Skip to main content

Adieu Personal Computer World

This is a farewell, not to PC World the retailer, which is just fine, but to the magazine Personal Computer World, which sadly is following PC Magazine into the ether.

It was a fine, really solid (and chunky) magazine that had an excellent balance of technical know-how and practical, application driven approach. It was the generalist of the computing magazines, the broad market number. It wasn't aimed at newbies or at heavy duty techies, but the wide sphere of readership, and it did what it did very well.

I wrote the business column for Personal Computer World for a number of years and really enjoyed doing so. Anyone in the UK of a certain age with an interest in using computers is likely to remember the magazine fondly.

You may wonder why I've used such an old fashioned cover shot. It's from the issue that would have been on the newsstands 10 years ago. And just for fun, here's my column from that issue - the photograph makes a passport photo look good, I fear. It's not my best column, but it seemed the right one to include. (Incidentally, Word still doesn't put business name into an address, something I was moaning about 10 years ago.)

Another casualty. Another milestone. I'm feeling old.


  1. That's how I remember you - with a tie! Sadly another custom that's died the magazine and a lot of other things that we view from a distance....which I suppose it what evolution is about - lots of small changes that aren't noticed at the time but over a longer period add up to something meaningful. Where will it all end?

  2. I remember me with a tie too - but I'm afraid I'm not at all sad that the practice seems to be dying out. They're not my favourite bit of attire, and there's something strange about the idea that you are more professional if you wear a strip of cloth, half-strangling you, around your neck.

    But if people want to wear ties, I certainly don't think it should be prevented. Except, possibly, bow ties. There's a limit.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope