Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Meanwhile OS/2 and Xenix existed (Score 1) 351

by TheRaven64 (#49761245) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0

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.

Comment: Re:For me it's Windows NT 3.1 (Score 1) 351

by TheRaven64 (#49761223) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0
I never ran 3.0 on a 386 to try that. On Windows 3.1 it wouldn't work, because the OS required either (286) protected mode or (386) enhanced mode. Running 3.0 on a 386, the DOS prompt would use VM86 mode (yes, x86 has had virtualisation support for a long time, but only for 16-bit programs). Windows 3.0 could run in real mode, so would work inside VM86 mode. In real mode, it didn't have access to VM86 mode (no nested virtualisation), so probably couldn't start again.

Comment: Re:OS/2 better then windows at running windows app (Score 1) 351

by TheRaven64 (#49760671) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0
And Windows 3.1 lost real mode support. You could run Windows 3.0 on an 8086 with an EGA screen and 640KB of RAM (I did - the machine originally shipped with GEM). I think 3.1 still have 286 protected mode support, but didn't work very well unless you ran it in 386 enhanced mode. It was a bit sad that the version of Windows that required an MMU didn't use it to implement memory protection...

Comment: Re:Yes to Brexit (Score 1) 308

This only works as long as everybody is equal.

Precisely. And since, in terms of economic strength, everybody in the expanded EU most certainly isn't equal (please note that this is not intended as any sort of insult, merely a statement of fact) the free movement principle does not work well.

In particular, what has really happened in certain cases, for example with Poland and England, is that most of the movement has been one way. This puts strain on English services, but it's important to recognise that it also means many of the people who would be best placed to help Poland develop its own economy are among the most likely to find working in richer European countries more attractive and/or lucrative, creating a "brain drain" effect back home. In the long term, both nations could end up worse off because of the imbalance.

In principle, freedom of movement is a good idea, for both business and pleasure purposes. But on the business side, it does require reasonably balanced parties so the traffic at least roughly cancels out. This was the case in the early days when there were far fewer nations in the shared European machine, but with the expansion to nearly 30 actual or aspiring member states with much more diverse economic conditions, the same logic no longer holds.

Comment: Re:Export???? (Score 1) 125

by mark-t (#49760617) Attached to: US Proposes Tighter Export Rules For Computer Security Tools

Sure... Quote only part of my post out of context, and state that you disagree with it as if it stood alone, all the while completely omitting the part where I said it would only matter if the site were located in the USA in the first place.

Obviously if the site is not hosted in the USA then there is no issue that the USA could have with the site... although the uploader of such content, *if located in the USA*, could still be held accountable for said export if they were able to identify them.

Comment: Re:*shrug* (Score 1) 351

by TheRaven64 (#49760611) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0

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.

Comment: Re: *shrug* (Score 1) 351

by TheRaven64 (#49760579) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0
My father's company got their first Windows 3.0 install because they bought a diagram tool (Meta Design, I think), that came with a free copy. The company that made it had decided that bundling a copy of Windows 3.0 was cheaper than writing (or licensing) a graphical toolkit for DOS and an associated set of printer drivers. I don't know if they were the only company to do this, but after a year or so they stopped bundling Windows and just expected their customers to either have a copy already or go and buy one.

Comment: Re:A stolen idea, in my corporate acquisition? (Score 1) 78

by mark-t (#49760507) Attached to: Oculus Founder Hit With Lawsuit

If this guy really used Total Recall's confidential IP, which I'm not saying necessarily happened, but it seems like it may be possible, then Facebook's acquisition would be void... and they could sue the person they bought it from for no less than every single cent that they spent buying it out, probably with interest, and punative damages thrown in for good measure.

This company is working within what I understand is the legally permissable 5-year limitation on NDA's in the high technology industry (albeit only just barely), so if OR is really based on misappropriated IP from that company, then Facebook is no more authorized to use the tech without Total Recall's permission than this guy was authorized to sell it.

Comment: Not bad at all (Score 2) 78

by SuperKendall (#49760383) Attached to: Oculus Founder Hit With Lawsuit

I was a backer. Were you? Or do you feel compelling to complain on behalf of other people?

I got the main thing I backed it for - a dev kit.

Facebook buying them means an investment in learning to program for the Rift is probably 1000x more useful than it would have been otherwise.

I understand people are wary of Facebook, and for good reason. But I have seen huge upsides with pretty much no downside since Facebook bought the company.

Comment: If the stuff was really confidential.... (Score 1) 78

by mark-t (#49760373) Attached to: Oculus Founder Hit With Lawsuit

... then Facebook is not really permitted to freely use that technology either, and they would have a case against the person they bought it from as well. Certainly they would at least be entitled to any monies they had already given the founder for rights to Occulus Rift, and punative damages could even be applicable.

Total Recall could, of course, license the tech to Facebook, and probably make a tidy profit while doing so.

Comment: Re:Yes to Brexit (Score 1) 308

You are talking as if none of Britain's booming trade has anything to do with the common market

It has plenty to do with the Common Market.

It has very little to do with the rest of the stuff the EU added on top of that Common Market.

and as if that relationship would continue unchanged if Britain exits the EU.

There is no reason why in the long term that should not be the case. It worked before, something similar works today with the EFTA nations, and it is still in everyone's interests for a separated UK and the nations still in the EU to remain effective trading partners.

If that really happens and the EU bureaucrats allow Britain to exit whilst retaining all of its trade agreements and privileges except influencing internal EU affairs

Where did that "and privileges" come from? What privileges are these, and why do you keep adding extra one-sided straw men to the discussion when no-one else is suggesting them?

what is to stop Greece, Hungary or any other country where EU skeptics have come into power from demanding the same?

If EU skeptics have come to power elsewhere, why does the EU have any right to try to prevent them from leaving? You could hardly blame, for example, the Greek, for having second thoughts. Though of course the general population in Greece seems to be consistently in favour of trying to make the Euro work rather than going back to their old currency anyway, so this is just another straw man.

Anybody interested in keeping the EU in tact is going to be as enthusiastic about giving Britain a 'leave while retaining all membership privileges' deal as the UK government is to give you a 'continue to earn money and use public facilities while paying no taxes' deal.

And the same number of people are actually suggesting each of those deals here: zero. You seem to be making up random straw men for reasons I don't understand, and I don't see how that is furthering any useful debate here.

Entropy isn't what it used to be.