We are an OEM that intends to utilize Win XP Pro on our machinery and we have run into issues such as supporting Beta systems in the factory when the hard drive fails. In the past (when we used Win 95 or 98) we were able to reinstall a ghosted hard drive image onto the system and be back up and running in 20 minutes. I have experienced issues with XP such that a ghosted hard drive will not boot properly unless it is exactly the same model and make of the original.

I have also experienced issues on my laptop during travel when it got bumped around and possibly something loosened internally and the OS detected H/W changes. As a result, it would only boot in Safe Mode. It took many hours to re-install the OS and drivers to get it back to its original functionality.

Is it really worth upgrading when the level of support could potentially consume great numbers of engineering hours? For the OEM automation world, this OS seems to be taking a huge step in the wrong direction.

Sometimes it just comes down to cost. If all my workstations ship with X OEM OS licence why should I upgrade it in the lifetime of the PC? Unless you purchased the PC right at the end of the OS life cycle your better of waiting and replacing both the PC and OS at the same time.. Why pay for OS licencing twice in the computers life time?

Right on. XP Home is even more limited in some ways than Windows 95...it can't join a domain. XP Pro can of course but costs $100 more per license (or only about $40 when buying in bulk, but still considerable). XP Home's inability to join domains is killing Microsoft whether they admit it or not.

Home and business use are not necessarily incompatible.

I have a laptop with Win2000 Pro on it, and I liked it just fine. But I now have several computers with Win XP Pro, and I think it's a much better system. It has basically the same security, it is even more stable, and it has a more intuitive interface. I think businesses are making a mistake in not switching over.

I think they should have gone with windows 2000 with no home/pro versions....it is just too confusing and have a add-on called Advanced networking module for 60$ or so... and then NEVER come out with the xp naming... just update the years every 4 or 5. I get so irritated with the stupid activations.. I added memory/vid card/ 2nd network pci card and then BAM You must call big daddy to get permission to use the darn os.
Take that O'l Bill Gates... You are getting to be like apple computer in some regards.

I could care less whether Microsoft supports Windows 2000 or not. I have NEVER ever needed their help in my life! I figure things out for myself and solve problems myself.

As long as the software I currently have still works, why should I buy the latest version? My computer always will keep on doing what it is already doing. Why do I "HAVE TO" jump on the upgrade treadmill? (Just because poor poor Microsoft needs a cash injection every couple years?)

Not to mention that simply by switching to XP, I will have to upgrade all the OTHER software I use to newer versions because of XP SP2. In my case that will be over $12,000 per machine. SWITCHING WOULD BE VERY STUPID!!!!

And I especially don't want to use XP, since you can't use any new Microsoft products anonymously. In order to use Windows XP legally, Microsoft has to have a file on you with your name address phone number email address, social security number, bank account number, credit card number, blood type, urine sample.

Thanks I'll just stick to Windows 2000 FOREVER! Besides, the way Windows XP insultingly treats you like a retarded child with attention deficit disorder with all the childish animations and annoying wizards that have to 'hold your hand' through everything. I'd rather not have to look at all that unnecessary bloatware.

What is there about XP that is a "MUST HAVE" that Windows 2000 can't do???

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer can BITE ME!!! The only way I'll allow XP in my company is with a court order!

" could care less whether Microsoft supports Windows 2000 or not. I have NEVER ever needed their help in my life! I figure things out for myself and solve problems myself."

It's not necessarily about help, it's about hotfixes, and when you support thousands and thousands of workstations on half a dozen domains, trust me you cannot function without MS support (now MS will support Win2k hotfixes I believe through 2010 so nothing to worry about yet). As for the other childish rants about HAVING to use SP2, DELL USES XP SP1, AND WILL CONTINUE UNTIL LATE THIS YEAR. If Dell doesn't have to upgrade neither do you. No you don't HAVE to jump on the upgrade "treadmill", start living up to your name and quit allowing your hatred of Microsoft to cloud your judgement.

While 'we' argue about stupid topics like who runs what (forget having a life), our jobs are slowly moving overseas to cheaper, more enthusiastic people. Wake up! Quit looking behind you, look in front of you! XP, Linux, OSX, who cares. What you DO with it is what matters.

It is funny, everyone here seems to hold the exact same opinion, back it up with factual evidence, and support one another. So why is it that crap like the survey in the article get more publicity than the real circumstances and situations? It is a sad day when IT outlets online, such as this and /. turn into marketing and office politics. Here's to those of you that see these problems. I wish i had funding to do my own survey to show the real reasons behind the slow move to xp, rather than the scrape the surface crud that we get out of these "researchers".

I have a simple question for everyone. if it's not broken why why fix it?

I'm not saying that you should never upgrade i'm just saying that upgrades should serve a real purpose not update the eye candy.

I do a lot of work in embedded systems and other kinds of dedicated systems so my view is somewhat skewed on the subject.

How many applications that people really use on a daily basis use any of the new features?
How often is speed going to be more important than data integrity? especially when the difference is only half a second.

I was at a customers place when there server went down. It runs bluebird's superdos to a tcpip interface for a didcated bookkeeping system. The power supply died shutting the machine of without warning. They lost two in progress transactions but kept the the rest.

That is reliability, with that kind of data retention out of the box, who needs to upgrade?

Computers are a tool to do a job. Job first, eye candy second. If the job isn't done then how much does the eye candy matter?

the information and discussions I have read on this article, I have to say, is the best I have read. Thanks to all of you. No other comments, but to say thanks for keeping on topic and not bashing each other.

I think there are two main reasons why companies have been slow to take up XP.

The first is that even though XP has Home and Pro versions, XP has been heavily marketed towards home users and therefore companies just don't see it as a "serious" os for their company.

Secondly, when you do get across the "seriousness" of XP and that it isn't just for home users, companies just can't see the difference between XP and 2000. Plus of course XP has widely reported security vulnerabilities and it's already had two service packs in its lifetime.

Companies will also be running old systems which which will be integrated with and will require older versions of Windows to be used. Upgrading to XP will lose that compatibility and cost them lots and lots of money. That being said, companies are so lazy and given the opportunity, they'll still be using NT and 2000 in ten years time in 2015!

I think Microsoft made a huge mistake in releasing an os for both home use and company use. XP should've been released in one version only to home users and 2003 should have been the obvious successor to 2000. I think it was a huge marketing blunder and it'll be one repeated with Longhorn.

If Microsoft think uptake of XP for business is slow, they ain't seen nothing with Longhorn. It seems they haven't learnt anything.

Home vs. Professional... what's there to be confused about? Either you're a Home User or you're a Professional. Furthermore, what's there to make businesses see it as "Home only"? I think the distinctions between them are very clear. I also don't think it's a mistake to keep the same code-base and "dumb-down" their Home edition.

I don't even think it's a matter of security, because in its lifetime, NT4.0 had 6 service packs (not including re-releases of faulty Service Packs like SP2, SP4, and SP6), and Windows 2000 has had 4 service packs with a security rollup on the way. So the fact that Windows XP has only had 2 service packs in 3 years is actually very low, comparably speaking.

I agree with other posters here that say it's a matter of cost and/or business decision to only upgrade with new hardware, because what they have is "good enough."

1/ I didn't say there was confusion. I said companies just don't see it as a "serious" os. Please re-read what I wrote.

2/ I never said businesses see it as "Home only". Again please re-read what I wrote.

3/ The fact that you don't think it's a mistake to keep the same code-base and "dumb-down" their Home edition, is your opinion and not one I share. I would also disagree with you that two service packs in 3 years is low.

If MS continued to offer security and hardware/driver compatibility updates for W2K for the next 5+ years, then many businesses (and consumers) would probably stay with W2K. I use both W2K and XP. The reality is that with XP, apart from a few extra bells and whistles, better hardware support, security and a prettier looking GUI, W2K does most of what business and the home user wants.
It's all about marketing on MS's behalf. They have to sell new OS's to keep the revenue flowing. Otherwise the share holders and potentially thousands of employees will be worse off or out of a job.

The article is not correct in saying that Microsoft is phasing out support, but in fact they are simply moving it to Extended Support which means no new improvements in terms of features/functionality. It is important to know that there WILL CONTINUE to be Security fixes for the next several years for Windows 2000.

The only change to users is the fact that if they call Microsoft for support, it's going to cost them [more, in some cases] now.

It IS all about money. Anyone who has been in this business as long as I have (37 years) begins to appreciate how much of the buzz is real and how much is marketing.

Most software innovations today have to do with scale of speed and memory. Much of the REALLY new functionality is in the area of artificial intelligence-like analysis of data which was impossible until the speed/size of the HARDWARE reached down to the lower echelons of businesses.

Another important consideration is that software developers are reading these statistics too. How many of them can afford to blow off a large segment of the market by creating XP or Longhorn-only products?

I haven't even TALKED about the pricing. If Microsoft suddenly gets concerned that people aren't "buying" XP/Longhorn, maybe they should consider a new pricing paradigm. How about charging us for the really NEW functionality instead of for the reworked OLD stuff?

Regards....

Ever notice how all the "surveys" reported here slam Microsoft? Ed, are you implying that Microsoft should stop developing new operating systems and applications until those folks still stuck on Windows95 can catch up to the rest of us, or are you implying that Windows XP is worse than Microsoft's previous operating systems?

BetaNews is quickly losing all credibility as blog after blog after blog point out its errors for what appears to be controversy which will generate hits. Sad. Sad because your readers deserve better.

I'm not really seeing a slam on Microsoft. I see the figures that show after Microsoft announced that they will cease supporting older operating systems some companies have not made the transition to Windows XP because their current setup meets their demands at the rate they are comfortable with.

Like some of the other people have posted; some companies (such as hospitals) do not require XP Pro and office 2k3 with .NET support. I can almost see how something like that would benefit large companies because of the commercials, but for a hospital they don't need to upgrade because the old software could conflict with the new OS or even the new hardware.

I remember going to a certain hospital and noticing that for storing xrays they used an Apple computer. It wasn't a fast G4 (at the time) or even with OSX, it had at least OS8 running on either a 9600 or a G3 233. In my mind I see the possibilities of upgrades to probably make their work easier but because of the hardware and software demands it probably wouldn't have been compatible with a newer Mac. (Note: this is not for promoting Macs Vs PCs so let's not battle over that.)

I know some companies that still use terminals for their POS systems and some companies that might use NT just to meet the compatibility requirements to run a company specific program because newer OS like 2k were 32-bit and needed NT for 16-bit computing. We all know that 2K is better than NT but for that reason the company kept using NT.

Now the Editor in this post is saying that even if, and when, Longhorn ships in 07/08 companies still using "obsolete"/"inferrior" systems most-likely will not jump onboard because they are satisfied with their current setup that meets their needs and demands. I personally do not find this offensive but rather informative to know that even though Microsoft may deal an "ultimatum" some companies will still stand firm with their current system that delivers to their needs.

I hope you see from my understanding with an open mind. Use whatever Operating System works for you that can meet your requirements.

Hey everyone, Sears has a totally kick-butt new screwdriver for $20. You should go buy it. The other screwdrivers you have in your drawer now just aren't good enough.

----------------------------------------
So, LongHorn... Like the little ol' lady from Wendy's a while back... "Where's the beef?" Where are the features? Besides your OS being the default on a new machine, why would I bother?

The fact of the matter is that although XP Pro does support advanced networking, many software apps refuse to run on advanced systems. I work for a hospital chain in the Minneapolis area; we have critical care systems that REQUIRE Office 97, as well as a bevy of other server-based delivered thin client apps that just don't blend well with XP's infrastructure. These "knowledgable" studies take their data to point fingers, and are designed to pressure into conversion, not just for their own findings' sake, but for microsoft. 30,000 new XP licenses are a pretty penny, and with any conversion the costs outweigh the benefits. Also, they refuse to explore the fact that in many instances IT budgets are disgustingly low. For a hospital, we generate no actual income whatsoever. We allow the hospital to make money, but we don't, and that stigma weighs in heavily in budgeting for upgrades.
Frankly, I have grown tired of the pseudo-intellectual tech community spouting their rhetoric about corporations not keeping up with increasing technology. The fact of the matter is that studies like this never take the time to weigh: Cost, Benefit, Compatability or a bevy of other issues, and yet they feel as though their data can be used to point fingers at corporate IT. For shame.

I so have to agree with you, especially since microsoft is going to charge you another $400 for Virtual PC ontop of Windows XP Pro so you can run your old Office 97.

Edit: Ooh, nm, apparently they only charge $129/comp for Virtual PC. Go for it - it's a deal! Lol.

Have you considered installing Linux to get advanced networking and administration tools and Crossover Office to run Office 97?

"The large number of users still on the older operating system poses a problem for Microsoft, who intends to phase out Windows 2000 support at the end of the month."

No, no, no.

They're ending mainstream support, but extended support will continue until 2010. Slashdot keeps repeating this mistake, claiming MS is about to release the "last security patch for Windows 2000" and that they'll just be plain out of luck come the end of June ... but, like I said, it's just not true.

The main difference is that they won't accept design changes or new features during extended support (do they ever, really?) and, IIRC, that professional support will cost you.

Besides, it's not like Windows 2000 is going to suddenly stop working, even in 2010. And right now, I'd say it just makes more sense to wait for Longhorn.

Exactly!

Here at the company I work for, we are just now going to XP with AD2003. we still have lots of NT, 2000 and XP, we are buying all Dell GX280's with the phaseout of on site support staff, (and Dell taking everything over from the support side) everyone is gettin 2.8Ghz computers on their computers, and half the apps run off servers anyway, so you have no need for that much power, and forget longhorn. This business is going to ignore that, and possibly the one after, then take the 3rd as the next OS.

This works, it runs everything we have, it doesn't make business sense to move to longhorn or 64 bit processors.

"SLENTZ" - you hit it. Money - that's what it's really all about. - 13 years ago a 286 machine with 1 MB of RAM was able to manage and administrate 200 building machines (trucks, excavators, bulldozers and the like) and more than 1 thousand jobs of 80 people a year - - if you believe it or not. - - So, who REALLY needs to have a 5 Ghz Octium running on 500 GBytes of RAM. - Yes, "SLENTZ", you are my man!

Yeah, my 386DX-40 with 4MB of RAM so owns your P4 3.2 GHz with 1.0GB of RAM!!!!!

It does everything I want it to do! :) So who cares if the date says 1985 and the machine has to be rebooted every few hours for memory leaks.

Internet?! What's that?

Yeah! Seriously though, I made a game server as a test.(Nothing fancy - sends lines of Commands(Move, Engage Combat, etc.) and Text back and forth) that used up....like a whole 500kb of memory. Really awesome part though was that every person that logged in used up about 1kb extra for all their info, so that 4mb adds up to about 1500 people! (Subtracting 2mb for OS overhead)

Too bad that 25mhz processor is going to bottleneck that 128k modem. :P

I'm just asking: Do we really NEED computers, and do we really NEED an economy in such a technological slavery as today's economy? And if yes, what for? What has changed since the 286? Faster computers, smaller computers, dealing with loads of tasks, accordingly better suited for the task of getting rid of ever more laborors, better suited for supervising people, better suited for taking our world at risk. Not ONE SINGLE human problem has been SOLVED by computers, but calculating revenues and incomes only. Where will they stop, changing our world into a most unnatural place to dwell in? -- Quite obiously you don't want to think about it, but better go on mocking those who do. -- Well, go on, you'll see for yourself what kind of world you'll be living in, once you've thoght and done what they want you to think and do. -- God forbid that anyone take my P4 away from me. But . . .

Some companies just don't have the money to buy the upgrade. If a company has 250 computers running windows 95 and it is doing the main function (usualy web browser or custum app), then then why upgrade. To peform that type of and upgrade will cost alot of money (new hardware, software).

My feeling on the matter is that your business can only make such a claim if they're more committed to other aspects of their business than they are to technology. That may work for your business to operate that way... No one has ever said, "Upgrade or Die!!!!!"

But a business that makes a conscious decision to use outdated equipment must also be willing to accept the consequences of not being able to run the latest applications, or get decent, inexpensive support for what they do have.

Nothing wrong with not having the money to upgrade... nothing wrong at all... just don't expect miracles or new functionality. It's exactly the same as living with an old black and white TV... sure it may work for now, but don't expect color and don't expect someone to be willing to fix it when it breaks when you can buy the latest equipment for less money.

XP is not like a Color TV compared to the black and white of Win 2k, and Longhorn won't be either. Win 2k is a great os, does 99% of what anyone needs. It is more like the difference between an ordinary VCR and one with VCR plus. XP is easier for a beginner, but for the most part doesn't work significantly better.
There is no reason to be ashamed of using Win 2k, and for the majority no reason to upgrade to Longhorn.

Ya...I totally agree. I think it will be very difficult to kill Win 2k. After all what can MS do, stop providing support for it? There will still be unofficial Service Packs/Security fixes available like this one for Win 98....

http://fileforum.betanew...rvice_Pack/1083536650/1

;)

Moreover I dont think much Security issues come nowadays in Win 2k than XP obviously because more issues are fixed (after 4 service packs!).

I never implied there was shame in using the older version... I still believe Windows 2000 (all flavors) and Server 2003 to be the absolute best versions of Windows released to date.

I simply said that if you choose to rely on older technology, you can't expect people to support it [cheaply] forever.

I will add, however, that you can't make a judgement about the "majority" of users about what reasons there are to upgrade any better than I can. Users will upgrade for two reasons-- outdated hardware and desire for new/updated functionality. Users will not upgrade for two reasons-- cost and belief in "good enough". I, for one, do not believe in "good enough"... I believe in making good things better.

Actually... if you look at the security bulletins posted for June, you will see that about the same number of hotfixes released affect Windows 2000 as Windows XP and Server 2003. It's important to look at the "Affected Software" list before making such claims.

The fact still remains, there will be security fixes for at least another 5 years... just not service packs and not new functionality. There might be an additional Security Rollup Package at the end of Windows 2000's lifecycle, but that's about it.

I have to say this is one of the best discussions about MS that has been on here in a while. GJ to all.
I also have to say the slow down has a lot of different factors here.
1. The uncertainty of security in new OS's - Has got to be a big factor.
2. The compatibility of the old hardward / apps
3. Overall cost in new OS's harward and apps - Certainly the main concideration.

But over the years we have all learned, by doing our own tests, that MS products are really not stable until after at least 1 service pack has launched. Geez I think with 98 I had to reformat my drive at least 5 times due to OS problems.
So in the case with XP home or pro I waited until SP2 came out to buy my first copy and put it on one of my workstations. Had to replace the NIC but other then that it was painless. I'm also running SMB 2003 and replaced Server 2k. Also had to replace the NIC on that.
All the rest of the workstations are running 2k .
The only benifit I have seen so far is that the user of the XP machine can customize his desktop easier then he could with 2k. Other then that there are no compatibility issues or performance enhancements I have seen.

Getting back to the discussion at hand - I think MS did not get the stablility that was needed in SP1 and a lot of people waited for SP2, like me. Well guess what? Now I'm waiting for the next version to come out. Why change now? I wonder how many service packs it will take to get longhorn safe and how long they will take to deliver them.

I could get into my reasons for upgrading but nobody really cares anyway. I will just say that if you don't stay fairly up to date you can't play with the new toys and even at 47 years old I still like new toys damnit! :)

Oh yea, I'm not a Mac fan by any means but with Mac porting over to x86 we have yet another OS to play with here in the near future. My guess is that Mac will have a lot of the same problems dealing the the new architecture that everybody else has had. But it does add a new twist to the game and will be interesting to see how this marketing plan works out.