Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!umich!sharkey!aucis!gillham From: gillham@andrews.edu (Andrew Gillham) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: 88110 rumors Message-ID: <677204324wkn28286@edmund.cs.andrews.edu> Date: 18 Jun 91 00:18:44 GMT References: <1991Jun12.200656.10243@linus.mitre.org> <1991Jun14.172316.10315@math.ucla.edu> <20692@cs.utexas.edu> Reply-To: gillham@edmund.cs.andrews.edu.UUCP (Andrew Gillham) Organization: Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan Lines: 25 In article <20692@cs.utexas.edu> osborn@cs.utexas.edu (John Howard Osborn) writes: >file had a 68xxx code segment, an 88xxx code segment, and a single data >segment. As a result, your code grew by about 33% in size (roughly), >but a single program would run on either machine. > >Now, suppose NeXT ships an 88xxx based machine along with NeXTstep 3.0. >Using this technology, developers could ship a single executable that >would run on either the old 68xxx machines or the newer machines. >Thus, the transition would be much eased. > >- >-John H. Osborn >-osborn@cs.utexas.edu As long as you could "strip" out the code segment that you didn't need, this would be the way to do it. (IMHO) It wouldn't be as space intensive as both binaries, and it wouldn't exclude one group of users. -Andrew -- ===================================================================== Andrew Gillham ****** Andrews University ****** (gillham@andrews.edu) I would've added a cool .signature, but I already mailed this letter.