Why MS DOS?

[adit]

I am talking about things happened around 1985.
MS DOS was the most used operating system in personal computers. There were better operating systems available at that time (like unix). Why did unix not get the market?

[celticbhoy]

I could be wrong but if I remember correct Microsoft got the contract from IBM for their PC's, so started the Microsoft pre-installed thing that still happens now. Then when all the clones started to appear they all wanted to show how compatible they were so either came with MS-DOS or an alternate to it ie PC-DOS. Someone will probably correct me, but that is how I recalled it.

[leg]

I am talking about things happened around 1985.
MS DOS was the most used operating system in personal computers. There were better operating systems available at that time (like unix). Why did unix not get the market?
I think it may be related to the fact that Unix was not allowed to be sold commercially for a while and this let in competitors. Something to do with AT&T and monopolies commision. Vague I know but I am sure someone else knows more.

[steev182]

I wonder how different life would have been if Unix was preinstalled on PCs back then. Would Linus have decided not to make his own Unix-like kernel? Would we have desktops that look the way they look?

[Daisuke_Aramaki]

I wonder how different life would have been if Unix was preinstalled on PCs back then. Would Linus have decided not to make his own Unix-like kernel? Would we have desktops that look the way they look?

he said that about 386bsd. if it had been available then, he said, linux probably would have never happened.

[cmay]

from wikipedia. i think it was more a design that was close to a other but more expensive opearive system and the compatibilty between all the other dos systems on different pc (rebrand s/)as much as mabe the price on unix systems that was the factor.
i am not all that sure however. could be many factors.

On microcomputers based on the Intel 8086 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086) and 8088 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8088) processors, including the IBM PC and clones, the initial competition to the PC DOS/MS-DOS line came from Digital Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Research), whose CP/M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M) operating system had inspired MS-DOS. Digital Research released CP/M-86 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M-86) a few months after MS-DOS, and it was offered as an alternative to MS-DOS and Microsoft's licensing requirements, but at a higher price. Executable programs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executable_program) for CP/M-86 and MS-DOS were not interchangeable with each other; much applications software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_software) was sold in both MS-DOS and CP/M-86 versions until MS-DOS became preponderant (later Digital Research operating systems could run both MS-DOS and CP/M-86 software). MS-DOS supported the simple .COM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COM_file) and the more advanced relocatable .EXE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXE) executable file formats; CP/M-86 a relocatable format using the file extension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_extension) .CMD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMD_file_%28CP/M%29).
Most of the machines in the early days of MS DOS had differing system architectures and there was a certain degree of incompatibility, and subsequently vendor lock-in. Users who began using MS-DOS with their machines were compelled to continue using the version customized for their hardware, or face trying to get all of their proprietary hardware and software to work with the new system.
In the business world the 808x-based machines that MS-DOS was tied to faced competition from the Unix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix) operating system which ran on many different hardware architectures. Microsoft itself sold a version of Unix for the PC called Xenix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix).

[3rdalbum]

1. Unix did not run on the IBM PC at that point in time.
2. MS-DOS was a clone of an earlier operating system called CP/M that a lot of computer users at the time were familiar with.
3. IBM shipped MS-DOS as the preinstalled operating system.

[Sealbhach]

IBM.

The IBM compatible PC.

.

[fatality_uk]

In very early 80's, IBM wanted to create a market for home PC's. They didn't have an OS so asked Microsoft who had provided a small number of low key apps for IBM to develop a OS.

Microsoft then essentially bought the core for MS-DOS, added a few tweaks and delivered it to IBM as a complete package.

Microsoft had the right connections with the right people and were in the right place at the right time to "buy" the right software to kick start the home PC market.

Had they gone to the computer lab at MIT, then the world would be a very different place.

[adit]

The IBM compatible PCIs it possible to run Unix on IBM (of those days)?

[iponeverything]

Linux didn't run on anything prior to the 386.

ie. 286, 8086 or 8088.

[fatality_uk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC

I do like this bit:


"CPU Intel 8088 @ 4.77 MHz"

I have pencil's with a higher clock rate than that :D

[forrestcupp]

Is it possible to run Unix on IBM (of those days)?

No. Linux was created much later on for that purpose. But at that time, Unix mainly ran on SPARC systems and RISC based processors. These systems were very expensive and definitely not meant to be personal computers.

IBM came out with their comparatively inexpensive personal computers focused on home users. They couldn't even run Unix, so MS made a wise business decision and jumped in with MS-DOS, which could run on PCs.

In those days, Unix boxes and MS-DOS based PC's had totally different purposes. Linux came out way later after MS already had built their empire.

[anaconda]

I am talking about things happened around 1985.
MS DOS was the most used operating system in personal computers. There were better operating systems available at that time (like unix). Why did unix not get the market?

DOS was a very good operating system. The good points:

1. Almost all computing power were given to the running application. (in the beginning you could run just one program at a time.)
2. It was very light and fast.
3. Almost all PC:s had DOS, so if you could use one you could use all of them. And if you wrote a program to DOS you could run (and distribute) it everywhere.

PS: The fastest machine (most responsive) I have ever user was a 486 with DOS... Everything happened almost instantly. Try the same with ubuntu.... Start OO word, and time how loooooong it takes.

[JordyD]

I wonder how different life would have been if Unix was preinstalled on PCs back then. Would Linus have decided not to make his own Unix-like kernel? Would we have desktops that look the way they look?

:) We would all be using Windows, pointing and laughing at how inferior UNIX-based systems are. (Haha, silly Ubuntu users, my Windows can do that in 3 times less time!)

[Ceiber Boy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC

I do like this bit:



I have pencil's with a higher clock rate than that :D

your pencil has a higher clock rate than my laptop!

[MikeTheC]

See, here's the thing about all that, though.

[And for purposes of this discussion we're going to ignore Richard Stallman and those few folks who at the time were a part of the then-fledgling Gnu Hurd.]

It's really hard to discuss the software world of the 1980s, especially for people who weren't a part of it. First off, the computer world as a whole was much like the Linux community is now, meaning that you had people of all descriptions that were enthusiasts and not like what most of us are used to seeing and dealing with today. There was a broad mix of commercial titles and shareware/freeware/public domain apps as well. Operating Systems often were given away for free, but that was for personal computers.

My point in saying all this is that it's my opinion Unix, given its origins and the market it was in, would not have been ported to PCs simply because there would have not been any perceived useful business case to do so, quite separate and apart from the technical aspects of whether or not it could have been successfully ported.

Now, for the record, Apple did have a version of Unix, called Apple Unix or A/UX, which they did sell for their platform. However, all you have to do is look at the relevant Wikipedia article to see it wasn't a widely-used thing. So yes, "Unix" could and did run on personal computers of the era.

[oldos2er]

"Unix did not run on the IBM PC at that point in time."

Unix didn't, but Xenix did; unfortunately it never became very popular.

[aikiwolfie]

Why MS-DOS? IBM need a quick and dirty solution to a problem. So they turned to Micro-Soft. Bill Gates and co went and bought the rights to QDOS, messed around with it a bit and called it MS-DOS.

Part of the brief IBM gave Microsoft was that it should look like the competitions OS so people would want to buy it.

IBM in their haste however neglected to insist on exclusivity for MS-DOS in their contract with Micro-Soft. So Micro-Soft promptly began an aggressive badgering campaign against all the other microcomputer manufacturers like Amstrad where they eventually ended up practically giving MS-DOS away for free just to get it onto systems. Sir Alan Sugar claims a Microsoft rep turned up at his door every other day until he agree to ship MS-DOS on Amstrad microcomputers.

So what was the big threat to IBM that necessitated such a hasty solution? Apple. Apple had started pitching microcomputers to businesses as appliances they could use in offices for things like word-processing and the like. Other companies were catching on and that was a problem for IBM.

IBM made supercomputers and mini-supercomputers. Bot of which were too expensive for most companies and a lot more expensive than a microcomputer that could sit on your desk and do a lot of the same stuff. A bit like the difference between a quad core desktop and a single core Atom powered netbook.

If IBM hadn't gotten involved in the microcomputer market and produced the IBM PC we'd all be using a Mac or an Amiga. Amstrad were always crap and never destined to last. Companies like Dell, Acer, Asus, Lenovo and Gateway wouldn't exist and HP would only ever produce printers and photocopiers. Microsoft would still be Micro-Soft and wouldn't be producing Windows. They'd be writing application software for the Mac and the Amiga.

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to be entirely wrong and historically inaccurate. :p

[JordyD]

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to be entirely wrong and historically inaccurate. :p

That would make the best sig.

[lykwydchykyn]

Maybe I'm a revisionist, but I like to think that what separated DOS from the competitors at the time (Apple, Amiga, Atari, etc) was that it ran on commodity hardware (pc-clones), whereas competing OS were tied to the vendor's specific hardware. Thus, you can almost say that DOS won out due to (relative) openness.

[aikiwolfie]

Not a bad idea JordyD ;)

Hmm ... did MS-DOS win out over relative openess though? Other OSs ran on the same commodity hardware, were much better and more complete, had more efficient file systems, were compatible to some degree to MS-DOS but were more expensive.

MS-DOS won out because Microsoft basically gave it away and wouldn't take no for an answer. As computer operating systems go, MS-DOS is about as basic as it can get and still be useful to the average business. All the competition were more expensive at a time where companies could function just fine without PCs.

[Sealbhach]

Maybe I'm a revisionist, but I like to think that what separated DOS from the competitors at the time (Apple, Amiga, Atari, etc) was that it ran on commodity hardware (pc-clones), whereas competing OS were tied to the vendor's specific hardware. Thus, you can almost say that DOS won out due to (relative) openness.

Yeah, they encouraged people to write applications for DOS, and got DOS on as many IBM compatible PC's as possible, thus creating an industry standard.

.

[lykwydchykyn]

Not a bad idea JordyD ;)

Hmm ... did MS-DOS win out over relative openess though? Other OSs ran on the same commodity hardware, were much better and more complete, had more efficient file systems, were compatible to some degree to MS-DOS but were more expensive.


I am speaking of DOS in general, not MS DOS specifically. Can you tell me some of the other major HOME COMPUTING OS's that ran on "commodity hardware" in the 1980s?

I'll admit I was not a "computer geek" at the time, just a consumer (and a kid at that). My recollection buying my first computer in the late 80's was that my choices were pc-clone hardware running DOS, or any number of bolts-to-bits products from folks like commodore, atari, and apple.

[lisati]

Ssssh don't tell anyone, I think I have a backup copy on 5.25" disk of PC-DOS 2.0 buried in a box somewhere.

I'm surprised that no-one's commented so far that there's a difference between PC-DOS (mainly IBM machines) and MS-DOS (just about everyone else)

[celticbhoy]

Mentioned in second post.
As said lykwydchykyn CPM was about.

[lykwydchykyn]

Mentioned in second post.
As said lykwydchykyn CPM was about.

Aright, fair enough, my theory is busted.
:-(

[MikeTheC]

I traded someone a set of DOS 6.22 install discs for a solid cast sonic screwdriver.

I still have that sonic screwdriver, btw...

[rCXer]

While there were better OS's at the time, DOS was much easer to learn. To get help all you had to do was type "help". In Unix it's "man" which isn't as straightforward. Imagine explaining to someone whose 2nd language is English that "man" stood for manual and not someone with a Y chromosome.

[Bungo Pony]

If IBM hadn't gotten involved in the microcomputer market and produced the IBM PC we'd all be using a Mac or an Amiga.

The Amiga was so bloody advanced for it's time. We'd be WAY ahead technologically if it weren't for Microsoft building their empire and if Jack Tramiel hasn't screwed up Commodore Business Machines.

If you don't think the Amiga was ahead of it's time in the mid-80s, watch a demo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO48kWb7QqA

[iponeverything]

I have kept every version of MS-DOS since 3.3 (disk images) -- I thought I might it need them again.

[aikiwolfie]

I am speaking of DOS in general, not MS DOS specifically. Can you tell me some of the other major HOME COMPUTING OS's that ran on "commodity hardware" in the 1980s?

I'll admit I was not a "computer geek" at the time, just a consumer (and a kid at that). My recollection buying my first computer in the late 80's was that my choices were pc-clone hardware running DOS, or any number of bolts-to-bits products from folks like commodore, atari, and apple.

The IBM PC wasn't initially designed as a home computing solution. It was meant for the corporate offices that were poised to go down the Apple route. So when I say "commodity". I'm talking from a corporate perspective. IBM PCs were cheap at £1000 a pop compared to the alternatives.

There were a number of other DOS like OSs or variants on the DOS theme. Like all of these for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_x86_DOS_operating_systems). But CP/M-80 was the progenitor of them all. QDOS which became MS-DOS which became PC DOS was a variant of CP/M-80.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M-80
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS#Origins

[markbuntu]

A lot of people here seem to be misinformed about the hows and whys of IBM and the pc. At the time that IBM was devleoping the PC they were under a lot of pressure from the US Justice Department which was considering breaking IBM up due to its market dominance and was threatening to proceed if IBM did not open up the new pc market to competition.

So, IBM chose to base its pc design on commodity Intel microprocessors and DOS, of which there were many versions floating around. This made the pc market an open market and the Justice Department backed away.

The choice to use MS-DOS may have something to do with Bill Gates mother, who was doing work for IBM at the time.

That said, early pc's were not cheap. An 8086 with 64k ram and a 10MB hard drive and a mono screen cost around $2,000 initially, which would be around $5,000 today.

By the mid 80s we were selling 286 machines with 256k ram and giant 20MB hard drives and color montiors for around $4,000. These were dedicated navigational plotting applications for ships running on top of a very small fast and stable Windows 2.0. It was the only really stable version of windows I ever saw, lol, basically just a small fast gui running one dedicated application on top of DOS.

[forrestcupp]

That said, early pc's were not cheap. An 8086 with 64k ram and a 10MB hard drive and a mono screen cost around $2,000 initially, which would be around $5,000 today.


Which was cheap compared to $5,000 or more for a Unix box. Not nearly as cheap or capable (in my opinion) as a C64, though.

[Swagman]

A lot of people here seem to be misinformed about the hows and whys of IBM and the pc. At the time that IBM was devleoping the PC they were under a lot of pressure from the US Justice Department which was considering breaking IBM up due to its market dominance and was threatening to proceed if IBM did not open up the new pc market to competition.

So, IBM chose to base its pc design on commodity Intel microprocessors and DOS, of which there were many versions floating around. This made the pc market an open market and the Justice Department backed away.

The choice to use MS-DOS may have something to do with Bill Gates mother, who was doing work for IBM at the time.

That said, early pc's were not cheap. An 8086 with 64k ram and a 10MB hard drive and a mono screen cost around $2,000 initially, which would be around $5,000 today.

By the mid 80s we were selling 286 machines with 256k ram and giant 20MB hard drives and color montiors for around $4,000. These were dedicated navigational plotting applications for ships running on top of a very small fast and stable Windows 2.0. It was the only really stable version of windows I ever saw, lol, basically just a small fast gui running one dedicated application on top of DOS.


Somebody is on the right track.

But you should've clarified "working for IBM"

BG's Mummy was a Lawyer !! (A very rich one)

IBM actually wanted to buy the No.1 Home computer of the age which was a little company called Atari.

But Atari were doing exceedingly well at the time and snubbed IBM (this was before Amiga kicked Everyone in the tech nads)

So IBM set up a small team who took "off the shelf components" and whacked them in a box as a test.

IBM wanted the best available O/s for it's new baby and called Mr DR DOS. But he was on vacation

Sensing an opportunity for little billy-O, Mummy chipped in a recommendation for something her son was working on.

Billy Boy had just purchased a piece of crap O/s from a pissed up coder down the pub and was looking for a use for it.

Strings were pulled

Doors were opened

Others can continue................

[Jimleko211]

Micro-soft was pretty smart in the way that is set up the spread of MS-DOS. It pretty much garunteed Microsoft's continued dominance in the tech field, which obvious continues to this day.

MS DOS >>>> Linux.

End of, don't ******* bother arguing with me.
Yup, a command line which can run 1 app at a time is TOTALLY better than a customizable OS that can run more than 1 app through a GUI. And I like your user name, totally unbiased, dude ;)

[markbuntu]

Most people got rid of MS-DOS as soon as they got their machine home and booted into Dr Dos which had Midnight Commander. Back then you booted from a floppy disk, backup copies were critical. We had piles of them.

MS-DOS was probably the worst version of DOS out there.

[CharmyBee]

MS-DOS was probably the worst version of DOS out there.

Not if you're a gamer.

[Junkieman]

As the other posters elegantly put it: MS and IBM had a deal.

After so many years of DOS I was blown away when I saw a Linux console for the first time!

And even though the "command line" in Windows is > 16-bit, MS didn't even try putting lipstick on that chicken.

[Docaltmed]

During that time, I was one of the first reporters of a Ziff-Davis startup newspaper called PC Week, and I covered much of the goings-on during that time and just afterward.

As others had said, IBM saw PCs were a coming thing, but were under pressure from Justice. That made the Intel call pretty easy.

IIRC, the PC division was in Boca Raton at the time, and they were a little bit of a skunk works -- or, at least by IBM standards. Armonk later strong-armed them, but that's a different story.

Anyway, the choice in OS came down to CP/M and what Bill Gates would eventually produce as MS-DOS. CP/M was a very good OS for the time, and Gates had, well, Gates. Kildall really screwed things up. When IBM came to talk turkey with DRI, he blew them off for another, real client, and left IBM to talk to a sub.

(Which reminds me of the time that I interviewed Gates over lunch at some convention somewhere, and he stiffed me for the bill. I've never forgiven the chump for that. Reporters are never supposed to pay for their food when you're blowing PR nonsense at them for 45 minutes straight. It's one of the rules.)

Anyway, the Kildall kiss-off didn't suit IBM well at all. Gates, a much, much better businessman, although not nearly as technically proficient as Kildall, roped in IBM a very short time later.

That was a really exciting time to be in the industry. Things were exploding technically and commercially. What were then called MIS executives were finding that corporate employees were bringing in their own PCs. Instead of waiting 3 months for a COBOL programmer to make a 2-line change, people were firing up their Lotus spreadsheets and massaging the data themselves. Department heads were purchasing PCs as word processors for their departments. MIS was running scared, because they had no control over the data, the software or the budgets.

Me? I was covering my beat using an Osborne "portable" computer -- running CP/M -- that I had bought myself (and taught myself assembly language with it). Later, our department was equipped with Radio Shack TRS-80 laptops (they had 2-line block letter screens). On the road, reporters would write their stories, then we would file them via 300-baud modem using acoustic cups on the handset. I kid you not.

Oh yeah -- we also had PCs at the office.

During the 3-4 years I was there, PC Week became a blockbuster. We were regularly running up to 200 tabloid pages. Ziff was making money hand over fist. I and the other reporters were flying all over the country covering stories, and we rented out the Guggenheim Museum in New York City for our first Christmas party.

Sorry for the old folks boogie, but thanks for reviving those memories for me.

[markbuntu]

When I finally got linux and x running, after having a monitor actually catch fire during a modeprobe, it was just fantastic, totally worth the price of a new monitor. I believe I was running linux kernel 0.98 or something like that. Probably debian or redhat, definitely not slackware, I could never get a good slackware download with my superfast 13.3K modem.

PC week was a huge fat mag in those days. Computer Shopper was a phone book.

[forrestcupp]

PC week was a huge fat mag in those days. Computer Shopper was a phone book.

Ha, ha. I forgot about Computer Shopper.

[MikeTheC]

I remember seeing Computer Shopper a lot on the shelves.

Of course, being a Mac person it was essentially useless to me.

But I do remember it. Ah, good days.

[Swagman]

Computer Shopper.

Thick as a phone book with all the adverts.

News started somewhere about page 300 iirc

I got the best news from a little Amiga mag called ... Amiga User International (http://www.aui-magazine.net)

I'm still being spammed by Computer Shopper...

http://www.upload3r.com/serve/170609/1245250834.jpeg

[CharmyBee]

Computer Shopper was useful in 1994. It was essentially my ticket for a decent computer then. And they are REALLY BIG. You can probably stop bullets with those.

[aikiwolfie]

Stopping bullets with Computer Shopper? Sounds like a Mythbusters job.

Okay so lets get this DOS history straight.

CP/M-80 begot QDOS which begot MS-DOS which begot PC DOS. Then CP/M-80 came back from the dead as DR DOS! IBM choose Microsoft because Apple were making bucks selling Lisa on a street corner or some such to execs with more money than sense. Microcomputers were clearly becoming big business. Everybody was building them. Atari, Commodor, Amstrad umm ... other people too. Anyway IBM wanted a slice of the pie but didn't have a knife or a club handy. So they built a PC and called it a PC and then the justice department got ants in it's pants and Bill Gates mummy was jiggy with the BeeGees who were the real power behind IBM? ... And that is why we have Microsoft Windows 7 which is a patch for Vista that didn't work but they'll sell it to you for double the price with an upgrade coupon if you just please buy a Vista PC before Windows 7 comes out and then Vista won't be a failure please!!! ... :D

...

What? ... It all makes perfect sense.

[celticbhoy]

sounds about right - except that you missed the bit about attempting to buy all and any competition to any product it produced or was going to produce.

[Swagman]

Stopping bullets with Computer Shopper? Sounds like a Mythbusters job.

Okay so lets get this DOS history straight.

CP/M-80 begot QDOS which begot MS-DOS which begot PC DOS. Then CP/M-80 came back from the dead as DR DOS! IBM choose Microsoft because Apple were making bucks selling Lisa on a street corner or some such to execs with more money than sense. Microcomputers were clearly becoming big business. Everybody was building them. Atari, Commodor, Amstrad umm ... other people too. Anyway IBM wanted a slice of the pie but didn't have a knife or a club handy. So they built a PC and called it a PC and then the justice department got ants in it's pants and Bill Gates mummy was jiggy with the BeeGees who were the real power behind IBM? ... And that is why we have Microsoft Windows 7 which is a patch for Vista that didn't work but they'll sell it to you for double the price with an upgrade coupon if you just please buy a Vista PC before Windows 7 comes out and then Vista won't be a failure please!!! ... :D

...

What? ... It all makes perfect sense.

Clear as Glass.

Can we have an RSS feed on that please !!

hehe

[recluce]

While there were better OS's at the time, DOS was much easer to learn. To get help all you had to do was type "help". In Unix it's "man" which isn't as straightforward.

I'm afraid that doesn't fly. TOS (Atari ST) and MAC OS both were a lot easier to use and learn than MessyDOS.

I worked (and played) on Atari ST, Amiga 2000 and DOS machines at the time. And I hated the game of squeezing an extra couple of hundred bytes out of the lower 640K memory range or resolving some stupid IRQ conflict...

[aikiwolfie]

sounds about right - except that you missed the bit about attempting to buy all and any competition to any product it produced or was going to produce.

I didn't want to get all political :p

[celticbhoy]

I'm afraid that doesn't fly. TOS (Atari ST) and MAC OS both were a lot easier to use and learn than MessyDOS.

I worked (and played) on Atari ST, Amiga 2000 and DOS machines at the time. And I hated the game of squeezing an extra couple of hundred bytes out of the lower 640K memory range or resolving some stupid IRQ conflict.

The only problem with that is the IBM PC was first sold in 1981 the Amiga and Atari ST didn't come out until 1985!

Mac OS 1984.

[thisllub]

The big thing about DOS was that it was small.
Early PCs had very little ram and as is the case now it was easy to fill up.

I wrote a TSR index management system for a customised flat file database. I could preload it, run Turbo C and not leave the IDE to run my program.

All in 640k.
These days Tomcat systems seem to gobble up a GB before they start to do anything.

[aikiwolfie]

All early Microcomputer OSs were small though? The Amigas GUI based OS for example fits on something like a few floppy discs as opposed to the 13 floppies I had for Windows 3.11 and Windows 95.

Here's a nice timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa#Timeline_of_Lisa_models) for the Apple range of PCs at the time.

[aikiwolfie]

Note the Xerox Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star) was kicking around in 1981. It had a fully functioning GUI with overlaping windows and icons and e-mail and networking and NAS and all the other new "innovations" we're seeing crawling out of the wood work today.

Unfortunately Xerox were stupid and greedy and wanted to charge something like $16000 just for a workstation!