Talk:IBM PC–compatible

long way from good
Removed at least one duplicate.--Shoka 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I think this article is still a long way from "good". (But my vote does not count ;) ) I'm revising it to remove repeat wikification, and repeated coverage of the same points, the article shows signs of being patched togeather from several overlapping sources. Particularly the note that the usage "IBM PC Compatible" is largely obsolete is noted in the first paragraph, and also in at least two further paragraphs. Think that the initial part of the article is getting to reasonable. Help appreciated.--Shoka 22:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And a long way from... accurate:

"FTA: 'For example, the 8088 processor only had a 20-bit memory addressing space. To expand PCs beyond one megabyte, Lotus, Intel, and Microsoft jointly created expanded memory (EMS), a bank-switching scheme to allow more memory provided by add-in hardware, and seen through a set of four 16-Kilobyte 'windows' inside the 20-bit addressing. Later, Intel CPUs had larger address spaces and could directly address 16- MiBs (80286) or more, leading Microsoft to develop extended memory (XMS) which did not require additional hardware.'"
 * Actually, the three biggest limitations of the processor were: A segmented memory Architecture, No virtual memory, and an 8-bit bus. Although the 286 could address 16MiBs, It could only address that memory in real/286 mode, ( of which only two or three pieces of software could use them, Windows 286, AutoCAD, ) you needed, with DOS an Extended memory manager to convert them to expanded memory before they could be: Used as a disk cache, Used by Lotus 1-2-3 or as a Ram Disk. In addition, games required the use of DOS Extenders.
 * Funny, no mention as to the ability to run the Advanced Diagnostics or Microsoft Flight Simulator were mentioned, which was used both by industry analysts and companies advertising to establish compatibility.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.207.6 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed
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:


 * 1) as noted above there is at times an apparent lack of unity to the article.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) some sections are very technical and need to be understandable to a wider audience. (e.g. the subsection Design limitations and more compatibility issues)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)

One of the most unfactual parts: "The duelling [Spelling mistakes dueling] expanded memory (EMS) and extended memory (XMS) standards of the late 1980s, both developed without input from IBM." The extended memory XMS was a product of the IBM AT Motherboard, so that was Microsoft with input from IBM and the EMS Specification was developed for IBM PC Motherboards, and a piece of software EMM.SYS converted XMS to be EMS, which was designated the LIM specification or Lotus, Intel, Microsoft, ( Application software maker, CPU/chip set maker, and system software maker, ) You could take a LIM board out of a PC, and drop it into an AT, and it would recognize the LIM memory as expanded. ( and EMM.SYS would convert the extra motherboards extended memory to LIM expanded memory. ) so the application software ( Lotus 1-2-3 would see two banks of LIM expanded memory, one hardware, and one a software conversion. ) Go figure....

Now some memory boards for the AT, could split the banks so that the first 128Kb would back fill conventional memory to 640k, and put the balance ( 384kb ) at the 1MB address, for extended memory, which EMM.SYS would convert to expanded memory, so one board could support conventional, expanded and extended memory simultaneously.

142.254.26.9 (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Macintosh
Sorry to be your typical Mac guy, but I'm a bit perplexed by the following: I just don't see how the "resemblance" amounts to a revolution. Windows followed the GUI revolution, didn't it? If there's no opposition I'll reword this bit to reference PARC or GUI or something along those lines. (added) I'm also not sure why "used" is in single quotes there. ..
 * Windows 3.0 resembled Apple Computer's System 7 (Microsoft went as far as hiring Apple employees in its Windows design team) and revolutionised the way users 'used' their PCs. In the past, users had typed in commands into the MS-DOS interface (a Command line interface or CLI) where now they had a Graphical User Interface GUI which used a mouse to point to small pictures of tasks icons to 'make things happen'.


 * I support your proposal, though I'm the typical Mac guy too :) Mushroom (Talk) 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is also interesting that the Challenges to Wintel domination section is pretty much a Linux-is-the-only-challenger propaganda piece, whereas Mac OS has always challenged Windows dominance and has been gaining quite a bit of ground lately. You're more likely to have an average personal computer user (even grandparents) use Mac OS than Linux. --Fandyllic 5:36 PM PDT 1 June 2007


 * IMO MacOS is becomeing the "Alternative OS" in the alternative rock sense - just a market niche to catch the malcontents. Apple makes a Windows version of iTunes but none for Linux —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petchboo (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, your statement about grandparents and MacOS vs. Linux is certainly true today, but in 10 years I think grandparents are more likely to be using a "Web-In-A-Box" sort of device they bought from an infomercial for $29.95, and Web-In-A-Box will run Linux. And no one will know or care or think very much about the operating system at all.Petchboo (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Windows 3.0 evolved the way computers used their computers, the legal fight was over Windows 2.0, and the use of a trash can. Apple was first on Personal Computers, but then Apple followed the Xerox Star Gui in terms of time. ( With GeoWorks and Tandy's GUI popular too. ).
 * You are more likely to have the average personal computer use use Windows, Macintosh, Linux, (btw, I *have* seen it all :) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.207.6 (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This sentence needs to be rethought
"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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Move out Windows history
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)


 * 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 &mdash; and the technology on the PC platform &mdash; was ready for something new. Microsoft was still working with IBM when it launched Windows 3.0 and &mdash; according to Gates &mdash; 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 &mdash; and the relative failure of OS/2 &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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 &mdash; called Windows Vista &mdash; until 2007. --Wtshymanski 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Portable computers
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).

MJStadler's comments

 * The PC today section is unprofessional fluff which should be removed:
 * It is non-techical and not factual
 * It sound more like corporate propaganda (soft add) than an objective encyclopedic article.
 * it is mostly untrue...
 * Today's PCs are generally not upgradable
 * Buses, connectors and sockets change every couple of months.
 * CPU sockets are very particular to a small range of CPUs
 * Memory sockets and standards are continuously changing
 * Video card sockets are changing all the time
 * Generally replacing a motherboard means replacing everything !!!
 * Adding anything modern to a computer which is more than 6 months old means replacing everything!!!
 * Also
 * Microsoft Windows security and stability is still abysmal !!!
 * ( Note: this is true even of Windows XP, and Windows 7, still having Critical Ownage patches ).


 * Thousands of patches are unacceptable
 * ( Windows 2000 had over 900 patches, Windows XP is at 1300 Patches )

MJStadler 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Performance is extremely poor, given the horse power inside.
 * While the user interface may appear to be IDIOT friendly on first sight, it is extremely clumsy, inconsistent and TOTALLY undocumented. Have you tried editing the REGISTRY lately ?!
 * Hey, hold on there..."unprofessional" is an odd thing to criticize a Wikipedia article by. I'm not getting paid for this, are you? But I agree that the whole "PC Today" section is not terribly relevant to the topic of the article. It's safely tucked away in the article history, perhaps someone will salvage parts of it for its own article. The software-related gripes have no part in this article which should be talking about hardware.
 * Someone light-heartedly claimed that old PC software will still run on today's machine. I doubt you could even get MS DOS 2.0 to boot on today's computers, and Windows no longer supports the FCBs that first-generation PC program relied on for file access. We should take a perspective longer than 18 months when making these assertions - the PC is now 26 years old, true, there was an amazing amount of backward compatibility but it's not unterrupted back to the origins.
 * Yes, a Quad processor i7 still boots DOS 2.0, and mightly fast too.
 * And Windows still requires no more than 4 active primary partitions, ( hold over from ... DOS 2.0 )
 * Windows ME was the last Windows to need FCBs
 * I'll also point out that Microsoft makes billions of dollars shipping out thousands of patches ever y year - *someone* is still buying Microsoft software and must find this to be acceptable. We can't all be Niklaus Wirth solving the 8-queens problem in our just invented provably correct toy language, you know. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Microsoft makes NO money in patches. It gives away patches for free.
 * It was Both Nikluas Wirth, and Donald Knuth that invented languages, both of which are still in use today, in computer science. Idiots are still buying Windows, and even stupider people are buying cat boxes. btw, Wtshymanski You are both knowledgable, and brilliant. Why the rant?

Why is the Hardware configurations section specific to IBM PC compatibles?
Seems like the Hardware configurations section should be removed or just refer to Personal_computer. --Fandyllic 5:40 PM PDT 1 June 2007

The "IBM PC Compatible" becomes "Wintel" section
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: &mdash; A.M. 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)

Industry Standard Architecture and clone manufacturers
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)
 * 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)

Attack of the clones
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)

Title Itself is Potentially Misleading
The title "IBM PC compatible" is itself potentially misleading, in my humble opinion.

Background

I recall that, when working for the government of Canada at the time compatibles were being introduced into the market, our regional manager warned us about using the registered trade-mark IBM in connection with the term "clone." In fact, we were forbidden to use the term "clone" altogether because it implied that the machine in question was identical to the original IBM machine (a clone is a copy of the original). The reason for my manager's concern was that it somehow implied that it was legitimate to associate the mark IBM with a compatible machine, whereas this would be an infringement of IBM's trade-mark.

In other words, the association of the word "clone" with "IBM" implied that the non-IBM machine was sanctioned by IBM and entitled to benefit from the goodwill IBM had established. This would be unfair to IBM. Furthermore, it is inaccurate, since the so-called clone was not, in fact, identical to the original, but the result of reverse engineering of the original.

Argument

How is this relevant to the term "compatible"? It is relevant because "compatible" is merely a substitute for the word "clone" — albeit a good one, since these machines are in fact compatible with the original IBM version. However, the mere fact that the two are compatible in no way entitles a manufacturer of a compatible machine to benefit from IBM's goodwill. The title, as it stands, is potentially misleading because it could be easily interpreted as meaning that IBM had sanctioned the use of the words that follow "IBM." The compatible is not, in fact, an IBM "PC compatible" or an "IBM" anything else. It is merely a PC that happens to be compatible with an IBM.

Proposed Solution

The solution, IMO, is simple: restate the title this way: "IBM-compatible PC". The subject is no longer the compatible; it is the personal computer. The word IBM describes the nature of the compatibility: it indicates that the subject is compatible with IBM (true). "Compatible" describes the computer (true). If the term is misused regularly, then the explanation I have given here should be made part of the article, so as to clarify reality and educate the public about the importance of respecting another's intellectual property. It's a question of fairness to the originator and also the importance of understanding what intellectual property is, why it exists, and how to word things in such a way as to not infringe on it.

I am not in any way associated with IBM and never have been. I am interested in intellectual property and believe it is important to respect and obey trade-mark law. Many are opposed to such laws as they exist. They are free to advocate that the law be changed. Until then, IMO, they are obligated to respect the intellectual property of others.

 Conclusion 

My essential point, however, is that the title is potentially misleading and should be corrected — particularly in light of how easy it would be to fix it. // And Nothing But (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose (insofar as the above is a request for any action). Only on Wikipedia. The random clone computer is not compatible with IBM (the company) but with the IBM product, the IBM PC. Only a Wikipedia editor would be confused by a term that was used for many years without any difficulty by the personal computer press...a group not known for the their literary or logical abilities. ( Try to read some columnist's 1980's vintage description of what the MS DOS "FORMAT" command does and not pick holes in it, for one example that always irritated me...). --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. When you remarked, "Only a Wikipedia editor would be confused," were you intending to imply that I am suffering from confusion, or were you referring to the term "editor" generically? (No offence taken; just curious.)


 * Actually, the bottom line is not what I think, but whether IBM would consider the phrase an infringement. Although it may not be an issue now, it was in the mid-80s. Not only were employees of the government department where I worked forbidden to use the term "clone," but we were forbidden to use the mark "IBM" in connection with "compatible." At that time, it was an intellectual property rights issue. IBM did not want it's mark associated with competitors' machines — and for good reason. No trade-mark holder wants its mark associated with competitors' products, especially products it considers inferior to its own, because such association degrades the mark.


 * You are right to suggest that many readers would not be confused by the phrase. However, many who know nothing whatsoever about a particular topic, such as IT, come to Wikipedia to acquire knowledge on that topic. Some rely on us for clarity and accuracy. It is precisely those people that I am concerned about. How would a total novice know that the phrase that starts with "IBM" refers to a product neither manufactured nor approved by IBM? Normally, when you put a brand in front of a product name, it has a meaning exactly opposite to what the writer of the present title intended.


 * I found it interesting that you defended the phrase, yet you pointed out it was "used for many years ... by ... a group not known for the their literary or logical abilities." (We'll leave aside the fact that I recently served as a member of that group .) It's an excellent point, albeit one that appears to support my argument more strongly than yours: how does usage by an illogical entity make a phrase more suitable for Wikipedia?


 * I wonder what IBM would have to say about this issue? If they don't care, I certainly don't. The question is, do we care enough to ask them? It's their mark. If I were a Wikipedia administrator, I'd want to know the opinion of the entity whose mark I was using. But I am happy to defer to those wiser and more knowledgeable about information technology than myself. // And Nothing But (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt IBM is worried about this (insofar as a corporation with hundreds of thousands of employees can be said to "worry" about anything). If an IT person knows nothing about IBM PC compatibles, then an encyclopedia article isn't going to help. If it didn't confuse the guy editing the letters column in "Computer Shopper" in 1987, I don't think it can confuse anyone now (who doesn't already have more fundamental issues with orientation to reality). I have run into several Wikipedia editors who care passionately about things that I'm convinced few others anywhere care about.--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Challenges to Wintel domination: ARM?
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)

Ambiguity at the 2nd paragraph of the "Origins" section
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)

Claim in "Challenges to Wintel domination"
The section contains this sentence:

"«Experience had shown that even if an operating system was technically superior to Windows, it would be a failure in the market and fall victim to Microsoft's illegal tactics (BeOS and OS/2 for example).»"

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)

December 2017 hat note
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)

Missing Information
I think these content could be added to the article to enrich its content: C933103 (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

MS-DOS not bootable around 2020
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)


 * 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)

Architecture
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)
 * An encyclopedia article is not a dictionary entry.C933103 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Tagging
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)
 * The article failed to describe how the IBM/PC compatible architecture was able to win over the market around the world against competing architectures. C933103 (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Expansion slots and backward compatibility seem to be important, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

typo?
"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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Compaq and reverse engineering the BIOS
I was glad to see Apple vs Franklin mentioned, but Compaq did not reverse-engineer the BIOS as a result of Apple vs. Franklin(1983), because the decision came out a year after the Portable was released!!!! It may also be worth noting that Corona Data Systems and Eagle Computers settled out-of-court with IBM, who allowed them to sell remaining stock (with a cut of the profits), and in fact didn't ask a fixed number of dollars for the settlements at all. It was the Apple case which set a precedent. Even people who understand this often don't seem to appreciate that Compaq put in a million dollars of research to do this reverse engineering, when there was a giant risk that the court might have ruled that copyright law didn't apply to BIOS! (or any firmware!). If so, Eagle and Corona would have had a head start in the "clone wars". Columbia Data Products also reversed-engineered the BIOS "legally" (again, this was before precedent was set in US law, per "Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp."). I'm not sure why their product failed to get more market share. It may have been they weren't nearly as "compatible" with IBM and only ran a limited number of PC-DOS apps. Compaq advertised 100% compatibility, which may not have actually been true.

Merger proposal
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)


 * 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)