![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
XP took over immediately because there was only Windows ME in the retail channels and on store bought OEM PCs - Windows 2000 was never sold as a retail/OEM installed OS on that sort of hardware, so... as soon as XP came out, the gap between it and ME was closed and ME just sorta died the death it should have died many months prior.
There was no gap with 2K to XP because 2K just didn't get the retail/OEM stuff done. You could get 2K on laptops, more often than not, and on OEM boxes from the OEM direct (Dell, HP, etc) but you couldn't walk into a Circuit City or whatever (Best Buy wasn't even a big chain in 2000, not yet), and CompUSA was king of the hill at the time where you could get HP, Compaq, etc brands but in their retail stores you'd never find one with 2K on it on the shelf.
The biggest knife in Vista's back initially when it came out was the fact that there was such a huge length of time that XP was - and still is - on the market. That's what hurt Vista more than anything else:
People got comfortable with it, and as I've been saying for years now, people don't like change hence Vista was getting off handicapped by that fact from the gitgo. They don't want to re-learn things even considering that learning is a good thing and stimulates the grey matter...
Doesn't matter to them, they just can't stand new stuff, simple.
Very true. Win2K never had the majority of the market as XP did. It was pretty short lived. In the consumer market it was 98/ME to XP directly and Win2K only enjoyed a year before being replaced by XP.XP took over immediately because there was only Windows ME in the retail channels and on store bought OEM PCs - Windows 2000 was never sold as a retail/OEM installed OS on that sort of hardware, so... as soon as XP came out, the gap between it and ME was closed and ME just sorta died the death it should have died many months prior.
A good point, The current windows OS will always be in a mode of gaining market share while it is the "current" version. Even Vista increased it's market share by almost 300% in 2008 by going from 5%ish to 20%ish. XP didn't have to replace a single OS that commanded an 80% share. XP had another advantage in that it became the desktop os of both business and consumers where previously MS had two separate products for those markets. That made XP a lot more appealing.
Vista is ok but I prefer XP because it runs much faster on a virtual machine. However both are still junk compared to Leopard
Yeah, if one is doing well with XP, no need to upgrade. But for a new system, if one can deal with the learning curve, it's probably the better path.
I found it a little humorous that Dell and perhaps other vendors are still selling computers and give the option of "downgrading" from Vista to XP Pro but for a $99 fee, which is sometimes waived on higher end computers.