Talk:PARC (company)/Archives/2012

Article Name
This article really probably shouldn't be titled "Xerox PARC" anymore, given that that's no longer at all accurate. What should be done about this? Vygotcha 00:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please. We're not allowed to rename Standard Oil even though it is, thankfully, also out of existence.  It's the history that counts here.


 * And it is with a hopeful & futuristic note that I also say: We're not allowed to rename Microsoft Craporation even though it, too, is thankfully out of existence.


 * The name of this article should NEVER be changed; just link in other names as appropriate. Xerox PARC is of such legendary importance to the history of computing that sufficient complimentary superlatives still elude me.  Yes, even now.  Etcetera.  --Parsiferon 09:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Costs
I think it would be interesting to know how much PARC cost Xerox in total during its heyday. Hopefully this isn't secret information. -- David McCabe 05:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But you have also to add how Xerox has benefit from these technologies, like licences, own printer products, ... . These all sounds like company secrets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.29.0 (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sure those are internal financial details that were never broken out for public release. Pzavon (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Morning Worship
It's not a joke. Next time I am in Palo Alto, I will locate the ground upon which the headquarters of PARC stood, and will with great solemnity kneel and bow to the wonder of it all. Was PARC as amazing a place as the stories say? I have no doubt. OK, not much doubt. I hope to see you there, next to me on the pavement, some upcoming chilly morning in the Realm. My comment is NOT a joke. Let's try 6 a.m. It may take me a few years to get back there though. --Parsiferon 09:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Tone of the article
Some portions of this article feel more like an essay than an entry in an encyclopedia. "'There is no denying the long-term impact of PARC's systems. It took two decades for much of their technology to be equalled or surpassed. The interfaces and technology that PARC pioneered became standards for much of the computing industry, once their merits were widely known."

"'It is legend that Xerox management consistently failed to see the potential of many of the PARC inventions. While there is some truth to this, it is also an over-simplification. They certainly understood the value of laser printing, and of advances coming from the non-computer-focused part of PARC. Most critics don't realize that computing research was a relatively small part of PARC; there were many researchers working in areas such as materials science at PARC, including pioneers in LCD and optical disc technologies.'"

216.221.32.46 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Tone definitely seems off on especially that last part in the PARC Legacy section. Added an NPOV tag. Not sure if that is the right tag though. 24.18.240.121 (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Stanford
Should mention the association with Stanford University. While I was a grad student in the early 1980s I worked there a summer, was a consultant during the year, and we often went to each others' seminars, for example. The land I think in fact is leased from Stanford, but need to do some research to make sure, and see if I can get some published info. W Nowicki (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)