Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:Main Page

627 bytes added, 19:09, 2 August 2014
Assumption of "Computers" category?
I'm a bit disappointed to see that nobody is getting where I'm coming from. I am aware of what most people call them, but the terminology is what I propose that we go against and come up with a new way of describing these computers without making anything contrasting/different to them as "less of a computer" in the eyes of society. When someone says their smartphone is not a computer, that's someone ignorant to what a computer is (or what defines as a computer). When we further that agenda here we are just fueling that same mindset that's wrong. This is why I said let's come up with a way of categorizing these systems in a way that doesn't reflect negatively on the view of what constitutes a computer in the other categories. Just because "everyone says 'X' things are 'Y'" doesn't mean we should stray along with common beliefs. Just consider this: Is Playstation 3 a computer? Yep. It has a microprocessor, RAM, a GPU. Does your "PC" have a microprocessor, RAM, and a GPU? Yep. Based on the latter, we can confirm that Playstation 3 is no less a computer than your desktop build ... or Gameboy Color ... or Atari even (same fundamentals, just with very limited resources). Do you consider your PS3, Vita, etc. to be "personal"? If you do, it's technically a "personal computer". This is why I'm arguing semantics here where it counts. The "PC" has no real meaning/definition ... find me one that defines what exactly makes something a "PC" and what makes it not one. People often consider "anything sitting on their desk that runs Windows" to be a PC, even though plenty of us know that OS X is compiled for the exact same architecture, has drivers for the same GPUs, and has a platform almost identical to that Windows/Linux/etc. runs on. It's just a thought, of course.
 
: I also found this: http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/what-term-personal-computer "General operation by a single user." That tells us that the way most people think of it is not historically correct. You can research what IBM considered "PC" to mean, and how that has evolved and misled millions of people now who think "PC" constitutes form factor or don't even know what the hell it means ... just that they know it means whatever the "smarter" person tells them it means. This is why I feel that terminology matters more than bullet-biting and just using the "common" (and also wrongly believed) terminology for it.
20
edits

Navigation menu