The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: grog@lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Subject: [TUHS] OS for IBM PC (was: Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:08:00 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160704050800.GF61337@eureka.lemis.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160630154926.GM2203@mcvoy.com>

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at  8:49:26 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:32:08AM -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
>> Something I never understood about the IBM PC: even the 8088 machine was
>> fairly beefy compared to e.g. a PDP-11/20. The 6th Edition Unix kernel was
>> objectively pretty small and understandable; mini-Unix showed that that
>> sort of software could be used on a machine without an MMU. I've never
>> understood why IBM didn't just write a real OS in a high-level language
>> instead of saddling the world with MS-DOS. Perhaps it's naive of me, but
>> even if they didn't use Unix directly, it was an existence proof that such
>> a thing was possible. I suppose, again, it was less a technical issue and
>> more a business issue, or perhaps I'm underestimating the amount of work or
>> missing some of the technical complexities.
>
> I wonder if they just didn't know.  Unix was Bell Labs and
> Universities for the most part.  Was the timing such that they may
> not have been aware of Unix?  Or maybe they knew about Unix but
> thought it was for the vax?

Not directly related, but I don't know which other message in this
subthread is more relevant:

Don't forget the constraints on the PC design.  The IBM model number
was 5150: it was a last-ditch attempt to salvage the not very
successful 5100 series.  To do so they outsourced things that IBM
would normally have developed in-house.  And that meant taking
existing products, not creating new ones.  The success of the PC
caught IBM by surprise, like the 704 30 years earlier.

At the time IBM talked to Microsoft, Microsoft's OS plans were clear:
XENIX.  See the August 1980 (I think) issue of Byte, where there's a
long story about why XENIX is the correct choice of operating system.
You can be sure that Microsoft tried to sell that first.  But instead
they had to go out and buy QDOS from Seattle Computer Products.

And why?  Yes, the 8088 was a reasonably fast processor, so fast that
they could slow it down a little so that they could use the same
crystal to create the clock both for the CPU and the USART.  But the
base system had only 16 kB memory, only a little more than half the
size of the 6th Edition kernel.  Even without the issue of disks
(which could potentially have been worked around) it really wasn't big
enough for a multiprogramming OS.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-07-04  5:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-29 15:17 [TUHS] Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs scj
2016-06-30  5:06 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-06-30  5:08 ` John Cowan
2016-06-30 11:18 ` arnold
2016-06-30 11:45   ` arnold
2016-06-30 13:22 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 14:05   ` Marc Rochkind
2016-06-30 14:33     ` William Cheswick
2016-06-30 14:43       ` Ronald Natalie
2016-06-30 14:57       ` Joerg Schilling
2016-06-30 15:07         ` Ori Idan
2016-06-30 23:07           ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-01  3:27           ` Jesus Cea
2016-06-30 15:32     ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 15:49       ` Larry McVoy
2016-06-30 16:32         ` Clem Cole
2016-07-04  5:08         ` Greg 'groggy' Lehey [this message]
2016-06-30 17:07       ` John Cowan
2016-06-30 17:57         ` Marc Rochkind
2016-06-30 18:31           ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 19:21             ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 19:51               ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 19:55                 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 20:04                   ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 18:26         ` Steve Nickolas
2016-06-30 19:21       ` Diomidis Spinellis
2016-06-30 19:43         ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 19:53           ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 19:47         ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 20:57         ` Nemo
2016-06-30 23:11           ` Random832
2016-06-30 23:16           ` Marc Rochkind
2016-06-30 23:38             ` Random832
2016-07-01  0:38             ` Clem Cole
2016-07-01  1:21               ` Marc Rochkind
2016-07-01  1:34               ` John Cowan
2016-07-04 19:23                 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-04 19:56                   ` Ronald Natalie
2016-07-01  2:35               ` Nemo
2016-07-01  3:01                 ` Kurt H Maier
2016-07-01  3:52               ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2016-07-01 12:47                 ` [TUHS] MS-DOS William Cheswick
2016-07-01 13:43                   ` Marc Rochkind
2016-07-01 21:58                     ` John Cowan
2016-07-01 22:27                       ` Jacob Ritorto
2016-07-01 22:54                         ` Jacob Goense
2016-07-01 23:44                         ` John Cowan
2016-07-02  0:08                           ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-02  1:09                           ` Kurt H Maier
2016-07-02  2:59                         ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-02  3:27                         ` Greg 'groggy' Lehey
2016-07-02 23:21                           ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-01 23:49                     ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-02  1:12                       ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-02  4:37                       ` SZIGETI Szabolcs
2016-07-02  9:53                         ` Brantley Coile
2016-07-01 13:47                   ` Clem Cole
2016-07-01 15:13                     ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-02 15:25                       ` Ronald Natalie
2016-07-02 15:32                         ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-02 19:46                           ` Nemo
2016-07-03  1:18                             ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-03 13:33                               ` Nemo
2016-07-01 17:39                     ` John Cowan
2016-07-02 15:17                       ` Ronald Natalie
2016-07-03 22:07                   ` Derek Fawcus
2016-07-02 23:32         ` [TUHS] Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs Peter Jeremy
2016-06-30 15:52     ` Joerg Schilling
2016-06-30 20:47     ` Lawrence Stewart
2016-07-04 16:54 [TUHS] OS for IBM PC (was: Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs) Norman Wilson
2016-07-04 18:13 ` Larry McVoy
2016-07-04 21:12   ` Clement T. Cole

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160704050800.GF61337@eureka.lemis.com \
    --to=grog@lemis.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).