Change PC to Win or Windows

[Lie]

On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 16:45 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:32:00PM -0700, Lie wrote:
> > > The term "PC" is commonly used in English, in the United States
> > > and other English speaking countries, to mean a computer running
> > > Microsoft Windows.
> >
> > As far as I am aware, they're like that because most people aren't
> > even aware that there are other OSes than Microsoft Windows.
>
> You are missing two points.
>
> The first one:  It doesn't matter what the reasons are for the
> terminology to be common.  It only matters that it IS common.  It is;
> and it is therefore "correct" in the sense that it conveys a meaning
> to the overwhelming majority of English speakers, which is the
> intended one.
>
True, it doesn't actually matters, but it is a proof that it is
technically incorrect to apply PC JUST to Windows-based PC. It is
arguable whether the term should only be exclusively to IBM-PC or
whether the term should be expanded to include its clones. But I'm
against on using it just to refer Windows-based PC exclusively, since
it is neither Microsoft's marketing term nor a literal meaning
conveyed in the term.

> As for the question of whether or not it is appropriate to refer to
> Windows installations as "PC", it's as simple as that.  It is, by
> definition (via common usage).  That is what this thread is about.
>
Common usage isn't always correct. For example, a physicist would not
use weight when he meant mass. Although in daily use he might not care
much, but in technical environment doing so would embarrass him. In
this analogy, I consider download page for a software source code to
be a technical area.

> The reason why the world hasn't evolved to the two predictable cases
> > ("all kinds of microcomputers" or "IBM-PC and clones"), is what I'll
> > explain below.
>
> Your explanation is irrelevant to the argument of whether or not the
> term PC is an inappropriate term to describe a Windows installation,
> which is what this thread is about.  That is the premise put forth by
> the OP, and that is the notion to which I am responding.  It simply is
> not wrong or inappropriate in any sense; it is in fact correct,
> regardless of how the meaning or usage resulted, and regardless of any
> ADDITIONAL meanings the term may have.
>
> For what it's worth, your explanation is also WRONG; the term PC
> began to be popularly used in the United States to describe
> Intel-based Microsoft machines when there was a proliferation of other
> kinds of personal computers available to consumers.  When it was first
> used this way, the IBM PC was *NOT* the most popular personal computer...
> the Commodore 64 was.
>
True, but PC is IBM's marketing term, thus it originally belongs to
them. Nevertheless, it is NOT Window's marketing term and the literal
meaning of Personal Computer is in no way means Windows-based
computers ONLY.

> It dates from a time when the Commodore VIC-20
> and C64, Atari 400 and 800, Timex Sinclair, and other computers were
> all very popluar home machines.

But they aren't called PC, why? Because IBM hasn't invented the term.
Nowadays, they might be called as PC or not depending on which side
are you in: "PC as IBM-PC" or "PC as personal computer" (note the
lower case)

> The term probably originated primarily because IBM chose to name their
> computer the IBM PC, and because of Americans' predeliction to
> abbreviate everything that's more than 2 syllables. ;-)
>
> > > It wasn't something that Apple started; it's been used this way
> > > in increasingly common usage for at least 20 years, although
> > > exactly what combination of hardware and software was being
> > > refered to as a "PC" has evolved over that timeframe.
> >
> > Apple popularizes the term by explicit marketing,
>
> And here is the last point you are missing: Apple does no such
> thing.

They did, by using the term PC to refer to other computers. IF they
have used the term "Regular PC", noone would have complained, it's
just like an apple farmer advertising his "Super Apples" and calls
other apples "Regular Apples", there would be nothing wrong about it.
But there is this specific apple farmer who advertised his apple as
"Orange" and calls other apples as "Apples", which makes a problem
since "Orange" is just a different variants of apple, and is still an
apple. This kind of advertising Apple (the computer company) used is
misleading, since it implied that their PC is not a PC.

> They are only using a term in a way that has previously been
> popularized by the computer industry as a whole, and its market (i.e.
> consumers, predominantly American consumers historically) for
> *DECADES*.

> If I'm not mistaken, their ad campaign mentioning PCs is
> less than 10 years old (though I can't quickly find any references as
> to the date). The popularization of the term PC to refer to
> Intel-compatible machines running Microsoft OSes PREDATES APPLE'S AD
> CAMPAIGN BY OVER 10 YEARS.

When did I say that Apple was the first one to start the term's
misuse? Apple's is only making the term's misuse more widespread,
nevertheless they might be the largest computer company that tried to
_actively_ spread its misuse by persistently using the term in their
ads in that manner. But even without Apple, yes, it is true that the
misuse would still get widespread, simply because of Microsoft's
dominance.

> Therefore none of your points are valid or relevant, as to the
> question of whether the usage of the term "PC" to describe windows
> builds of Python is appropriate.
>
Because you are missing all the points.

> Can we return to the subject of Python now?

yes, in short, don't use PCBuild to refer Windows-only build. PCBuild
should contain a universal build that is compatible with all platforms
a PC is usually based on (i.e. it shouldn't exist except if such thing
is possible).