Talk:AT&T Computer Systems

Info on Globalyst laptops
In addition to computers, AT&T had a line of laptops under the Globalyst name. Where can I find more info on these? In fact, the entire Globalyst product line, including desktops, is missing from Wikipedia.

Info on AT&T owning 51% of Sun?
I've seen this statement made in a few places, and the only backup I've seen for it seems self-referential (i.e., the places I've seen it all seem to be derived from this page). It rings a bell (heh heh) that AT&T did own a significant chunk of Sun early in Sun's existence, probably before Sun went public in 1986, but I can't find anything from a reliable source that says how much or when.

However, the idea of AT&T owning a majority stake in Sun seems to now most often get conflated with the two companies' partnership in developing SVR4, and this is wrong. The one thing I have found that seems to be reasonably sourced is that by the time this relationship was announced in 1987, AT&T had little or no ownership in Sun; according to http://ftp.lanet.lv/ftp/sun-info/sunflash/1991/Jun/30.06.att.sun.stock in 1991 AT&T divested themselves of what was then a 19% equity stake in Sun, which they had purchased over the preceding three years.

So, can anyone provide a citation for AT&T owning a significant part of Sun prior to October 1987, with some indication of how much and for what period of time? Unless there's documentation that this could have any bearing on the SVR4 partnership, I think this section should be rewritten to at the very least decouple the two ideas -- or just remove entirely the statement about AT&T owning a majority stake in Sun.--NapoliRoma 04:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the 51% claim. I still think it's possible that AT&T did own that much of Sun very early in Sun's history, but since by 1988 they did not, it would have little or no bearing on the SVR4 collaboration.  However, they did at that time buy up nearly 20% of Sun's stock, so I included that fact with citation.--NapoliRoma 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and Style Tag
This article reads a bit too much like a Fanboy trumpeting AT&T-CS.. I removed the most blatant NPOV example I saw, but I think the whole article needs to focus on being more factual, and supported with more footnotes, etc. —Cliffb 19:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On the tone tag the tone is relatively straightfoward and narrative. I nitpicked a few things going through but otherwise there is not a lot of first person or other really egregious tonal issues.

The NPOV tag I can see, this is basically a corporate history. I fact checked a few items and they seemed correct, but it's a relatively single point of view. While single I did find it more of a narrative free of qualifiers such as "best" etc, and a nicely detailed one at that. Reviewing a lot of NPOV tags this article falls relatively low on the NPOV severity scale and I pulled the tag but I think the discussion may encourage folks to edit it and would be fine with NPOV going back up if there are strong feelings. Augustz (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced claim removed
This has been fact-tagged for two years now, so I removed it:

AT&T and Sun Microsystems announced that starting with UNIX System V.4, the operating system would be released first only on AT&T and Sun Microsystems products, and all other UNIX licensees would have to wait 6 months.

--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)