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?

How to scale a tikZ image which is within a figure environment

Flying from Cape Town to England and return to another province

How to install OpenCV on Raspbian Stretch?

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

Is a distribution that is normal, but highly skewed considered Gaussian?

Would be okay to drive on this tire?

Is it convenient to ask the journal's editor for 2 additional days to complete a review?

Some questions about different axiomatic systems for neighbourhoods

Need help understanding a power circuit (caps and diodes)

Example of a Mathematician/Physicist whose Other Publications during their PhD eclipsed their PhD Thesis

How to invert MapIndexed on a ragged structure? How to construct a tree from rules?

Does Germany produce more waste than the US?

Reference request: Grassmannian and Plucker coordinates in type B, C, D

Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?

Does soap repel water?

Is it professional to write unrelated content in an almost-empty email?

Proper way to express "He disappeared them"

Is it possible to replace duplicates of a character with one character using tr

How to count occurrences of text in a file?

How to avoid supervisors with prejudiced views?

Should I tutor a student who I know has cheated on their homework?

Bartok - Syncopation (1): Meaning of notes in between Grand Staff

Make solar eclipses exceedingly rare, but still have new moons

RigExpert AA-35 - Interpreting The Information



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?










7















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.















  • 10





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

    – Raffzahn
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    yesterday











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

    – Mark
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    23 hours ago











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

    – phuclv
    18 hours ago















7















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.















  • 10





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

    – Raffzahn
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    yesterday











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

    – Mark
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    23 hours ago











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

    – phuclv
    18 hours ago













7












7








7


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 yesterday









user12162user12162

392




392




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.







  • 10





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

    – Raffzahn
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    yesterday











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

    – Mark
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    23 hours ago











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

    – phuclv
    18 hours ago












  • 10





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

    – Raffzahn
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    yesterday











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

    – Mark
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Leo B.
    23 hours ago











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

    – phuclv
    18 hours ago







10




10





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

– Raffzahn
yesterday





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

– Raffzahn
yesterday




1




1





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

– Leo B.
yesterday





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

– Leo B.
yesterday













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

– Mark
yesterday





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

– Mark
yesterday




1




1





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

– Leo B.
23 hours ago





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

– Leo B.
23 hours ago













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

– phuclv
18 hours ago





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

– phuclv
18 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















24














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
    yesterday






  • 2





    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
    yesterday











  • "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
    yesterday











  • @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
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Wilson
    yesterday


















8














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
    yesterday












  • @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
    yesterday







  • 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
    yesterday












  • @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
    yesterday


















5














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
    yesterday






  • 4





    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
    yesterday







  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    22 hours ago






  • 1





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

    – Stephen Kitt
    15 hours ago


















2














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 PowerPC 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
    yesterday







  • 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
    yesterday











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    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









24














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
    yesterday






  • 2





    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
    yesterday











  • "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
    yesterday











  • @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
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Wilson
    yesterday















24














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
    yesterday






  • 2





    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
    yesterday











  • "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
    yesterday











  • @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
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Wilson
    yesterday













24












24








24







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 yesterday

























answered yesterday









WilsonWilson

12.2k556139




12.2k556139







  • 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
    yesterday






  • 2





    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
    yesterday











  • "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
    yesterday











  • @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
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Wilson
    yesterday












  • 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
    yesterday






  • 2





    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
    yesterday











  • "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
    yesterday











  • @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
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Wilson
    yesterday







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
yesterday





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
yesterday




2




2





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
yesterday





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
yesterday













"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
yesterday





"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
yesterday













@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
yesterday





@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
yesterday




1




1





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

– Wilson
yesterday





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

– Wilson
yesterday











8














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
    yesterday












  • @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
    yesterday







  • 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
    yesterday












  • @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
    yesterday















8














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
    yesterday












  • @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
    yesterday







  • 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
    yesterday












  • @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
    yesterday













8












8








8







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 yesterday









Wilson

12.2k556139




12.2k556139










answered yesterday









RaffzahnRaffzahn

54.4k6133219




54.4k6133219












  • 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
    yesterday












  • @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
    yesterday







  • 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
    yesterday












  • @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
    yesterday

















  • 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
    yesterday












  • @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
    yesterday







  • 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
    yesterday












  • @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
    yesterday
















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
yesterday






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
yesterday














@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
yesterday






@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
yesterday





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
yesterday






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
yesterday














@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
yesterday





@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
yesterday











5














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
    yesterday






  • 4





    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
    yesterday







  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    22 hours ago






  • 1





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

    – Stephen Kitt
    15 hours ago















5














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
    yesterday






  • 4





    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
    yesterday







  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    22 hours ago






  • 1





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

    – Stephen Kitt
    15 hours ago













5












5








5







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 yesterday

























answered yesterday









Stephen KittStephen Kitt

38.6k8158168




38.6k8158168












  • 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
    yesterday






  • 4





    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
    yesterday







  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    22 hours ago






  • 1





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

    – Stephen Kitt
    15 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
    yesterday






  • 4





    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
    yesterday







  • 1





    Terak was not "personal" enough?

    – Leo B.
    22 hours ago






  • 1





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

    – Stephen Kitt
    15 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
yesterday





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
yesterday




4




4





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
yesterday






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
yesterday





1




1





Terak was not "personal" enough?

– Leo B.
22 hours ago





Terak was not "personal" enough?

– Leo B.
22 hours ago




1




1





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

– Stephen Kitt
15 hours ago





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

– Stephen Kitt
15 hours ago











2














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 PowerPC 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
    yesterday







  • 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
    yesterday











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    yesterday















2














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 PowerPC 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
    yesterday







  • 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
    yesterday











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    yesterday













2












2








2







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 PowerPC 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 PowerPC CPUs.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























answered yesterday









RichFRichF

4,6311435




4,6311435












  • 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
    yesterday







  • 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
    yesterday











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    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
    yesterday







  • 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
    yesterday











  • @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    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
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
yesterday





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
yesterday





@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
yesterday













@JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday





@JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry.

– Peter A. Schneider
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

Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

Bruxelas-Capital Índice Historia | Composición | Situación lingüística | Clima | Cidades irmandadas | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióneO uso das linguas en Bruxelas e a situación do neerlandés"Rexión de Bruxelas Capital"o orixinalSitio da rexiónPáxina de Bruselas no sitio da Oficina de Promoción Turística de Valonia e BruxelasMapa Interactivo da Rexión de Bruxelas-CapitaleeWorldCat332144929079854441105155190212ID28008674080552-90000 0001 0666 3698n94104302ID540940339365017018237

What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company