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.

Comments

  1. That's how I remember you - with a tie! Sadly another custom that's died out...like 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?

    ReplyDelete
  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.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 2010 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 exp

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 backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense