Talk:Taligent

message: I was working at IBM between 1985 and 1998. In 94 I had dealings with Taligent and AIM, attending a programming boot camp at the Taligent office in Cupertino. As I remember IBM's WorkplaceOS and Mach architecture grew out of Taligent and not vice versa. It was a shame as the Taligent GUI was very nice, but at that time it was very, very slow as it was running on AIX.
Cheers,
PBA (23:26, 23 May 2004 User:Pbadams)
:The Mach (kernel) came from Carnegie Mellon. But don't blame AIX for slowness.  I got to audit significant chunks of the Taligent code, and it was far and away the worst code I have ever seen, to this very day. They committed every OO-design crime know to man, and invented new, unimaginable ones. I remember reading the graphics code: every pixel was an object. Simply changing the color of a single pixel would cause a dozen constructors and destructors to run. Drawing a line, or performing window clipping, was an unmeasurable cascade of useless constructors and destructors. Compare to, for example, the Bresenham algorithm, which could draw lines with a handful of cpu instructions, or hardware of that era, which could draw nearly a million lines per second.  Of course the performance was a disaster: it was designed to be so super-flexible, so uber-customizable, so over-archingly object-oriented, that it had lost all touch with reality or pragmatics. I recommended to my division to walk, no, run away from it, and so helped put one nail into its well-deserved coffin.
:BTW, I think the code-quality issue should be mentioned in this article, however touchy it may be ... linas (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mach, Speed 

message: I do remember the hubris of the Taligent folks, which led to a sarcastic 
comment the floated around the industry regarding the attitude of Taligent. 
"Hi! We're from Taligent. Give us the money." Considering the current state 
of the world's most prevalent OS, perhaps they were justified.
(10:37, 22 January 2006 User:205.243.153.121
:Yeah, they *did* think they were a gift to mankind, didn't they? linas (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hubris

message: This article needs to be seperated into different headings (i.e, "Pink Cards", "AIM joint venture", "The fall of Taligent", etc.  The article also seems too much like a one-sided conversation.  Not encyclopedic enough.  Otherwise, it's great.
--
While it might benefit from more subheads and possibly citations, I disagree that this article is "not encyclopedic enough." The writing isn't the least bit conversational, it has no personal pronouns, and it focuses primarily on the facts of the company's lifespan. Also, having worked at Taligent during pretty much its entire existence, I can vouch for the accuracy of the article.
Badken 08:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs work. 

message: I don’t actually know the origin of the name, but about ten years ago I heard it explained as “Talent without NT, Intelligent without Intel.”  This would explain the strange-sounding name.
--193.11.177.69 19:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name origin 

message: "You can read more about the (real) Pink here, here, and here. Though we suggest you avoid Wikipedia's Taligent entry, which is unsourced, riddled with mistakes, and could have been written by almost anyone."
Common guys... step it up. ;-) Morphh  (talk) 19:24, 04 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ouch - [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/03/microsoft_pink/ Slammed by The Register]