In all the MS coverage recently, XP is being described as “highly anticipated.” While I agree that MS is highly anticpiating it, as are computer hardware manufacturers and retailers, I remain unconvinced that this OS is “highly anticpated” by anyone other than a few consumers. I’m getting the “OS/2 Warp” feeling about this launch.
What’s your take? Is this OS “highly anticpated?”
(Mods, I’m sticking this in GD because any mention of MS can become inflammatory and O/Ss are a religious arguement - but move it if you want).
I have an evaluation version of it here at my company, and at the moment it is really pissing me off… and I’m not done installing it yet. I’ll let you know how I like it when I get it up and running.
I was on the Beta release program and ran it for a while. Absolutely rock solid piece of software. However, I am not running it anymore as they don’t support Voodoo cards.
Done installing and playing around with it now. It’s, ummm… interesting. Seems like when you are doing stuff on it, it’s like you’re playing a cartoon. There is just about nothing on the desktop to start with, and I think I heard somewhere that that’s how they wanted it to be, because of like consumer poles or something. The new start menu is kinda wierd. It’s very clunky and bulky to use, and slow to bring things up. It is very dumbed down and user friendly now, but for me I see that as a minus, because I have to click like 9 times to get to what I want. Personally, I don’t like it. 7.12 out of 10
It is not highly anticipated. Most big companies are no where near done with Windows 2000, nevermind XP. Techies such as myself look forward to it, just as they do with any new software they get to play with.
I think Win2K was much more highly anticipated. On the other hand, there may be some sectors where this OS is a big help - finally you can deploy the same OS to home PCs and work PCs.
Of course not. Joe User doesn’t give a rat’s ass about XP. Microsoft is paying obscene amounts of money to promote XP–of course they’re going to hype it in any way possible. and as long as someone, somewhere is anticipating it highly, they’re not lying. Much.
As a professional developer and an early adopter of the .Net technologies, I’m looking forward to XP. Heck, we already run early versions in house on a few machines. XP incorporates the core framework of .Net, so I’ll be able to develop complex application services more quickly and easily, with a lot less overhead. The core services and files of the OS will be better protected as well. I’m also pleased that the installation verification aspect of the new OS is withering on the vine. (Although, that won’t affect me personally).
That said, in the short term, there’s no compelling reason for your typical end user to upgrade just yet. We won’t push our clients to upgrade until there is a business need. Typically when that happens, their choices are 1) maintain the existing application and retrofit new features into the old with extensive testing and debugging at each step, or 2) upgrade to a new version with a shorter development cycle, more features, and a shorter debugging cycle. The costs usually even out in the end, unless it’s a big jump
You are correct about Joe User giving a rat’s ass about XP. I think it’s fatigue. Windows 98 came out in what early 1999? Windows ME in 2000? Windows 2000 this year? Windows XP now? Why not just wait another year to see what’s next or wait until they get the major bugs out of XP, the biggest of which is having to register it every time you install, IMHO.
About the obscene money, Microsoft is only (!) spending about $200 Million - the $1 Billion dollar figur you are hearing includes the ads from Best Buy, etc. where Best Buy promotes computers with XP in it or just promotes XP separately. It’s an estimate and IMHO, is wildly exaggerated.
Only by the legions of magazine writers who have been showered with freebies and perks by Microsoft so they can sing its praises to the heavens. By most of the objective accounts I’ve seen, Windows XP is an incremental upgrade at best, similar to the Windows 98 release.
PC Manufacturer’s are hoping the release of Windows XP will help boost slow sales (After all, the new OS is coming out just in time for the holiday season). Whether this will happen or not, I don’t know.
As for the average joe: I would not be surprised if most non-tech people have even heard about Windows XP yet, let alone think about buying it. However, the more tech-savvy might consider buying it (In general, if you aren’t running Win2k, WinXP is well worth it. The enormous stability increase over 98/ME while maintaining the compatibility will be reason enough to upgrade).
I also think that companies running Win2k will not upgrade to XP, as most companies do not require the new features XP has that 2k doesn’t. However, it is possible that companies running prior versions such as NT or any 9x system might upgrade.
(I’ve been running XP since Beta 2, then switched to RC1, and now RC2. bernse is right on: XP is rock-solid, and it’s pretty damn fast for such a large OS (It boots way faster than my 98 SE on the same machine)).
We have no plans to deploy XP either. Of course, we’re still using NT 4.0 on virtually everything. Windows 2000 Workstation deployment is scheduled for this month. Windows 2000 Server may (or may not) be deployed in the spring. We intend to continue to use Office 97 for the indefinite future.
There are too many question marks about Windows XP and Office XP for any responsible IT department to commit to adopting either technology until they have proven themselves useful enough to justify the cost.
I don’t think that it’s highly anticipated at all (Microsoft’s marketing notwithstanding). However, I think that it should be highly anticipated. As far as Windows goes, it’s almost as big a jump as it was for Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, because of the switch from the 95/98/ME codebase to the NT codebase.
I use 2000 at home and at work, and the difference over Win98 in stability is amazing. I think Microsoft has actively hurt itself with their moronic product activation plan and their focus on the integrated software. They should have touted the change in codebase as a major advance (which it is, something even MS detractors will admit). Instead, they blew trumpets for exactly what got them into the biggest antitrust trial of the last fifty years, and implemented a useless security scheme that does nothing but remind Windows users of all the inconviences and irritations they’re already used to.
As we’ve debated in the old XP thread, I agree and disagree. I think the techies, the nerds, the hardware junkies, etc. will get tired of the product activation, as they’re the ones who change their hardware more often, and fiddle with their system (meaning they’ll have to re-activate quite often). Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public, on other hand, won’t have to deal with this hassle, as they probably won’t ever open up their computer to look inside.
Microsoft has long been targetting their products at the masses, the lowest common denominator, and that’s how it grew so big (same thing that AOL did, actually). I wouldn’t be surprised if companies just skipped XP altogether… as has been mentioned, it’s not that great an improvement over 2000. But it is a wonderful improvement over 95/98/ME.
Although right now, I’m having a hard time believing it…that’s its an improvement. I have a 98 box and a 2000 box at work, my box at home is a 2000 box. Neither work box is significantly more stable than the other. I primarily use the 98 box, so it locks up more, but the 2000 box is almost as bad.
At home the 2000 box keeps locking up playing Diablo - might be the hardware - probably is the hardware - but I’m getting darn sick of it.
Diablo or Diablo II? Diablo II has conflicts with various hardware components. It’s also programmed in such a way that it’s compatible for the most part with with Win2k, but there are still a lot of kinks in it.
IT managers, can you please tell me if you have ever implemented a new o/s around the release date or do you always wait?
The IT people I dealt with at a lot of multinationals with operations here in China never ever wanted the latest version of anything. I was under the distict impression they were too scared that there would be problems or they get blamed for upgrading for the sake of upgrading. Always waited to see how the product actually worked in real life for a while.
That’s exactly it: we wait until we know whether or not it’ll actually work as advertised. We’re still on Win98 at work, with no immediate plans to go to 2000. I use it, and it’s great, but we just don’t want the deployment headaches until we’ve figured out to make it as easy as possible.
I’d check your hardware, because I’ve been running 2000 for a year on two heavy-use boxes with a wide variety of software and lots of installing and uninstalling, without even restarting for weeks or months at a time except as part of installation. I’ve never had the machine lock up. Applications have gone, but never the system.