mini versus micro?

[Allison]

>
>Subject: Re: mini versus micro?
>   From: chris <cb at mythtech.net>
>   Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:26:50 -0400
>     To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts " <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>>1. Microcomputer
>>
>>A "microcomputer" is defined as a computer having no more than two
>>microprocessors used for general purpose processing within the computer.
>>For the purposes of this class, a "microprocessor" is defined as a central
>>processing unit comprised of not more than 4 individual LSI intgerated
>>circuit on a single board, with the entire ALU being contained within a
>>single integrated circuit.
>
>Will this definition change when Apple starts selling 4 processor G5 
>towers? Or will those (and 4 processor Pentium workstations), not apply 
>because they are far too new?
>
>-chris
><http://www.mythtech.net>

It's alrady that bad.

The average Pentium micro (PC) has not less than three often more cpus.
For example:

 CPU pentium S at 100mhz
 Keybord interface 8042 micro
 Keyboard (has one of several micros)
 CDrom (at lest one micro)
 IDE disks (one sometimes two micros)
 Enhanced graphics card (Micro, esp if MP3 or???)
 
Shall I be more pendantic?

the definitions are far too heavy.

Size and power required are better definers followed by basic design.
For the most part there were no microcomputers when minis roamed the 
earth.  By time micros became something significant the minis were
then called SuperMinis.  This points out capability.

BUT: then you have something like microVAX2000 thats nearly a 
half cubic foot box at maybe 150W power and can easily serve 
a few users (at least under VMS).  Its a archetecture of a 
supermini implemented as a micro in a tiny box.

Labels, use care when applying.  


Allison