enough ram to run without swap file thrashing. Price was high as well
These two are related. OS/2 needed 16MB of RAM to be useable back when I had a 386 that couldn't take more than 5MB (1MB soldered onto the board, 4x1MB matched SIMMs). Windows NT had the same problem - NT4 needed 32MB as an absolute minimum when Windows 95 could happily run in 16 and unhappily run in 8 (and allegedly run in 4MB, but I tried that once and it really wasn't a good idea). The advantage that Windows NT had was that it used pretty much the same APIs as Windows 95 (except DirectX, until later), so the kinds of users who were willing to pay the extra costs could still run the same programs as the ones that weren't.
Sort of. The desire not to cannibalise sales was a key factor in the design of the PC, but these were also features that IBM didn't think would be missed.
IBM knew what multitasking was for: it was to allow multiple users to use the same computer with administrator-controled priorities. Protected memory was for the same things. Why would you need these on a computer that was intended for a single user to use? A single user can obviously only run one program at a time (they only have one set of eyes and hands) and you can save a lot in hardware (and software) if you remove the ability to do more. And, of course, then no one will start buying the cheap PCs and hooking them up to a load of terminals rather than buying a minicomputer or mainframe.
If he has any sense, yes he does.
Not all of them, but he should be reading some. Otherwise he's letting other people control his company.
The English, Welsh and Irish MPs had already absolved themselves of any and all authority of Scottish tuition fees, so lets fucking quibble.
Thank fuck the SNP are only a minority party in the UK parliament, they'll be doing their utmost to fuck over the people living in England (which includes a lot of Scots) with the comfortable knowledge that this is not a reciprocal relationship.
The recent UK national election demonstrates pretty impressively that the people of the UK are financially astute enough not to vote emotively for something that's going to destroy the economy (and thus the social fabric it sustains).
The current Conservative majority isn't because people like their social policies, it's because they're the only party people trusted with the economy.
(The lack of Conservative MPs in Scotland is due to very different factors - I'll take a bet that the SNP wont get half the votes in the Scottish parliament elections next year, let alone 95% of the seats.)
I love the way your entire post completely disregards the UK's position as one of the highest net contributors.
Please, kick us out. Go for it. I'm sure Germany can subsidise the rest of them.
The amount of my money subsiding the EU gravy train is working against me. My health services being overloaded due to EU migrants is working against me. The rapid drive towards reducing the sovereignty of member states continues to reduce my ability to influence the direction of the country in which I live.
The whole "Make Ireland hold a second referendum" on the Lisbon Treaty shows you how utterly undemocratic the whole process is. Shit, the rest of us didn't even get a referendum.
Ironically the biggest cock-up of the EU hasn't hurt the UK, because even Gorden Fuckface Brown wasn't stupid enough to join the Euro. Lucky escape there.
So when exactly did I vote for (or against) Jean-Claude Juncker, who is rapidly leading the EU in a direction I find horrifying?
Democratic my arse.
Most rational people recognize Britain should be part of the EU.
Really? The EU is heading towards political union and a single superstate.
Most rational people recognise that over the long term Britain is either Britain OR the EU. It can't be both.
I'm rational, I think strong trading links are excellent and political assimilation is stupid. Fuck the EU.
I'm intrigued that you quote him out of context to have a rant about republicans.
You might want to consult a professional, help can be made available to you.