🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan22.150446.10985@nmsu.edu> bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
>>  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.'

Since there are no clones of Apple computers, the term "Mac" is much more
likely to be used when referring to Apple computers than the term "pc".

If someone is deciding which news group to read, they have already decided
wheather or not it's a "Mac" based group or a "Pc/MS-DOS/x86/ibm-pc" group.
Does "pc" appear in the name of any current Mac based groups?

>Also the PowerPC is
>a PC but it neither a DOS or an intel machine {Its a Mac/IBM UNIX/Motorola
>machine.}

I think the point of the current ibm-pc.hardware group is mostly for
HARDWARE discussions.  If the PowerPC comes out it should have it's own
group (why not call it comp.sys.powerpc ?).  That group probably won't
need to be subdivided because it will be a proprietary design and there
won't be a lot of 3'rd party hardware available for it like ther is for
the current ISA/EISA/VESA/x86 systems.


  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

Why .ibm.pc.* ???
Is there .apple.pc or .mac.pc right now ???
Since the PowerPC is based on a different processor than the x86 line,
it should have it's own hierarchy (when or if it ever comes out).

I can't see how IBM or Apple will let the PowerPC use ISA or EISA.  IBM's
strategy on new computer lines seems to be proprietary proprietary
proprietary.  The only link the PowerPC might have with the current pc
is the bus, and it's by no means clear wheather or not it will be bus-
compatible.