In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 12/12/2005
at 12:12 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>If the "mainframe" is to be defined as an electronic computer doing
>commercial work - which, for example, I expect is a definition with
>which IBM would agree
I would expect scale to be part of the definition; heavy, bulky, high
power consumption. I would expect IBM to consider, e.g., the 701, 704,
709, 7090, to be mainframes, even though their workloads were
typically scientific and engineering rather than commercial. I'd
include one of a kind machines, e.g., EDSAC, ENIAC, Golem, ZUSE.
>then we in/from the UK like to propose the LEO as the pioneer.
Why exclude engineering applications?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
