3 ms·

PCs were too weak to run UNIX in the 1980s. MicroSoft was the vender for Xenix, a 16-bit UNIX. It was so slow compared to PDP 11 UNIX. 32 bit x86 CPUs and Linux

PCs were too weak to run UNIX in the 1980s. MicroSoft was the vender for Xenix, a 16-bit UNIX. It was so slow compared to PDP 11 UNIX. 32 bit x86 CPUs and Linux came out about the same time in the early 90s- a successful marriage.

ams6110 11y ago
I ran Minix on a 8088 with 640K RAM and a 5.25" floppy drive.
tzs 11y ago
Ah...Microsoft and Xenix. Those were responsible for the most annoying meeting I have ever been forced to attend. When AT&T and Sun were doing their joint Unix stuff with SysVR4, they had a deal with Microsoft to add 286 Xenix compatibility. Microsoft contracted with Interactive Systems Corporation (ISC) in Santa Monica, CA, to do the work (which made sense, because as part of ISC's contract to do the 386 port of SysVR3 for AT&T, ISC had done a 286 Unix binary compatibility system). I worked at ISC at the time, and the 286 Xenix compatibility was done by Darryl Richman and myself. At one point Microsoft told us that there was a serious issue that had to be decided, and it was too important to handle over the phone or email. They wanted both Darryl and I to fly to Redmond. This annoyed me, because I strongly avoid flying [1]. (During the flight, though, I did see something interesting. Over Northern California I saw a black aircraft very rapidly ascending. As far as I could tell, we were at around the right latitude for Beale AFB, which was a major starting point for SR-71 and U-2 spy missions, so one of those could have been what I saw). So we finally get to the meeting, and they bring up the massive issue that could only be dealt with in person. There were one or two differences in signal behavior between Xenix and SysVR4 that could not be taken care of in our user mode code. They would need to add an option to the kernel to switch to Xenix behavior for programs running under our Xenix emulator. That was no problem--they knew how to do that. What they did not know, and needed this urgent face to face meeting to discuss, was whether the interface to that option should be an ioctl or a new system call. WTF!? We told them to go with an ioctl (if I recall correctly), they said that would be fine, and the meeting was over. If that wasn't annoying enough, when the project was done Microsoft said they were very happy with the results and they expressed this by sending Darryl a bunch of free Microsoft software. They sent me nothing. Now if Darryl had been the project lead or principle engineer or something like that on the project, that would have been fine. But we were equal...and I actually was the more experienced in that area because the 286 Xenix emulation was based on the 286 Unix emulation which had been done by Carl Hensler and me. [1] I believe everyone is allowed, and should have, one stubbornly irrational fear, and I picked for mine flying on aircraft that I am not piloting.
- rjsw 11y ago
  I ran Interactive UNIX on a 16MB 386 in the late 80s, it was a nice OS.
DrScump 11y ago
808x has no Protected Mode or extended memory until the 80286 (actually the 80186, though hardly anybody used it) came out, beginning the IBM AT generation. AT&T had an early UNIX PC series, the 6300 (8086, in a rebranded Olivetti unit)) and 6300 Plus (80286). I think the former only ran DOS and Venix, but they had a System V implementation for the Plus, IIRC.

ams6110 11y ago

I ran Minix on a 8088 with 640K RAM and a 5.25" floppy drive.

tzs 11y ago

Ah...Microsoft and Xenix. Those were responsible for the most annoying meeting I have ever been forced to attend. When AT&T and Sun were doing their joint Unix stuff with SysVR4, they had a deal with Microsoft to add 286 Xenix compatibility. Microsoft contracted with Interactive Systems Corporation (ISC) in Santa Monica, CA, to do the work (which made sense, because as part of ISC's contract to do the 386 port of SysVR3 for AT&T, ISC had done a 286 Unix binary compatibility system). I worked at ISC at the time, and the 286 Xenix compatibility was done by Darryl Richman and myself. At one point Microsoft told us that there was a serious issue that had to be decided, and it was too important to handle over the phone or email. They wanted both Darryl and I to fly to Redmond. This annoyed me, because I strongly avoid flying [1]. (During the flight, though, I did see something interesting. Over Northern California I saw a black aircraft very rapidly ascending. As far as I could tell, we were at around the right latitude for Beale AFB, which was a major starting point for SR-71 and U-2 spy missions, so one of those could have been what I saw). So we finally get to the meeting, and they bring up the massive issue that could only be dealt with in person. There were one or two differences in signal behavior between Xenix and SysVR4 that could not be taken care of in our user mode code. They would need to add an option to the kernel to switch to Xenix behavior for programs running under our Xenix emulator. That was no problem--they knew how to do that. What they did not know, and needed this urgent face to face meeting to discuss, was whether the interface to that option should be an ioctl or a new system call. WTF!? We told them to go with an ioctl (if I recall correctly), they said that would be fine, and the meeting was over. If that wasn't annoying enough, when the project was done Microsoft said they were very happy with the results and they expressed this by sending Darryl a bunch of free Microsoft software. They sent me nothing. Now if Darryl had been the project lead or principle engineer or something like that on the project, that would have been fine. But we were equal...and I actually was the more experienced in that area because the 286 Xenix emulation was based on the 286 Unix emulation which had been done by Carl Hensler and me. [1] I believe everyone is allowed, and should have, one stubbornly irrational fear, and I picked for mine flying on aircraft that I am not piloting.

rjsw 11y ago
I ran Interactive UNIX on a 16MB 386 in the late 80s, it was a nice OS.

DrScump 11y ago

808x has no Protected Mode or extended memory until the 80286 (actually the 80186, though hardly anybody used it) came out, beginning the IBM AT generation. AT&T had an early UNIX PC series, the 6300 (8086, in a rebranded Olivetti unit)) and 6300 Plus (80286). I think the former only ran DOS and Venix, but they had a System V implementation for the Plus, IIRC.