...by at least a decade.
...by at least a decade.
....does it run Windows games? Oh. Still, it might be cheaper...oh.
Repeat times a number of millions.
Agreed - I should have mentioned that with regards to the original comment, anyone that thinks VR is dead blatantly hasn't had a go on it.
It really is that good
Elite Dangerous all but laughed at the 290 we were running it on. A 980 may have been overkill, but it certainly does the job.
With the DK2, 75Hz has produced motion-sickness for us on the odd demo - and not just rollercoasters or other fast moving experiences.
We've also had several friends experiencing the same thing when having a go, so I'll be happy with anything over 90fps.
It's the new buzzword. Does my head in. Might as well say "We didn't spot this as news until now"
...for Windows 10 - as in, they haven't (they did this with Vista/ 7 too), it's unlikely I'd be buying another one anyway.
I guess you *really* hate Forbidden Planet. And Star Wars. And Star Trek....what with all the tabloid-science going on.
Nobody is going to ask you first. Remember that.
I'm not posting to discredit your opinion - because you're wrong
...that decided many, many perfectly good words needed respelling anyway.
....and don't have adult rights.
Hey, I got that response when trying to install an older Doctor Who game from the site last night.
From the UK. On a UK ISP. And no, I wasn't running VPN....
Another 'news' article that contains almost nothing.
Still, at least it's not another news article by someone pretending that a reseller of hardware would have no interest in pushing old tin.
>The obvious tangible benefits are that the documents will no longer be locked into some stupid proprietary format
That's not a tangible benefit when the overwhelming majority (arguably all) of the country is already using it and has done for the past thirty years.
>that can never be converted due to ridiculous macros and scripts (quite why a static document needs to have macros and scripts is beyond me).
I think we'll leave it there.
>As a UK tax payer, I welcome the move
You are in the minority, I'm afraid. Any outlay of this size really needs to provide tangible benefits from the outset, of which there aren't any.
>I would imagine that someone at GCHQ could easily convert the documents for a tiny fraction of the budget that they've got.
Nobody can easily convert documents. There are macros, scripts and so on that just don't convert.
>Plenty of money for spying on UK subjects, but no money for protecting their interests in not being tied to a predatory US company.
Apple are more predatory. Be sure to point that out to the schools buying iPads.
Short term it may cost more, long term it should save a lot
Short term it'll cost a great deal - money we don't have that could be spent on more immediate benefits. If it's put to the public as '100 nurses, or a file format for an office suite nobody uses?', you can imagine how that'll play out (and even if it's spun, people will still see the bottom line). Long term...it will also cost a lot, as the rest of the world is not going to stop using MS Office just because you have. Munich didn't exactly start a snowball, despite spending ten years doing it. Macros, scripts and the like that can't migrate/ convert = more cost. It's not something that can be changed on a whim, and if there was actually any real tangible benefit, private corps would have been paying me to do it by now.
>As someone who fully expects to still be paying taxes in 10 years time, i welcome long term savings.
For *you*, yes - but right now, I'd argue that most won't be so keen when there's no immediate return or benefit, as well as the long term costs when the rest of the world carries on using MS Office. I'm also unsure of what the long term savings would be - all your incoming staff will have to be cross-trained. All 3rd-party apps have to be re-written or re-purchased. Support has to be purchased. Even if we ignore those costs, the 'savings' on the license fee for MS Office via a open source app are almost nothing - a combined CAL or license for MS stuff is still a big, big saving on the subsequent costs for going with multiple third-parties (as long as we're talking on-site - Office365 & hosted desktops still work out to be three times the cost of buying machines/ owning the software yourself for businesses of any real size).
>As for interoperability, they are the government... You either want their business (eg suppliers), or you have no choice (eg taxpayers)
Can you give an example of this happening with a UK council or government-run body previously? It's generally the other way round, I'm afraid - they adapt to what the standard is ('standard' being what everyone uses rather than what someone has arbitrarily decided). I've worked for hospitals, the police, councils and the goverment - if you want to go for a different format, the cost of conversion is on *you*. It's not that big a stretch to imagine it reaching the point where someone sues the government for forcing them to spend £££ for making an arbitrary decision to change formats.
Also, looking at the article - 500 comments were taken into consideration? That's not even a linux fan-club in terms of numbers.
We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise. -- Larry Wall