18

IBM, Apple, Commodore, and Atari all released upgraded versions of their popular home/personal computers having "stock" 128KB of RAM around the early 1980's.

What was the order of release (based on approximate shipping dates) for each of these new models? Also, did any other mass-market computer maker beat all of them to market with a "stock" 128KB home/personal computer?

Note: By "stock" I mean minimum 128KB as shipped.

Brian H
  • 60,767
  • 20
  • 200
  • 362
  • 3
    This sounds quite like asking a list question, doesn't it? – Raffzahn Jan 12 '22 at 23:25
  • 5
    No. The order is the answer, not the list. – Brian H Jan 12 '22 at 23:44
  • 11
    How is it possible to conceive an order without listing the items? – Raffzahn Jan 13 '22 at 00:47
  • 2
    A randomly ordered list is not a "timeline". – Brian H Jan 13 '22 at 14:09
  • Ordering by year may not be random ordered - still it'll be a list. The ordering criteria doesn't make it anything else. To become more than a list, the items would need to have a common evolution/relation past their introduction date. Can't see that, as the question doesn't ask for any evolution, but simply listing unrelated items with a specific attribute by year. – Raffzahn Jan 13 '22 at 14:37
  • 3
    The reasons given to explain why list questions aren’t appropriate apply whether the list is ordered or not. – Stephen Kitt Jan 13 '22 at 15:20
  • 8
    @StephenKitt: The main objections to list questions boil down to being open-ended, and not admitting a definitive answer. This question isn’t so open-ended: it focuses on a small list of major manufacturers, within a limited time-frame, well in the past, and with a clear product criterion. It’s much clearer to see how a definitive answer could be possible for this. – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine Jan 13 '22 at 16:29
  • 1
    @PeterLeFanuLumsdaine I’m not trying to judge whether this question is too open-ended or not; my point is that whether the list is ordered or not doesn’t have much bearing on that. – Stephen Kitt Jan 13 '22 at 16:45
  • 2
    @Peter: The "what was the order of release of models from these manufacturers?" part of the question is in fact bounded with a single correct answer. The "did any other mass-market computer maker beat all of them to market" is problematic though. – Ben Voigt Jan 14 '22 at 22:12
  • Just because they all came out roughly the same time didn't actually mean much. Back then with the 8-24K of memory in a more/less "flat" configuration it was easier to code for. But when we went above 64K, to 128K or higher, we had to learn how to use "Bank Switching" effectively to access the memory for our programs. The most immediate application was actually a "RAM Disk" as serial speeds for floppy/magnetic/disk transfers (let alone tape loads) were long enough to want a small space to store small programs like DOS did. – jfalcon aka Don Fanning Apr 12 '22 at 11:10
  • Are you asking specifically for "128k" or "more than 64k" - I think the list should definitely include the quirky Spanish Amstrad CPC 472 (1985) that was a modified (but official) version of the CPC 464 with 8K of non-addressable (not even powered) additional RAM to circumvent a specific Spanish home computer import tax. – tofro Jul 31 '23 at 09:51

3 Answers3

32

The Apple III came with a minimum of 128K of RAM (expandable to 512K) two years before Commodore had a series of CBM-II computers with 128K minimum and expandable to 896K in 1982 a year before the IBM PC XT and 2 years before the Apple Macintosh and IIc. The IBM PC had 64K minimum.

** The upgrade machines are those not flagged as new.

  • 1980: Apple III (128K-512K, new)
  • 1982: Tandy TRS-80 Model 16 (128K-512K)
  • 1982: Commodore CBM-II 500 / 600 / 700 Series (128K-896K, new)
  • 1983: IBM PC XT (128K-640K)
  • 1983: Apple Lisa (1,024K, new)
  • 1983: Apple III Plus (256K-512K)
  • 1984: Apple Macintosh (128K, new)
  • 1984: Apple IIc (128K-1,152K)
  • 1984: IBM PC AT (512K-16,384K)
  • 1984: Sinclair QL (128K-896K, new)
  • 1985: Amstrad CPC 6128 (128K-576K)
  • 1985: Amstrad PCW 8256 (256K-512K, new)
  • 1985: Atari 520ST (512K, new)
  • 1985: Atari 130XE (128K)
  • 1985: Commodore 128 (128K)
  • 1985: Commodore Amiga [1000] (256K-8,704K), new)
  • 1985: Fujitsu FM 77 AV (128K-192K)
  • 1985: Sinclair ZX Spectrum 128 (128K)
  • 1985: Thomson TO9 (128K)
  • 1985: Enterprise 128 (128K, new)
  • 1986: BBC Master 128 (128K-512K)
  • 1986: Tandy Color Computer 3 (128K-512K)
Raffzahn
  • 222,541
  • 22
  • 631
  • 918
Tim Locke
  • 4,811
  • 21
  • 36
  • 1
    On the Atari side of things, the 520ST was available (in small quantities) a couple of before the 130XE! – Stephen Kitt Jan 12 '22 at 22:13
  • 1982: Columbia Data Products MPC 1600-1 (128K) – snips-n-snails Jan 13 '22 at 00:22
  • 1
    Oops, “a couple of months before”. The C128 and both Ataris were announced in January 1985 at CES; the 520ST started shipping in April 1985, the 130XE in June. I don’t know about the C128. – Stephen Kitt Jan 13 '22 at 06:18
  • 1984 also saw the Apple Macintosh 512K, only seven months after the 128K release in January, and just one month after the IBM PC/AT. – J... Jan 13 '22 at 14:05
  • The Apple ///, IIRC, came out in June 1980. And it can qualify as an upgrade to the Apple II, being backwards compatible. – Brian H Jan 13 '22 at 14:13
  • I'd disagree with tagging the Apple III "new". It was a backwards-compatible upgrade to the Apple II with many new features, much as the C128 was to the C64. – Brian H Feb 09 '22 at 17:05
  • 1
    It wasn't actually very backward compatible. The Apple III wasn't an Apple II with enhancements, it was a completely different system with an Apple II mode that was crippled. – Tim Locke Feb 09 '22 at 21:21
  • The Commodore 128 was said to be "only weeks away from shipping" at the June 1985 Summer CES according to the August 1985 (pg 14) issue of COMPUTE! magazine. Everything in magazines back then was a couple of months behind reality. The September issue had ads with the C128. I would conclude from this that the C128 started shipping sometime in July 1985. – Tim Locke Jan 21 '24 at 18:42
17

Soviet:

  • ES PEVM (IBM PC clone) - 1986

  • Okean-240 (128 KB, Intel 8080 class) - 1986

  • UKNC (192 KB, PDP-11 class) - 1987

  • DVK-3M (248 KB, PDP-11 class) - 1987

  • Korvet (112-256 KB, Intel 8080 class) - 1987

  • BK-0011 (128 KB, PDP-11 class) - 1989

  • Poisk (IBM PC clone) - 1989

  • Iskra-1030 (IBM PC clone) - 1989

  • Agat (Apple clone) - 1989

  • Bashkiria-2M (128 KB, Intel 8080 class) - 1989

  • Orion-128 (128-256 KB, Intel 8080 class) - 1990

This list is incomplete, it does not include many ZX Spectrum clones.

Anixx
  • 1,547
  • 13
  • 25
  • 1
    The BK-0011 had 128KB of RAM? AFAIK that would've filled its entire address space. But it also had I/O, so it must've done paging somehow, right? – Omar and Lorraine Jan 13 '22 at 09:05
  • 2
    Also, have you considered the various ZX compatibles, such as ZS Scorpion which would've had 128K at least from the beginning. – Omar and Lorraine Jan 13 '22 at 09:05
  • 1
    @OmarL Yes, BK-0011(M) used paging. Some extension cards for it had as much as 512 KB additional RAM, which would make a total of 640KB. This list is definitely incomplete. It does not include ZX-clones. There was also Agat, a clone of Apple (1989) and other less known such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besta_(computer). – Anixx Jan 13 '22 at 10:13
  • I'm surprised to read that Besta had a 68020 processor? Despite the embargo? Or was it a Soviet-produced compatible CPU? – Omar and Lorraine Jan 13 '22 at 10:25
  • 2
    @OmarL the Russian article says it had legally-licensed OS ported by West-German firm Stollmann GmbH and many components were produced by another West-German firm Force Computers GmbH. – Anixx Jan 13 '22 at 10:31
  • 1
    The 68000 was on the COCOM list, but "could be released by companies under their own discretion". I would assume that later on this was valid for its derivates as well. – tofro Jan 13 '22 at 10:39
  • @tofro The fatory started production after a Gorbachev's visit, so it could be some part of Gorbachev's deal regarding reunification of Germany. – Anixx Jan 13 '22 at 10:41
5

This depends quite on the value of the 'minimum 128KB as shipped' footnote.

For the Apple II, it was possible in 1983 to order a IIe with 64 or 128 KiB, but it wasn't until the IIc in 1984 that these 128 KiB were soldered in. Even the very last IIe, the Platimum, which was sold only with 128 KiB, had them factory installed as a (then very small) card in the AUX slot

Same case with the IBM PC. While the original (first) IBM PC motherboard could hold only 16 to 64 KiB, IBM offered the machine with up to 256 KiB, using shop installed ISA cards.

Raffzahn
  • 222,541
  • 22
  • 631
  • 918
  • 5
    I took it to mean “systems which couldn’t be ordered with less than 128KiB of RAM”, which disqualifies the Apple ][ and IBM PC. – Stephen Kitt Jan 13 '22 at 07:47
  • @StephenKitt Wouldn't that make any entry subject to random marketing decisions? Like offering a Platinum IIe with or without the added 64 KiB? The later was in fact possible, but not part of the default offering. – Raffzahn Jan 13 '22 at 14:41
  • 1
    Indeed, perhaps “systems whose minimal supported configuration had 128KiB of RAM” would be better. – Stephen Kitt Jan 13 '22 at 15:15