Tech related things that irk you

AMD poor fags.

>old boss
Was he in the military? Because I-Corps is a military command unit, so maybe it was habit for him to say it. Just wondering.

most things that could be said under the context of being a pc are capable of supporting the software titled windows

I thought this was the Maki thread. Why isn't anyone posting Maki?

Attached: 3cfdfac3178fc3a26a3a4e0f6a451b3f.jpg (744x1052, 171K)

i dont think he was

Please stop posting my wife

That is what PC means. It refers to IBM compatibles, which ran PC-DOS, a rebranded version of MS-DOS. The PC was originally a brand name for one of IBM's computer lines, however the name PC became synonymous with the compatible clones of the PC that became extremely popular at the time. PC came to refer to any x86 (the original IBM PC used the Intel 8088 CPU, which is a variant of the 8086) computer running PC-DOS or MS-DOS and, later, Microsoft Windows. So, yes, the term PC is contingent on the operating system and the architecture. One could correctly say that any non-x86 computer running Windows is not a PC while any x86 computer running an OS other than Windows is not a PC.

If you're going to take a purely technical approach to classifying hardware, there's no sense in being so wishy-washy with software. Windows has nothing in common with DOS from a technical standpoint, while x86 actually had a lot in common with other CISC architectures at the time of its creation, only varying in target audience.

>If you're going to take a purely technical approach
I think you mis-read. This is not purely technical. Unless you define technical differently than I do. Because this is not exact, it is an approximation based on hardware and software lineage. Definitions are never exact, that goes against the principal of defining a word, as it can only be defined by use, which varies greatly between groups and individuals. A definition seeks to satisfy as many people as possible by being broad.
>>wishy-washy
Define this and give an example in what I have written.
>Windows has nothing in common with DOS
It can be held to the same standard. Originally you could not install Windows without DOS. So either the term PC dies with DOS or continues with Microsoft's newer OS. I take the latter, as that was exactly what happened, PC has continued to exist by referring to x86 computers running Windows.
>while x86 actually had a lot in common with other CISC architectures at the time of its creation
I don't see how that is relevant.

>people/companies who call software developers "IT"

maybe partially true, but the perception of IT is technical support

>that goes against the principal of defining a word, as it can only be defined by use
Well, strictly speaking, that's a debate in linguistics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription

No, you're referring to the way a language is spoken, not the way a word is defined. This isn't the same thing.

That IT (no matter if tech support, sys admins or developers) is seen by business as a "necessary evil" even though their entire fucking company literally not only depends on a functioning IT department but wouldn't even exist without it in the first place.
>Why do we even pay these guys when everything around here works?
>Proceed to outsource IT to a country that will be a superpower by 2007+13
>Poo in loo fucks everything up
>Entire company goes under
>Continue to blame IT

Attached: 1520610533380.jpg (610x660, 76K)

>These rules may address such linguistic aspects as spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, syntax, and semantics
>semantics
>the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
>meaning
>what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.

That might be what Wikipedia says, but it isn't true. My statement,
>Definitions are never exact, that goes against the principal of defining a word, as it can only be defined by use, which varies greatly between groups and individuals. A definition seeks to satisfy as many people as possible by being broad.
Is universally accepted.

That's literally what linguistics is, you retard, and some prescriptivist linguistics would disagree with you

>That's literally what linguistics is, you retard,
Is what? I never made a statement of what linguistics is. I don't think you're reading my posts, but rather you are reciting a pre-written argument. Please feel free to go back to whichever wretched hole you were birthed from if you want to behave in such a manner. This is not the place for your tomfoolery.
>and some prescriptivist linguistics would disagree with you
Some can always disagree, that is my point. Hence why we define as broadly as possible, to satisfy as many mouths as possible, so to speak. Fringes will always clash with the mainstream, as it is their nature, but they can be rightly ignored as outliers.

It does irritate me when people think software engineers are IT

Incorrect

IT
Information Technology

it irritates me more when code monkeys append "engineer" to their job title in order to sound more important