From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 62eaf145 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 22:01:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 847039C228; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 08:01:44 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E979C1FF; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 08:01:13 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="EgG3v/YX"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5FCBA9C14A; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 08:01:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ot1-f51.google.com (mail-ot1-f51.google.com [209.85.210.51]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D43F9C1FF for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 08:01:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ot1-f51.google.com with SMTP id a15so4464252otf.1 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 14:01:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Z1Ko6V7BXxB4qXtLEMYuStyCVGTNld6WqjDUTiZ+D+A=; b=EgG3v/YXgSVppqW2xsSebkHaW96JJkcBh/rk/7n/u8yixtGYtvfnK8pCl9gi8I4K+9 m34HI+Xxehg8aCbxNsC7Z9xYW1DjlD/cEQvYcsEa5EhA01m6HvK0+/TFJoerUmS5RFdQ Saq6bmwlkq139Kp03gORQmkkGRzMHUWpQN9/zhFevQdNvEnXKRyY62YhBpX6TNEU7QpR XmEO8wKnpfGMwyhyLaswKEHzTQTit7KdJ1qtexoPzcNWpK6Vccj1Aib09mgtTSY65NU5 wQck7j4/BzDk3kKM7aKb35TOJB1llYw99h2MlPkmpPbbN8bb9PWHkrau77nh6/uszhBD E+Yw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Z1Ko6V7BXxB4qXtLEMYuStyCVGTNld6WqjDUTiZ+D+A=; b=mdA9TqUOxHQ3OzuU2cLOeY2JMqkyH7+pmFfrsnFfAYSukI+UcKmY/qM0YiSsBfQXJp Aqz6mdtlV2VwKa8q7J38mV3HPUxcyiym04IV+KcgOou3O0t3tt75u1JEnqlycFOTC9BK pO3H2FKqMxfC7wNhYfVpCCRZbrsXCVUoTkbIe0Aegts1cIOPIwIv6E1E09sTnkH+QmTb X7jWVsGC/cQBq5kjrKwG9TfoWapOG3Sm9jSUTFUqeTluLeEpQVQ0RHwN2jVkHQAI6XfS Li0ewV6ZYFS/yNmyVr8IS2gmevGodNZ6QtpXxgs4gg3O/wIX0/Afbv6MOSGN9jEkjZa5 0Cew== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWmBvYXruteHhC2Ku9BtWlxIqXqAwpIH7NF9W1fr9AldUZYMiwH DwYmOFjsvKSZn2sfYoVwuNF1x01btJ4bw2ylQKqp/Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzqazOodpENkwWMfE3L4qN3LLgPlcbXDNb3UF/ToQo7gGvA74HLQ7pzzJ1pKJmloQIo9NrjrYUjMWFtsYqdUzU= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:68d1:: with SMTP id i17mr5071916oto.367.1579644065395; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 14:01:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200121182045.GO26619@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: From: Henry Bent Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:00:50 -0500 Message-ID: To: Nigel Williams Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000063b8b7059cad8b58" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Unix on Zilog Z8000? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000063b8b7059cad8b58 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 16:49, Nigel Williams wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:22 AM Larry McVoy wrote: > > Yeah, it ran on the 16 bit one but I looked and couldn't find if they > > got Unix on the z80000 (which I suspect is what Jon meant). > > I spent some time attempting to confirm whether the Z80000 (the 32-bit > flat address space development of the Z8000) ever went to silicon and > was not able to confirm it did. My suspicion remains that the Z80000 > was only ever a paper specification and did not even get to a first > spin. If anyone knows and has some evidence I would be glad to update > the wikipedia page. > This thread reminded me that I own a copy of the Zilog "1983/84 Components Data Book," which I am talking to Al Kossow about scanning. It fully details the Z80,000 on paper but does not say anything about hardware, everything is labeled preliminary. It is dated September 1983. -Henry --00000000000063b8b7059cad8b58 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 = at 16:49, Nigel Williams <nw@retrocomputingtasmania.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, = 2020 at 5:22 AM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
> Yeah, it ran on the 16 bit one but I looked and couldn't find if t= hey
> got Unix on the z80000 (which I suspect is what Jon meant).

I spent some time attempting to confirm whether the Z80000 (the 32-bit
flat address space development of the Z8000) ever went to silicon and
was not able to confirm it did. My suspicion remains that the Z80000
was only ever a paper specification and did not even get to a first
spin. If anyone knows and has some evidence I would be glad to update
the wikipedia page.

This thread reminde= d me that I own a copy of the Zilog "1983/84 Components Data Book,&quo= t; which I am talking to Al Kossow about scanning.=C2=A0 It fully details t= he Z80,000 on paper but does not say anything about hardware, everything is= labeled preliminary.=C2=A0 It is dated September 1983.

-Henry
--00000000000063b8b7059cad8b58--