|
Home > Archive > General Discussion > January 2003 > NT4 is dead accept it and migrate.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
NT4 is dead accept it and migrate.
|
|
| AMDWiZARD 2003-01-31, 6:57 am |
| Microsoft only continues to support this OS because of people's constant bitching. I'd like to see it retired.
One good reason is lack of slipstreaming.
Another good reason is development.
Technology has a price to pay. Those who have NT4 servers will pay that price. Get an NT4 MCSE right now and you might as well put your money through a shredder. The whole reason behind technology is to MOVE FORWARD.
Windows 2000 is superior to NT4 in every way.
Windwos 2003 Server is superior to Windows 2000.
Windows 2000 is well on its fourth service pack. Windows NT4 has been stuck on SP6a since 1999.
Sure it costs money to migrate, but it will cost money when someone hits your NT4 network with a plethora of known exploits.
It was great while it lasted. Now die.
AMDWiZARD | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2003-01-31, 7:30 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by AMDWiZARD
Microsoft only continues to support this OS because of people's constant bitching. I'd like to see it retired.
One good reason is lack of slipstreaming.
Another good reason is development.
Technology has a price to pay. Those who have NT4 servers will pay that price. Get an NT4 MCSE right now and you might as well put your money through a shredder. The whole reason behind technology is to MOVE FORWARD.
Windows 2000 is superior to NT4 in every way.
Windwos 2003 Server is superior to Windows 2000.
Windows 2000 is well on its fourth service pack. Windows NT4 has been stuck on SP6a since 1999.
Sure it costs money to migrate, but it will cost money when someone hits your NT4 network with a plethora of known exploits.
It was great while it lasted. Now die.
AMDWiZARD
Yeah, time to migrate to Linux!  | |
| MartyMcFly 2003-01-31, 7:30 am |
| The world would like to thank you for your contribution.
maybe this guy could emigrate, do then have internet access on Mars yet? | |
| TW2001 2003-01-31, 7:46 am |
| Meanwhile back in the real world. | |
| Mikei6 2003-01-31, 11:03 am |
| For tons of companies, NT4 is more than adequate. Dont forget that some companies find that DOS meets or exceeds most of their requirements!
When you get in a habit of upgrading for the sake of upgrading, you miss the whole point. If you are constantly under attack and need improved security, or need to reduce Admin workload, or need to increase network stability, etc... then I'd say that upgrading would be worthwhile. | |
| ruscorp 2003-01-31, 11:07 am |
| Point well stated... | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by AMDWiZARD
The whole reason behind technology is to MOVE FORWARD.
The reason behind technology is to develop and implement technology solutions to make the business units of an organization operate more efficiently, thereby allowing the corporation to stay competitive in their respective industry. If that is what you mean by "move forward" then I agree, if not, then I'd have to disagree with your statement. Staffing an IT department that supports a corporation (and I'm not talking about solution providers, programming development, web companies, etc..) is a cost to the company. An IT department does not generate any direct revenue into the organization.
quote:
Windows 2000 is superior to NT4 in every way.
Windwos 2003 Server is superior to Windows 2000.
Windows 2000 is well on its fourth service pack. Windows NT4 has been stuck on SP6a since 1999.
Seems to me that the latest security exploit exposed vulnerabilites accross all the MS platforms.
http://www.microsoft.com/security/s...ns/ms03-001.asp
Your statements may hold some merit, and I am not a big fan of NT4, but in a large enterprise environment, it's not that simple to upgrade/migrate just because the latest and greatest NOS is out there and will supposedly make everything run so much better. There are so many other things to consider that they are too numerous to list. What about migration of any proprietary, legacy client/server applications my corporation may be using. Is that possible, if so, does any additional development need to be done to make it work, how much will it cost to develop? If not what's the additional cost to implement new, etc., and so on.
It's really easy to sit there and spout out generalizations of how this is so much better than that, but without details on why it's so much better and supplemental cost/benefit justification analysis that the financial people of the organization can understand, your migration dreams will not happen anywhere near the timeframe you envision until support for the old platform ends completely. Especially if things are working fine and stable as is. And that is why NT4 people are "bitchin" as you stated. If things are running fine, stable and I am competetive in my respective industry, why should I upgrade/migrate?
quote:
Sure it costs money to migrate, but it will cost money when someone hits your NT4 network with a plethora of known exploits.
That is too general of a statement to hold any real value, everything costs money. Better be able to put a dollar figure on that statement and be able to justify the cost of migration as opposed to the cost of shoring up my perimiter defense against security exploits. Risk, downtime and loss of productivity as well as an end to support of the NOS could be good things to cost justify the migration.
I'm not disagreeing with you completely, I'm just stating that there many, many things to consider. | |
| jonhiker 2003-01-31, 1:59 pm |
| Unless a company wants to toss a lot of $$$ into IT & Microsoft, why boter, especially if it's adequate for the company's nneds?
I inherited a network admin position at a small company using NT4 for it's servers, they were nice and stable and ran fine. The workstations used W95 & W98 and were mostly linked back to one of two application servers. When someone downloaded a virus(SirCam), the only machines not affected, were the NT4 servers. Plus, see the first paragraph. | |
| WPFossil 2003-01-31, 3:40 pm |
| NT isn't dead. Far from it. Until the economy experiences a huge upswing, people aren't going to shell out the licensing fees and IT overtime/additional hires to upgrade & support Windows 2000.
Having said that, I'd love to see my company upgrade to Windows 2000 because it would be an easy way for me to get more experience with Windows 2000 and improve my overall computer skills.
But that's just not going to happen. We just laid off 50 people and that kind of thing is going on all over. | |
| TW2001 2003-01-31, 4:08 pm |
| When AMD actually experiences a production environment..he`ll get it. | |
| ccieToBe 2003-01-31, 6:43 pm |
| I think each of those reasons given for migrating away from NT could also be used in an argument for migrating away from Windows.
Realistically, neither is practical 100% of the time. |
|
|
|
|