Apart from the inconsistency in the article: the headline talks about moving from XP to Vista but then they refer to windows 2000 support as the rationale....
These are the people who are meant to be running the country and the short term, muddy, cart before the horse thinking sadly typifies a great deal of policy making as well.
Not only that but we have a huge deficit and we are walking eyes wide open into the more costly of two scenarios: Vista support won't last as long as XPs because it has a much smaller user base, it requires more resources and so either machines are more expensive or people are less efficient but hey spending a little money up front to speed the PICT testing through would just be stupid wouldn't it?
Ok. So it's not massive in the scheme of things - but its so typical and irritating.
Apart from the inconsistency in the article: the headline talks about moving from XP to Vista but then they refer to windows 2000 support as the rationale....
These are the people who are meant to be running the country and the short term, muddy, cart before the horse thinking sadly typifies a great deal of policy making as well.
Not only that but we have a huge deficit and we are walking eyes wide open into the more costly of two scenarios: Vista support won't last as long as XPs because it has a much smaller user base, it requires more resources and so either machines are more expensive or people are less efficient but hey spending a little money up front to speed the PICT testing through would just be stupid wouldn't it?
Ok. So it's not massive in the scheme of things - but its so typical and irritating.
rant off...