Jump to content











Photo
* * * * - 2 votes

Do you remember when Microsoft was the biggest Unix selling company?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10545 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 22 September 2008 - 12:00 AM

Some bed time stories from back in the days when Unix was made very popular by Microsoft Xenix.

From the timeline above its clear that work on XENIX and DOS was largely in parallel and XENIX greatly influenced DOS design: for example Microsoft Press' "MS-DOS Encyclopedia" shows a reproduction of a late DOS 1.25 OEM brochure which mention such future enhancements to DOS 1.25 as XENIX-compatible pipes, process forks, and multitasking, as well as "graphics and cursor positioning". That shows that Microsoft certainly tried to bring those two OSes closer, but the forks, multitasking, and multi-user support never materialized. Oddly, the flyer claims:

"MS-DOS has no practical limit on disk size. MS-DOS uses 4-byte XENIX OS compatible pointers for file and disk capacity up to 4 gigabytes."

Later XENIX became dominant Unix for Intel 286 PCs and was widely used in the industry, including of course Microsoft itself. In July 1982 Microsoft's Local Area Network (MILAN), is up and running. MILAN links many computers running XENIX and makes the transfer of e-mail easier. People who worked in Microsoft back in the mid 80's can attest that everybody in the company from Bill Gates down to the secretaries had a access to XENIX and used it daily for email. That also means that everybody used vi and should know vi before they could request vacation time. That lasted until early 90th. The last XENIX server on the MS corporate backbone was removed in late 96- early 1997. Primarily, they were used as Internet gateways, running Sendmail. Also, they functioned as internal gateways between MSMail and Exchange while the company converted everyone over to having personal mailboxes on an Exchange server.


Nice reading.

http://www.softpanor...with_unix.shtml

:huh:

#2 Mikorist

Mikorist

    ▂ ▃ █ ▅ ▆

  • Advanced user
  • 771 posts
  •  
    United Nations

Posted 22 September 2008 - 03:05 PM

1983 - SCO delivers the first packaged UNIX System (called SCO® XENIX® System V) for Intel® 8086 and 8088 processor-based PCs. It provides small businesses with the first affordable business-critical computing system.

1985 - SCO delivers SCO XENIX 286 for Intel 80286 processor-based systems. SCO XENIX 286 delivers on SCO's commitment to "upward compatibility," the ability of an operating system to run applications developed on earlier versions (in this case, SCO XENIX System V).

1987 - SCO ships SCO XENIX 386, the first 32-bit operating system (and first UNIX System) for Intel 386 processor-based systems.

1989 - SCO ships SCO® UNIX® System V/386, the first volume commercial product licensed by AT&T to use the UNIX System trademark.




Posted Image


Posted Image


This is a complete Xenix install for the Tandy 6000 series:

http://www.catcorner.org/Tandy/


For one thing, Xenix doesn't take to new hardware easily. CD-ROMs, PCI, and even mice are difficult or impossible to implement in Xenix; it just barely supports SCSI disks and tapes. Xenix's networking support, while never very functional, no longer exists as an upgrade in any case—someone wanting to add even a single Xenix box to telnet or share services is out of luck....

Here's some minor documentation from XENIX 1.0... and a pic`s

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

:huh:

#3 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10545 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 22 September 2008 - 10:20 PM

Nice screenshots, thanks for posting them.

Xenix was truly more advanced that DOS has ever been.

Wouldn't it be fun if DOS didn't dropped into this picture?

Certainly there wouldn't be so much differences between Linux and MS DOS/Windows and we'd all end up using /home/ folders to keep all our documents.. :huh:

#4 Mikorist

Mikorist

    ▂ ▃ █ ▅ ▆

  • Advanced user
  • 771 posts
  •  
    United Nations

Posted 26 September 2008 - 12:03 PM

Some bed time stories from back in the days when Unix was made very popular by Microsoft Xenix.



Nice reading.

http://www.softpanor...with_unix.shtml

:huh:


:huh:

XENIX used ideas from UNIX

SINIX used ideas from XENIX

MINIX used ideas from SINIX

LINUX used ideas from MINIX

There was a line of connection between Unix, Xenix, Sinix, Minix and, finally, Linux.

From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)

Newsgroups: comp.os.minix

Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?

Summary: small poll for my new operating system

Message-ID&#58; <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>

Date&#58; 25 Aug 91 20&#58;57&#58;08 GMT

Organization&#58; University of Helsinki





Hello everybody out there using minix -



I&#39;m doing a &#40;free&#41; operating system &#40;just a hobby, won&#39;t be big and

professional like gnu&#41; for 386&#40;486&#41; AT clones.  This has been brewing

since april, and is starting to get ready.  I&#39;d like any feedback on

things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat

&#40;same physical layout of the file-system &#40;due to practical reasons&#41;

among other things&#41;.



I&#39;ve currently ported bash&#40;1.08&#41; and gcc&#40;1.40&#41;, and things seem to work.

This implies that I&#39;ll get something practical within a few months, and

I&#39;d like to know what features most people would want.  Any suggestions

are welcome, but I won&#39;t promise I&#39;ll implement them &#58;-&#41;



			   Linus &#40;torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi&#41;



PS.  Yes - it&#39;s free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.

It is NOT protable &#40;uses 386 task switching etc&#41;, and it probably never

will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that&#39;s all I have &#58;-&#40;.

Because it's free of any MINIX code,

LINUX is not MINIX...

Unix??....Xenix??....Sinix??....Minix ??

Megamix ???

Linus never published any description of the internals of the kernel.

We don't know what the LINUX is... :)

:)

#5 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10545 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 26 September 2008 - 08:17 PM

Because it's free of any MINIX code,

LINUX is not MINIX...


It simply means that no code portions from Minix were directly used to build up Linux, the concept of the older OS was however used to influence on the design lines.

Don't worry, this is also quite usual in windows developing when they're brain storming.. :huh:

My team had a very talented UI designer and my particular feature had a good, headstrong program manager with strong ideas about user experience. We had a Mac [owned personally by a team member] that we looked to as a paragon of clean UI. Of course the Shell team also had some great UI designers and numerous good, headstrong PMs who valued (I can only assume) simplicity and so on. Perhaps they had a Mac too.

http://moishelettvin...n-crapfest.html

OSX is also Unix/BSD based by itself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nextstep

Isn't it fun to see this small OS world go round and round? :huh:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users