PDA

View Full Version : Definitiions Please



olddataman
December 12th, 2003, 12:28 PM
I would like to see enough participation in this catagory to at least come up with a sort of chart containing a type of computer. The chart would contain a "box" which would be assigned one of the names of the computers listed in this catagory. That is, there would be two or three boxes. One would be labled the "MINI , the "MAIN FRAME" box and maybe a third box labled "Neither of the above."
If we go back to 1950 or thereabouts there should be some pretty full boxes. Notice that here is no box for Micros and/or Personal computers, and there probably should be.
Ray

CP/M User
December 24th, 2003, 01:14 AM
"olddataman" wrote:

> I would like to see enough participation in this
> catagory to at least come up with a sort of
> chart containing a type of computer. The
> chart would contain a "box" which would be
> assigned one of the names of the computers
> listed in this catagory. That is, there would
> be two or three boxes. One would be labled
> the "MINI , the "MAIN FRAME" box and maybe
> a third box labled "Neither of the above."

> If we go back to 1950 or thereabouts there
> should be some pretty full boxes. Notice that
> here is no box for Micros and/or Personal
> computers, and there probably should be.

Hi Ray,

I'm not quite sure that I'm following you,
however I was just wonderning if you
were referning to the types of computers
from this period?
For example, a computer like the PDP-1 is quite
different from a EDSAC or ENAC I should
imagine. While I agree that they are different,
since a PDP-1 is much smaller, is this what
you're saying should be put into different
catagories?
Unfortunately for the participation side of things
I think it would be great, however it's
newsgroup equivalent alt.folklore.computers is
quite a busy little spot if you see for yourself.
We cannot tell people where to read & write,
however we can participate, unfortunately for
myself while I have interest about computers
from the early era, my interest comes from
knowing more about this sort of thing.
I've played around with EDSAC emulators, but
that's about it, unfortunately using an
emulator based on a computer like this, it
perhaps doesn't have the same feel compared
to using an actual EDSAC, which I feel part
of the fun of using these computers, is to know
how things really are, not that I'm saying that
it's a bad thing, but when compared to using an
emulator, it's just not the same! :-(

CP/M User.

Terry Yager
December 24th, 2003, 09:11 AM
I'm in the habit of referring to S-100 machines as mainframes. Is this a *bad* habit or what? OTOH, Texas Instruments referred to the TI 990 series of computers as "Mini-computers", although they are run from a microprocessor, the same TI9900 that the TI 99 4/A runs. I'm so confused...!

--T

CP/M User
December 24th, 2003, 02:36 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

> I'm in the habit of referring to S-100 machines as
> mainframes. Is this a *bad* habit or what?

Heh! I used to have this bad habit of calling 3.5"
disks hard disks, simply because they weren't
floppy! ;-)

But yeah, S100 are microcomputers, because they
certainally aren't big enough to be a mainframe.

> OTOH, Texas Instruments referred to the TI 990
> series of computers as "Mini-computers", although
> they are run from a microprocessor, the same
> TI9900 that the TI 99 4/A runs. I'm so confused...!

The best way to tell is the size of a computer.
Generally a minicomputer is the size of a fridge &
mainframe is a system usually takes up the size of
a room. When I used to work, the company I work
with had a mainframe, which was kept in a reasonible
sized room, which was kept cool & all times! ;-)

I guess a mini would have to be a machine which has
some powerful features. For example one of the mini's
I saw was built in the early '80s & at that stage the
microcomputers I was working with (some 5 years back)
had the simular techical specs as that mini. So I couldn't
really imagine what a mini would be like nowadays, but
it would be cheap & would probably have hardware to
knock the socks of todays PCs! ;-)

Cheers.

Terry Yager
December 24th, 2003, 03:32 PM
Heh! I used to have this bad habit of calling 3.5"
disks hard disks, simply because they weren't
floppy! ;-)

Cheers.


A whole lot of people are guilty of that particular error...

--T

CP/M User
December 25th, 2003, 12:06 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

>> Heh! I used to have this bad habit of calling 3.5"
>> disks hard disks, simply because they weren't
>> floppy! ;-)

> A whole lot of people are guilty of that particular
> error...

Fortunately, I was still young then when I found out
what a hard disk really was. My first hard disk was
in 1993 & unfortunately, it was the same year as
big brother deleted it, I thought at the time, why
don't they just put the OS onto ROM, in case
things like this horrible goes wrong! :-(

CP/M User.

olddataman
December 25th, 2003, 12:38 PM
Hey People
I'm sorry that I haven't posted any response to the last few posts, but I'm working on something off-line that will illustrate my thoughts on this subject better than words alone (or at least my words). Give me another day or so and I'll have it ready to post.
Ray

CP/M User
December 25th, 2003, 11:15 PM
"olddataman" wrote:

> I'm sorry that I haven't posted any response
> to the last few posts, but I'm working on
> something off-line that will illustrate my
> thoughts on this subject better than words
> alone (or at least my words). Give me
> another day or so and I'll have it ready to
> post.

Hey that's allright, I wouldn't mind one bit if
you took 3-4 months off & came back to reply.

I did the same thing & no-one complained!

Heh!
CP/M User.