ROFL. Windows 2000 used more often than XP.

[Deja Q]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1504

Although usage of Windows XP in businesses improved to 38 percent of business PCs in the 2005Q1, a recent study shows that nearly four years after that operating system originally shipped (October 2001), it still trails behind its predecessor Windows 2000, found in 48 percent of business PCs. While a 10 percent difference doesn't sound like much, the change only marked a 6.6 percent improvement over 2003Q4 and a majority of that change apparently came by way of upgrades from the really outdated versions of Windows such as Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT 4. Windows NT 4 succeeded Windows NT 3.51, the first of the fully 32-bit versions of Windows to get any sort of serious traction.

Licensing costs? Even more security-holey? Product activation? The sheer size of the OS? The fact that Steve Ballmer said XP is what 2000 should have been (so why isn't it free then, you corporate pig? Of course, Microsoft slammed Windows 95/98 when promoting Windows 2000, and any other company trashing its own earlier products would otherwise be shunned into non-existence, WTF is wrong with our country? Oh yeah, money before quality)?

[ET Awful]

1. Well, as an IT manager for a company, I can tell you why WE are still

using 2000.

Primarily because due to Bush's economy, our business is down considerably. All of the machines we have came with Windows 2000 licenses (except our newest laptops which all run XP). We are using machines that for the most part are 3 years old or older, and most were budget machines at the time they were purchased.

What this means is that thanks to the economy we do not have the time nor the budget to invest in both new hardware (which would be necessary for about 25-30% of our machines) and new software licenses.

This doesn't take into account the man hours involved in upgrading multiple machines across the board. This is not a quick process, it involves a huge amount of downtime and distracts from other projects (such as customization of features in our accounting system which I am working on). With the shortage of cash and manpower thanks to (once again) the current economic situation, this also presents a major obstacle.

Then, we must dispell your theory of product activation having anything to do with it, as corporate versions of XP do not require activation.

Also, we'll dispel your theory of security having anything to do with it because in the almost 5 years I've been with this company, we have never had a single security threat related to any problems with an MS operating system. The only significant risk we've encountered was related to flaws in a Cisco router. Why? Because I and those who work with me know how to manage security properly.

I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft, but to suggest that Microsofts licensing, security, or activation has anything to do with the fact that we are still on 2000 is completely wrong and ill-informed.

[Kellanved]

2. I actually think that it's more a sign of understaffed IT departments

The study was about PCs in Canada and came to the conclusion that almost all company PCs are still running the OS they were delivered with. I.e. not even the "must" upgrades and patches were installed. Sounds like runaway saving on IT maintenance to me.



Not that I see a single advantage in running XP compared to 2k.

[ET Awful]

3. Hehehe, see my somewhat longwinded way of saying basically

the same thing :).

It's a manpower and economics thing :).

[orwell]

4. Win2K

Both my wife and I still run Win2K on our machines. It works fine so why upgrade.

I have installed WinXP on two computers that I support, one for a client and one for my Mom. I have to say that WinXP does offer less support headaches for users who know nothing about maintaining a machine.

So for new users, especially those who are "computer challenged", XP seems to be the more user friendly, idiot proof of the two OS's. If you already use Win2K and it works for you, there seems little reason to upgrade.