🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ANKI.93Jan21212738@stekt3.oulu.fi> suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi 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.
>
>How about "pc-clone"?  
>There are already comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit and
>comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit groups.

I wasn't aware of those groups.  Do they focus on operating system
discussions, or specific unix-related pc hardware?

Is the "clone" in .pc-clone really needed?

The existance of these .unix.pc-clone groups makes me wonder if we shouldn't
have:

comp.sys.pc.unix
comp.sys.pc.dos
comp.sys.pc.os/2 (?)
comp.sys.pc.video
comp.sys.pc.drives
comp.sys.pc.sound

etc...