🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1jmrn2INN9ck@fido.asd.sgi.com>, autry@sgi.com (Larry Autry) says:
>
>In article <93021.123116SRK106@psuvm.psu.edu> SRK106@psuvm.psu.edu (Senthil
>Ramas Kumar) writes:
>>
>>I very much agree with you that the term "x86", does not lend it nicely to
>>suit the description that we are looking for.  Further, as a previous poster
>>had pointed out its a little technical in nature, and it _could_ be obscure
>>to people, especially those who are new to the area of interest.
>>
>>but, I somehow feel that just keeping "pc" instead of "ibm.pc" is too
>>generic, and can be very confusing to people.
>>
>>Kumar
>What about comp.sys.intel.*.  Is there something wrong with that?
>
>--
>Larry Autry
>Silicon Graphics, St. Louis
>autry@sgi.com

Only problem with this is that Intel makes more than just it's 80x86 line, and
also that some people have computers with NEC chips (v20 and v30) or have
AMD chips (286, 386 and soon 486) or Cyrix or C&T or whatever.  It's not just
Intel anymore, just like it's not just IBM that makes the machines.

I do, however, like the idea of using pc-clone, as suggested in a previous
post, but then again that'll make people owning IBMs (the TRUE pc) think
they're being left out.  Don't know what kind of compromise to make, but
I can think of plenty of holes to shoot in other suggestions, so keep 'em
comming....  :-)

       Matthew E. Bernold             MEB117@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
         <<APOCALYPSE>>                  meb@haydn.psu.edu