Before many systems were in the field, faster 3rd party floating-point chips became available, and the /200 family was replaced by the object-code incompatible 7/300 and 14/300, and the 14/300 became by far the company's most popular model. In about 1988, a /100 entry level series was introduced as well, but these were essentially /300 systems with a slower clock. All the processors were built using CMOS gate arrays for the integer ALUs and registers, 3rd-party floating point chips, and medium-scale integrated circuits for the control and other portions. In 1988, the company started development of an ECL /500 family, which was to feature a 14/ that could also be used as a multiprocessor of two 7/ models, but that system was not completed before the company ceased operations. One example Trace system is in storage at the Computer History Museum. Innovative software Multiflow also produced the software tools for the systems it built. The systems ran Berkeley Unix. Probably, at the time the Multiflow systems were delivered, no computer that issued instructions longer than a single operation at a time had ever run a compiled mainstream operating system. Yet the entire Unix operating system and the usual tools all ran, with the usual portions compiled, on all the company's models. The compiler was particularly noteworthy, as could be expected given Multiflow's technology. The company built a new compiler, in a similar style to that developed at Yale, but industrial-strength and with the incorporation of much commercially-necessary capability. In addition to implementing aggressive trace scheduling, it was known for its reliability, for its incorporation of state-of-the-art optimization, and for its ability to handle simultaneously many different language variants and all of the different object-code incompatible models of the Multiflow Traces. (While code from a 7/X00 could run correctly on a 14/X00, the nature of the architecture mandated that it would have to be recompiled to run faster than it did on the 7/.) The compiler was generating correct code by 1985, and by 1987 it was producing code that found significant amounts of ILP. After 1987, with the press of customers and prospects, its development emphasized features and functionality, though performance-oriented improvement continued. The compiler was so robust, and so good at exposing ILP independent of the system it was targeted for, that after Multiflow closed, the compiler was licensed by many of the largest computer companies. It has been