Wintel: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:23, 18 February 2006 editAngelic Wraith (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,878 editsm X86-->x86, linked ROM.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:14, 20 November 2024 edit undoCatsmoke (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,838 edits Fixed broken citationTag: 2017 wikitext editor
(371 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Partnership between Microsoft Windows and Intel}}
	'''Wintel''' is a colloquial, often pejorative, term used to describe desktop ]s and servers of the type commonly used in homes and businesses since the late 1980s (these are ] ]s running a version of ]). The ] term is a concatenation of '']'' (]'s operating environment) and ']' (the largest manufacturer of ] and the originator of the ] processor architecture used in many of today's ] ]s). In a strict sense, ''Wintel'' refers to only the two-thirds of desktop computers that run Windows on an Intel processor.
			{{refimprove\|date=April 2019}}
	==Background==
			{{multiple image
			\| direction = vertical
			\| image_style = border:none
			\| image1 = Windows logo and wordmark - 2021.svg
			\| image2 = Intel logo 2023.svg
			\| footer = The current logos of Microsoft Windows and Intel
			}}
			'''Wintel''' (] of ] and '']'') is the partnership of Microsoft Windows and Intel producing ]s (PCs) using Intel ]-compatible processors running Microsoft Windows.

			== Background ==
	Even more so than the ] market which preceded it, the ] market when it began in the late 1970s was led by a host of small, innovative companies, often ]. With the market proved by the earliest manufacturers, larger companies soon began to take a hand, sometimes successfully (], ]), sometimes not (], ]). One by one, the majors in the "big iron" market—mainframe and mini-computer makers—recognised the emergent boom in the micro-computer market.
			By the early 1980s, the chaos and incompatibility that was rife in the early ] market had given way to a smaller number of de facto industry standards, including the ] expansion board, the ] operating system, the ] home computer, the use of the programming language ] in ] (ROM), and the {{frac\|5\|1\|4}} inch ] storage medium. Firms competed fiercely to control the industry, and innovation in hardware and software was the rule. ] and ] processors gained ascendance and their ongoing alliance gave them market dominance.<ref>{{cite newspaper \|url=https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703808704576062073117494078 \|title=Microsoft Alliance With Intel Shows Age\|
			work=Wall Street Journal\| date=Jan 4, 2011\| access-date=18 June 2014}}</ref>

			Intel has claimed that this partnership has enabled the two companies to give customers the benefit of "a seemingly unending spiral of falling prices and rising performance".<ref>{{citation \|title=Doing Business Better \| page=4 \|url=http://www.intel.com/assets/pdf/general/windows7_brochure.pdf \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170225040754/http://www.intel.com/assets/pdf/general/windows7_brochure.pdf \|archive-date=2017-02-25 \|url-status=dead \|website=Intel Corp.}}</ref> In addition, they claim a "history of innovation" and "a shared vision of flexible computing for the agile business".
	By the early 1980s, the chaos and incompatibility of the first years had given way to a smaller number of industry standards, including the ], ], the ], ] in ], and the 5.25 inch ]. Despite the presence of informal standards which allowed a fair measure of interoperability between different machines from different manufacturers, no single company controlled the industry, and fierce competition ensured that innovation in both hardware and software was the rule rather than the exception. Most of the software used today is directly derived from the ideas that grew out of this creative bonanza—the obvious example is the ], but there are countless others.

			== IBM ==
	In 1981 the largest and oldest computer firm of them all, IBM, finally entered the microcomputer market, with a machine that was created by a small sub-division of the firm and was very unusual by their standards, insofar as it was largely sourced from outside component suppliers, technically unambitious, very similar to a number of existing 16-bit ]-based micro-computers, ran third-party operating systems, and above all, had an ]. It was called the ] and it became the most successful single computer of all time.
			{{main\|Influence of the IBM PC on the personal computer market}}
			In 1981, ] entered the microcomputer market. The IBM PC was created by a small subdivision of the firm. It was unusual for an IBM product because it was largely sourced from outside component suppliers and was intended to run third-party operating systems and software. IBM published the technical specifications and schematics of the PC, which allowed third-party companies to produce compatible hardware, the so-called ]. The IBM PC became one of the most successful computers of all time.

	The key feature of the IBM PC was that ~~despite its technical mediocrity and higher than market price,~~ it had IBM's enormous public respect behind it. It was an accident of history that the IBM PC happened to have an Intel CPU (instead of the technically superior ] that had been tipped for it, or an IBM in-house design), and that it shipped with ~~IBM~~ ] (a licensed version of Microsoft's ] rather than the ~~technically superior industry-standard~~ ] operating system), but an ~~accident~~ ~~that was~~ to have enormous significance in later years.		The key feature of the IBM PC was that it had IBM's enormous public respect behind it. It was an accident of history{{Editorializing\|date=August 2024}} that the IBM PC happened to have an Intel CPU (instead of the technically superior<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.redhill.net.au/c/c-1.html\|title=The Red Hill CPU Guide: in the beginning\|website=www.redhill.net.au}}</ref> ] that had been tipped for it, or an IBM in-house design), and that it shipped with ] (a licensed version of Microsoft's ]) rather than the ] operating system, but these accidents were to have enormous significance in later years.

	Because the IBM PC was an IBM product with the IBM badge, personal computers ~~(as they were beginning to be called)~~ became respectable. It became ~~much~~ easier for a ~~conservative~~ business to justify buying a microcomputer than it had been even a year or two before~~—~~and easiest of all to justify buying the IBM Personal Computer.		Because the IBM PC was an IBM product with the IBM badge, personal computers became respectable. It became easier for a business to justify buying a microcomputer than it had been even a year or two before, and easiest of all to justify buying the ].{{fact\|date=October 2015}} Since the PC architecture was well documented in IBM's manuals, and PC DOS was designed to be similar to the earlier CP/M operating system, the PC soon had thousands of different third-party add-in cards and software packages available. This made the PC the preferred option for many, since the PC supported the hardware and software they needed.

			== Competitors ==
	Because the architecture was open (an idea pioneered by ] in the early years but suddenly abandoned by them when the ] gave way to the ]) it was possible for third-party manufacturers to design and market add-in cards to bring new functions or enhance existing ones. Within a couple of years there were thousands of different third-party add-in cards available for every imaginable purpose, from hundreds of manufacturers both large and small.
			Industry competitors took one of several approaches to the changing market. Some (such as ], ], ], and ]) persevered with their independent and quite different systems. Of those systems, Apple's ] is the only one remaining on the market. Others (such as ], then the world's second-largest computer company, Hewlett-Packard, and ]) concentrated on making similar but technically superior models. Other early market leaders (such as Tandy-Radio Shack or Texas Instruments) stayed with outdated architectures and proprietary operating systems for some time before belatedly realizing which way market trends were going and switching to the most successful long-term business strategy, which was to build a machine that duplicated the IBM PC as closely as possible and sell it for a slightly lower price, or with higher performance. Given the very conservative engineering of the early IBM personal computers and their higher than average prices, this was not a terribly difficult task at first, bar only the great technical challenge of crafting a ] that duplicated the function of the IBM BIOS exactly but did not infringe on copyrights.

			The two early leaders in this last strategy were both start-up companies: ] and ]. They were the first to achieve reputations for very close compatibility with the IBM machines, which meant that they could run software written for the IBM machine without recompilation. Before long, IBM had the best-selling personal computer in the world and at least two of the next-best sellers were, for practical purposes, identical.
	Industry competitors took one of several approaches to the changing market. Some (such as ], ], and ]) persevered with their independent and quite different systems. Others (notably world number two ], Hewlett-Packard, and ]) concentrated on making similar but technically superior models. Other early market leaders (such as Tandy-Radio Shack, Texas Instruments and ]) stayed with outdated architectures and proprietary operating systems for some time before belatedly realising which way the market wind was blowing and switching to the most successful long-term business strategy, which was to build a machine that duplicated the IBM PC as closely as possible and sell it for a slightly lower price, or with higher performance. Given the very conservative engineering of the early IBM personal computers and their higher than average prices, this was not a terribly difficult task at first, bar only the great technical challenge of crafting a ] that duplicated the function of the IBM BIOS exactly but did not infringe on copyrights.

			For the software industry, the effect was profound. First, it meant that it was rational to write for the IBM PC and its clones as a high priority, and port versions for less common systems at leisure.
	The two early leaders in this last strategy were both start-up companies: ] and ]. They were the first to achieve reputations for very close compatibility with the IBM machines, which meant that they could run software written for the IBM machine without recompilation. Before long, IBM had the best-selling personal computer in the world and at least two of the next-best sellers were, for practical purposes, identical.

			Second (and even more importantly), when a software writer in pre-IBM days had to be careful to use as plain a subset of the possible techniques as practicable (so as to be able to run on any hardware that ran CP/M), with a major part of the market now all using the same exact hardware (or a very similar clone of it) it was practical to take advantage of any and every hardware-specific feature offered by the IBM.
	For the software industry, the effect was profound. First, it meant that it was rational to write for the IBM PC and its clones as a high priority, and port versions for less common systems at leisure.

			Independent BIOS companies like ], ], and ] began to market a ] BIOS that was 100% compatible with IBM's, and from that time on any competent computer manufacturer could achieve IBM compatibility as a matter of routine.
	Second (and even more importantly), where software written in pre-IBM days had to be careful to use as plain a sub-set of the possible techniques as practicable (so as to be able to run on any hardware that ran CP/M), with a major part of the market now all using the same exact hardware (or a very similar clone of it) it was practical to take advantage of any and every hardware-specific feature offered by the IBM.

			From around 1984, the market was fast growing but relatively stable. There was as yet no sign of the "Win" half of "Wintel," though Microsoft was achieving enormous revenues from DOS sales both to IBM and to an ever-growing list of other manufacturers who had agreed to buy an MS-DOS license for every machine they made, even those that shipped with competing products. As for Intel, every PC made either had an Intel processor or one made by a second source supplier under license from Intel. Intel and Microsoft had enormous revenues, Compaq and many other makers between them made far more machines than IBM, but the power to decide the shape of the personal computer rested firmly in IBM's hands.
	Independent BIOS companies like Award, Chips & Technologies, and Phoenix began to market ] BIOS that was 100% compatible with IBM's, and from that time on any competent computer manufacturer could achieve IBM compatibility as a matter of routine.

			In 1987, IBM introduced the ] computer line. Although the ] of the PC and its successors had been a great success for them, and they were the biggest single manufacturer, most of the market was buying faster and cheaper IBM-compatible machines made by other firms. The PS/2s remained software compatible, but the hardware was quite different. It introduced the technically superior ] bus for higher speed communication within the system, but failed to maintain the open AT bus (later called the ]), which meant that none of the millions of existing add-in cards would function. In other words, the new IBM machines were not IBM-compatible.
	From around 1984, the market was fast growing but relatively stable. There was as yet no sign of the "Win" half of "Wintel", though Microsoft were achieving enormous revenues from DOS sales both to IBM and to an ever-growing list of other manufacturers who were illegally forced to buy an MS-DOS license for every machine they made, even those that shipped with competing products! As for Intel, every PC made either had an Intel processor or one made by a second source supplier under license from Intel. Intel and Microsoft had enormous revenues, Compaq and a thousand other makers between them made far more machines than IBM, but the power to decide the shape of the personal computer rested firmly in IBM's hands.

			Further, IBM planned the PS/2 in such a way that for both technical and legal reasons it would be very difficult to clone. Instead, IBM offered to sell a PS/2 licence to anyone who could afford the royalty. They would not only require a royalty for every PS/2-compatible machine sold, but also a payment for every IBM-compatible machine the particular maker had ever made in the past.
	==The rise of Wintel==

			Many PC manufacturers signed up as PS/2 licensees. (Apricot, who had lost badly by persevering with their "better PC than IBM" strategy up until this time, was one of them, but there were many others.) Many others decided to hold off before committing themselves. Some major manufacturers, known as the ], decided to group together and decide on a bus type that would be open to all manufacturers, as fast as or faster than IBM's Microchannel, and yet still retain ] with ISA.
	In 1987, IBM made a bold and ultimately disastrous business decision. Although the open architecture of the PC and its successors had been a great success for them, and they were the biggest single manufacturer, most of the market was buying faster and cheaper IBM compatible machines made by other firms. IBM chose to introduce their ] line. The PS/2s remained software compatible, but the hardware was quite different. It introduced the technically superior ] bus for higher speed communication within the system, but failed to maintain the open AT bus (later called the ]), which meant that none of the millions of existing add-in cards would function. The new IBM machines, in other words, were not IBM compatible!

			This was the crucial turning point: the industry as a whole was no longer content to let IBM make all the major decisions about technical direction. In the event, the new ] bus was itself a commercial failure beyond the high end: By the time the cost of implementing EISA was reduced to the extent that it would be implemented in most desktop PCs, the much cheaper ] had removed most of the need for it in desktop PCs (though it remained common in servers due to for example the possibility of data corruption on ]s attached to VLB controllers), and Intel's ] bus was just around the corner. But although very few EISA systems were sold, it had achieved its purpose: IBM no longer controlled the computer industry. IBM would belatedly amend the PS/2 series with the ] line, which tracked the features of the emerging '']'' platform.
	In addition, IBM planned the PS/2 in such a way that for both technical and legal reasons it would be very difficult to clone. Instead, IBM offered to sell a PS/2 licence to anyone who could afford the royalty—but that they would not only require a royalty for every PS/2 compatible machine sold, but also a payment for every IBM compatible machine the particular maker had ever made in the past.

			At around this same time, the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, Microsoft's ] operating environment started to become popular, and Microsoft's competitor ] started to recover a share of the DOS press and DOS market with ]. IBM planned to replace DOS with the vastly superior ] (originally an IBM/Microsoft joint venture, and unlike the PS/2 hardware, highly backward compatible), but Microsoft preferred to push the industry in the direction of its own product, Windows. With IBM suffering its greatest ever public humiliation in the wake of the PS/2 disaster, massive financial losses, and a marked lack of company unity or direction, Microsoft's combination of a soft marketing voice and a big financial stick was effective: Windows became the ].
	Many PC manufacturers signed up as PS/2 licensees. (Apricot, who had lost badly by persevering with their "better PC than IBM" strategy up until this time, was one of them, but there were many others.) Many others decided to hold off before committing themselves. Some major manufacturers, known as the '''Gang of Seven''' decided to group together and decide on a bus type that would be open to all manufacturers, as fast or faster than IBM's Microchannel, and yet still retain ] with ISA.

			For the competing computer manufacturers, large or small, the only common factors to provide joint technical leadership were operating software from Microsoft, and CPUs from Intel.
	This was the crucial turning point: the industry as a whole was no longer content to let IBM make all the major decisions about technical direction. In the event, the new ] bus was itself a commercial failure: by the time it was finalised the much cheaper ] had removed most of the need for it, the ] joint memory standard had taken RAM compatibility out of the equation, and Intel's ] bus was just around the corner. But although very few EISA systems were sold, it had achieved its purpose: IBM no longer controlled the computer industry.

			== Dominance ==
	At around this same time, the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, Microsoft's ] operating environment started to become popular, and Microsoft's competitor ] started to recover a share of the DOS market. (See ].) IBM planned to replace DOS with the vastly superior ] (originally an IBM/Microsoft joint venture, and unlike the PS/2 hardware, highly backward compatible), but Microsoft preferred to push the industry in the direction of its own product, Windows. With IBM suffering its greatest ever public humiliation in the wake of the PS/2 disaster, massive financial losses, and a marked lack of company unity or direction, Microsoft's combination of a soft marketing voice and a big financial stick was effective: Windows became the de-facto standard.

			{{story\|date=July 2020}}
	For the competing computer manufacturers, large or small, the only common factors to provide joint technical leadership were operating software from Microsoft, and CPUs from Intel.

			Over the following years, both firms in the Wintel partnership would attempt to extend their monopolies. Intel made a successful major push into the motherboard and chipset markets—becoming the largest motherboard manufacturer in the world and, at one stage, almost the ''only'' chipset manufacturer—but badly fumbled its attempt to move into the graphics chip market, and (from 1991) faced sharp competition in its core CPU territory from ], ], ] and ].
	==The Wintel dominance==

			Microsoft fared better. In 1990, Microsoft had two competitors in its core market (Digital Research and IBM), Intel had none. By 1996, Intel had two competitors in its core market (CPUs), while Microsoft had none. Microsoft had pursued a policy of insisting on per-processor royalties, thus making competing operating systems unattractive to computer manufacturers and provoking regulatory scrutiny from the European Commission and US authorities, leading to an undertaking by Microsoft to cease such practices.<ref name="PCW October 1994">{{cite magazine \| title=Deal clears deck for Novell DOS 7.0 \| magazine=Personal Computer World \| date=October 1994 }}</ref> However, the integration of DOS into ] was the masterstroke: not only were the other operating system vendors frozen out, Microsoft could now require computer manufacturers to comply with its demands on pain of higher prices (as when it required IBM to stop actively marketing OS/2 or else pay more than twice as much for Windows 95 as its competitor Compaq){{Citation needed\|date=July 2012}} or by withholding "Designed for Windows 95" endorsement (which was regarded as an essential hardware marketing tool). Microsoft was also able to require that free publicity be given over to them by hardware makers. (For example, the ] advertising symbols on nearly all modern keyboards, or the strict license restrictions on what may or may not be displayed during system boot and on the Windows desktop.) Also, Microsoft was able to take over most of the networking market (formerly the domain of ]'s ] and ]'s ]) with ], and the business application market (formerly led by ] and ]) with ].
	Over the following years, both firms in the Wintel partnership would attempt to extend their monopolies. Intel made a successful major push into the motherboard and chipset markets (becoming the largest motherboard manufacturer in the world and, at one stage, almost the ''only'' chipset manufacturer), but badly fumbled its attempt to move into the graphics chip market, and (from 1991) faced sharp competition in its core CPU territory from ] and ].

			Although Microsoft is by far the dominant player in the Wintel partnership now, Intel's continuing influence should not be underestimated. Intel and Microsoft, once the closest of partners, have operated at an uneasy distance from one another since their first major dispute, which had to do with Intel's heavy investment in the 32-bit optimized ] and Microsoft's delivery of an unexpectedly high proportion of 16-bit code in Windows 95. Both firms talk with one another's competitors from time to time, most notably with Microsoft's close relationship with AMD and the development of ] utilizing AMD-designed 64-bit extensions to the x86 architecture, and Intel's decision to sell its processors to Apple Inc.
	Microsoft fared better. In 1990, Microsoft had two competitors in its core market (Digital Research and IBM), Intel had none. By 1996, Intel had two competitors in its core market (CPUs), while ''Microsoft'' had none. The integration of DOS into ] was the masterstroke: not only were the other operating system vendors frozen out, Microsoft could now require computer manufacturers to comply with its demands on pain of higher prices (as when it required IBM to stop actively marketing OS/2 or else pay more than twice as much for Windows 95 as its competitor Compaq) or by withholding "approved for Windows 95" endorsement (which was regarded as an essential hardware marketing tool). Microsoft were also able to require that free publicity be given over to them by hardware makers. (For example, the advertising symbols on all modern keyboards, or the strict licence restrictions on what may or may not be displayed during system boot and on the Windows desktop.) Also, Microsoft were able to take over most of the networking market (formerly the domain of ] and ]) with ], and the business application market (formerly led by ] and ]) with ].

			The Wintel platform is still the dominant desktop and laptop computer architecture.
	Although Microsoft is by far the dominant player in the Wintel partnership now, Intel's continuing influence should not be underestimated. Intel and Microsoft, once the closest of partners, have operated at an uneasy distance from one another since their first major dispute (which was to do with Intel's heavy investment in the 32-bit optimised ] and Microsoft's delivery of an unexpectedly high proportion of 16-bit code in Windows 95). Both firms flirt with one-another's competitors from time to time, most notably with Microsoft's close relationship with AMD.

			There have been opinions that ] by its natural software bloat has eaten up much of the "hardware progress" that Intel processors gave to the "Wintel platform" via ].<ref>{{cite magazine\|last=Kennedy \|first=Randall C. \|url=http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/fat-fatter-fattest-microsofts-kings-bloat-278 \|title=Fat, fatter, fattest: Microsoft's kings of bloat \| Applications \|magazine=InfoWorld \|date=2008-04-14 \|access-date=2010-01-12}}</ref> After the rise of ]s and ]s some media outlets have speculated predicting a possible end of Wintel dominance with more and more cheap devices employing other technologies.<ref>{{cite magazine\|url=https://www.forbes.com/2009/03/02/always-innovating-netbook-technlogy-personal-tech_netbook.html \|title=Look Ma, No Wintel \|magazine=Forbes.com \|date= 2009-03-02\|access-date=2010-01-12 \|first=Brian \|last=Caulfield\|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120918110234/http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/02/always-innovating-netbook-technlogy-personal-tech_netbook.html\|archive-date=2012-09-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|last=Bajarin \|first=Tim \|url=https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2341868,00.asp \|title=Can WinTel Survive? - Columns by PC Magazine \|publisher=Pcmag.com \|date=2010-01-04 \|access-date=2010-01-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|last=Cooper \|first=Charles \|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-10141326-60.html \|title=Judging Wintel on the eve of a new era \| Coop's Corner — CNET News \|publisher=News.cnet.com \|date=2009-01-13 \|access-date=2010-01-12}}</ref>
	The Wintel platform is the dominant desktop and laptop computer architecture, and has now spread to be a leading architecture in the server space.

			Intel is investing in ], and Microsoft ported ] to the ] with ].
	== Alternatives to Wintel ==

			== Modern usage of the term ==
	Although there are many alternatives to Wintel, most have only tiny market share. The two leading alternatives to Wintel on the desktop and small server are
	* ] and other free Unix-like operating systems such as ], ] and ], on a variety of architectures, but in particular commodity ] computers
	* ]'s ] computers with ] processors or ] Intel processors.

			In the strictest sense, ''"Wintel"'' refers only to computers that run Windows on an Intel processor. However, Wintel is now commonly used to refer to a system running a modern ] operating system on any modern ]-compatible CPU, manufactured by either Intel or AMD.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://searchwinit.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid1_gci213377,00.html \|title=What is Wintel? - Definition from Whatis.com \|publisher=Searchwinit.techtarget.com \|date=2002-12-30 \|access-date=2010-01-12}}</ref> That is because the ] applications that can run on an x86 ] usually can run on an x86 ] too.
	Other markets such as ]s and ]s have resisted Wintel's advance, with ] being the market leader in palmtops, and ] being the market leader in mobile phone operating systems.

			In mid-October 2017, Microsoft announced that ] on ] is at the final stage of testing.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://gadgets.ndtv.com/laptops/news/microsoft-qualcomm-windows-10-snapdragon-arm-final-development-testing-1764511\|title=Windows 10 Laptops With 'Multi-Day' Battery Life Due by December: Report\|date=18 October 2017 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/4-things-learned-microsofts-windows-10-snapdragon-laptops-today-3309055\|title=Windows 10 on Snapdragon Laptops: Everything you need to know\|date=21 February 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-in-final-stages-of-windows-10-snapdragon-pc-development/\|title=Microsoft in final stages of Windows 10 Snapdragon PC development - ZDNet\|first=Corinne\|last=Reichert\|website=] }}</ref> That would not be considered a ''"Wintel"''. Systems running a Microsoft operating system using an Intel processor based on the ] or ], despite the fact that the processor is manufactured by Intel, are also not considered to be a Wintel system.
	==See also==

	* ]
			== See also ==
	* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
			* ]

	==~~External~~ ~~links~~==		== Notes ==

			{{refbegin}}
	* (Webopedia)
			* {{ cite web\|url=http://www.mayin.org/ajayshah/MEDIA/1998/wintel.html \|title=Windows + Intel = Wintel? \|publisher=Mayin.org \|access-date=2010-01-12 }}
			* {{ cite web\|url=http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Wintel \|title=Wintel — Hutchinson encyclopedia article about Wintel \|publisher=Encyclopedia.farlex.com \|access-date=2010-01-12 }}
			* {{ cite web\|author=Wolfgang Gruener \|url=http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39341/135/ \|title=Cray launches deskside Wintel supercomputer \|publisher=TG Daily \|date=2008-09-16 \|access-date=2010-01-12 }}
			* {{ cite web\|url=http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Wintel \|title=WINTEL — What does WINTEL stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the Free Online Dictionary \|publisher=Acronyms.thefreedictionary.com \|access-date=2010-01-12 }}
			{{refend}}

			== References ==
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]

			{{reflist}}
	]

	]
			== External links ==
	]
			{{Wiktionary}}
	]
			*
	]

	]
			]
			]
			]

Latest revision as of 21:14, 20 November 2024

Partnership between Microsoft Windows and Intel

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Wintel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The current logos of Microsoft Windows and Intel

Wintel (portmanteau of Windows and Intel) is the partnership of Microsoft Windows and Intel producing personal computers (PCs) using Intel x86-compatible processors running Microsoft Windows.

Background

By the early 1980s, the chaos and incompatibility that was rife in the early microcomputer market had given way to a smaller number of de facto industry standards, including the S-100 bus expansion board, the CP/M operating system, the Apple II home computer, the use of the programming language Microsoft BASIC in read-only memory (ROM), and the 5+1⁄4 inch floppy drive storage medium. Firms competed fiercely to control the industry, and innovation in hardware and software was the rule. Microsoft Windows and Intel processors gained ascendance and their ongoing alliance gave them market dominance.

Intel has claimed that this partnership has enabled the two companies to give customers the benefit of "a seemingly unending spiral of falling prices and rising performance". In addition, they claim a "history of innovation" and "a shared vision of flexible computing for the agile business".

IBM

Main article: Influence of the IBM PC on the personal computer market

In 1981, IBM entered the microcomputer market. The IBM PC was created by a small subdivision of the firm. It was unusual for an IBM product because it was largely sourced from outside component suppliers and was intended to run third-party operating systems and software. IBM published the technical specifications and schematics of the PC, which allowed third-party companies to produce compatible hardware, the so-called open architecture. The IBM PC became one of the most successful computers of all time.

The key feature of the IBM PC was that it had IBM's enormous public respect behind it. It was an accident of history that the IBM PC happened to have an Intel CPU (instead of the technically superior Motorola 68000 that had been tipped for it, or an IBM in-house design), and that it shipped with IBM PC DOS (a licensed version of Microsoft's MS-DOS) rather than the CP/M-86 operating system, but these accidents were to have enormous significance in later years.

Because the IBM PC was an IBM product with the IBM badge, personal computers became respectable. It became easier for a business to justify buying a microcomputer than it had been even a year or two before, and easiest of all to justify buying the IBM Personal Computer. Since the PC architecture was well documented in IBM's manuals, and PC DOS was designed to be similar to the earlier CP/M operating system, the PC soon had thousands of different third-party add-in cards and software packages available. This made the PC the preferred option for many, since the PC supported the hardware and software they needed.

Competitors

Industry competitors took one of several approaches to the changing market. Some (such as Apple, Amiga, Atari, and Acorn) persevered with their independent and quite different systems. Of those systems, Apple's Mac is the only one remaining on the market. Others (such as Digital, then the world's second-largest computer company, Hewlett-Packard, and Apricot) concentrated on making similar but technically superior models. Other early market leaders (such as Tandy-Radio Shack or Texas Instruments) stayed with outdated architectures and proprietary operating systems for some time before belatedly realizing which way market trends were going and switching to the most successful long-term business strategy, which was to build a machine that duplicated the IBM PC as closely as possible and sell it for a slightly lower price, or with higher performance. Given the very conservative engineering of the early IBM personal computers and their higher than average prices, this was not a terribly difficult task at first, bar only the great technical challenge of crafting a BIOS that duplicated the function of the IBM BIOS exactly but did not infringe on copyrights.

The two early leaders in this last strategy were both start-up companies: Columbia Data Products and Compaq. They were the first to achieve reputations for very close compatibility with the IBM machines, which meant that they could run software written for the IBM machine without recompilation. Before long, IBM had the best-selling personal computer in the world and at least two of the next-best sellers were, for practical purposes, identical.

For the software industry, the effect was profound. First, it meant that it was rational to write for the IBM PC and its clones as a high priority, and port versions for less common systems at leisure.

Second (and even more importantly), when a software writer in pre-IBM days had to be careful to use as plain a subset of the possible techniques as practicable (so as to be able to run on any hardware that ran CP/M), with a major part of the market now all using the same exact hardware (or a very similar clone of it) it was practical to take advantage of any and every hardware-specific feature offered by the IBM.

Independent BIOS companies like Award, Chips and Technologies, and Phoenix began to market a clean room BIOS that was 100% compatible with IBM's, and from that time on any competent computer manufacturer could achieve IBM compatibility as a matter of routine.

From around 1984, the market was fast growing but relatively stable. There was as yet no sign of the "Win" half of "Wintel," though Microsoft was achieving enormous revenues from DOS sales both to IBM and to an ever-growing list of other manufacturers who had agreed to buy an MS-DOS license for every machine they made, even those that shipped with competing products. As for Intel, every PC made either had an Intel processor or one made by a second source supplier under license from Intel. Intel and Microsoft had enormous revenues, Compaq and many other makers between them made far more machines than IBM, but the power to decide the shape of the personal computer rested firmly in IBM's hands.

In 1987, IBM introduced the PS/2 computer line. Although the open architecture of the PC and its successors had been a great success for them, and they were the biggest single manufacturer, most of the market was buying faster and cheaper IBM-compatible machines made by other firms. The PS/2s remained software compatible, but the hardware was quite different. It introduced the technically superior Micro Channel architecture bus for higher speed communication within the system, but failed to maintain the open AT bus (later called the ISA bus), which meant that none of the millions of existing add-in cards would function. In other words, the new IBM machines were not IBM-compatible.

Further, IBM planned the PS/2 in such a way that for both technical and legal reasons it would be very difficult to clone. Instead, IBM offered to sell a PS/2 licence to anyone who could afford the royalty. They would not only require a royalty for every PS/2-compatible machine sold, but also a payment for every IBM-compatible machine the particular maker had ever made in the past.

Many PC manufacturers signed up as PS/2 licensees. (Apricot, who had lost badly by persevering with their "better PC than IBM" strategy up until this time, was one of them, but there were many others.) Many others decided to hold off before committing themselves. Some major manufacturers, known as the Gang of Nine, decided to group together and decide on a bus type that would be open to all manufacturers, as fast as or faster than IBM's Microchannel, and yet still retain backward compatibility with ISA.

This was the crucial turning point: the industry as a whole was no longer content to let IBM make all the major decisions about technical direction. In the event, the new EISA bus was itself a commercial failure beyond the high end: By the time the cost of implementing EISA was reduced to the extent that it would be implemented in most desktop PCs, the much cheaper VESA Local Bus had removed most of the need for it in desktop PCs (though it remained common in servers due to for example the possibility of data corruption on hard disk drives attached to VLB controllers), and Intel's PCI bus was just around the corner. But although very few EISA systems were sold, it had achieved its purpose: IBM no longer controlled the computer industry. IBM would belatedly amend the PS/2 series with the PS/ValuePoint line, which tracked the features of the emerging ad hoc platform.

At around this same time, the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, Microsoft's Windows operating environment started to become popular, and Microsoft's competitor Digital Research started to recover a share of the DOS press and DOS market with DR-DOS. IBM planned to replace DOS with the vastly superior OS/2 (originally an IBM/Microsoft joint venture, and unlike the PS/2 hardware, highly backward compatible), but Microsoft preferred to push the industry in the direction of its own product, Windows. With IBM suffering its greatest ever public humiliation in the wake of the PS/2 disaster, massive financial losses, and a marked lack of company unity or direction, Microsoft's combination of a soft marketing voice and a big financial stick was effective: Windows became the de facto standard.

For the competing computer manufacturers, large or small, the only common factors to provide joint technical leadership were operating software from Microsoft, and CPUs from Intel.

Dominance

This article is written like a story. Please help rewrite this article to introduce an encyclopedic style and a neutral point of view. (July 2020)

Over the following years, both firms in the Wintel partnership would attempt to extend their monopolies. Intel made a successful major push into the motherboard and chipset markets—becoming the largest motherboard manufacturer in the world and, at one stage, almost the only chipset manufacturer—but badly fumbled its attempt to move into the graphics chip market, and (from 1991) faced sharp competition in its core CPU territory from AMD, Cyrix, VIA and Transmeta.

Microsoft fared better. In 1990, Microsoft had two competitors in its core market (Digital Research and IBM), Intel had none. By 1996, Intel had two competitors in its core market (CPUs), while Microsoft had none. Microsoft had pursued a policy of insisting on per-processor royalties, thus making competing operating systems unattractive to computer manufacturers and provoking regulatory scrutiny from the European Commission and US authorities, leading to an undertaking by Microsoft to cease such practices. However, the integration of DOS into Windows 95 was the masterstroke: not only were the other operating system vendors frozen out, Microsoft could now require computer manufacturers to comply with its demands on pain of higher prices (as when it required IBM to stop actively marketing OS/2 or else pay more than twice as much for Windows 95 as its competitor Compaq) or by withholding "Designed for Windows 95" endorsement (which was regarded as an essential hardware marketing tool). Microsoft was also able to require that free publicity be given over to them by hardware makers. (For example, the Windows key advertising symbols on nearly all modern keyboards, or the strict license restrictions on what may or may not be displayed during system boot and on the Windows desktop.) Also, Microsoft was able to take over most of the networking market (formerly the domain of Artisoft's LANtastic and Novell's NetWare) with Windows NT, and the business application market (formerly led by Lotus and WordPerfect) with Microsoft Office.

Although Microsoft is by far the dominant player in the Wintel partnership now, Intel's continuing influence should not be underestimated. Intel and Microsoft, once the closest of partners, have operated at an uneasy distance from one another since their first major dispute, which had to do with Intel's heavy investment in the 32-bit optimized Pentium Pro and Microsoft's delivery of an unexpectedly high proportion of 16-bit code in Windows 95. Both firms talk with one another's competitors from time to time, most notably with Microsoft's close relationship with AMD and the development of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition utilizing AMD-designed 64-bit extensions to the x86 architecture, and Intel's decision to sell its processors to Apple Inc.

The Wintel platform is still the dominant desktop and laptop computer architecture.

There have been opinions that Microsoft Windows by its natural software bloat has eaten up much of the "hardware progress" that Intel processors gave to the "Wintel platform" via Moore's law. After the rise of smartphones and netbooks some media outlets have speculated predicting a possible end of Wintel dominance with more and more cheap devices employing other technologies.

Intel is investing in Linux, and Microsoft ported Windows 8 to the ARM architecture with Windows RT.

Modern usage of the term

In the strictest sense, "Wintel" refers only to computers that run Windows on an Intel processor. However, Wintel is now commonly used to refer to a system running a modern Microsoft operating system on any modern x86-compatible CPU, manufactured by either Intel or AMD. That is because the PC applications that can run on an x86 Intel processor usually can run on an x86 AMD processor too.

In mid-October 2017, Microsoft announced that Windows 10 on Qualcomm Snapdragon is at the final stage of testing. That would not be considered a "Wintel". Systems running a Microsoft operating system using an Intel processor based on the Itanium or ARM architecture, despite the fact that the processor is manufactured by Intel, are also not considered to be a Wintel system.