Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Half Of Businesses Still Use Windows 2000

Posted by timothy on from the shouldn't-surprise-anyone dept.

bonch writes "An AssetMetrix study shows that half of business are still running Windows 2000 four years after the release of Windows XP, and that usage of Windows 2000 has only decreased by 4% since 2003. Microsoft will officially stop supporting Windows 2000 by the end of this month, offering one last update rollup later this year. Windows XP's slower adoption illustrates Microsoft's difficulty in competing with the popularity of its own software platform, and makes it more difficult for Microsoft to convince people to upgrade when Longhorn is released late next year."

10 of 640 comments (clear)

  1. umm by beatdown · · Score: 5, Funny

    when Longhorn is released late next year

    Yeak, okay...

    1. Re:umm by alexhs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Longhorn has always been to be released late next year, you knew it, right ?

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  2. Why upgrade? by alanjstr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have not run into a compelling reason to upgrade from Win2k to XP. Win2k has been very stable for me. It seems that my XP boxes get more security patches than my Win2k boxes. I don't need all the eye candy of XP.

    1. Re:Why upgrade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's also the last OS from Microsoft that actually treated users like they were using a computer instead of dumbing things down



      So what you're saying is that you'd prefer an OS which turns off protection on n00bs by default, rather than allowing those who know what they're doing to configure more access appropriately?



      How come that logic is incorrect when it comes to file-security and/or login-security, but when it comes to configuration-level security, all of a sudden we about-face?



      I was raised to believe that you default to the more restrictive, so one has to take explicit actions to "open up" functionality which can potentially bite one in the ass. I recall MS being slammed time after time for not doing this in other areas.



      You'd have me believe Win2K is preferable because its the last MS OS that didn't start taking this path any way seriously????

    2. Re:Why upgrade? by squidsoup · · Score: 5, Funny
      I was raised to believe that you default to the more restrictive, so one has to take explicit actions to "open up" functionality which can potentially bite one in the ass.


      Damn, I wish I had h4x0r parents like that. Mine just told me to brush my teeth, and get three square meals a day.
  3. But maybe not by davmoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Windows XP's slower adoption illustrates Microsoft's difficulty in competing with the popularity of its own software platform

    I don't think the "popularity" of Windows 2000 is a factor. I think its more of businesses have a hard time justifying that hit for another $199 to Microsoft for an updated version when the version they've already paid for meets their needs.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    1. Re:But maybe not by TheLinuxWarrior · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Right on track, however, I don't think it's the licensing cost that kills it, at least not for big business.

      What kills it is the litterally millions of dollars in man hours that it takes to certify all of your applications prior to rollout, new scripting for things that didn't work, deployment teams to actually do the work, lost productivity when the upgrade doesn't go as expected for every single user. The list goes on and on. For a company like the one I worked at recently (100K employees), that $199 is just a drop in the bucket of the total upgrade cost.

      And for what? For 50-75% of average business users, they're doing email, documents and presentations. Linux/OO could easily do that for them. So where is the compelling reason to upgrade to XP or Longhorn other than the monopolist dropping support for your current OS?

  4. Why would they? by ZiakII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The simple fact of the matter is that upgrading from Windows 2k to Windows XP, doesn't offer much, a server running Windows 2003 Server, can still operate the same without switching the clients to Windows XP. Windows 2000 also takes uses less hardware requirements, and if it runs all their programs with ease, why would they risk switching to a new OS with problems? Then there is the fact of security Windows 2k has been around about 5 years, its going to have less exploits then a system like XP which can have more potential security flaws, then ones that been around longer.

  5. Re:Officially? by JaseOne · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well the blurb might have been a little harsh but...

    Mainstream
    * Paid-per-incident support
    * Free hotfix support

    Is what expires next month.

    --
    In the drops - An Aussie's musings on all things cycling
  6. MS lifecycle says it has to be by Bad+to+the+Ben · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It has to be released then according to MS: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default .mspx

    Check out the table. Notice how the licencing end dates run out at the end of this year for OEMs and next year for system builders? Longhorn has to fill that spot or the contracts need to be renegotiated.