🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1jmrn2INN9ck@fido.asd.sgi.com> autry@sgi.com (Larry Autry) 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.

Well, going back to the start of the 8088 line, I believe the grandfather
computer of this group was the first micro-computer to actually be called
a "personal computer", or PC for short.  I doubt that there would be any
confusion in using "PC" to identify with computers based on the x86.
I mean, are we really afraid that "PC" will be confused with computers
based on the 6502, 8080, 680xx, etc?


>What about comp.sys.intel.*.  Is there something wrong with that?

Well, seeing that Intel's anal-retentive licencing agreements (starting
with the 80386) has led to a handfull of clone 386's and 486's, I
hardly think that .intel would be correct.  Using .ibm-pc would be
more appropriate than .intel, IMHO.

We have to think of the common denominator here.  PC? x86? MS-DOS?  DOS?
(After all, what other micro-computer's operating system is known simply
as "DOS"?)

I know, we also have various versions of UNIX and OS/2, so maybe we
can't use MS-DOS or DOS.

There doesn't seem to be much discussion on this topic.   All the better
I guess.  Too many cooks spoil the ...(etc)