One thing to consider is the complaints that make people not want to use the product. "There are too many features" is a common complaint that will always come in from your typical consumer. Now, it isn't that there are too many features, it is that there are too many options on the screen at once, and for those who are afraid of computers, there was an easy option, break things down so there are fewer features on the screen to choose from, without removing features. So, menu bar just shows too many things....ribbon bar helps, even though there isn't a big difference overall.
The big problem with the release of Windows 8 was Microsoft trying to push people away from the desktop and start menu at the same time, and that not giving enough flexibility for how many people work. Innovation, trying new things, seeing what works, and what does not....some people dislike the experimentation, but if you don't like a change, and switch back to the previous version, and then there is another big update that fixes what you hated about the change, that isn't a horrible thing.
DRM wouldn't be seen as necessary if the industry were growing, because new sales would be going strong. So, a weakening computer sector means that protecting the installations/sales of product will seem like a fair idea to most. When it comes to PC gaming, since many games are being linked to an online service, DRM itself is essentially going away, but is instead just linking things to some sort of online store where the program was purchased. So, go to Steam, Origin, GoG, or any of the other stores, you activate your game on the service, and then, you just need to log into the service to use it. Would you prefer that Windows be linked to an online service for use, or an activation system?
Loot boxes are more a function of evolution from the old days of computer games, break open barrels and get random items...in a multi-player game, gambling is what it comes down to, and if you pay more money, you get better odds. It's a bad idea, but is also why I dislike multi-player in modern games where those willing to spend more real money get advantages over those who don't want to spend real money for randomly generated items.
As far as a lot of stupid things, many companies keep trying to copy Apple, even when it makes no sense. Sure, super-thin laptops that thermal throttle are acceptable to Apple users, but because corporate managers/executives see that Apple users are willing to pay for those types of machines, they try it in their own models, and find out that yep, consumers really ARE that stupid.
Windows 10 is not "as a service", you pay for it, or upgrade from a previous version of Windows, and you get updates, but there is no subscription fee with it.
There is a basic concept, as time goes on, new features get added, and if you have a bottom of the barrel machine, that machine just won't be able to keep up. Intel Celeron, or AMD E series processors started as slow pieces of garbage when they were new, and time has made them seem even worse. Very few people still use Windows XP because new software versions will not work on anything older than Windows 7 at this point, and Vista was problematic at launch due to driver problems and potentially low system resources(those with only 1 or 2GB of RAM). As long as the new Windows versions don't cause problems with software compatibility, people will generally be happy with getting their updates for free.
If and when people are expected to pay annually for Windows, that is when many people will stop updating to the new version(s). Even with Microsoft Office, Microsoft has not stopped offering a "lifetime" version that doesn't require paying every year. If Microsoft did make it so only 365 were offered, many people and companies would immediately switch to something like LibreOffice.
On the flip side, the jump from 7 to 8, if done the way Windows 10 updates are, would have had Microsoft find out very quickly that the metro interface sucked and six months later would have had it removed until ready, rather than two years.
As far as Windows 10 slowing things down, most people who I have done the update for have felt that Windows 10 made their machines a lot more responsive. Of course, I don't do the update for those with less than 4GB of RAM, and preferably a quad-core processor. 10 vs. 7 has 10 not being all that bloated overall.
It is better to have smaller changes on a regular basis than to have big updates hit you every few years. You know why people had a problem switching from XP to Vista or 7, it is because there were a lot of changes between the two. If the changes are made, one or two every six to eight months, then the only people who feel like there is a big change to how you use a computer are those who have not used a computer with updates for several years.
It really comes down to IT vs. consumer systems. In a corporate environment, the administrators CAN prevent updates for extended times, but that does make the learning curve that much worse every time there is an update. If you had made the jump from XP to Vista, from Vista to 7, from 7 to 8, from 8 to 8.1, and then to 10(1507 or 1511), 1603, and on, every MAJOR update had some sort of learning curve, but if the updates had happened gradually, people wouldn't freak out.
Picture an alternate timeline, where in 2005 a Windows XP update changes the Start button to the circle with a big notice saying that "Your start button has changed", with just a cosmetic change to the button. Not many would have complained just from that. Change other things, new driver model, everything the same, but new drivers would come out and be needed for the new update, but nothing else. Not many would have cared, or even noticed along the way, because these changes would be fairly small, and those with issues would have either dealt with them, or they wouldn't have been able to update.
Look at Apple....would Apple be able to release a new UI or a significant UI change at this point, since 17 years with the same OS and how things are used has made it so Apple users may not be able to accept any change. On iOS, if installed apps did not have every app on a homescreen, and made it so you had to manually add new apps to a home screen, I don't think iPhone/iPad users would take that well, they would be screaming that they couldn't find their apps, even when there is a big, "all apps" button where everything would be found.
Go too long without change, and your ability to adapt to new situations will degrade. Frequent small updates are actually a good thing, as long as things don't break horribly, and for the most part, Microsoft has allowed rolling back to the previous version in a way you couldn't in the past. It's not perfect, but things HAVE improved.
This goes more to paying for a new OS, plus wanting to allow time for early problems to be resolved. Windows Vista itself required better hardware than many Windows XP based machines had in them, but there were also driver issues(many of which were caused by NVIDIA). Windows 8 had the new UI, so many with Windows 7 resisted the update to Windows 8.
With Windows 10, you have no price for upgrading from Windows 7 or 8 to go to 10 if you know how to do it, and getting new features and improvements is generally welcomed if there isn't a fee associated with it. Many people are also afraid of any learning curve, even when it is something trivial(going from the Windows XP Start Button to the Windows Vista/7 Start button had a LOT of consumers complaining that Start was gone, they couldn't handle a simple cosmetic change). Service packs were never a problem for people, and the feature updates of Windows 10 are nothing more than a new name for service packs.
You may have missed the fact that many components in ANY operating system are licensed from another company, and once that license expires, there is nothing the OS vendor can do, other than offer a new version of the OS with updated licenses for third party code, or one where that code is no longer used.
Nothing is keeping you from using old versions of the operating system btw, but they go into unsupported mode. Now, how long should third party companies continue to support unsupported versions of the operating system? If new versions of third party software no longer works on OLD versions of the operating system, are you going to insist that THEY continue to support the old OS versions?
The world changes over time as well, and expecting the world will stop changing just because you do doesn't make sense.
New hardware needs drivers to work with any operating system, and expecting hardware makers to put in development time for an old operating system makes no sense as well. So, old OS won't work on new computers. The software will continue to work, but don't expect updates or fixes to that old version.
The license for OS X does not allow the operating system to be run on non-Apple computers. As a result, the fee for the operating system is just included in the price of every Apple computer. They do stop allowing updates on older machines, and because Apple removes older versions of OS X from the Apple Store, people can't even update to the final version of the operating system if there is a newer OS available.
Now, as far as how updates are done, it is actually better to have updates get pushed, just so users will actually update their machines. Fixing known issues with an update is a GOOD idea, improving existing features or adding new features is a positive thing. Updated device drivers can also prevent problems in the future.
There are always people who ignore recall notices on their cars as well, they never bother responding, and then they complain when there is a major problem that responding to the recall notice would have prevented. The problem is that people will ALWAYS look for a reason to complain. Active hours, and telling users that there is an update, and they can either do the update now, or delay it. But, the longer you delay updates, the greater the risk will be that problems will hit their machine that a fix would have prevented.
People who buy a cheap piece of crap phone or tablet also have problems. It isn't Windows, it is the consumers who buy the cheapest machine they can find, and then complain when things break sooner than those who spend more money on products.
If you don't know how to use Windows System Restore, or to go back to previous version, or to go to c:\windows\system32\config\regback to verify if there is a good backup of the registry, then that just means you don't know all the tools at your disposal for fixing problems that might crop up. It is like all of those people with a car who keep bringing their cars to a family member to be fixed, even when that family member may not be competent to actually do things the right way when it comes to repairs.
I fault people for not having antivirus and then complaining when their machines run into problems, in the same way that the antivax crowd deserves it when a nasty disease suddenly gets everyone sick, even when they were warned continually about why vaccinations are a good idea.
Considering Microsoft does not charge OEMs the same price that consumers pay, the price of Windows isn't nearly as high as people think. For those buying custom built machines, spending $1000 or more for a desktop isn't a terrible thing. Many still have Windows 7 licenses as well, and those still can be used to install Windows 10 on new systems.
Those who even call continual updates, "Windows as a service" also fail to notice that there is no paid monthly/annual fee in place for Windows, so that also fails if you want to try to define Windows as a service. What we have is Windows 10 gets frequent updates, and Microsoft is doing what Apple does not, push for changes and improvements on a frequent basis.
Yes, Windows 10 has issues, but in the grand scheme of things, there have been a lot of positive improvements. One nice feature is to map the print screen key to the "snipping tool", which was added in 1809(Settings/Ease of access/keyboard section to turn it on or off). Many people are so focused on looking for reasons to hate this company or that, that they really can't see anything positive that comes out over the years. Apple deserves a lot more hate than Microsoft at this point, and the stagnation of their operating systems is obvious.
You assume that everyone has a high speed Internet connection that isn't metered and has a reasonable level of quality. Many locations are limited to low speed ADSL connections, and just because YOU may live in an area with a reasonable level of population density and service quality does not mean that everyone does.
Many in Europe don't realize just how big North America is, and how remote some towns are. In Europe, you can get to another COUNTRY in four hours or less. Here in the United States, it can take you 12 hours to get across one state.
What we also see is employers who discriminate against anyone who is over 40 years old, outside of the retail sector. Once you hit 40, unless you are a high level person, if you find yourself out of work, getting interviews for even junior level positions ends up with very few responses. Employers don't want to admit that they discriminate against applicants based on age because they would face lawsuits. Many companies also try to get rid of their older employees because they know that people with family responsibilities are more prone to family emergencies, or needing to go to a doctor, or other issues that come with age. In the USA, due to the way the health care system is broken, older employees may cost the employers more money due to providing health insurance.
Intel generally tries to force people to buy a new motherboard for every CPU upgrade, but AMD goes with sockets, and tends to allow people to upgrade the CPU on the same motherboard. Since Socket AM2, AMD has made it easy to use the same motherboard when possible. Yes, they do release a + version, generally for additional power delivery for newer chips(so AM2 to AM2+). If the type of memory changes, such as the shift from DDR2 to DDR3 memory, then a new socket was needed as well(though the Phenom 945 and 955 would work in both socket AM2+ as well as socket AM3 boards since those chips supported both DDR2 and DDR3 memory).
For Intel, new generation has almost always required a new chipset, even if the socket was the same.
While people can complain about how corporations may act behind the scenes, there is a huge problem right now with people who fall for what most of us might consider an obvious scam. Phishing attacks, phone calls "from Microsoft", and "Your computer is sending out viruses, let us come in and we will fix it for you" type things are becoming increasingly common. If Google is going to do a good thing and teach kids not to fall for these types of scams, is that REALLY a bad thing? We are not talking about classes talking about corporate ethics, we are talking about some pretty straight forward stuff that kids SHOULD be taught from an early age.
No, Tim Cook just wants everyone to be locked into an Apple controlled environment, and other big businesses being out there stops him from being the one in charge of what they see, don't see, what programs/apps they can use, etc.
Apple loves to control what its users do with its products, but the moment there is something like data that it can't control, they complain? I know that people love to hate various companies, from Microsoft to Facebook to Google, but NONE of them are as bad as Apple when it comes to trying to control the users.
The real key to Avatar in 3D is that it wasn't just items sticking out of the screen at you, but was more about depth in every scene. 3D still has the potential to enhance TV, but unless it is used properly, ends up being worthless. The move from mono to stereo in movies/TV, and you had people saying that stereo wasn't needed. The key is that it DID enhance the experience, and after a while, if you didn't have stereo sound, it felt like there was something missing. Surround sound isn't EVERYWHERE, but once you have a decent 5 or 7 channel surround sound setup, going back to watching without it just makes you feel like something is missing.
3D, if you make it so EVERY scene has depth, it doesn't have to be stupid effects, but just to enhance the feel of every scene, you would probably find it just feels better, even if not necessary at first. VR should effectively be like 3D, simply with a controller/feedback system included, and a VR headset without special support SHOULD provide a value to people if they are done properly, because the 3D would be done "better" than a monitor could.
Again, the problem is more that companies don't seem to understand the idea of, "enhance the experience, and don't make it difficult to make it work".
You go for only one platform, and you limit your options. Going PC-only because a console doesn't provide the controls needed to properly play the game, the PC can play games, and with higher end video cards, at higher graphics/detail settings than a console.
It depends on if the card is really better than the $600 and below cards. The problem is when performance is stagnant, or you don't get anything extra for the higher price tag.
When 3D accelerators first came out, you had a clear improvement in the quality of the visuals as well as an improvement in framerates. In addition to that, there were more than a handful of games that were actually good. The move to VR has a lot of amazing chances, you look at a game like Rise of the Tomb Raider, and I mean the full game, not just some DLC, and that would have been an amazing experience if it were fully VR. Hell, in 4k, Rise of the Tomb Raider was stunning on a 27+ inch display. So, VR...one DLC that could almost be seen as a tech demo. What other content out there gives you that feeling of amazing visuals that VR would also enhance? Games themselves, since most are already 3D, would probably benefit a lot from going VR, but the games are NOT being released with VR in mind, and that is why it is not taking off. The game developers as a whole, need to either have a good API, or for the VR headsets to just accept DirectX 12 and make it a better way to display/render the content.
If VR headsets were actually treated like a simple monitor, then every game should just work without a lot of special coding being needed, and people would want to use them to enhance the experience. Instead, what do you see, special controllers, and trying to treat them as something "special". News flash, keep it simple, and people might just go for it. Add support for extras then, like vibration, or whatever, and again, it makes it simple for game developers to adopt. The more work you need the game developers to do to support YOUR special VR device, the less likely they will do it.
For databases that large, wouldn't something like AMD Threadripper or an Intel Xeon make more sense? Those would offer more memory channels to better access the amount of RAM you are looking to put in there.
You mean like the stock market as a whole, while the overall economy has been stagnant? Growth of the stock market while the economy remains in the toilet should result in a crash at some point.
The only thing that OpenOffice has going for it is printing envelopes works, while it is broken in LibreOffice(it doesn't set the page size correctly). So, going back to OpenOffice for those who insist on printing envelopes is an option for those people.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing to consider is the complaints that make people not want to use the product. "There are too many features" is a common complaint that will always come in from your typical consumer. Now, it isn't that there are too many features, it is that there are too many options on the screen at once, and for those who are afraid of computers, there was an easy option, break things down so there are fewer features on the screen to choose from, without removing features. So, menu bar just shows too many things....ribbon bar helps, even though there isn't a big difference overall.
The big problem with the release of Windows 8 was Microsoft trying to push people away from the desktop and start menu at the same time, and that not giving enough flexibility for how many people work. Innovation, trying new things, seeing what works, and what does not....some people dislike the experimentation, but if you don't like a change, and switch back to the previous version, and then there is another big update that fixes what you hated about the change, that isn't a horrible thing.
DRM wouldn't be seen as necessary if the industry were growing, because new sales would be going strong. So, a weakening computer sector means that protecting the installations/sales of product will seem like a fair idea to most. When it comes to PC gaming, since many games are being linked to an online service, DRM itself is essentially going away, but is instead just linking things to some sort of online store where the program was purchased. So, go to Steam, Origin, GoG, or any of the other stores, you activate your game on the service, and then, you just need to log into the service to use it. Would you prefer that Windows be linked to an online service for use, or an activation system?
Loot boxes are more a function of evolution from the old days of computer games, break open barrels and get random items...in a multi-player game, gambling is what it comes down to, and if you pay more money, you get better odds. It's a bad idea, but is also why I dislike multi-player in modern games where those willing to spend more real money get advantages over those who don't want to spend real money for randomly generated items.
As far as a lot of stupid things, many companies keep trying to copy Apple, even when it makes no sense. Sure, super-thin laptops that thermal throttle are acceptable to Apple users, but because corporate managers/executives see that Apple users are willing to pay for those types of machines, they try it in their own models, and find out that yep, consumers really ARE that stupid.
Windows 10 is not "as a service", you pay for it, or upgrade from a previous version of Windows, and you get updates, but there is no subscription fee with it.
There is a basic concept, as time goes on, new features get added, and if you have a bottom of the barrel machine, that machine just won't be able to keep up. Intel Celeron, or AMD E series processors started as slow pieces of garbage when they were new, and time has made them seem even worse. Very few people still use Windows XP because new software versions will not work on anything older than Windows 7 at this point, and Vista was problematic at launch due to driver problems and potentially low system resources(those with only 1 or 2GB of RAM). As long as the new Windows versions don't cause problems with software compatibility, people will generally be happy with getting their updates for free.
If and when people are expected to pay annually for Windows, that is when many people will stop updating to the new version(s). Even with Microsoft Office, Microsoft has not stopped offering a "lifetime" version that doesn't require paying every year. If Microsoft did make it so only 365 were offered, many people and companies would immediately switch to something like LibreOffice.
On the flip side, the jump from 7 to 8, if done the way Windows 10 updates are, would have had Microsoft find out very quickly that the metro interface sucked and six months later would have had it removed until ready, rather than two years.
As far as Windows 10 slowing things down, most people who I have done the update for have felt that Windows 10 made their machines a lot more responsive. Of course, I don't do the update for those with less than 4GB of RAM, and preferably a quad-core processor. 10 vs. 7 has 10 not being all that bloated overall.
It is better to have smaller changes on a regular basis than to have big updates hit you every few years. You know why people had a problem switching from XP to Vista or 7, it is because there were a lot of changes between the two. If the changes are made, one or two every six to eight months, then the only people who feel like there is a big change to how you use a computer are those who have not used a computer with updates for several years.
It really comes down to IT vs. consumer systems. In a corporate environment, the administrators CAN prevent updates for extended times, but that does make the learning curve that much worse every time there is an update. If you had made the jump from XP to Vista, from Vista to 7, from 7 to 8, from 8 to 8.1, and then to 10(1507 or 1511), 1603, and on, every MAJOR update had some sort of learning curve, but if the updates had happened gradually, people wouldn't freak out.
Picture an alternate timeline, where in 2005 a Windows XP update changes the Start button to the circle with a big notice saying that "Your start button has changed", with just a cosmetic change to the button. Not many would have complained just from that. Change other things, new driver model, everything the same, but new drivers would come out and be needed for the new update, but nothing else. Not many would have cared, or even noticed along the way, because these changes would be fairly small, and those with issues would have either dealt with them, or they wouldn't have been able to update.
Look at Apple....would Apple be able to release a new UI or a significant UI change at this point, since 17 years with the same OS and how things are used has made it so Apple users may not be able to accept any change. On iOS, if installed apps did not have every app on a homescreen, and made it so you had to manually add new apps to a home screen, I don't think iPhone/iPad users would take that well, they would be screaming that they couldn't find their apps, even when there is a big, "all apps" button where everything would be found.
Go too long without change, and your ability to adapt to new situations will degrade. Frequent small updates are actually a good thing, as long as things don't break horribly, and for the most part, Microsoft has allowed rolling back to the previous version in a way you couldn't in the past. It's not perfect, but things HAVE improved.
This goes more to paying for a new OS, plus wanting to allow time for early problems to be resolved. Windows Vista itself required better hardware than many Windows XP based machines had in them, but there were also driver issues(many of which were caused by NVIDIA). Windows 8 had the new UI, so many with Windows 7 resisted the update to Windows 8.
With Windows 10, you have no price for upgrading from Windows 7 or 8 to go to 10 if you know how to do it, and getting new features and improvements is generally welcomed if there isn't a fee associated with it. Many people are also afraid of any learning curve, even when it is something trivial(going from the Windows XP Start Button to the Windows Vista/7 Start button had a LOT of consumers complaining that Start was gone, they couldn't handle a simple cosmetic change). Service packs were never a problem for people, and the feature updates of Windows 10 are nothing more than a new name for service packs.
You may have missed the fact that many components in ANY operating system are licensed from another company, and once that license expires, there is nothing the OS vendor can do, other than offer a new version of the OS with updated licenses for third party code, or one where that code is no longer used.
Nothing is keeping you from using old versions of the operating system btw, but they go into unsupported mode. Now, how long should third party companies continue to support unsupported versions of the operating system? If new versions of third party software no longer works on OLD versions of the operating system, are you going to insist that THEY continue to support the old OS versions?
The world changes over time as well, and expecting the world will stop changing just because you do doesn't make sense.
New hardware needs drivers to work with any operating system, and expecting hardware makers to put in development time for an old operating system makes no sense as well. So, old OS won't work on new computers. The software will continue to work, but don't expect updates or fixes to that old version.
The license for OS X does not allow the operating system to be run on non-Apple computers. As a result, the fee for the operating system is just included in the price of every Apple computer. They do stop allowing updates on older machines, and because Apple removes older versions of OS X from the Apple Store, people can't even update to the final version of the operating system if there is a newer OS available.
Now, as far as how updates are done, it is actually better to have updates get pushed, just so users will actually update their machines. Fixing known issues with an update is a GOOD idea, improving existing features or adding new features is a positive thing. Updated device drivers can also prevent problems in the future.
There are always people who ignore recall notices on their cars as well, they never bother responding, and then they complain when there is a major problem that responding to the recall notice would have prevented. The problem is that people will ALWAYS look for a reason to complain. Active hours, and telling users that there is an update, and they can either do the update now, or delay it. But, the longer you delay updates, the greater the risk will be that problems will hit their machine that a fix would have prevented.
People who buy a cheap piece of crap phone or tablet also have problems. It isn't Windows, it is the consumers who buy the cheapest machine they can find, and then complain when things break sooner than those who spend more money on products.
If you don't know how to use Windows System Restore, or to go back to previous version, or to go to c:\windows\system32\config\regback to verify if there is a good backup of the registry, then that just means you don't know all the tools at your disposal for fixing problems that might crop up. It is like all of those people with a car who keep bringing their cars to a family member to be fixed, even when that family member may not be competent to actually do things the right way when it comes to repairs.
I fault people for not having antivirus and then complaining when their machines run into problems, in the same way that the antivax crowd deserves it when a nasty disease suddenly gets everyone sick, even when they were warned continually about why vaccinations are a good idea.
Considering Microsoft does not charge OEMs the same price that consumers pay, the price of Windows isn't nearly as high as people think. For those buying custom built machines, spending $1000 or more for a desktop isn't a terrible thing. Many still have Windows 7 licenses as well, and those still can be used to install Windows 10 on new systems.
Those who even call continual updates, "Windows as a service" also fail to notice that there is no paid monthly/annual fee in place for Windows, so that also fails if you want to try to define Windows as a service. What we have is Windows 10 gets frequent updates, and Microsoft is doing what Apple does not, push for changes and improvements on a frequent basis.
Yes, Windows 10 has issues, but in the grand scheme of things, there have been a lot of positive improvements. One nice feature is to map the print screen key to the "snipping tool", which was added in 1809(Settings/Ease of access/keyboard section to turn it on or off). Many people are so focused on looking for reasons to hate this company or that, that they really can't see anything positive that comes out over the years. Apple deserves a lot more hate than Microsoft at this point, and the stagnation of their operating systems is obvious.
No, it would just require that political calls are done by people and not some automated system with a prerecorded message.
You assume that everyone has a high speed Internet connection that isn't metered and has a reasonable level of quality. Many locations are limited to low speed ADSL connections, and just because YOU may live in an area with a reasonable level of population density and service quality does not mean that everyone does.
Many in Europe don't realize just how big North America is, and how remote some towns are. In Europe, you can get to another COUNTRY in four hours or less. Here in the United States, it can take you 12 hours to get across one state.
That has been going on since the 1990s. Unless you are a manager, being older is a curse when it comes to the job market.
What we also see is employers who discriminate against anyone who is over 40 years old, outside of the retail sector. Once you hit 40, unless you are a high level person, if you find yourself out of work, getting interviews for even junior level positions ends up with very few responses. Employers don't want to admit that they discriminate against applicants based on age because they would face lawsuits. Many companies also try to get rid of their older employees because they know that people with family responsibilities are more prone to family emergencies, or needing to go to a doctor, or other issues that come with age. In the USA, due to the way the health care system is broken, older employees may cost the employers more money due to providing health insurance.
Actually, it was October of 2017 when the 2200U, 2500U, and 2700U were released. The Pro versions are the ones that came out in May.
Intel generally tries to force people to buy a new motherboard for every CPU upgrade, but AMD goes with sockets, and tends to allow people to upgrade the CPU on the same motherboard. Since Socket AM2, AMD has made it easy to use the same motherboard when possible. Yes, they do release a + version, generally for additional power delivery for newer chips(so AM2 to AM2+). If the type of memory changes, such as the shift from DDR2 to DDR3 memory, then a new socket was needed as well(though the Phenom 945 and 955 would work in both socket AM2+ as well as socket AM3 boards since those chips supported both DDR2 and DDR3 memory).
For Intel, new generation has almost always required a new chipset, even if the socket was the same.
While people can complain about how corporations may act behind the scenes, there is a huge problem right now with people who fall for what most of us might consider an obvious scam. Phishing attacks, phone calls "from Microsoft", and "Your computer is sending out viruses, let us come in and we will fix it for you" type things are becoming increasingly common. If Google is going to do a good thing and teach kids not to fall for these types of scams, is that REALLY a bad thing? We are not talking about classes talking about corporate ethics, we are talking about some pretty straight forward stuff that kids SHOULD be taught from an early age.
No, Tim Cook just wants everyone to be locked into an Apple controlled environment, and other big businesses being out there stops him from being the one in charge of what they see, don't see, what programs/apps they can use, etc.
Apple loves to control what its users do with its products, but the moment there is something like data that it can't control, they complain? I know that people love to hate various companies, from Microsoft to Facebook to Google, but NONE of them are as bad as Apple when it comes to trying to control the users.
The real key to Avatar in 3D is that it wasn't just items sticking out of the screen at you, but was more about depth in every scene. 3D still has the potential to enhance TV, but unless it is used properly, ends up being worthless. The move from mono to stereo in movies/TV, and you had people saying that stereo wasn't needed. The key is that it DID enhance the experience, and after a while, if you didn't have stereo sound, it felt like there was something missing. Surround sound isn't EVERYWHERE, but once you have a decent 5 or 7 channel surround sound setup, going back to watching without it just makes you feel like something is missing.
3D, if you make it so EVERY scene has depth, it doesn't have to be stupid effects, but just to enhance the feel of every scene, you would probably find it just feels better, even if not necessary at first. VR should effectively be like 3D, simply with a controller/feedback system included, and a VR headset without special support SHOULD provide a value to people if they are done properly, because the 3D would be done "better" than a monitor could.
Again, the problem is more that companies don't seem to understand the idea of, "enhance the experience, and don't make it difficult to make it work".
You go for only one platform, and you limit your options. Going PC-only because a console doesn't provide the controls needed to properly play the game, the PC can play games, and with higher end video cards, at higher graphics/detail settings than a console.
It depends on if the card is really better than the $600 and below cards. The problem is when performance is stagnant, or you don't get anything extra for the higher price tag.
When 3D accelerators first came out, you had a clear improvement in the quality of the visuals as well as an improvement in framerates. In addition to that, there were more than a handful of games that were actually good. The move to VR has a lot of amazing chances, you look at a game like Rise of the Tomb Raider, and I mean the full game, not just some DLC, and that would have been an amazing experience if it were fully VR. Hell, in 4k, Rise of the Tomb Raider was stunning on a 27+ inch display. So, VR...one DLC that could almost be seen as a tech demo. What other content out there gives you that feeling of amazing visuals that VR would also enhance? Games themselves, since most are already 3D, would probably benefit a lot from going VR, but the games are NOT being released with VR in mind, and that is why it is not taking off. The game developers as a whole, need to either have a good API, or for the VR headsets to just accept DirectX 12 and make it a better way to display/render the content.
If VR headsets were actually treated like a simple monitor, then every game should just work without a lot of special coding being needed, and people would want to use them to enhance the experience. Instead, what do you see, special controllers, and trying to treat them as something "special". News flash, keep it simple, and people might just go for it. Add support for extras then, like vibration, or whatever, and again, it makes it simple for game developers to adopt. The more work you need the game developers to do to support YOUR special VR device, the less likely they will do it.
For databases that large, wouldn't something like AMD Threadripper or an Intel Xeon make more sense? Those would offer more memory channels to better access the amount of RAM you are looking to put in there.
You mean like the stock market as a whole, while the overall economy has been stagnant? Growth of the stock market while the economy remains in the toilet should result in a crash at some point.
The only thing that OpenOffice has going for it is printing envelopes works, while it is broken in LibreOffice(it doesn't set the page size correctly). So, going back to OpenOffice for those who insist on printing envelopes is an option for those people.