xkcd

by **GenericAnimeBoy** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:43 pm UTC

Alexander The 1st wrote:So, uh, when you read a book:

You are viewing inked pages, which are delivered via the book spine, pulled together by their book covers, where the inked pages are written by the author and the book cover by the illustrator. The book spine is a whole different detail, with manufacturers taking the inked pages, and putting them between the book covers. So, you're not viewing "the book", you're viewing "the inked pages in the book."

Frankly, the internet is just a giant book spine bound by ISPs, with the browsers the book covers, and the inked pages the .html files.

But you know what? I'm viewing this on a thing we call the Internet.

Oh...kay.

I think that analogy is more than a little strained. I'm just gonna leave it there, since this is a bit off topic for this thread anyway.

by **flying sheep** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:47 pm UTC

so what? if his parents can’t define the internet and think that it is a webbrowser, then this has nothing to do with your beautiful metaphor.

by **archeleus** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 4:47 pm UTC

Can't believe that this thread is so long.

I'm sure everyone agrees that pc != windows.

/thread

by **GenericPseudonym** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 1:46 am UTC

It's just that the people who don't aren't posting because they don't want the login screen to steal their password.

by **zmatt** » Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:00 pm UTC

Thread is TL;DR

So my take is this, PC = IBM compatible PC which comes from the 8088 (based on the 8086) based IBM home computer that ran DOS (various forms) Any home computer that can trace it's lineage to the IBM PC is a PC. For anything else, they can be refereed to as Home Computers, Microcomputers, or in the case of Apple Macs (Apple I/II/III/Lisa notwithstanding). On the case of Linux and Unix on home computers, if the hardware is capable of running windows or dos then it qualifies as a PC. PC's are defined by hardware and software compatibility, not necessarily what they are running at the time.

by **Alexander The 1st** » Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:35 pm UTC

So my take is this, PC = IBM compatible PC which comes from the 8088 (based on the 8086) based IBM home computer that ran DOS (various forms) Any home computer that can trace it's lineage to the IBM PC is a PC. For anything else, they can be refereed to as Home Computers, Microcomputers, or in the case of Apple Macs (Apple I/II/III/Lisa notwithstanding). On the case of Linux and Unix on home computers, if the hardware is capable of running windows or dos then it qualifies as a PC. PC's are defined by hardware and software compatibility, not necessarily what they are running at the time.

...So, the newer Macs are PC's too then?

by **flying sheep** » Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:36 pm UTC

why should the term “pc” have anything to do with windows? (regarding “if it can run windows”)
and game consoles are quite like pcs on the hardware side (regarding “related to some old ibm model”)

by **phlip** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:13 am UTC

flying sheep wrote:why should the term "pc" have anything to do with windows? (regarding "if it can run windows")

Because the IBM-PC couldn't run Windows, that's why.

OK, so I'm not certain about that, some of the later models might have been able to run Windows 1, I'm not certain. But I'm mostly sure it was typically a DOS system.

by **J the Ninja** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:27 am UTC

Alexander The 1st wrote:
So my take is this, PC = IBM compatible PC which comes from the 8088 (based on the 8086) based IBM home computer that ran DOS (various forms) Any home computer that can trace it's lineage to the IBM PC is a PC. For anything else, they can be refereed to as Home Computers, Microcomputers, or in the case of Apple Macs (Apple I/II/III/Lisa notwithstanding). On the case of Linux and Unix on home computers, if the hardware is capable of running windows or dos then it qualifies as a PC. PC's are defined by hardware and software compatibility, not necessarily what they are running at the time.

...So, the newer Macs are PC's too then?

By this definition, not really. They're not much different from PowerPC Macs aside from the CPU itself. They just have EFI instead of Open Firmware like the PPC ones had, and EFI lets them fake being a "PC" so they can boot Windows or whatever.

By every other definition, Macs have always been PCs

by **Alexander The 1st** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:57 am UTC

By this definition, not really. They're not much different from PowerPC Macs aside from the CPU itself. They just have EFI instead of Open Firmware like the PPC ones had, and EFI lets them fake being a "PC" so they can boot Windows or whatever.

By every other definition, Macs have always been PCs

http://xkcd.com/644/

Note that his definition relies on hardware and software compatibility, so if the EFI [That's firmware software, right?] gets them to run Windows/Dos, then it fits his decision.

Of course, then we run into the grey line of:

and game consoles are quite like pcs on the hardware side (regarding “related to some old ibm model”)

...Which I disagree with...but as above, it must be true. Especially since it makes this come to mind to me [WARNING: PAPYRUS FONT USED]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghb_ZXg4E-0

To make an addendum to help mine and phlip's points, perhaps a "pc" should be defined as something that can feasibly run windows or dos out of the box? </flimsy ruling>

by **Vash** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:48 pm UTC

jrife0 wrote:Does anybody else get annoyed when people think PC is a synonym for windows? I do.

I agree. It is annoying.

I have had PCs with Mac OS X, Linux, and Windows. None of them were Apple brand. I know people with Apple brand computers who only run Linux or Windows.

I have heard people call Apple brand computers with Linux Macs, and Dell, HP, white box, homemade, etc. brand computers with Linux PCs.

Legality is pretty much the only thing that maintains the separation for me.

OT:

Spoiler:

Woegjiub wrote:Because then we can't do ... GNU/Linux.

Or, we can just redefine Linux as GNU/Linux. I like the term GNU/Linux, but most people will not deal with that term. Linux is simpler.

Is there any obstacle to that? Is Linux used in any other context? Could it even be used in any other context? (well, I guess I am massively ignorant, so I should not be so sure of that)

Turtlewing wrote:Really it's just a matter of Apple's branding and vertical monopoly creating the illusion that they are different while simultaniously Microsoft's horizontal near-monopoly makes the rest of the industry look homoginized,

Good explanation. The Apple vs everything else comparison really does break down quite frequently, though. That's one of the problems with it.

The difference in parts is nonexistent, though, basically.

Turtlewing wrote:Except, because of the lockdown, there ... in termonology.

Honestly, having operated on a number of laptops and desktops, the internals are almost identical. They are all made in the same factories in Taiwan. The only difference is that for desktops Apple sets a higher threshold for throwing out the bad ones, so they are somewhat more reliable. Macbook Pros also do have better battery life than basically all other laptops in the same category, but they are no longer lighter (until you get to 17"). I am just looking at Consumer Reports, though. There are so many brands excluded from their ratings that completeness cannot be assumed.

My honest guess is that Apple uses better quality batteries, but I have no idea why Macbook Pros get better battery life. Macbook Airs do not, also. Perhaps it has to do with the LCD. That's actually somewhat more plausible.

Woegjiub wrote:I'd argue that it... to "a PC or a mac"?

You do see Alienware fanboys, though.

uiri wrote:Most ... apples.

Succinctly correct.

by **hotaru** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:57 pm UTC

Vash wrote:Or, we can just redefine Linux as GNU/Linux. I like the term GNU/Linux, but most people will not deal with that term. Linux is simpler.

Is there any obstacle to that? Is Linux used in any other context? Could it even be used in any other context? (well, I guess I am massively ignorant, so I should not be so sure of that)

android, webos, dslinux, ipodlinux, dd-wrt... there are a lot of operating systems that use the linux kernel but are not gnu/linux.

by **Vash** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:11 pm UTC

hotaru wrote:android, webos, dslinux, ipodlinux, dd-wrt... there are a lot of operating systems that use the linux kernel but are not gnu/linux.

There has to be a better name than GNU/Linux, though. That's just bad marketing.

Phillipsjk: from now on I watch DVDs in GNU/Linux.

Edit: Nevermind. Copy-protection has been broken.

by **J the Ninja** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:32 pm UTC

Vash wrote:
My honest guess is that Apple uses better quality batteries, but I have no idea why Macbook Pros get better battery life. Macbook Airs do not, also. Perhaps it has to do with the LCD. That's actually somewhat more plausible.

I remember a Apple marketing video once saying it was because most laptop batteries (including older MacBooks) are just generic cylindrical cells in the container, whereas the MBP battery is a custom-fit set of Li-Poly cells that fill the whole pack, like in a lot of cell phone batteries. Thus they get better energy density for the same size battery pack. Also, they said making the battery non-removeable allows the space taken up by the latching mechanism to be used for more cell-space. When they switched the MBP to the "non-removeable magic batteries" they were able to increase the battery life about 50% without changing much of anything else about the hardware, so there must be SOMETHING to those claims.

No clue why the Air still gets "5 hours". Thinness of the battery, maybe.

by **Vash** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:37 pm UTC

J the Ninja wrote:I remember a Apple marketing ... Thinness of the battery, maybe.

That certainly does make sense. I am still not sure that is worth a 125% price increase, and two mouse buttons fewer, myself.

I'll dissect some batteries from a dead computer sometime (with the proper protection and disposal, of course).

by **shieldforyoureyes** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:32 am UTC

zmatt wrote:Thread is TL;DR

So my take is this, PC = IBM compatible PC which comes from the 8088 (based on the 8086) based IBM home computer that ran DOS (various forms) Any home computer that can trace it's lineage to the IBM PC is a PC. For anything else, they can be refereed to as Home Computers, Microcomputers, or in the case of Apple Macs (Apple I/II/III/Lisa notwithstanding). On the case of Linux and Unix on home computers, if the hardware is capable of running windows or dos then it qualifies as a PC. PC's are defined by hardware and software compatibility, not necessarily what they are running at the time.

Just a little obscure history: Microsoft *has* ported Windows to machines not related to the 80x86 lineage before. Early versions of Windows NT ran on a number of RISC architectures.

(In my opinion, all of those machines were "PCs" as well, but my definition is pretty broad.)

by **TNorthover** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:32 pm UTC

shieldforyoureyes wrote:Just a little obscure history: Microsoft *has* ported Windows to machines not related to the 80x86 lineage before. Early versions of Windows NT ran on a number of RISC architectures.

They've also just announced an ARM port.

by **cjmcjmcjmcjm** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:11 am UTC

Vash wrote:and two mouse buttons fewer, myself.

YOU CAN HAVE EFECTIVE RIGHT-CLICKING AND SCROLLING ON A MAC. IF YOU NEED PRECISION FOR GAMING, GET A MOUSE LIKE YOU WOULD FOR ANY OTHER COMPUTER!

by **Vash** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:15 pm UTC

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:YOU CAN HAVE EFECTIVE RIGHT-CLICKING AND SCROLLING ON A MAC. IF YOU NEED PRECISION FOR GAMING, GET A MOUSE LIKE YOU WOULD FOR ANY OTHER COMPUTER!

Hahaha.

Actually, I was in an electronic art class, and I used control or whatnot to right click. It was just fine. I would say that rudimentary touchpad gaming is better when the pad is not also the click, or you don't have to press control for right click. A separate mouse is ideal (though less portable) for that and for other applications you would want a seperate mouse button for.

Considering all the difference interfaces I got used to in childhood, perhaps I am being too inflexible, as well.

by **bauinio** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:50 pm UTC

similar story from our office:

nerd: IT-people, i'm so glad to have a new iMac (i7), this intel-bullsh*t is annoying me since my apprenticeship.
IT-people: ??!?, and how you're new mac is doing?
nerd: very well, but i'm working almost on my virtual pc on the mac, Win7 is great!!

:evil:

by **archeleus** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:04 pm UTC

Vash wrote:Also, fuck GNOME. Complete garbage. I thought Linux was terrible until I tried KDE. I did like Ubuntu even when it had GNOME, though.

So you think that remaking the C++ stl library is a good thing? KDE is like Vista.

Go for LXDE/XFCE if not GNOME.

by **cjmcjmcjmcjm** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:22 pm UTC

Is it still true that Gnome is more accessible than KDE? My blind friend uses Arch Linux with Gnome and refuses to use KDE because it doesn't work as well with his screen reader

by **flying sheep** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:05 pm UTC

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:Is it still true that Gnome is more accessible than KDE? My blind friend uses Arch Linux with Gnome and refuses to use KDE because it doesn't work as well with his screen reader

because he didn't configure his install to be accessibility-enabled. qt (and therefore kde) does care about blinds, but they need to be smart enough to google how to enable the features essential for them.

by **flying sheep** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:12 pm UTC

archeleus wrote:KDE is like Vista.

your avatar picture is quite fitting. this comparison is stupid. woohoo, both have blur-behind transparency, they must be similar.

by **GenericAnimeBoy** » Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:36 pm UTC

flying sheep wrote:
cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:Is it still true that Gnome is more accessible than KDE? My blind friend uses Arch Linux with Gnome and refuses to use KDE because it doesn't work as well with his screen reader
because he didn't configure his install to be accessibility-enabled. qt (and therefore kde) does care about blinds, but they need to be smart enough to google how to enable the features essential for them.

Maybe they need the screen reader to work in order to use Google. :roll:

That reminds me of one of Windows ME's network troubleshooting wizards, which directed you to a goddamn website when your network interface wasn't working properly. :lol:

by **Vash** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:56 am UTC

archeleus wrote:So you think that remaking the C++ stl library is a good thing? KDE is like Vista.

Go for LXDE/XFCE if not GNOME.

The main problem with GNOME is that it is a terrible interface. It's not intuitive or that useful (though, I am very inarticulate right now). What is the point of a bad interface?

Of course, it can be made decent, but in plenty of distros it just is not.

Your concern is valid, though. Maybe LXDE/XFCE would be better.

by **phlip** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:02 am UTC

GNOME v KDE is over this way...

by **zmatt** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:02 pm UTC

Alexander The 1st wrote:
So my take is this, PC = IBM compatible PC which comes from the 8088 (based on the 8086) based IBM home computer that ran DOS (various forms) Any home computer that can trace it's lineage to the IBM PC is a PC. For anything else, they can be refereed to as Home Computers, Microcomputers, or in the case of Apple Macs (Apple I/II/III/Lisa notwithstanding). On the case of Linux and Unix on home computers, if the hardware is capable of running windows or dos then it qualifies as a PC. PC's are defined by hardware and software compatibility, not necessarily what they are running at the time.

...So, the newer Macs are PC's too then?

No, They don't have a BIOS so they are not PC compatible. Instead they use EFI. Bootcamp and it's equivalents trick the OS into thinking there is one.

shieldforyoureyes wrote:Just a little obscure history: Microsoft *has* ported Windows to machines not related to the 80x86 lineage before. Early versions of Windows NT ran on a number of RISC architectures.

(In my opinion, all of those machines were "PCs" as well, but my definition is pretty broad.)

I'm aware. I have a copy laying around somewhere. Although NT was a very different beast when it came around. I don't think aside form the guys who bought non-Apple power pc desktops in 1994, anyone was using NT as a desktop operating system in a home computer environment. It had a more white collar calling. Until it folded back into the popular windows tree with 2000 I would consider it more of a workstation OS.

by **shieldforyoureyes** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:32 pm UTC

zmatt wrote:I'm aware. I have a copy laying around somewhere. Although NT was a very different beast when it came around. I don't think aside form the guys who bought non-Apple power pc desktops in 1994, anyone was using NT as a desktop operating system in a home computer environment. It had a more white collar calling. Until it folded back into the popular windows tree with 2000 I would consider it more of a workstation OS.

Good point. So even a broader definition of "PC" that includes non IBM PC descendants should reference "intended for home use".

by **zmatt** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:03 pm UTC

shieldforyoureyes wrote:
zmatt wrote:I'm aware. I have a copy laying around somewhere. Although NT was a very different beast when it came around. I don't think aside form the guys who bought non-Apple power pc desktops in 1994, anyone was using NT as a desktop operating system in a home computer environment. It had a more white collar calling. Until it folded back into the popular windows tree with 2000 I would consider it more of a workstation OS.

Good point. So even a broader definition of "PC" that includes non IBM PC descendants should reference "intended for home use".

Indeed a "Personal computer" is a subset of "Home Computer" There is a specification for PC's, although now a days it's an extremely loose one.

by **GenericAnimeBoy** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:48 pm UTC

zmatt wrote:No, They don't have a BIOS so they are not PC compatible. Instead they use EFI. Bootcamp and it's equivalents trick the OS into thinking there is one.

So they don't have a BIOS but they're capable of imitating one...that sounds like compatibility to me... :roll:

by **phillipsjk** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:41 am UTC

My latest computer has a MIPS compatible processor, but it can still play some DOS games in a 'dosbox'.

I think IBM-compatible, usually means you can boot 'DOS' (be it MS, PC, DR or Free), and old 8 bit games will still work (well maybe not because the machine will be too fast).

Through emulation, a "General Purpose Computer" can be compatible with anything

I think I mentioned earlier, I don't think it has to be IBM-PC compatible to be a "PC" (ignoring emulation).

by **zmatt** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:10 pm UTC

GenericAnimeBoy wrote:
zmatt wrote:No, They don't have a BIOS so they are not PC compatible. Instead they use EFI. Bootcamp and it's equivalents trick the OS into thinking there is one.

So they don't have a BIOS but they're capable of imitating one...that sounds like compatibility to me...

They aren't directly compatible. A Mac with EFI on it's own isn't capable of running windows. You have to emulate a BIOS through software. That's the crux of it. Getting windows on a Mac in a sense requires some kludging. IMO emulation =/= compatibility. But we are getting at semantics here.

phillipsjk wrote:I think I mentioned earlier, I don't think it has to be IBM-PC compatible to be a "PC" (ignoring emulation).

Sure it does. PC refers to a specification. Anything else that is similar but doesn't conform is a Home Computer. That term existed before the PC did, and on a broader sense you could call them microcomputers which is pretty archaic now.

by **flying sheep** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:53 am UTC

GenericAnimeBoy wrote:
flying sheep wrote:
cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:Is it still true that Gnome is more accessible than KDE? My blind friend uses Arch Linux with Gnome and refuses to use KDE because it doesn't work as well with his screen reader
because he didn't configure his install to be accessibility-enabled. qt (and therefore kde) does care about blinds, but they need to be smart enough to google how to enable the features essential for them.

Maybe they need the screen reader to work in order to use Google. That reminds me of one of Windows ME's network troubleshooting wizards, which directed you to a goddamn website when your network interface wasn't working properly.

normally you think about a feature you need before you install a OS. but you are right. there should be a easy solution (like KDE detecting screen readers and telling the user how to intall acessibility support if it found one)

by **NickNackGus** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 4:43 pm UTC

Most of the time, I run some form of Linux, such as Ubuntu, and I'm trying others. Any non-apple computer I've seen calls itself "system", "computer", and "PC", or sometimes "personal computer". I've never seen a Mac, and don't plan on selling everything I own to get one. In Windows, I can't help but noticing not only how much harder to use it is than Linux, and also how it has never refereed to itself as "PC", or I just never saw it. But again, "PC", "Personal Computer", a computer owned by YOU. In a sense, it doesn't need to be a desktop, netbook, or laptop, it could easily be a server, game system, or anything else with a processor, including cars and VCRs. You can install any OS YOU want on ANY of them. Keep in mind that, although it can be done, I am not responsible if you build a car out of you laptop computer.

by **GenericAnimeBoy** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:50 am UTC

NickNackGus wrote:In Windows, I can't help but noticing not only how much harder to use it is than Linux...

Must...not...feed...trolls....... :roll:

by **NickNackGus** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:51 am UTC

GenericAnimeBoy wrote:
NickNackGus wrote:In Windows, I can't help but noticing not only how much harder to use it is than Linux...

Must...not...feed...trolls.......

Not trying to troll, sorry

. Probably would have started a long debate, though, and no one would allow the other side to win, so it's probably best to drop the subject, or start a new post.

by **flying sheep** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:10 am UTC

it’s not easy to prove that NickNackGus is right, since most people grow up with a windows machine (which is subsequently the OS they are accustomed to and thus easier. e.g. i can use forks and knifes better than chopsticks while chinese people do it vice versa.)

but having to use windows after using linux exclusively for some time is a major pain in the ass for me, so at least for me, NickNackGus is right.

by **zmatt** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:55 pm UTC

That probably has more to do with your habits and less to do with the merits of the interfaces. Personally I find linux just different enough to be annoying and OSX is so idiot proofed and lacking in intuition that it hurts.

by **cjmcjmcjmcjm** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:42 pm UTC

I love the Apple's UI, where the Super (Windows) key of Windows and Linux is replaced by a meta-key. I guess it also helps that Mac OS doesn't have a start menu like Windows and some Linux flavours.

Who is online