Bring back "minicomputer"

The term "minicomputer" is making a comeback.

Late last year, I attended a technical presentation in which the speaker referred to his smart phone as a "minicomputer".

This month, I read a magazine website that used the term minicomputer, referring to an ARM device for testing Android version L.

Neither of these devices is a minicomputer.

The term "minicomputer" was coined in the mainframe era, when all computers (well, all electronic computers) were large, required special rooms with dedicated air conditioning, and were attended by a team of operators and field engineers. Minicomputers were smaller, being about the size of a refrigerator and needing only one or two people to care for them. Revolutionary at the time, minicomputers allowed corporate and college departments set up their own computing environments.

I suspect that the term "mainframe" came into existence only after minicomputers obtained a noticeable presence.

In the late 1970s, the term "microcomputer" was used to describe the early personal computers (the Altair 8800, the IMSAI 8080, the Radio Shack TRS-80). But back to minicomputers.

For me and many others, the term "minicomputer" will always represent the department-sized computers made by Digital Equipment Corporation or Data General. But am I being selfish? Do I have the right to lock the term "minicomputer" to that definition?

Upon consideration, the idea of re-introducing the term "minicomputer" may be reasonable. We don't use the term today. Computers are either mainframes (that term is still in use), servers, desktops, laptops, tablets, phones, phablets, and ... whatever the open-board Arduino and Raspberry Pi devices are called. So the term "minicomputer" has been, in a sense, abandoned. As an abandoned term, it can be re-purposed.

But what devices should be tagged as minicomputers? The root "mini" implies small, as it does in "minimum" or "minimize". A "minicomputer" should therefore be "smaller than a (typical) computer".

What is a typical computer? In the 1960s, they were the large mainframes. And while mainframes exist today, one can hardly argue that they are typical: laptops, tablets, and phones are all outselling them. Embedded systems, existing in cars, microwave ovens, and cameras, are probably the most common form of computing device, but I consider them out of the running. First, they are already small and a smaller computer would be small indeed. Second, most people use those devices without thinking about the computer inside. They use a car, not a "car equipped with onboard computers".

So a minicomputer is something smaller that a desktop PC, a laptop PC, a tablet, or a smartphone.

I'm leaning towards the bare-board computers: the Arduino, the BeagleBone, the Raspberry Pi, and their brethren. These are all small computers in the physical sense, smaller than desktop and laptops. They are also small in power; typically they have low-end processors and limited memory and storage, so they are "smaller" (that is, less capable) that a smartphone.

The open-board computers (excuse me, minicomputers) are also a very small portion of the market, just as their refrigerator-sized namesakes.

Let's go have some fun with minicomputers!

The microcomputers of today

The microcomputer revolution was started with the MITS Altair 8800, the IMSAI 8080, and smaller computers such as the COSMAC ELF. They were machines made for tinkerers, less polished than the Apple II or Radio Shack TRS-80. They included the bare elements needed for a computer, often omitting the case and power supply. (Tinkerers were expected to supply their own cases and power supplies.)

While less polished, they showed that there was a market for microcomputers, and inspired Apple and Radio Shack (and lots of other vendors) to made and sold microcomputers.

Today sees a resurgence of small, "unpolished" computers that are designed for tinkerers. They include the Arduino, the Raspberry Pi, the Beaglebone, and Intel's Minnowboard system. Like the early, pre-Apple microcomputers, these small systems are the bare essentials. (Including omitting the power supply and case.)

And like the earlier microcomputer craze, they are popular.

What's interesting is that there are no major players in this space. There are no big software vendors supplying software for these new microcomputers.

There were no major software vendors in the early microcomputer space. These systems were offered for sale with minimal (or perhaps zero) software. The CP/M operating system was adopted by users and adapted to their systems. CP/M's appeal was that it could be (relatively, for tinkerers) easily modified for specific systems.

The second generation of microcomputers, the Apple II and TRS-80 and their contemporaries, had a number of differences from the first generation. They were polished: they were complete systems with cases, power supplies, and software.

The second generation of microcomputers had a significant market for software. There were lots of vendors, the largest being Digital Research and Microsoft. Microsoft made its fortune by supplying its BASIC interpreter to just about every hardware vendor.

That market did not include the major players from the mainframe or minicomputer markets. Perhaps they thought that the market dynamics was not profitable -- they had been selling software for thousands of dollars (or tens of thousands) and packages in the microcomputer market sold for hundreds (or sometimes tens).

It strikes me that Microsoft is not supplying software to these new microcomputers.

Perhaps they think that the market dynamics are not profitable.

But these are the first generation of new microcomputers, the "unpolished" systems, made for tinkerers. Perhaps Microsoft will make another fortune in the second generation, as they did with the first microcomputer revolution.

Or perhaps another vendor will.