Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> 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.
BLASPHEMY! ;-)
There are those of us here who would make some effort to save such
computers (I'm not one of them but I kow they're here). Before you say
that theyre old and slow, let me remind you that we're on the Classic
Computers list (that is the point of this list or am I missing
something?).
For instance, I purchased a MicroVax 3400 which I'm going to put in
working order. I also have a VS3100, I purchased that because it was
inexpensive and I could experiment on it first. I just want to be more
knowledgable with the MV3400 before I start really playing with it.
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry_at_home.net
http://members.home.net/ncherry (Text only)
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/lightsey/52 (Graphics)
http://linuxha.sourceforge.net/ (SourceForge)
Received on Fri Dec 15 2000 - 13:36:15 GMT