Sorry, but that's a lame argument. Technology is not evolutionary - which by definition must be the incidental (I started to say "accidental", but that's not quite right) acquisition of new characteristics due to necessity or convenience. Micro-evolution, whether you like the term or not, is the observable differentiation within a species, and is rarely seriously debated. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is evolution across family or phylum lines.
Oh and btw, I'm not sure on the actual number but I'm quite sure the first computer had more vaccum tubes alone than your present day computer has parts.
Ummm... Not exactly. A vacuum tube is more analogous to a modern transistor than to a chip - which is composed of millions or billions of transistors (I lost track of the current record:-).
Why did you leave out speciation in your dividing line? You said microevolution is change within a species (which is true). This thread is all about the discovery of the evolution of a brand new species. Then you say macroevolution is the evolution of a new family.
Mainstream science calls change at the species level and above "macroevolution". Speciation is what has been observed here. That's macroevolution, because from now on the new species will only diverge further from its parent species.