>isn't this really the fourth paradigm by including mini-computers.
Not really. By and large, mini-computers should be combined with mainframes as part of the first wave. The reason is that the mainframe wave definition is "one computer, many users". It is not defined by size of machine, or classic mainframe definition.
Thus, mini-computers are accounted for fully; its just that they are folded into the mainframe category. In a similar fashion, the PC paradigm is not limited to WinTel computers. Unix Workstations and NCs also comply with the PC paradigm, which is "one computer, one user".
The third wave is "one user, many computers".
Further, the way users typically interface with computers is a critical part of each definition. Users access mainframes usually through dumb terminals, normally highly controlled by central authorities, requiring significant user-training and adherence to centralized concepts regarding workflow and data definitions. Mini-computers comply with this part of the definition, also.
The PC paradigm interface is less rigid than the mainframe, providing for individual initiative, yet still requiring the user to learn how to work with the computer - which is rejected by a sizable portion of our population.
The ubiquitous computing interface flips the roles of computer-user and computer. Unlike the previous two waves in which people needed to become computer literate to enjoy the fruit of automation, with ubiquitous computing, the burden is put squarely on the computer to learn how to interface with people.
Allen |
