IT Employment

I'm MCP+I and MCSE and I also manage a hybrid network with MACs, Avids and PCs with Win9X, NTs, Win2Ks and Linux. I'm tracking Win2K since February 99. I tested Beta2, Beta3, and I’m currently using the Trial version for Server, Advanced Server and WS. They are powerful tools! There are many enhancements that, no doubt, will enhance the 24/7 shops running critical applications.
However, I do not agree with the way Microsoft has planned this plot to push Windows 2000 so aggressively. The product sells itself! No need to act as if all of us, MCSEs and NT professionals, had nothing to loose with the discontinuing of Windows NT products and certifications. I beleive that some of the new products could have ran on the old O.S. with some small changes.
The migration plan is of an slow one. First, a mix environment taking advantage of some benefits such as the enhancement of the RRAS service, IIS and Web. Then as it becomes necessary to upgrade software such as Exchange Server, a need for Active Direc

OOPs! We made a mistake. The related Gartner article will be posted at
http://www.techrepublic.com/article.jhtml?id=r00620000607ggp01.htm
on 3:00 AM Wednesday.

I manage one third of an organization that supports over 20,000 desktop computers. We have everything from Etch-a-Sketches to high-end workstations in our environment, but we are predominantly an Intel shop running Windows 95B and Windows NT 4.0SP4. Our internal tests of Win2K have found the features to be wonderful, but we have also found that stability is an issue. Specifically, the combination of Win2K, Office 2Kpro including Outlook 2K, and IE5 generates a large number of "Program Errors"; Win2K's euphemism for a General Protection Fault. Applying Critical Releases to Office has helped somewhat, but not completely eliminated the faults.

I agree with Gartner's position on this issue. Win2K (and associated versions of desktop applications) is not stable enough for the enterprise at this time. Our Windows 95 PCs do not have the horsepower to adequately run Win2K, and our managed NT environment does not exhibit a need for the Win2K replacement. For our organization, I believe that we will adopt

Samuel Cohen of "Cohen Consultants" Agrees with GartnerGroup Report about Migrating
to Windows-2000. Only Site's that are all ready Microsoft Dominated and are Using
Servers with Microsoft SQL Should Migrate
Soon. In Mixed Environments it is better
to check up before migrating.
W2000 is not the last word, in the next
few years there is going to be more changes.
High Speed Internet. E-commerce etc...

A company should determine if and when to migrate based on need and cost. W2K will sooner or later force every company to pay for past choices. The cacophony of hardware and software sooner or later must shake out and become standardized. W2K isa hard bullet to bite and when to do it must be planned and justified on paper. In this way its implementation effects will be minimized and optimized.

The pressure to migrate to Windows 2000 comes from four directions. Does: 1. W2K solve today's IT desktop problems; 2. Does W2K meet the future needs of the company; 3. The hype produced by Microsoft creates a true or false expectation for W2K; and, 4. Can the company afford the migration to W2K?
Again, the feasibility and justification must be served by evaluating requirements and comparing ROI according to meeting the company's IS&T strategy, goals and objectives in terms of costs.
The company that can do this in the most simplest terms will win and migrate successfully.