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.

Forced transitions can work

Technology changes over time. Manufacturers introduce new versions of products, and sometimes introduce radically new products. When a manufacturer introduces a radically new product and discontinues the old product, its customers must make a decision: do the move to the new product or do they stay with the old? This is a forced transition, as it is often impractical to stay with the old product. (New copies or licenses are not available, replacement parts are not available, and support is not available.)

Forced transitions can sometimes succeed:

• IBM transitioned customers from their early 704 and 1401 processors to the System/360 processors, and later the System/370 processors.
• DEC transitioned customers from the PDP-11 line to the VAX processor line.
• Microsoft transitioned customers from DOS to Windows, then to Windows NT, and then to .NET.
• Apple transitioned customers from the Macintosh computers with Motorola processors to PowerPC processors, then to Intel processors.
• Apple transitioned the Mac operating system from the original version to OSX.

Forced transitions do not always succeed:

• IBM failed to convince customers to move from the IBM PC to the IBM PS/2.
• DEC failed to convince customers to move from the VAX to the Alpha processor.

Now, Microsoft is looking to transition its desktop to the new model used by tablets and smartphones. (I call it "tap and swipe", since many of the actions are initiated by taps or swipes of the touchscreen.) Microsoft's vision is present in the Windows 8 "Metro" interface. The computing experience is quite different from classic Windows.

Will they succeed?

Microsoft has a lot going for it. They are big and have a commanding presence in the software market. Switching from Windows-based products to alternatives on other platforms is expensive, involving the acquisition of the software, conversion of data, and training of users. Specialized software may be unavailable on platforms other than Windows.

Microsoft also has a lot against its success at the transition. Users are familiar with the current Windows interface and the current tools. The Metro UI brings a very different experience to the desktop and to computing (well, it moves Windows into the realm of iPhones and Android tablets). There will be a lot of resistance to change.

I think Microsoft will succeed, because users have no where else to go. When IBM introduced the PS/2, users had the options of buying IBM PC clones -- and they exercised those options. When DEC introduced the Alpha processor, users had the options of moving to workstations from other vendors -- and they did.

The transition to Windows 8 and Metro forces people to adopt the new interface, but they have no option to replace Windows 7. Changing to Mac OSX will lead to a similar GUI change (I expect future versions of OSX to look more and more like iOS). Changing to Linux creates significant challenges for education and software replacements.

I *do* expect that some shops will move away from Windows. If they have no software that is specific to Windows, if their software is readily available on other platforms, they could move to those other platforms. Some will move to Linux and the LibreOffice suite of tools. Others will move to web-based and cloud-based services like Google Docs and Zoho documents. But I expect these to be a small number of customers. The majority of customers will shift, perhaps unwillingly, to Windows 8.

Keyboards and buggy whips

Various folks have railed against Apple for the UI of some recent programs on Mac OSX. These changes violate conventions of MacOSX and bring the programs in line with iPhone/iPod/iPad UI. While the changes are irritating, I think that they make sense for Apple.

Think about it: The iMac is nothing more than a large, thick, non-portable, touchscreen-less iPad -- equipped with a keypad and DVD drive. Why should it be denied the ease of the iOS interface?

I think that Apple's vision is to bring the goodness of the iPad to larger computers. In this vision, the iMac mutates into an iOS device, better suited to the needs consumers than the old Mac OSX version. The new iMac will sport the large screen for watching movies and playing games. It won't be portable, but then doesn't need to be. (For portable computing, Apple has the iPad and iPod.)

Just about everyone wins in this arrangement. Consumers get computers that are easy to use -- even easier than OSX iMac computers and certainly easier than Windows or Linux PCs. Apple gets revenue. The only ones left out are creators (that is, programmers, authors, and composers of creative works).

The consumer world of iOS, with its mouseless, keyboardless interaction, works for the consumption of computing services. And it works very well.

But the interaction for creatives, those people building the content and programs that make the magic, more is needed than screen swipes and taps. The virtual keyboard is not suitable to high-volume input. Creatives will insist on old-style keyboards -- for a while.

The short term will see a cry for the "classic" interface to computers of keyboards and mice. The long term has a different picture. I see a new form of programming and high-volume data entry, a form that uses no keyboard. It might be voice recognition, it might be iOS swipes and taps, or it might be something else. I expect Apple to introduce this new technology and techniques. (And it may take them a few tries.)

Once the technology is established and proven to be effective, I expect Microsoft to jump on board and implement similar tech for Windows, and then the open source folks to implement equivalent tech for Linux. Both implementations will make modest improvements.

And when the dust settles, keyboards and mice will become things of the past, suitable only for museums and the dark corners of a hobbyist's attic.