Microsoft's Ancient History w/ Unix

NutscrapeSucks writes "The Register is running a article which discusses Microsoft's experience running their own version of UNIX, called Xenix, as their standard desktop operating system. Before they got involved with OS/2 and later NT, Microsoft considered UNIX to be the PC operating system of the future. Talks about Bill Gates running vi, difficulties with AT&T, and other interesting tidbits." There's a lot of stuff everyone knows, and a lot of stuff you probably didn't know. Worth a read.

Re:This isn't surprising.

[saintlupus]

I guess the best product does not always perform the best in the marketplace.

Well, shit, you just blew all my fourth grade course material on economics right out the window.

Of course it doesn't. Ever heard of BeOS, or OS/2? How about car companies like DeLorean or Tucker, or hell, even AMC?

--saint

Re:Unix is the future.

[Anonymous Coward]

Win NT was designed by the same people who designed VMS IIRC

Yup. Easy way to remember: what are the next letters in the alphabet after V, M and S? I think HAL must have been the project leader ;)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:a glorified email terminal

[YetAnotherName]

I can corroborate that. I worked at Microsoft in the early 90's, too, as a tech writer. Sure enough, there was troff for the users' manual for Microsoft C Compiler. Most of the other writers edited on their desktops and then uploaded to a Xenix box for formatting.

The only other use for Xenix was to check your email.

Xenix in 1989

[ciurana]

I deployed a number of Xenix installations in the mid- to late 1980's, the last one in either 1989 or 1990. We were competing against Novell Netware networks (back when TeleVideo made that hideous Novell dedicated hardware with the 286 and the Z-80 and all the way to the IBM PS/2 model 80 days) and usually beat them hands down for an inventory and POS application. Our customers were medium-size enterprises (up to 200 employees, up to five physical locations). The configuration:

• HP Vectra 286 with 1 MB RAM (!!!) and 60 MB HD
• 12 RS-232C port expansion (for terminals)
• Up to 12 TTY
• App developed by my company
• SCO Xenix (can't remember the version)

The advantages of using this:

• Cost
• Ease of maintenance
• Rich tool set for the sys admins
• High ROI (return on investment) for our customers
• Higher profits for my company

NCR *nix, Xenix, Minix, and AIX 3.0 were the first *nix OSs I was involved with, back in 1985 and forward. I went from Apple's Applesoft/ProDOS/MacOS/UCSD Pascal to *nix, then to Microsoft's world.

All in all, I remember Xenix being one of the most complete *nix environments I played with. Only AIX running on RS/6000 (I was working on them prior to the announcement in March 1990) was more complete in its blend of SV and BSD tools. SCO occasionally facilitated SCO Unix to us but it was a PIA to install and configure, and lacked *lots* of driver support.

The interesting thing to us was that, while Xenix was an MS product, MS had a very hands off approach towards it. All customer relationships were handled by SCO. The only time I ever remember Bill G. saying something about it was when he was asked about branching NT away from OS/2 and whether he was afraid of losing market share to *nix. His reply (I'm paraphrasing): We have DOS, Windows, OS/2, Xenix, and NT. It's Microsoft against Microsoft against Microsoft against Microsoft.

OK, time to stop reminiscing. Have a great Saturday.

E

Re:This isn't surprising.

[bwulf]

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

See http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/ [faqs.org].

Unix was the future (was: Re:Unix is the future.)

[kermit6306]

It's not that Unix fell off, it's just that it didn't grow into new markets: PC's, low end workstations, embedded systems, etc. AT&T and all the other big Unix vendors had no interest in "toys", (Hubis, it'll get you every time). They sat around and *watched* Microsoft eat up entire markets.
Mac OS X. The "10" stands for "about 10 years to late".

NT, Xenix.

[mindstrm]

Did MS actually *write* xenix, or just license it?

Regarding NT...

First, NT stands for "New Technology". It is a coincidence that "WNT" is offset by one from "VMS".

NT had some of the same designers as VMS.

NT was new. It is not based on unix.

NT *is* cool, and has done some cool things since day one. Do not confuse the NT kernel with the abortion of an operating environment Microsoft chose to build with it. As a kernel, it's very cool in many ways.
Yes, I mean cooler than unix.

Re:This isn't surprising.

[sheldon]

BeOS, OS/2, etc only add further proof to the claim that the best product always wins in the marketplace.

The problem with your 4th grade education is that you have to understand that the definition of "Best" is not defined by you, but rather by consumers.

As far as Tucker... That story is frequently exagerrated. Here's part of the story from someone who worked for Tucker:

http://www.dispatch.com/wheels/autonews/tucker06 30 .html