5 ms·
The criteria used here seem arbitrary and and silly. This whole page feels like an exercise in pedantry to me. Most of the time it's not even mentioned what dis
by yzzxy 12y ago
The criteria used here seem arbitrary and and silly. This whole page feels like an exercise in pedantry to me. Most of the time it's not even mentioned what disqualified a given computer.
Does anyone know why the specific decisions and guidelines used here may have been made? Is there some reasonable semantic reason why "SIMON" counts as a PC when it can only know 4 numbers[0]?
[0] http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/berkeley/simonfaq.html http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/berkeley/simonfaq.ht...
- lotharbot 12y agoIn a way it's like asking "when did you first grow a beard?" The answer is going to depend on the definition -- surely my current beard counts, but did the stubble I had when I was a teenager count? What about going for 3 days without shaving in my mid-20s?
- jff 12y ago> Does anyone know why the specific decisions and guidelines used here may have been made? Presumably the guidelines were designed in such a way as to disqualify all previous definitions of "the first personal computer", allowing the author to select one even older and more obscure.
- dragontamer 12y agoWhile this is true, the point of the article isn't to choose a valid first computer. It is a funny way to step through computing history with more and more obscure devices.
- zik 12y agoThe more sensible criterion would be "What computer was first referred to as a PC?". That's answered here: http://www.technobuffalo.com/2010/03/17/who-coined-the-term-personal-computer/ http://www.technobuffalo.com/2010/03/17/who-coined-the-term-...