|
Home > Archive > 70-210 > April 2001 > Why 2000 when XP is looming?
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 |
Why 2000 when XP is looming?
|
|
| Redleg 2001-04-19, 12:37 pm |
| Having finished my MCSE NT4 about this time last year, Micro$oft mandated that I have to upgrade to 2000 before years end. So here I go, back into study/test mode and then I see all kinds of posts on the 'Net about XP replacing 2000 by Jan '02. Will I be re-posting this message in the XP forum about MCSE2000 this time next year?
All of a sudden I feel like a Micro$oft zombie...arms outstreched, eyes rolling back in my head, drooling on myself, moaning about RIS, CDF, Kerberos, MMC, while spending $100 a pop only to go at again 
Any thoughts? | |
| Y2KWS6 2001-04-19, 2:26 pm |
| It was my understanding that MS was not going to retitre the W2K MCSE when XP was released. Primary reason being that it was supposed to be a migration of ME and 2000. Also they were planning on offering a Server,Advanced Server, and Eterprise versions simalar to 2000. | |
| TW2001 2001-04-19, 6:31 pm |
| I guess it comes down to staying up on new technology. This subject has been beaten to death..........
Check out http://techrepublic.com they have some good editorials on this issue. | |
|
| Microsoft only gets an OS right every few years. XP is NOT one of them!
This is an EDITORIAL message.
I used Windows 95 the day it came out. It was a wonderful upgrade from 3.1. It was faster, more stable, and supported about 10 times as much stuff as windows 3.1. Then NT4 came out. It was a downgrade from 95 for the average user, because it didn't support any plug and play. Sure it is more stable, supports SMP, and a bunch of other server type stuff. But generally, it only caught on in businesses...and slowly there.
Windows 98 was a disaster, and added lots of fun bugs to Windows 95, while simultaneously losing stability AND speed.
Windows ME followed the same trend as windows 98.
Finally, Microsoft developed something worth putting on my system. Windows 2000. It's demanding, much more so than Windows 95. But it gives something back. Stability and speed. It finally makes up where windows NT4 fell short. Plug and play, support for FAT32 and better stability. Yes, I know, it has lots of other features, but those are server features the end user will never see.
OK…Windows XP (formally whistler) is almost here. And personally, I could care less. What could they add to Windows 2000 that would make it better? Maybe some more fancy graphics. Or maybe some nice sounds? Microsoft is just pushing a new OS on consumers, because they can.
Hopefully XP will be easier to install than Windows 2000. I think that's what stops the average end user from using it. They take one look at the ancient DOS install, and run screaming.
PLEASE don't look to Windows XP as the "next great thing". It's really not. Study. Practice. Get your Windows 2000 MCSE. If anything, you will be more prepared for the Windows XP MCSE. | |
| slapyomoma 2001-04-20, 11:00 am |
| I have a version of XP. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to replace 2000. Unless they come out with major, and I mean MAJOR fixes, it's not going to replace 2000 in the near future.
sym |
|
|
|
|