Years ago, the distinction between minicomputers and microcomputers was
based on the notion that microcomputers had a synchronous bus, while mini's
had an asynchronous bus. Now that we all seem to own at least one
microcomputer not only with an asynchronous bus but with computing power far
in excess of the best that IBM et. al. could muster back in the '80's, I'm
not so sure I can make a simple distinction like that.
As for mainframes, well, since you can buy a more powerful computer for what
it would cost to operate a mainframe of yesteryear for just one day, I guess
nobody will miss 'em.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Will Jennings" <xds_sigma7_at_hotmail.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:29 AM
Subject: The debate on what per say is a mini...
> Personally, I consider all VAXen minicomputers, except for the 9000's,
which
> I definetly agree are mainframes (use MCM technology, can be serviced
> without bringing down the whole system, etc.). But then again, I'd call
just
> about any dedicated UNIX box (aka "workstation") a minicomputer too... I
> personally make the distinctions based not so much on physical size, but
on
> the architecture, software, etc. For example, the smallest VAX is still a
> minicomputer to me because it uses a bus used only by DEC, a DEC
processor,
> and runs a DEC-created operating system (I'm only talking about the OS
that
> it was originally meant to run, please don't think I'm trying to leave out
> UNIX, BSD, or Idris, to name a few).
>
> Will J
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
Received on Fri Dec 15 2000 - 12:33:16 GMT