CNet: Half of all companies still using Windows 2000

Come on, TjL, Windows 2000 is more than 5 years old! Everyone should use Windows XP now! Not because of IE, but because it's an old hat. IE7 is free for Windows XP, and I agree that MS should not support older OSs like that.

So what if Windows 2000 is more than 5 yrs old?If people are still using it then Microsoft should cater to them, would you like it if someone shifted u aside poked you to buy windows xpso you can keep yourself safer? Its another reason to use Opera,it works even for Windows 95 which is great for people who dont want to upgrade. Anyway why aren't Microsoft releasing for older versions? A lot more money to cough up when they just could get Opera

One may think Win2000 is way too old to deserve support from its manufacturer, but one should be aware most people don't change their software/hardware needs as fast as the computer industry would like (thus generating revenue).

Most folks only use their computer for simple tasks. Moreover, the ordinary worker is not likely to continuosly learn new computer skills (nor should he be obliged to do so: the best technology is the one whose use is the most intuitive).

Besides, not all economy sectors from all over the world require cutting edge computer use.

In other words, not everyone needs a new OS, which demands a new and more powerful hardware set, every other year.

I, for example, own a MS xbox videogame (yeap, shame on me), and a Dell Pentium 4 3.2gHz with a flat screen, plus (!!) an AMD K6-2 500mHz running Win98SE in which I'm surfing the web and writing this comment.

The thing is, for most of my activities, the AMD suits me well. Why should I be forced to acquire new OS and hardware? As long as companies such as Opera keep making excellent software that is resource efficient, I'll be using this CPU and I believe it's a legitimate plea to continue to receive support (security patches included) for software I paid for.

It seems this move by MS only corroborates TjL vision that IE has some strings attached. At the moment, I have my back againt the wall: should I pay lotsa money or should I be stuck with a programme stalled in time (no improvements and unchecked security flaws)?

Who defines the expiry date of a product? Why should anyone upgrade to a new one?

Are there great features worth the price? In case of Windows XP, i have to say no. There are some possibly useful tools, but we've managed these tasks with free tools before. And the Video Encoding-programs they give us trick us into the wmv format, no thanks.

3 butt-ugly Styles, and if I want some customized ones, i have to patch some dlls.

Product activation, a stupid messenger and the creation of administrator-accounts for all family members instead of some security-advices on how to work with user-accounts.

Not that older versions of Windows are much better, but where's the sense of upgrading to this?

I work in IT and upgrading a users pc to a new one that includes XP is the worst! Most users knows their job specific applications and not much about the actual OS. Upon upgrading to XP everything that they knew from early windows 95,98,nt4,2k...is suddenly different, sure you can change it to the old school style but even things like the control panel are different and confuse so many people. I'm expecting longhorn to be just as much of a change ugh!

You can take my Win2000 from my cold, dead hands!

I use Win2K at home and XP at work (because it came on the PC and the Sysadmin won't let me change).

2K is more stable, easier to use and better performing.

Actually, I would go so far as to say that MS has a moral obligation to patch Win98 and ME against the latest 'little problem' : http://secunia.com/advisories/16004/ which means that any '98 or ME machine connected to the web without a bleeding-edge firewall has a really good chance of zombie under control of evil people. Not all these machines can be upgraded and not all their owners can afford to upgrade.

Win 2000 works for many old programs whereas win XP does not.

If you have spent hundreds of hours perfecting and debugging macros that no longer work in XP but work in NT and 2000 then you have to say that XP is too costly.

For an average business, XP adds no real features, except the headache of reregistering it whenever you change too much of your computer.

How long will the public and computer industry be in thralldom to the greed of a few? We no longer have only black Fords on the road. And it seems we won't have vehicles runing only on crude oil derivatives forever. Somehow there must be developed a core operating system as a basic unit to which variations can be added to suit userneeds. Possibly more support to Linux and offspring or equivalents could be the element. Maybe what is needed is a unified industry group including governmaent agencies determined to end the perpetuation of MS dominance.

honeysipper:

Totally the wrong analogy to use.

In the car industry the reason why we don't have only black Fords out on the roads are because everyone went out and bought new ones.

Why do people demand that the software business provide patches for years and years and years to come? They don't demand that of their auto manufacturer, or the manufacturer of their homes, or of anything else.

The way I see it, if it aint broke don't fix it. Win2000 is rock solid... let me say this again... rock solid. I run a home based business and I use Windows 2000 on my network. Windows 95 and 98 SE were pretty good, WinME was a complete joke. But with Win2K you always know what to expect when you turn your PCs on. What more do you need. I actually like MS. Had it not been for them, I'd be punching somebody's clock everyday, but still I'm not trying to make Billy more money... geesh