[JP-]

Hi, i was just wondering what ppl think the uptake of WindowsXP is going to be. MS seem to think it will sell loads but im not so sure. Its all well and good for ppl who have already used an NT os, but what happens when joe public finds that his favorite game doesnt work on XP. I have asked lots of ppl already if they will be changing from 9x to XP and most (ie 90%) have said no. Then you have the corporate sector, and i cant see many companies using it either. For one they wouldnt really care for an os which is basically windows2000 with a nice interface, if they are already using 2000 then whats the point in an upgrade!? Infact the company which i work for have recently upgraded all there machines from NT to win2000 so an XP upgrade would pretty pointless at this stage. *sigh*

Anyway discuss
Thanks

[DosFreak]

For businesses:

Currently running ALL NT4 or below: XP will be a good investment but all of the confusion/doubt plus it just coming out businesses would be best off with Windows 2000.

Currently running ALL 2k: Slow deployment on workstations (No need to push out as fast as 2k due to small differences)....no use for server needs.

Currently running NT4/2K=These will migrate to fully 2K.


Nah. XP will do good on computers it comes with. Masses of home users currently running 9x won't be upgrading due to the costs involved of upgrading their hardware.

So no. XP won't be that popular in the business sector.

[JP-]

Yup good on new comps you are right Its a shame though that many ppl wont upgrade from 9x OSs, because it really is a much better OS.

[DeadCats]

Here in Alaska, where we're actually pretty much on the bleeding-edge as far as governmental (State) IT goes, departments are just starting to implement Win2K, especially now since the release of SP2. At this time, WinXP is a non-issue. No one even thinks about it.

I see no reason to think that it would be much different for most good-sized corporations, either.

Wireless WANs at extremely high bandwidth are getting mucho attention here right now.

[Brian Frank]

Having tested it, XP's only flaw I see is the product activation. XP is great for ppl that will use the new features, but I don't see how I'll be utilizing the features enough to justify a $200 purchase. I also have the lingering cautiousness from using ME.

Anyone wanna buy a copy of ME?

[JP-]

Erm....no thanks

[Brian Frank]

I mean...anybody wanna buy a Windows ME coaster?;)

[ThC 129]

XP will not be implemented right away, but with the recent delay of blackcomb, maybe MS sees that people aren't going to buy into the whole OS of the year thing with computers. Over the next 2-3 years the majority (75-80%) of Windows based computers will be running a version of Windows 2000 be it 2k, or XP. All new computers will be running XP so it will be delpoyed there also.

But when you get down to it the question is that do people think that this is going to be the MS cash cow win98 was??? No. It will take time to see delpoyment of it, and MS would be smart to delay BlackComb until 2004.

[DosFreak]

Exactly. By 2003 Windows 2000 will be firmly in place and XP should be stable in the server market by then. Lot's of home users/workstations will be using XP too.

Just look at NT4. Made in '96 and 2000 out in 2000 (well 99 but really 2000). So give 2000 a four-year reign and that's the next OS big companies will go for.

[JP-]

btw i was thinking today, what does XP 'really' offer compared to win2k? What exactly is the incentive to upgrade.

[ThC 129]

truthfully, besides a few bells and whistles and a more out of the box refined version of 2k, not much. Is it worth it to upgrade over 2k?? If you have the means to then i would say to, otherwise 2k is fine.

[Brian Frank]

I agree with ThC 129, XP doesn't really offer much in spectacular improvements over Win2k. From 9x, sure, but there is hardly a loss from 2k.
All I can muster for the improvements over 2k is a whoop-dee-do. If you want a pretty Win2k, there's Window Blinds--which is free. I feel there's a lot more hype about XP than meat. The faster boot times are something I've heard about, and not really seen. Yes, gaming is faster, but $200 for an upgrade is questionable for that. While many may laugh, I'm in a situation that must use a totally functional NetBEUI protocol, and the one in XP is sooooo slow and not totally functional.

XP doesn't have an incentive for me to ditch 2k. I'm working on getting a friend over to 2k from 98, and it was hard to get him to go from 95 to 98--I'm not kidding! We did convince him after telling him about the improved driver support, and he bought it. I have a feeling he'll be stuck with 98 for a while now.
I will stick with 2k for a while myself.

[loengard]

For home users who use Windows 2000, XP offers the ability to finally get rid of that dual boot nightmare with Win2K/Win98..... New PCs will come with it, so users will have to get used to it....

For business... Most won't change what works.... They have no need for games in the office, so the fact that Win2K doesn't do those well isn't an issue for them....

My prediction. WPA will be XP's undoing... Aside from the people who get it with new PCs, I don't think many people will shell out the bucks to upgrade, especially if they own more than one PC.... They don't want to buy more than one copy of a new OS. Maybe that's wrong, but it's been going on for a long time....


Loengard