Jump to content

Talk:Silicon Graphics/Archives/2014

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


Quote from Jurassic Park

The quote from Jurassic Park makes it sound like all Unixen have three-dimensional file navigators. This is of course not true, and I don't think it's even used on SGI computers for any serious work. Therefore the line might cause confusion with people unfamiliar with Unix (i.e. about 99.999% of movie viewers). (The first time I saw the movie, I was familiar with Unix, but not with FSN. I thought it wasn't a real program but only a mock-up by the movie crew.)

However, the quote is real and I don't think it should be removed from the article. — JIP | Talk 11:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jurassic Park's dinosaurs were created with SGI machines; they (SGI) even came up with T-shirts and gave employees advance screenings of the film, before it came out. (Wish I still had my SGI T-rex shirt.) --Cuervo 10:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The "SGI laptop" seen in the movie "Twister" was not a working laptop, however. It was a movie prop with an LCD screen and an empty box. The prop is, or was, at SGI's corporate headquarters in Mt. View, Calif, as of January 2002.

(Please sign your talk entries with four tilde characters: ~~~~ - thanks!)
So this quote from the article is incorrect? It seems suspiciously detailed for something that allegedly wrong.

"In the movie Twister, the heroes can be seen using an SGI laptop. It is in fact a working SGI, with a motherboard similar to that of the Indy. SGI made thirty or so in the early 90s, making the laptop quite a rarity. Given the power-hungry nature of the MIPS chip, not to mention what such a device would have cost in a time when an Apple PowerBook was considered expensive, the laptop was not a venture SGI seemed to be interested in taking."

Can anyone else back up either one of these positions? SteveBaker 15:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Having grown up as a kid scurrying around SGI on the weekends, I can in fact remember SGI working on a laptop, but I don't think it ever made it beyond the prototype phase, and was definitely nothing like the one used in Twister. Newtman 04:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In the article listed under the link there appears to be some confirmation that the laptops were not real. The common knowledge within SGI was that the movie used "Indy Presenters" which were connected to remote machines. Having not been on the set of the movie however I cannot positively confirm that they were not real machines. A quick analysis of the power requirements would show that the batteries required to even turn on such a laptop would make such a machine not feasible. Zunigne 18:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, they could easily have concealed an external power cord - but the question remains: Should this be in the article or not? SteveBaker 19:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure. Perhaps we can say something about this being apocryphal unless we can confirm this? I can only say that I never saw one, and that nobody I knew at SGI did either. Zunigne 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As a follow up to this. The article quoted on the page states:

We need to change the article to either reflect the quoted source, or remove the laptop statement. Does anyone have any strong feelings, or any evidence that these "laptops" existed other than as mockups? Zunigne 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I also mentioned this on the Talk:Jurassic Park (film) page. It could be that this whole sequence in the movie is a reference to a marketing gimmick that I heard SGI used in the 80s or 90s. Appearently, they had a young girl sitting at an SGI workstation demonstrating it while talking about it via a headset with conference attendees. It was meant to make all the business folk at the show think "Aww, I want my daughter to be that smart". I can't find any confirmation of this actually being used by SGI at a conference though so for now its just hearsay. Perhaps it is the other way around, SGI this gimmick after the film. I wonder if any SGI buffs reading this attended this conference and can confirm when it happened. -- Suso 14:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With all this talk about 'power hungry MIPS' and 'never in a laptop', I think that MIPS did design a R4200 chip back in 1994 or 1995 (around the same time as Twister) that was intended for use in low powered devices like laptops (it drew 2 watts of power or something). I recall that Byte magazine had an article about it. Maybe it can still be found in the online archives. Rilak 07:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This page is in need of thorough revision. I added a token start by subdividing the enormous History section, but further editing remains to be done. —Ryanaxp 20:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


I owned a company in the late 80's to mid 90's, Digital Connectivity, Inc. based in Atlanta, GA. We were SGI Value Added Resellers to the film/video and publishing markets. At the NAB conference in 1992, my son, who was 8 at the time, was demonstrating a pre-release of Adobe Photoshop for SGI -- specifically to illustrate the ease-of-use and the clean port of PShop to IRIX.

SGI loved the idea, and brought many people by our booth to show them. Perhaps this is the scenario/conference that is being referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.4.167 (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs a section on SGI's corporate culture

I'm not qualified to write this - but someone needs to.

SGI had (has - it's hard to speak of them in the present tense) many unique cultural features. One such is that engineers (no matter how lowly) are entitled to a proper office with a door. Managers (no matter how senior) are relegated to cubicles. In the beginning, this was literally the case - but over the years, offices have shrunk in size to about what you have in a typical cube-farm and management cubicles have gotten taller and taller sides and larger and larger dimensions.

SGI also has/had unique policies over sending staff on long sabbaticals - I believe there are/were rules about engineers being considered one grade more senior than their immediate managers...lots of quirky stuff like that.

This needs to be written about by someone who knows for sure.

SteveBaker 06:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

After working there for five years back in the heyday, I can say that most of this is not correct. There were certainly cube farms, and there were offices where senior engineers sat, but managers were not relegated to cubicles. There were actually very few offices on campus, the vast majority of people were in cubes. There was also no policy that engineers were senior to their direct managers. THere was a good policy on sabbaticals, 6 weeks every four years. There was also great coffee and beer bashes, but I do not believe these were unique to the SGI culture. Zunigne 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I spent a considerable time with the OpenGL and Performer teams about 10 years ago - and it was very noticable how the engineers had these teeny-tiny offices (with doors) and the managers had big cubes. When I enquired about that, this was the story I was told. But maybe not all of the company was organised that way - or perhaps the practice was abandoned more recently. SteveBaker 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was there from 94-99 in the hardware end, and there was no such policy. It could have been that those groups were done that way, but as a whole this was not the case. Which building was this in? Ed's palace or the new ones down the street? 65.7.191.28 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Previous comment made by me. I foprgot to log in. Sorry Zunigne 22:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I worked at SGI from 1986 to 1997. The policies Steve describes were in force during the whole time I was there. The Engineers had inside offices, the managers, directors and VPs had cubes by the windows with size and wall height increasing with rank. Yes, the managers' cubes were larger than the Engineers' offices. Employees other than Engineers and management had cubes that were the same size as the Engineers' offices - 10' x 10'. There were always a few exceptions to these rules, especially in some of the temporarily occupied buildings. Even Ed. McCracken (CEO) and Tom Jermoluk (COO) had cubicles, admittedly with higher walls than most and with fancier furniture. It was a great great place to work up until about mid 1996 when things started to go wrong. Mark Callow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.221.139.195 (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

pov

this article has a lot of editorial comments that i'd expect in a magazine or on slashdot, but not in an encyclopedia. the interpretations are pretty liberal, not straight facts at all

I agree that the section labelled 'The ever shrinking SGI' is pretty bad - I've reworked it a bit and provided a better title - but it really needs to be rewritten completely with actual facts. SteveBaker 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

SGI's CEO is not an ethnopharmacologist, and his middle name isn't Jon, although he looks to be near the same age as the guy the 'key people' link points to. The company bio at http://www.sgi.com/company_info/execbios/mckenna.html would be better than pointing to the wrong person's bio. If I knew how, or had time to learn, I'd fix it.

The rest of the 'key people' have all been replaced, according to the list on CEO's bio page. That much, I _can_ fix.


fixed. updated with links to SGI's exec bio page and corrected list for executives. Rockin 02:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


THIS STILL POINT TO THE WRONG DENNIS MCKENNA - LIKE SERIOUSLY WTF????? ALSO http://www.gridtoday.com/grid/552525.html

IN ADDITION - WHY NOT MAKE SOME DISAMBIGUATION THING AND FIX THIS GODAMM LINK TOO BAD IM AN IDIOT AND DONT KNOW HOW EITHER 194.90.200.2 07:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Markets

I'm new to the SGI history, but reading the article it seems they should have been all over the PC 3D-graphics accelerator market. Wouldn't they have had every advantage over ATI, or nVidia? If there are known FACTS on this, could someone add a section on why the company didn't diversify into other markets so obviously similar to, and a potential threat to their own?

Yeah - SGI should have been nVidia. The reasons why they aren't is that they continued to believe that there would be a market for their high end gear even against the competition of the PC. Many mainframe and minicomputer manufacturers have come unglued by making this exact mistake. However SGI dabbled in the idea of selling their own line of desktop machines - initially with the Indy and the O2 - and later with actual PC's - but the problem is always of a high-end US manufacturer competing against the beige-box guys with an almost identical product at maybe a tenth the price. SGI were simply not culturally able to switch their company from making honking great million dollar super-computers into making a single $100 chip or a $200 board. They had the expertise - remember that SGI designed the Nintendo 64 - so they knew how to engineer a single chip solution at a $150 price point. Eventually, all of their talented people could see the writing on the wall and they left to work for ATI and nVidia (mostly nVidia). This meant that SGI essentially became nVidia. SGI's management must therefore have been at fault here. It's very sad - but in the end, the world is no worse off. nVidia's culture is much like SGI's and their engineering is every bit as good. SteveBaker 12:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah - Concur with Steve Baker. Folklore suggests that Engr had proposed a PC based design, and had it rejected at board level for fear of undercutting their own busiess model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.243.242 (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened?

According to the article:

A preliminary proxy filed with the SEC indicates that SGI Stockholders will consider giving the SGI Board of Directors authority to implement a reverse split of the common shares of stock at the shareholders meeting anticipated in March 2006.

OK - so either this meeting happened or it didn't - the article needs to be updated with the results - or changed so as not to talk about this anymore. SteveBaker 12:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No mention of megahertz?

It would be tremendously more informative and interesting if the speed of the machines was mentioned, especially compared to consumer PCs and Macs of the day. I can't believe this is missing from the article. I would do it, but I don't have that info and I am brain damaged. Are you brain damaged? Add that stuff!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.61.6 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 July 2006

Stock Information Change

Hi All, I believe that as of Monday SGI's new symbol is SGIC . It is being traded on the NASDAQ. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, is it alright if I merely change the section pointing to Pink Sheets? If so I will do so. Zunigne 17:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Absolutely. If you know something in the article is wrong or outdated or could be improved, just dive in and fix it. There is nobody here who 'grants permission'...one of our 'golden rules' is "Be Bold!". If you mess up, the odds are good that someone else with this article on their watch list will fix it. SteveBaker 18:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Section on SGI laptop in TWISTER inaccurate

I worked on the movie, and in fact the laptops were non-functional. They were made of machined gray Corian (countertop material) with a 9V battery to run the LEDs in the corner -- I spend a fair amount of time fixing cold solder joints to keep those LEDs running. The keyboard was real, but connected to nothing. The display was real, with beefed up backlighting for the film cameras.

What was on the display was indeed IRIX, but it came via a umbilical cord from a SGI Indy hidden under the table or otherwise off-screen. That same umbilical provided power to the backlighting lamps behind the screen.

I recommend the section on the page be cleaned up.

Cyberdyne 23:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Name

Shouldn't this article be titled "SGI"? That's the official name now, no Silicon Graphics. It's like calling the IBM article "International Business Machines". Rojomoke 15:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-emergence POV

SGID common stockholders did not receive any of the new stock and are left with worthless shares. (Reference: SGI Press release). The company will not speak to SGID shareholders and refers them to a recorded message.

This is obviously a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The reference listed should be placed on the sentence before; the SGI press release makes no mention of leaving anyone with "worthless shares." I don't know if there is any validity to this claim, but it needs to be sourced and neutrally presented if it's going to remain. /Blaxthos 17:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2006/july/file_reorg_and_disclosure.html is a better cite for this particular claim: "SGI's current shareholders will receive no recovery under the plan."
"...left with worthless shares" is accurate albeit emotionally charged. "will not speak to shareholders" is somewhat irrelevant, especially over the passage of time. (I'm afraid I'm going to BE LAZY and not do the updates myself...:-)--NapoliRoma 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I have done. – Smyth\talk 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

sgi buys out Linux Networx

http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb021908-story01.html http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/2135016.html

76.23.62.107 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)S. Jackson, wife of a former employee

Sep 25 2008 move

I moved the article on the above date to follow the naming conventions for companies. Booglamay (talk) - 15:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Conventions or not, "Silicon Graphics" is the title lesser known to many people I think, especially because the 'I' in the abbreviation stands for incorporated. Then, on the first row nevertheless mentioning "incorporated" in boldface is really inconsequent, if it does not belong to the name, it does not belong to the name, right? Anoko moonlight (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
After a bit of research (and reading the trademark section of the company's website), all I can see is that Silicon Graphics is the registered name of the business, and due to its incorporated status the full title is "Silicon Graphics, inc". I understand this has been an issue before (by looking at your talk page) and would maybe have been more hesitant to undertake this move if I'd have known that earlier. However, if the "inc" is not part of the registered name of the company (not including logos and initialisms), instances of the non-abbreviated name omit the "inc" (see the website's trademark page).
I'd welcome other editors' opinions on this one. Perhaps I've been too hasty in this, but I can't really see why this is not subject to the naming conventions for companies. Booglamay (talk) - 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Good that you did some research, and thanks, I'm not sure as well. However, I do think that it is strange that the title of the article and the "bold face, full name" of the article are different. This is how it was before. I see articles of other companies do it in the same way, e.g. Microsoft and IBM. Isn't it strange. So yes, other opinions please! BTW, do we always stick to the registered name? Sometimes a company uses a different name than how they have been registered, not sure if it's the case here though. Also, sometimes the abbreviation is more appropriate (IBM). Isn't SGI like IBM? Anoko moonlight (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

IRIS Vision, VRML and Floops

No mention of the Silicon Graphics IRIS Vision PC card. No mention of VRML and Floops. Although they could all be consider failures, I think they're worthy of a mention at least. I found it fairly easy to find evidence of them by searching the internet, but my memory of them is quite rusty. Can someone else add something? Davidmaxwaterman (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There are articles on IrisVision and VRML. I don't particularly feel up to the task of mentioning them in the article for the time being though. Btw, what is "Floops"? Rilak (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

merge

Per request (though before removing merge template(s), Rilak could have given notified me before removing it, especially if it's quite recent), IRIS GL does not appear, on its own to meet the general notability guidelines for an indivisual article. However, I haven't really had the chance to check and see if any sources give more than trivial coverage to the API, which is possible, which is why I decided not to be bold and see if anyone could come up with some sources for the notability of the API specifically, ie the reliable source talks specifically about IRIS GL, and not about Silicon Graphics in general while mentioning IRIS GL.じんない 01:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The addition of the merge templates by Jinnai could have been accompanied by an explanation detailing why it should be considered as advised by H:MMP, "After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page." How can a proposal be discussed if it is not known to others why there is a proposal? Regarding the notability of IRIS GL, I have no sources as of now due to the enormity of the task at hand and my unfamiliarity with graphics APIs, but I can say with confidence that from "trivial" sources that I have encountered, IRIS GL is either one of, or the dominant 3D graphics API during its time. Additionally, I must comment that the proposal to merge IRIS GL to Silicon Graphics is inappropriate - IRIS GL was the basis for OpenGL - if it must be merged it should be merged with OpenGL. I ask that the editor who proposed this merge to reconsider which article IRIS GL could be merged to. Rilak (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Rilak; IRIS GL is chiefly notable for being the native graphics library for early SGI workstations and the forerunner of the widely-adopted OpenGL standard. If the IRIS GL article is considered too small to stand alone, it should be merged with OpenGL. Letdorf (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC).
I will redirect where the move will be, but for a stand alone article, there should be some reliable sources that state it.じんない 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rackable is becoming SGI... now what?

The news today is that Rackable, having completed its acquisition of the assets of SGI, is changing its name to... SGI. Before hacking my way through any changes, I thought I'd open a discussion on how to handle this here.

Given the skimpy amount of information on WP today about Rackable, one obvious option would seem to be to merge the two articles. There's a sub-question there - do we merge the rather large article about the now-dead ex-SGI into the skimpy but ongoing Rackable, or the tiny amount of Rackable information into this article?

The other option would be to keep two separate articles, leaving the "old SGI" info here and putting new info into the Rackable article, renaming it to "SGI".--NapoliRoma (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. My understanding is that Silicon Graphics, Inc. is the company Rackable System, Inc. acquired using their new subsidiary Silicon Graphics International. Silicon Graphics International is what Rackable Systems, Inc. will become. Merging the articles is inappropriate. Disambiguate where necessary and leave the articles as they are. Rilak (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me. Minor clarification -- according to their material, "Silicon Graphics International" is not a subsidiary, but the overall all corporate entity (marketed as "SGI"). It has two sub-brands, according to their web site: Rackable and Silicon Graphics.--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The press release says: "Rackable Systems has created Silicon Graphics International as a subsidiary, which has acquired the assets and liabilities specified in the court-approved, and now completed, Asset Purchase Agreement. Rackable Systems, Inc. will also change its name to a Silicon Graphics International entity, with Rackable Systems surviving as a product line. Silicon Graphics International will be branded as SGI® going forward." Am I reading it wrong? Rilak (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Huh; I hadn't read that paragraph! Sounds like a nice bit of tail-swallowing: Rackable creates a subsidiary called SGI to buy SGI, then renames Rackable to SGI, with a subsidiary called Rackable... . My brain hurts.
Frankly, it sounds like the press release got messed up -- how can a name be an entity? I've been through many press release review cycles where plans kept changing between drafts; this smells like their naming decisions weren't fully baked until late in the game, and this paragraph as a result may be a mutant hybrid between one plan and another.
The bottom line, from looking at their web site(s), including their letter to their customers, appears to be what I described above: the parent company is Silicon Graphics International, with a Rackable Systems product line and a Silicon Graphics product line. (That seems to be how the trade press interprets it, too.) I suspect the websites will get more coherent as the bits continue to integrate with each other.--NapoliRoma (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the story is: Rackable Systems, Inc. creates a subsidiary called Silicon Graphics International, which is a legal entity. Silicon Graphics International buys Silicon Graphics, Inc. and Rackable Systems Inc, "transfers" themselves to the SGI subsidiary. Rackable Systems, Inc. then ceases to be a legal entity. The Rackable Systems name is kept as a product line. The SGI name becomes the brand of Silicon Graphics International. I am not really sure. These business-related matters need someone with a MBA to comprehend! :) Rilak (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

SGI no longer exists?

I think this assertion is overstating the case somewhat. The legal entity Silicon Graphics, Inc. is no longer trading, but SGI's business seems to have continued substantially unchanged under Rackable's ownership: same "SGI" corporate identity, slightly different logo, much the same product range and branding, same HQ, etc. Since this article is presumably about "Silicon Graphics" (the business), not "Silicon Graphics, Inc." (the corporate entity), I think the present tense is still appropriate. A similar situation exists with the Cray article, which covers several corporate entities: CRI, CCC, Cray as part of SGI, and Cray Inc. Letdorf (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

I'd have to disagree with your premise -- this article is about Silicon Graphics, Inc.. Note the infobox on the right, as well as the first sentence in the article... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Those details can be changed. Given that the article title is "Silicon Graphics" and the continuity between Silicon Graphics, Inc. and Silicon Graphics International, I suggest only one article is needed to cover both. Letdorf (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC).
The article name lacking ", Inc." is the MoS standard, not an endorsement that the article is a separate topic. This article is clearly about the corporate entity, hence the mention of their headquarters, logo, years of incorporation and liquidation, revenue, stock ticker symbol, operating income, employees, acquisitions, name changes, bankruptcy, etc.. I'm sure this could all be changed, but that only sidesteps the point -- this article is about Silicon Graphics, the corporate entity. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of the MoS titling convention, but won't casual WP users expect the article entitled "Silicon Graphics" to cover the current company bearing that name? In addition, Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information provides the following guidance:

An article should be about a company and its predecessors, the names of which may have changed due to mergers, acquisitions, de-mergers, legal challenges, etc. [...] The article should be primarily about the history of the surviving company, even though it may have assumed a predecessor's name (for example the article on Bank of America is primarily about Nations Bank with references and links to an article about the legacy BankAmerica).

I don't see anything there about restricting articles to single corporate entities? Letdorf (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC).
This presents an interesting situation, since SGI pretty much died with its Chapter 11 filing. In most cases when a company's assets are liquidated and its brands are purchased by another corporate entity, the purchasing corporation does not directly rename itself as the purchased brand (something like Ascend Communications, for example). However, the MoS guide appears to be directly on point here, so your position seems correct; I'll concur that information on the "new" SGI should live here also. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If the guideline is to be followed, then should the article "Silicon Graphics" not be about the history of the surviving company (Silicon Graphics International Corporation) with references and links to its predecessor (Silicon Graphics, Inc.)? If so, is this not exactly what is present situation? We have the article about the surviving company (Silicon Graphics International) and the former company (Silicon Graphics). Rilak (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, some rejigging is required if we follow this. I would be in favour of merging the two articles. Letdorf (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

Merger proposal

As I have indicated above, I suggest merging these two articles into one which covers both the Silicon Graphics, Inc. and Silicon Graphics International eras (and I guess, the pre-SGI Rackable Systems inasmuch as it is notable). Letdorf (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

Is a merge the best solution? How about moving this article over to "Silicon Graphics, Inc." and then moving Silicon Graphics International here? A similar situation exists with Cray and Tera Computer Company. In some ways the Tera/Cray case is similar to the Rackable Systems/SGI case: x buys y and assumes the name of their acquisition. Rilak (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The Tera article only covers pre-Cray Tera, so if we were to follow this example, we'd have a "Silicon Graphics" article (for both SGI(nc.) and SGI(nternational)) plus a "Rackable Systems" article (assuming pre-SGI Rackable is notable enough). I'd go for that too. Letdorf (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC).
I would support having an article about both SGIs and another for pre-SGI Rackable. Rilak (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe a merge is the best solution. It does not do justice to history of Silicon Graphics or Rackable. Both SGI's and a pre-SGI Rackable is a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.99.44 (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would vote for merging the two articles Silicon Graphics Inc and Silicon Graphics International, and then having a separate Rackable article. In business, identity is everything. Customers still have some attachment to the new Silicon Graphics, because of the old brand identity. And in fact when the two companies merged, the lion's share of the new employee count came from SGI. You may want to compare this with the Wikipedia article on Packard Bell. Note that the early 20th century radio company and the new Beny Alagem computer company are both described in the same article. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The legal entity Silicon Graphics Inc. (SGIC) is gone, which presumably means that it was wound down and assets (including branding) transferred to Rackable Systems, Inc. who promptly renamed itself to Silicon Graphics International Corp. and changed its stock ticker from RACK to SGI (yes, that's right, no "C" on the end this time!?). That is to say, the entity that survived is in fact Rackable Systems, Inc. and its articles/products/etc. should be discussed on the Rackable Systems page, which is no (accurately) called Silicon Graphics International. That is to say, no merge is necessary, though I must admit I was with Letdorf to start with and had to do some digging to get to the bottom of it. -- samj inout 20:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand there was definite continuity, in terms of product lines at least, between SGI(nc) and SGI(nternational), just as there was between Cray Research Inc, SGI-owned Cray and Cray Inc. Legal entities can come and go without the changes being obvious to the general public, or even customers. Given that Rackable wasn't really as notable as SGI before the acquisition, should the change of legal entity (rather than the continuation of corporate identity and product range) be the primary consideration here? Letdorf (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC).
From what I have seen in the trade press, I see no confusion over the original SGI and the new Rackable/SGI. All this concern about readers being unable to distinguish the two SGIs, and that this article is about the SGI founded by Jim Clark, and not Rackable hiding behind SGI, is baseless for this reason. One thing that I have noticed on Wikipedia is that there is a tendency to assume that the audience is not sophisticated enough to understand simple facts such as this. I think that this assumption is most detrimental to the encyclopedia because it prevents us from covering topics is a logically partitioned manner. When I come to this article, I don't want to read about Rackable, I want to read about Silicon Graphics, Inc.--something which a merge of Rackable/SGI into here will end.
Also, I really hope that customers of Silicon Graphics International Corp. do know that they are not customers of Silicon Graphics, Inc. anymore! :) Rilak (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, of course, in this case, SGI's customers were probably aware of the change, but given their promise to "continue to provide uninterrupted delivery of products and services to our customers" [1], it may not have been an obvious change of circumstances. My point is that it's not clear to me that a change of legal entity is intrinsically a good reason to have separate articles on WP. For instance, Porsche's corporate structure changed significantly in 2007, but this didn't really make any difference to their customers, and there's only one WP article, covering both Porsche AG and Porsche SE. What we should be considering here, IMHO, is whether it is more pertinent to WP that part of the current SGI used to be Rackable, or that part of it used to be Silicon Graphics, Inc. Letdorf (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC).

It is really quite silly to have two separate articles for SGI. People unfamiliar with SGI want to see the whole story in one article. As for SGIC versus SGI, ticker symbol does not equal legal entity. The ticker symbol was originally SGI (NYSE), became SGIC (NASDAQ) after the first bankruptcy, and now is back to SGI (NASDAQ) after the second bankruptcy and sale of assets. --Westwind273 (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The list of products

The list of products is a significant part of the article. Would it be better to move all of it to List of Silicon Graphics products or similar? Rilak (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, probably a good idea. Note that there is already a List of SGI products, which currently redirects to SGI Virtu, due to an AfD discussion resulting in a decision to merge the latter article into the non-existent former article(!). Letdorf (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC).

SGI Was?

This article says SGI was a company, but the article for the company that purchased all the SGI assets and then changed its name to basically SGI is anemic and links to this article for all relevant information. These pages should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.189.181 (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

See my explanation as to why this was right (though I was initially confused too and was almost ready to go about merging them). -- samj inout 20:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This treatment is contradictory with the way Wikipedia treats the merger of Honeywell and AlliedSignal. Honeywell is analogous to SGI, and AlliedSignal is analogous to Rackable. AlliedSignal acquired Honeywell. The current Wikipedia articles say "Honeywell is..." and "AlliedSignal was..." I think the reason old SGI and new SGI are not merged on Wikipedia is that some people have an ax to grind and don't like the unique culture of the old SGI being associated with the current entity. It is a shame that person feelings are allowed to prevent merging articles on Wikipedia. --76.204.73.166 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Headquarters

The page http://www.sgi.com/company_info/contact_us.html says that the headquarters are in Fremont, CA.

ICE77 (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That'd be the headquarters for the current Silicon Graphics International, the former Rackable Systems.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is about SGI and it should reflect the correct location.

ICE77 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Silicon Graphics, a defunct company which was headquartered in Sunnyvale. There is a separate article about another company, Silicon Graphics International, formerly named Rackable Systems, which is headquartered in Fremont.--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I got the point now. Apparently, SG and SGI are two different but related companies so the information about the headquarters is actually correct.

ICE77 (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

McCracken & Belluzo?

How can you have an entire article on SGI and not once mention either McCracken or Belluzo despite President Bill Clinton having offered McCracken the position of Chief Technology Officer for the USA in 1996? Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is a collaborative writing effort. If there is something you think is missing that is both notable and which can be backed up by suitable references - then you should really add it into the article yourself rather than complaining about it. SteveBaker (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

  • Should mention SGI was (is?) the creator and trademark holder of OpenGL
  • sgi.badattitude should be mentioned for its contribution to California high-tech culture. (or not, Wikipedia editors generally don't like information, only lists ;).

Hard to figure where to put it within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.236.58 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

History section

Surely something must have happened between the founding of the company and its decline. Right now there are just two sentences on that era. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silicon_Graphics/Archives/2014&oldid=1144450874"