Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site geowhiz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!geowhiz!larry
From: larry@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: Asynchronous State machines
Message-ID: <316@geowhiz.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Nov-85 22:34:19 EST
Article-I.D.: geowhiz.316
Posted: Sat Nov 23 22:34:19 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Nov-85 07:16:12 EST
References: <295@geowhiz.UUCP> <405@aum.UUCP>
Reply-To: larry@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy)
Organization: UW Madison, Geology Dept.
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.arch:2166 net.micro.68k:1364

In article <405@aum.UUCP> freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) writes:
>> In article <5841@tekecs.UUCP> johnt@tekecs.UUCP (John Theus) writes:
>> >For my money, it is hard to beat a properly designed ASM.  On the projects
>> >we recently completed, the Tek 6200 series of workstations, the compute
>> 
>> You may correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Tek just drop this
>> series of workstations?
>
>Larry,
>	Am I the only one who feels that this is pretty lame? Even if it is

You're right, it is pretty lame.  I didn't mean to needle John at all,
though in retrospect it sure looks that way (sorry John).  I  was just
curious as to why the machine was dropped.  (I still don't know).

Sorry for any hurt feelings,
-- 
Larry McVoy                                             +----------------+
                                                        | Slower traffic |
Arpa:  mcvoy@rsch.wisc.edu                              |   keep right   |
Uucp:  {seismo, ihnp4}!uwvax!geowhiz!geophiz!larry      +----------------+