Jump to content

Talk:Intel: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Assessment: Electronics: class=B (assisted)
No edit summary
Line 105: Line 105:
Intel has announced a $300 million diversity fund, which seemed to make a big splash in the news this morning [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/technology/intel-budgets-300-million-for-diversity.html]. Perhaps this would be worth a one-sentence mention in the diversity section? <small>I have a minor COI wrt the subject and would rather not edit the article.</small> -[[User:A13ean|a13ean]] ([[User_talk:A13ean|talk]]) 20:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Intel has announced a $300 million diversity fund, which seemed to make a big splash in the news this morning [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/technology/intel-budgets-300-million-for-diversity.html]. Perhaps this would be worth a one-sentence mention in the diversity section? <small>I have a minor COI wrt the subject and would rather not edit the article.</small> -[[User:A13ean|a13ean]] ([[User_talk:A13ean|talk]]) 20:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intel&diff=641509308&oldid=641230362 Done in spades.] What was your COI? [[User:Zero Serenity|Zero Serenity]] <small><sup>([[User talk:Zero Serenity|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Zero Serenity|contributions]])</sup></small> 01:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intel&diff=641509308&oldid=641230362 Done in spades.] What was your COI? [[User:Zero Serenity|Zero Serenity]] <small><sup>([[User talk:Zero Serenity|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Zero Serenity|contributions]])</sup></small> 01:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

== Does "Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions" really need its own section? ==
It's a complaint (and a minor and insignificant one at that) that has not had any effect on Intel at all. This shouldn't have it's own section. If people think it should remain in this article, put it in an already established section. Maybe in corporate affairs section, just like there's a religious controversy in that one. [[User:Knightmare72589|Knightmare72589]] ([[User talk:Knightmare72589|talk]]) 17:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:38, 19 April 2015

Former good articleIntel was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 13, 2009.
Current status: Delisted good article

Revenue

incorrect revenue figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalenjji (talkcontribs) 16:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Windows 8 and the collapse of the PC market'?

Totally ludicrous header for a totally ludicrous section. In what way has there been a "collapse of the PC market"? There has been a relatively small decline in the growth rate of the industry, but it's still a huge market. The only source for this section mentions nothing about a collapse, it's about increasing tablet demand and a slowing PC market.Core1911 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/07/apple_said_to_be_in_chibaking_talks_with_intel/ In addition, reports indicate that Intel's fabs aren't running at full capacity these days, due in no small part to the worldwide PC-sales slowdown.
Every report I've seen shows the deadly touch of Win8 on the PC market. 00:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

And in the meantime, Intel is selling it process capabilities to other companies to make their custom chips. For example:

etc. When the actual press releases come out we can add them next to the already confirmed deal. Hcobb (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the latest revert on "fab management", as Intel does not have a deep track record on managing fabs for the designs of others. This latest move is notable (in the eyes of several RS) simply because it is a new thing for them. Hcobb (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categorised under companies of Israel?

Is Intel really a company of Israel? It was founded by two Americans, is headquartered in America, is traded on American stock exchanges. The article mentions that Intel has offices in Israel, but also in a number of other countries that Intel isn't categorised as being a company of. Diweikipa (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope including the old Intel logo in .svg is useful. I hope it won't be deleted -Polytope4d (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any info on XVCPI, a parallel effort to DPMI?

In the talks about the VCPI (Virtual Control Program Interface) article we have found out that prior to the publication of the DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface) standard in 1990, Intel seems to have had a role in the coordination or development of a similar effort named "extended VCPI" or "XVCPI" to address the shortcomings of the original VCPI 1.0 specification around 1989/1990 in order to provide better support to the memory management and multitasking capabilities of the 386 processor. Other companies apparently involved in this effort were Digital Research with Concurrent DOS 386 and Interactive Systems with Interactive Unix, but probably there were more. Very little is known about this. Does someone reading this remembers this standard or proposal and perhaps has announcements, documentation of any kind, or bits of background information in regard to this XVCPI thing? Your comments or contributions to the VCPI article or talk page would be highly welcome to better document this bit of technical history. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split SSD section to separate article

I concur with the proposal to split the SSD section to a new article. I see since January 2014 there have been no comments either way, so I will be bold and execute the split shortly per Wikipedia:Splitting#How_to_properly_split_an_article. § Music Sorter § (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs its own article. Imveracious (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I think we can see "8/6/68 Name changed to Intel Corporation, a California Corporation." in http://www.intel.com/intel/company/corp4.htm . So actually they used NM Electronics as the name of their company for less than a month?202.43.96.123 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.96.123 (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would appear to be the case. Imveracious (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate

I've removed an entire section devoted to discussion of a minor issue involving Intel temporarily withdrawing advertising from a website because of Gamergate lobbying. It was trivial and not really relevant to the company, and it's already out of date. --TS 22:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intel product naming (numbering) scheme

I found an interesting article in an old copy of Intel Technology Journal that describes how the various Intel chips got their "names"...

Might make a good subsection for this and/or other Intel articles. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity investment

Intel has announced a $300 million diversity fund, which seemed to make a big splash in the news this morning [1]. Perhaps this would be worth a one-sentence mention in the diversity section? I have a minor COI wrt the subject and would rather not edit the article. -a13ean (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done in spades. What was your COI? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 01:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions" really need its own section?

It's a complaint (and a minor and insignificant one at that) that has not had any effect on Intel at all. This shouldn't have it's own section. If people think it should remain in this article, put it in an already established section. Maybe in corporate affairs section, just like there's a religious controversy in that one. Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]