Talk:Wintel

message: 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)
thread_title: Visual Wintel

message: :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)
thread_title:  Todo 

message: :... 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)
thread_title: Most successful computer of all time?

message: 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)
thread_title: Arm no longer made by Intel?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wintelism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WAMDEE?! 

message: 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)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: 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)
thread_title: Biased, but INCREDIBLY accurate

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fanboys 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incredibly awful article 

message: 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)
replies: text: ~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)
thread_title: Wintel era