Talk:Applix

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Is this the same Applix that produced Applixware?[edit]

If so, I think that should be added to the article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they spun off the Applixware product line around the turn of the century^[when?]. I do not have details. Ningauble (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up too soon... a few minutes later I found some apparently current^[when?] info on the fate of Applixware at http://www.vistasource.com/en/company.php Ningauble (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no idea what the heck this is.[edit]

This article might be more useful if it included fewer industry boffin-words rendering it less esoteric. I'm *IN* the IT industry and that I cannot rely on the Wiki to make things clear is, well, disappointing. Shouldn't articles be designed for common or garden variety readers, rather than industry insiders who understand the terminology. (Yes, this diatribe was, in part, sponsored by the equally-obtuse MOLAP article.) fwiw 58.165.32.222 (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Latest version" of TM1 is out of date and is likely to quickly get that way again[edit]

Particularly as this is repeated (and up-to-date on the TM1 page itself. Would it be better to just remove this? Nawab (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information about product developments after the company became defunct probably do not belong here any more than recent developments in lighting technology belong in the Thomas Edison article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]