🚀 go-pugleaf

bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
>SRK106@psuvm.psu.edu (Senthil Ramas Kumar) writes:                       
>> but, I somehow feel that just keeping "pc" instead of "ibm.pc" is too      
>> generic, and can be very confusing to people.                    

>  I don't think the term "pc" is too confusing.  Everyone has been using  
>  that term for years to refer to DOS/Intel based systems.  IBM has very
>  little to do with it anymore.  The term "pc" is probably less confusing
>  to most people than any other term.                                    
I disagree.  A resent article in BYTE said 'in choosing a PC (Mac or IBM)
one must be sure of what is expected of the machine.'  Also the PowerPC is
a PC but it neither a DOS or an intel machine {Its a Mac/IBM UNIX/Motorola
machine.}  The PowerPC {IBM's may be out THIS year} will produced by each
company to fit the old expandsions.  I.e the IBM 601 will likely have support
for HD interfaces like IDE and ESDI and BUS interfaces like ISA, MCA, EISA, 
VESA, and PCI and SCSI-1 while the Apple 601 will support PDS, NuBUS, SCSI-1,
and SCSI-2 conections.  The term PC has brodened over the years to the point
it is NO LONGER a synimem(sp) for IBM-PC.
What I would like to see:
comp.sys.ibm.pc.advocacy-equivalent of comp.sys.mac.advocacy
comp.sys.ibm.pc.bus-discuse bus expandsions
comp.sys.ibm.pc.drives
comp.sys.ibm.pc.powerpc
comp.sys.ibm.pc.sound
comp.sys.ibm.pc.video
comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc