The post-PC era is about coolness or lack thereof

Some have pointed to the popularity of tablets as the indicator for the imminent demise of the PC. I look at the "post PC" era not as the death of the PC, but as something worse: PCs have become boring.

Looking back, we can see that PCs started with lots of excitement and enthusiasm, yet that excitement has diminished over time.

First, consider hardware:

• Microcomputers were cool (even with just a front panel and a tape drive for storage)
• ASCII terminals were clearly better than front panels
• Storing data on floppy disks was clearly better than storing data on tape
• Hard drives were better than floppy disks
• Color monitors were better than monochrome displays
• High resolution color monitors were better than low resolution color monitors
• Flat panel monitors were better than CRT monitors

These were exciting improvements. These changes were *cool*. But the coolness factor has evaporated. Consider these new technologies:

• LED monitors are better than LCD monitors, if you're tracking power consumption
• Solid state drives are better than hard drives, if you look hard enough
• Processors after the original Pentium are nice, but not excitingly nice

Consider operating systems:

• CP/M was exciting (as anyone who ran it could tell you)
• MS-DOS was clearly better than CP/M
• Windows 3.1 on DOS was clearly better than plain MS-DOS
• Windows 95 was clearly better than Windows 3.1
• Windows NT (or 2000) was clearly better than Windows 95 (or 98, or ME)

But the coolness factor declined with Windows XP and its successors:

• Windows XP was *nice* but not *cool*
• Windows Vista was not clearly better than Windows XP -- and many have argued that it was worse
• Windows 7 was better than Windows Vista, in that it fixed problems
• Windows 8 is (for most people) not cool

The loss of coolness is not limited to Microsoft. A similar effect happened with Apple's operating systems.

• DOS (Apple's DOS for Apple ][ computers) was cool
• MacOS was clearly better than DOS
• MacOS 9 was clearly better than MacOS 8
• Mac OSX was clearly better than MacOS 9

But the Mac OSX versions have not been clearly better than their predecessors. They have some nice features, but the improvements are small, and a significant number of people might say that the latest OSX is not better than the prior version.

The problem for PCs (including Apple Macintosh PCs) is the loss of coolness. Tablets are cool; PCs are boring. The "arc of coolness" for PCs saw its greatest rise in the 1980s and 1990s, a moderate rise in the 2000s, and now sees decline.

This is the meaning of the "post PC era". It's not that we give up PCs. It's that PCs become dull and routine. PC applications become dull and routine.

It also means that there will be few new things developed for PCs. In a sense, this happened long ago, with the development of the web. Then, the Cool New Things were developed to run on servers and in browsers. Now, the Cool New Things will be developed for the mobile/cloud platform.

So don't expect PCs and existing PC applications to vanish. They will remain; it is too expensive to re-build them on the mobile/cloud platform.

But don't expect new PC applications.

Welcome to the post-PC era.

What is a PC?

It's a simple question -- "what is a PC?" -- yet the answer is complicated.

If we use Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine to travel to September 1981, the answer is simple. A "PC" (that is, a personal computer) is an IBM model 5150 with it's gray cover, detached keyboard (with 83 keys), and either an IBM Color Display (5153) or an IBM Monochrome Display (5151). It has an Intel 8088 processor, probably one or two floppy disk units, and a video adapter card.

At that time, that was a PC. Any other equipment was not. The PC name was strongly associated with IBM.

Over time, the concept of "PC" expanded. IBM introduced the IBM PC XT (model 5160), which meant that there were *two* models of IBM PC.

IBM introduced adapters for memory and ports. Other vendors did also. Compaq introduced their portable PC, fighting (and eventually winning) the battle for a compatible BIOS. Hercules made a video adapter that displayed graphics on monochrome displays (the IBM monochrome display adapter displayed only text).

In 1984 IBM introduced the IBM PC AT which used the Intel 80286 processor. Now there were three types of PCs from IBM, some with different processors, and bunches from other vendors. Some had more memory, some had different adapters. IBM introduced the Enhanced Graphics Adapter (EGA) with the IBM PC AT.

Through all of these changes, the two constants for PCs were this: they ran PC-DOS (or MS-DOS), and they ran Lotus 1-2-3. The operating system and that one application defined "PC". If the device ran PC-DOS and Lotus 1-2-3, it was a PC. If it did not, it was not. (And even this definition was not quite true, since several computers ran MS-DOS and special versions of Lotus 1-2-3, but were never considered to be "PC"s. The Zenith Z-100, for example.)

Moving forward to the early 1990s, our definition of PCs changed. It was no longer sufficient to run PC-DOS and Lotus 1-2-3. Instead, the criteria changed to Windows and Microsoft Office. Those were the defining characteristics of a PC. (Even in the late 1990s, when Compaq and Microsoft built the "Pocket PC", the device was considered a PC.)

Today, when we use the term "PC", we think of a set of devices. These include desktop computers, laptop computers, virtual computers running on servers, and now, with the Microsoft Surface, tablets. The operating system has expanded to include Linux (but not Mac OSX), and there is no definitive application. We use the phrases "Windows PC" and "Linux PC". Windows PCs must run Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office, but a Linux PC needs only a version of Linux.

We have the puzzle of an Apple MacBook running Linux -- do we call this a PC? I am tending to think not. Apple's advertising and branding has been strong.

The one characteristic is that all of these devices require the user to be an administrator. The user must install new software, ensure updates are installed, and diagnose problems. This action separates a PC from a tablet. Tablets do not require the user to "install" software -- beyond selecting the software from a menu. Tablets do not require the user to be an administrator. Updates are applied automatically, or perhaps after a prompt. Network adapters do not need to be configured.

Let's take the dividing line between PCs and tablets as administration. Some might call it "ease of use".

Yet even this definition is less than clear. Apple's OSX is better at installing applications: just drag the install package to the "Applications" folder. Linux has made improvements too, with Ubuntu's "Software Center" that lets one pick an application and install it. Microsoft's Windows RT is quite close to Apple's iOS for iPhones and iPads, which are clearly not PCs.

Despite the lack of a bright line in devices and implementations, I believe that we will look back and consider PCs to require administration, and non-PCs (tablets, smartphones, etc.) to allow use without the administrator role.

So that's my answer: If you need an administrator, it's a PC. If you don't, then it isn't.

Maybe the answer isn't so complicated.