Readers Wrestle With Windows 2000 Transition

Our recent analysis of Microsoft's support for Windows 2000 -- and how a decreasing level of support could push customers to new Windows versions -- strikes a chord with readers.

Some accept the support cutbacks, which are part of a well-defined Microsoft policy, as the normal course of IT management. Others say a lack of stability in the platforms that followed Windows 2000 has convinced them have to explore alternatives -- or that they've already left Microsoft over these and related issues.

We're presenting readers' comments -- in response to a blog entry on the same topic -- by broad categories of responses.

Also, don't miss the lively Slashdot discussion in response to our coverage.

Perhaps the best solution at this time is to go with a Mactel box running Parallels or make the final transition over (Slide) when Apple's Leopard comes out to play.
-- Robert Pritchett
Original Blog Comments Post

I have a modest home network with two recent vintage Windows XP laptops, two "ancient" 500 MHZ towers running Windows 2K (one for file backup/shared files and one connected to the TV for web surfing) and a 400 mhz Linux "learning" box. Microsoft's lack of support for an OS that's just barely two versions old has given me that final, motivational push I needed to finish learning Linux and start weaning myself away from their monopolistic practices.
--Bob Miller
Original Blog Comments Post

My company still uses Windows 2000 for various functions including 2000 server which runs our FTP. I think if MS wants to force us to upgrade, that I will in fact upgrade those boxes. However, I can guarantee that it will NOT be to another MS OS. My boss and I believe that MS has gotten out of control and we no longer feel any loyalties to them. I have already switched several users to OpenOffice just to see what they think and so far they love it more than MS Office. It is indeed time for a change and from what I saw of the beta of Vista, it's not worth the cost to "rent" it or the extra "issues" that they have bundled with it. That being said, I swear they are still using the same kernel as XP (which is basically 2000 with a few additions). I could be wrong I didn't check into that very much, it just had that feel to it. I think Ubuntu would be a good trial to start my power users on.
--Steve
Original Blog Comments Post

Due to Microsoft's general policies and operating systems that spy on their user (according to MS I can only rent their OSes), the computers at my small company and those at home all run Linux save for one at each location. All the laptops run OSX. I have ancient applications that I wrote for SVID.3 when I worked at Bell Labs and these will still work with at most a simple recompilation. Open Office, the KDE and other applications make staying with overpriced MS spyware no longer necessary. Even for application development, GCC, Eclipse, Ruby and Perl are better and more universal than the MS offerings. 'Nuff said. Lack of support for W2K has no meaning for me except to prove that MS is a greedy monopoly; imagine if the car manufacturers changed their tire every five years and the old tires were no longer available. Would you tolerate that kind of nonsense?
-- William Moss
Original Blog Comments Post

This is a golden opportunity to upgrade OFF of Microsoft's OS. There are now enough options to make this not only possible, but it makes business sense for most companies.

I remember when IBM tried to force companies to move all to the PS/2 line of computers. Well, IBM made a sharp right turn and most companies kept marching straight ahead. This was possible due to the availability of good clone machines that implemented the original IBM architecture as good or better than did Big Blue.

This time, it is Microsoft's turn. Arrogance and hubris will usually come home to roost. Now is that time.
--Tom Roderick
Original Blog Comments Post

The draconian insistence of an economic institution like Microsoft that it knows better than its customers what is good and appropriate for them belies a misunderstanding of long-term economics. Eventually, better handling of the customers by those who create and distribute alternative operating systems together with the migration of real computational power to centralized data centers will cause Windows to become less and less relevant.

Microsoft as a business entity is attempting to bolster its income by forcing customers to buy new versions. As comments already made by others make clear, this is driving customers away. And now that there are very viable alternatives in the form of Mac OS X and even some of the more recent Linux desktop options, Microsoft will be finding more and more people saying, "Enough is enough!"

Has there been real advancement in Windows since NT was released? No, not really. Microsoft has fixed the various bugs (known euphemistically as "security vulnerabilities") and packaged a bundle of them together with eye candy to produce the newer versions of the software (2000, XP, 2003, and now Vista), but the real underlying kernel and approach to an operational architecture is unchanged. It was weak and ignored modern operating system research in 1992 (even though Dave Cutler should have known better) and hasn't made any significant progress in the years since. And updates are only getting more difficult to create with longer gaps between releases.

It's all going the wrong way. So, no, Microsoft is not treating their customers well. But, what else is new?
--Steve Hultquist
Original Blog Comments Post

This is not a problem for my company.

However, it is indicative of the Microsoft mentality that they have chosen to brow beat the "holdouts" rather than help their customers. MS has a choice to make. They could set upgrade pricing at a more reasonable level. They could make the transition less painful in a number of ways. Instead, they have taken the monopolistic approach of punishing, pressuring, and forcing users to upgrade.
--Jim Zetzl
Original Blog Comments Post

A new MS OS is always a task. This is a company who created a paradigm where it’s acceptable to release a product or products that don’t function properly, charge you for support of these defective products, and then find a way to force you to purchase the newer version with all new bugs and problems. In the early days of PCs, software companies would work 24/7 to fix any problems found in their product(s), and then MS came along and destroyed the integrity of the industry.

A new MS version means hundreds of hours of testing to ensure your production environment is stable on the "new and improved" version. Often times it means redesigning applications because backward compatibility is not in the list of "features" or the new version of your application software (required for the new OS) doesn't compile your old code quite the same way it did on the last version. I've found a new version of Office means the object models may change, thus scuttling your in-house applications.

My company is just now moving to XP because 2000 is much leaner and more stable. I’ve beta’d Vista and it looks impressive until you push it a little. I’ll be waiting until at least SP2 before I touch that one.
--Daniel Lehr
Original Blog Comments Post

We are accustomed to these transitions with Microsoft. I have used their software since 1993, I think (Windows 3.1, so far ago in technology years). I can't remember the exact version numbers but I used to work at Xerox and was very familiar with the PC concept before Bill transitioned us into Windows. I would imagine that for most of us techies, this is just the natural evolution of the platform and fortunately, I transitioned out of 2000 a few years ago.
--Lee
Original Blog Comments Post

In the 1960's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) passed a ruling that manufacturers should retain enough parts to repair their "PRODUCTS" for a period of 10 years. I would like to see Microsoft get sued using that law passed decades ago. Maybe a class action suit would put Microsoft back in its place.

By rights, Microsoft should support any and all of its software for at least 10 years. If they charged a fee after 10 years, I could see paying for the support, at a modest fee. Maybe they should "Rent Out" their software, and then they would support it for a much longer period, because replacing it would be quite costly to Microsoft.
--Rex Allen
Original Blog Comments Post

In response to Mitch Wagner's blog entry on the Windows 2000 support issue:

Mitch, you're being much too soft on Microsoft.

More seriously, "forever" is absurd. Even IBM, paragon of supporting stuff way longer than you'd expect, does eventually end support. And W2K is OLD.

What would be nice is Microsoft making a current OS that's as simple and reliable as W2K. XP is almost there, but XP Pro is so expensive that IT deptartments have been reluctant to upgrade. (I worked for two of those departments.) However, your "needs to" comment is just based on the false idea that Microsoft exists to help its customers. It doesn't, and quite properly doesn't. It exists to help its shareholders.

And THAT is the difference between free software and Microsoft's.
--Carl
Original Blog Comments Post

Forever? Wouldn't that require an infinite number of employees to cover an infinite number of OSes? Do we really have to support the spinster refusing to move from Windows 3.1 or a DOS box? How about users of the Commodore C-4 and 128? Microsoft did write that OS also.

No, I disagree. It's hard enough supporting today's product. I work in tech support for a large corporation. We just can't fit it all in our heads. And faking it by using manuals is something the user can do themselves, and if they've been using a product for seven years, as with Win 2000, they should have it down pat by now. Plus the knowledge base is there.
--Jeffrey
Original Blog Comments Post