17 Aug
2010
17 Aug
'10
9:21 p.m.
On 8/17/10, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:
In article <AANLkTi=RENp1PERbsgCgZg4nkHWqPOVKpaqmROydrTqR at mail.gmail.com>,
Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> writes:
My definition is most likely an amalgam of what I was exposed to
vis-a-vis minis vs mainframes c. 1980, more than anything else. It's
certainly not meant to be the absolute yardstick of what is or is not
a mini, but I think it works for all but the edge cases (which is
where debate creeps in anyway).
... I'm by no means
an expert, but I would have thought that a machine that fell into the
"minicomputer" category would be based on its size and cost...
OK, I'll go along with your definition; it seems more thought out than
my stab in the dark. I'd like to hear Rich Alderson's definition
though and why he doesn't
include the PDP-1.
After reading other reponses in this thread, something I had not
considered is what year the term was first applied - that seems to be
1964, give or take, and applied to the PDP-8.
So perhaps the PDP-1 was a minicomputer before they had the word for
it, but I am far too young to comment if it was then _called_ a
minicomputer, after the word was coined.
-ethan