Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!psu-cs!qiclab!neighorn
From: neighorn@qiclab.UUCP (Steve Neighorn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: Apollo Press Release: Domain/OS
Message-ID: <1060@qiclab.UUCP>
Date: 16 Mar 88 19:50:11 GMT
References: <3a60e1e6.8cd8@apollo.uucp> <460@edsews.EDS.COM> <156@vader.UUCP>
Reply-To: neighorn@qiclab.UUCP (Steve Neighorn)
Organization: Qic Laboratories, Portland, Oregon.
Lines: 29

The March 7, 1988 issue of Digital News carried an article entitled, "Apollo
PRISM Series Yields 'Personal Super.' The article was written by one Evan
Schwartz. Now for the reason this message is being posted:

On page 3 of the magazine, Mr. Schwartz writes:

"The Domain 10000's are object code-compatible with Apollo's existing
 workstation family. However, source code running on current Apollo
 machines must be recompiled to run on the new faster systems, a job
 that Apollo officials said requires some work.

 As a result, Apollo cannot claim that it offers a line of fully
 software-compatible systems, such as Digital Equipment Corp. can
 claim with its VAX family, a drawback that industry analysts say
 is significant but it offset by the new workstation's speed."
  
I will publicly apologize if I am missing the "big picture" here, but
how can the 10000 be object code compatible with current machines at the
same time source code running (?) on current machines requires 'some
work' to be recompiled? Is this a glitch in the Digital News article, or
did I forget to oil the semantic brain cells this morning?

I would appreciate some kind soul clearing this up, as I and I suspect
several of my co-workers are in a sort of suspended tele-electronic lust
with the 10K at the moment. Thanks much.
-- 
Steven C. Neighorn            !tektronix!{psu-cs,reed,ogcvax}!qiclab!neighorn
Portland Public Schools      "Where we train young Star Fighters to defend the
(503) 249-2000 ext 337           frontier against Xur and the Ko-dan Armada"