I'm glad to see another attempt at a taxonomy for early computing
machinery, but I tend to agree with other posters that using marketing
terms like "minicomputer" are not a useful basis to ground the
taxonomy and attach the distinguishing characteristics. DEC marketing
struggled with these terms over the years, we even had
"superminicomputer" at one point (for VAX I think), and Prime jumped
onto that bandwagon too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superminicomputer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minisupercomputer
However, the article makes an attempt to establish criteria and place
various systems, it becomes a useful straw-man taxonomy to provoke
discussion about important or neglected differences and bring to light
forgotten systems. To play this game I point to the Burroughs
(ElectroData?) E101 machines as a candidate (probably fails on the
power part at 3KW, but pin-board programmed!):
http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/BRL61-b.html#BURROUGHS-E-101
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/early-computer-companies/5/113/488
http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/BRL61-burroughs-e-101.jpg
Perhaps SL's effort will motivate someone to make something better? A
rich taxonomy capturing a lot of detail would mean a complete
catalogue of early systems could be constructed and we could see the
gaps and highlight systems by their influence on the times.