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?
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
New contributor
|
show 4 more comments
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
New contributor
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
New contributor
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
history
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
user12162user12162
4412
4412
New contributor
New contributor
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
|
show 4 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
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
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.)
Sun-1, 1982, 68000, Sun MMU
Sun-2, 1983, 68010, Sun MMU
Sun-3, 1985, 68020, Sun MMU, Motorola fp math coprocessor
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.
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
|
show 5 more comments
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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
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
|
show 2 more comments
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
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
|
show 2 more comments
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
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
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
|
show 2 more comments
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.)
Sun-1, 1982, 68000, Sun MMU
Sun-2, 1983, 68010, Sun MMU
Sun-3, 1985, 68020, Sun MMU, Motorola fp math coprocessor
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.
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
|
show 5 more comments
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.)
Sun-1, 1982, 68000, Sun MMU
Sun-2, 1983, 68010, Sun MMU
Sun-3, 1985, 68020, Sun MMU, Motorola fp math coprocessor
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.
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
|
show 5 more comments
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.)
Sun-1, 1982, 68000, Sun MMU
Sun-2, 1983, 68010, Sun MMU
Sun-3, 1985, 68020, Sun MMU, Motorola fp math coprocessor
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.
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.)
Sun-1, 1982, 68000, Sun MMU
Sun-2, 1983, 68010, Sun MMU
Sun-3, 1985, 68020, Sun MMU, Motorola fp math coprocessor
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.
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
|
show 5 more comments
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
|
show 5 more comments
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.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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