Talk:PARC (company)/Archives/2013

Clean Technology
Could somebody perhaps expand on what this refers to? As it's referred to as "clean technology", I'm at a loss for exactly what is being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.62.90 (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe this is a reference to technology that substantially reduces or eliminates polluting emissions. Pzavon (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * CleanTech is supported by PARC, and concentrates on sustainable energy, and assisting new environmentally friendly companies to startup. for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybidzian (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"The GUI" section
Parts of this section contradict Apple_v._Microsoft. Where this articles states "'Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product'" and "'[that the statute of limitations had expired] was not actually true; the dismissal of Xerox's legal complaint was not based simply on late filings, but rather a lack of legal merit to Xerox's case as it was presented'" the other one states "'the story that Apple had given Xerox Board members stock in exchange for access to the research performed at PARC is a legend because the truth is that Xerox did, at one time, own stocks in Apple but they were purchased as an investment and sold later'" and "'the Xerox case was dismissed because the three year statute of limitations had passed.'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.22.208 (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is so much wrong with this section. The claim that the Mac was the first commercially successful GUI is dubious. While the Xerox Alto is mentioned and shown, the Star isn't even referenced! Whether the Star was a success or failure financially it beat the Mac to the market by three years, used a desktop metaphor, mouse, etc. The Mac didn't get announced until 1983 and was sold in 1984. The Mac was an immediate flop and remained that way for many years. Jobs was booted from Apple primarily due to his obstinance on the point. The original Mac toaster box was 128k and cost about $2,000 adjusted for inflation that's about $5,000 in 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh). The machine was a pig and a flop. Not some raving financial success and it is unclear when it did become successful. I'm not even going to try to figure what the $9,000 Mac IIfx of 1988 would work out to be in today's dollars. Certainly one could have bought a nice, new small car for that sum. It was the Apple II variants that kept the company from sinking beneath the waves.

The desktop metaphor and mouse were direct rip offs of the Xerox Alto/Star. The judge tossed Xeroxes suits based largely on sloppy legal work and comments to the effect that law requires one to aggressively defend copyrights and patents.

Really, why is Apple or the Mac even in this article. It is about Xerox Parc. The innovations that came out of there were tremendous and should stand or fall of their own accord.

Xeroxes failure in capitalizing on many of these innovations is well known. So I'm not hero worshiping here. Xerox made some very bad mistakes and they should be called to task.

But for the love of God let's dump the Apple Mac stuff from here.

Trash?
Did PARC's GUI really lack the Trash like the article claims? The following screenshot seems to imply otherwise, as it clearly shows a trash icon in the lower section of the screen:

http://images.appleinsider.com/leopard-preview-desktop-3.jpg -190.225.17.127 (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
I'm wondering if the more active editors of this page would have a problem with changing the PARC redirect to the PARC_(disambiguation) page, since there is now another article using the PARC name, PARC Management. ClarkCT 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)