Ironically Bill Gates was big into UNIX, see his Xenix interview, and had they not gotten lucky with the whole MS-DOS deal, maybe they would have kept Xenix and who knows how that would have turned out.
Xenix was also my introduction to UNIX.
However due to our school resources, there was a single PC tower running it, we had to prepare our examples in MS-DOS using Turbo C 2.0, and API mocks, and take 15m turns at the Xenix PC.
> had they not gotten lucky with the whole MS-DOS deal, maybe they would have kept Xenix and who knows how that would have turned out.
Oh, absolutely, yes. It's one of the historical inflection points that's visible.
My favourites...
• MS wanted to go with Xenix but DOS proved a hit so it changed course.
• DR had multitasking Concurrent DOS on the 80286 in 1985, but Intel's final released chip removed the feature CDOS needed, so it pivoted to FlexOS and RTOSes, leaving the way open to MS and OS/2 and Windows.
• MS wanted OS/2 1.x to be 386-specific but IBM said no. As a result, OS/2 1.x was cripped by being a 286 OS, it flopped, and IBM lost the x86 market.
• Quarterdeck nearly had DESQview/X out before Windows 3: a TCP/IP enabled X11-based multitasking DOS extended that bridged DOS to Unix and open systems... but it was delayed and so when it appeared it was too late.
* GNU discussed and evaluated adopting the BSD kernel for the GNU OS, but decided to go with Mach. Had it gone for the BSD kernel, there would have been a complete working FOSS Unix for 386 at the end of the 1980s, Linux would never have happened, and Windows 3 might not have been such a hit that it led to NT.
I got whole series of articles out of this, titled in honour of Douglas Adam's fake trilogy about god...
Xenix was also my introduction to UNIX.
However due to our school resources, there was a single PC tower running it, we had to prepare our examples in MS-DOS using Turbo C 2.0, and API mocks, and take 15m turns at the Xenix PC.