From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:55:49 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <1992Nov20.183900.16110@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:
>In article <hT8BrAbBBh107h@lorc.UUCP> lowen@lorc.UUCP (Lamar Owen) writes:
>
>>In <STEVEV.92Nov13100727@miser.uoregon.edu> stevev@miser.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender) writes:
>
>>>In article <1dvltdINN6i4@skat.usc.edu> jlowrey@skat.usc.edu (John 'Fritz' Lowrey) writes:
>
>>>	   My seed:
>>>	   Microsoft DOS	->	Intended as a stepping stone while DR 
>>>				   wrapped up CP/M-86, and now the program
>>>				   loader of choice for countless millions. 
>
>>>You really need to study up on your computing history.  You seem
>>>to imply that Microsoft got MS-DOS from Digital Research.
>>>Microsoft got MS-DOS from a small firm called Seattle Computer,
>>>which had written a quick-and-dirty CP/M clone called SC-DOS.
>>>Then Microsoft hacked it up and marketed the hell out of it.
>
>>The original marketing niche for MS-DOS was as a stepping stone from the
>>8-bit CP/M world to the multiuser 16-bit world of Xenix.  Microsoft, in
>>the early 80's, fully intended to make Xenix their high-end OS.  However,
>>the market chose otherwise.
>
>And why did the market choose otherwise.
>
>Easy.   Dos 1.0 - on a 64k max memory machine with a single 160k floppy
>at $60 list price was a much better deal than CPM from DRI at $300.
>
>DOS 1.0 looked a lot like CPM.  But when I used it I found that the
>S-100 4Mhz Z80 based machines with memory mapped display was so much
>faster than the 4.7 Mhz 8086 machine with the IBM 'idea' of a video
>display adapter was pretty poor.      
>
>The machines were pretty evenly matched, but the slow display on the PC
>made it look slow.
>
>I remember one demo I saw of a computer called a Max80 by Lobo.  It was
>CPM or Radio Shack Model I hardware compatible.
>
>They'd fire up a program writing numbers to a screen on the PC, and
>then walk across the room, type in the program on the Max, and then run
>it, and have the Max finish first.    Impressive to people who didn't
>know a damn thing about computers.
>
>And when DOS 1.0 came out the Xenix wasn't even talked about for low
>end machines.   I remember seeing the first effort by SCO at one of
>their very first public outings.  I believe it was at Comdex in 1984.
>
>The *IX variants up to that time had a real problem running on an 8086
>chip.   I wouldn't say it was slow, but the only other computer that I
>saw that was slower was turned off.
>
>Microsoft's Xenix efforts were for Tandy on their 68000
>based machines.   That was the 1.x series.  The 3.x series for those
>machines was done by SCO.  The IBM Xenix 1.0 was released unsupported.
>The 2.0 was really bad - supported - but bad.

Before Tandy went to Microsoft, they went to Charles River Data Systems.
CRDS ships a real time UNIX compatible OS called UNOS.  Since CRDS was
already shipping on the 68000, Tandy figured that it was a natural.  The
problem was that CRDS couldn't shrink their base + development system
to leave enough space on a 5 megabyte winchester to suit Tandy's fancy,
so they went to Xenix.

To this day there are remnants of Tandy support code in UNOS.

Charles River Data Systems is still around, and UNOS now passes the SVID
suite for SVR3.2 with 4.0 extensions.

And, of course, the Tandy 16/6000 is long gone.

If CRDS had been able to fulfill Tandy's desires, XENIX would just be some
long forgotten OS now.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions