What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat was the first mass-market, 16-bit microcomputer system?What was the first CPU with exposed pipeline?What is the version of Unix and the name of the computer it run on in this 1982 video?What was the first dedicated core router?How was the Microsoft PDP-10 8080 emulator developed?The almost-was Atari IBM PCWhat was the first interactive OS to run each command in a new process?When TCP was first invented, was the initial sequence number required to be random?Which was the first programming language that had data types?What was the first microprocessor to support full virtualization?

Small nick on power cord from an electric alarm clock, and copper wiring exposed but intact

Which one is the true statement?

Is it correct to say moon starry nights?

Calculate the Mean mean of two numbers

Can Sneak Attack be used when hitting with an improvised weapon?

Defamation due to breach of confidentiality

Computationally populating tables with probability data

Is dried pee considered dirt?

Towers in the ocean; How deep can they be built?

Graph of the history of databases

Purpose of level-shifter with same in and out voltages

Strange use of "whether ... than ..." in official text

Film where the government was corrupt with aliens, people sent to kill aliens are given rigged visors not showing the right aliens

Why is information "lost" when it got into a black hole?

Is it ever safe to open a suspicious HTML file (e.g. email attachment)?

Help understanding this unsettling image of Titan, Epimetheus, and Saturn's rings?

Decide between Polyglossia and Babel for LuaLaTeX in 2019

Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?

The Ultimate Number Sequence Puzzle

Expressing the idea of having a very busy time

Man transported from Alternate World into ours by a Neutrino Detector

Spaces in which all closed sets are regular closed

IC has pull-down resistors on SMBus lines?

Are the names of these months realistic?



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



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat was the first mass-market, 16-bit microcomputer system?What was the first CPU with exposed pipeline?What is the version of Unix and the name of the computer it run on in this 1982 video?What was the first dedicated core router?How was the Microsoft PDP-10 8080 emulator developed?The almost-was Atari IBM PCWhat was the first interactive OS to run each command in a new process?When TCP was first invented, was the initial sequence number required to be random?Which was the first programming language that had data types?What was the first microprocessor to support full virtualization?










8















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







New contributor




user12162 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 11





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

    – Raffzahn
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago











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

    – Mark
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago











  • @Mark I beg to differ Is there a Linux distro that's UNIX certified?, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/393475/…

    – phuclv
    yesterday















8















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







New contributor




user12162 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 11





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

    – Raffzahn
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago











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

    – Mark
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago











  • @Mark I beg to differ Is there a Linux distro that's UNIX certified?, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/393475/…

    – phuclv
    yesterday













8












8








8


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







New contributor




user12162 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












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







New contributor




user12162 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




user12162 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




user12162 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









user12162user12162

4412




4412




New contributor




user12162 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user12162 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user12162 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 11





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

    – Raffzahn
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago











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

    – Mark
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago











  • @Mark I beg to differ Is there a Linux distro that's UNIX certified?, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/393475/…

    – phuclv
    yesterday












  • 11





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

    – Raffzahn
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago











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

    – Mark
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago











  • @Mark I beg to differ Is there a Linux distro that's UNIX certified?, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/393475/…

    – phuclv
    yesterday







11




11





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

– Raffzahn
2 days ago





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

– Raffzahn
2 days ago




1




1





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

– Leo B.
2 days ago





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

– Leo B.
2 days ago













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

– Mark
2 days ago





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

– Mark
2 days ago




1




1





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

– Leo B.
2 days ago





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

– Leo B.
2 days ago













@Mark I beg to differ Is there a Linux distro that's UNIX certified?, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/393475/…

– phuclv
yesterday





@Mark I beg to differ Is there a Linux distro that's UNIX certified?, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/393475/…

– phuclv
yesterday










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















26














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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago











  • @Darth well now they do phones and servers, don't they. In the past, their BASIC was their bread and butter. That's what I think, though I could be wrong. I never cared that much about them.

    – Wilson
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Wilson
    2 days ago


















10














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
    2 days ago












  • @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
    2 days ago







  • 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
    2 days ago












  • @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
    2 days ago


















6














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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago







  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Stephen Kitt
    yesterday











  • 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
    8 hours ago


















3














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 x86-64 CPUs.






share|improve this answer

























  • 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
    2 days ago







  • 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
    2 days ago











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    2 days ago











  • 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
    yesterday











  • @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
    yesterday











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
);



);






user12162 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









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

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









26














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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago











  • @Darth well now they do phones and servers, don't they. In the past, their BASIC was their bread and butter. That's what I think, though I could be wrong. I never cared that much about them.

    – Wilson
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Wilson
    2 days ago















26














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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago











  • @Darth well now they do phones and servers, don't they. In the past, their BASIC was their bread and butter. That's what I think, though I could be wrong. I never cared that much about them.

    – Wilson
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Wilson
    2 days ago













26












26








26







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 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









WilsonWilson

12.2k557139




12.2k557139







  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago











  • @Darth well now they do phones and servers, don't they. In the past, their BASIC was their bread and butter. That's what I think, though I could be wrong. I never cared that much about them.

    – Wilson
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Wilson
    2 days ago












  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago











  • @Darth well now they do phones and servers, don't they. In the past, their BASIC was their bread and butter. That's what I think, though I could be wrong. I never cared that much about them.

    – Wilson
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Wilson
    2 days ago







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
2 days ago





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
2 days ago




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
2 days ago





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
2 days ago




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
2 days ago





"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
2 days ago













@Darth well now they do phones and servers, don't they. In the past, their BASIC was their bread and butter. That's what I think, though I could be wrong. I never cared that much about them.

– Wilson
2 days ago





@Darth well now they do phones and servers, don't they. In the past, their BASIC was their bread and butter. That's what I think, though I could be wrong. I never cared that much about them.

– Wilson
2 days ago




1




1





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

– Wilson
2 days ago





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

– Wilson
2 days ago











10














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
    2 days ago












  • @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
    2 days ago







  • 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
    2 days ago












  • @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
    2 days ago















10














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
    2 days ago












  • @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
    2 days ago







  • 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
    2 days ago












  • @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
    2 days ago













10












10








10







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 2 days ago









Wilson

12.2k557139




12.2k557139










answered 2 days ago









RaffzahnRaffzahn

54.4k6134220




54.4k6134220












  • 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
    2 days ago












  • @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
    2 days ago







  • 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
    2 days ago












  • @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
    2 days ago

















  • 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
    2 days ago












  • @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
    2 days ago







  • 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
    2 days ago












  • @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
    2 days ago
















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
2 days ago






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
2 days ago














@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
2 days ago






@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
2 days ago





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
2 days ago






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
2 days ago














@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
2 days ago





@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
2 days ago











6














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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago







  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Stephen Kitt
    yesterday











  • 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
    8 hours ago















6














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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago







  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Stephen Kitt
    yesterday











  • 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
    8 hours ago













6












6








6







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 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









Stephen KittStephen Kitt

38.8k8158168




38.8k8158168












  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago







  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Stephen Kitt
    yesterday











  • 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
    8 hours ago

















  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago







  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    2 days ago






  • 1





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

    – Stephen Kitt
    yesterday











  • 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
    8 hours ago
















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
2 days ago





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
2 days ago




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
2 days ago






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
2 days ago





1




1





Terak was not "personal" enough?

– Leo B.
2 days ago





Terak was not "personal" enough?

– Leo B.
2 days ago




1




1





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

– Stephen Kitt
yesterday





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

– Stephen Kitt
yesterday













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
8 hours ago





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
8 hours ago











3














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 x86-64 CPUs.






share|improve this answer

























  • 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
    2 days ago







  • 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
    2 days ago











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    2 days ago











  • 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
    yesterday











  • @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
    yesterday















3














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 x86-64 CPUs.






share|improve this answer

























  • 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
    2 days ago







  • 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
    2 days ago











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    2 days ago











  • 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
    yesterday











  • @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
    yesterday













3












3








3







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 x86-64 CPUs.






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 x86-64 CPUs.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago

























answered 2 days ago









RichFRichF

4,7111435




4,7111435












  • 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
    2 days ago







  • 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
    2 days ago











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    2 days ago











  • 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
    yesterday











  • @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
    yesterday

















  • 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
    2 days ago







  • 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
    2 days ago











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    2 days ago











  • 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
    yesterday











  • @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
    yesterday
















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
2 days ago






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
2 days ago





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
2 days ago





@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
2 days ago













@JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

– Peter A. Schneider
2 days ago





@JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

– Peter A. Schneider
2 days ago













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
yesterday





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
yesterday













@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
yesterday





@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
yesterday










user12162 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















user12162 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












user12162 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











user12162 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














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

Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

419 nièngy_Soadمي 19bal1.5o_g

Queiggey Chernihivv 9NnOo i Zw X QqKk LpB