Talk:IBM PC compatible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
 |
IBM PC compatible was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}} |
- 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)
Removed at least one duplicate.--Shoka 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for IBM PC compatible has failed, for the following reason:
- 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)
[edit] Macintosh
Sorry to be your typical Mac guy, but I'm a bit perplexed by the following:
- 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 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 . . .
- I support your proposal, though I'm the typical Mac guy too :) Mushroom (Talk) 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 Archives |
|---|
|
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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. :
[edit] 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."[1][2] 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)
