Henry Bent says:
I may be showing my ignorance here, but Compaq rushed
to market a
386 machine so it could run... what? 16 bit DOS? Other 16 bit
operating systems?
Yes. Contemporary news articles on the announcement discuss this, stating that a) no
current software takes full advantage of the 386's power, and b) regardless, those
who need the added horsepower would still benefit. The Deskpro 386's strong sales
proved that this view was correct.
It's kind of astonishing to me that no one had a
32 bit operating
system ready for the 386 PC market
IBM, as mentioned, did not think the market wanted or needed a 386-based computer. In 1986
its fastest PC was the 286-based IBM AT, and in the two years since no one had released
any software requiring the 286; everyone treated it as a faster 8088 or 8086.
The AT was in 1984 an aberration, really the only time in the IBM PC's history that
the IBM product was state of the art. IBM otherwise followed a PC product lifecycle
similar to that of its big iron; the original 1981 IBM PC was still sold until the PS/2
introduction in 1987, for example. The company was very surprised when its 1985
discontinuation of the PCjr upset customers, because IBM expected that its normal practice
of promising ongoing support for a period of years into the future would be sufficient.
The only vendors with credibility to establish a new industry standard with an operating
system in 1984 or 1986 were IBM and Microsoft. Had AT&T's entry into the computer
market after divestiture not occurred, Microsoft would likely have continued pushing Xenix
and might well have had a 386-specific version ready soon after the Deskpro 386. Such a
product would in time surely have used the virtual 8086 hardware feature to execute DOS
software on Xenix, akin to contemporary Windows's similar feature but with the
advantages of a) actually working and b) with preemptive multitasking.