Received: (from major@localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA13144
	for pups-liszt; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:00:18 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flamingo.McKusick.COM (root@flamingo.mckusick.com [209.31.233.178])
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA13139
	for <pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:00:10 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flamingo.McKusick.COM (mckusick@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by flamingo.McKusick.COM (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA10534;
	Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:18:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199901122018.MAA10534@flamingo.McKusick.COM>
To: mxs46@k2.scl.cwru.edu (Michael Sokolov)
Subject: Re: 11/730 question 
cc: pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:18:35 EST."
             <199901122318.SAA04873@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu> 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:18:13 -0800
From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
Sender: owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk

I applaud your desire not to break old 4.2/4.3 machines.
I would be very resistant to losing support for a popular
machine like the 11/750. However, I think that losing support
for the 11/730 would be acceptable. It was a very feeble
processor (0.3 of a 780) and very few of them were ever sold.
We had only one at Berkeley (for porting purposes), and it was
so slow that we were not even able to pawn it off on the
undergrad CS organization when we were done with it.

	Kirk