Talk:Wintel

Visual Wintel

http://wintel.us/images/wintel.jpg is a wintel inside logo, marked as an (R) registered trademark of wintel.us.

Would be a representative image to make this article visual ...

Deserves at least a See Also link, I guess. Already is fifth hit of http://images.google.com/images?q=wintel

-- Pelavarre (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Old discussion

Really, is it WIntel, this is, W(indows) INTEL ??

Wow! This is one of the worst pages I have ever seen here! Mav, you chopped out a lot of dross, but why did you leave the balance in? (And, damn it, I have other things I want to do tonight.) Tannin

I just got rid of the worst of it - hopefully somebody can salvage what is left and turn it into an article. --mav

Wilco. It ain't going to be a good one, but I'm on the case. Someone else can come along and add a little beauty to my bare bones a little later. Tannin

Moved this here, mistakes & all, in case it's not already covered in a computer history entry somewhere. Tannin

In the 19th century, a company emerged called International Business-Machines (IBM). IBM gave all of the new industry which have grown to large to manage themselves a solution -- business-automation. IBM specialized in ways of automating record-keeping, management, accounting, et cetera. By the early 20th century, a saying emerged:

"Noone ever got fired for buying IBM."

In the mid-1940s, a company called Remington-Rand (makers of electric shavers) started making computers. Since companies use computers for business-automation, IBM entered the computer-business, in the later 1940s, after Remington-Rand. Since none ever get fired for buying IBM, by the early 1950s, IBM made more computers than all other companies combined.

In the 1970s, the first personal computer, the Altaire came to be. The first successful computer -- indeed, one of the most successful computers of all time -- the Apple II. IBM wanted in on the market. In the late 1970s, IBM started development on its personal computer.

Tannin - The current figure is 90%, not 95%. Macs make up 5% and Linux/other make up the rest. --mav

Mav, I've gone back to 95% because (taking the Mac as 5%) and taking the broader definition used in the text, all other personal computers are Intel architecture and thus WinTel. Linux counts if we use a narrow definition (as does AMD & etc.), and that would give us a (very rough) 66% or, as in the text, "two-thirds". Sun servers and the like don't count because they ain't desktops or personal computers. Amigas and the like have such a tiny market share that we need not count them.)

My wild guess of two thirds is: AMD & assorted minor CPU vendors: ~ 25 to 30%. Throw in 'nix and assorted minor operating systems, and "two-thirds" sounds about right. -- Tannin

You lost me... Linux on Intel in LinTel, Mac is Mac and then there is Linux/Unix on many other chips (not to mention niche OSes). All that together is about 10% of the personal computer market. --mav

Tel remembers telecommunication to me User:Mac

Sorry Mav. I'll go a little more step by step. First, a "desktop computer" is your common or garden everyday variety (even though most of them are mini-towers and don't sit on desks!). It's either a PC or a Mac. No other competitors remain, unless we count really weird stuff. (Are they still making the Acorn Archimedies?) Industrial-strength machines don't count (Sun & HP servers, dedicated CAD workstations, S/400s & etc): they are either servers or workstations, not desktops or PCs. Now, to WinTel:

You make a distinction between Mac and PC, but Macs ARE PCs (personal computers). Just my 2c worth. --LK

1. Narrow definition: Wintel = Windows & Intel. Windows ~90% market share, Intel ~70 to 75% market share: round figures, call it 2/3rds.
2. Broad definition: WinTel = anything that uses an industry standard X86 architecture, which is defined by Microsoft and Intel and detailed below. Everything uses an X86 architecture except the Mac: hence my 95%.

Industry standard X86 architecture = Intel, AMD, or Cyrix/VIA CPU, standardised methods of inerconnecting components (typically PCI, AGP, ATA or SCSI hard drives, USB, RS-232 serial ports, Centronics printer port, 168-pin SDRAM & the like), usually standard form factor, standard PSU specs, heavily regulated BIOS features, SVGA monitor specs, all that stuff.

It is heavily regulated by standards bodies that (in reality) do exactly what Intel and/or Microsoft tell them to do, except once in a very long while when Intel do something really stupid (such as the RDRAM fiasco, which led to the entire industry saying "to hell with this, we are going with DDR" and Intel, very reluctantly, giving the RDRAM dream away). I was going to cite an example where Microsoft did something really stupid and the industry united to say "to hell with you, Bill, we are doing it this way - but I can't think of one right now.

This regulation of the industry is the real meaning of "WinTel" This is why your Linux box and my OS/2 machines have to go through all sorts of software hoops that would otherwise not be needed. (Consider software modems and GDI printers.) This is why our keyboards have useless little windows keys on them, why the power supply in your Athlon has a surplus 5V connector dangling from it. And so on.

PS: Is the RDRAM fiasco covered on Wikipedia? It sure ought to be. Rivetting stuff: all those ... um ... shall we say optimistic royalty claims and ... er ... innovative patent methods, the Intel $1 share option contract, an incredible $500 share price, then fraud trials, shares dropping to around $4 per ... it's got the lot. And it's all on the public record and all citable. I better check. Or better not - I wean to finish my CAC Boomerang aicraft entry. Tannin

OIC - BTW how did you know I am a Linux user with an Athlon box? You're freaking me out! ;-) -mav

Linux user: that was easy - you posted a screen shot of the front page some time ago. Athlon box: logic - (a) On average Athlons (bar certain specialised uses) offer around 10% to 20% better out-of-the-box performance per dollar of cost. (b) You are an intelligent man and ... er ... a maveric. (c) For you, an Athlon seemed like a safe bet. Tannin

Drat! I have become too predictable. :) --mav

---

I've hardly ever seen this written as "WinTel": it's almost always "Wintel". Can we make the change? The Anome 14:16 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

I thought it looked funny. Sometimes I'm a bit slow on the uptake. Consider it done, Mr A. -- Tannin

History

Slight correction: BSD was finnished in 1993, Linux 0.01 in 1991, and Minix for a long time before. User_Talk:Watsonladd

Todo

to do: write stuff about Microsoft/Intel cooperation, and recent tensions between them

I removed the above from the article since that sort of thing is for talk pages. Graue 04:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Macintosh with PowerPC

Doesn't look like staying for long now ... the alternatives to Wintel will be only Lintel and Mactel. The alternative to Intel is AMD, but as for x86 in general, it looks like we've attained CPU architecture monoculture. The invisible hand guiding the computer industry, as it were. No-one's taking a risc^Hk anymore. --Shlomital 13:22, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

palmtop

"with Palm Computing being the market leader in palmtops" This is no longer a case. Pocket PCs dominate palmtop market now.

Most successful computer of all time?

... It was called the IBM PC and it became the most successful single computer of all time.

Wasn't that the Commodore 64? Here's what that article says:

The Commodore 64 is the best-selling single personal computer model of all time.

Is success being measured by something other than sales? If yes, it would be best to clarify; if not, then which of the two statements is right? --Fibonacci 08:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Arm no longer made by Intel?

This text is about 2 years premature. Intel is still fabbing ARM processors and probably will for about 2 years or more as the business is transitioned to Marvell. Some of the higher end ones with PCI buss and memory controlers built in (like Verde) are still being sold under the Intel name. I'm going to strike the text. 12.159.72.39 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wintelism

Hi, a search for the word "Wintelism" brought me here.

There is a reference for this:

Borrus, Michael [2000] “The Resurgence of US Electronics: Asian Production Networks and the Rise of Wintelism,” in Michael Borrus, Dieter Ernst and Stephan Haggard eds., International Production Networks in Asia: Rivalry or Riches? London and New York: Routledge: 57-79.

Just so the word is registered here.

Pgazknyau (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wintelism and the Changing terms of Global Competition: Prototype of the Future?" by Michael Borrus & John Zysman, Working Paper 96B, February 1997. Or "Globalization with borders: the rise of Wintelism as the future of global competition" by Michael Borrus & John Zysman, Industry & Innovation, 4(2): 141-166, 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.59.77.253 (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

WAMDEE?!

Seriously, what the duck? I removed the ridiculous "wamdee" part, I won't budge about it and if you disagree with me just google for it and you'll hopefully be enlightened. 84.216.46.248 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to article about Vista and Office 2007

Your arguing was wrong - see my edit summary. And please do not remove the link again, the article has too few sources and any external info (in this case through an externa link) is valuable. Thank you!--Kozuch (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I missed the first reference to Wintel as I skimmed the article, but it's not about "Wintel" as a term for IBM PC derivative computers running Windows, but for code bloat in Office and Vista. If you want to use it as a source inline it so that we can see what it is being used as a reference for.

Keep in mind that if we are simply going to link articles mentioning Wintel we can get quite a few more:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-10141326-60.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1180

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206503988

http://www.windowsvistaweblog.com/2008/06/27/wintel-what/

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/947/1009947/2007-time-for-the-wintel-end-game

But we don't link these as they only use the word. They (and your) article can be used as sources but are not 'on topic' enough for an external link.

--Anss123 (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am against removal as the link is the only article and not blog post mentioning Wintel I could find.--Kozuch (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at WP:EL and Wikipedia:Citing_sources#General_reference. I'm the only other editor that has objected to your link (and if another would support your position I'd back away), but the link you found is not a general reference nor a topic for further research on Wintel. It does discuss Office and Windows, and it does mention Wintel, but besides the last point there are other - better - articles we could link if we wanted to steer readers towards that.--Anss123 (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion?

how has this article not been nominated for deletion? the very concept hardly encyclopedic. it seems to be okay up until "....is portmanteau of Windows and Intel", and then it is just total trash. all this info is found on articles like IBM, Personal computer, Intel, ect. id like to do a cleanup, but im afraid my definition of a cleanup would be to erase everything after "....is portmanteau of Windows and Intel". if that were done, this article wouldnt have enough info to hold Notability as an article. and then that leads me to question why the article exists in the first place. i tagged the article for Importance. i dont have the time right now to maintain an argument over this, but if someone wants to clean up this article, IMO it should lose everything after to the introduction line, and then something needs to be added to give reason why this "Wintel" concept is Notable. but in my opinion it isnt notable and should be deleted. Impreziv (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add my support to the deletion of this article, it is utter trash. 165.228.241.246 (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is still terrible. I've never edited anything on Wikipedia before but after reading this I felt obliged. Firstly, almost the entire article has no sources/citation. Secondly, the author seems to be presenting us with a history that said author barely seems to understand, along with, like someone already said, not really understanding how the market works or why things turned out the way they did. Instead of something accurate and informative, the author has presented a dumbed down and mostly vague history seriously lacking in context and facts. It should really be deleted. The whole article needs to be scrapped/rewritten if it's to meet Wikipedia standards, IMO at least. As is it's pointless and most of the history/context is at best vague and at worst inaccurate. I'd really just hate to think that this article is where someone interested but not well versed on the subject ends up. It's just a lousy article and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 208.107.110.14 (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Biased, but INCREDIBLY accurate

I like how the author has done everything possible short of breaking into the designers house at night and shitting on his face to show his hatred of the IBM PC architecture. If any other company released that thing it would have bombed so hard it've left a smoking crater in the ground. Seriously, It was obsoleted about four years before it was even released. 170kb disks? no sound? text only display? monochrome? sign me up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.205.93 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fanboys

123456789101112131415
That's 15 places where you can check real life use of "wintel" to describe a monopoly. Or get almost half a million results in Google. AC 201.253.132.192 (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly awful article

This is an incredibly awful article. It reads like a high school essay and is almost completely devoid of citations. It's also severely biased, and the author appears to lack any appreciation of how markets actually work, or why 'Wintel', including its core components Microsoft Windows and the Intel x86, were so much more successful than any of the alternatives.

One obvious example (amongst many) that stands out is the discussion of why OS/2 failed. IBM and Microsoft made a huge effort to promote OS/2 in the early days, but it was simply too big and too slow for typical PCs in the late 80s and early 90s. It was superior to MS-DOS and MS Windows in an abstract technical sense, but in terms of meeting market requirements it was overwhelmingly inferior.

OS/2 couldn't even run on a lot of PCs and was much slower than MS-DOS or MS-DOS/Windows on those it did run on. It had poor hardware support had virtually no software library of its own, so was mostly used to multi-task MS-DOS software, which Windows (by version 3.0) could do more effectively. Windows was less robust, but much more compatible (both in terms of hardware and software) and much less resource intensive.

Apart from the high price and inferiority of OS/2 in terms of meeting market demands, IBM had no understanding of the way the PC industry worked. Whilst Microsoft gave away SDKs for free to encourage the development of a software library for its systems, and put huge resources into promoting and supporting developmers, IBM insisted on charging for the OS/2 SDK and driving away third-party developers.

In the late 80s and early 90s, Windows was a far better match for market requirements than OS/2. This is also why Windows NT was not initially successful, despite being technically superior to both Windows and OS/2, but Windows 95 was. They key difference is that Microsoft realised they had to get Windows 95 developers to write to the same API as their flagship OS (Windows NT), so that when the hardware caught up, users could move to the new OS without losing their software library. I can't find a citation at the moment, but I've read that the central reason Microsoft and IBM split on OS/2 was that Microsoft wanted to add a 32-bit Windows API to OS/2, to migrate the Windows developer ecosystem to OS/2, and IBM refused to go along with the idea.

The idea that Windows became a standard instead of OS/2 because of a 'soft marketing voice' is absurd. OS/2 failed for much the same reason that the PS/2 failed, namely that IBM thought it could still run the show, charge whatever it wanted and everyone else would just blindly follow. Microsoft and IBM parted ways on OS/2 because Microsoft realised the product (which both companies had invested heavily in) was a failure, and not the other way round. If Microsoft hadn't hedged by developing Windows, someone else would have created a similar product, and OS/2 would almost certainly still have failed.

Shalineth (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wintel era

I don’t know if this would characterize original research, but couldn’t we define what is called “Wintel era” a period which began with the market introduction of Windows 95 in 1995 and ended with the Apple–Intel transition in 2006?--MaGioZal (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

~94% of all desktops in the world now have Microsoft's Windows NT OSes AND Intel's x86 CPUs inside. This is the factual 'Wintel' sign. How the hell that microscopic by significance transition of just 1 niche manufacturer, could define the 'end' of this era. This is just ridiculous. Such an 'era' with such a definition only exist in the heads of the iToys factory fans.

77.52.154.62 (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC) samss.exe