25 Jan
2014
25 Jan
'14
1:53 a.m.
I appreciate all the hearty discussion in response to the article:
http://www.tronola.com/html/who_built_the_first_minicomput.html
There are some points that I would like to respond to:
It perpetuates the myth that there was such a thing as
a "minicomputer" before the late 60's. There have been several threads now
on the origin of the term...
--- In no way did I mean to suggest that the TERM minicomputer was used contemporaneously
with the machines which I found to be classifiable as minis. Rather, I am trying to
clarify what that term has come to mean. From there, I proceeded to look for the first
machines that fit that definition. Now, I certainly don't claim that the definition I
propose is the very best one and would appreciate helpful comments on improving it.
There have been numerous attempts to redefine the
boundaries based on [various criteria] ALL such redefinitions, that ignore the fundamental
nature of being MARKETING terminology...
---Marketing people might have originated the term minicomputer but like all words, it is
defined by the people who use it. We do in fact use it and others seem to know what we
mean. My task was to clarify what people do mean by it.
Likewise, the use of the word "first" is
fraught with danger without completely ARBITRARY further stipulations...But, the
boundaries are undefined, or rather, everybody has a unique definition of the boundaries
of their own.
--- I totally agree that "first" would be meaningless without first defining
what you are saying is first. Rather than using arbitrary criteria with which to define
mini, I tried to find ones which could be justified and that many could agree upon. For
each factor, I looked for good common-sense reasons that it needed to be so and stated
those. If I am off base on some, I would appreciate feedback on what you think would be
better.
Are we talking about working prototype? announcement?
orders taken? first delivery? full retail availability?
--- It was stated that first production ship date would determine priority. Please see the
article for the justifications for that. I think you will find that this is what makes
sense.
Should limited production machines be excluded?
--- The requirement was simply that it must have been manufactured in quantity.
Fortunately, the exact quantities shipped did not become an issue for minis. The lowest
quantity machine was probably the LINC, of which some 50 or so were made.
Thanks,
Steve L.
http://www.tronola.com/
25 Jan
25 Jan
9:57 a.m.
On 25/01/2014 01:53, Steve Lafferty wrote:
I appreciate all the hearty discussion in response to
the article:
http://www.tronola.com/html/who_built_the_first_minicomput.html
There are some points that I would like to respond to:
> It perpetuates the myth that there was such a thing as a "minicomputer"
before the late 60's. There have been several threads now on the origin of the term...
In many ways I think the reverse is true. Apart from being being
physicality larger than a later "Mini Computer" many early computers
are, in terms of capability and architecture, essentially "Mini
Computers". All that happened was that some got smaller and cheaper and
at some point the term "minicomputer" appeared....
All we are really arguing about was when they became small and cheap
enough to be called "mini-". To me its "mainframes" that are the
divergent branch in computing and to me what is interesting, I guess in
the same way in which other look for the "missing link" between apes and
humans, is how and when they diverged far enough to be a "Mainframe"
But to go back to early computers. Take the Ferranti Pegasus from 1953
for example. Taking up just three large cabinets for the computer the
Pegasus is physically similar in size to a large PDP-11, but being
Valve, serial and with 333Khz clock is probably slower than a
Straight-8. I don't have my Pegasus history book to hand, but it was
certainly also marketed almost as a Mini being touted as low cost and
easy to use. It was built on a production line, with I think around 150
being built. The example at MOSi was used in a design department at a
ship builders to do engineering calculations, something I think early
DEC's were aimed at.
In construction its has much in common with an early 8, except the 500
or so boards in the Pegasus are larger and only contain two gates, or a
single "49-bit" register, but in essence and exchangeable standard card.
Reasonable image of a two gate board here:-
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/historydisplays/FourthFloor/Packaging/Packagi…
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/historydisplays/FourthFloor/Packaging/Packagi…
And this lovely page from a Ferranti Brochure
http://www.cbi.umn.edu/hostedpublications/Tomash/Images%20web%20site/Image%…
shows how it all fitted together. Sadly the Teleprinter isn't directly
connected but only prints the 5-hole tape that comes from the high speed
punch. So print spooling, but with real spools of paper tape, so I guess
I have made it into a mainframe....
Any way I wouldn't call it a minicomputer as its valved but if it were
TTL I think it would qualify. It certainly shows most of the other
important attributes of a Mini as early as 1953.
I guess there are a couple of points I really want to state...
1. What is a "minicomputer" is a rigidly defined area of doubt and
uncertainty...
2. Considering the taxonomy of one computer type in isolation isn't
really a good idea. The picture is complex....
Dave
G4UGM
--- In no way did I mean to suggest that the TERM
minicomputer was used contemporaneously with the machines which I found to be classifiable
as minis. Rather, I am trying to clarify what that term has come to mean. From there, I
proceeded to look for the first machines that fit that definition. Now, I certainly
don't claim that the definition I propose is the very best one and would appreciate
helpful comments on improving it.
There have been numerous attempts to redefine the
boundaries based on [various criteria] ALL such redefinitions, that ignore the fundamental
nature of being MARKETING terminology...
---Marketing people might have originated
the term minicomputer but like all words, it is defined by the people who use it. We do in
fact use it and others seem to know what we mean. My task was to clarify what people do
mean by it.
Likewise, the use of the word "first"
is fraught with danger without completely ARBITRARY further stipulations...But, the
boundaries are undefined, or rather, everybody has a unique definition of the boundaries
of their own.
--- I totally agree that "first" would be meaningless
without first defining what you are saying is first. Rather than using arbitrary criteria
with which to define mini, I tried to find ones which could be justified and that many
could agree upon. For each factor, I looked for good common-sense reasons that it needed
to be so and stated those. If I am off base on some, I would appreciate feedback on what
you think would be better.
Are we talking about working prototype?
announcement? orders taken? first delivery? full retail availability?
--- It was
stated that first production ship date would determine priority. Please see the article
for the justifications for that. I think you will find that this is what makes sense.
Should limited production machines be excluded?
--- The requirement was simply that it must have been manufactured in quantity.
Fortunately, the exact quantities shipped did not become an issue for minis. The lowest
quantity machine was probably the LINC, of which some 50 or so were made.
Thanks,
Steve L.
http://www.tronola.com/
4:45 p.m.
On 1/25/14 1:57 AM, Dave wrote:
As a class, they were computers designed to be embedded in other systems, and were
deliberately made easy to interface to.
This differentiates them from programmable calculators and small business computers. This
also explains why they disappeared
once microprocessors and semiconductor memories appeared. That also explains why they
peaked in numbers in the early 70's
(Bell's list of 100 minicomputer companies). This also corresponds with the
commoditization of digital logic and core memories.
By the end of the 60's, the barrier of entry to build a minicomputer was very low.
Anyone that wanted to could by off the shelf
DTL or TTL ICs, and core memory assemblies.
> It
perpetuates the myth that there was such a thing as a "minicomputer" before the
late 60's. There have been several threads now on the origin of the term...
In many ways I think the reverse is true. Apart from being being physicality larger than
a later "Mini Computer" many early computers are, in terms of capability and
architecture, essentially "Mini
Computers". All that happened was that some got smaller and cheaper and at some
point the term "minicomputer" appeared....
3991
days inactive
3991
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com -
steve＠tronola.com