IT Debate: Is Windows XP worth it?

Frankly, I think it's time for a grassroots migration to the Linux platform and leave Bill Gates choking on our dust!

Microsoft are well aware of the hesitancy in industry to move from a fully functional, and stable environment, to a new and untested configuration.

It is for this reason that they will force upgrades by stopping support for certain products, expiring certain certifications (MCSE), and creating incompatibilities between products, in an attempt to get these upgrades to occur.

Microsoft have dug their own graves in this respect though. People have been left with a bad taste in their mouths because of problems with previous OS's, and service packs, and people would rather stick with what they know works. IT support personnel also won't be able to justify the upgrades from a business perspective. What benefits does XP have over 2000 orWin 98? Think about that realistically though! If you were upper management, would you care if a newer version of Windows was easier to install, or administer? I don't think so...

Seems more of a S&M ploy with MS hyping .NET and Win XP.
Users who moved from win 3.11 to 95 know what all they had to go through and what they got in return. The move from 95 to 2000 for users wasn't very exciting - the same its going to be for XP.

Our organization is planning on waiting atleast 18 months before we decide to upgrade from Win98 to whatever is available for the desktop.

We will stay with NT on the servers until then also.

I agree with those who say that there is no real need to upgrade from the modern versions of network software to XP. Those people that still use Netware 5.x or Windows 2000 will not see any merits... Netware is still an excellent file sharing network OS and Windows 2000 together with Office 2000 has all the features that the current network OS may possibly need. It is cheaper to buy 3rd party software to add the missing features to Windows 2000 and Netware.

Besides, I am not sure WHAT this new version of OS is... First, Windows 2000 is the OS that is addressing the business needs rather well. Second, I am at a loss at a total marketing failure of Microsoft: I was well informed about Windows 2000 features a long time before it was actually released, we had an opportunity to play with trial versions and so on, but XP... I do not know any real difference between XP and 2000 except that XP can be "skinnable". All of that makes me suspect that XP is like Windows ME: the attempt to improve Windows 98 SE (a very decent product) was a total failure. ME is hard to run, service, it is not legacy hardware friendly and so on... Who else thinks that XP will follow the tracks of ME but for Windows 2000?

I've been using Windows XP Professional Beta 2 since release and I'm very impressed so far. Security and backup/recovery are very important to me. Both are enhanced in XP with built-in firewall and system restore. Windows XP will also available in a64 bit version.

Why? If in business terms you can't answer that question, if the cost isn't justified, then there is no reason to spend business resources, time and energy for XP. The business of business is making money, which doesn't have to mean using all of the latest and greatest from Microsoft. Microsoft should worry less about their competitors and more about the effect of their deployment strategies on their customers.

Due to some incompatibilities between Win2k and WinNT, we are slow to deploy Win2k Pro. We have many Win95 laptops in use with marginal or no hardware support regarding WinNT or Win2k! It will be the next fiscal year before 'most' PCs are upgradedto Win2k... and the following fiscal year before any appearance of WIn2k Server (although we are experimenting with this OS system). We plan to use Linux in some customer (and internal) web service applications. State money must be bugeted. The only way we can play the current market game of bi-annual 'buggy releases' followed by a 'new versions' at a much higher cost (and this game is played by many companies--nor just MS!) is to pass the costs on to the consumer--just as the private sectordoes! This folks, translates into raising taxes! :-P

Hello,

Our company will probably stick with 2000 for the most part, but us techs in the "pit" will get XP because we want it :)

The things I find most compelling about XP are the built-in remote admin, and the 64bit version, and the driver roll-back. For those of you who support many 2000 Pro users, you know how valuable this rollback would be. The rest of the OS seems like hype.

I will run it at home because I like being on the newest OS, but our office is a different matter. Money is the most important thing, and we sure aren't going to go to XP this soon after 2000 Pro, unless MS intends to sell it for about $20 as an upgrade.

I like many of the MS products, but they are obviosly on crack with this one.

I believe I read elsewhere that the XP server version will have enhancements and fixes for Active Directory, so we will probably deploy the server version for sure. (if this is the case). Ever since we deployed AD, my job as an admin has become much less nutty. Set up a test network and put AD on it.

We also picked up a couple copies of Red Hat Linux for us to start learning. I suggest everyone else do the same. I'm not a Linux fan at all, but I know I should learn it. It's free! (almost)

In my view the end-user is the deciding factor. Most companies are quite happy running a windows 95/98 environment from the user perspective and do not require any changes in OS functionality.

Companies running with the current OS's will have already implemented strategies and products for remote monitoring and deployment and these features are therefore not an immediate requirement.

The main idea behind any IT organisation should be to stabilise the user environment in an attempt to minimise IT support effort whilst maximising user productivity. Changes are costly in both areas as all users will require some additional training and so will the support staff.

Standardisation and normalisation of products are also key in asset management. Do not go changing a working layout for mere technical reasons. You'll find that most companies do not require a change of OS as this hardly affects their capability to run regular office tasks and communicate with the "outside world". A new release of Office does change this however and it is at this time that most companies will start considering migrating to a new environment.

If changes are limited in the end-users environment to one major overhaul every 2-3 years, notwithstandingregular automated and tested service and maintenance, you'll find that all the things run a lot smoother than changing it every time MS gets their Marketing department started.

enough is enough. MS should deliver a sound product that works. I am migrating completely to linux and pushing as many of my clients that way as possible. The reliability and ease of use factor is reason enough, let alone the cost factor. MS has forgotten some key rules: cost effectiveness, and K.I.S.S. As well as how to make something work reliably.

Well for those orgs that have a reason for strong security and are looking to or have deployed active directory, the Windows 2000 version have as a big security flaw.

If two administrators make changes to the same list, one set of changes is kicked out during replication as part of conflict resolution. This was a feature.

If a user x were deleted from a group by one admin, they could be returned to the group and retain group access rights and permissions due to the work of another administrator.

While that might not sound like a big deal to some smaller shops or larger ones that dont have tight security issues, there are many large companies, like defense contractors etc, that this could pose a big issue.

Originaly Microsoft said they were going to release a fix in service pack two, but rumor has it that after finding what it would take to do, they have fixed it with XP. If your already deployed, you HAVE to upgrade to XP on all your domain controlers to address this issue. Nothing like forcing you to upgrade to fix a major security hole in your product. Microsoft has kept very quite on this issue up to now but its been something many of us asked a long time ago and got the, hey I dont know, but we will get back with you.

After doing a search on Yahoo for Active Directory Bug, I came up with a couple of refferences:

( Oh and I love this quote: "Until the flaw is fixed, Microsoft says the workaround involves procedural policies for administering the directory." We all have to call each other, all 600 people who might administrate some portion of the tree to make sure no one else is going to do it? Perhaps, If your last name ends in a g you can update your... Enough.

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/02/27/010227hnactivedir.xml?p=br&s=5

So as you can see, many are going to be forced to wait for XP or at least have to upgrade again when XP hits the street.

Pet

I belive that MS is in for some major problems, the products (Office and Win XX) have all the functionality that the common user could need or use.

We have attempting to cost justify the next release of Office - not one legitimate busniess requirement could be found. That functionality was already there. The problem with the OS is even twice as difficult. A "Personel Firewall" - OK - Get the freeone from the internet - Don't forget you have an office "Firewall" alreay running - Encryption -128 isn't good enough -

The move MS is doing is 95% Hype - 5% BS. The only way I see this being sold is by the removal of support from products for any platform other than - XP. All that will do is drive the market to other vendors - the tighteryou try to hold on to something - the more that slips through your fingers....

I also feel that this is a move for MS to set up subscription licensing for all their products. You will be sending MS a check every month just like your Gas and Electric bills.. only for software. They are just attempting to HYPE this as a productivity increase - and not a PROFIT maker for MS.

MS has two major task instore - 1) restoring the trust of the market and 2) how to keep revenues flowing?

XP = eXtra Profits

I belive if IBM is smart - they would start pouring millions into the OS/2-Warp product because I don't see Linux as being ready for the common user (business or home).

This question was closed by the author