Talk:Pentium

Rename "Pentium (brand)" to "Pentium brands".

There are many "Pentium" brands described here, so the article should reflect it by the plural in its name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.253.112 (talk • contribs).

Rename "Pentium (brand)" to "Pentium (trademark)".

Since the Pentium trademark was not consistently used for one category of CPUs, as the Xeon or Celeron were, it is impossible to classify it as a name of homogenous and exclusive group beyond the P5 fifth-generation of CPUs, so the only possibility to classify it consistently in its broad meaning seems to be as a trademark, what it actually is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.253.112 (talk • contribs).

Note: Since the problems here are similar to those at Pentium, I am refraining from editing this article at present. This isn't an endorsement of the current version, however. I simply don't think that it's constructive as any changes I make- for reasons of clarity- will likely be rewritten by 141.157.253.112 ("Anon").

Rather than getting involved in another pointless write/rewrite dispute, I'm leaving this for a couple of days to let things settle down, and then investigating more constructive ways of resolving the problem. Fourohfour 20:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

From 141.157.253.112: I think the "Pentium" article reached a good intro unified with those of other Intel processors and x86 restructured by myself since the last May in order to make them more accurate, consistent, complete, and accessible to non-experts. Various efforts to accommodate everyone's input always ended successfully. The introduction of the "Pentium" trademark term allows to describe different "Pentium" brands without confusion, though there is only one "Pentium" brand that of 1993 (for the P5 CPUs). In 2008 it will be revived for CPUs of maybe various architectures, like "Pentium Dual-Core". So, they will have to be differentiated probably by their dates (“Pentium (1993)” and “Pentium (2008)”). This article - strictly speaking - is about the "Pentium" trademark (in various brands), but nobody cares about the trademark, because people mostly seek info about processors, so - I think - it would be most useful to the public to rename this article to "Pentium brands" (having the "Pentium" article describing one of them; so consistently with it), but "Pentium (trademark)" would be accurate.141.157.253.112 02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Pentium#Article names of Pentium and Pentium (brand) - I think it would make more sense (and more consitent with other articles about trademarked names) to rename this article to Pentium, and have the article about the original Pentium disambiguated in some way (e.g., Pentium (original)). Mdwh (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Pentium (brand) → Pentium — The Pentium (brand) article describes everything that the disambiguation page links to while being more helpful Arndbergmann (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Pentium → Pentium (disambiguation)

• Support/Oppose Support moving the dab page, but I think that "Pentium" should redirect to the P5 architecture article, as primary usage. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The dab page can be improved and provides a useful start point as I do not think there is a dominant processor under this name. The brand article seems too long to be a good start point. Cjc13 (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support: There isn't a great deal of content on the Pentium page, but I suggest merging what there is into an improved Pentium (brand) page, renamed "Pentium". Although I disapprove of recentism, I'm not sure redirecting "Pentium" to the P5 article is the best thing to do, given the number of other "Pentium" processor families that now exist. Letdorf (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC).
  • Comment almost all of the other Pentiums are not "Pentium", but rather "Pentium Pro", "Pentium MMX", "Pentium II", "Pentium III", "Pentium M", "Pentium 4", "Pentium Dual-Core". 70.29.208.247 (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply These suffixes are only present until end of 2008, all current models starting in early 2009 are just Pentium again, as the article states. It's reasonable to assume that Intel has given up these prefixes and that all future models will just be Pentium. Arndbergmann (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Reply most of these were discontinued before 2008, so Intel could not have dropped the suffix on them... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support: seems reasonable Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pentium (disambiguation) merge

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merger discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merger discussion was Merge.

• Agree: no point having two articles. Letdorf (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

• Agree: I created Pentium (disambiguation) when the current Pentium page did not exist in this form. It should go away now that everything in it is also in Pentium. Arndbergmann (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree: This is a trademark. It is not like anyone else is going to start using this in another way without Intel's approval. Uzume (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

no pentium bug mention?

Shouldn't the pentium bug be mentioned in the history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.60.130.152 (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)