Readers RespondReaders Respond
Microsoft's decreasing support for Windows 2000 strikes a chord with readers. Some accept the cutbacks as the normal course of IT management.
Microsoft's decreasing support for Windows 2000 strikes a chord with readers. Some accept the cutbacks as the normal course of IT management. Others say a lack of stability in the platforms that followed Windows 2000 has convinced them to explore alternatives. Here are some excerpts from responses to a blog entry on the topic:
My company still uses Windows 2000 for various functions. ... If Microsoft wants to force us to upgrade, then I will upgrade. However, I can guarantee that it won't be to another MS OS. I've already switched several users to OpenOffice, 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. --Steve
Due to Microsoft's general policies and operating systems that spy on their user, the computers at my small company and those at home all run Linux save for one at each location. All the laptops run OSX. ... Even for application development, GCC, Eclipse, Ruby, and Perl are better and more universal than the MS offerings. 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 tires every five years and the old tires were no longer available. Would you tolerate that kind of nonsense? --William Moss
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 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. --Tom Roderick
This is not a problem for my company. However, it is indicative of the Microsoft mentality that they have chosen to browbeat 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
We are accustomed to these transitions with Microsoft. I've used their software since 1993, I think. 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
In the 1960s, the Federal Trade Commission passed a ruling that manufacturers should retain enough parts to repair their "products" for 10 years. I'd 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. 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, because replacing it would be quite costly to Microsoft. --Rex Allen
Return to the story:
Heat's On Win2000 Holdouts
About the Author
You May Also Like