This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
I'm not sure it is my place as an employee to make major edits, at risk of accusation of bias in writing style etc - however the page title and focus of the opening paragraph here isn't quite right? The structure of the Group is that RM plc owns (or has owned) various subsidiaries, including RM Education Ltd.
...so why is RM Education (a subsidiary) the title, and target of the RM plc redirect? And, opening text doesn't describe RM plc (more an outdated description of the subsidiary) yet the page goes on to have a section on plc Group-level "business structures".
It seems this is a hybrid of the two organisational levels that either needs to be separated out or the page restructured to correctly describe the business hierarchy. Either it is the page for RM plc (hence the redirect, and some content including plc divisions and subsidiary companies) or is just the page for RM Education Ltd (and so should ideally exist as a child page where the wider RM plc group content exists).
While it is correct that "RM Education Ltd" is perhaps the closest part of the Group to the original "Research Machines" business set up in 1973, the Group has evolved substantially over time. In modern day, even if combined with RM Results financials (reported separately to the City) the revenue share is only roughly equal to RM Resources (the TTS and Consortium brands) so it is no longer correct to call RM Education Ltd the 'principal division'. As presented in the 2020 Annual Reports, page 97 (50 in the PDF), the largest divisional revenue comes from RM Resources.
Cletheroe ( talk) 16:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I worked for RM as a software developer from 1983-1989 and was involved in the ROM BIOS and implementing MS-DOS for the PC-186 and the AX and VX range. I have modified the statement that the IBM PC/AT defined IBM compatibility (not true - that was the IBM PC and the PC/XT) and that it was the lack of protected mode in the 80186 that prevented the PC-186 being PC-compatible (also not true - at the time the PC-186 was released a number of manufacturers were producing PC-compatibles using the 8086 or 8088 processor, neither of which had protected mode). When the PC-186 was released, the PC/AT had only been shipping for a few months and there was very little software that made use of protected mode.
The reality is that the 80186 incorporated a number of support functions that were incompatible with the support chips chosen by IBM, making it impossible to build a PC-compatible using the 186 processor. The PC-186 didn't attempt any level of PC compatibility:
I am also suspicious of the comment in the next paragraph that "Usually the PC-186 clients were diskless, booting via the network." That isn't how I remember it. My memory is that the PC-186 always had a floppy disk drive, but the hard disk drive was optional. I don't think we shipped any diskless versions of the PC-186. However, it was 40 years ago and my memory may be faulty, so I'm leaving that paragraph as it is. Does anyone have a source? Prh47bridge ( talk) 09:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Is the list of CEOs useful or notable? If it is, then would a table be neater? Without narrative on each CEO's term it seems to this reader as if it's a list for its own sake. Guffydrawers ( talk) 11:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
I'm not sure it is my place as an employee to make major edits, at risk of accusation of bias in writing style etc - however the page title and focus of the opening paragraph here isn't quite right? The structure of the Group is that RM plc owns (or has owned) various subsidiaries, including RM Education Ltd.
...so why is RM Education (a subsidiary) the title, and target of the RM plc redirect? And, opening text doesn't describe RM plc (more an outdated description of the subsidiary) yet the page goes on to have a section on plc Group-level "business structures".
It seems this is a hybrid of the two organisational levels that either needs to be separated out or the page restructured to correctly describe the business hierarchy. Either it is the page for RM plc (hence the redirect, and some content including plc divisions and subsidiary companies) or is just the page for RM Education Ltd (and so should ideally exist as a child page where the wider RM plc group content exists).
While it is correct that "RM Education Ltd" is perhaps the closest part of the Group to the original "Research Machines" business set up in 1973, the Group has evolved substantially over time. In modern day, even if combined with RM Results financials (reported separately to the City) the revenue share is only roughly equal to RM Resources (the TTS and Consortium brands) so it is no longer correct to call RM Education Ltd the 'principal division'. As presented in the 2020 Annual Reports, page 97 (50 in the PDF), the largest divisional revenue comes from RM Resources.
Cletheroe ( talk) 16:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I worked for RM as a software developer from 1983-1989 and was involved in the ROM BIOS and implementing MS-DOS for the PC-186 and the AX and VX range. I have modified the statement that the IBM PC/AT defined IBM compatibility (not true - that was the IBM PC and the PC/XT) and that it was the lack of protected mode in the 80186 that prevented the PC-186 being PC-compatible (also not true - at the time the PC-186 was released a number of manufacturers were producing PC-compatibles using the 8086 or 8088 processor, neither of which had protected mode). When the PC-186 was released, the PC/AT had only been shipping for a few months and there was very little software that made use of protected mode.
The reality is that the 80186 incorporated a number of support functions that were incompatible with the support chips chosen by IBM, making it impossible to build a PC-compatible using the 186 processor. The PC-186 didn't attempt any level of PC compatibility:
I am also suspicious of the comment in the next paragraph that "Usually the PC-186 clients were diskless, booting via the network." That isn't how I remember it. My memory is that the PC-186 always had a floppy disk drive, but the hard disk drive was optional. I don't think we shipped any diskless versions of the PC-186. However, it was 40 years ago and my memory may be faulty, so I'm leaving that paragraph as it is. Does anyone have a source? Prh47bridge ( talk) 09:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Is the list of CEOs useful or notable? If it is, then would a table be neater? Without narrative on each CEO's term it seems to this reader as if it's a list for its own sake. Guffydrawers ( talk) 11:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)