Okay. If "general purpose" to you can be defined as a "specific purpose" then so be it. Not sure any dictionary would agree, however.
Well let's see, Webster's defines "specific" as: "constituting or
falling into a specifiable category ", and you and I both have specified there is a "general [use|purpose]" category, so I would say Webster's agrees with me.
Also, my original statement was "Systems are
designed for specific purpose(
s) or role(
s)",
plural, which, given the correct roles, would allow for the design of a general purpose. If you design a system to fill the role of web surfing, watching YT, getting on social media, doing light office work, you've designed a system with multiple roles or for multiple purposes. I would typically refer to this collection of purposes/roles as a general use/purpose PC, but that system was still designed to serve those multiple purposes. I would not refer to it as general purpose if there were other intended purposes such use for gaming or workstation workloads.
They sure do. And in technical discussions, I prefer those meanings stick with how those in the profession define them. Not definitions made up and used by laypersons. Why? While some may consider it being nitpicky, ultimately, it gets everyone on the same page and thus avoids confusion.
You should take the advice in your signature and look up "computer system", and remember I stated what a
system is DESIGNED for not whether or not it's a system when a part breaks. It's definitely not a hodge-podge of parts that together nets you a non-functioning system. When a part breaks it's either a broken system (because it can't perform any role as a computer) or a system that performs fewer roles because a non-critical part failed and it can still operate to perform other roles.
What you're trying to do here by saying: "stick with how those in the profession define them" is use of another logical fallacy, this time it's an "Argument From Authority" that is of your own opinion nonetheless. Why don't you quote a technical source (hell any reliable source) that defines a "computer system" that doesn't agree with the definition I've provided?
And sorry but your Dell screen shot illustrates nothing to rationalize anything you said. "Everyday access?" Come on, OkieDan! Really? Since when does "marketing hype" set the technical standard?
"Everyday access" in no way defines a specific purpose or function. Are not enterprise systems accessed every day - or used to store digital content, or perform office tasks? Are systems used for creativity tasks not accessed every day or used to perform other mundane tasks? Or that budget systems are not used for games, graphics editing, serving files, etc.?
"Everyday access", as I was referring to it, was to say it would fit in the same category of "general use". See above regarding "purpose(s) or role(s)".
Really? So if you have a computer... err, excuse me... a computer "system", and you remove the RAM, that computer no longer functions. So, according to you, that is no longer a "computer"? Or just not a computer "system"? Either is incorrect. It is still a computer. And it is still a computer system. It is just missing its RAM.
Once again I'll refer you to your signature and Webster's to get the definition of a
computer system and
system, respectively. If you remove RAM from the computer the system is inoperable. That doesn't refute my statement: "Systems are
designed for specific purpose(s) or role(s).". Why would you design a system that has no RAM, what role is it going to perform other than a paper weight... Oh yeah I already covered that before... it's role is a movie prop, right?
Who are you to decide "Either is incorrect." in regards to what is a computer system? Cite some sources that define a computer system that refute the definitions I've used from a dictionary, not your own opinion.
Why do you get to decide for everyone else what is a computer and what is a computer system? You don't - and I don't either.
You're projecting here, it's you that's trying to force your personal definition of what words mean onto others instead by totally rejecting definitions straight from a dictionary. Go ahead and find a technical or other reputable "professional" source that refutes the definition I provided.
My computer system includes my surround sound computer speakers. Quality audio reproduction and music is a big part of my life so I consider those speakers an integral part of my computer system. So if my sound card fails and I no longer have audio, do I no longer have a computer (or computer "system")? Of course I still have a computer.
What you have now is a computer system that can serve at least one less role, a partially broken computer system if you will, but so long as it can fulfill any role of a computer it is still a computer system, just not the system it was
designed to be. Maybe you'll do without those speakers forever or maybe you'll replace them, doesn't matter, it's still a computer system.
When you quote "system", just understand that you're quoting the OP's language, not something I've added:
In a custom built system, which part do you think defines system the most?
P.S.: Please start citing sources of definitions instead of your own opinion if you wish to refute Webster's. If you can cite some then maybe you can change my mind, which hopefully is your goal of online disagreements, and not to shitpost/troll.