Sorry Will, I'm a little too long in the tooth to accept that response as anything more than an attempt to be PC (as in Politically Correct) about the issue of what is a PC and what isn't. Long before there were many "x86 compatibles" there was a strong line of distinction between a PC and anything else. To be 100% accurate, there are no PC's on the market anymore, the last one went the way of the Dodo in the 80's, the PC AT. Since then we've just been assigning numbers to the machines left and right. But the line has always been there and has been well understood. A PC is a machine based on an Intel or 100% Compatible processor (AMD didn't even qualify for this until not too long ago). A Mac is a Mac, a totally different animal. A Commodore, Atari, etc, were never PC's or considered to be such. The term we used back then was "Home Computer" never PC, we knew the difference. So to call a Mac a PC is the same as calling a box of Puffs "Kleenex" it just doesn't work and it isn't accurate. IBM is really the only one with the right to call its machine a PC and be totally correct about it. But we've come to accept that anything that works under an x86 architecture is a PC, a Mac does not. In fact, a Mac is more closely related to an Atari ST or a Commodore Amiga than it is to any PC.
So lets for a moment assume we adopt your politically correct (but totally inaccurate statement) that a Mac is a PC, then why do we not see articles about x86 based machines in Mac publications? They don't want to be confused with PC's so why should we want to change the way we think now after all this time? No, it might be cool for this new generation to mistakenly call a Mac some kind of PC but it never was and never will be. Unless of course the next Mac runs on a Pentium or AMD proc. Not likely to happen. As for all the other procs that run close to 100%, they've been known as "clones" or "compatibles" for a long time. The less compatible they are the more likely they are to be called a "clone". AMD started out as a clone, became a compatible and now can probably be considered a PC in its own right but never a Mac, no matter how it might try to emulate a PC.
As an interesting aside, I can remember a guy visiting my father's place with his new Mac (back when Macs were just Macs, monochrome little ugly things) and bragged about it. We loaded up a Mac emulator on an Atari ST and ran the same programs he was running and they all actually ran faster. The guy was rather embarassed but, we'd never have called our Atari's "Macs", even though they both ran Motorola procs. We've got these lines between the machines for a reason, to prevent confusion, please stop trying to blur them. A Mac is a Mac, a PC is a PC and that's that. Run a mag called MaximumMac or something if ya want (bet it sells at least 10 copies). <smirk>
No, seriously, I don't wanna trash macs, they have their niche and uses but when I walk into a store and see 100,000 titles available for the PC and then a little shelf with 15 or 20 titles and that's the "Mac" section, it just makes me wonder why the thing sells at all. <Shrug>