Jump to content

Talk:3Com

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Siemens buys 3COM!

[edit]

If you go to product registration on the 3COM website, you can see at the bottom of the browser window that it redirects to secure-HTTP website "userreg.3com.sbs.siemens.com". This means Siemens, the leading german industrial and telecoms electronic manufacturer giant has purchased 3COM but they are keeping this secret. 195.70.48.242 07:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel lucky? Type 3Com and Siemens in Google and press "I'm Feeling Lucky" !

Hot Properties

[edit]

In the late 90s US Robotics had two big winners on its hands, the USR modem and the Palm Pilot. It wasn't long after 3Com acquired USR that the dialup modem market began to disappear due to be rapid expansion of broadband internet. A few years later, we are seeing the Palm operating system giving over to the Pocket PC. I wonder if 3Comm thinks their purchase of US Robotics was worthwhile.--Landroo 17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium

[edit]

The page should mention that 3Com once had their name on Candlestick Park, later renamed Pac Bell Park. http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/C/Candlestick_Park.stm Quasar2112 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3Com Company Profile Page

[edit]

I noticed that there are several external links under "Business Data" that provides financial information (Google, Yahoo, Hoovers, etc) with stock info, and the like. We provide company profiles as well, and have a profile for 3Com which can be viewed here: 3Com Company Profile Can this link be added with the external resources?

Bizjournals 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading claims about Intel

[edit]

The assertion that 3com was second to Intel in networking equipment is dead wrong. 3com was to the NIC what Cisco was to the network router. What about the 3c5xx (ISA) and 3c9xx (PCI) series of network cards? Surely 3com was killing any sales of Intel cards when those were at their height in the late 90's. To be even more blunt, I still would doubt that Intel has even come close to matching 3com's market share in the 90's. It may be true today that Intel has become a leader, after 3com exited the NIC business due to mismanagement, but for the bulk of networking history it wasn't. You have to take into account more than just recent history when making such assertions, according to WP policy. Please get your facts straight. This article is lacking in many other aspects, but this is the most glaring. --130.127.121.188 (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

[edit]

Seems that the article needs a bit of rearranging. Shouldn't a history be arranged chronologically?--SidP (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, and did it. I think there were really three or four article-like attempts glued together. Note news items or corporate blurbs are often written in reverse order, assuming that people mostly care about "newsy" stuff. But by now this is all history, so should become a more encyclopedic historical narrative. Still needs some work. We should assume that H3C (also no longer existing) would never become independently notable, so should just become part of this story too. W Nowicki (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name 3Com

[edit]

I had tweaked the statement that explains where the name 3Com came from, and included a YouTube source where Bob Metcalf himself explains to the camera how he came up with the name. This edit got reverted under the rationale that I was in violation of Wikipedia's YouTube policy, WP:NOYT. Clearly this editor has a gross misunderstanding of what that policy is saying. Just because the policy is abbr as "NOYT", it does not mean that YouTube should never be used as a reference. YouTube often contains many excellent sources which are great, particularly when they are authentic primary sources, as I had used, and solid secondary sources.

YouTube has a wealth of such reliable references. The purpose of NOYT is to prevent spurious videos of totally unreliable origin from being cited as fact. I am reverting the revert, and maybe others here would like to help explain to Jeremy112233 that NOYT does not mean "don't every cite a YouTube video". =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to return to WP:NOYT and read it very hard. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia; learn the rules if you wish to participate, as I hope you will in the future in a more constructive fashion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read NOYT thoroughly, and I've explained my understanding of it in several hundreds of words to you (much of this over at the Toms article Talk page). I clearly see what has been going on as two editors who have very different views of a certain policy both striving to improve Wikipedia based on their understanding of that policy. You persist in seeing me as spamming and vandalizing. I have made major contributions to Wikipedia over the course of the majority of a decade. I have been operating under its policies throughout that entire time, and am well aware of them. My conflict here with you is not my first, nor do I expect it to be my last. But one significant difference that I have strived to maintain throughout such periods is the respect for, and the dignity of those who may not agree with me.
I am reverting again, because it is clear to me that your understanding of NOYT is mistaken. Considering that you are an experienced editor, you may be familiar with what is perhaps the most important policy that Wikipedia has: Ignore All Rules. The overriding litmus test is whether an edit is an improvement to the article, or if it detracts from the article. And using this test it is perfectly clear to me that my additions have been improvements. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The video you are using is not considered WP:RS due to WP:NOYT. This problem is very simple to fix--find another, reliable and verifiable source, otherwise your addition cannot be proven as reliable or valuable. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being specific about your objection.
I have thoroughly explained my understanding of NYOT regarding this to you. NYOT does not levy a blanket prohibition. NYOT is in place to guide us to not use videos of spurious authenticity. The source video I am using in this article is clearly Bob Metcalf, the very person who founded 3Com. I know the man. I have talked to him face-to-face. This is Bob Metcalf. And this is an excellent primary source that you have persistently been reverting.
NYOT does not prohibit us from citing an authentic primary source. I have absolute certainty in the reliability of this video clip. And for that reason, I am insistent upon including this in the article.
I see your argument to be weak, with an ultra-rigid interpretation of NYOT, and this goes against the spirit of NYOT, and it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia editing. These are all points that I have made to you previously. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have a tenuous connection (I knew the founders of 3Com and visited with them several times in the early days) might offer a third opinion. I would be inclined to assume good faith and say the content about the name is fine to include. Metcalfe is a well-known and respected figure in the industry, (even when he is wrong it makes the news: see his article) and since the 3Com company is effectively failed by now, it seems a bit strict to assume the video has been doctored or promotional. Cringely. the producer of the video, is a professional journalist, this is not at all on the same level as an amateur kids video. Reliability is more of a spectrum than a binary choice, so would favor keeping the short and innocuous sentence since an editor has gone through the trouble of finding it. Although wider consensus might also be in order. My opinion is that there is much more material that is totally unsourced or self-sourced in other company articles that should be removed, and would prefer to spend time doing that and making the content generally better instead of warring over this minor anecdote. Just look at the list of Computing Project articles "needing attention" if you have time to work on some, thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was just getting tiresome so I found the actual source of the video and cited it there instead to avoid breaking NYOT. I find it suspicious that Dewynne would be so insistent on including the Youtube video when the actual RS was so easily found... so problem solved. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You persist in characterizing my actions and motivations as malicious. First as spam, then as vandalism, and now suspicious. Really? I will suggest to you that your interpretation of NOYT is so overly rigid so as to be harmful to Wikipedia at large. I actually happen to see the YouTube link I had provided as having significant advantages over the one you've replaced it with, with YouTube's ubiquitous appeal. Similar to Wikipedia's ubiquitous appeal, imagine that on some other site a person clobbers a Wikipedia reference, posting "I've replaced it with the Encyclopedia Britannica webpage, because we all know how unreliable Wikipedia is."
Notice also the advantage that the link I provided does not waste people's time if they want to see Bob Metcalf speaking the exact words. YouTube enables editors to cue the video to the precise second. That's a huge difference from, "Here's a one-hour wide haystack, now dive in and find the needle that I've promised is in there somewhere."
A final note is to state how silly your interpretation of NOYT is. The exact same video can be referenced, through your URL it is perfectly ok, and through the YouTube URL it is a violation? This makes it perfectly clear to me that your interpretation is mistaken. It is like saying that you are prohibited from referencing a book that you bought from a flea market versus one that you bought at a reputable store like Barnes & Noble. Absolutely ridiculous. We're talking about the exact same book! I hope this would be clear to anybody interested here. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it this way. If the New York Times publishes an article, it can be used. If somebody posts a blog saying it was a New York Times article, but no such Times article can be found, there is a problem with using that blog post as it is not verifiable. And if you can find the Times article, you use the Times article, as that is the source that is RS, not the plagiarized version of it. The same goes for videos. It's about taking care with your work and not finding short-cuts.Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 3Com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3Com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3Com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other co-founder

[edit]

It seem Howard Charney is a potential article name, as he is the former senior vice president of CISCO. see https://www.scu.edu/news-and-events/press-releases/2018/may-2018/retired-cisco-executive-3com-founder-howard-charney-to-speak-at-santa-clara-law-commencement.html Matthew hk (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3Com&oldid=1212964969"