Is the Mac a PC 2580
Is the Mac a PC 2583
These are good points, but I'd like to show some differences: It is most definitely a Macintosh, because it embodies EVERYTHING that Macintosh has always meant -- quality hardware, quality package, uses Mac OS...
That's a strange way to look at it. Are you saying that the word 'clone' -- the word used to describe how the hardware is compatible with what other PC makers build -- is defined in your mind exclusively by the ability to find a way to load and run WindowsXP SP2?
It would seem that could define that the hardware is a WindowsXP-capable machine, but I wouldn't use the word 'clone' just because of that one fact.
I would use the word 'clone' only if the hardware essentially was identical to the basic expectations of all such hardware. If that includes using Win98SE, Win2000, DOS, and the Intel versions of Linux and Unix distros, or adding all hardware requiring BIOS, or using all peripherals capable of running under Windows, and of using all software that would be expected to run under those OSes. Clearly, the Mac offerings are not making that all possible -- and therefore are not clones.
Is the Mac a PC 2581
Here you'ver hit the nail on the head. Slade insists on calling Intel Macs "clones" as way to denigrate them. I.E. because they share processors in common with...
The word carries a lot of baggage, anyway -- and I think that is why Slade and others are so intent on labeling Macs with it. It might have been used to indicate compliance with a set of standards (from hardware of the late 80s!) but it comes from a period when 'clone' implied cheap, low-quality, or knock-off hardware.
There aren't many computer makers (selling in the US) that I would call clone makers today. I wouldn't call Dell or HP or Sony a clone maker. I know of a lot in other countries.