What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?












10















I have read that the first version of Unix was created for the PDP-7, and later versions were created for the PDP-11.



But I am wondering, what was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?










share|improve this question


















  • 11





    This question is at least as blurry as the definition what a microcomputer is - isn't it?

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 11:55






  • 3





    Define "microcomputer". The first 64K RAM desktop with a framebuffer running UNIX was Terak in 1976 or 1977.

    – Leo B.
    Mar 29 at 20:48











  • Define "Unix". Linux, for example, famously isn't Unix because it has never been certified as meeting the specification.

    – Mark
    Mar 29 at 21:39






  • 1





    @Mark en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspur_K-UX

    – Leo B.
    Mar 30 at 0:47






  • 1





    @SolarMike Mark said "it has never been certified as meeting the specification" and I proved that many distros have been certified as meeting the specification. What's wrong? Have you read the comment? In fact it's not one but two

    – phuclv
    Mar 31 at 9:55
















10















I have read that the first version of Unix was created for the PDP-7, and later versions were created for the PDP-11.



But I am wondering, what was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?










share|improve this question


















  • 11





    This question is at least as blurry as the definition what a microcomputer is - isn't it?

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 11:55






  • 3





    Define "microcomputer". The first 64K RAM desktop with a framebuffer running UNIX was Terak in 1976 or 1977.

    – Leo B.
    Mar 29 at 20:48











  • Define "Unix". Linux, for example, famously isn't Unix because it has never been certified as meeting the specification.

    – Mark
    Mar 29 at 21:39






  • 1





    @Mark en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspur_K-UX

    – Leo B.
    Mar 30 at 0:47






  • 1





    @SolarMike Mark said "it has never been certified as meeting the specification" and I proved that many distros have been certified as meeting the specification. What's wrong? Have you read the comment? In fact it's not one but two

    – phuclv
    Mar 31 at 9:55














10












10








10


2






I have read that the first version of Unix was created for the PDP-7, and later versions were created for the PDP-11.



But I am wondering, what was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?










share|improve this question














I have read that the first version of Unix was created for the PDP-7, and later versions were created for the PDP-11.



But I am wondering, what was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?







history






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Mar 29 at 9:22









user12162user12162

5413




5413








  • 11





    This question is at least as blurry as the definition what a microcomputer is - isn't it?

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 11:55






  • 3





    Define "microcomputer". The first 64K RAM desktop with a framebuffer running UNIX was Terak in 1976 or 1977.

    – Leo B.
    Mar 29 at 20:48











  • Define "Unix". Linux, for example, famously isn't Unix because it has never been certified as meeting the specification.

    – Mark
    Mar 29 at 21:39






  • 1





    @Mark en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspur_K-UX

    – Leo B.
    Mar 30 at 0:47






  • 1





    @SolarMike Mark said "it has never been certified as meeting the specification" and I proved that many distros have been certified as meeting the specification. What's wrong? Have you read the comment? In fact it's not one but two

    – phuclv
    Mar 31 at 9:55














  • 11





    This question is at least as blurry as the definition what a microcomputer is - isn't it?

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 11:55






  • 3





    Define "microcomputer". The first 64K RAM desktop with a framebuffer running UNIX was Terak in 1976 or 1977.

    – Leo B.
    Mar 29 at 20:48











  • Define "Unix". Linux, for example, famously isn't Unix because it has never been certified as meeting the specification.

    – Mark
    Mar 29 at 21:39






  • 1





    @Mark en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspur_K-UX

    – Leo B.
    Mar 30 at 0:47






  • 1





    @SolarMike Mark said "it has never been certified as meeting the specification" and I proved that many distros have been certified as meeting the specification. What's wrong? Have you read the comment? In fact it's not one but two

    – phuclv
    Mar 31 at 9:55








11




11





This question is at least as blurry as the definition what a microcomputer is - isn't it?

– Raffzahn
Mar 29 at 11:55





This question is at least as blurry as the definition what a microcomputer is - isn't it?

– Raffzahn
Mar 29 at 11:55




3




3





Define "microcomputer". The first 64K RAM desktop with a framebuffer running UNIX was Terak in 1976 or 1977.

– Leo B.
Mar 29 at 20:48





Define "microcomputer". The first 64K RAM desktop with a framebuffer running UNIX was Terak in 1976 or 1977.

– Leo B.
Mar 29 at 20:48













Define "Unix". Linux, for example, famously isn't Unix because it has never been certified as meeting the specification.

– Mark
Mar 29 at 21:39





Define "Unix". Linux, for example, famously isn't Unix because it has never been certified as meeting the specification.

– Mark
Mar 29 at 21:39




1




1





@Mark en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspur_K-UX

– Leo B.
Mar 30 at 0:47





@Mark en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspur_K-UX

– Leo B.
Mar 30 at 0:47




1




1





@SolarMike Mark said "it has never been certified as meeting the specification" and I proved that many distros have been certified as meeting the specification. What's wrong? Have you read the comment? In fact it's not one but two

– phuclv
Mar 31 at 9:55





@SolarMike Mark said "it has never been certified as meeting the specification" and I proved that many distros have been certified as meeting the specification. What's wrong? Have you read the comment? In fact it's not one but two

– phuclv
Mar 31 at 9:55










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















30














In 1981, Microsoft released Xenix which could run on the x86, the 68000, and others. As you know, Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s. So this was perhaps the first unix, or at least among the first commercial unices, to be intended to run on high-end micros.



But maybe, the term "micro" isn't so useful. After all, Version 6 UNIX from 1975 was written in C and ran blithely on the PDP-11. The PDP-11 architecture was later implemented on a microchip; A J-11 or something like that would have run V6 just as happily. And in Soviet Russia, V6 was indeed modified to run on local PDP-11-compatible microcomputers. It's arguable whether MNOS and V6 are the same UNIX; if they are, then it predates Microsoft's offering by around five years.



BYTE magazine, October 1983 talks about early unices on microcomputers






share|improve this answer





















  • 5





    I agree this doesn’t deserve its downvote. The release date for Xenix is somewhat inaccurate (it was announced in 1980, but only shipped in 1981, although there are claims of a 3Com release in 1980) but that’s not all that important!

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 29 at 12:24






  • 3





    I always think it is fun to remind Unix bigots/Microsoft haters to remember that for several years Microsoft's Xenix had more systems out there than any other Unix!

    – davidbak
    Mar 29 at 17:09






  • 1





    "Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s." This sounds like you're saying this was more true in the 80's than it is now, which is definitely incorrect, no? Or, do you mean it was especially true in the 80's compared to the 70's?

    – DarthFennec
    Mar 29 at 20:14






  • 1





    I was under the impression that smartphones and modern servers are microcomputers. There's not much difference internally between a phone and a laptop, or a server and a desktop. Or am I misunderstanding what a microcomputer is?

    – DarthFennec
    Mar 29 at 21:00






  • 1





    Eh, it's a matter of what definition of "micro" you like I guess

    – Wilson
    Mar 29 at 21:04



















12














It all comes down to the definition of micro. After all, already the PDP-11/03, aka LSI-11, of 1975, is based on a micro chipset. That's less than a year after Unix became known outside AT&T. An 'official' AT&T port to the LSI-11 was published in 1978. Not much later, the PDP-11/24 (1979) used the F11 chips follow us where J11 and T11 (single chip PDP). Clearly micros (*1).



When it comes to more common (*2) CPUs, Intel's 8086 got its first port, by AT&T in 1978, shortly followed by Microsoft's XENIX, based on the AT&T port (*3).





*1 - Or do the case form make the difference? Then I must point to some 6502, Z80 or even 2650 based systems in 19"



*2 - not that I would call the LSI-11 uncommon



*3 - Sans the custom MMU that is.






share|improve this answer


























  • Wow, I had read the porting paper a while ago and had completely forgotten about the AT&T 8086 port! Was Xenix 8086 really based on that though? I thought Microsoft had started with PDP-11 Xenix, then ported it to the Z8001 and only after that to the 8086 (with help from SCO).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 29 at 12:20













  • @StephenKitt Not sure. It's the way I learned about it back in the 1980s - but I never verified it, so it may be unfounded coffee machine talk. Then again, isn't the AT&T itself based on the PDP-11 code? Interesting maybe in addition is that the Siemens PC-MX, a 8086 based Xenix (Sinix) system, had a custom MMU, somewhat like the AT&T one - on a ..lets say intel inspired ... CPU board. Similar for the later 80186 based PC-X workstation.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 12:30








  • 1





    Raffzahn, What did you mean in Note *1? Are you saying there were Unix systems for 6502 and z80? Or that there were microcomputers based on these 8-bit CPUs? I'm not challenging your answer, I just don't understand this note.

    – RichF
    Mar 29 at 15:48













  • @RichF No, *1 is related to what qualifies a microcomputer. It's meant to mark that the form factor can't be used as reasoning.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 17:46



















9














According to the chronology of personal computers, the first micro-computer running Unix was “the Onyx C8002 microcomputer. It features a Zilog Z8000 microprocessor, 256 kB RAM, tape backup, hard disk, serial ports for eight users, and running UNIX, for US$20,000.” It was introduced in June 1980. (The quote is inaccurate in at least one respect: the C8002, as its name suggests, used a Zilog Z8002 CPU — thanks Raffzahn!)



This was followed shortly by Xenix, Microsoft’s licensed port of Unix, which first shipped in January 1981 on a Z8001-based Central Data Corporation system (not to be confused with the more famous Control Data Corporation). 8086 systems running Xenix started shipping in 1982. Xenix was also available on PDP-11 computers (see the OEM list for details), and there were micro-computer-class PDP-11 systems, including DEC’s own Professional range which was available with 2.9BSD.






share|improve this answer


























  • I do not get it. How could 256kb RAM brick of metal cost 20k? It is new, super silicon ninja tech, but why it was used so it could cost 20k?

    – Croll
    Mar 29 at 12:27






  • 5





    Erm, @Croll, you did note, that this is the price for the whole system, including CPU, I/O, (hard) disks, tape and so on? 20k doesn't sound much to me for a 16 bit multi user system in 1980 - rather resonable I say.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 12:37








  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    Mar 30 at 1:11






  • 1





    @Leo you’d have to ask Ken Polsson ;-). Was it “micro” enough?

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 30 at 8:43











  • From Wikipedia it seems that Z8000 was a family including (at least) two members - Z8001 with 24 MB addressable memory and Z8002 with 64 KB. So calling this processor Z8000 or Z8002 is both correct.

    – Bulat
    Mar 31 at 19:01



















4














With the other answers, it is obvious the Sun-1 was not the first. However, due to Sun Microsystem's relevance in the microcomputing world, I think this May, 1982 entry is worth mentioning here. The system was based on a 68000 CPU along with a Sun-designed MMU. (Apparently the Motorola MMU at the time was not sufficiently reliable.)





  1. Sun-1, 1982, 68000, Sun MMU


  2. Sun-2, 1983, 68010, Sun MMU


  3. Sun-3, 1985, 68020, Sun MMU, Motorola fp math coprocessor


  4. Sun-3x, 1989, 68030, inherent MMU, Motorola fp math, system coincident with SparcStation 1


No more 680x0 models past that, and later Sun models would either use the Sparc or x86 CPUs (both 32-bit and later 64-bit).






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Why did Intel not use Motorola chips when they asked Microsoft to provide a disk operating system for their new microcomputer... We'd have an 8 core 68080 ... sane assembler ... the world would be a better place ;-).

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Mar 29 at 18:13








  • 1





    @PeterA.Schneider: If you mean IBM, rather than Intel, using the 68000 was seriously considered fir the IBM PC. It wasn't done largely because the 8088 could use cheap 8-bit peripheral chips: remember that the IBM PC was not intended to become a dominant computer architecture at all.

    – John Dallman
    Mar 29 at 18:47











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Mar 29 at 18:56






  • 1





    I don't think there was actually anything wrong with the Motorola MMU other than it was slow. This made it unpopular, HP also created their own MMU for their 68000 based workstations. The problem was with the 68000 CPU itself, a design flaw meant it couldn't reliably restart execution after a page fault. This meant that it wasn't possible to implement virtual memory, but it was possible to use the MMU to implement process isolation. VM support had to wait until the Sun-2 which used a 68010 which fixed the 68000 flaw.

    – Ross Ridge
    Mar 31 at 3:01











  • @RossRidge Thank you for the info. Do you know why Sun stuck with their proprietary MMU until the 68030? My guess would be momentum. They were used to it and had no compelling reason to change.

    – RichF
    Mar 31 at 3:05



















4














In the early 1980s, Torch Unix was available for the BBC Micro.



The catch was that you had to have the Torch 68000 second processor and hard drive. This meant that it fell between two stools. It was far too expensive for use by the usual BBC Micro hobbyists and office/professional users found it too unusual to compete with more mainstream offerings from other manufacturers. So it soon died out.



I did use this at work for a short time. I remember it had to be installed onto the hard drive from 50 5.25" floppies, this took me pretty much an entire working day.






share|improve this answer
























  • I remember seeing Torch Unix running at one of the Acorn User shows at Alexandra Palace. As you say, too weird to survive - unfortunately.

    – Chenmunka
    Apr 3 at 9:16












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9461%2fwhat-was-the-first-unix-version-to-run-on-a-microcomputer%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes








5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









30














In 1981, Microsoft released Xenix which could run on the x86, the 68000, and others. As you know, Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s. So this was perhaps the first unix, or at least among the first commercial unices, to be intended to run on high-end micros.



But maybe, the term "micro" isn't so useful. After all, Version 6 UNIX from 1975 was written in C and ran blithely on the PDP-11. The PDP-11 architecture was later implemented on a microchip; A J-11 or something like that would have run V6 just as happily. And in Soviet Russia, V6 was indeed modified to run on local PDP-11-compatible microcomputers. It's arguable whether MNOS and V6 are the same UNIX; if they are, then it predates Microsoft's offering by around five years.



BYTE magazine, October 1983 talks about early unices on microcomputers






share|improve this answer





















  • 5





    I agree this doesn’t deserve its downvote. The release date for Xenix is somewhat inaccurate (it was announced in 1980, but only shipped in 1981, although there are claims of a 3Com release in 1980) but that’s not all that important!

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 29 at 12:24






  • 3





    I always think it is fun to remind Unix bigots/Microsoft haters to remember that for several years Microsoft's Xenix had more systems out there than any other Unix!

    – davidbak
    Mar 29 at 17:09






  • 1





    "Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s." This sounds like you're saying this was more true in the 80's than it is now, which is definitely incorrect, no? Or, do you mean it was especially true in the 80's compared to the 70's?

    – DarthFennec
    Mar 29 at 20:14






  • 1





    I was under the impression that smartphones and modern servers are microcomputers. There's not much difference internally between a phone and a laptop, or a server and a desktop. Or am I misunderstanding what a microcomputer is?

    – DarthFennec
    Mar 29 at 21:00






  • 1





    Eh, it's a matter of what definition of "micro" you like I guess

    – Wilson
    Mar 29 at 21:04
















30














In 1981, Microsoft released Xenix which could run on the x86, the 68000, and others. As you know, Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s. So this was perhaps the first unix, or at least among the first commercial unices, to be intended to run on high-end micros.



But maybe, the term "micro" isn't so useful. After all, Version 6 UNIX from 1975 was written in C and ran blithely on the PDP-11. The PDP-11 architecture was later implemented on a microchip; A J-11 or something like that would have run V6 just as happily. And in Soviet Russia, V6 was indeed modified to run on local PDP-11-compatible microcomputers. It's arguable whether MNOS and V6 are the same UNIX; if they are, then it predates Microsoft's offering by around five years.



BYTE magazine, October 1983 talks about early unices on microcomputers






share|improve this answer





















  • 5





    I agree this doesn’t deserve its downvote. The release date for Xenix is somewhat inaccurate (it was announced in 1980, but only shipped in 1981, although there are claims of a 3Com release in 1980) but that’s not all that important!

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 29 at 12:24






  • 3





    I always think it is fun to remind Unix bigots/Microsoft haters to remember that for several years Microsoft's Xenix had more systems out there than any other Unix!

    – davidbak
    Mar 29 at 17:09






  • 1





    "Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s." This sounds like you're saying this was more true in the 80's than it is now, which is definitely incorrect, no? Or, do you mean it was especially true in the 80's compared to the 70's?

    – DarthFennec
    Mar 29 at 20:14






  • 1





    I was under the impression that smartphones and modern servers are microcomputers. There's not much difference internally between a phone and a laptop, or a server and a desktop. Or am I misunderstanding what a microcomputer is?

    – DarthFennec
    Mar 29 at 21:00






  • 1





    Eh, it's a matter of what definition of "micro" you like I guess

    – Wilson
    Mar 29 at 21:04














30












30








30







In 1981, Microsoft released Xenix which could run on the x86, the 68000, and others. As you know, Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s. So this was perhaps the first unix, or at least among the first commercial unices, to be intended to run on high-end micros.



But maybe, the term "micro" isn't so useful. After all, Version 6 UNIX from 1975 was written in C and ran blithely on the PDP-11. The PDP-11 architecture was later implemented on a microchip; A J-11 or something like that would have run V6 just as happily. And in Soviet Russia, V6 was indeed modified to run on local PDP-11-compatible microcomputers. It's arguable whether MNOS and V6 are the same UNIX; if they are, then it predates Microsoft's offering by around five years.



BYTE magazine, October 1983 talks about early unices on microcomputers






share|improve this answer















In 1981, Microsoft released Xenix which could run on the x86, the 68000, and others. As you know, Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s. So this was perhaps the first unix, or at least among the first commercial unices, to be intended to run on high-end micros.



But maybe, the term "micro" isn't so useful. After all, Version 6 UNIX from 1975 was written in C and ran blithely on the PDP-11. The PDP-11 architecture was later implemented on a microchip; A J-11 or something like that would have run V6 just as happily. And in Soviet Russia, V6 was indeed modified to run on local PDP-11-compatible microcomputers. It's arguable whether MNOS and V6 are the same UNIX; if they are, then it predates Microsoft's offering by around five years.



BYTE magazine, October 1983 talks about early unices on microcomputers







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 29 at 12:58

























answered Mar 29 at 9:35









WilsonWilson

12.4k557139




12.4k557139








  • 5





    I agree this doesn’t deserve its downvote. The release date for Xenix is somewhat inaccurate (it was announced in 1980, but only shipped in 1981, although there are claims of a 3Com release in 1980) but that’s not all that important!

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 29 at 12:24






  • 3





    I always think it is fun to remind Unix bigots/Microsoft haters to remember that for several years Microsoft's Xenix had more systems out there than any other Unix!

    – davidbak
    Mar 29 at 17:09






  • 1





    "Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s." This sounds like you're saying this was more true in the 80's than it is now, which is definitely incorrect, no? Or, do you mean it was especially true in the 80's compared to the 70's?

    – DarthFennec
    Mar 29 at 20:14






  • 1





    I was under the impression that smartphones and modern servers are microcomputers. There's not much difference internally between a phone and a laptop, or a server and a desktop. Or am I misunderstanding what a microcomputer is?

    – DarthFennec
    Mar 29 at 21:00






  • 1





    Eh, it's a matter of what definition of "micro" you like I guess

    – Wilson
    Mar 29 at 21:04














  • 5





    I agree this doesn’t deserve its downvote. The release date for Xenix is somewhat inaccurate (it was announced in 1980, but only shipped in 1981, although there are claims of a 3Com release in 1980) but that’s not all that important!

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 29 at 12:24






  • 3





    I always think it is fun to remind Unix bigots/Microsoft haters to remember that for several years Microsoft's Xenix had more systems out there than any other Unix!

    – davidbak
    Mar 29 at 17:09






  • 1





    "Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s." This sounds like you're saying this was more true in the 80's than it is now, which is definitely incorrect, no? Or, do you mean it was especially true in the 80's compared to the 70's?

    – DarthFennec
    Mar 29 at 20:14






  • 1





    I was under the impression that smartphones and modern servers are microcomputers. There's not much difference internally between a phone and a laptop, or a server and a desktop. Or am I misunderstanding what a microcomputer is?

    – DarthFennec
    Mar 29 at 21:00






  • 1





    Eh, it's a matter of what definition of "micro" you like I guess

    – Wilson
    Mar 29 at 21:04








5




5





I agree this doesn’t deserve its downvote. The release date for Xenix is somewhat inaccurate (it was announced in 1980, but only shipped in 1981, although there are claims of a 3Com release in 1980) but that’s not all that important!

– Stephen Kitt
Mar 29 at 12:24





I agree this doesn’t deserve its downvote. The release date for Xenix is somewhat inaccurate (it was announced in 1980, but only shipped in 1981, although there are claims of a 3Com release in 1980) but that’s not all that important!

– Stephen Kitt
Mar 29 at 12:24




3




3





I always think it is fun to remind Unix bigots/Microsoft haters to remember that for several years Microsoft's Xenix had more systems out there than any other Unix!

– davidbak
Mar 29 at 17:09





I always think it is fun to remind Unix bigots/Microsoft haters to remember that for several years Microsoft's Xenix had more systems out there than any other Unix!

– davidbak
Mar 29 at 17:09




1




1





"Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s." This sounds like you're saying this was more true in the 80's than it is now, which is definitely incorrect, no? Or, do you mean it was especially true in the 80's compared to the 70's?

– DarthFennec
Mar 29 at 20:14





"Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s." This sounds like you're saying this was more true in the 80's than it is now, which is definitely incorrect, no? Or, do you mean it was especially true in the 80's compared to the 70's?

– DarthFennec
Mar 29 at 20:14




1




1





I was under the impression that smartphones and modern servers are microcomputers. There's not much difference internally between a phone and a laptop, or a server and a desktop. Or am I misunderstanding what a microcomputer is?

– DarthFennec
Mar 29 at 21:00





I was under the impression that smartphones and modern servers are microcomputers. There's not much difference internally between a phone and a laptop, or a server and a desktop. Or am I misunderstanding what a microcomputer is?

– DarthFennec
Mar 29 at 21:00




1




1





Eh, it's a matter of what definition of "micro" you like I guess

– Wilson
Mar 29 at 21:04





Eh, it's a matter of what definition of "micro" you like I guess

– Wilson
Mar 29 at 21:04











12














It all comes down to the definition of micro. After all, already the PDP-11/03, aka LSI-11, of 1975, is based on a micro chipset. That's less than a year after Unix became known outside AT&T. An 'official' AT&T port to the LSI-11 was published in 1978. Not much later, the PDP-11/24 (1979) used the F11 chips follow us where J11 and T11 (single chip PDP). Clearly micros (*1).



When it comes to more common (*2) CPUs, Intel's 8086 got its first port, by AT&T in 1978, shortly followed by Microsoft's XENIX, based on the AT&T port (*3).





*1 - Or do the case form make the difference? Then I must point to some 6502, Z80 or even 2650 based systems in 19"



*2 - not that I would call the LSI-11 uncommon



*3 - Sans the custom MMU that is.






share|improve this answer


























  • Wow, I had read the porting paper a while ago and had completely forgotten about the AT&T 8086 port! Was Xenix 8086 really based on that though? I thought Microsoft had started with PDP-11 Xenix, then ported it to the Z8001 and only after that to the 8086 (with help from SCO).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 29 at 12:20













  • @StephenKitt Not sure. It's the way I learned about it back in the 1980s - but I never verified it, so it may be unfounded coffee machine talk. Then again, isn't the AT&T itself based on the PDP-11 code? Interesting maybe in addition is that the Siemens PC-MX, a 8086 based Xenix (Sinix) system, had a custom MMU, somewhat like the AT&T one - on a ..lets say intel inspired ... CPU board. Similar for the later 80186 based PC-X workstation.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 12:30








  • 1





    Raffzahn, What did you mean in Note *1? Are you saying there were Unix systems for 6502 and z80? Or that there were microcomputers based on these 8-bit CPUs? I'm not challenging your answer, I just don't understand this note.

    – RichF
    Mar 29 at 15:48













  • @RichF No, *1 is related to what qualifies a microcomputer. It's meant to mark that the form factor can't be used as reasoning.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 17:46
















12














It all comes down to the definition of micro. After all, already the PDP-11/03, aka LSI-11, of 1975, is based on a micro chipset. That's less than a year after Unix became known outside AT&T. An 'official' AT&T port to the LSI-11 was published in 1978. Not much later, the PDP-11/24 (1979) used the F11 chips follow us where J11 and T11 (single chip PDP). Clearly micros (*1).



When it comes to more common (*2) CPUs, Intel's 8086 got its first port, by AT&T in 1978, shortly followed by Microsoft's XENIX, based on the AT&T port (*3).





*1 - Or do the case form make the difference? Then I must point to some 6502, Z80 or even 2650 based systems in 19"



*2 - not that I would call the LSI-11 uncommon



*3 - Sans the custom MMU that is.






share|improve this answer


























  • Wow, I had read the porting paper a while ago and had completely forgotten about the AT&T 8086 port! Was Xenix 8086 really based on that though? I thought Microsoft had started with PDP-11 Xenix, then ported it to the Z8001 and only after that to the 8086 (with help from SCO).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 29 at 12:20













  • @StephenKitt Not sure. It's the way I learned about it back in the 1980s - but I never verified it, so it may be unfounded coffee machine talk. Then again, isn't the AT&T itself based on the PDP-11 code? Interesting maybe in addition is that the Siemens PC-MX, a 8086 based Xenix (Sinix) system, had a custom MMU, somewhat like the AT&T one - on a ..lets say intel inspired ... CPU board. Similar for the later 80186 based PC-X workstation.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 12:30








  • 1





    Raffzahn, What did you mean in Note *1? Are you saying there were Unix systems for 6502 and z80? Or that there were microcomputers based on these 8-bit CPUs? I'm not challenging your answer, I just don't understand this note.

    – RichF
    Mar 29 at 15:48













  • @RichF No, *1 is related to what qualifies a microcomputer. It's meant to mark that the form factor can't be used as reasoning.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 17:46














12












12








12







It all comes down to the definition of micro. After all, already the PDP-11/03, aka LSI-11, of 1975, is based on a micro chipset. That's less than a year after Unix became known outside AT&T. An 'official' AT&T port to the LSI-11 was published in 1978. Not much later, the PDP-11/24 (1979) used the F11 chips follow us where J11 and T11 (single chip PDP). Clearly micros (*1).



When it comes to more common (*2) CPUs, Intel's 8086 got its first port, by AT&T in 1978, shortly followed by Microsoft's XENIX, based on the AT&T port (*3).





*1 - Or do the case form make the difference? Then I must point to some 6502, Z80 or even 2650 based systems in 19"



*2 - not that I would call the LSI-11 uncommon



*3 - Sans the custom MMU that is.






share|improve this answer















It all comes down to the definition of micro. After all, already the PDP-11/03, aka LSI-11, of 1975, is based on a micro chipset. That's less than a year after Unix became known outside AT&T. An 'official' AT&T port to the LSI-11 was published in 1978. Not much later, the PDP-11/24 (1979) used the F11 chips follow us where J11 and T11 (single chip PDP). Clearly micros (*1).



When it comes to more common (*2) CPUs, Intel's 8086 got its first port, by AT&T in 1978, shortly followed by Microsoft's XENIX, based on the AT&T port (*3).





*1 - Or do the case form make the difference? Then I must point to some 6502, Z80 or even 2650 based systems in 19"



*2 - not that I would call the LSI-11 uncommon



*3 - Sans the custom MMU that is.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 29 at 12:16









Wilson

12.4k557139




12.4k557139










answered Mar 29 at 11:54









RaffzahnRaffzahn

55.8k6136225




55.8k6136225













  • Wow, I had read the porting paper a while ago and had completely forgotten about the AT&T 8086 port! Was Xenix 8086 really based on that though? I thought Microsoft had started with PDP-11 Xenix, then ported it to the Z8001 and only after that to the 8086 (with help from SCO).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 29 at 12:20













  • @StephenKitt Not sure. It's the way I learned about it back in the 1980s - but I never verified it, so it may be unfounded coffee machine talk. Then again, isn't the AT&T itself based on the PDP-11 code? Interesting maybe in addition is that the Siemens PC-MX, a 8086 based Xenix (Sinix) system, had a custom MMU, somewhat like the AT&T one - on a ..lets say intel inspired ... CPU board. Similar for the later 80186 based PC-X workstation.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 12:30








  • 1





    Raffzahn, What did you mean in Note *1? Are you saying there were Unix systems for 6502 and z80? Or that there were microcomputers based on these 8-bit CPUs? I'm not challenging your answer, I just don't understand this note.

    – RichF
    Mar 29 at 15:48













  • @RichF No, *1 is related to what qualifies a microcomputer. It's meant to mark that the form factor can't be used as reasoning.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 17:46



















  • Wow, I had read the porting paper a while ago and had completely forgotten about the AT&T 8086 port! Was Xenix 8086 really based on that though? I thought Microsoft had started with PDP-11 Xenix, then ported it to the Z8001 and only after that to the 8086 (with help from SCO).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 29 at 12:20













  • @StephenKitt Not sure. It's the way I learned about it back in the 1980s - but I never verified it, so it may be unfounded coffee machine talk. Then again, isn't the AT&T itself based on the PDP-11 code? Interesting maybe in addition is that the Siemens PC-MX, a 8086 based Xenix (Sinix) system, had a custom MMU, somewhat like the AT&T one - on a ..lets say intel inspired ... CPU board. Similar for the later 80186 based PC-X workstation.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 12:30








  • 1





    Raffzahn, What did you mean in Note *1? Are you saying there were Unix systems for 6502 and z80? Or that there were microcomputers based on these 8-bit CPUs? I'm not challenging your answer, I just don't understand this note.

    – RichF
    Mar 29 at 15:48













  • @RichF No, *1 is related to what qualifies a microcomputer. It's meant to mark that the form factor can't be used as reasoning.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 17:46

















Wow, I had read the porting paper a while ago and had completely forgotten about the AT&T 8086 port! Was Xenix 8086 really based on that though? I thought Microsoft had started with PDP-11 Xenix, then ported it to the Z8001 and only after that to the 8086 (with help from SCO).

– Stephen Kitt
Mar 29 at 12:20







Wow, I had read the porting paper a while ago and had completely forgotten about the AT&T 8086 port! Was Xenix 8086 really based on that though? I thought Microsoft had started with PDP-11 Xenix, then ported it to the Z8001 and only after that to the 8086 (with help from SCO).

– Stephen Kitt
Mar 29 at 12:20















@StephenKitt Not sure. It's the way I learned about it back in the 1980s - but I never verified it, so it may be unfounded coffee machine talk. Then again, isn't the AT&T itself based on the PDP-11 code? Interesting maybe in addition is that the Siemens PC-MX, a 8086 based Xenix (Sinix) system, had a custom MMU, somewhat like the AT&T one - on a ..lets say intel inspired ... CPU board. Similar for the later 80186 based PC-X workstation.

– Raffzahn
Mar 29 at 12:30







@StephenKitt Not sure. It's the way I learned about it back in the 1980s - but I never verified it, so it may be unfounded coffee machine talk. Then again, isn't the AT&T itself based on the PDP-11 code? Interesting maybe in addition is that the Siemens PC-MX, a 8086 based Xenix (Sinix) system, had a custom MMU, somewhat like the AT&T one - on a ..lets say intel inspired ... CPU board. Similar for the later 80186 based PC-X workstation.

– Raffzahn
Mar 29 at 12:30






1




1





Raffzahn, What did you mean in Note *1? Are you saying there were Unix systems for 6502 and z80? Or that there were microcomputers based on these 8-bit CPUs? I'm not challenging your answer, I just don't understand this note.

– RichF
Mar 29 at 15:48







Raffzahn, What did you mean in Note *1? Are you saying there were Unix systems for 6502 and z80? Or that there were microcomputers based on these 8-bit CPUs? I'm not challenging your answer, I just don't understand this note.

– RichF
Mar 29 at 15:48















@RichF No, *1 is related to what qualifies a microcomputer. It's meant to mark that the form factor can't be used as reasoning.

– Raffzahn
Mar 29 at 17:46





@RichF No, *1 is related to what qualifies a microcomputer. It's meant to mark that the form factor can't be used as reasoning.

– Raffzahn
Mar 29 at 17:46











9














According to the chronology of personal computers, the first micro-computer running Unix was “the Onyx C8002 microcomputer. It features a Zilog Z8000 microprocessor, 256 kB RAM, tape backup, hard disk, serial ports for eight users, and running UNIX, for US$20,000.” It was introduced in June 1980. (The quote is inaccurate in at least one respect: the C8002, as its name suggests, used a Zilog Z8002 CPU — thanks Raffzahn!)



This was followed shortly by Xenix, Microsoft’s licensed port of Unix, which first shipped in January 1981 on a Z8001-based Central Data Corporation system (not to be confused with the more famous Control Data Corporation). 8086 systems running Xenix started shipping in 1982. Xenix was also available on PDP-11 computers (see the OEM list for details), and there were micro-computer-class PDP-11 systems, including DEC’s own Professional range which was available with 2.9BSD.






share|improve this answer


























  • I do not get it. How could 256kb RAM brick of metal cost 20k? It is new, super silicon ninja tech, but why it was used so it could cost 20k?

    – Croll
    Mar 29 at 12:27






  • 5





    Erm, @Croll, you did note, that this is the price for the whole system, including CPU, I/O, (hard) disks, tape and so on? 20k doesn't sound much to me for a 16 bit multi user system in 1980 - rather resonable I say.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 12:37








  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    Mar 30 at 1:11






  • 1





    @Leo you’d have to ask Ken Polsson ;-). Was it “micro” enough?

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 30 at 8:43











  • From Wikipedia it seems that Z8000 was a family including (at least) two members - Z8001 with 24 MB addressable memory and Z8002 with 64 KB. So calling this processor Z8000 or Z8002 is both correct.

    – Bulat
    Mar 31 at 19:01
















9














According to the chronology of personal computers, the first micro-computer running Unix was “the Onyx C8002 microcomputer. It features a Zilog Z8000 microprocessor, 256 kB RAM, tape backup, hard disk, serial ports for eight users, and running UNIX, for US$20,000.” It was introduced in June 1980. (The quote is inaccurate in at least one respect: the C8002, as its name suggests, used a Zilog Z8002 CPU — thanks Raffzahn!)



This was followed shortly by Xenix, Microsoft’s licensed port of Unix, which first shipped in January 1981 on a Z8001-based Central Data Corporation system (not to be confused with the more famous Control Data Corporation). 8086 systems running Xenix started shipping in 1982. Xenix was also available on PDP-11 computers (see the OEM list for details), and there were micro-computer-class PDP-11 systems, including DEC’s own Professional range which was available with 2.9BSD.






share|improve this answer


























  • I do not get it. How could 256kb RAM brick of metal cost 20k? It is new, super silicon ninja tech, but why it was used so it could cost 20k?

    – Croll
    Mar 29 at 12:27






  • 5





    Erm, @Croll, you did note, that this is the price for the whole system, including CPU, I/O, (hard) disks, tape and so on? 20k doesn't sound much to me for a 16 bit multi user system in 1980 - rather resonable I say.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 12:37








  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    Mar 30 at 1:11






  • 1





    @Leo you’d have to ask Ken Polsson ;-). Was it “micro” enough?

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 30 at 8:43











  • From Wikipedia it seems that Z8000 was a family including (at least) two members - Z8001 with 24 MB addressable memory and Z8002 with 64 KB. So calling this processor Z8000 or Z8002 is both correct.

    – Bulat
    Mar 31 at 19:01














9












9








9







According to the chronology of personal computers, the first micro-computer running Unix was “the Onyx C8002 microcomputer. It features a Zilog Z8000 microprocessor, 256 kB RAM, tape backup, hard disk, serial ports for eight users, and running UNIX, for US$20,000.” It was introduced in June 1980. (The quote is inaccurate in at least one respect: the C8002, as its name suggests, used a Zilog Z8002 CPU — thanks Raffzahn!)



This was followed shortly by Xenix, Microsoft’s licensed port of Unix, which first shipped in January 1981 on a Z8001-based Central Data Corporation system (not to be confused with the more famous Control Data Corporation). 8086 systems running Xenix started shipping in 1982. Xenix was also available on PDP-11 computers (see the OEM list for details), and there were micro-computer-class PDP-11 systems, including DEC’s own Professional range which was available with 2.9BSD.






share|improve this answer















According to the chronology of personal computers, the first micro-computer running Unix was “the Onyx C8002 microcomputer. It features a Zilog Z8000 microprocessor, 256 kB RAM, tape backup, hard disk, serial ports for eight users, and running UNIX, for US$20,000.” It was introduced in June 1980. (The quote is inaccurate in at least one respect: the C8002, as its name suggests, used a Zilog Z8002 CPU — thanks Raffzahn!)



This was followed shortly by Xenix, Microsoft’s licensed port of Unix, which first shipped in January 1981 on a Z8001-based Central Data Corporation system (not to be confused with the more famous Control Data Corporation). 8086 systems running Xenix started shipping in 1982. Xenix was also available on PDP-11 computers (see the OEM list for details), and there were micro-computer-class PDP-11 systems, including DEC’s own Professional range which was available with 2.9BSD.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 29 at 12:57

























answered Mar 29 at 9:34









Stephen KittStephen Kitt

39.9k8162173




39.9k8162173













  • I do not get it. How could 256kb RAM brick of metal cost 20k? It is new, super silicon ninja tech, but why it was used so it could cost 20k?

    – Croll
    Mar 29 at 12:27






  • 5





    Erm, @Croll, you did note, that this is the price for the whole system, including CPU, I/O, (hard) disks, tape and so on? 20k doesn't sound much to me for a 16 bit multi user system in 1980 - rather resonable I say.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 12:37








  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    Mar 30 at 1:11






  • 1





    @Leo you’d have to ask Ken Polsson ;-). Was it “micro” enough?

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 30 at 8:43











  • From Wikipedia it seems that Z8000 was a family including (at least) two members - Z8001 with 24 MB addressable memory and Z8002 with 64 KB. So calling this processor Z8000 or Z8002 is both correct.

    – Bulat
    Mar 31 at 19:01



















  • I do not get it. How could 256kb RAM brick of metal cost 20k? It is new, super silicon ninja tech, but why it was used so it could cost 20k?

    – Croll
    Mar 29 at 12:27






  • 5





    Erm, @Croll, you did note, that this is the price for the whole system, including CPU, I/O, (hard) disks, tape and so on? 20k doesn't sound much to me for a 16 bit multi user system in 1980 - rather resonable I say.

    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 12:37








  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    Mar 30 at 1:11






  • 1





    @Leo you’d have to ask Ken Polsson ;-). Was it “micro” enough?

    – Stephen Kitt
    Mar 30 at 8:43











  • From Wikipedia it seems that Z8000 was a family including (at least) two members - Z8001 with 24 MB addressable memory and Z8002 with 64 KB. So calling this processor Z8000 or Z8002 is both correct.

    – Bulat
    Mar 31 at 19:01

















I do not get it. How could 256kb RAM brick of metal cost 20k? It is new, super silicon ninja tech, but why it was used so it could cost 20k?

– Croll
Mar 29 at 12:27





I do not get it. How could 256kb RAM brick of metal cost 20k? It is new, super silicon ninja tech, but why it was used so it could cost 20k?

– Croll
Mar 29 at 12:27




5




5





Erm, @Croll, you did note, that this is the price for the whole system, including CPU, I/O, (hard) disks, tape and so on? 20k doesn't sound much to me for a 16 bit multi user system in 1980 - rather resonable I say.

– Raffzahn
Mar 29 at 12:37







Erm, @Croll, you did note, that this is the price for the whole system, including CPU, I/O, (hard) disks, tape and so on? 20k doesn't sound much to me for a 16 bit multi user system in 1980 - rather resonable I say.

– Raffzahn
Mar 29 at 12:37






1




1





Terak was not "personal" enough?

– Leo B.
Mar 30 at 1:11





Terak was not "personal" enough?

– Leo B.
Mar 30 at 1:11




1




1





@Leo you’d have to ask Ken Polsson ;-). Was it “micro” enough?

– Stephen Kitt
Mar 30 at 8:43





@Leo you’d have to ask Ken Polsson ;-). Was it “micro” enough?

– Stephen Kitt
Mar 30 at 8:43













From Wikipedia it seems that Z8000 was a family including (at least) two members - Z8001 with 24 MB addressable memory and Z8002 with 64 KB. So calling this processor Z8000 or Z8002 is both correct.

– Bulat
Mar 31 at 19:01





From Wikipedia it seems that Z8000 was a family including (at least) two members - Z8001 with 24 MB addressable memory and Z8002 with 64 KB. So calling this processor Z8000 or Z8002 is both correct.

– Bulat
Mar 31 at 19:01











4














With the other answers, it is obvious the Sun-1 was not the first. However, due to Sun Microsystem's relevance in the microcomputing world, I think this May, 1982 entry is worth mentioning here. The system was based on a 68000 CPU along with a Sun-designed MMU. (Apparently the Motorola MMU at the time was not sufficiently reliable.)





  1. Sun-1, 1982, 68000, Sun MMU


  2. Sun-2, 1983, 68010, Sun MMU


  3. Sun-3, 1985, 68020, Sun MMU, Motorola fp math coprocessor


  4. Sun-3x, 1989, 68030, inherent MMU, Motorola fp math, system coincident with SparcStation 1


No more 680x0 models past that, and later Sun models would either use the Sparc or x86 CPUs (both 32-bit and later 64-bit).






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Why did Intel not use Motorola chips when they asked Microsoft to provide a disk operating system for their new microcomputer... We'd have an 8 core 68080 ... sane assembler ... the world would be a better place ;-).

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Mar 29 at 18:13








  • 1





    @PeterA.Schneider: If you mean IBM, rather than Intel, using the 68000 was seriously considered fir the IBM PC. It wasn't done largely because the 8088 could use cheap 8-bit peripheral chips: remember that the IBM PC was not intended to become a dominant computer architecture at all.

    – John Dallman
    Mar 29 at 18:47











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Mar 29 at 18:56






  • 1





    I don't think there was actually anything wrong with the Motorola MMU other than it was slow. This made it unpopular, HP also created their own MMU for their 68000 based workstations. The problem was with the 68000 CPU itself, a design flaw meant it couldn't reliably restart execution after a page fault. This meant that it wasn't possible to implement virtual memory, but it was possible to use the MMU to implement process isolation. VM support had to wait until the Sun-2 which used a 68010 which fixed the 68000 flaw.

    – Ross Ridge
    Mar 31 at 3:01











  • @RossRidge Thank you for the info. Do you know why Sun stuck with their proprietary MMU until the 68030? My guess would be momentum. They were used to it and had no compelling reason to change.

    – RichF
    Mar 31 at 3:05
















4














With the other answers, it is obvious the Sun-1 was not the first. However, due to Sun Microsystem's relevance in the microcomputing world, I think this May, 1982 entry is worth mentioning here. The system was based on a 68000 CPU along with a Sun-designed MMU. (Apparently the Motorola MMU at the time was not sufficiently reliable.)





  1. Sun-1, 1982, 68000, Sun MMU


  2. Sun-2, 1983, 68010, Sun MMU


  3. Sun-3, 1985, 68020, Sun MMU, Motorola fp math coprocessor


  4. Sun-3x, 1989, 68030, inherent MMU, Motorola fp math, system coincident with SparcStation 1


No more 680x0 models past that, and later Sun models would either use the Sparc or x86 CPUs (both 32-bit and later 64-bit).






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Why did Intel not use Motorola chips when they asked Microsoft to provide a disk operating system for their new microcomputer... We'd have an 8 core 68080 ... sane assembler ... the world would be a better place ;-).

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Mar 29 at 18:13








  • 1





    @PeterA.Schneider: If you mean IBM, rather than Intel, using the 68000 was seriously considered fir the IBM PC. It wasn't done largely because the 8088 could use cheap 8-bit peripheral chips: remember that the IBM PC was not intended to become a dominant computer architecture at all.

    – John Dallman
    Mar 29 at 18:47











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Mar 29 at 18:56






  • 1





    I don't think there was actually anything wrong with the Motorola MMU other than it was slow. This made it unpopular, HP also created their own MMU for their 68000 based workstations. The problem was with the 68000 CPU itself, a design flaw meant it couldn't reliably restart execution after a page fault. This meant that it wasn't possible to implement virtual memory, but it was possible to use the MMU to implement process isolation. VM support had to wait until the Sun-2 which used a 68010 which fixed the 68000 flaw.

    – Ross Ridge
    Mar 31 at 3:01











  • @RossRidge Thank you for the info. Do you know why Sun stuck with their proprietary MMU until the 68030? My guess would be momentum. They were used to it and had no compelling reason to change.

    – RichF
    Mar 31 at 3:05














4












4








4







With the other answers, it is obvious the Sun-1 was not the first. However, due to Sun Microsystem's relevance in the microcomputing world, I think this May, 1982 entry is worth mentioning here. The system was based on a 68000 CPU along with a Sun-designed MMU. (Apparently the Motorola MMU at the time was not sufficiently reliable.)





  1. Sun-1, 1982, 68000, Sun MMU


  2. Sun-2, 1983, 68010, Sun MMU


  3. Sun-3, 1985, 68020, Sun MMU, Motorola fp math coprocessor


  4. Sun-3x, 1989, 68030, inherent MMU, Motorola fp math, system coincident with SparcStation 1


No more 680x0 models past that, and later Sun models would either use the Sparc or x86 CPUs (both 32-bit and later 64-bit).






share|improve this answer















With the other answers, it is obvious the Sun-1 was not the first. However, due to Sun Microsystem's relevance in the microcomputing world, I think this May, 1982 entry is worth mentioning here. The system was based on a 68000 CPU along with a Sun-designed MMU. (Apparently the Motorola MMU at the time was not sufficiently reliable.)





  1. Sun-1, 1982, 68000, Sun MMU


  2. Sun-2, 1983, 68010, Sun MMU


  3. Sun-3, 1985, 68020, Sun MMU, Motorola fp math coprocessor


  4. Sun-3x, 1989, 68030, inherent MMU, Motorola fp math, system coincident with SparcStation 1


No more 680x0 models past that, and later Sun models would either use the Sparc or x86 CPUs (both 32-bit and later 64-bit).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 1 at 9:26









Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen

31919




31919










answered Mar 29 at 15:20









RichFRichF

4,7811536




4,7811536








  • 1





    Why did Intel not use Motorola chips when they asked Microsoft to provide a disk operating system for their new microcomputer... We'd have an 8 core 68080 ... sane assembler ... the world would be a better place ;-).

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Mar 29 at 18:13








  • 1





    @PeterA.Schneider: If you mean IBM, rather than Intel, using the 68000 was seriously considered fir the IBM PC. It wasn't done largely because the 8088 could use cheap 8-bit peripheral chips: remember that the IBM PC was not intended to become a dominant computer architecture at all.

    – John Dallman
    Mar 29 at 18:47











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Mar 29 at 18:56






  • 1





    I don't think there was actually anything wrong with the Motorola MMU other than it was slow. This made it unpopular, HP also created their own MMU for their 68000 based workstations. The problem was with the 68000 CPU itself, a design flaw meant it couldn't reliably restart execution after a page fault. This meant that it wasn't possible to implement virtual memory, but it was possible to use the MMU to implement process isolation. VM support had to wait until the Sun-2 which used a 68010 which fixed the 68000 flaw.

    – Ross Ridge
    Mar 31 at 3:01











  • @RossRidge Thank you for the info. Do you know why Sun stuck with their proprietary MMU until the 68030? My guess would be momentum. They were used to it and had no compelling reason to change.

    – RichF
    Mar 31 at 3:05














  • 1





    Why did Intel not use Motorola chips when they asked Microsoft to provide a disk operating system for their new microcomputer... We'd have an 8 core 68080 ... sane assembler ... the world would be a better place ;-).

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Mar 29 at 18:13








  • 1





    @PeterA.Schneider: If you mean IBM, rather than Intel, using the 68000 was seriously considered fir the IBM PC. It wasn't done largely because the 8088 could use cheap 8-bit peripheral chips: remember that the IBM PC was not intended to become a dominant computer architecture at all.

    – John Dallman
    Mar 29 at 18:47











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Mar 29 at 18:56






  • 1





    I don't think there was actually anything wrong with the Motorola MMU other than it was slow. This made it unpopular, HP also created their own MMU for their 68000 based workstations. The problem was with the 68000 CPU itself, a design flaw meant it couldn't reliably restart execution after a page fault. This meant that it wasn't possible to implement virtual memory, but it was possible to use the MMU to implement process isolation. VM support had to wait until the Sun-2 which used a 68010 which fixed the 68000 flaw.

    – Ross Ridge
    Mar 31 at 3:01











  • @RossRidge Thank you for the info. Do you know why Sun stuck with their proprietary MMU until the 68030? My guess would be momentum. They were used to it and had no compelling reason to change.

    – RichF
    Mar 31 at 3:05








1




1





Why did Intel not use Motorola chips when they asked Microsoft to provide a disk operating system for their new microcomputer... We'd have an 8 core 68080 ... sane assembler ... the world would be a better place ;-).

– Peter A. Schneider
Mar 29 at 18:13







Why did Intel not use Motorola chips when they asked Microsoft to provide a disk operating system for their new microcomputer... We'd have an 8 core 68080 ... sane assembler ... the world would be a better place ;-).

– Peter A. Schneider
Mar 29 at 18:13






1




1





@PeterA.Schneider: If you mean IBM, rather than Intel, using the 68000 was seriously considered fir the IBM PC. It wasn't done largely because the 8088 could use cheap 8-bit peripheral chips: remember that the IBM PC was not intended to become a dominant computer architecture at all.

– John Dallman
Mar 29 at 18:47





@PeterA.Schneider: If you mean IBM, rather than Intel, using the 68000 was seriously considered fir the IBM PC. It wasn't done largely because the 8088 could use cheap 8-bit peripheral chips: remember that the IBM PC was not intended to become a dominant computer architecture at all.

– John Dallman
Mar 29 at 18:47













@JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

– Peter A. Schneider
Mar 29 at 18:56





@JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

– Peter A. Schneider
Mar 29 at 18:56




1




1





I don't think there was actually anything wrong with the Motorola MMU other than it was slow. This made it unpopular, HP also created their own MMU for their 68000 based workstations. The problem was with the 68000 CPU itself, a design flaw meant it couldn't reliably restart execution after a page fault. This meant that it wasn't possible to implement virtual memory, but it was possible to use the MMU to implement process isolation. VM support had to wait until the Sun-2 which used a 68010 which fixed the 68000 flaw.

– Ross Ridge
Mar 31 at 3:01





I don't think there was actually anything wrong with the Motorola MMU other than it was slow. This made it unpopular, HP also created their own MMU for their 68000 based workstations. The problem was with the 68000 CPU itself, a design flaw meant it couldn't reliably restart execution after a page fault. This meant that it wasn't possible to implement virtual memory, but it was possible to use the MMU to implement process isolation. VM support had to wait until the Sun-2 which used a 68010 which fixed the 68000 flaw.

– Ross Ridge
Mar 31 at 3:01













@RossRidge Thank you for the info. Do you know why Sun stuck with their proprietary MMU until the 68030? My guess would be momentum. They were used to it and had no compelling reason to change.

– RichF
Mar 31 at 3:05





@RossRidge Thank you for the info. Do you know why Sun stuck with their proprietary MMU until the 68030? My guess would be momentum. They were used to it and had no compelling reason to change.

– RichF
Mar 31 at 3:05











4














In the early 1980s, Torch Unix was available for the BBC Micro.



The catch was that you had to have the Torch 68000 second processor and hard drive. This meant that it fell between two stools. It was far too expensive for use by the usual BBC Micro hobbyists and office/professional users found it too unusual to compete with more mainstream offerings from other manufacturers. So it soon died out.



I did use this at work for a short time. I remember it had to be installed onto the hard drive from 50 5.25" floppies, this took me pretty much an entire working day.






share|improve this answer
























  • I remember seeing Torch Unix running at one of the Acorn User shows at Alexandra Palace. As you say, too weird to survive - unfortunately.

    – Chenmunka
    Apr 3 at 9:16
















4














In the early 1980s, Torch Unix was available for the BBC Micro.



The catch was that you had to have the Torch 68000 second processor and hard drive. This meant that it fell between two stools. It was far too expensive for use by the usual BBC Micro hobbyists and office/professional users found it too unusual to compete with more mainstream offerings from other manufacturers. So it soon died out.



I did use this at work for a short time. I remember it had to be installed onto the hard drive from 50 5.25" floppies, this took me pretty much an entire working day.






share|improve this answer
























  • I remember seeing Torch Unix running at one of the Acorn User shows at Alexandra Palace. As you say, too weird to survive - unfortunately.

    – Chenmunka
    Apr 3 at 9:16














4












4








4







In the early 1980s, Torch Unix was available for the BBC Micro.



The catch was that you had to have the Torch 68000 second processor and hard drive. This meant that it fell between two stools. It was far too expensive for use by the usual BBC Micro hobbyists and office/professional users found it too unusual to compete with more mainstream offerings from other manufacturers. So it soon died out.



I did use this at work for a short time. I remember it had to be installed onto the hard drive from 50 5.25" floppies, this took me pretty much an entire working day.






share|improve this answer













In the early 1980s, Torch Unix was available for the BBC Micro.



The catch was that you had to have the Torch 68000 second processor and hard drive. This meant that it fell between two stools. It was far too expensive for use by the usual BBC Micro hobbyists and office/professional users found it too unusual to compete with more mainstream offerings from other manufacturers. So it soon died out.



I did use this at work for a short time. I remember it had to be installed onto the hard drive from 50 5.25" floppies, this took me pretty much an entire working day.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 3 at 9:06









GeeGeeGeeGee

413




413













  • I remember seeing Torch Unix running at one of the Acorn User shows at Alexandra Palace. As you say, too weird to survive - unfortunately.

    – Chenmunka
    Apr 3 at 9:16



















  • I remember seeing Torch Unix running at one of the Acorn User shows at Alexandra Palace. As you say, too weird to survive - unfortunately.

    – Chenmunka
    Apr 3 at 9:16

















I remember seeing Torch Unix running at one of the Acorn User shows at Alexandra Palace. As you say, too weird to survive - unfortunately.

– Chenmunka
Apr 3 at 9:16





I remember seeing Torch Unix running at one of the Acorn User shows at Alexandra Palace. As you say, too weird to survive - unfortunately.

– Chenmunka
Apr 3 at 9:16


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9461%2fwhat-was-the-first-unix-version-to-run-on-a-microcomputer%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

Alcedinidae

Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]