24 Jan
2014
24 Jan
'14
6 p.m.
What about the Bendix G15? Introduced in 1953. Definitely fits the criteria outlined in
the article.
Not that I agree with the article..like many others here feel, the term `first` in a
historical context is too fraught with issues of definition.
Rick Bensene
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Guzis [cclist at sydex.com]
Received: Friday, 24 Jan 2014, 9:17AM
To: General at bensene.com [General at bensene.com]; Discussion at bensene.com:On-Topic
and Off-Topic Posts [cctalk at classiccmp.org]
Subject: Re: Who built the first minicomputers?
I'm surprised that the Packard-Bell PB250 wasn't considered. It could
run from a standard US lighting circuit. Circa (IIRC) 1959. Not a drum
machine, but used a recirculating magnetostrictive memory.
It also seems that there may have been a few military computers that
would satisfy your criteria.
As Will has stated "first" is a very dangerous word and "minicomputer"
is, in fact, a term of art. Like pornography, it's what it is because
someone says so.
--Chuck
24 Jan
24 Jan
6:46 p.m.
On 01/24/2014 10:00 AM, Rick Bensene wrote:
What about the Bendix G15? Introduced in 1953.
Definitely fits the
criteria outlined in the article. Not that I agree with the
article..like many others here feel, the term `first` in a historical
context is too fraught with issues of definition.
Or the Univac 402? It's an impossible task, I think. You can set
criteria, but that's all ex post facto. Were there any minicomputers
before the miniskirt?
"Midicomputer" seems to be a marketing term that never caught on--but
neither did the midiskirt. This probably has more to do with human
psychology more than technology.
"Microcomputer" suffers from that problem also. In particular, note the
AES microcomputer (billed as such)--a card cage of boards. Here, I
think it was a marketing term implying that the thing was
microprogrammable, not small.
--Chuck
9 p.m.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Or the Univac 402? It's an impossible task, I
think. You can set
criteria, but that's all ex post facto. Were there any minicomputers
before the miniskirt?
So, you're saying that creation of the term "MINIcomputer" was attempt to
draw attention away from female legs and towards their products? Sorry,
but I was old enough by then for it not to work.
"Midicomputer" seems to be a marketing term
that never caught on--but
neither did the midiskirt. This probably has more to do with human
psychology more than technology.
Therein lies the problem. The terminology ("minicomputer",
"microcomputer", etc.) was developed by marketing, who didn't care, much
less KNOW, the technology involved.
Therefore the divisions of the continuum were never based on objective
criteria.
"Microcomputer" suffers from that problem
also. In particular, note the
AES microcomputer (billed as such)--a card cage of boards. Here, I
think it was a marketing term implying that the thing was
microprogrammable, not small.
Is it futile to attempt to hijack the naming conventions, and rework them
into something technology, or at least measurably, based?
There have been numerous attempts to redefine the boundaries based on
bit size,
number of bytes,
speed,
number of users,
power consumption,
price,
physical size,
moving (hand-carry, hand-truck, forklift, union moving crew),
injuries inflicted (broken finger nail, broken toe, broken limb, fatalities),
losses (screwdriver, meter, scope, self), etc.
And the new items to be included in the charts continue to come along:
"laptop", "notebook", "netbook", "tablet", etc.
ALL such redefinitions, that ignore the fundamental nature of being
MARKETING terminology, fail due to EXCEPTIONS that cross the boundaries
[of common sense?].
Likewise, the use of the word "first" is fraught with danger without
completely ARBITRARY further stipulations.
Are we talking about
working prototype?
announcement?
orders taken?
first delivery?
full retail availability?
(think Apple, Pet, TRS80)
Should limited production machines be excluded?
By that, do we mean SINGLE units, or small [HOW SMALL?] production?
This is not just argument for argument's sake (which we also do), if the
production number is set at 10, then Elcompco beat Osborne on all other
parameters.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
http://www.xenosoft.com/FPUIB
11:10 p.m.
On 01/24/2014 01:00 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
So, you're saying that creation of the term
"MINIcomputer" was attempt to
draw attention away from female legs and towards their products? Sorry,
but I was old enough by then for it not to work.
Well, I'll agree there, but in an IEEE STARS paper, Gordon Bell says
that the term "minicomputer" didn't appear before 1967, so one might say
that there were no minicomputers (identified as such) before then.
And sure, it was a variation on "sex sells"--there was a Morris Mini car
manufactured by Leyland in 1961, but I doubt that the US paid much
attention. In 1961, the US was into land yachts and
tailfins--witness,say, the 1961 Chrysler Imperial.
Miniskirts (ca. 1965) were quite a shock to the American psyche, which
had been getting along with the likes of "Father Knows Best" and the
"Bell Telephone Hour". Good grief, from Spencer Tracy and Katharine
Hepburn to Twiggy and Carnaby Street in a decade--what a shock.
If you don't think that sex was behind the label, consider the
Computerworld ads for "The Naked Mini".
So, IMOHO, applying the term "minicomputer" to anything before 1967 is a
bit like the Supreme Court's view on pornography--you can't say exactly
what it is, but you know it when you see it.
--Chuck
3991
days inactive
3991
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
rickb＠bensene.com