General discussion

Locked

Would you upgrade to XP?

By rbentz ·
I work in a company with over 600 computers, a mixture of Windows and MAC. Two years ago we made a huge investment in time and money to migrate most users to Windows 2000. Those with Macintosh we upgraded to latest OS. Now there is a push from several users to migrate everyone to XP, both Office Suite and OS. Some have even convinced the CEO this is the way to go. I'm having trouble convincing him otherwise. Everything I've seen about XP doesn't convince me its better or even much of an improvement over 2000. I've been using it on my laptop and it works but it does take some time to figure out where everything is. Training will also be an area I'll be responsible for.

I would be thankful for any feedback regarding this potentialtrain wreck.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

7 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

No!

by tbragsda In reply to Would you upgrade to XP?

You should be able to convince the CEO. If he/she would prefer to listen to the simple argument "We want it", over the more convinceing arguments you could make, More money etc, training, rollout costs etc. then somthing wrong.

Collapse -

Cost Benefit Analysis

by TheChas In reply to Would you upgrade to XP?

You need to talk to the CEO in what should be his/her native language MONEY!

List the costs: license fees, system upgrades, installation time, training

List the benefits: Be generous and realistic.
Don't leave holes in the benifits that the staffers who want XP can use to torpedo you.

Finally, consider office politics. Identify who has the CEOs ear on making the upgrade, and find out why they really want the upgrade.
Don't make any enemies that will come back to haunt you later.That said, I would consider the Office XP upgrade, but not the OS upgrade.

With the extra features and integration, Office XP may have a payback.

Other than puchasing new PCs with XP Pro, I can't think of a good cost benefit to upgrading the entire organazation to XP Pro.

You might want to propose a trial program for XP Pro. Install XP Pro on the most vocal XP proponents PCs, and allow them to prove that XP Pro would have a payback.

Chas

Collapse -

by djent In reply to Would you upgrade to XP?

Is there compelling feature you need in XP? Or has your CEO been watching to many XP commercials and thinks he can fly? Migrating 600 PCs from W2k to XP would frivolous, a waste of money and masochistic. Having said that if the CEO wants it and you get paid time and a half for over time go for it. Just kiss your spouse goodby and tell her you've been called up and are going off to war.

Collapse -

Never

by syadm In reply to Would you upgrade to XP?

I would never upgrade 600 machines to XP.
The inplementation and rollout doesnt scare me but the daily use does.
I would wait until XP has a stable line of sevice packs with fixes for most of the holes or maybe even pass XP completely and go for the next OS version when that comes. If i were forced to use XP then i would do so on new machines but upgrade... no way! It could so easily be a complete nightmare with hardware compability trouble, old apps not working with new OS, new mail/network apps not working with old serverapps, drivers e.t.c.
Also, we never wanted to sign up as betatesters for Microsoft so why should we pay to risk our platform for them now?
Regards / Tom

Collapse -

Never?

by Hands0n In reply to Never

The problem with waiting for the "next OS" is that when it comes you should follow your own advice and .... wait for the next OS - but then you'll never upgrade.

My firm will face (having skipped wholesale W2K upgrades) "upgrading" 10,500+ desktops (in one building in the UK alone) during the next 18 months. The preparation and planning has begun. It's not an inevitability, just consider where you are right now - in our case WNT4. Had it been W2K I suspect our upgrade path would skip XP and possible the OS after that.

If you don't need specific features of XP and are on a currently supported M$ OS then stay where you are, would seem to be the best advice. You may need, in time, to selectively upgrade to XP or it's successor. But you can at least do that with good reason that you can cite to your mamagement.

Good luck.

Collapse -

They only understand money (part 1)

by darthjohn74 In reply to Would you upgrade to XP?

First illustrate that XP is really just a remarketed version of 2k, directed primarily at the home user and not the enterprise. I?ve listened to the MS-Nazi?s preach up and down that the code base is better, completely rewritten, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Though, what they fail to mention is a compelling reason to switch to XP if you?ve already upgraded to 2k. Probably the best thing I?ve found in XP over 2k is that it is, so far, the best video game platform out there. =)

Actually, there is merit to putting XP on laptops or systems outside your LAN, but if you?ve already implemented a VPN and remote control then XP really has nothing for you.

So how much time was spent preparing, testing, and rolling out 2k? Time=money. How much money was spent licensing 2k to all your users? How much hardware was purchased to meet the requirements of 2k, and how much time was spent installing and troubleshooting it once installed? Again, time=money. Once all was said and done, howmuch time and money was spent training the users and troubleshooting all the unexpected things users tend to do to computers, plus finding out what you didn?t in your testing phase (i.e. strange apps that just didn?t work the same, etc.) Also, if you?re upgrading again, to XP, you will need to verify that all the apps and utilities you are using with 2k (that you?ve already put money down to license, no doubt) will work in XP; such as Ghost 7.0 and Norton Utilities 2001. There?s more time andmoney.

Collapse -

They only understand money (part 2)

by darthjohn74 In reply to Would you upgrade to XP?

One of the most irritating things about XP is the new look. Ironically, if you go into performance settings, by default it is set to ?look cool? or something of that sort. You will notice that all the GUI enhancements are selected. If you select ?best performance? all of the GUI enhancements are removed! Now you?ve got a GUI that looks just like 2k, which is nice but you have to go in and do that after setup and not during. Not a big deal if you?re making images. If you?re in a LAN you need to make sure that the firewall settings don?t get messed with, good luck disabling that annoying MSN chat client, and hope to God that you don?t have anyone using Outlook Express with multiple email accounts (after XP SP1, as they will not be ableto switch profiles without constantly opening and closing the app).

Here?s the reality of it: 2k is going to get you through at least another 3 years (how long did you run NT4 before making that begrudgingly painful move to 2k?). By that time ?Longhorn? will be released and will be such a big change that you will need to upgrade anyway. MS has also promised us, like that means anything, that this new Windows release will be their flagship for years to come. Meaning, they will add content to it rather then releasing a whole new OS. My suggestion is save your money, keep what you?ve got, and wait for Longhorn. If your CEO doesn?t understand that you?re trying to save money and time (that could be spend on improving the infrastructure) then find a new job because you?re working in an environment where your expert opinion counts for nothing in their minds. There?s nothing worse then working for people that don?t respect you or believe that you know how to do your job.

Back to Software Forum
7 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums