8 Sep
1998
8 Sep
'98
10:36 a.m.
I must comment that the real distinction is how they are marketed.
Earlier, the size of the machine denoted its power and utility. Now,
it's not possible to classify as easily. Plus, hardware gets outmoded
so quickly, it's not likely for anyone to buy a 'mainframe' these
days. PCs are pretty disposable now. Tony's rules are adequate, as
these distinctions closely mirror the target market of the machine.
> mainframes? The minis are getting small(take a
look at the AS/400
line,
> about the size a a PC server for the smaller
models), and you can
even fit
> a miniature version of a S/370 into a PC(actually
in two ways, IBM
has a
> PCI card and I seem to remember a software
emulator from
somewhere)...
The rule I use is simple :
If the CPU is one chip (like a Z80, or a pentium) or a chipset that's
always used together to make that CPU (like a F11, or the early IBM
6000
CPU) -> It's a micro
If the CPU is a lot of standard chips (gates, flip-flops, ALUs,
bit-slice
stuff), and it fits into at most a couple of 6'
racks -> it's a mini
If the CPU takes up most of the room -> it's a mainfame.
If it meets the 3M critera (Megabyte, Megapixel, Mips) -> it's a
workstation.
Now, this leads to some interesting ones. By that definition, a
PDP11/23
is a micro. But a PDP11/34 is a mini. The 370-on-a-card
is probably
also
a micro.
Note that 'workstation' says nothing about the CPU. I'd claim a Sun3 is
a
worktation _and_ a micro. A PERQ 2 is a workstation and
a mini.
Those definitions aren't perfect, but they seem to work for me.
-tony
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com