Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpfcso!hpfcdc!perry
From: perry@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Perry Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: HP 9000/700 ?
Message-ID: <5570598@hpfcdc.HP.COM>
Date: 8 Apr 91 20:18:29 GMT
References: <91086.114156X03@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: HP Fort Collins, Co.
Lines: 34

>
>>But, as you say, the 700 runs 800 binaries just fine.  In fact, most of
>>the commands (/bin, /usr/bin) are 800 binaries.  Do a "file /bin/*" on a
>>demo machine and see what I mean.  I have not yet met an 800 executable
>>that won't run on a 700.
>
>I don't doubt what you are saying, but based on history, I think your
>evidence is flimsey.

OK, it's flimsey.  Try this:

# file /usr/sam/bin/get_disks /bin/ls
/usr/sam/bin/get_disks: PA-RISC1.1 shared executable
/bin/ls:        s800 shared executable

The core commands group, which sits across the aisle from me, made a
concious decision not to to Snakeify the commands.  The ROI just wasn't
there - two sets of binaries, incompatible binaries across NFS mounts,
etc weren't worth the speed advantage.  So, they took the kernel team at
its word, and shipped the 8.0 800 command set.

The test suite actually reports fewer problems on the 700 than the 800,
so everything appears to be OK on the compatibility front.


>Well, at least I know it's a Motorola :-)

Yeah, point taken.  Have you found a 200 that won't run binaries
produced by today's compilers ?  Looks to me like the 200->300->400
story applies to 800->700.  HP supports old iron.

>-jem

Perry