21 Aug
2001
21 Aug
'01
2:43 p.m.
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:42:55 -0500
To: Master of all that Sucks <vance(a)ikickass.org>
From: Matthew Sell <msell(a)ontimesupport.com>
Subject: Re: Room for Collections
Although technically you are correct - I consider anything that weighs
over 1000 lbs, takes a kilowatt or two to operate, and more than oner
person to move - as a mainframe.
It's big and made of steel. Big iron? : )
As a discussion - what technically makes the difference between a
mainframe and a mini? Are there physical comparisons to be made or performance?
- Matt
At 03:32 PM 8/21/01 -0400, you wrote:
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
Many thanks for this tagline to a fellow RGVAC'er...
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Matthew Sell wrote:
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
Many thanks for this tagline to a fellow RGVAC'er... My wife feels lucky that she is able to contain
my mainframes (now 2 VAX
11/780's) to one room in the house.
A VAX 11/780 isn't a mainframe. My IBM S/390 9672 G5's CPU (OT,
incidentally) takes up two seven foot tall racks all by itself. A fully
outfitted S/390 9672 G1 (on-topic, bipolar logic, water cooled, loads o'
power) CPU alone takes up between 7 and 10 seven foot tall racks all by
itself, in a typical configuration. IfA VAX 11/780 is a minicomputer.
I also collect full-size arcade games.
I wish I could. My VAXen and my mainframes take up too much time money
power and space.
> I never accused her of being intolerant to my hobbies.... : )
>
>
> - Matt 
21 Aug
21 Aug
4:06 p.m.
If I read the quoting correctly (sound familiar?), Matthew Sell
<msell(a)ontimesupport.com> asked:
As a discussion - what technically makes the difference
between a
mainframe and a mini? Are there physical comparisons to be made or
performance?
It is an ecosystem thing. It's an IBM thing.
A "mainframe" is a computer that, when new, was classed with the
biggest, nastiest, business IBMs available.
It doesn't matter if it weighs a lot or is faster than the mainframes
of an earlier generation, it depends upon its own generation. Also,
the fastest supercomputers of an era are kinda beyond mainframe, and
they lose their "super" qualification as new computers exceed them and
become "former supercomputers". Mainframes tend to stay
mainframes--obsolete maybe, but still mainframes. And frequently are
still in use long after they become obsolete.
Mainframes tend to put a lot of effort into highspeed IO, are
expensive, and can do lots of transactions well. (Because expensive
means you want to keep them busy.)
-kb
5:10 p.m.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Kent Borg wrote:
If I read the quoting correctly (sound familiar?),
Matthew Sell
<msell(a)ontimesupport.com> asked:
I think the distinction between supercomputers and mainframes is even
deeper than that. Supercomputers are designed to do things very very
fast. Mainframes are designed to do many many things at once. The two
goals frequently aren't convergent.
As a discussion - what technically makes the
difference between a
mainframe and a mini? Are there physical comparisons to be made or
performance?
It is an ecosystem thing. It's an IBM thing.
A "mainframe" is a computer that, when new, was classed with the
biggest, nastiest, business IBMs available.
It doesn't matter if it weighs a lot or is faster than the mainframes
of an earlier generation, it depends upon its own generation. Also,
the fastest supercomputers of an era are kinda beyond mainframe, and
they lose their "super" qualification as new computers exceed them and
become "former supercomputers". Mainframes tend to stay
mainframes--obsolete maybe, but still mainframes. And frequently are
still in use long after they become obsolete. Mainframes tend to put a lot of effort into highspeed
IO, are
expensive, and can do lots of transactions well. (Because expensive
means you want to keep them busy.)
Mainframes are very good at serving thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands of *simultaneous* transactions.
Peace... Sridhar
-kb
10:23 p.m.
"The main frame of a computer system is the cabinet that houses the the
central processor and main memory."
- C. L. Meek, 1976
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Kent Borg wrote:
If I read the quoting correctly (sound familiar?),
Matthew Sell
<msell(a)ontimesupport.com> asked:
M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
Shady Lea, Rhode Island
"Casta est quam nemo rogavit."
- Ovid
As a discussion - what technically makes the
difference between a
mainframe and a mini? Are there physical comparisons to be made or
performance?
It is an ecosystem thing. It's an IBM thing.
A "mainframe" is a computer that, when new, was classed with the
biggest, nastiest, business IBMs available.
It doesn't matter if it weighs a lot or is faster than the mainframes
of an earlier generation, it depends upon its own generation. Also,
the fastest supercomputers of an era are kinda beyond mainframe, and
they lose their "super" qualification as new computers exceed them and
become "former supercomputers". Mainframes tend to stay
mainframes--obsolete maybe, but still mainframes. And frequently are
still in use long after they become obsolete.
Mainframes tend to put a lot of effort into highspeed IO, are
expensive, and can do lots of transactions well. (Because expensive
means you want to keep them busy.)
-kb
23 Aug
23 Aug
2:26 p.m.
Matthew Sell skrev:
>From: Matthew Sell <msell(a)ontimesupport.com>
>As a discussion - what technically makes the
difference between a
>mainframe and a mini? Are there physical comparisons to be made or
>performance?
In old times it would have been the job-oriented, non-realtime operating
method. The distinction nowadays is alien to me, though.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Vi m?ste vara r?dda om varandra
- det ?r det enda reciproka pronomen vi har.
8535
days inactive
8537
days old
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
at258＠osfn.org -
kentborg＠borg.org -
msell＠ontimesupport.com -
optimus＠canit.se -
vance＠ikickass.org