISCLAIMER:
I absolutely hate touch screens. I consider it a wasteful use of visual real estate.

A PC is a device that allows me to find solution for a particular problem through intensive computation. For this purpose I would typically load/create a program and feed input data. Reducing PC to a simple consumer of content is a degradation that warrants exclusion from the definition of a "Personal computer". Therefore iPad is definitively NOT a PC.

Reply Score: 2

RE: My 2 cents
by jgagnon on Mon 18th Oct 2010 19:42 in reply to "My 2 cents"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

But SOMEONE programmed it to display/create (camera, etc.) that content. Are you saying the end user has to be the one to be able to program it? I know many people that simply played games on their Commodore 64 and never even tried to program it (complete lack of interest, not intellect). That didn't stop the C64 from being a "personal computer" nor should it stop the iPad or a smartphone from being considered one. They are all programmable.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: My 2 cents
by Shkaba on Mon 18th Oct 2010 21:16 in reply to "RE: My 2 cents"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

... Are you saying the end user has to be the one to be able to program it? ...

You obviously didn't read my post with due attention, otherwise you would have noticed "LOAD/CREATE PROGRAM"! So, to answer your question, I am not (nor did I) say that the end user has to be a programmer. The fact that a lot of ignorant users can/could purchase a PC (be it a Commodore 64, Commodore 128, Amiga 500, or an XT286) doesn't mean that I have to revise the definition of a PC that I find best describes this category of devices!! That would be equivalent to changing a definition of a car, just because a lot of people that have purchased a car do not know how to drive.

Reply Parent Score: 2