Although a good segment of users and businesses never update to a newer operating system, or at least try to get all the life out of any given generation that they can, that doesn’t stop MS from making less and less support for older brands to spurn you into purchasing their latest.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Microsoft Turns Up the Heat on Win2K Users
- Thread starter Rich Tate
- Start date
While I can understand Microsoft's decision to no longer support Win2K, I think it will burn them on the end. Lets face it, Win2K is fairly light, fast, and generally works well. Things like the DST changes would be easy for MS to roll out a hotfix for, and I wouldn't be supprised if they eventually do.
Many business like Windows 2000 because they are already licensed for it, or because it is "light" enough to run on their older PCs.
IMHO For 99% of users, there are few if any compelling features to move to XP or Vista. The additional eye candy in Vista and XP to me is a waste of resources anyways.
I think the value in Vista will be the security enhancements.
IMHO For 99% of users, there are few if any compelling features to move to XP or Vista. The additional eye candy in Vista and XP to me is a waste of resources anyways.
I think the value in Vista will be the security enhancements.
The King of Pants
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,280
Agreed, the only reason i moved up to XP last year was for gaming.Josh_B said:
I guess its gotta happen at some point. I mean could you imagine if they still supported Windows 3.1? Granted it wasnt as widely used in buisness as win2k, but still. I'm sure a group of people sat around and though about what would be cost effective and beneficial for the company and made the decision to stop support.
I wonder if they will have a special upgrade licensing price if you already have a win2k license?
I wonder if they will have a special upgrade licensing price if you already have a win2k license?
The King of Pants said:
The group policy stuff in XP is much better, too. Unfortunately, most companies don't even leverage the GPOs so this could be a fairly moot point.
If they kept the GUI from 2000, but added DX10, improved GPOs and security enhancements, we would be better off IMHO with regard to Vista.
Don't forget that large customers may still choose to (essentially bribe) pay MS to continue 2000 support even after support has technically ended.
Could be the reason WinFLP - Windows Fundamentals (for) Legacy PCs was created; Microsoft's attempt at an "nLite" style stripped out version of XP with most of the features intact that matter for some situations. 2K is still obviously a worthy OS by any meaning of the word, but sooner or later you just have to kill it off.
Also, I wonder how many people are paying attention to the seemingly little known fact that Vista Home, Home Premium and Ultimate have 5 year support lifespans... while Business and Enterprise have 10 years of support - that is a first for Microsoft.
Also, I wonder how many people are paying attention to the seemingly little known fact that Vista Home, Home Premium and Ultimate have 5 year support lifespans... while Business and Enterprise have 10 years of support - that is a first for Microsoft.
win2k was hands down the biggest jump in performance and stability MS has ever taken. Going from nt 4.0/win98 windows 2000 was purely amazing. Stable, not a resource hog and man was it good with active directory etc on 2000 server. It was a great time and still a great OS but I guess we all must move on at some point.