Talk:IBM PC compatible

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:Don't get me wrong: this is not a bad article but it's not up to the standards of WP:GA. There are a number of small problems that need to be addressed. In no particular order:
# as noted above there is at times an apparent lack of unity to the article.
# also noted above, the terminology is a bit awkward since I don't think anyone really talks about compatible PCs nowadays (or in the last 10 years or so). In many ways one might argue (and maybe this has been done!) that there should be two articles.
# some sections are very technical and need to be understandable to a wider audience. (e.g. the subsection Design limitations and more compatibility issues) 
# minor point: abbreviations like API, OS, GUI and so on should be epxanded when they're used for the first time. (althoug I fixed some of these)
# no references. (this is actually a pretty serious problem)
Note that overall I thought it was quite an interesting read (ah the memories!) but it still falls short. Pascal.Tesson 03:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: "Pragmatically, the operational definition of "compatible" is now "capable of running the current edition of Microsoft Windows"."
So, a ten year old PC that can't run Windows Vista isn't IBM PC compatible?  Nimrand 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  A computer that can't run the current version of Windows is incompatible (with Windows).  This means it has no commercial value and is destined for garage-sale tables. Since IBM no longer even makes personal computers, it's no longer relevant to cite compatibility with the original PC/XT/AT design to talk about modern personal computers; which are no more capable of running Windows today than a Commodore 64.  "IBM PC Compatible" is a historical term and really should only be used in a historical context. This article should clearly make that distinction. --Wtshymanski 03:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  PC Compatable refers to a class of computers that was originally defined as being compatable with IBM PCs.  That definition is not really applicable anymore, but a machine doesn't stop belonging to the class "PC Compatable" simply because it is obsolete.  That would be like saying a Mac isn't a Mac anymore because it can't run OS X.  Also, there are MANY computers in use today running Windows 2000 or XP that do not meet the minimum system requirements of Windows Vista, but certainly no one would contend that such a computer is not PC Compatable.  I don't think many would say its "incompatable" with Windows, for that matter.  I think what the writer might be trying to say is that "Pragmatically, the operational definition of "compatible" for computers currently on the market is now "capable of running a modern edition of Microsoft Windows"."  Nimrand 05:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This sentence needs to be rethought

message: All the Microsoft Windows history is beside the point of an article about IBM PC Compatibles. This should be cut out nearly entirely aside from an observation that the commercial importance of Windows has made the original IBM PC XT/AT definition of compatibility irrelevant to the modern personal computer user. --Wtshymanski 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  and here is the Windows history that was bulking up the article - *somehow* just the developments that extinguished the original IBM hardware standard should be picked out instead. :
===The rise of Microsoft Windows===
Microsoft announced Windows 1.0 in November 1983, but was unable to release it until 1985, and even then it was unsuccessful. The same thing happened in 1987 with the launch of Windows 2.0; followed by the launch of Windows/286 and Windows/386 in 1988. 
Perhaps these early Windows versions' lack of success is what convinced IBM and Microsoft to collaborate to produce their version of the future with OS/2 in 1987 (it was launched with IBM's PS/2). At the launch Bill Gates is quoted as saying "DOS is dead." OS/2 had been written from scratch by Microsoft and IBM (with IBM taking the lion's share) and was considered superior to the DOS-based Microsoft Windows.
However, OS/2 had a problem - it was written specifically for the 80286 processor. The 80386 had been launched the year before and, according to Intel Chairman Gordon Moore, Intel had told IBM that the 386 would be ready in time for OS/2 shipping. Moore claims IBM didn't believe him and carried on writing OS/2 for the 286. When the 386 was launched in September 1986 it left OS/2 seriously underpowered. 
Making things worse, IBM and Microsoft didn't deliver OS/2's various 'extra bits' (namely Presentation Manager - the Windows-like front end for OS/2). Despite Microsoft and IBM saying "DOS was dead", users wholeheartedly stuck with it.
Thus by 1990 the market — and the technology on the PC platform — was ready for something new. Microsoft was still working with IBM when it launched Windows 3.0 and — according to Gates — it sold twice as many copies as Microsoft had expected. Windows 3.0 sat 'on top' of DOS; requiring users to load DOS on their machine and then load Windows second. This allowed users to swap between DOS and Windows rather than picking just one environment, making the gradual move to Windows possible.
Windows 3.0 heavily resembled Apple Computer’s System 7 (Microsoft went as far as hiring Apple employees in its Windows design team). In the past, users had typed in commands into the MS-DOS interface (a Command line interface) whereas now they had a Graphical User Interface (GUI) which used a mouse and cursor to point to small pictures of tasks icons to perform tasks and run programs. Windows 3.0 was followed by Windows 3.1 in 1991, and eventually 3.11, which allowed users to network their PCs.
With the two companies still working together in the early 1990s, the success of Windows 3.0 — and the relative failure of OS/2 — caused some friction. According to Gates, IBM said to Microsoft that it should drop Windows and work solely on OS/2. Microsoft declined and eventually the two split; Microsoft took its code for OS/2 3.0 — codenamed OS/2 NT (for New Technology) with it. OS/2 NT would mutate into Windows NT and eventually into Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
Windows NT was launched in 1993. It was a parallel development to Windows for DOS; aimed at the server market, it was supposed to be a fully professional system that wouldn't rely on DOS. At this time take up was very small, as the system was power hungry and had relatively few applications. The first edition of Windows NT is Windows NT 3.1. Windows NT 3.5 was released the following year.
Development of the traditional Windows platform continued, adding more features, standardized protocols, and hardware support. In 1995, Windows NT 3.51 was released; three months later, Windows 95 was born. Prior to Windows 95, games were designed to be only run under MS-DOS, requiring users to reboot into DOS and tweak memory settings (see the 640k barrier). Windows 95 provided a system called DirectX which allowed programmers access to a standard API to perform video and sound card calls from Windows, revolutionizing the games arena. A PC programmer could benefit from Windows 95's memory management capabilities and extended functionality, and have API access to the graphics and sound cards - of which there were many versions and drivers. 3D graphics were possible from within Windows, (for those with 3Dfx cards) and now network multi-player 3D graphics games were in the realms of possibility to almost every programmer.
In 1996, Windows NT 4.0 was released. Like its predecessor, it is a 16-bit/32-bit operating system, but has Windows 95 interface, and more Windows NT power than before. 
Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0 were replaced with Windows 98 in 1998 and then with Windows 98SE (Second Edition) in 1999. It was Microsoft's intention to combine its Windows NT and Windows 9x (as the various versions of Windows from 95 to ME were called) operating systems and the phasing out of the Windows 9x operating systems. At first, Microsoft was to finish the 9x line with Windows 98SE but when it was apparent that its NT line needed more power than the average 9x PC could deliver, the phasing out was delayed and Microsoft launched an 'interim' version of Windows: Windows Me in 2000.
In February 2000, the latest version of Windows NT was released (called Windows 2000). Originally named Windows NT 5.0, it had advanced power than any other operating system. Months before it was released, Microsoft had to change the name of the operating system to Windows 2000. In October 2001, Windows XP was launched, expected to replace all previous versions of Windows and, at time of writing (April 2006), has had two service pack updates and is not expected to be replaced by the next version of Windows — called Windows Vista — until 2007.
--Wtshymanski 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move out Windows history 

message: Microsoft announced Windows 1.0 in November 1983, but was unable to release it until 1985, and even then it was unsuccessful. The same thing happened in 1987 with the launch of Windows 2.0; followed by the launch of Windows/286 and Windows/386 in 1988. 
Perhaps these early Windows versions' lack of success is what convinced IBM and Microsoft to collaborate to produce their version of the future with OS/2 in 1987 (it was launched with IBM's PS/2). At the launch Bill Gates is quoted as saying "DOS is dead." OS/2 had been written from scratch by Microsoft and IBM (with IBM taking the lion's share) and was considered superior to the DOS-based Microsoft Windows.
However, OS/2 had a problem - it was written specifically for the 80286 processor. The 80386 had been launched the year before and, according to Intel Chairman Gordon Moore, Intel had told IBM that the 386 would be ready in time for OS/2 shipping. Moore claims IBM didn't believe him and carried on writing OS/2 for the 286. When the 386 was launched in September 1986 it left OS/2 seriously underpowered. 
Making things worse, IBM and Microsoft didn't deliver OS/2's various 'extra bits' (namely Presentation Manager - the Windows-like front end for OS/2). Despite Microsoft and IBM saying "DOS was dead", users wholeheartedly stuck with it.
Thus by 1990 the market — and the technology on the PC platform — was ready for something new. Microsoft was still working with IBM when it launched Windows 3.0 and — according to Gates — it sold twice as many copies as Microsoft had expected. Windows 3.0 sat 'on top' of DOS; requiring users to load DOS on their machine and then load Windows second. This allowed users to swap between DOS and Windows rather than picking just one environment, making the gradual move to Windows possible.
Windows 3.0 heavily resembled Apple Computer’s System 7 (Microsoft went as far as hiring Apple employees in its Windows design team). In the past, users had typed in commands into the MS-DOS interface (a Command line interface) whereas now they had a Graphical User Interface (GUI) which used a mouse and cursor to point to small pictures of tasks icons to perform tasks and run programs. Windows 3.0 was followed by Windows 3.1 in 1991, and eventually 3.11, which allowed users to network their PCs.
With the two companies still working together in the early 1990s, the success of Windows 3.0 — and the relative failure of OS/2 — caused some friction. According to Gates, IBM said to Microsoft that it should drop Windows and work solely on OS/2. Microsoft declined and eventually the two split; Microsoft took its code for OS/2 3.0 — codenamed OS/2 NT (for New Technology) with it. OS/2 NT would mutate into Windows NT and eventually into Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
Windows NT was launched in 1993. It was a parallel development to Windows for DOS; aimed at the server market, it was supposed to be a fully professional system that wouldn't rely on DOS. At this time take up was very small, as the system was power hungry and had relatively few applications. The first edition of Windows NT is Windows NT 3.1. Windows NT 3.5 was released the following year.
Development of the traditional Windows platform continued, adding more features, standardized protocols, and hardware support. In 1995, Windows NT 3.51 was released; three months later, Windows 95 was born. Prior to Windows 95, games were designed to be only run under MS-DOS, requiring users to reboot into DOS and tweak memory settings (see the 640k barrier). Windows 95 provided a system called DirectX which allowed programmers access to a standard API to perform video and sound card calls from Windows, revolutionizing the games arena. A PC programmer could benefit from Windows 95's memory management capabilities and extended functionality, and have API access to the graphics and sound cards - of which there were many versions and drivers. 3D graphics were possible from within Windows, (for those with 3Dfx cards) and now network multi-player 3D graphics games were in the realms of possibility to almost every programmer.
In 1996, Windows NT 4.0 was released. Like its predecessor, it is a 16-bit/32-bit operating system, but has Windows 95 interface, and more Windows NT power than before. 
Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0 were replaced with Windows 98 in 1998 and then with Windows 98SE (Second Edition) in 1999. It was Microsoft's intention to combine its Windows NT and Windows 9x (as the various versions of Windows from 95 to ME were called) operating systems and the phasing out of the Windows 9x operating systems. At first, Microsoft was to finish the 9x line with Windows 98SE but when it was apparent that its NT line needed more power than the average 9x PC could deliver, the phasing out was delayed and Microsoft launched an 'interim' version of Windows: Windows Me in 2000.
In February 2000, the latest version of Windows NT was released (called Windows 2000). Originally named Windows NT 5.0, it had advanced power than any other operating system. Months before it was released, Microsoft had to change the name of the operating system to Windows 2000. In October 2001, Windows XP was launched, expected to replace all previous versions of Windows and, at time of writing (April 2006), has had two service pack updates and is not expected to be replaced by the next version of Windows — called Windows Vista — until 2007.
--Wtshymanski 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The rise of Microsoft Windows

message: The article currently reads:
"[The OQO] may end up supplanting traditional non-x86 PDAs such as Palm-brand ones and may eliminate the need for slow emulators for PDAs such as the Palm OS port of DOSBox and other slow virtualization suites."
This statement is highly speculative, hardly on topic, fails to explain the significance of its claims, reads like an advertisement for the product, and should be removed.  
(Even if the statement is kept, "Palm-brand ones" should be replaced with "Palm-branded handheld computers" or something similar). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ItsProgrammable (talk • contribs) 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portable computers

message: User:Wtshymanski removed the sentence "Also, at least for the higher end server versions of PC hardware, compatibility with Unix-like operating systems has become important." from the end of this section, with an edit summary of "a server is not a personal computer; still a baffling sentence." I argue that it should be put back, because:
* It's irrelevant whether or not a server is a "personal computer". This article is about "IBM PC compatible" computers, also known as "Wintel" computers, and there are many server computers which are "IBM PC compatible"/"Wintel" (e.g. Dell PowerEdge).
* The point of that sentence is that the term "Wintel" has become somewhat of a misnomer. The previous sentence says that Intel's control over that platform has decreased because of other processor manufacturers such as AMD. Similarly, the removed sentence says that Windows is not as important to the platform as it once was, because of the increasing use of other operating systems with the platform.
— A.M. 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, except that I am not sure about the statement regarding Intel/AMD: if I'm not mistaken, has not AMD been making clones of Intel processors per some legal agreement since 1968 or 1969? The only recent development I can think of that would have decreased Intel's influence is that AMD developed the 64-bit version of x86 first (wherefore it is often called 'AMD64') Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ''"IBM PC Compatible" becomes "Wintel"'' section 

message: How were clone manufacturers able to use Industry Standard Architecture? It was created by IBM. was is not under it's control?--Teveten 18:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clone Manufactures were able to use the ISA for two reasons, IBM published a specification for it, and Expansion cards were made for it, So, in publishing the standard, IBM locked themselves into their own standard, What they thought that prevented the IBM PC from being cloned was the ROM Bios, of which when it was black-box/re-engendered successfully, and able to be defended in court, they lost control. Their answer to this was to develop a more esoteric, but superior technology called Micro channel, wholly incompatible, and never able to gain enough market share dominance to become successful. They later abandoned it, and went back to ISA with the PS/1 Consultants machines. ( Most people who remember this hardware in peticular are choking...IBM was now cloning itself, and doing a poor job of it)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.207.6 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry Standard Architecture and clone manufacturers 

message: Disputed sentence for today:
While not providing total compatibility seems short-sighted in retrospect, it is not always appreciated just how fast the rise of the IBM clone market was, and the degree to which it took the industry by surprise.
This was removed with the comment that it wasn't fast, but took "the better part of a decade."
I just reverted this, and got one of the dates wrong in my own comment, so I thought I'd lay this out in a little more detail.  Key dates:
* August 1981: IBM PC released
* March 1983: Compaq Portable released
* May 1984: first Phoenix BIOS released
* August 1984: IBM PC/AT released
At this point, only three years after the release of the PC, the chance of a non-BIOS compatible system having any major success in the market was about nil.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack of the clones 

message: Under "Challenges to Wintel domination", I think it would be useful to add a note about ARM processors. I think it would be fair to say that they're the most important current challenge to IBM-compatible hegemony, especially given their prevalence in devices. I'll try to put in a sentence or so to start. LiberalArtist (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenges to Wintel domination: ARM? 

message: In the following:
"IBM at first asked developers to avoid writing software that addressed the computer's hardware directly, and to instead make standard calls to BIOS functions that carried out hardware-dependent operations.[1] This software would run on any machine using MS-DOS or PC-DOS. Software that directly addressed the hardware instead of making standard calls was faster, however; this was particularly relevant to games. Software addressing IBM PC hardware in this way would not run on MS-DOS machines with different hardware."
Isn't the sentence: "This software would run on any machine using MS-DOS or PC-DOS." supposed to be: "This software would run on any machine using the IBM's BIOS or another BIOS that is compatible with IBM's BIOS (such as Phonix Technologies' BIOS)."
Because AFAIK, a machine that runs MS-DOS does not necessarily have IBM's BIOS (or a compatible BIOS). In that case, a given software would not run on such machine, even if that software avoids direct hardware addressing and exclusively uses BIOS system calls.
Is that correct or am I missing something?
Regards
--Ugultopu (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity at the 2nd paragraph of the "Origins" section 

message: The section contains this sentence:
That's a very strong claim, both about the illegality of tactics (itself an extremely vague term) and them being the main cause of the competitors' failure. If there is anything true and verifiable about this, it should be possible to find a reliable source for it, otherwise I think it should be removed. Right now, the claim is just there, completely unqualified, and comes across as very strange to someone who just read the rest of the article.
Scharmör (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim in "Challenges to Wintel domination" 

message: This is too long for a hat note:  
how and why other companies started making IBM PC compatible computers, how the standard compete against other industrial standard in different part of the world as well as internationalization problems (like East Asian script handling) and trade disputed involved regarding the standard, how x86 does not automatically mean IBM PC compatible, explanation on how other Windows-compatible but non-IBM-PC-compatible systems being driven out of competitions, how IBM, Microsoft, Intel and others tried to set or support alternative standard (not OS and not just CPU microarchitecture) and result of these attempts (Like efforts being spent on Windows RT, IA64, IBM PS/2, PCjr, and such), and how the "Challenges to Wintel" section being related to IBM PC compatible instead of article on Wintel|date=December 2017 
Some of this is better discussed elsewhere, such as at Influence of the IBM PC on the personal computer market, or is not especially relevant to this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: December 2017 hat note 

message: I think these content could be added to the article to enrich its content:
* How and why other companies started making IBM PC compatible computers
* How the standard compete against other industrial standard in different part of the world as well as internationalization problems (like East Asian script handling)
* Trade disputed involved regarding the standard
* How x86 does not automatically mean IBM PC compatible
* Explanation on how other Windows-compatible but non-IBM-PC-compatible systems being driven out of competitions
* How IBM, Microsoft, Intel and others tried to set or support alternative standard (not OS and not just CPU microarchitecture) and result of these attempts (Like efforts being spent on Windows RT, IA64, IBM PS/2, PCjr, and such)
* How the "Challenges to Wintel" section being related to IBM PC compatible instead of article on Wintel
* Discuss Always Connected PC.
C933103 (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Information 

message: Intel introduced UEFI Class 3 and announced that it will abolish Compatibility Support Module (CSM) from UEFI by 2020. As a result, the system BIOS derived from the IBM PC and compatibles will be discontinued, and the 16-bit OS including the MS-DOS becomes unable to boot up. So, it is formally no longer a successor to IBM AT compatible machines and is expected to be what can be called "UEFI PC". But,what reliable source such as mass-media calls them? --Willpo (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not, and mass media has not been using "IBM PC compatible since, probably, at most, the mid-1990s. btw, is it known whether or not AMD will be following suit on this matter? Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  MS-DOS not bootable around 2020 

message: If "architecture" was more than an empty buzzword included only to befuddle the hapless reader, we wouldn't need to explain 
that it's a computer that uses the same software and expansion cards.   Indeed, the whole article could be boiled down to "An IBM PC Compatible is an implementation of an instance of the IBM PC architecture" and the reader would depart, content in the abundant knowledge encoded in this trenchant definition. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architecture

message: We love tags on Wikipedia.  Could someone explain what they would want done with this article when they put on a tag that reads in part "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Western culture and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. "  Obviously, if we could guess what should have been done, we'd have done it by now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, let's do some Googling.  "Upgrading and Repairing PCs 4th Edition ", [] says that Apple II and compatibles were successful because of standardization (p. 35), that the IBM PC (5150 descendants) were highly standardized with published technical manuals (p.192 and970), that the Lisa was not successful because of its high price (p.385)...by inference, low-priced compatibles would be successful. But this is a how-to manual, not really a history of the field. More Googling needed. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Expansion slots and backward compatibility seem to be important, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: These are needed to be included in the article but they're also from western point of view. How about situation in other markets where there were other competitive alternative standard? How were they defeated by it in 1990s?C933103 (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For that matter, is it even true? What was the most popular personal computer in Ghana in 1983? Who knows? We're constantly being told something odd was "big in Japan". Does it matter? Is a "worldwide" perespective possible or reasonable, given that most sales were in the US or the "developed world", whatever that might mean? --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging

message: "By the late 1980s, the only major competitor to Windows..." (from 'wintel' section)
is that meant to say 1990s? i thought that in the late 1980s the dominant OS was still DOS. Furthermore, weren't the Apple IIs still more common in the late 80s than Macs were? (we were still using Apple IIs at school in 1996). Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It was redundant anyway, since the section starts off saying "By the late 1990's". I took it out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, that stinker has been in there for a decade or more. Good catch.  Nobody actually reads these articles critically, we just fix en-dashes and quibble about "colour/color" and "sulfur/sulphur". --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  typo? 

message: I think the Influence of the IBM PC on the personal computer market article is a pretty bad one for Wikipedia style, so I think parts of it should be merged into this article and maybe some into IBM Personal Computer. I'd like to discuss this with  because they were quite active in the whole rewriting process of IBM PC. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a pretty unpleasant argument over that article with another editor, and basically decided my severe social anxiety made this place a bad fit for me. I felt I was right, I just didn't see a way to establish, as incontrovertible, my perspective that the entire concept of the article was better suited for a book than an encyclopedia. If you'd like I could maybe do a rewrite and save it on a userspace page, and then if you wanna review/commit it and have any relevant arguments you can do so, heh.Gravislizard (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal