winter@doomb.prl.philips.nl (Pieter Winter) (06/05/89)
Hi,
Since I saw the question "What is a mainframe" recently in this newsgroup, I
was wondering the following:
How can you define a:
- Minicomputer
- Supermini computer
I'm especially interested in how to distinguish them from each other.
Another question considering the mini-supermini-mainframe range:
- What is the difference between a mainframe and a (super)-mini computer,
are they overlapping computer categories, or totally different categories.
Perhaps anyone on the net has a good working definition?
Thanks, Pieter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Pieter Winter winter@doomb.prl.philips.nl -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- No man in his right mind...(?), left mind...(?), Ehhhh...(!), Nobody minds! -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------kleonard@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM (Ken Leonard) (06/06/89)
In article <512@prles2.UUCP> winter@doomb.prl.philips.nl () writes:
* ...
* How can you define a:
* - Minicomputer
* - Supermini computer
* ...
* - What is the difference between a mainframe and a (super)-mini computer,
* ...
--
Mainframe: physically/electrically tightly integrated (by assertion even if
not de facto) with variability defined primarily in terms of "horsepower"
or number of (attached) functional units and delivered in a form which
favors economy of computation across many, but usually predictable,
applications over economy of adaptation to particular applications or
ease of highly variable applications.
--
Minicomputer: physically/electrically based on a user-perceptible bus (de
facto if not by assertion) to permit maximum variability and adaptability
of the complement of functional units (e.g. CPU, memory, I/O controllers)
and delivered in a form which favors economy of adaptation to particular
applications and/or basic capability of highly variable applications over
economy of computation across many applications.
--
Microcomputer: more like a minicomputer than a mainframe, delivered to
permit maximum adaptability per machine to the requirements of one
particular user's applications.
--
Supercomputer: designed, in all respects, for maximum technologically
achievable performance (not quite the same as maximum efficiency) on a
relatively small range of computational requirements, and delivered in
a form which strongly favors economy of computation on the design range
over all other functions including computations outside the design range.
--
Super-Mainframe: definitely like a mainframe with a (usually additional)
supercomputer-class computational engine as a "native" functional resource.
--
Super-Minicomputer: definitely like a minicomputer with a (sometimes
additional, sometimes primary) supercomputer-like (in function, in
performance relative to a "plain" minicomputer, not at all necessarily
in total performance) computational engine.
--
Mini-Supercomputer: a (very near-) supercomputer-class computational
engine and core system with added, well-coupled minicomputer-like
complement of application-adaptable functional units.
-----
Have fun, folks,
Ken Leonard trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (06/10/89)
In article <512@prles2.UUCP> winter@doomb.prl.philips.nl () writes: >How can you define a: > - Minicomputer > - Supermini computer >I'm especially interested in how to distinguish them from each other. It seems to me that the only adequate way to distinguish between the various classes of computers is by weight; to wit: * If one person can lift it, it's a microcomputer. * If two to four people can lift it, it's a mini. * If a forklift is required, it's a mainframe. A superminicomputer is an anorexic mainframe. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP ``The worst thing about being a vampire is that you can't go to matinees and save money anymore.''
roelof@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (R. Vuurboom) (06/13/89)
In article <621@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > >It seems to me that the only adequate way to distinguish between the >various classes of computers is by weight; to wit: > ...or size. After all, etymologically speaking ;-), a mainframe used to be a main frame and a minicomputer used to be a mini-computer. -- Roelof Vuurboom SSP/V3 Philips TDS Apeldoorn, The Netherlands +31 55 432226 domain: roelof@idca.tds.philips.nl uucp: ...!mcvax!philapd!roelof
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (06/13/89)
>In article <621@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: >>It seems to me that the only adequate way to distinguish between the >>various classes of computers is by weight; to wit: > various MASSive suggestions This was cute. Yes, you keep thinking that way about classifying computers. You can gauge a person's perspective if they regard a VAX as a mainframe or not. Yes I/O is the major problem. So long as the micro-people think about micro I/O we will be held back from the Cray on a desk. Bat as a prefix to replace "super" sure! BAT==Basically Absurd Technology. Batcomputer.... wait a minute that's at Cornell.... Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene There must be a way to make these things smallers?