🚀 go-pugleaf

To the best of my recollection, DEC didn't use the word personal in
conjuction with computer until the late 70's: they certainly weren't
using it in the 60's.  I qoute from my 1963 edition of the DEC PDP1
handbook:

  PDP stands for *Programmed Data Processor* and is a trademark
  of Digital Equipment Corporation. 

The same quote appears in my July, 1969 edition of DEC's 
  Introduction to Programming
    PDP-8 Family Computers
and my 1970 edition of DEC's
  Small Computer Handbook

I can find no expansion of the PDP acronym in any DEC manual with
a publication data later than 1970.

In article <8511052150.AA19797@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu>
D-ROGERS@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA writes:
>> IBM coined the term personal computer.

> I hope to shout!  How about the PDP-1, PDP-8, & PDP-11 by Digital
> Equipment Corp. The PDP stood for "Personal Data Processor" and was
> probably the first standalone interactive computer that didn't require
> massive resources needed to support a mainframe.

From an artifact on my wall, printed by DEC circa 1969:

	Programmed Data Processors 8/S, 8, 9, 10 and the LINC-8
	are general purpose, stored program, digital computers
	capable of a wide variety of data processing and control
	functions.  The PDP line spans the complete spectrum of
	on-line, real-time applications ranging from simple data
	acquisition on the "8/S" to a full-scale time sharing
	facility on the "10".

Note "programmed", not "personal".

There have been personal computers since the early days. Consider the
Bendix G15 or the LGP-30.  In fact, becoming "impersonal" was a definite
sign of progress: it made bigger machines economical by allowing them to
be used efficiently.  The new personal computers are a sign of further
progress: hardware is cheap enough that a useful configuration can be
dedicated to serving one person.

If I remember correctly, the term "personal computer" was used before
IBM entered the market.  But it was not the dominant term.  People often
called them "micros", "home computers", or "hobbyist machines".  I think
that the term "personal computer" is more apt now.

By the way: there seems to be a lot of animosity towards (read:
"unreasoning emotion against") IBM and it's PC.  As a UNIX user, I
regret that the marketplace has made the IBM PC such a success, almost
smothering innovation.  The effect is premature standardization.  It
will be very hard to wean the market from a very low level standard:
8086 machine language, BIOS calls, memory mapped video of specific
capabilities at specific addresses, etc.  Contrast this with my UNIX
experience: over 10 years, I have often changed hardware (PDP-11,
VAX, 8086, 68000, 32000, proprietary) and UNIX version (5th, 6th, 7th
edition, 4.1, 4.2 BSD, System V, XENIX 2, 3) without leaving my programs
behind; some transitions were painful, but none were fatal.

But IBM did not make its PC the standard, the marketplace did.  And
remember that the IBM PC was technically advanced compared with what was
available when it entered the market.  Evidently a lot of people find
the machine (along with third party hardware and software) sufficiently
useful to buy it.  Moreso than any other personal computer.

Hugh Redelmeyer writes in the cited article:
>......
> 								  And
> remember that the IBM PC was technically advanced compared with what was
> available when it entered the market.  Evidently a lot of people find
> the machine (along with third party hardware and software) sufficiently
> useful to buy it.  Moreso than any other personal computer.

While in general I agree with most of the things he said, I do take issue
with the relatively 'technically advanced' comment.  Olivetti produced
a z8000-based micro which was 'technically superior' in my opinion. (Of
course, I worked at Olivetti (in Cupertino, CA) so what do you expect? :-)

The IBM PC was a hit in the marketplace because IBM made it a hit. Not
because of any technical superiority.

-- 
			Michael Shannon {ihnp4,hplabs}!oliveb!3comvax!mikes

> But IBM did not make its PC the standard, the marketplace did.
    Agreed.

>  And
> remember that the IBM PC was technically advanced compared with what was
> available when it entered the market.
    Whoa!  I don't think that this is correct.  The extra 4 bits of address
was an advance, and the uniformity of having a keyboard/CRT standard made it
relatively straightfoward for mass marketing - but what were the technical
advances?
--henry schaffer  n c state univ