Both of them were heavily influenced by DOS. Many of the same commands and switches from DOS still work today, and pre-powershell scripting is DOS batch files with lots of extensions added.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
> Something this brings back to mind that I always wonder about with
> Microsoft and their OS choices: So they went with Windows NT for their
> kernel, scraped the Windows environment off the top of DOS and dolloped
> it on top. Has there been any explanation over the years why they also
> decided to keep the MSDOS CLI interface? It's not like the NT kernel
> couldn't handle simple stuff like a UNIX-y shell, tools like grep and
> sed, etc. and Microsoft had code in Xenix they probably could've
> considered using for that. Was it not wanting to have any licensing
> questions by avoiding anything that smelled like Xenix at all? Or was
> the consumer base at the time that invested in the MSDOS environment
> that handing them a Bourne shell with some ubiquitous UNIX tools
> would've just been unworkable? Feels like a lost opportunity, they
> could've had their kernel and their desktop environment and still given
> folks a more robust CLI. Instead stuff like UWIN, Cygwin, etc. had to
> come along and fill the void. That was something I was hoping he'd talk
> about when I clicked, but I didn't catch anything particular about the
> CLI choice.
They actually inherited the CLI from OS/2, didn't they?
-uso.