Is this guy a 'tard? iPads & tablets are not PCs, end of.

Are they computers? yes. Are they personal - well, definitely yes as they have no facility for multiple users to log in. So they are PCs. Just because they're not grey desktop boxes and/or don't conform to your prejudices doesn't make him a 'tard.

Jon

I think that the definition is very broad but could change when the other brands bring out their iPad killers.

On what basis?

In the 1970s and 80s, PC just meant Personal Computer as opposed to a mainframe or mini computer which serviced many users via terminals. I used to subscribe to the popular magazine "PC World" which had articles on micro computers from every stable. On that basis, even my 'phone is a PC. After all, it's a million times more "computer" than my BBC Model B and it's definitely "personal".

Later, the term PC became synonymous with IBM PC Compatible:


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer

So by that popular interpretation, I'm not sure Apple make PCs at all. As in "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC".

To put things into perspective. The iPad has more grunt that Apple’s first G4 PowerBook. It has a 1024x768 screen - a resolution which was on just about every notebook, and iMac (G3, G4). The fact that it’s based on a mobile platform does not mean that it’s somehow a different kind of device. It is a computer. Smart phones are computers, and you can put those in your pocket where they can snuggle up to your family jewels and slightly irradiate them. I don’t know what’s more personal than that.

There is a perception that a computer is a keyboard/mouse/trackpad/screen affair. This is wrong - it always has been, always will be. It has been the dominant form factor for a long time, but I’d happily argue that a Newton is a computer, as is an iPaq, Playstation, Gamecube - because that is what they are. They just look different, and marketing has decreed that they are placed in a different pigeon hole.

Is this a pc?

No, that's a weaponised rozzer.

+1 on the whole 'iPad & tablets are personal computers' bandwagon.

By that popular interpretation, Apple's newer Mac offerings are just as "PC" as Dell or anybody else.

And as for the other non-Mac offerings they're computers and they're personal...

Who is probably anything but PC

Intel does not IBM compatible make. To be IBM compatible you need to have an IBM compatible bios.

I may be mistaken in the subtleties, but I thought you needed to "hack" a Mac or use proprietary software in order to make a Mac look enough like a "PC" to install Windows. If a Mac was IBM compatible, that would not be the case. You do not need Bootcamp or freaky hacks to install Windows on a PC.

For what it's worth, I really couldn't give a flying whatsit - it's just a question of semantics. If people can't agree on what a word means, they should be banned from using the word...

You don't need it on a mac either. An intel Mac with a built in dvd drive will happily install windows 7 just by booting off the win7 install cd. Boot camp is not a "hack" by any definition, if only because it's supplied by the system maker, which is the opposite of any definition of 'hack' I've come across in 20 years of working in IT. It's simply Apple's solution for getting Mac os & Windows to dual boot comfortably. You'd also be best served installing the custom driver set that is on the Mac Os install disk but that's no different to the set of drivers most windows-based manufacturers supply with their hardware.

There is no mechanical or electronic difference between a mac and a computer designed to run windows. None. A modern version of windows will happily run on both without modification in any way.

So unless our definition of 'pc' is down to 'box that will only run windows xp' then the distinction is spurious.

I think that's my point. The distinction is entirely spurious in the modern context.

My preferred definition of PC is the original one used "when I were a lad", that a PC is a computer that is personal. Other people choose to add spurious meanings and sub-contexts, and then declare that they are "common knowledge" and "widely accepted". The entire "I'm a PC, and I'm a Mac" series of adverts demonstrates this behaviour is not restricted to geeks ranting on forums.

the way ive always understood and applied it, a "computer" is anything that can do maths. a bloke with a pad and pencil is technically a computer, albeit a very slow one. a "PC" is an electronic computer which can be reconfigured both in terms of hardware and software by the end user, such as the large metal object i have on my desk, and a "Mac" is a brand of computer, but not a PC due to hardware customisation restrictions (requirement for specialised BIOSes on video cards, for example). the same goes for video games consoles. under this naming system, mobile and embedded devices arent PCs by definition (cant be reconfigured hardware-wise by end users), even though they are both "personal" and "computers". personally, i would refer to them as "mobile devices", subdivided into "smart phones" such as the iPhone, and "tablets", such as the iPad. the "mobile devices" category doesnt include laptops though, since they tend to use "full-fat" OSes such as MacOS and Windows 7, rather than smaller, simpler OSes like iOS and Android.

thats how i see things anyway. i know there are other categories and things that fit between the categories i have listed (wouldnt be a free market if there werent, amirite?), but these are just the ones that are relevant to this discussion. it is in no way "correct", just my interpretation of how these things are categorised