From Microsoft’s POV they soundly beat Unix in the 1990s because they were primarily focused on the GUI workstation market.

In 1991 the market for high-end desktop software like engineering, video editing and 3D modeling tools was dominated by Unix and classic Mac. In 1999 all of those applications were on Windows NT.

Vendors like Autodesk and Avid were building for Windows first. New graphics acceleration hardware targeted PC add-on cards rather than being exclusive to a workstation vendor (SGI tried this approach with their NT box and it flopped).

In retrospect it was just commercial Unix that had lost the game, but it wasn’t obvious at the time that Linux could reclaim this market. And Mac OS X was considered by many a doomed project (after all Apple had been promising a new OS for the entire ‘90s, nobody knew how deeply the NeXT acquisition would transform the company).

Engineering never went completely to Windows NT.

Between 1997 and 2007, I worked at 3 different companies, in 3 different countries (2 in Europe + Israel) as Design Engineer in electronics.

All the serious engineering programs for EDA/CAD were run on Solaris and accessed from Windows with X-terminal programs.

Towards the end of that decade, the Opteron-based servers were both much faster and much cheaper than the Sun servers or the Fujitsu servers, so the EDA/CAD programs were migrated from Solaris to Linux, while the Windows computers continued to run only the X-terminal programs for accessing the servers.

At the beginning of that decade, I also used a Sun workstation, but those disappeared after 1999, because they were much too slow in comparison with a PC with Intel Pentium III or with AMD Athlon.

It is likely that the reason why those EDA/CAD programs did not have Windows versions at that time was that they already required a lot of memory, typically much more than 4 GB, so they migrated from Solaris to Linux only after the availability of x86-64 servers, while having a Windows version was not possible before mid 2006, when Intel joined AMD in providing 64-bit CPUs even for PCs, not only for servers, so the market share of 64-bit PCs became non-negligible.

Fair enough, while the engineers used Microsoft things, the telecommunications industry - and many, many others - simply switched to Linux.

I know only a handful of hardware designers who use Linux/MacOS, and if they do, for sure there's a Windows VM or a spare machine in the cubical too.

Some sort of stasis has been accomplished.

Yeah, even in like 1996/1997 for certain industries there were hints as to the way things were going, even if it took 4/5 years for the transition to fully take place.

For example, in 1996/1997, Digital Domain (VFX industry) used a 'render farm' cluster of Carrera Alpha workstations running NT to render the Titanic film, instead of SGIs running IRIX. (SGIs were still often used on the artists workstations though, but progressively that shifted).

By 2001, many of those machines were x86 which were then often as fast as the SGIs and Alphas, even with x86's stack-based floating point architecture which handicapped it a bit, and the significantly higher memory bandwidth and larger caches of the SGIs.

In 1999, AMD Athlon became the first x86 CPU that was able to do both an addition and a multiplication during one clock cycle, for the 80-bit x87 floating-point numbers.

The previous Intel CPUs of the P6 family, from Pentium Pro to Pentium III, required 2 clock cycles for that, i.e. they reached at most half the throughput of Athlon at the same clock frequency. And Athlon had an even higher clock frequency.

So the launch of Athlon was one of the greatest jumps in floating-point performance per socket in the history of x86 CPUs.

It had a higher clock frequency than any Alpha. IBM POWER CPUs could do much more per clock cycle than Athlon, but their clock frequency was much lower, so Athlon was still faster.

One year and a half later Intel launched Pentium 4, which could match the throughput per clock cycle of Athlon, but only when executing new SSE2 programs, not when executing any legacy program.

This was such a huge transition for FEM on x86-64. We went from UltraSPARC III 1.2GHz 24 CPU system with 128GB of RAM to a smaller Opteron two chassis cluster linked with Infiniband, 500GB 32core/8NUMA nodes per server, and the speedup was almost 10x.

P4 was such a curious thing in it's own right; a lot of ambition that was perhaps too forceful.

Hell, if you -could- keep the pipeline from mispredicting and fed with data, one or two of it's internal ALUs actually ran at 2x the main CPU clock. Alas, that's an even bigger ask than adding SSE2 branching, and they decided to do RDRAM (Which, AFAIR was worse for overall latency than SDR or DDR)

Regarding the "Titanic" film, from the Linux Journal (https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2494):

> We rapidly concluded the DEC Alpha-based systems served our batch-processing needs very well. They provide extremely high floating-point performance in commodity packaging. We were able to identify certain floating-point-intensive applications as port targets. The Alpha systems could be configured with large amounts of memory and fast networking at extremely attractive price points. Overall, the DEC Alpha had the best price/performance match for our needs. [...]

> At this point, the decision was made to purchase 160 433MHz DEC Alpha systems from Carrera Computers of Newport Beach, California. Of those 160 machines, 105 of the machines are running Linux, the other 55 are running NT. The machines are connected with 100Mbps Ethernet to each other and to the rest of our facility. [...]

> The floating-point power of the DEC Alpha made jobs run about 3.5 times faster than on our old SGI systems.

I believe the original Toy Story was 'created' on SGIs, but the render farm was SPARC.