🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan23.230607.28570@nmsu.edu> bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
>>Why .ibm.pc.* ???
>>Is there .apple.pc or .mac.pc right now ???
>The problem is that 'PC' by itself has STOPPED being a synimum(sp) for IBM.
>How many products are labeled 'PC compatable' as opposed to 'IBM compatable'.
>Very few.  PC means a personal computer; computer designed to be used
>by one person (Dictionary of Computer Terms 3rd edition) it does NOT mean
>IBM compatable.

Even though IBM and the other brand-name x86 manufacturers have called
recent computers PS/2's (etc.) for marketing reasons, who else put the
PC or Person Computer **On the front** of their product at the time of
the original IBM PC?  Isin't there enough similarity between that "PC"
and the x86 PC's of today??
(Interupt assignments, interupt vectors, bus specs, memory maps, etc)!!!!

--> How about comp.sys.x86-pc.*   ???

>I am worried that JUST pc will result in a small influx of Amiga and AppleII
>people since those machinces are ALSO called 'PCs' and a latter influx of
>the PowerPC crowd.

Don't they already have their own groups, with the names Amiga, etc,
in the group name?  I'm sure PowerPC will have it's own group name
(comp.sys.powerpc.*) so I don't see how it confuses the situation.

>somewhat irregular in posting.}  May be .pc.clone. would be better then
>.ibm.pc.  though JUST .pc. is NOT a good idea.

Why .pc.clone. ?  Dosen't that indicate a 2-level hirearchy?  If anything,
it should be .pc-clone.