microcrapintel... No Thanks!

[mr_a500]

stopthegop wrote:
Of the systems you listed, which one really stands out to you as truly being different? Only the Amiga. The others are genetic mutations of each other.

It's funny you should say that. I have a 1989 Macworld magazine that says "...when you honestly look at it, the Macintosh was the last major advance in the microcomputer industry. The Amiga and the Atari ST were Mac mutants". I guess all computer systems are mutations of one or another computer. The Amiga just happened to be a great mutation that died out in favour of a well-marketed "genetic wrong turn".

stopthegop wrote:
Two bloated, greedy monoliths consolidated into one massive, reaking blob of self-interested power.

Actually, it's one greedy monolith attempting to greedily lure the ignorant by allowing the bloatware of another greedy monolith to run on its system. Unfortunately, all large companies are reeking blobs of self-interested power (the larger the blob, the more they reek).

adz wrote:
Hmmm, I love how the term "PC" gets thrown around these days, essentially, "PC" is an acronym for "Personal Computer" and last time I looked, all the machines sitting on my desk were personal computers, be they Mac, x86 or Amiga.

No, the Amiga is NOT a PC. It seems that these days people think that every microcomputer is a PC. For people who remember computer history, PC is a short form of the IBM PC or clone. Just because IBM chose the term "Personal Computer" and short form "PC" for their computer system, this does not make all personal computers PCs. MS used "Windows" as a term for its OS - this does not make every OS with windows called Windows does it? In every single Amiga magazine and every single Amiga manual I have ever read, "PC" is a term used to talk about the competing IBM system. In the Amiga manuals, the Amiga is referred to as a "microcomputer".

The C64 is NOT a PC. The Atari ST is NOT a PC. Linux runs on a PC. BeOS runs on a PC. Mac is moving into a grey area - now using mostly PC hardware. Strangely, Steve Jobs started calling Macs "PCs" in a presentation in 2003 after years of insisting that they are not PCs. Maybe this was a hint that they would soon be basically the same - using the same CPU and able to run Windows. (then again, maybe it was a marketing ploy to convince the ignorant Windows hordes to buy Macs)

[mr_a500]

Could have sworn my C64 and C128 have the word "Personal Computer" written on them, but anyway, according to this it depends on ones own opinion and just because my opinion differs from yours, doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong.

Sure, they can be called personal computers, but they're not PCs. Besides the historical usage, I'm sure you can see the need for distinction. If you call every computer a PC, then how can you describe the actual (IBM/clone) PC hardware? "Windows PC"? Windows is just the OS and Linux can also be installed on the same hardware. You can't say "IBM or clone PC", because that's a pain in the ass to say and IBM doesn't actually make PCs anymore.

What would you think if somebody said "I just installed MUI on my PC last night"? You'd think they installed MUI in WinUAE on their PC, but according to you Amiga is a PC so they could be talking about their "Amiga PC". Or how about asking how to connect two PCs together? Which is it? two IBM/clone PCs? IBM/clone PC & "Amiga PC", "Mac PC" and "C64 PC"? What? :crazy:

I think you are wrong, but I don't really blame you. ;-) This kind of confusion happens when huge influential companies "hijack" existing words or phrases and use them for their products - forever distroying the original usage. (...and creating endless future arguments on proper usage ;-))