The X Window System didn't immediately have X terminals

For most of the latter part of the 80's, I used Quarterdeck Desqview as my 'terminal', which allowed me to have 4 independent concurrent MSDOS sessions running on my 386, each of which with its own video and network connectivity, so that I could telnet into my MIPS Magnum pizzabox and do some work.

At the beginning of the 90p's, I was on the hunt for an alternative to the MSDOS part when, eventually, I tried minix instead .. and that led to replacing it with Linux as soon as it was available on funet. Multiple runs to Fry's to get more RAM and some CPU upgrades later, and I was soon compiling an X/Windows setup on my brand new 486 with 16 Megabytes of RAM .. and about a week after that, I replaced my Quarterdeck setup with a functioning Linux workstation, thorns and warts and all. That was a nice kick in the pants of the operators who were threatening to take away my pizzabox, but it was short-lived joy, as not long thereafter I was able to afford an Indy, which served great for the purpose all through the 90's - and my Linux systems were relegated off the desktop to function as 'servers', once more.

But I always wondered about Quarterdecks' Desqview/X variant, and whether that would have been an alternative solution to the multi-term problem. It seems to me that this was available in 1987/88, which is odd given the articles' claims that X workstations weren't really widespread around that period.

> But I always wondered about Quarterdecks' Desqview/X variant

Dv/X was remarkable tech, and if it had shipped earlier could have changed the course of the industry. Sadly, it came too late.

> It seems to me that this was available in 1987/88,

No. That is roughly when I entered the computer industry. Dv/X was rumoured then, but the state of the art was OS/2 1.1, released late 1988 and the first version of OS/2 with a GUI.

Dv/X was not released until about 5Y later:

https://winworldpc.com/product/desqview/desqview-x-1x

1992. That's the same year as Windows 3.1, but critically, Windows 3.0 was in 1990, 2 years earlier.

Windows 3.0 was a result of the flop of OS/2 1.x.

OS/2 1.x was a new 16-bit multitasking networking kernel -- but that meant new drivers.

MS discarded the radical new OS, it discarded networking completely (until later), and moved the multitasking into the GUI layer, allowing Win3 to run on top of the single-tasking MS-DOS kernel. That meant excellent compatibility: it ran on almost anything, can it could run almost all DOS apps, and multitask them. And thanks to a brilliant skunkworks project, mostly by one man, David Weise, assisted by Murray Sargent, it combined 3 separate products (Windows 2, Windows/286 and Windows/386) into a single product that ran on all 3 types of PC and took good advantage of all of them. I wrote about its development here: https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/18/how_windows_got_to_v3...

It also did bring in some of the GUI design from OS/2 1.1, mainly from 1.2, and 1.3 -- the Program Manager and File Manager UI, the proportional fonts, the fake-3D controls, some of the Control Panel, and so on. It kept the best user-facing parts and threw away the fancy invisible stuff underneath which was problematic.

Result: smash hit, redefined the PC market, and when Dv/X arrived it was doomed: too late, same as OS/2 2.0, which came out the same year as Dv/X.

If Dv/X had come out in the late 1980s, before Windows 3, it could have changed the way the PC industry went.

Dv/X combined the good bits of DOS, 386 memory management and multitasking, Unix networking and Unix GUIs into an interesting value proposition: network your DOS PCs with Unix boxes over Unix standards, get remote access to powerful Unix apps, and if vendors wanted, it enabled ports of Unix apps to this new multitasking networked DOS.

In the '80s that could have been a contender. Soon afterwards it was followed by Linux and the BSDs, which made that Unix stuff free and ran on the same kit. That would have been a great combination -- Dv/X PCs talking to BSD or Linux servers, when those Unix boxes didn't really have useful GUIs yet.

Windows 3 offered a different deal: it combined the good bits of DOS, OS/2 1.x's GUI, and Windows 2.x into a whole that ran on anything and could run old DOS apps and new GUI apps, side by side.

Networking didn't follow until Windows for Workgroups which followed Windows 3.1. Only businesses wanted that, so MS postponed it. Good move.