Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!ames!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!li From: li@tybalt.caltech.edu (James C. Li) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Mainframe vs Micro Message-ID: <1490@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Date: Tue, 13-Jan-87 19:14:11 EST Article-I.D.: cit-vax.1490 Posted: Tue Jan 13 19:14:11 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Jan-87 01:36:14 EST References: <658@imsvax.UUCP> Sender: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu Reply-To: li@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (James C. Li) Organization: Calfornia Institute of Technology Lines: 20 In article <658@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >No argument here. The Crays will always be with us. Good coding on a >68020 device with Witech boards can approach a reasonable fraction of >Cray power FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS, as witnessed by the Silicon Graphics > >Ted Holden >IMS Would someone DEFINE what a Micro is and what a Mainframe is? This argument seems to be going in circles because as Micro's increase in power, so do Mainframes. It isn't fair to compare Micro's of todays to Mainframes of the 60's. Also, what is a Mini? And what about a Supercomputer? What about the Hypercube(claim is 100 68020's in parallel can out compute a Cray 1)? (Yes, the right size/type for the right application, but what is similar about these systems that CAN be compared, or can't they?) li@tybalt.caltech.edu (James Li) __ __ (also li@citromeo.caltech.bitnet) | | "Official KANK symbol" ------> | |