[idspispopd]

"PC" has been appropriated numerous times by vendors to mean a specific platform. In the times were personal computers were less-standardised "IBM PC" and later "PC Clones" referred to the platform and not "personal computer" specifically. This naturally led to Macintosh computer being referred to as Macs, even though they too are "personal computers".

The problem is that many people today don't understand the history of personal computing and that "PC" has an established history of meaning a specific mainstream platform. I think some mistakenly poke fun at Apple, as if they had invented the label 'PC' for their ad campaign. When actually Apple merely took advantage of this convenient, existing differentiator for their PC vs Mac ads.

Apple have been working references to other platforms out of their marketing materials for years. Comparisons are no longer needed when a company has found their publicly-held niche.

[molmalo]

just asking seriously.. aren't Macs x86 now? Doesn't that distinction comes from the time when Macs used a totally different architecture (risc) based on something called Ironically "PowerPC"? I still can't see the difference now. Why then don't call Linux-PC or BSD-PC to others if based on the platform? I may be wrong, but the way I see it its just something anachronistic with an historical basis, but now just used for marketing purposes.

[idspispopd]

The early intel macs were "x86". The current line up is x86_64. Depending on who you ask in the industry this is called AMD64, Intel64, EM64T, IA-32e. This is the 64 bit platform as developed by AMD, it's not to be confused with Intels IA-64 as sold in "Itanium" chips.

[yuhong]

And licensing purposes too. Back in the old days Apple used the Mac ROMs to prevent cloning.