>>1671566
>Would you be fine with the distinction between a handheld and a portable game console?
There was never a need for that until now because handheld consoles were both portable and handheld except in rare cases, and the rare cases were usually colossal failures that were forgotten about. (e.g. the Lynx or the Game Gear)
>Were Tower PCs viewed as an analog to home consoles? Will your answer be: "No, because a home console was generally hooked to a TV, while the Tower PC was generally hooked to a monitor."?
PCs are not consoles. It's literally in the name, dumbfuck.
They are personal computers as opposed to video game consoles.
Anyone with a brain knows that a laptop is just a portable computer with a slightly different default control scheme and downgraded hardware
PCs were always meant to be general use, with video cards allowing them to handle a variety of additional activities that required the additional rendering power, including gaming. A console's OS, default control scheme, and hardware was generally custom-built for gaming alone, and maybe at most a few minor media features as time went on.
That's why gaming PCs often required higher specs on-paper than a console to achieve the same results for a long time to compensate for the overhead that necessarily comes with being a general use machine. Nowadays, yes, there's less distinction between them because of how much more similar they are these days compared to the old days, and there was a weird period of time where they were vaguely akin to vidya consoles like the Commodore 64, but generally speaking this was the case throughout history.
Either way, this is clearly irrelevant to the point. If you can't tell the difference between a console and a PC just by looking at them and their operation then you're beyond hopeless.