There's actually a few good reasons to upgrade if you're using 95/98/ME or NT 4 - if you use 2000 you likely don't have much incentive, so don't worry.
The big thing is of course the 2000 core; for many 9x users, stability is an unknown thing. They also get real multi-user logins with the option of restricting hardware and software access privileges (i.e. security in a nutshell).
There are a few other things. PPPoE is built into it, so you can use DSL more easily. I've heard some people say that their dial-up connection performance went up noticeably.
Wireless networking is also much easier from what I've seen - at the XP premiere presentation (yes, I watched some of it) they plugged in and installed an 802.11b card just by plugging it in, letting it automatically install the drivers, and picking a wireless network to connect to. Not even a reboot!
It's definitely the new GUI (in combination with the 2000-based kernel) that will attract people to it, but there's various little tweaks and improvements. I do use XP, as much as I may not like product activation, and it seems to work well for what it sets out to do.
I can only imagine... "yes, I'm running Debian with the 2.4 kernel, the latest beta of KDE, and I have a custom connection script - I can't visit any websites with Mozilla." Cue the tech support headache now!
For all the limits, it's probably a good thing that the Windows and MacOS designs tend to be so static. You don't have to worry about what GUI they're using, whether they're using an older TCP/IP stack with problems, or whether they've managed to mangle their system through their own coding, or... I think you get the idea.
I do work tech support, and I actually had someone who wanted support because of just that - they had a custom script in Linux that was preventing them from connecting to the Internet. Yet, mysteriously, their Windows 98 partition worked properly. I don't think I have to explain much of my answer!
Seriously, if you think you're technically capable of using Linux, you shouldn't have to ask tech support for help setting it up!
There isn't some horrible conspiracy - it's just that they have to test XP and make sure support's ready to guide people through it (as was mentioned in the newspost, but I don't think immediately gathered).
It may have a lot of similarities to Windows 2000, but strictly speaking the GUI is pretty different. I work tech support, and we sometimes have problems even getting people to the Run command - imagine what it will be like when you have to check if someone's using the XP or classic Start menu (so certain icons are in one place but not the other), whether they're using the simplified control panel or not... you get the idea.
There's also the problem of the code base - it's not going to be the same as for a 2000 user (and certainly not a 9x user). At work we've had people come in and complain of a mysterious slowdown, and then mention "oh, this happened just after I installed XP." They don't know if your hardware drivers might be poor for 2000/XP, whether it's something in the TCP/IP stack, or even just the drain on the OS from all the eye candy.
From what I've heard they may well have full-on support in about 30 days (this may change), but I don't think anyone here should accuse them of malice in that regard (now, the quality of support in a particular tier is a different matter...)
What I've heard about those Xbox units crashing is that, at least with Halo (a Bungie employee said as much), it's because the demo discs were accidentally built with an older video library. When that library looks for things that aren't there in a shipping Xbox, it goes on the fritz.
Microsoft may have a rep for things that don't quite work properly, but at least here it's a one-off that shouldn't carry over to the final product.
Oh, and about the Gamecube - I'm interested in that as well, but I already have a Dreamcast and a PS2. Even a third console would be a bit much!
Slashdot Mirror
There's actually a few good reasons to upgrade if you're using 95/98/ME or NT 4 - if you use 2000 you likely don't have much incentive, so don't worry.
The big thing is of course the 2000 core; for many 9x users, stability is an unknown thing. They also get real multi-user logins with the option of restricting hardware and software access privileges (i.e. security in a nutshell).
There are a few other things. PPPoE is built into it, so you can use DSL more easily. I've heard some people say that their dial-up connection performance went up noticeably.
Wireless networking is also much easier from what I've seen - at the XP premiere presentation (yes, I watched some of it) they plugged in and installed an 802.11b card just by plugging it in, letting it automatically install the drivers, and picking a wireless network to connect to. Not even a reboot!
It's definitely the new GUI (in combination with the 2000-based kernel) that will attract people to it, but there's various little tweaks and improvements. I do use XP, as much as I may not like product activation, and it seems to work well for what it sets out to do.
I can only imagine... "yes, I'm running Debian with the 2.4 kernel, the latest beta of KDE, and I have a custom connection script - I can't visit any websites with Mozilla." Cue the tech support headache now!
For all the limits, it's probably a good thing that the Windows and MacOS designs tend to be so static. You don't have to worry about what GUI they're using, whether they're using an older TCP/IP stack with problems, or whether they've managed to mangle their system through their own coding, or... I think you get the idea.
I do work tech support, and I actually had someone who wanted support because of just that - they had a custom script in Linux that was preventing them from connecting to the Internet. Yet, mysteriously, their Windows 98 partition worked properly. I don't think I have to explain much of my answer!
Seriously, if you think you're technically capable of using Linux, you shouldn't have to ask tech support for help setting it up!
There isn't some horrible conspiracy - it's just that they have to test XP and make sure support's ready to guide people through it (as was mentioned in the newspost, but I don't think immediately gathered).
It may have a lot of similarities to Windows 2000, but strictly speaking the GUI is pretty different. I work tech support, and we sometimes have problems even getting people to the Run command - imagine what it will be like when you have to check if someone's using the XP or classic Start menu (so certain icons are in one place but not the other), whether they're using the simplified control panel or not... you get the idea.
There's also the problem of the code base - it's not going to be the same as for a 2000 user (and certainly not a 9x user). At work we've had people come in and complain of a mysterious slowdown, and then mention "oh, this happened just after I installed XP." They don't know if your hardware drivers might be poor for 2000/XP, whether it's something in the TCP/IP stack, or even just the drain on the OS from all the eye candy.
From what I've heard they may well have full-on support in about 30 days (this may change), but I don't think anyone here should accuse them of malice in that regard (now, the quality of support in a particular tier is a different matter...)
What I've heard about those Xbox units crashing is that, at least with Halo (a Bungie employee said as much), it's because the demo discs were accidentally built with an older video library. When that library looks for things that aren't there in a shipping Xbox, it goes on the fritz. Microsoft may have a rep for things that don't quite work properly, but at least here it's a one-off that shouldn't carry over to the final product. Oh, and about the Gamecube - I'm interested in that as well, but I already have a Dreamcast and a PS2. Even a third console would be a bit much!