No need to go through all the complication with Wine adn such. Just Bootcamp.

DOS is a PC.
BSD is a PC.
Linux is a PC.

Windows is not a PC.
Mac is not either.

Easy test: Does the system allow to access and change the deepest guts while running? If not, then there is nothing "personal" in that "computer", and its an (externally) "managed computer" - MC.

I once tried changing the PSU while the system was running. Lovely ozone and smoke smell. Guess that system was a managed computer, not a personal one ;)

Yes, it allowed you to do this. Hardware test pass.

PC could mean:
1. personal computer
2. IBM PC clones and its upgrades

Mac/Macintosh is personal computer, so it is always PC(1).

Mac switched its CPU from PowerPC to x86 around 2005/2006,
after that all new Mac machines are just x86-based, native MS-Windows runnable computer.

So yes, all Mac machines now are also PC(2). Besides Windows, it could run many native x86 OS without problem.

In those old days, when Mac used 680x0 or PowerPC CPU, Mac and PC(2) are quite different.
New Mac now are just PC(2) with pre-installed Mac OS.

Mac OS also could run on many non-Mac PCs.

I hate it when computers get personal, throwing expletives at me etc. It should be the other way around, me yelling at them.

Those are all black boxes.

Personal means personal, yours only. When undocumented API appeared in closed source, its already not personal (since Win3.0). Mac have been black boxes since initial release. 68k is not much different from x86, ok assembly is reversed, but its not big deal, its not VLIW.

Not quite. In the broad sense the term "personal" refers to "for use by a single user (at a time)" in contrast with large mainframes serving whole institutions and thousands of users at once via terminal access. PC can be installed at user workplace (and administered by the same user).

In the narrow sense PC refers to "IBM PC" computer line (simple "PC", "PC XT", "PC AT") which is already long gone since. And, of course, one must use "true PC OS", namely IBM's "PC DOS" (which is for the most part just a rebranded MS DOS, but IBM released "PC DOS 2000" after MS dropped its DOS).

No mention of Windows! Windows has nothing to do with PC in either sense.

Yeah, but:
1. "personal" as "for use by a single user" would also include kitchen food processors, oven, television, consoles and smartphones, which are not PC. The thin-client/server vs thick(fat) client covers the rest, so its directly not related to "PC". But thin-client can never be a "personal computer" and is always a "managed computer" (like Sun or IBM infrastructures for example), yet having root and physical access to server would not attach "personal computer" sticker, because they mostly run closed Solaris or AIX).

2. "PC" is personal computer is sense that it belongs and does what user wants it to, but "IBM PC" is only a marketing brand. With CP/M or *DOS it was still personal as even ROM BIOS were not signed and flash-restricted.

*Looks under the table..

Yep, it's black. How did you know? o_O?

Mac ≠ PC, because Apple
Mac ≠ PC, because proprietary
Mac ≠ PC, because too many hoops needed to attempt to run PC software on Mac

and for a more subjective reason

Mac ≠ PC, because PC = Master Race and Mac = pie filling. :)

Don't forget about the second part of the term! We are talking about "computers" i.e. devices that enable humans to compute faster. Be it mathematical calculations, computer-aided design (CAD) or computational fluid dynamics (CFD), only computers are suited for the task. Computers are made to create, everything else with a chip -- to consume. Thus video game consoles and smartphones are not PCs and neither are coffee machines. Even industrial assembly robots and numerical controlled lathes are having "controllers", not computers.

I never said industrial mainframes are "personal". But they are computers in their own right.

"Open/Closed" has nothing to do with the matter.

My work machine does not belong to me. It is a property of my employer. Yet, it is a PC with Linux (and only Linux) on board. And on my previous workplace we had one PC (normal Windows machine) for like 5 workers (and no own laptops/notebooks allowed) so we had to share our times. But those were also "personal", because only one person could work at a time! :-)

Back at the time there were a lot of personal computers. Too many to count. "IBM PC" is a brand, yes. It is the IBMs attempt to enter personal computer market at the time. Before that IBM only produced mainframes so it is only natural that a computer produced by IBM and aimed at a single user at work would be called "IBM personal computer". ^_^

And "IBM PC/AT" was the last in the line of the IBM brand. Everything after that in legal sense can not be called "IBM PC". Thus the Intel 80286 processor with "PC DOS 3.0" or "OS/2" is the end point of "PC in a narrow sense". It is long gone past now.

PC with modern OSs could let multiple people work at the same time.
They are still PC.
(Major OSs in the market all support the function, including MS-Windows.)

IBM have a lot of products with the name "IBM Personal Computer", and lasts to year 2000.
You can buy an official/canonical IBM PC up to Pentium III 866 MHz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_Series

How so? Did you ever try to make a two-user station out of them? You'll need another monitor at least + another mouse and keyboard. And I don't know what needs to be done in order to emulate terminals or separate sessions on Windows. Even on Linux it will require a lot of "xorg.conf" mumbo-jumbo to assign different input devices to different users.

So... No! PCs are not for multi-user experience. And if you are referring to network remote connection... Nope, that still will require another PC (from which the connection will be executed) and this will be a poor man's mainframe-wannabe at best.

Wow! "IBM PC 300GL"... Never heard of it! Maybe that's because most of the models were released only in small quantities and sold in "selected stores" in obscure countries, like Canada.

Thanks for the info. My vision of the "late IBM" attempts to regain some fame on the PC market after OS/2 fiasco is somewhat blurry. From my POV these "IBM PCs" are an attempt to use the brand to increase the value of the products. Even the Wikipedia acknowledges these PCs should not "be confused with the x86-based IBM Personal Computer, and its derivatives, and its clones." They are not direct relatives, but the point is valid: they are PCs produced by IBM under the "IBM PC" brand.