mini versus micro?

[Rob O'Donnell]

At 20:08 18/05/2005, Ethan Dicks wrote:

>On 5/18/05, Rob O'Donnell <classiccmp.org at irrelevant.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > The worst processor/user ratio I think I encountered was about 50 users
> > sharing a 486dx50.. It was in a rack case, in the top 6" of a 4' rack, the
> > rest being blocked in empty space except for a UPS sat in the bottom.  The
> > users most definitely called it "the mainframe" !
>
>Worst processor/user ratio for PeeCee-class equipment, or on a
>per-cycle basis?

I was thinking specifically of the PeeCee based stuff.  I did have for a 
while an ex-customer "Microfive" machine, 8088 based, 12 serial ports on 
the back, no kb or video, and not PC architecture.  With maximum users that 
would have been worse...

Thinking about it, though, some of the VAX (11/780) and own-brand machines 
I used years back at Ferranti would have been far less cycles/user.

[snip]
>So in the great mini-vs-micro debate, once one is talking about later
>16 and 32-bit minis (early 12 and 16-bit minis do tend to have one
>medium-performance I/O bus), I'd have to say that I/O architecture has
>as much to do with the definition as the number of processors.

I think the micro/mini is a pretty hard distinction to make when talking 
about current hardware; the technologies cross-pollinate!  Even in old 
stuff, it certainly sounds like it's more of a marketing term rather than a 
technical definition - The "small enough for a department to afford" 
meaning of mini feels best to me for the older machines.

Rob