Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:just what we all love (Score 1) 199

by Opportunist (#49762477) Attached to: Amazon Decides To Start Paying Tax In the UK

They would try to raise the price (not likely possible because, as stated above, if they could get away with a higher asking price, they would have done so on their own, why not rake in more if you can?) but they might go out of business. With a 90% tax, it's actually likely.

The price depends on the sweet spot of making the highest profit. Not any cost outside the cost per unit. A higher fixed cost might lead to discontinued business because cost gets higher than what the possible asking price could pay for, but the price is mostly unaffected by it.

Comment: Re:Meanwhile OS/2 and Xenix existed (Score 1) 373

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) 373

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) 373

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:*shrug* (Score 1) 373

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) 373

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:Yes to Brexit (Score 1) 358

That half of your immigrant population that comes outside EU is mostly a legacy of UK being a former empire. If skilled immigrants from the EU would have it more difficult than they have now, they will just move elsewhere where they are more welcome. I mean, why should Poles and Lithuanians go to UK if they have jump through a lot of hoops to do that if they can just as well go to USA?
And UK will just get more people from Pakistan.

And when it comes to the retirees, thanks to EU, health insurance and government pension funds are interconnected, making it easier for the retirees to live anywhere in the EU using the local services (this is why, by the way, I am going to retire to Czech Republic or Slovakia - it is very easy for a EU citizen to do and I already speak the language somewhat). For non-EU citizens using the local health services would be much more difficult.

Comment: Re:Yes to Brexit (Score 2) 358

The greatest lie is a half-truth.

Greece had almost a million civil servants in 2012 and apparently even Americans know that. That is not just people working for the government, that are people with a secure job for life. The population of Greece was 11 millions in 2012. Looks like indeed 10% of greek population consists of civil servants. Labour force in Greece is about 5 millions so whooping 20% of the labour force are civil servants in Greece, not 7%.
Just FYI, Germany has the same amount of civil servants, but 8 times the population/labour force. There are more people working for the German government than that, of course, but they are just salaried employees.

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds