June 14, 2005 9:18 AM PDT

The slow road to Windows XP

Use of Microsoft Windows XP has grown inside corporations, but a new study shows that nearly half of business PCs are still running the older Windows 2000.

The study, released Tuesday by AssetMetrix, underscores a recurring problem for Microsoft: While the company spends billions of dollars developing new versions of Windows and its Office desktop software, many customers are slow to give up older versions of software that's paid for and works just fine.

The AssetMetrix study shows that many companies have moved off of other versions of Windows, including Windows NT 4, Windows 95 and Windows 98.

Windows XP use surged to 38 percent by the first quarter of this year, up from 6.6 percent in the third quarter of 2003. However, the popularity of Windows 2000 has remained high, with the venerable operating system still in use in 48 percent of business PCs during the first quarter of 2005, down just four percentage points from the third quarter of 2003.

"I think (Windows 2000) worked too well."
--Steve O'Halloran,
managing director,
AssetMetrix
"The findings of this study suggest that Windows 2000 still plays an important part in many IT environments," Steve O'Halloran, managing director of Ottawa-based AssetMetrix's research division, said in a report.

And, if anything, analysts say that customer reticence in upgrading has increased in recent years.

"It seems to be taking longer each time" for customers to upgrade, said Michael Cherry, an analyst at Directions on Microsoft.

The sustained use of Windows 2000 is particularly significant as Microsoft prepares to end mainstream support for it at the end of this month. The company will still patch any important security flaws, but most other updating of the OS will cease. Support calls on nonsecurity matters will also be handled only on a paid basis.

Microsoft is preparing one final update to Windows 2000. The software maker opted last year to forgo a full service pack and is instead releasing what it dubs an Update Rollup, a lesser collection of security patches and updates issued since the release of Service Pack 4 in June 2003.

The company has said to expect the Update Rollup by midyear but has not said what features will be included beyond already released patches and updates. By not releasing a more full-featured service pack, Microsoft may be trying to send a signal that customers need to upgrade to get new features.

"I think Microsoft would obviously prefer they were running Windows XP, in part because Microsoft has invested so much to improve the security of XP with Service Pack 2," Cherry said.

For Microsoft, the fact that customers hang on to older versions of its software has become a chronic bugaboo. To some degree, the sluggish upgrade pace affects the company's revenue. In many cases, however, customers have already paid for a license to newer versions.

More significantly, Microsoft believes that when customers stick with older software, their satisfaction level is lower than it might otherwise be--a situation that could ultimately lead to lost sales.

In addition, the situation threatens to undermine the vast sums that Microsoft is spending to increase security in its most recent versions of Windows: Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.

There are several reasons for customers' foot-dragging. Many companies aren't getting rid of their older PCs running Windows 2000. Instead, when new XP-based machines are purchased, businesses are passing on the Windows 2000 machines to workers lower in the pecking order, O'Halloran said.

Windows 2000 is, in some ways, also a victim of its own success.

"When Windows 2000 came out, it was fantastic blend of security and user interface," O'Halloran said. As a result, companies planned their whole infrastructure around it. Many of its management tools have continued to be updated, leaving companies relatively satisfied.

"I think it worked too well," he said.

O'Halloran does expect that the percentage of Windows 2000 machines will drop further now that companies have largely gotten rid of all their Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows NT 4 machines. Still, O'Halloran predicts that the decline will be a gradual one rather than a large exodus spurred by the June 30 change in support status.

"I don't see anyone having a knee-jerk reaction," he said.

In some cases, Cherry said businesses may decide they want to wait for Longhorn, the new version of Windows due out in the second half of next year. But that transition--if and when companies decide to make the move--could be a far more dramatic one than the move from Windows 2000 to XP. O'Halloran said that most companies won't see a big shift if they move to XP. Windows XP is really just a bulked-up version of Windows 2000.

"It's an SUV versus a minivan," he said. "They both can get you there. It's the same type of vehicle. You still understand how to drive it."

62 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Who needs it
Why pay $100+ bucks for Windows XP? Windows 2K and XP are the same thing. XP is just a release of bug fixes. XP = version 5.1, and 2K = version 5.0. No major release. Both OS's get the same updates today anyways. Might as well wait until 6.0 (Longhorn) and spend the money on that.

I still disagree with the whole thing that we should pay for their bug fixes when it all works the same. That's how they make money.
Posted by (20 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Agree
"Venerable" 2000 might be, but it has all of the core stability of WinXP without the fat. However, to contradict myself, I have been disapointed at the lack of features in any of the Win2K service packs. WinXP SP2 was a substantial upgrade for XP, but to my knowledge, none of Win2Ks were more than just bugfixes.
Posted by Andrew J Glina (1673 comments )
Link Flag
If it ain't broke, don't fix it
This article completely misses this main point of how corporate drones think.

I like Microsoft products and am a general supporter (not fanatic), however, the reality of the situation is that when you upgrade Microsoft products to new versions, you are doing it for some feature that you don't have already. A small percentage upgrade with the belief that it will bring more stability or security, but the reality of the situation is that you must weigh the value of some perceived feature versus the unknown problems the new version will cause.

If a Windows 2000 based project works, what is the motivation to make that system unstable by replacing it with the latest and greatest beta from Microsoft unless it has some capability you are lacking and need?

This is the real issue with Microsoft products is the fact that there is not enough perceived effort in guarding against breaking existing systems when a new version kicks in.

Anyone ever develop in Excel or Access for one version only to have to rewrite when a new version comes out? Any VB programs convert nicely to VB.NET? Hmmm?

Okay, that last one wasn't totally fair. But the point remains valid that features alone are not enough to move corporations to new OSes once the project is finished.

A rock solid guarantee that your project will not break would go a long way though.

Enough ranting, back to work.
Posted by rhyssleary (35 comments )
Reply Link Flag
XP and 2000 are basically the same!
I can't believe Microsoft expects their customers to believe they are different OS's!
Posted by bobby_brady (765 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Just like XP is the same is Foghorn
Unlike Apple, M$ OS rollouts are nothing more then service packs with new pretty skinning, new more restrictive licensing and of course, a heavty price tag.
Posted by Gerald Quaglia (72 comments )
Link Flag
Did any of you people actually READ the story?
This has nothing to do with money. The majority of the businesses have ALREADY paid for the update, regardless of whether they roll it out or not. Their licensing agreements were locked in years ago. They pay, they get discount for volume purchasing, they rollout when they want. Simple as that. The companies do not have a choice about buying the software unless their agreement has ended.

Now, after saying that, this is about security. XP is more secure than any other version of Windows. Plain and simple. You upgrade, you save the world, you dont, you expose all of the Americans vital information to the criminal masterminds.

Now bookmark this post, after June 30th, some company will lose information in a security breach on a Windows platform that is no longer supported. Something that has been fixed on XP, but not on any other version. That company will be sued into oblivion and will scare all other holdouts to mass upgrade. Buy MSFT now, it is gonna happen. This is American, land of the free, home of the plaintiff.
Posted by (61 comments )
Reply Link Flag
typo
This is America, land of the free, home of the plaintiff.
Posted by (61 comments )
Link Flag
yeah, but
XP is the most secure MS OS, but really, is that saying much? It is still near the bottom of the list.

The minor security upgrades are not worth it to companies. Even if XP was on the security level of a *nix OS, would that be enough to get most corporations to spend a lot of money to upgrade?

Corporate adoption of Linux is very slow these days, even though it is superior to 2000. The resons are similar to the ones that keep XP from being the dominate corporate OS. They have the personnel used to it, it does what they need, and it would cost way too much to switch to XP.

XP is a 2000 OS patched. But they sell it as a seperate OS. I don't think that Longhorn will see a better upgrade rate then XP. Who cares if a piece of software is old? If it does what you need it to, it is fine.
Posted by Bill Dautrive (1179 comments )
Link Flag
Your kidding right
Do you really believe all the M$ hype and think that XP is really that much more secure then 2000.
Posted by Gerald Quaglia (72 comments )
Link Flag
Personally...
Personally, after using Windows and DOS from the get go I have to say Windows XP has been the best most stable OS for the PC todate (we are talking viable OSes and not the ones we wish were viable. We are also talking about for consumers and business not geeks, freaks and servers).

However, what I think the problem is that Microsoft doesn't know how to market. First the version number which really doesn't mean all that much is what 5.1 for Windows XP and 5.0 for 2000. This was just stupid. There are major differences between Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Windows 2000 is much harder to install and not quite as stable and that is just the tip of the iceberg. But, people see the .1 and think that there is nothing much new or worth while in XP.

Another problem is that there isn't enough new from one very of Windows to another. This isn't to say that XP isn't great it is. But, condering the large amount of time between major versions of Windows Microsoft just isn't adding enough. Apple does a much better job in this regard.

Look and Longhorn. When Longhorn was annouced it actually sounded like it was going be a major upgrade from Windows XP. I mean look at all of the new features and enhancements. But, now look at it. Microsoft has dumbed it down to the point that in the end it isn't going to be all that major.

Another factor is that people just don't like Microsoft. They are often rude and arrogant. People don't like to spend money with companies like that.

So add all of this up and what you have is products that don't see as well as they could. Where does all the fault sit? It sits with Microsoft and the way they do things.

Just like the near destruction of WordPerfect sites 100% with Novel and the near destruction of Netscape with Netscape. Had Novel released a good Windows version of WordPerfect it still might to tops today, it wouldn't be in near last place like it is. If Netscape handn't put out crappy versions and insisted on charging for them Netscape would be alive and well instead of a dead horse that the company kicks from time to time.

Robert
Posted by (336 comments )
Link Flag
Well said
Good point. People keep asking me when Microsoft will upgrade so-and-so in Windows 98 or 2000. I reply, "The upgrade is called Windows XP."

As I said in another comment, a lot of people balk at the activation required by XP, since they see that as itself a security risk (or a reliability risk - what if it refuses to run one day and you can't reactivate it?). Time for Microsoft to do away with that, at least for people who are using XP to replace an earlier Windows version.
Posted by mcugaedu (75 comments )
Link Flag
No, NT
nt
Posted by jmmejzz (107 comments )
Link Flag
So Microsoft is saying that...
They had rather intentionally have flaws in a product, then fix it in the next version, but then make another flaw just so people will keep upgrading? If Microsoft does this they will end up losing even more market share to other operating systems. Let's compare this to a car. If you buy a car that has a problem with the transmission that was intentionally planned, and in the newer model they fix the transmission problem, but make a problem with the air conditioning, the average person is not going to buy the same car, but instead a different one. Maybe Microsoft will learn someday...
Posted by PCCRomeo (432 comments )
Reply Link Flag
No clue
If you think that's the case then it's obvious you have no clue whatsoever. Stop smoking the weeds you find growing in your lawn, they're obviously giving you delusions of persecution.
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
behaps xp popularity would have been stronger if we havn't heard about lon
It so comes that you need to manage your network of computers in an easy and trustfull way wenn you own a company. To open up for a new world of OS, incoorporate it, teach your employees, make it work as w2k does after many years of strugles, you need an extreem amount of extra personal (covering hours for those studying how to manage and operate the new OS), and a lot of pations. That takes out a lot of the fonds from the company and leaves a lot of angry custoumers in the time you need for bringing in this new member of the family. We all know that longhorn is going to bring in a hole lot of new tecnlogy, so lets see wenn the beta version arives on the scene if it is for any good and lets forget about XP. Nobody can tell me to change to a new OS if i dont see that i can earn the dobble of that i have to invest. It is fun to learn something new if it dosn't ruin you.
Posted by tonyfs (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
here's why we stick with 2000 and 98
this is a very typical example that happens all the time here.

situation: new network printer install

1. go to win98se machine, right click printer, install, test page = perfect

2. go to win2k machine, right click printer, install, test page = perfect

3. go to winxp machine, right click printer, install, test page = doesn't work. 20 minutes later figure out what xp did incorrectly, fix it and then finally get test page.

these things happen all the time. we have 3 xp machines in the building... always my biggest nightmares.
Posted by sadchild (280 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Few users need XP
MS's woes seem simple to explain.

Corporation whihc have paid for XP and don't upgrade to it
obviously have no need for the confusion that an XP upgrade will
create. And who know, maybe some of the corpoirate PC's don't
meet XP system requirements.

And if all the corporation's applications run very well now, thank
you, then don't mess witth them or the OS. XP security features,
such as they are, are irrelevant without an internet connection,
so keep most of the computers off the internet. You can always
get a couple of XP PC's or well protected Win2K PC's to do the
internet work.

Maybe you're not saving any money, but you are saving a whole
lot of time, hassle, and frustration.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Windows is "Good Enough"
The problem MS is facing is brought on by its efforts to maximize
profits by producing OSes that are simply "good enough". Not
spectacular, innovative or the like. (to be fair, it is also driven by
their need to be backwardly compatible to their huge user base,
further degrading possible innovativeness)

Well, they have succeeded. W2K is good enough and XP is about
the same. Victims of their own success.
Posted by (57 comments )
Reply Link Flag
No compelling reason to upgrade if running Win 2000
There is not really a compelling business reason to upgrade windows clients if a person is running Windows 2000.
Posted by rshimizu12 (98 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Huh? MS still hasn't finished fixing Windows 2000!
Just as that pathetic bunch of MS wieners get an OS to within 80% of the reliability and security of other operating systems, they discontinue it and force you to the latest buggy OS?

Why do you still use Microsoft products? Get Linux, get some local geek to install it for you, get Firefox, OpenOffice, etc. You'll pay less and get more. The only thing you'll be missing is all the viruses, spyware, etc. that MS brings to the table.

www.AnythingButMicrosoft.org
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It's the activation, stupid
Many people object to Windows XP because it requires activation, i.e., you have to check in with Microsoft whenever you install it, and if you change your computer configuration too much, you have to activate again. I'm told people who frequently experiment with configuration changes (especially network cards) find Windows XP unusable for this reason.

Activation was a laudable attempt to cut piracy, but Microsoft is paying the price -- lots of people won't upgrade from Windows 2000, which they can run in private.
Posted by mcugaedu (75 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Don't forget
Business customers can get versions that don't need to be activated.
Posted by Andrew J Glina (1673 comments )
Link Flag
XP has a more glamorous look than 2000
The 2000 version of windows looks bland in front of XP. may be it is just a bug fix version of 2000, but still looking at the enhancements done to the previous versions of the Operating Sytems, like the numerous navigation options presented in the left pane and the unique option of Burning contents onto a CD, working with XPis truely a fantastic experience.
Posted by (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Is eye candy enough reason to fork out more dough?
nt
Posted by Bill Dautrive (1179 comments )
Link Flag
i agree
i agree, looks aren't everything. Also, that would be a very shallow when deciding which OS to use. But personally, XP looks horrible.
Posted by iceman2654 (8 comments )
Link Flag
wtf
you would pay £100 for a new GUI? get linux! it's free and the gui is superior! actually if you want to waste your money go ahead. here, i'll sell you a shiny ball for £50
Posted by Scott W (419 comments )
Link Flag
A Slimmer XP Pro?
True, that XP has indeed given the ordinary users the power to burn CD's, edit their home made movies, speed up work through logically arranged menus, rollback drivers and even the entire OS to earlier System Restore points. XP even packs inbuilt features including Internet Firewall, support for Smart cards etc. Till now, the best XP features that users have enjoyed are Remote Assistance and extensive support for a vast array of peripherals.

All this, suggests a huger(albeit pardonable) memory requirement. From my own experience, a freshly XP Pro installation with no applications installed consumes in excess of 90Megs right after a re-boot. Inconsequential as this may seem to the newer range of hotshot PC's boasting 64 bit processors with upwards of 512MB sticks with phenomenal bandwidths, it does pose a considerable setback for the slower and older PC's which still run P-3's with 128 or 192 MB of RAM. In sharp contrast, Windows 98 SE could run like a dream on 128 MB of ordinary SDRAM.

This ever increasing demand for higher memories showcases the symbiotic relation between the hardware and software companies for the common goal of higher returns. The software companies build bloatware which consume higher memory, and the hardware industry brings in faster processors and larger memories. Result : Your PC gets obsolete faster than you think it can.

XP Pro can reach more PC's today if MS can release a slightly minimalistic "functional" version of the current OS, ofcourse excluding only the high end applications like Wireless networking and the like. This, obviously would remind you of XP Home. But Home seriously lags in areas of security, performance, and manageability.

What is needed is a fast and light XP Pro variant with the secure engine, minus the frills, to breathe life into older PC's.
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
No compelling _need_ for Windows XP
My company still uses Windows 2000 for three reasons:

- We're using a fair number of older machines (Pentium III with 256KB of memory). Windows 2000 runs okay on these machines, but Windows XP doesn't. It's sluggish and uses more memory.

- The cost to upgrade our machines to Windows XP isn't worth the few benefits that we'll get in return. If Microsoft wants faster adoption of XP, they need to lower its price.

- And last but not least, Windows 2000 works okay for everyday use. Sure, it doesn't have the bling of XP, but it doesn't squander RAM, either.

Sooner or later, Microsoft will "retire" Windows 2000 and force people to upgrade to XP or Longhorn. Until that time comes, we'll keep getting the job done with 2000.
Posted by Get_Bent (534 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE: No compelling _need_ for Windows XP
I think you have identified a (the?) primary reason for reluctance to adopt XP.

My company's IT folks don't want to upgrade or replace aging desktop PC's just to get the same performance with XP as they do now with 2K, thank you. Security concerns are not as critical inside the firewall.

Even at home, my 4-year old Compaq 700MHz "Celeron" laptop zips right along with W2K (upgraded from the detestable "ME" it had originally) and 384MB RAM.

I have a 2GHz P4 512MB laptop at work, and it feels no faster just clicking around office applications than the old CPQ, except during pure processor-bound things like CAD regens, etc.
Posted by (1 comment )
Link Flag
It's not just that Win2k is ok, but XP sucks!
Ever try to figure out what's actually happening when XP refuses to connect to your intranet server? I'm a IT guy, a programmer, a kernel driver writer. So I know a bit about Windows. XP crashes every bit as much as every other piece of Windows software (I'm still waiting for the day I can install Linux universally).

I've probably installed 10,000 copies of Windows, and regretted every XP install at one time or another. I use 2000 where I can, and although it still crashes, and still stinks compared to Linux, it still a lot better than XP.

Oh, and then there's the activation thing. No home user wants it. As soon as I say "Oh, all you have to do is connect to the Net and..." it's dead. They don't want it. Activation sounds like DRM to people, and people are beginning to be smart enough to know they don't want THAT. As MS continues to go down the DRM trail, they're going to get more and more resistance. But I digress.

Windows 2000 is the most stable, most useable, most "let the user do what the USER wants, not what Microsoft wants" version.

Obviously the corporations know this. It should be obvious in the statistics.

Couple it with OpenOffice, Firefox, and Thunderbird, and you've got the fastest, easiest-to-use, smallest footprint (disc space), least bloatware system around.
Posted by (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
linux not viable
Yes linux rules but corporations are catching onto the hidden costs of supporting linux. Thus sales and usage of the OS has slowed much this year. Its too complicated for the normal user to use vs. us geeks who love to dabble in the innerworkings of the pc. Windows is the best option to the common user who wants no more steps then clicking on an icon and writing an email or play a game of solitare. 2000 vs XP well whether you like it or not XP is more secure after SP2. It may not be leaps and bounds more secure than 2000 but it added some basic features that increase its security (ie. firewall (crappy but its better than none), A/V detection, and pop up blocker) these few little things make it more secure than 2000 by default installed. After that its all gravy more advanced users put in what they want and trust and the common end user will be a hair more secure.
Posted by drkavnger99 (2 comments )
Link Flag
Your point is dead on...
And it is precisely where most IT folks lose focus. Windows
exists in the enterprise to assist the business. There is is little
benefit in justifying the cost of an enterprise-wide upgrade
because of the minor (in business needs) tweaks XP has over
2000. 2000 gets the job done, and well.

I'm not a MS fanatic either, but I did get a little confused when
MS decided to combine the NT (corporate version) and 9x (home
users) product lines into Win2k. My early gist was that there
would be too much blending of purpose, and that in the long
term it would hurt in getting customers to upgrade based on
features that weren't really needed. Does the enterprise care
that XP has great new DirectX capabilities? Probably not.
Likewise, does the home user care that XP has better remote
system management? Probably not.

I like to present an analogy it as a company like Whirlpool trying
to sell me a new microwave with a sewing machine feature.
Blending product lines can have adverse effects!
Posted by (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The slow road to Windows XP
You have to be kidding. I don't want to have to go through the hassle of rebuilding my PC's s/w while changing my own OS, much less the 20,000 PCs in my enterprise. Does MS even have a clue as to how difficult it is to redeploy an OS in an enterprise? The image has to be created, customer sw loaded, and it all has to be compatible with the OS. Once that major task in complete, you then deploy the image to 5,000 - 10,000 - 100,000 pc's? When is MS going to learn to understand the customer and get into the real world?
Posted by (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Perspective : Perception
Just because new PC are being sold with bigger HDs & faster
chips, DOESNOT mean people are "upgrading" to XP just because
it was "preinstalled" on the PC.

Many corporations just want newer, bigger, faster computers &
just dump XP & reinstall the legal copy of Win2000 on their NEW
PCs, since their whole infrastructure is based on Win2000, and
rather than risking new viruses, unlimited security XP patches,
etc., etc.

ALSO, NEW PC sales does NOT automatically mean a Windows OS
user. Once again, get a new PC with AMD64 chip & DUMP MS-OS
& install Linux / Lindows / Open Source OS / Open Office, etc.
ALL OF THOSE USERS DO NOT GETCOUNTED in these
"technology analysis of market usage & market share".
MICROSOFT gets the credit for "boosting" their monopoly, but
Linux users are NOT counted. Very few companies are
"preinstalling" Linux OS on PCs, but that is slowly growing into
the future. Will "tech analyst" count Linux sales & market share
as being deducted from MS Monopoly share? I seriously doubt it.

Also, Any software titles / games that are DUAL PLATFORM
capable (Win/Mac), that are sold or "preinstalled" COUNT as PC
sales, not MAC sales or 50/50 Win/Mac sales...

So, statistical anlysis & numbers, percentage of sales & market
share is a very grey area that Citizen Gates has guaranteed with
illegal backroom deals & lining the DOJ pockets that Microsoft
always comes out on top.
Posted by Llib Setag (951 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Very True
I get tired of statistic being seen the wrong way. Just because something is bought or downloaded it does not mean that it is used.
Posted by Andrew J Glina (1673 comments )
Link Flag
And MS creates it;s own statistics..
From what I understand, PC manufacturers have to sign a contract
that the y willinstall the MS OS on every PC they sell, or they don't
get to install the MS OS at all. I suppose that Apple does the same
thing, but then people buy Macs to get OS X. Not all people buy
PC's to get Windows.

Anyhow, MS does lockup its community's choices. NO wonder MS
has such 'good' statistics.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
registration a problem
This article doesn't discuss what may be one of the biggest problem with XP, the whole registration process.

I reload my system, or change components, often. Having to continually register something I've already paid for, and having to call someone to do it, is just not right.
Posted by kxmmxk (320 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Leave me alone: I'm working!
Lets see: I can continue to do useful work, OR I can install the new Windows Extra Particular (XP) and spend a few weeks trying to figure out why I can't print, can't network with my other perfectly good systems, can't use my perfectly good scanners and other peripherals, can't continue to use my perfectly good software .....
Posted by landlines (54 comments )
Reply Link Flag
More than just XP
People are missing the fact that any new OS rollout usually
coincides with other rollouts and expenses. It isn't just take a
CD that you're already licenses for (XP) as one poster suggested.

A rollout from 2000-XP would entail either hardware upgrades,
replacement PCs, or explaining to users why their PCs work
more slowly than they did with 2000. If you're migrating from
NT 4.0, you've got even more explaining / upgrading to do.

Then there's Office. Office XP and 2003 are dogs compared to
Office 2000 / Office 97 and offer virtually nothing that a typical
user would either be aware of or use. ** To a business, an OS is
simply a platform to run the applications you want to run,
nothing more. ** <-- that's a key point most 'techies' miss.

On top of all that, there is a learning curve for the users in both
the OS and application rollouts, and even on the hardware
rollout. All of that costs a lot of money both in capital and lost
productivity.

And as usual, the narrow focus on only one of these many
factors makes this article and most comments here meaningless.
Posted by (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Considering Another platform
Perhaps companies are looking to alternatives..
Posted by (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
My mom has a computer
It's a P3 with some x00 Megahertz. She uses the machine for email and some letters. As long as that computer works, she just won't change anything.

The machine runs on W98. Win XP may actually crawl on that computer, but it won't run. So why install it?

Me, i've got an A64 3.8Ghz that came outta the box with WinXP installed. I liked my W2k, but now that i've paid XP and have the resources to do so, i'll just run XP with all the widgets i'll never ever need.-
Posted by Office-Lurker (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.