The discussion is sort of ridiculous. Are we talking about a term of
art called "mainframe" or a marketing term?
Used to be that "mainframe", loosely defined, was "that physically
distinct part of a computer system containing the CPU and memory,
but exclusive of the peripherals and external I/O controllers".
When systems were bunches of boxes cabled together, referring to the
CPU box as the "mainframe" was a pretty useful item.
"Mini" was a term of marketing. Is a PB250 or LGP30 or 1130 a
minicomputer? If not, why not? Small cars and short skirts of the
60s defined the term.
"Micro" isn't even that explicit. True, there were processors the
majority of whose computational function was integrated on a single
chip, but there were also other systems referred to as
"microcomputers" that required a large number of support chips.
Has anyone forgotten "midicomputers"? A short skirt, but not as
short as a miniskirt...
Then we have attempts at confusing prospective customers. I believe
that Intel referred to the 432 as a "Micro Mainframe", whatever that
means. Televideo marketed a desktop 80186 box as a "Personal Mini".
I say that we let the publicity and marketing types have their pie
and refer to the actual construction and operating characteristics of
the hardware we're talking about.
--Chuck