|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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)
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 184.108.40.206 (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"
"[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"
"the Xerox case was dismissed because the three year statute of limitations had passed."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (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.
The Digital Music Sampler
A Xerox PARC engineer took me there one evening in 1975 to show me the various wonderful things. I saw the mouse and GUI, but as a music enthusiast, those were far overshadowed by the astonishing Digital Music Sampler. There was a small room, like a closet, with a full music keyboard connected to a computer and a stereo with speakers. When you played the keyboard, you heard the sound of a huge multi-story pipe organ. At the time, it was astonishing. Looking through Wikipedia, it appears that EMS had invented this in 1969, and it is unclear whether there was any connection between the three of them and Xerox PARC, or whether PARC had just come up with the idea separately.
I have not added this to the actual wikipedia page, because of the absurd rule that no first hand information is allowed - so I would have to put the paragraph on some web page out there, and then link to that as a "reference" (oooh!) and then that makes it acceptable (rolls eyes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
(From Alan Kay) The "Digital Music Sampler" was part of the work of my research group (The Learning Research Group). The pioneer of digital music was Max Matthews of Bell Labs going back into the 60s and the techniques were well known -- but were not done digitally in real-time. Ralph Deutsch of North American Rockwell had made a chip ca 1971 that Allen Organ used for real-time additive synthesis. The first real-time system at PARC was done by me using a Data General Nova and a "long-sample" scheme (that is like what is now used in the organ simulator Hauptwerk). We got 3 simultaneous voices on the Nova (and they sounded great). This provided benchmarks for then being designed Alto, which wound up being able to do 12 polytimbral simultaneous voices, and to be controlled by a two manual and pedal organ keyboards that the Alto could read. In 1974 we did a Parc-version of the FM synthesis that John Chowning at Stanford had been experimenting with (at about 100 times slower than real-time) and were able to find a way for the Alto to do 8 real-time polytimbral voices (despite not having a multiplier). Steve Saunders did the important parts of the work for this project, and a few of the rest of us kibitzed. There is a photo of the setup at http://alexshye.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/alan-kay.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
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: