16 Dec
2000
16 Dec
'00
1:13 p.m.
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Chuck McManis wrote:
I'd still consider it a micro. Most similiarly configured machines
are not supporting corporations, just individual users. The fact
that one is locked up doesn't really change it's status as a toy...
I've got four sitting on my desk, each with a specific task to do :)
Interesting point... Workstations typically have had better than
average video and memory capabilities than the typical PC, but
the line has blurred quite a bit... At work I have a Compaq P3-700
with 256MB ram (expandable to 1GB), and a Sparc Ultra 10-440(?)...
The Compaq is ~2x the speed of the Sun, but the Sun was designed to
use PC parts to reduce the cost, making it just another micro IMNSHO...
We use PCs almost exclusively for lab work... Of course, we build
custom hardware to do the work and the PC runs matlab to collect and
display the data...
At 11:35 PM 12/15/00 -0700, Clint wrote:
No, only me :)
I hate to jump into a philosophical argument, but
here goes....
Oh they are the best kind, everyone can be right at the same time ;-)
Mainframes are
big/powerful machines that sit in a secured area and
are driven by terminals (X,PC,3270,etc) on peoples desks. They cost
big bucks.
In the "modern" world, what about an Intel server that is locked up in a
co-location facility at some ISP and is being driven by web browsers ?
(some of which (netpliance) are effectively terminals?)
Micro-computers
are small/weak machines that sit on peoples
desk so they can surf the web and play solitare. They cost
next to nothing.
My PC sits under my desk, only the monitor/keyboard is on top :-)
Workstations
are more powerful, but still small... They cost
more than micros.
Cost only? When I worked at Sun we worked in something like video
resolution or max memory, but the bottom line has traditionally been cost :-)
Mini-computers
is a nitch that has gone away (or been replaced
by workstations). They were less powerful than a mainframe, but
orders of magnitude cheaper and could sit next to a persons
desk. This was more of a marketing trick to help scientists
convince the bean-counters they weren't buying a real computer,
just a glorified calculater (PDP == Peripheral Data Processor).
A calculator doesn't need to be locked in a room with all the
other calculators :)
Actually this isn't a fair description. Mini-computers most definitely have
_not_ gone away and you will see a resurgence of mini-computer like
features. Specifically, mini-computers are computers that are
*configurable* with a wide variety of peripherals. This lets them be used
for lab experiments, or process control, etc. PC's have done this in the
past but the lack of I/O features on the mainstream "PC" of today are
hindering their use in the lab and process control. Also the lack of
documentation that many people have complained about.
Collectively this is the "cost" model and
generally follows order of
magnitudes:
< 4K Micro
< 40K Workstation
< 400K Mini
< 4M Mainframe
< 40M Super
I added the last bit because we haven't been including "what's a
super-computer" in our lists. I heard a great talk by a guy who works at
LLNL and the complaints the scientists had at the purchase of ASCI WHITE
(super computer made out of parallel RISC chips) because it simply could
not be used to program the kinds of models they used for nuclear simulations.
Proly not, but it's fun to try...
PS It is unfair to compare mainframes of old to
PCs of new. To be
fair, compare an 11/780 with what was available at the time: the
Apple ][, Commodore, IBM PC(?). These machines couldn't support
multiple users, imagine running a university off of a cluster of
Amigas!
But Clint, this is in fact the point. Can one come up with a definition
that transcends what the marketroids called micro, mini, and mainframe of
their day?
PPS A modern
mainframe would have no problem out-performing
a PC for REAL work. It's designed to do just that.
Agreed, check out the spec's for the IBM S/390 (I mean Z900 :-)
--Chuck