[rrsis]

so almost every person who has an apple computer say that they don't own a PC, they own an MAC. PC stands for personal computer so a computer that runs on windows is a pc but an apple computer is still A PC.you don't hear people with a linux PC or windows pc going around saying: I own a linux or I own a windows. how come apple owners do this?

This post has been edited by bcappel: 13 March 2012 - 09:47 AM
Reason for edit: removed spam link

[linuxrants7xpg]

rrsis, on 13 March 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

so almost every person who has an apple computer say that they don't own a PC, they own an MAC. PC stands for personal computer so a computer that runs on windows is a pc but an apple computer is still A PC.you don't hear people with a linux PC or windows pc going around saying: I own a linux or I own a windows. how come apple owners do this?

An even better question is why did you post this to the Linux forum when you could have posed the question in the Mac forums? Apple users call their computers Macs because that's short for Macintosh, which was what they called their computer line (there was a pretty famous commercial for it in 1984). Macintosh being a type of apple.

PC does stand for "Personal Computer", but it's a specific computer. PC is referring to the IBM PC, which was released in 1981. Soon after it's release, other companies started making computers that were compatible with the PC, which were referred to as "IBM PC compatible". Over time, they simply started being referred to as PCs as well. The Mac decended from a different line, and because of that, isn't a PC despite the fact that today's Macs are pretty much the same hardware and can run the same operating system.

[smax013]

linuxrants7xpg, on 13 March 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

An even better question is why did you post this to the Linux forum when you could have posed the question in the Mac forums? Apple users call their computers Macs because that's short for Macintosh, which was what they called their computer line (there was a pretty famous commercial for it in 1984). Macintosh being a type of apple.

PC does stand for "Personal Computer", but it's a specific computer. PC is referring to the IBM PC, which was released in 1981. Soon after it's release, other companies started making computers that were compatible with the PC, which were referred to as "IBM PC compatible". Over time, they simply started being referred to as PCs as well. The Mac decended from a different line, and because of that, isn't a PC despite the fact that today's Macs are pretty much the same hardware and can run the same operating system.

That is a fair assessment/review of the history.

I will add, however, that the term "PC" has in fact also be generalized to represent ALL "personal computers" whether they be running Windows, the Mac OS, Linux, or some other OS. There are certainly many "purists" who still think of PCs as a Windows computer and Macs a computers running the Mac OS.

[42n81]

linuxrants7xpg, on 13 March 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

rrsis, on 13 March 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

so almost every person who has an apple computer say that they don't own a PC, they own an MAC. PC stands for personal computer so a computer that runs on windows is a pc but an apple computer is still A PC.you don't hear people with a linux PC or windows pc going around saying: I own a linux or I own a windows. how come apple owners do this?

An even better question is why did you post this to the Linux forum when you could have posed the question in the Mac forums?

[snip]

Maybe the op was under the impression that the "open" and "community" nature of linux meant he was less likely to receive a snide reply?

I guess he'll know better next time.

[linuxrants7xpg]

smax013, on 13 March 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

That is a fair assessment/review of the history.

I will add, however, that the term "PC" has in fact also be generalized to represent ALL "personal computers" whether they be running Windows, the Mac OS, Linux, or some other OS. There are certainly many "purists" who still think of PCs as a Windows computer and Macs a computers running the Mac OS.

I don't think the term has been generalized. I think that because IBM called it the "Personal Computer", there are some that think that any "personal computer" qualifies. PC has always referred to a specific type of computer. You'll find very few Mac users that will call their computers a PC except in very specific situations. Even they are well aware of the distinction. As far as Linux is concerned, Linux doesn't make a computer a PC or make a computer not a PC, just as moving from DOS to Windows didn't change whether a computer was a PC. Linux can be installed on a $200 PC or a multi-million dollar super computer. The operating system is not deterministic. I can install OSX on a PC, but it's still OSX on a PC. I can install Windows 7 on a Mac, but it's still Windows 7 on a Mac.

[42n81]

linuxrants7xpg, on 13 March 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

smax013, on 13 March 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

That is a fair assessment/review of the history.

I will add, however, that the term "PC" has in fact also be generalized to represent ALL "personal computers" whether they be running Windows, the Mac OS, Linux, or some other OS. There are certainly many "purists" who still think of PCs as a Windows computer and Macs a computers running the Mac OS.

I don't think the term has been generalized. I think that because IBM called it the "Personal Computer", there are some that think that any "personal computer" qualifies. PC has always referred to a specific type of computer. You'll find very few Mac users that will call their computers a PC except in very specific situations. Even they are well aware of the distinction. As far as Linux is concerned, Linux doesn't make a computer a PC or make a computer not a PC, just as moving from DOS to Windows didn't change whether a computer was a PC. Linux can be installed on a $200 PC or a multi-million dollar super computer. The operating system is not deterministic. I can install OSX on a PC, but it's still OSX on a PC. I can install Windows 7 on a Mac, but it's still Windows 7 on a Mac.

What purpose does your exclusionist definition of the PC serve, other than for posturing and the perpetuation of an adversarial sentiment between computer users?

[42n81]

42n81, on 14 March 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 13 March 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

smax013, on 13 March 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

That is a fair assessment/review of the history.

I will add, however, that the term "PC" has in fact also be generalized to represent ALL "personal computers" whether they be running Windows, the Mac OS, Linux, or some other OS. There are certainly many "purists" who still think of PCs as a Windows computer and Macs a computers running the Mac OS.

I don't think the term has been generalized. I think that because IBM called it the "Personal Computer", there are some that think that any "personal computer" qualifies. PC has always referred to a specific type of computer. You'll find very few Mac users that will call their computers a PC except in very specific situations. Even they are well aware of the distinction. As far as Linux is concerned, Linux doesn't make a computer a PC or make a computer not a PC, just as moving from DOS to Windows didn't change whether a computer was a PC. Linux can be installed on a $200 PC or a multi-million dollar super computer. The operating system is not deterministic. I can install OSX on a PC, but it's still OSX on a PC. I can install Windows 7 on a Mac, but it's still Windows 7 on a Mac.

What purpose does your exclusionist definition of the PC serve, other than for posturing and the perpetuation of an adversarial sentiment between computer users?

Come to think of it, the narrow definition of the PC does serve to neatly encapsulate a class of computers destined for extinction, thus making them easier to reference in future history books.

[smax013]

42n81, on 13 March 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Maybe the op was under the impression that the "open" and "community" nature of linux meant he was less likely to receive a snide reply?

I guess he'll know better next time.

I did not particularly view that as a snide reply...to me, it is fair question...who better to potential explain why they call their computer a Mac then someone who likely posts in the Mac forum

Now, I will agree that it could be argued that the question might have been "more delicately phrased", but it was particularly snide.

[smax013]

linuxrants7xpg, on 13 March 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

I don't think the term has been generalized. I think that because IBM called it the "Personal Computer", there are some that think that any "personal computer" qualifies. PC has always referred to a specific type of computer. You'll find very few Mac users that will call their computers a PC except in very specific situations. Even they are well aware of the distinction. As far as Linux is concerned, Linux doesn't make a computer a PC or make a computer not a PC, just as moving from DOS to Windows didn't change whether a computer was a PC. Linux can be installed on a $200 PC or a multi-million dollar super computer. The operating system is not deterministic. I can install OSX on a PC, but it's still OSX on a PC. I can install Windows 7 on a Mac, but it's still Windows 7 on a Mac.

While I will agree that for "common usage" that it is easier to refer to a personal computer running the Mac OS as a "Mac" and a personal computer running Windows as a "PC" as many people will understand that, it is not that black and white. For people who think like that, a PC means a computer running Windows and a Mac is a computer running the Mac OS. The problem is that it leaves out Linux. But, that is how a LOT of people think about it. You say "PC" and they think about a computer running Windows.

And that is why I (and many others) don't think in those terms. A PC is just a personal computer...does not matter what OS it is running. A "Mac" is a personal computer running the Mac OS. A "Windows PC" is a personal computer running Windows. And a Linux PC is a personal computer running Linux. The days of "Mac hardware" being uniquely different than "PC hardware" went out the door with Apple switching from PowerPC chips to Intel chips. A "Mac" from Apple is nominally just as much a "PC clone" as many non-Apple personal computers.

And there are plenty of others that think along this line. The magazine whose site we are currently posting on considers Macs as personal computers. When people tend to complain about "Mac coverage" in articles, the response is basically "this is PCWorld and Macs are personal computers". You can also go look up "personal computer" on Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, etc. Yes, the IBM PC was the impetus to the term "PC" or "personal computer" becoming more commonly used and before that personal computers were more commonly referred to as "microcomputers", but the reality is that personal computers existing before the IBM PC.

For me, while I might call a personal computer running the Mac OS a "Mac" when talking with others as that is easier than saying "personal computer running the Mac OS", I am still thinking in my head that a Mac is a "personal computer running the Mac OS". And for me, a "Windows PC" is a personal computer running Windows and a "Linux PC" is a personal computer running Linux. And when I say "PC", to me, that is a personal computer that could running a number of different OSs including the Mac OS.

I will also note that while Apple itself tends to predominately use "Mac" when referring to their computers, they do think of a "Mac" as a personal computer...just go watch either Steve Jobs or Tim Cook talks about the "post PC era"...they are talking about how they believe personal computers (including Apple's personal computers...aka "Macs") will be thought of on the same level as a tablet or smartphone, not necessarily as "above" a tablet or smartphone. They are talking about the time "after PC clones, but still with Macs".

This post has been edited by smax013: 14 March 2012 - 01:55 PM

[42n81]

smax013, on 14 March 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

42n81, on 13 March 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Maybe the op was under the impression that the "open" and "community" nature of linux meant he was less likely to receive a snide reply?

I guess he'll know better next time.

I did not particularly view that as a snide reply...to me, it is fair question...who better to potential explain why they call their computer a Mac then someone who likely posts in the Mac forum

Now, I will agree that it could be argued that the question might have been "more delicately phrased", but it was particularly snide.

If a slyly disparaging statement masquerading as a question can be considered valid, then I guess it was a valid, if pointless, question.

... which is unfortunate because the rest of the answer was well crafted and quite agreeable although I don't concur with some of the opinions expressed.

[bcappel]

For what it's worth, the OP had hidden spam links in it. So the main purpose of the post was spam.

The Mac forum would have been a more appropriate place for this thread as it has nothing to do with linux.

[LiveBrianD]

bcappel, on 14 March 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

For what it's worth, the OP had hidden spam links in it. So the main purpose of the post was spam.

The Mac forum would have been a more appropriate place for this thread as it has nothing to do with linux.

Hidden spam links? What do you mean, white text on white (highlight that to see what I wrote)? For search engine indexing purposes?

[linuxrants7xpg]

smax013, on 14 March 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

While I will agree that for "common usage" that it is easier to refer to a personal computer running the Mac OS as a "Mac" and a personal computer running Windows as a "PC" as many people will understand that, it is not that black and white. For people who think like that, a PC means a computer running Windows and a Mac is a computer running the Mac OS. The problem is that it leaves out Linux. But, that is how a LOT of people think about it. You say "PC" and they think about a computer running Windows.

And that is why I (and many others) don't think in those terms. A PC is just a personal computer...does not matter what OS it is running. A "Mac" is a personal computer running the Mac OS. A "Windows PC" is a personal computer running Windows. And a Linux PC is a personal computer running Linux. The days of "Mac hardware" being uniquely different than "PC hardware" went out the door with Apple switching from PowerPC chips to Intel chips. A "Mac" from Apple is nominally just as much a "PC clone" as many non-Apple personal computers.

So, you would call a Dell computer with OSX running on it a Mac? I know I wouldn't, and I'd be surprised if many would. I would agree with your claims regarding a "Windows PC", and a "Linux PC", but as soon as that Apple logo comes into play, the game changes. A Mac is not a PC, and I can install OSX 50 times on a Dell or HP, and it will never be a Mac.

smax013, on 14 March 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

I will also note that while Apple itself tends to predominately use "Mac" when referring to their computers, they do think of a "Mac" as a personal computer...just go watch either Steve Jobs or Tim Cook talks about the "post PC era"...they are talking about how they believe personal computers (including Apple's personal computers...aka "Macs") will be thought of on the same level as a tablet or smartphone, not necessarily as "above" a tablet or smartphone. They are talking about the time "after PC clones, but still with Macs".

Well, I personally believe that Steve Jobs and Tim Cook refer to it as the "post PC era" simply because it's dominated by PCs (which they are attempting to replace with any of their products they can), and not by Macs. By the loose definition of the term "PC" that you're espousing, a tablet or a smart phone could also be considered PCs (which they are not), making the term "post PC" a fallacy. If an iPad is considered a PC, then the era is not "post PC". If it's not a PC, then not all lower-case "personal computers" are PCs. Speaking for myself, I don't believe that a tablet is a PC (iPad or Android or some other variety), and I don't believe that a Mac is a PC.

[42n81]

bcappel, on 14 March 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

For what it's worth, the OP had hidden spam links in it. So the main purpose of the post was spam.

The Mac forum would have been a more appropriate place for this thread as it has nothing to do with linux.

You're absolutely right about the question being more appropriate for the Mac forum.

Like I mentioned in my original post, maybe the op believed he would be more likely to find friendly people in the "open" and "community" oriented linux forum than in the Mac forum. After all, rumor has it that Apple lovers are elitist snobs interested in technology only insofar as it helps them make fashion and lifestyle statements.

[42n81]

linuxrants7xpg, on 14 March 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

smax013, on 14 March 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

While I will agree that for "common usage" that it is easier to refer to a personal computer running the Mac OS as a "Mac" and a personal computer running Windows as a "PC" as many people will understand that, it is not that black and white. For people who think like that, a PC means a computer running Windows and a Mac is a computer running the Mac OS. The problem is that it leaves out Linux. But, that is how a LOT of people think about it. You say "PC" and they think about a computer running Windows.

And that is why I (and many others) don't think in those terms. A PC is just a personal computer...does not matter what OS it is running. A "Mac" is a personal computer running the Mac OS. A "Windows PC" is a personal computer running Windows. And a Linux PC is a personal computer running Linux. The days of "Mac hardware" being uniquely different than "PC hardware" went out the door with Apple switching from PowerPC chips to Intel chips. A "Mac" from Apple is nominally just as much a "PC clone" as many non-Apple personal computers.

So, you would call a Dell computer with OSX running on it a Mac? I know I wouldn't, and I'd be surprised if many would. I would agree with your claims regarding a "Windows PC", and a "Linux PC", but as soon as that Apple logo comes into play, the game changes. A Mac is not a PC, and I can install OSX 50 times on a Dell or HP, and it will never be a Mac.

smax013, on 14 March 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

I will also note that while Apple itself tends to predominately use "Mac" when referring to their computers, they do think of a "Mac" as a personal computer...just go watch either Steve Jobs or Tim Cook talks about the "post PC era"...they are talking about how they believe personal computers (including Apple's personal computers...aka "Macs") will be thought of on the same level as a tablet or smartphone, not necessarily as "above" a tablet or smartphone. They are talking about the time "after PC clones, but still with Macs".

Well, I personally believe that Steve Jobs and Tim Cook refer to it as the "post PC era" simply because it's dominated by PCs (which they are attempting to replace with any of their products they can), and not by Macs. By the loose definition of the term "PC" that you're espousing, a tablet or a smart phone could also be considered PCs (which they are not), making the term "post PC" a fallacy. If an iPad is considered a PC, then the era is not "post PC". If it's not a PC, then not all lower-case "personal computers" are PCs. Speaking for myself, I don't believe that a tablet is a PC (iPad or Android or some other variety), and I don't believe that a Mac is a PC.

A Mac is a PC, yet not every PC can be a Mac.

A Ferrari is a car, yet not every car can be a Ferrari.

[bcappel]

LiveBrianD, on 14 March 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

bcappel, on 14 March 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

For what it's worth, the OP had hidden spam links in it. So the main purpose of the post was spam.

The Mac forum would have been a more appropriate place for this thread as it has nothing to do with linux.

Hidden spam links? What do you mean, white text on white (highlight that to see what I wrote)? For search engine indexing purposes?

Close to that, yes. Actually they put images in the post that point to the domain they are spamming, but the images are either just 1 pixel, or missing altogether, so they don't show up in the post. But the search engines still see the image url. Apparently that must give them a boost in search engine rankings.

Bill

[bcappel]

42n81, on 14 March 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

bcappel, on 14 March 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

For what it's worth, the OP had hidden spam links in it. So the main purpose of the post was spam.

The Mac forum would have been a more appropriate place for this thread as it has nothing to do with linux.

You're absolutely right about the question being more appropriate for the Mac forum.

Like I mentioned in my original post, maybe the op believed he would be more likely to find friendly people in the "open" and "community" oriented linux forum than in the Mac forum. After all, rumor has it that Apple lovers are elitist snobs interested in technology only insofar as it helps them make fashion and lifestyle statements.

Lets keep this on topic please. Bickering about the tone of a post is disruptive and does not accomplish anything.

Thank you,
Bill

[LiveBrianD]

bcappel, on 15 March 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 14 March 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

bcappel, on 14 March 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

For what it's worth, the OP had hidden spam links in it. So the main purpose of the post was spam.

The Mac forum would have been a more appropriate place for this thread as it has nothing to do with linux.

Hidden spam links? What do you mean, white text on white (highlight that to see what I wrote)? For search engine indexing purposes?

Close to that, yes. Actually they put images in the post that point to the domain they are spamming, but the images are either just 1 pixel, or missing altogether, so they don't show up in the post. But the search engines still see the image url. Apparently that must give them a boost in search engine rankings.

Bill

I do recall seeing an embedded image in that, but it redirected to another site when I went to it. How are you supposed to catch these? I've seen quite a few posts now where you later edited it, but I didn't see anything when I viewed the post earlier.

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 15 March 2012 - 02:40 PM