Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!OPERATIONS!MAGILL From: magill@OPERATIONS.DCCS.UPENN.EDU (PENNnet Oper/Planning) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.liaison Subject: micro vs mini vs mainframe Message-ID: <9002061831.AA11969@operations.dccs.upenn.edu> Date: 6 Feb 90 18:31:41 GMT Sender: Network Site Liaisons Reply-To: Network Site Liaisons Lines: 32 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway Return-Path: Comments: To: LIAISON%BITNIC@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU > One of our past directors defined a micro as smaller than the mainframe and > was teased about that simplistic definition for years - now I think he was as > right as one could be. Never trust a computer you can cary... Mainframe - you need a truck and more than one person to move it. Mini - it has wheels and one person can push it around micro - one person can pick it up and carry it. Another definition I've seen - which might actually turn out to be the most consistant over time - 1-5 simultaneous users = micro 5-25 simultaneous users = mini 25+ simultaneous users = mainframe Or by another measure... It runs out of the box - a micro It runs out of the box with "configuration" - a mini It doesn't run without a "support staff" - mainframe. I've seen too many "mini/micro" installations who are really disguised "mainframe" shops - The hardware's cheap (another definition means), but the software and the critical nature of the application(s) being run are no different than any other "MIS/DP" environment. William H. Magill Manager, PENNnet Operations Planning Data Communications and Computing Services (DCCS) University of Pennsylvania Internet: magill@dccs.upenn.edu magill@eniac.seas.upenn.edu magill@upenn.edu