Slashdot Mirror
Windows 2000 - Nine Months to Live
HeUnique writes "According the this story at The Register, Microsoft is planning to retire Windows 2000 as far as OEMs concerned. MS has asked OEMs to stop immediately the shipment dual-boot systems running Win2k/WinXP, so your choice now is either to upgrade to XP or else." Only if you're ordering systems running Microsoft Windows, though.
MS has asked OEMs to stop immediately the shipment dual-boot systems running Win2k/WinXP
--What you say?
This has very little to do with the death of w2k. This only effects pre-installed dual-boot systems. I don't know how many people out there really need/want a dual-boot 2k-xp system. 2k is still by far the superior 'service running' machine... and it's not going anywhere anytime soon...
Your mammas flamebait.
Here where I work, we've still not completed the rollover from NT to 2000, and I have yet to see a single XP system installed, even in a development lab. Even in the UNIX world, we're just now getting rid of the last of our Solaris 2.6 (*perhaps* by the end of the calendar year...)
Does anyone else see massive fragmentation of Windows like this, just due to the extreme upgrade lag of production shops? If it is widely spread, what do people think this mean for Windows in the corporate world?
In addition, is this just a product being retired, or is this a move by Microsoft to start boostrapping Palladium?
... only when you're a monopolist?
They haven't released any sort of XP server have they?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Once you've accepted the EULA that allows them to install/uninstall software at will and disable software you installed, you're caught.
Lots of people at work have been asking me about desktop unices since the latest crap from MSFT. I just hope that open source software is legal in most countries in a couple of years when MSFT springs enforced DRM on the populace.
Since M$ doesn't even have a replacement server product one can assume this is either false, or the reporter is talking about Windows 2000 Pro only (not Server) and failed to get his facts straight.
MS has asked OEM to stop immediately the shipment dual-boot systems running Win2k/WinXP Could someone point out why in the world would anyone order such a dreadful combination ? As if Win2K or WinXP don't cause enough headaches on their own...
Actually Win2K was forced into early retirement. The boss kept catching him crashing at his desk and leaving the backdoor open.
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
No way I'm going to run XP within my company. It's an OS that I don't trust, and haven't had the chance to learn well (and don't want to).
So either I'm going to buy a couple dozen licenses of win2k soon,
OR
I'm going to use the existing licenses and don't care at all about licensing (call it non-violent resistance, whatever)
OR
I'm going to start spreading linux on desktop OSes.
Plus, I don't want to upgrade to the Software Assurance thing, 'cause it's going to cost much more and it's not worthed (office 2000 is WAY better than office XP, and I don't want to upgrade - same for win2k/winXP) if you don't want to upgrade.
In any way, Microsoft will lose one of its customers. And I think I won't be the only one.
Anyone else taking care of a network of more than a couple dozen PCs does think like me?
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
And never looked back. Even on my 'old' 366 MHz machine it runs beautifully. At work on my Pentium 3 Machine Windows 98 chugs along, and I must crash it 3 or 4 times a day.
:-)
But since I'm taking a day off I can enjoy Windows 2000
I bet the can't make my company upgrade. I'm still trying to get them to upgrade to 95.
Business News and Resources: www.usasource.net
Microsoft knows how to make money, so they'll just force all Win2000 users to upgrade to XP, and at the same time, have them replace all of their peripherals that are not XP compatible. My mom has a Canon printer (I forget the model number) that I tried to install on XP Pro. After researching the web, I found a statement at Canon's website stating that this particular printer is not supported in WinXP. Oh well, sucks to be a M$ user.
As a Microsoft developer I find this very disturbing. I think Windows 2000 is a very capable operating system for desktop use and small servers. My brief experiences with XP are that it is a little flakey(er?) than 2K, and all that WPA-invasion-of-privacy Gestapo crap makes me feel sick in the pit of my stomach. I use both Win2K and Linux at home (primarily Win2K) but I can see the day where the devide between my "home" computing life and my "work" computing life (which is all M$) will become like night and day. What about Win2K server? .NET server hasn't even hit the shelves yet AFAIK (or if it has it is still VERY new and unproved). Time to learn Java.
How much of the Earth's resources will be wasted broadcasting how MS sucks and why this is wrong? I love it when an MS story gets posted here.....
BTW, one post was sufficient enough for whatever racist idiot posted first, please don't dignify it with anymore replies.
I guess if people aren't compelled to upgrade based on XP's own merits, Microsoft will force them to. Too bad most end-users aren't aware XP doesn't hold a hell of a lot over 2k, nor of the restrictive licensing scheme, nor the We-KNOW-Where-You're-Going-Today activation process.
So go figure, you'll pay (and you will, you will) for free arrows in the chest.
Not if you hold a nice, fat penguin in front of you!
It's been a long time coming, and quite frankly, those of us in the Windows world are pretty suprised it hasn't happened already. It's non-news.
But then, The Register never misses an opportunity to write an article that makes MS look corrupt and evil. A lot like some other websites I know.
It hurts when I pee.
--
Security patch, n. See EULA
We get a lot of compaq desktops where I work with a "dual boot" on startup, but its not a dual boot in the same way that a linux/win2k dual boot syustem works. What happens is that you choose which OS you want to run the first time you start the computer, and the system then deletes the other one. The computer comes with a license for XP that can be downgraded to use with 2000, but not licenses for both. I believe some other OEMS do a similar dual boot, which seems to be what this is referring to. Disallowing this practice would mean that the consumer would be forced to load 2k themselves, rather then having it come preconfigured.
- Or else they're going to give you some cement overshoes?
And ofcourse the winning answer:Or else they'll kill this puppy?
Or else the penguin on your tv will explode?
Or else you'll switch to Linux?
This is a good move on their part. Forcing a move to one platform should help with a lot of things on their side and the consumer side. If they only have to focus on one release they should be able to catch more of the problems, produce better patches, and reduce confusion about which OS is for business/home/enterprise...
It also means competitors have only one standard to compete against. Now (or will be shortly) it's just head to head Linux vs. XP vs. MacOS.
Then again, what does this say about MS when you retire OSes after only 2.5 years? I am one of the MS fans but this is getting a tad out of control. Should have just skipped 2000 altogether and given people XP.
It was obvious! Microsoft can't have their name tainted by such a (relatively) stable product on offer!
I knew it couldn't last. The first and only Windows OS that didn't crash for fun and they decide to discontinue it!
-- "To ask a question is to show ignorance; Not to ask a question means you'll remain ignorant."
which is why i won't buy an Xbox... They've barely just released it and are already looking to "better deal" it. Sony on the other hand wants to milk every dime out of the PS2.. They're still milking the PS1!
While i can appreciate the economics of not wanting to keep supporting older software, win2k is the most stable i've seen out of MS in quite some time... They might be better going with it for a bit..
Though this is irritating, it's not that tough to set up an image (even with product activation). I was wondering how they would lure enterprise users to switch to Windows XP considering the nebulous features for corporate users.
Don't read this!
My god, now their giving you less choice of their own operating systems. God bless Microsoft.
Only if you're ordering systems running Microsoft Windows, though
Thank you very much Slashdot for pointing out the completely and utterly obvious, while still attempting to get a little dig at MS. It must be a day ending in a Y.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Microsoft sets a 5-year lifetime on all their OS products. Windows 98 is just about up now. Windows 2000 will therefore officially die (on paper) sometime in late 2004/early 2005. We all know Bill would like to sell us another hojillion copies of WinXP, but the truth is that the support contracts for Win2K are still valid for another couple of years. They can't just pull the plug like this, it opens them up to an easy class-action lawsuit. Although that wouldn't hurt their 40? billion bank account much, it would surely throw around an imperial storm cruiser-load of bad press and maybe finally take CNN's eyes off Pakistan.
This isn't like some little free util going from freeware to cripple-ware or some other triviality. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of corporate users with long-winded paperwork to cover their asses against Microsoft. It's much more profound than the usual "This software has no warranties whatsoever" EULA trite.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I see no real need to go to XP. Win2K does everything I need and pretty well. If I want development I fire up Linux and if I want games I run a bare bones cut down version of Win95 (with latest directx) which runs like the clappers.
I can sort of understand why Microsoft want to do this, reduction of support costs, push to get people to move over to a largely unsucessfully taken up OS (saturation point has been reached where people have everything they want and don't see a need to upgrade) but at the same time I think that their 3 year support cycle is becoming more and more of an inconveniance - especially with this saturation.
Now I've not really fiddled with XP that much, but is there anything really in there that would make Win2k people go "oooh oooh gotta upgrade now"? I was having a hard time finding anything.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
9 months is plenty to get the latest DRM on your box... Linux - those who can, DO - those who can't, use windoze
Thank you for your interest in Windows Update
Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.
The latest version of Windows Update is only available on computers that are running Microsoft Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
I'm running Win98 and IE6 at work (web dev for clients that mainly use IE).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Really.
Our shop is about 30% into our Active Directory Migration, Windows 2000 server based with XP clients logging in. (Say what you will, XP's security isn't AS BIG a deal if you've got a properly designed -- and segmented -- network)
Migrating off Windows 2000 workstation should be something you're already doing - not keeping a proactive upgrade policy is just ASKING for trouble. (How is this any different from cycling your hardware out every three years for desktops and every two years for laptops? That's been a standard business practice for a very long time.)
In any event, the forced continual upgrade path for Microsoft products and OS's keeps me employed and keeps me learning new stuff. It also makes those residual Windows 9x boxes in our department look even more prime for replacement. Management has dictated that those machines stay in place for political reasons...Our being able to say 'look, _Microsoft_ hasn't supported 9X for X years' helps us move those boxes forward.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Where I work, we are still on NT4 and (thankfully) Office97 so there is no WPA in the system yet.
The thing is, even if I went to my supervisor (which I already have) about such issues, the highest brass don't want advice even from their more technically oriented underlings. They just don't care or know enough to realise that they are getting hosed.
Only in 5 years they will feel the noose tightening around their neck and by that point, it will be VERY hard to switch to other platforms, even though I expect that Linux will be very advanced by that time in comparison to today.
They are doing this because most businesses, including ours, have not standardized windows XP yet. Many of us are concerned about the effects of XP's DRM software and draconian EULAs.
I can only hope that stuff like this has the opposite effect, pushing management away from microsoft altogether instead of towards it (like M% hopes).
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
I am still running the copy of Win '98 that was pre-loaded on my PII - 400Mhz PC. That is my windoze box, all of my newer machines are running linux. Thank god some of us aren't into the whole complain about windows, upgrade, rinse and repeat (forever!).
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
How is that OEMs have so completely become Microsoft's whipping post? They are nothing more than MS's distribution channel. It would seem that OEMs would have some say in what they ship would it not? Unless MS declares that Win2K is no longer available for purchase, why can't vendors ship what their customers want? Ugh, no more MS posts today please, they are ruining my coffee.
It used to be, when my [non-geek] friends asked me what kind of computer to buy, I told them to play around with Windows 95/98/2k and MacOS, and go with whatever they feel more comfortable with. (Yeah, I know this post will get modded down because I don't push *n?x, but they wouldn't be able to or want to use it.) If the only Microsoft option is Windows XP I'll just tell them to go buy and iMac or iBook. Microsoft isn't going to change its practices unless people STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
San Jose, CA -- Linux lovers around the world have finally decided to stop buying Microsoft's flagship product, Windows, say Microsoft representatives. "They said they don't trust us anymore. We understand why they might never have trusted us, but we've only gotten better lately. Anything they've heard isn't new, it's just new to them."
Linux fans disagree. "Microsoft wasn't too bad, until they started trying to prevent piracy," lamented one geek buying Red Hat at a local Best Buy.
Microsoft expects revenue to drop by 60%, since Linux users account for practically all desktop sales of Windows. "It's a crippling blow. I hope I still have a job next week," commented a Microsoft programmer.
Yes Insightful, Interesting, Informative, and not to mention totally false. According to the article ALL OEM shipments stop in 9 months. That effects everybody.
In addition to that they are "pressuring the PC companies to stop offering dual install Win2k/WinXP systems immediately."
And hopefully, XP and the Eula nightmare will start folks on their *upgrade* to Linux in the next couple of years.
That reminds me of a Dilbert comic...
The PHB is holding a meeting about how they only planned on having 26 or so injuries the year before. In retrospect, it turned out to be to high a number as they had to injure a number of employees just to reach that goal...
-.-
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
BLOW GOATS(tm) and you all knew that from the start.
As a system admin and tech support guy for a department at my University, this is going to be a massive pain in the arse as I have several dozen PhDs to deal with who buy new computers fairly regularly... but they want the machines to talk to all of their specialized equipment... but the equipment vendors don't support XP. Already, I can't purchase additional copies or licenses of 2000 from the Univ. software store, so we're already starting to run into limits...
What are those of us who HAVE to support and use 2k supposed to do if it's no longer an available option?
"So long" to one of the best MS OS's that I have worked with. Win2k Pro fit my windows needs perfectly. And has only BSOD'd on my laptop 2 times in the past 2 years. I wouldn't trade my linux for the world but forcing windows people to XP sucks. A friend and I tried to set up an XP intranet... The computers wouldn't even look at each other.
When my office told me they were moving to XP from NT4 (SP4!!), I laughed. They didn't understand what I found to be so humorous...
Good Lord, man, WHY!?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
HOw is that an "interesting" post. He spat out 10 words that is unrelated to this story since they are obviously talking about desktop computers.
Seriously. This doesn't mean they're forcing an upgrade upon you. It doesn't mean you even have to stick with XP for mass purchases. If you're an individual, you might actually be able to make requests to get a specific flavor installed.
I for one know that at my workplace, a hospital, we're just getting ready to switch to full on NT systems (that is, 2K). Sure, XP will work fine with that, but when we don't want to screw around with 2 different flavors of Windows, we won't have to. Besides that we don't exactly trust XP here. One of my team tried it on his laptop, for the hell of it. Ran great for about 4-5 months and then, very suddenly, screwed itself over. He put 2K back on.
Companies and corporations that will need larger numbers of machines, say 5+, the major manufacturers will accomodate to what OS you need. My local United Way was, a year or two ago, going to get 3 new systems from Gateway (IIRC) and they would've been forced to take ME. I called Gateway on their behalf and got them to put 98SE on the machines.
It's just a matter of knowing who to talk to.
A remember people, don't agree to your EULAs! Can someone post a link to the EULA avoider? That's the worst thing you can do to lose your 2K machine. I'm sure that, had I agreed to mine, I'd wake up one morning to be running XP. That would anger me.
I don't have any XP in my shop, and in an ideal world I won't, but this being the real world I suspect someone will sneak it in or it may come bundled with an integrated solution.
That said, has anyone run a sniffer in front of an XP system to decode how it phones home? I'm wondering what kind of ruleset I might be able to put on my firewall to keep them OUT of my network.
Screw Micro$oft.
Call me naive, but I didn't see a source list on theregister. Could someone point out other sites that report the same thing? I'm assuming there was a letter, an announcement of some sort related to this. I would like to see maybe an official document about this.
Please don't annoy me with haughty retorts. I want an official document to prove to my boss (who has scoffed at other register articles I sent him) that it's not a good thing.
Thank you
I'm still waiting for my triple-boot CE/ME/NT system. Of course, it will probally be so clogged it will run like cement....
Still supported...uh...never needs support it just works.
Certainly happier with my home pc after i switched to a Mac. After being on Windows for over 10 years I am glad of the change.
It's about time that the OS market was opened up by us.
Do yourself a favour, buy a mac, install linux or freebsd don't just keep installing their crap.
It changes how I work and is annoying, since I work on both 2K and XP at work. XP really isn't worth it. The only thing you gain is more vulnerabilities and annoying feature changes.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
www.slackware.com
www.redhat.com
www.debian.org
www.mandrake.org
cm.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/
www.atheos.cx
www.freebsd.org
www.openbsd.org
www.netbsd.org
That's that problem solved, then. Next, please!
So will vendors be able to ship new dual boots with Linux/BSD/AmigaOS/MacOSX/BloatWareOS/DownTheStreet BehindTheWarehouseOS and WinXP? Or is it that M$ eventually wants all dual boots killed?
Would be interesting to see how they take this and how consumers favour it.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
The only reason they are stopping OEMs from instlaling Win2k is so that big corporations who have all Windows 2000 computers will not be able to add any more and will have to begin the migration process to a newer, prettier OS.
I don't think you realized, but other freeware programs come with servers installed. Because they all offer the same functionality (ie: remote administration) there is no real purpose to create a separate XP Server Edition.
; )
I didn't realize you went to Penn State. I shouldn't have used words with more than one syllable.
They are not dropping support nor are they saying that support is being axed, as they have said for NT4/95. They are simply saying 9 months from now OEMs will have to ship XP and only XP. They are not forcing companies to migrate their infrastructure, they probably aren't even stopping the retail versions of XP. They are simply saying the OEM pricing of 2000 will go away. No biggie, and in this particular case their monopolistic crap is little more than a red herring. This is like any other company discontinuing production of a product, except their monopoly forces many more people to be impacted by such a decision. Even if there was a level playing ground, this would still happen.
This is objectional because XP is too intrusive and the licensing is going over the line versus 2k, and while we may lament the passing of 2k, it also is a MS product, not competition being driven out. Personally, I think wine is approaching being a valid solution for running most windows applications now when necessary, and running windows applications is becoming less and less necessary (except for games) as other viable options appear. For office applications, there is openoffice and koffice, multimedia playback and encoding has at least caught up with Windows, if not passed it (though authoring still has a way to go). For CAD apps ProE is on the way, for 3D rendering there is blender (if the engine goes open source, interfaces may be made that cater to users of other applications). Everything for getting work done is coming in one form or another.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
...it's to be gainfully employed.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
"Why don't we have Office XP?"
"I need the latest version of Windows and Office on my PC"
My answer is always the same. "If you can tell me three features that you need that the latest version of Windows or Office has then I'll get you that upgrade." No one has yet to tell me those features.
It seems that Microsoft wants us to not think of that least they slow their revenue. Ever notice that all those flashy Microsoft commercials never seem to mention any new or useful features? The commercials never state that Windows NEW is better than the previous version let alone why.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Straight from the horses mouth.
% 2F directory%2Fdiscontinue%2Easp
"Each Microsoft product follows its own "Product Support Lifecycle", which begins when the product becomes available, and ends when the product records low or zero support questions for a significant period of time."
"By the time product support ends, most of our customers are using newer versions. For customers still using legacy products, Microsoft normally provides a six-month notice before ending support. Microsoft continues to make Self Service Support Options available after support concludes."
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
Most places I've worked won't install a Microsoft OS/Server product until service pack 3 comes out.
.NET
They usually wait for the 1st service pack for development software.
etc....
But as things stand, no one in the office where I work is using win2k, were all still NT.
SQL server 2000 hasn't been accepted for production systems yet.
An were all still using Office 97.
There are no plans for
and I'm still fixing software running on windows 95.
Even the microsoft freeks I've worked for before waited for a couple of service packs before installing anything (even if it came with MSDN).
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I use XP as my main desktop, and one thing I really don't like is the way it automatically updates itself. Sure, it asks to you before doing it, but when it asks "Update Windows Media Player - security patch" I expect it to just patch the hole, not change the file setting of my machine so that files I previously opened in another application now open in Media Player (this happened to me the other day).
The day I move to Linux as my desktop machine is getting closer and closer.
There is if you "sell" such systems. Server software costs more. Therefore, if you're MS then it makes sense to ship a Server version.
We all know that it doesn't really cost them any more to build the "server version"!!
And yet another "UNIX killer" falls off the end of the upgrade treadmill.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I can see this move by Microsoft backfiring in a big way. With a tighter economy, in particular less revenue coming into a company, the emphasis is on cost cutting, not increased expenditure. It's clear Microsoft has set the path for higher operating costs this will annoy people from the CFO's who are pulling back the reins and saying, whoa there boy to the techies who are content and in some cases still doubtful over Windows XP's performance and stability.
This could be a golden decision for Linux.
First, I am amazed at the number of negative posts regarding XP as a Desktop OS. Why? It is stable, flexible, compatible, powerful, and easy to use. XP rarely crashes (out of 1200 systems here, we have recorded only nine blue screens in 10 months!) We may love our *nix distros, but I can't think of one that really touches XP in this area.
This story has got to be screwed up somehow. There is no server level OS replacement on deck. MS might indeed be pulling the plug on Win2K desktop, but not server... as a service OS it's okay, but it's not nearly as friendly or stable as a day to day OS.
Also, yes, there are quite a few cheap shops around that are yet to transition from the now unsupported (and nightmarish) NT4 server systems, but that is not MS's fault. Old operating systems should be retired at some point, and if buisness can't keep up with with a 4 to eight year cycle, well... too bad. A properly ran IT department with even a minimal budget should not have any problem in this area... and they should welcome the change to a better standard of stabilty and interoperability, such as Win2K server brought us. We still use Unix/Apache for alot servers here, but Win2K sure put a smile on many a haggared tech support face here.
Hasn't anyone noticed how Micro$oft are really plotting to take over the world? - It's not as if they are doing it very subtly is it?
I should have said "upgrade 'from' 95." I guess thats what the preview button is for I
Business News and Resources: www.usasource.net
linux installs are easier than windows, little
wizards (or druids) configure everything. (with
mandrake,suse,red hat etc)
we have openoffice, mozilla, etc, and a quick
search on freshmeat for whatever else you want.
the only thing missing is support for legacy apps,
but between wine, vmware, dual booting etc even that
can be covered until its no longer a problem
(the app gets ported, another app is found etc)
right now windows is a better choice for most users
(email,web, word processing, etc)
the only windows is better for is games.
Here at some big fancy business we have 6 servers and about 300 workstations scattered throughout four buildings. We have 70% win2KPro workstations, 8% Windows XP, and the rest are a mix of Win98SE and MACs and the only computers that STILL refuse to talk to the domain controllers is the XP boxes. Even Windows 95 had no problems logging to the domain controllers.
/rant .03c (prices go up)
We have contacted Micro$haft and all they tell us is, "It's your network".. Uhh No.. it's your cheap @$$ software!!
Just my
Partnership for an idiot free America!
According to this, Windows 2000 will be a unsupported product on March 31, 2004. (Unsupported = No hotfixes, no security fixes.)
Note that the link above doesn't say it directly; specifically they say that Windows 2000 will be entering "Extended phase" on March 31, 2003 and elsewhere they mention that Non-supported occurs a year after extended phase.
Also, that article only applies to Windows Desktop products. They haven't made any promises about Win2k server.
It is my understanding that large companies install their own OS image on workstations. So whether the OS comes pre-installed or not is of no importance. Also, if I am correct, the XP OS for companies does not automatically update itself. And, do you think that MS would turn down a 2,000 user W2K purchase?
Some people have a way with words, others not have way.
What's great when you buy a product from a closed software company is you have a roadmap. The software will not disappear. Well that is what MS said once compared to OSS.
When the company closes -> you loose everything.
When the company wants to push a new version -> you have no choice (this is more drastic when you are a big company and you need documents compatibility or standard procedures).
Yes it is very safe & cost effective to buy closed software... Does it count into your total cost of ownership Mr Gates ?
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
No really? I'm pretty sure this kind of thing has happened since the days of DOS. I mean I don't see OEM's bundling Windows 95 or 98 or NT 4. That would be ridiculous.
That i decided a long time ago.
i guess its time to look at linux seriously as my desktop OS.
It's called Windows .NET Server, and it is in Beta 3.
During the next nine months, I will switch to MacOS 10.2 as my primary operating system. I've been considering such a change for a while and it finally seems practical with version 10.2 of MacOS. I find myself using FreeBSD half the time for the command line utilities like grep, awk, etc. So, switching to MacOS would allow me to do what I need without resorting to odd unix-like utilities for Win32.
Ouch! The truth hurts!
wake up? you're talking about the slashdot crowd... they'll take a Win 2.0 bug from 1989 and attribute it to Win2k. :-)
Whoohoo! :)
:)
Am I glad that our network is running a GNU operating system
Saves us the world of trouble (and makes reading the lates Microsoft scheme fun)
_please_ _please_ _please_ Bill, continue as you are doing now
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
That said W2K Workstation and XP Pro are similar enough that just as a lot of folk see no advantage to upgrading, there is not a lot of downside to upgrading. If you want to have a homogenous IT shop in which everyone has exactly the same setup then you will be installing from a pre-mastered disk image anyway.
The slashdot blathering against XP from people who admit they have never used it is simple ignorance. The sae people can be found lambasting Microsoft for unreliable software and then proudly proclaiming that they never upgraded from Win95. Well Duuuuhhh!!!!
XP is a big improvement over w2k in a few areas. The big one being that you can run Win98 software on a system with an NT kernel. The nice to have feature is that my Vaio now reboots in 30 seconds instead of taking 4 minutes.
I think that the real reason that so many of the slashdot crowd are so anti-XP is that they are scared of it. It takes several releases for any O/S to become reliable. In the early days of Linux the main attraction was that it was more reliable than several of the commercial O/S. When Solaris 2 first came out it was a byword for flaky, people were running SunOs for reliability.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Seriously. Anyone still buying Microsoft today is doing so because they have to, because they're counting down the years until retirement and don't want to take a risk (nobody ever got sacked for buying Microsoft), or because they really are just too dumb to see that if they don't bail out before Palladium arrives, they'll never get out. I pity those people, but I don't expect any of them to suffer an attack of clue in the near future.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Unless Bill G's borg half is in full control this story has got to be bullshit. The winxp server is not out yet and won't be ready for production servers in april. I gaurantee you if i call ibm, hp/compaq or dell after april asking for a Win2k Server i will have one in the next few days!
They may be stopping OEM of the desktop version but not the server! FUD
Well he's obviously stupid....he's buying Linux.
It never fails...they find the dumbest person in the store to interview.
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Ok People I have a couple of comments and something to think about:
1. What about 3rd party applications? I work for an integrator that does IP telephony and traditional phone systems as well as networks.
We have not even been able to transition to Win2K from 98SE for our field techs because many of the 3rd party maintenance packages only run under 98. Add to that new "web interfaces" for IP based products that only run under IE 5.01 with a specific version of the JVM. Not to mention the legacy products we support that require DOS based maintenance access programs!
2. The main issue that many of the people posting here are missing is MONEY. I work on the pre-sales side of my firm and the number one issue with deploying ANY new technology into any client is always money. I have had $100,000 plus deals fall apart because they required a couple of $3000.00 routers to be added to the client's ageing network infrastructure.
So when people start talking about how the costs of upgrading to XP from the software side, and how we should all be on proper "product lifecycles" and such, I have one question, do you realize the state most businesses are in right now? Many of my clients are canceling all IT upgrades and initaves for the remainder of the year.
Comment #2
Now I may be trolled out for this one, but I due to the reasons above the IT guys in my firm can't move to Linux on the desktop even if we wanted to. Why? Legacy 3rd party applications, tools supplied by vendors built on Microsoft technology.
Ok so even if I got all the issues with ease-of-use, support, document compatibility and user training. I still can't move to linux because we have major line-of-business applications that only run on windows. For example, our accounting package (>$100000 invested in the last 3 years, so don't even talk about scraping it), our customer service ACD monitoring package ( a whole market that has next to no presence on Linux) and our remote monitoring and alarming system for client sites. All run on windows back-ends and have only windows clients. Even the newer ACD package which can be setup totally web based requires IE. So we're stuck.
What I (and I am sure many others also) need to move to Linux is an inexspensive and 100% compatible Windows API Layer for Linux, then I could slowly move my clients to Linux.
Now don't get me wrong, I am using Linux as our web proxy, I use sendmail for our marketing newsletter mail-outs. I am going to place an e-smith server in front of our exchange servers for the virus scanning service offered and to help filter SPAM. (Plus I can toss Mcafee and ITS high fees) I am even looking to replace our old Access97 based service database with a Linux/Apache/PHP/MySQL based web app. And THAT one is solely to avoid having to upgrade my Access licences.
So I put it back to the community of Slashdotters, how can one cut the ties to windows, when so much of thier business processes are tied to it and with shrinking IT bugets?
Obi-Wan
According to the Microsoft MCSE FAQ, they are planning to retire the MCSE 2000 concurrently with the retirement of MSCE XP/.NET and not before.
This makes sense because they haven't even gotten some of their own study materials out for MCSA 2000 until recently, let alone MCSA/MCSE XP/.NET exams are still being introduced. God I hope so, I've just started investing into a MCSA cert (which I hope to have this month) that I plan to upgrade to a full MCSE within a month after that.
But you never know when a vendor moves to "push product." And that's the #1 motivation behind for-profit vendor certifications.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
The register seems to editorize abit on what Microsoft is going to do. Rather that show documentation and do the research to show how is going to effect users. I rather see the facts and give a detail summary based on those facts then complain.
That's been a standard business practice for a very long time.)
What do you call a "long" time? Seems to me that in the world of big servers, upgrades have *never* been done unless there's a goddamn good reason too. I don't know about you, but my small business is staying with W2K until there's a very, very, very good reason to upgrade. It costs a lot of money, time, and effort to upgrade. Upgrading just for the sake of upgrading is truly stupid.
mine it's more than "I don't like it and don't even want to try it". I had enough bad times trying to make all our win2k work together and I was lucky because I didn't have to tweak EVERY SINGLE installation of win2k I did. ...like regular win2k boxen. So why bother? win2k is more than enough.
.xls spreadsheet. Works perfectly in office2000. Doesn't work AT ALL in office XP. Office XP is not fully compatible with office 2000.
:)
I know that I can manage something by using active directory to tweak at a registry-level every machine that logs into the domain, BUT
- doing that requires a lot of time to plan, try, test and develop the tweaking
- after the tweaking, basically all the xp machines will
1. look
2. be more ore less
PLUS: office XP is REALLY bad. I mean, we have an application (SAP) that is CERTIFIED to give back some results as an
So why bother, again? I'm more than happy with win2k. I don't have time, resource AND enough interest to TRY to LEARN windows XP, not even for myself. I've had enough of that crap, and I realized that if I had spent that same much time that I've wasted on microsoft product on Linux instead, we all in our company would have linux desktops with openoffice working smoothly. And I wouldn't be writing those angry slashdot posts
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
maybe, but were getting closer...
Easy. I just pull the plug from my windoze desktop machine and plug it into my Linux laptop.
We have a pretty small MIS department within my company (I'm the newest addition, which brings our headcount up to 5), and we've just finished migrating all of our servers to Windows 2000. Next year, after we've budgeted the funds for it, we'll probably go ahead and upgrade all of our client computers to Office 2000 and a newer OS. Personally, I'm pushing for Windows 2000 -- I think it's a terrific blend of NT and 9x, and it's stable enough that we don't have to worry about it crashing all the time.
Beyond that, however, I really can't say I'm interested in upgrading to the latest and greatest, Office or Windows. MS seems to be pushing these OS's out the door faster than I can learn them, and I'm not convinced that the new ones are either more robust or stable than the last.
What I'm concerned about is the 200% Microsoft tax that lies ahead for those who don't want whatever OS Microsoft is pushing during that month. For instance, most non-white-box computers ship with an OEM OS, period -- you can't ask for no OS to be installed and save on the cost of the box. So what happens if you decide you want to install a different OS after-the-fact? You have to pay for a license for that OS, on top of the OEM-packaged OS you already paid for! Pretty absurd............
Comne on people MS shoots ist own Foot and this qualifies as news on slashdot.org?
:)
Besides after they shoot their own foot sitck out a little further so I can run over it with my damn truck!
and you did not think Frod contributed to open source?!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
July is a month, so nine July's from now will make it 2011 or so.
linux has been my desktop os for several years now. /. readers can say the
i think i sizable percentage of
same and/or some bsd variant.
what i want to know is, anyone using windows by choice?
not becasue of work or some app that you need?
Someone said that Windows 2K and Windows XP are "Microsoft killers". They have finally come up with an operating system that works reasonably well. Sure, these latest Windows flavors have their problems, but nothing that would make one want to upgrade.
And that is the nub. In the past, people snapped the latest Windows version like they were hotcakes, in hopes that this would finally be the Windows version that would solve all their problems. This is Microsofts problem: not the fact that there is something in XP that people would want, but the fact that Win2K is already doing a fine job.
The only reason people will buy newer versions of Windows would be Microsoft forcing them to. Witness this move, and the recent "upgrade or pay triple for your licenses" extortion.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
One of our clients still have windows 3.11 machines. We've had to setup up several bizarre proxies because of broken (trumpet?) tcp stacks.
car. Damn auro makers forcing me to buy a 2002 model when I really have been saving up for that 2000 Corvette. Do you think I can get the dealer to order me a new 2000 Vette, or will I be forced to buy the 2002.
Why is anyone surprised about this? Didn't you see it coming a mile away? Win2K, although superior to XP, is 2 years old at this point. This is when most OS's start being phased out. What made you think Microsft would allow it to die a natural death in the marketplace rather than pull the plug prematurely to make money?
Just don't get all surprised and huffy when your new hardware won't even BOOT Win2K, as it will require Longhorn. After all these years, it still amazes me that people actually expect decent business practice from microsoft.
Three words: FORCED Premature Obsolescence.
I recently made an effort (in protest to M$ policies in XP (WPA and especially SP1 refusing to install on machines with certain key(s). In setting up my Linux server alternative, I see two major obstacles: groupware (exchange) and backup software. I know there's a zillion MTA's for Linux that'll transfer 40 billion messages an hour. Whoopie. People want/need Exchange's contact management, shared calendaring, etc. I was unable to find a decent (or at least low-cost) equivalent in the xNIX world. Someone needs to put together a real Exchange equivalent: client/server format (none of that IMAP stuff...takes forever for the client to "download" my 5000 messages), decent web access, calendaring, etc. The other major problem is backup solutions. "dump" is a joke, not a backup solution. The best I could seem to find that wasn't a $500 piece of software was BRU/PE..but it still doesn't seem ready for prime time. Here's a thought: real job logging would be nice. Manually viewing the bru.log file every day really isn't going to get the job done. That being said, all of the file sharing stuff (Samba 2.x as a PDC, Mac services) looks pretty much there. Although some windows features are still missed (ACL's anyone???) it's certainly workable and stable. Unfortunately though, I'm still stuck with my row of windows servers until someone can give me a decent messaging platform.
I don't trust XP because I'm not confident on what it's going to do, what is it doing, and HOW. Win2k is pretty settled down - with the microsoft's kb, websites, tweaks and some experience with microsoft operating systems you know more or less what's happening inside the machine. Plus, win2k has been around for enough time to let people develop some useful applications that runs on it.
Now, XP has a fairly new approach to the concept of "operating system"; users, even users who wants to, have little chances to understand what's happening. I'm not talking about those "errors" that can be fixed by XP itself - I'm talking about strange behaviors that let the system usable, sure, but MAY give complications later on.
IMHO, XP it's an OS that doesn't leave enough free space to the user to be considered "affordable" for business use.
Let me explain in another way: I have a quite big amount of machines and users under my Power. With such a quantity of machines, troubles are going to arise much more often than if I had only a couple of dUh-SERS. It's statistic: the more users you have, the more stupid problems that you almost never encountered before are going to arise.
Now, with XP the amount of time you have to spend to "hack" around and inside it to learn where the problem was and how to avoid it, well, it's just not affordable, given the amount of machines I have in my Kingdom. Unless I make my company hire other IT guys, either very well trained (and expensive) or I'd have to train them - and still waste part of my precious time, that I could use in better ways, say, reading their mail.
Using microsoft OS at work is not just like at home when you can click the 'ok' button and forget about what the problem was. in a business you NEED to know why the error did arise, and how to avoid it, and probably how not to make it happen again on another machine - unless you want to go and check each and every machine you have in your business and fix that thing before the CEO hits it. It's a matter of experience (ah! pun): if a window box is configured perfectly, it's not going to give you troubles at all. If you leave even some stupid thing back, well, sooner or later you'll have to spend a great bunch of time fixing it - and trying to understand where the problem is.
Dunno if I made myself clear about that, let me know. The topic here is much more a matter of "feelings": windows's behavior is not scientific, sometimes cannot be predicted.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
I use NT 4.0 and Office 97 at work. The problem is that Microsoft is ending support for these products. What happens when the next critical security bug is discovered and no patch is available?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I have been using Linux as my primary OS for quite some time now, with the exception of a couple of hours in Win2K (which I think is sort of ok...ish).
Anyway, what I am looking for is a summary of WinXP's functionality from a Linux user's point of view. That is, I would like to know what XP does in terms of (desktop) configurability (getting rid of Aqua, Windows update, stuff like that) and (multi-) user environment, explained and maybe compared by someone who comes from Unix. I do _not_ want something that explains this stuff to someone who has been using Windows solely.
Is there such a thing?
TIA and have a nice day.
I feel so sig.
... for encouraging people to upgrade a 2 year old OS to XP. Apple is doing the same tyhing with OS X from OS 9. I do agree that Microsoft has a severe fragmentation problem with their OS's... how many versions are floating around that all, essentially, are the same darn thing? Ugh.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
"I just hope that open source software is legal in most countries in a couple of years... "
I share your worries, brother. My guess is MS has been brewing DRM/Palladium in the X-labs ever since Linux was declared enemy number one: The Black Magic Anti-GPL.
"Once you've accepted the EULA..."
If I ever buy MS software (which I can't remember ever doing) I'll send a fax to MS support to tell them I don't accept the EULA, then click the shaded rectangle in order to install the software.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
e.g. Win 98 went bad in 1998, etc.
I don't get this "forced to upgrade" theory that seems to scare everyone.
Software advances pressure better hardware, Hardware advances need better supporting software. Because MSFT no longer supports a product does not mean it's obsolete. How many millions of people are "still" running Windows 9X? w95 is no longer supported or shipped with any computer, yet people still use it without problems on the hardware it was designed for.
Just because chevy quits making a model of a car does not mean everyone has to buy the new model or a competing one. The car still works with the occasional tune-up. All cars are designed with the same goals in mind, and so are operating systems. Microsoft does not have all of the W2K users cornered - they havent even forced W95/8 out yet.
In all seriousness, I think this is one of the more important ways in which the net is impacting the entire software world: It makes it much, much easier for the more savvy users to get back versions of products instead of having to fork over money for the latest bloatware. Of course, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who will claim that this really helps software sales, since the downloaders wouldn't really buy all those titles, and the few they'll use they will buy...
Very interesting comment, especially considering how Microsoft used home users to bootstrap business use. People had Windows and Windows applications at home, and carried them to work. Eventually Windows just got installed and supported at work, to increase productivity, "because that's what the employees are familiar with."
Now we're approaching a situation where home and work may well diverge, and Microsoft appears to be trying to "differentiate" Windows with the XP interface. The commonality is going away. Interestingly, *they* are splintering the market, and diffusing the meaning of "Windows Everywhere."
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
There is anecdotal evidence that Windows 2000 is the
r ar y/l-rt4/index.html?dwzone=linux
best of a bad litter as far as actual performance
as a computer operating system.
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/lib
So just what is important from Microsofts point of
view for a computer operating system?
(Besides maximizing profits.)
Then you might want to look at getting out of the company.
After all, the highest brass are wasting money hiring technically oriented underlings. If they're wasting money on technical people, where else are they wasting it, and how soon will it catch up to them.
From a more conventional point of view...
Then you might want to look at getting out of the company.
After all, if the highest brass are not listening to the advice of technical people that they've hired, then they're missing some clues on management technique. What other clues are they missing, and how long will it take to catch up with them?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I work at one of the major government research councils here in the UK. We are still trying to make a claim for removing all the Windows 95 machines left in the buliding. Problems with budgets, politics etc means we will be supporting all flavours of Windows for quite a few more years yet (we are still rolling out W2K where required).
Secondly most of the important scientific applications such as GIS are only just recently functional under W2K with some third party applications (such as machines driving lab equipment) never likely to be. We still have some old 486 computers running DOS 6.22 for some applications.
Rolling out W2K was bad enough I can't think of the problems we will expereince if we have to change over so soon.
The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head
There is no alternative. There is only Microsoft. As seen some where on the web concerning either Java vs .NET or Linux vs Windows.
I like-a do-the cha-cha.
When they are retiring the OS that was going to give them just one platform after a mere 2.5 years? Just looks to me like the obvious.
It's only good if you're holding MS stock and aren't particularly worried about your privacy or rights.
Linux vs. XP vs OSX is a no brainer.
Linux on your servers, perhaps one day on your desktop.
OSX on your desktops
XP nowhere in sight.
A perfect world
In an (modest) effort to counter MS's Palladium coup, I've started convincing those around me who won't switch to Linux to stick to Windows 2000. I'm actually having a rather easy time doing this (much easier than converting Windows users to Linux, unfortunately): most people who have Windows 2000 are happy with it and don't see much incentive to move on, especially if you replace their icons with WinXP-like clones (ah, the power of icons...). The motto seems to be: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (something I must keep repeating myself every time I feel the urge to upgrade my Linux boxen).
I keep thinking this should be bigger though: we should all put MS in a tight spot and hail Win2k as their best offering so far...they can't say it sucks (after all it only came out, what, three years ago?), but at the same time their business plans hinge on the fact that people will naturally upgrade OS every two years or so. So we need to start a movement: I'd call it the Great Microsoft OS Freeze...basically, tell people to stick with their OS if it works (Win98 or Win2k) if they won't switch to Linux, *BSD or OS X...I think you'll find a lot of receptive ears...
Reminder: find a new sig
Hardware vendors seem to be falling into Microsoft's scheme of constant upgrade, too. "Sure, your printer is only 2 years old, and will last another 4, but we don't support that printer, it hasn't been produced in a year, and we have to focus on our newer products."
Amen. I've got a perfectly good HP Deskjet 648c - it's a cheap printer, but I print very rarely, so a cheap printer is all I need.
Well, since I upgraded to OS X on my home machine, a cheap printer and a Classic session is all I need, because HP is only releasing drivers for their _expensive_ printers for OS X.
Looks like I'll be running this one into the ground and replacing it with a Lexmark or something instead.
--saint
from 9x to XP?
-NT kernel is way better than the 9x model
-XP is better for games
-Terminal server in professional version
(why I bought it)
from 2k to XP?
-Once again, terminal server
-if you dont like the goo, set in classic mode, and turn off effects, it will still be faster than 2k.
-Better driver support
-Easier to revert to earlier versions of drivers
Why microsoft wants you to upgrade?
-Think of it this way, say you are testing IE6, and you have to test all the downlevel versions of windows (95, 98, 98se, me, NT, 2k) would you rather have MORE or FEWER to test?
if you can concentrate on the newest version, you can make that version better.
-Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself.
Less is more !
Please stop considering the Register as some sort of legitimate news source. Slashdot ought to be more than just a way to funnel a fuckload of pageviews onto the registers banner ad trackers.
:/)
Next,
XP cannot replace Win2k. W2k is the server operating system, regardless of the existance of XP. It may be the case that MS doesn't want anyone else running W2k Pro as opposed to XP pro, but w2k server skus certainly aren't going away (the xp-generation server skus aren't ready yet, and even if they were available tomorrow w2k server skus will be supported for some time into the future)
Basically, everything that the register publishes is such a non-story its embarassing to get so worked up over it.
But i guess it generates lots of page views at both places. (yay
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
What a shame. XP is such a wretched, bloated mess that it really likes 512MB RAM and a 500MHz or better processor. It also can't stand ISA cards anywhere in the system. Picky, picky, picky.
;-)
Conversely I have seen 2K running contentedly on a 300MHz PII with 64MB RAM, and really zooming on a 300MHz K6-2 with 256MB. 2K can run with even less, the trick is to install as much RAM as you can. It's a lot like Linux in that regard.
Unfortunately what slows XP down is its garish, whiz-bang GUI. It mimics its model, OS X, very well in that regard. Luna is as much of a drag on the proceedings in XP as Quartz/Aqua is in OS X. I wouldn't install OS X on my Blue and White G3 350MHz, and I wouldn't install XP on a 350MHz PIII.
Unless Microsoft comes out with an XP "Lite", there will still be millions of users standing pat with 2K or even 98SE. And of course, that will happen when pigs fly. And I don't mean the next Pink Floyd tour either.
They can have my 2K when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Windows XP is the reason I am buying a Powerbook for school..... thanks MS....
That hasn't even had a single service pack released yet. I have XP on but one machine and that's the way it's going to stay until it begins working correctly. Toolbars magically disappear and reappear, the speech reckognition keeps enabling itself and when it does it slows the machine down to a crawl, a Microsoft support person himself admitted to me that that IE6 (which XP forces you to use) is an unstable disaster that he won't even use on his machine, memory management is a joke....and on and on. Win 2K on the other and, is truly stable and has needed only two service packs as opposed to NT's six. Even NT properly patched is much more stable then XP too.
The school I work for recently purchased new 30 new windows XP workstations and found that many of our educational apps wouldn't run under XP. I called my vendor (Dell) and they verified that I can "downgrade" the OS license to windows 98 and "upgrade" to windows XP whenever I am ready...at no cost (assuming I have the installation media).
-ted
to get panicked MS sys-admins (who won't or can't upgrade to XP or linux) to stock up on some extra W2K licenses over the next couple quarters. This will boost MS's cash revenues to offset a suddenly more subtle use of "commonly accepted accounting practices" which make the earnings appear any way they want.
I have been telling everyone I know, and many people I don't, the ownership ramifications of using XP, or even downloading the latest Media Player patch.
It is the first time I've actually seen a glimmer of understanding from my non-computer-professional associates.
I'm also busy letting all my application vendors know that Win2K was the last Windows O/S I'm ever going to buy. For example, Avid (who makes high-end video editing software) just released an upgrade for their product. But it only runs on XP or OS X, not on Win2K. I told them they instantly lost the sale because of that policy.
All of you 'realists' who say that Microsoft has already won, and will keep on winning, are wrong in that we have to start really nagging consumers about Microsoft's continued software fascism. The situaion won't change any other way.
My guess is that now that they have a monopoly at home and at work, Microsoft can afford to differentiate, because they want to make it harder for people to take software home from work and use it on their home machines.
Anyone turning out invalid html for pay is not a professional. They're just paid help.
So I was helping an office with their network yesterday. Two printers are hooked up to a Windows 98 machine. The box need the latest service pack. So I click that handy windows update link. And the page sayeth - "This product is no longer supported".
What a messed up way to say, "We deleted a web link just to shaft you into upgrading"
xp and 2k are not equivelent..XP really blows
Win2k is not bad...not great by any means but almost decent considering it is a M$ offering.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Microsoft is now looking at becoming a hardware company, acc. to what I read, so that they can ensure their monopoly, er, I mean, ensure copy-protection of data.
It seems to me that, seeing the dwindling returns from the Windows OS ( since people are nearing the point of wising up to the game, and sticking with older versions that 'work' as opposed to newer ones that open new security holes), M$ is looking toward a renewable income source, whereby the only WindowsOS comes with new M$ PCs.
This would assure more control of the revenue stream for M$, assuming the public are lemming-enough to keep following their lead. However, with Apple gaining a sliver of market share recently, I don't see an easy road ahead for M$, unless they succeed (a sure bet, btw) in circumventing antitrust/monopoly punishment.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
It doesn't matter that WinXP does everything that Win2k does. Win2k is already onto service pack 2, and will have SP3 released when XP is on SP1. Windows 2k is a far more mature product than XP. Win2k doesn't carry much of thje overhead that XP does and is far more suited to the business world than windows XP professional. Because all office workers need such uninstallable add-ons such as windows messenger, and my favorite "windows movie maker".
Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT have to be black to be a nigger. It just helps.
I am the IT Director at a small college. We purchase Dell mainly. We just purchased 6 new machines through Dell Education. You can only get Windows XP Pro (through the website). We figured we would install Windows 2000 when we got them in. Wrong!! Dell would not even talk with our tech until we used the recovery disks and put XP back on. Why did we need to talk to Dell support you might ask. Well it seems that the drivers we needed we not real available. Windows 2000 has issues with the USB bus controller and several other hardware components. So we will be forced to use XP whether we want it or not. I am not happy about Microsoft making those decisions for this college. That is my job...
There is no issue here. You'll simply be renting the license instead of buying the license. You won't be renting the software itself, just as you don't buy the software itself in the current scheme.
> Lets see.. Replace all desktops with linux. Buy a commercial terminal services client for linux or use rdesktop.
>All your clients will use terminal server to connect to big honkin Win2k Server to run their apps.
Great. May work or may not (I used rdesktop to access MS applications at work from my Linux desktop for quite some time, worked not too bad but eventually I switched back because it was too uncomfortable due to several small but on the long run annoying problems), but where is the real benefit ? You have to license the apps you run on the Terminal Server for all users, the same for CALs for the server, to you just can go ahead and let everyone have their nice desktop PC (ok, if you want to have a Terminal Server or Citrix to ease administration of the workplace PCs it's fine, but in that case I'd prefer a real thin client, Linux based or other).
Linux is a kernel. The "shortcuts" you refer to are found in the desktop environment, which is built on top of the XFree86 windowing system... The KDE desktop uses the shortcuts you mentioned by default. Gnome uses different key bindings by default. However, they are all globally configurable, so you get what you want. But these desktops are not Linux; these desktops are available for, and used by, various different UNIX systems.
These are Microsoft's "standards." Your point is valid to the extent that they are defacto desktop standards for the majority of people. However, the GNOME people had legitimate reasons for their choice of default, primarily the fact that they were serving an established non-Microsoft user base. So they chose UNIX defaults.I for one dislike having to use ctrl-c/ctrl-v in Windows; cut and paste with a three button mouse (or the equivalent, such as a scroll wheel) is much quicker and intuitive after you become accustomed to it. (This is called "primary selection" as opposed to "clipboard selection" - X11 has both. Read this for more info)
The point that some now see the primary issue as how to gain desktop market share at Microsoft's expense is irrelevant. It is not ridiculous, just different. And configurable.
If it is too difficult for you to learn, then don't use it. How this is different from Microsoft, I don't know. If it is a question of changing from a known to an unknown for an office drone, everything is difficult. And how does being complicated make something powerful? A 2002 Ford Focus is considerably more complicated than a '69 Mustang 428 Cobra Jet R. The GNU/Linux system is actually elegantly simple in comparison with the various MS OSes.
Have ever really tried to learn to use a Linux distribution? If you want a very simple editor, there are dozens of options. GNOME and KDE each have their own simple editors that come with the system. This you should know if you feel competent to criticize.
Granted, vi and emacs require an effort to learn, but the reward is rich indeed. I use Vim (a supercharged, vi based editor with a GUI mode) for all my programming, and could not live without it. The choice between the two is largely a matter of religion (who got to you first) in my view. vi got to me first.
they'll take a Win 2.0 bug from 1989 and attribute it to Win2k. :-)
Partly because some cultures write two thousand using the numeral "2.000"?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I had forgotten about Clipper. Why must you dreg things up from my past.
FoxPro was cool, though.
-no broken link
Anyone remember the Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies?
Doesn't the situation with Microsoft remind you of what Eliot Carver did with his software?
Eliot: Do you have the software?
Evil man: Yes, it has, as you requested, thousands of bugs and so people will be forced to upgrade for years.
Eliot: Excellent (a la Burns)
One: Windows XP can be adjusted so that you don't have skinning slowing the system down (under system properties, advanced, performance, lookie, a checkbox option for best performance that magically turns all of that off! Wow!)... Not only that, but unlike Win98 and ME, you can turn off ALL unnessesary eye candy from just one window, instead of digging through display properties, folder properties, AND system properties...
Two: Microsoft's prior OSs (Win9x, NT4, 2000, ME) were designed to be backwards compatible... That is why you can put a SB-16 from 1993 into your PC running such an OS without any problems... However, the consumer market, eg: the ones who put money back into the PC industry and MS's pockets, are always buying new hardware... So MS decided that it wasn't as profitable to be 100% backwards compatible... Don't like it? Use Linux, Mac, whatever... Or buy a used Mac or PC from Goodwill and run System 7x or whatever can be shoehorned onto a 20MB HD these days...
For the record though, XP supports hardware built within the last 3-4 years, which isn't so unusual for any OS, since at least 1/4 of hardware made 3-4 years ago aren't even supported by their own manufacturers (Try looking up drivers for any Cirrus Logic 6454 video chipset sometime, and you'll see what I mean)...
Out of all hardware issues I've had (one total), it was a Microtek 3630 USB scanner, read by WinXP as a Visioneer scanner... Despite that, however, it works properly, and tricking WinXP into recognising the scanner as it's proper model/manufacturer was fairly simple as well...
Three: To those whining how XP doesn't work for them, try burning your warezed ISOs at a lower speed, then do the "change CD key" trick to avoid timebombs in the SP1 release when it comes out... And last but not least, RTFM...
For all intents and purposes, WinXP is a *good* OS... Even adequate... Friendlier than Win2K, and faster to boot (literally and figuratively) if you know how to tweak it (took me 2-3 days after installing it to figure it out, without needing outside assistance)...
Oh, and for the rumormongers: WinAmp, DiVX, all codecs, DVD and CD ripping with outside applications still works despite the alleged WMP 6.4+ security patch... In fact, while everyone is ready and eager to take the wording of a EULA as gospel, can anyone provide documented proof that anything remotely similar to the claims made actually occured? Has WMP magically made your WinAmp, DiVX Playa, codecs or ripping software either vanish or cease to function?
Or are you simply spreading FUD to promote Linux further than it has to? Hate to tell you this, but the Windows/Mac users aren't going to conscientiously throw away an OS they grew experienced with using, just to satiate your egos, and when you spread FUD to those who *have* already converted and those who were already Linux zealots, you're preaching to the choir...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
http://spacemoose.com/strips/shat_bed.gif
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
All the things tying you to win98 and DOS indicate that M$ has yet to provide what you seek. The transition from win3.1 to 95 was evil, but most things worked some better. The transition from 95 to 98 lost more of the 3.1 stuff and the release to 98B was a nightmare. The transition from 98 to ME or any of the other lesser selling junk was an exercise to be avoided. The transition from office 97 to office 2000 was painful. The transition from office 2000 to XP is so bad that I don't want to even mention it. Do you see the trend? It only gets worse.
Quit throwing good money after bad and start moving now. Keep your legacy aps working and start looking for their replacements outside of M$ because you will NOT find them inside without much much more work and effort. Where I work, we have stuff that will only work under DOS/Win3.1. To accomodate it, we keep a couple of old laptops off the network and unmodified. Still, it's only a matter of time before the artificial M$ bit rot eats these things and we can't get parts or the last of our install disks flake out. Have you tried putting DOS on a machine lately? How are those floppies holding up? Mine are dying, don't work with newer hardware and the old stuff won't work forever.
So, how about your own custom software? I was happy when my own software, compiled with Watcom for Win95 transfered over to 98 and NT without many problems. The printing had never worked, due to changed print methods in 95, but that was not too big a deal. I was very careful to NOT use MSFC and keep as close as possible to the lowest level APIs, figuring that they would have to break everything to kill mine. The recent automigration program deleted my work for me when I was moved to w2k just a few months ago. Fortunatly, my job description had changed since I wrote my software and I have not had to use it. I can't tell you if it works on w2k, but I know it won't work in the world of Paladium and other toxic heavy metals from Redmond.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
NT4.0 doesn't support USB. According to Microsoft, it will never support USB. The day I started using USB-based peripherals was the day I installed Win2k.
Why would someone with nine billion dollars work so hard? It's because some people prefer power to comfort. It's not to do the greatest good for the greatest number. It's purely for the sake of power, and only by persuing power for it's own sake can M$ hope to retain it. In the end, it's all the same.
You know how, but you don't know why. It's because:
SLAVERY IS FREEDOM
WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Lets see, MS stops making systems from oem's available with Win2k. But I need Win2k to run proprietary software.
Oh well, guess I'll just have to stop using my proprietary software . . . . NOT!!
I believe I've got a few hundred copies of Win2k lying around ready for fresh installs.
Correct me if I am wrong, but does RedHat support 4.0? Does Apple support MacOs 9? No they don't.
The only serious issue here is the *price* and *new licensing scheme*.
- Price is (was) not a big issue, because they had many options for upgraders at the late 2001.
- User eXPerience may be a problem. But then you can costomize XP any way you want. (I currently have Aqua theme on my machine. And I can assure you it's way better than any other clone (kde, gnome, etc.) except for MacOS itself).
- Licensing is a problem. I accept it. But not for everyone.
- Stabiliy. My experience is XP is *much* more stable than any other windows. XP is what 2000 was meant to be. It's faster, more stable, and has a better interface.
Sorry, but anyone who used XP for more than a month will agree with me. Once being used to it, turning back is not so easy.It's the fist time Microsoft did a "nice" OS, and of course they want everyone upgrade to it.
Several times now I have tried to use XP on a day to day basis, and each and every time, it lasts about 24 hours tops before I format the drive in disgust.
I find it very unstable compared to 2K, and the colours... THE COLOURS! MY EYES! THE GOOGLES DO NOTHING!!! Like a kid with crayons was let loose to design an OS GUI. *shudder*
Perhaps one day I'll be less of a luser and start using l00nix.
Thanks for putting that guy in his place. There's no room for rudeness like that in forums like this. Take it back to USENET.
.-.--
Hmmmmm... my copy of Office 2000 won't run under NetBSD. What kind of solutions are you giving here?
You see. In the "Real World (tm)" -- the place that exists outside of college -- businesses have hundreds of thousands (possibly millions!) of dollars invested in software. They are not going to dump all this software anytime soon. But, I guess that another solution would be -- fuck it! Let's just all stop using computers. We can convince everyone to go back to calculators and pens and paper?
real advantage of linux on desktop? :)
(in no particular order)
1. can be tweaked once to suit exactly your needs and then copied over and over again over different machines (even "old" and "slow" ones)
2. you know what's happening, where, and how to fix it
3. costs
4. it's tough for regular users to install their crappy applications and then ask YOU to fix them
5. viruses
6. happyness and joy over the entire universe
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
office XP itself runs "ok" on win2k. but it has severe compatibility issues with office2k.
more than enough for me to avoid it, thus avoiding winXP, and so on.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
yes, that's exactly what I meant. thanks for clarifying, sometimes my english is not enough to translate all the ideas I got to tell.
cheers
[btw, I agree with what you said, completely]
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
agreed.. SAP is a huge, enormous database that tends to become alive sometimes... so you got to be able to control it and to use it ONLY for what you need. SAP people wants you to use it for e-mail, agenda, notebook, PDM, whatever. If you keep it tight it is really useful. If you let it blow, you're fucked up.
:)
it's fun
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
One can't blame lack of competence on MS...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And they were found to be in acourt of law.
As for evil, well, there is no blinder person than the one that does not want to open his eyes.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Fuck Microsoft - Burn Your EULA Suck My Dick Bill
I may be bad with names, but I'll never forget your IP address
sssh...
Usenet is a myth... it doesn't exist..
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I don't have this problem, I use Linux.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
good lord, I forgot how hard it was to deal with networking under a Dos/Win3.x environment.
My apologies and condolances to you, my friend.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Not sure about *BSD, but with crossover office you can
Or with a talented enough admin (myself not included, but I know it's possible) you can make wine run Office stable like.
But I understand where your coming from.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I've been waffling whether to buy a PC laptop (speed, loads of software etc) or go for a Mac Powerbook with OSX. I'm going for OSX.