homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Webmaster General
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: phranque

Webmaster General Forum

This 111 message thread spans 4 pages: 111 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >     
XP Falls Flat - 80% of Corporations Reject Microsoft XP
98 still rules the day in Fortune 500 companies

 6:20 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)


Windows XP is shipping out preinstalled on a lot of new computers, but Microsoft is unhappy with corporate reluctance to upgrade existing PCs.

An executive at one Microsoft customer, computer security firm SecureMethods, explained that there just isn't enough in Windows XP to justify the time and costs of upgrading.

In addition, a study in December found that 80 percent of companies still have some machines running Windows 95 or Windows 98. And at firms running the older operating systems, an average of 39 percent of desktops were running either Windows 95 or Windows 98, according to technology consultant AssetMetrix.



 6:26 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well Im still working with Windows 98 as a webmaster, I dont think you see that many places. If I could I would change to Linux in a min., but then I cant run microsoft office with frontpage and other working tools.



 6:30 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I fine with my Win98.

I'll probably have my next copmuter built with Win2000 to take advantage of faster processor speeds, etc.


 6:31 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Did someone just call FrontPage a "working tool"?!? ;)


 6:33 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have worked in quite a wide range of office environments and have never worked with xp in any of them.

The largest office I worked in had in excess if 1000 desktops. there was a 60/40 split between win2k and win98 with 2k being the most used.

A lot of companies have very customized software that has been developed on a certain system. Such companies feel that a move would not be of benefit. We also have to think in terms of productivity, and the loss the changeover to xp would produce in the learning period for each user.



 6:33 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I love XP but I don't think I could justify an upgrade from 2000. Now 95 or 98 that is a no brainer. XP is worth an upgrade from there. Just to stop all the 98 and 95 downtime would be worth it. There are many other reasons.


 6:34 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

In corporate environments... I don't think XP gives anything at all over what you already had with windows 2000. I think they had it just about right for once...

For home users that had windows 98 or ME... there are some benefits.

[edited by: idoc at 6:40 pm (utc) on April 13, 2004]


 6:34 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Interesting point. Currently im working for a small firm out of 20 machines only 3 are not running '98.

Cost and time involved are the main reasons.

Must admit I was very surprised.


 6:37 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

how do I switch to Linux use:
1. Remote Desktop
2. MSN messenger


 6:48 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I can easily believe that 80% still have some 95 & 98 machines. My regular job creates software for some medium-large corporations. We have yet to find one that doesn't have some 98 boxes & many have some 95's.

But that's not surprising. How many 95 boxes could really run XP? That P133 screamer with 32 MB of RAM just doesn't cut it any more.

So as XP workstations are brought in for new tasks and 2003 Servers for new server apps, the 95 & 98 boxes are used as long as possible in corners of the business that don't demand the latest & greatest stuff. By the time these companies do get rid of them, they can hardly give them away.

It's not that XP is being rejected. It's being welcomed with open arms on new systems. And new systems are being welcomed. But bogging down a dinosaur computer with XP doesn't make sense to most people. If M$ thought they'd sell a ton of upgrades, they had unreasonable expectations.


 6:48 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I would never run 95 or 98 on any machine running any mission critical application or just on an important machine. I would never run 95 or 98 on any machine connected to my network. They simply donít have the security features needed. The inability to handle NTFS and the security features connected with this file system makes 95 and 98 useless in a modern network environment.

95 and 98 are great for stand alone machines and thatís it


 6:53 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

> how do I switch to Linux use:
> 2. MSN messenger

google for GAIM - available for mac, linux and windows


As far as win98 vs XP - I used to have to reboot my desktop PC an average of 15 times per day with 98 as my system would get unstable and threaten a crash.

If you calculate 3-5 minutes for rebooting (plus closing programs, saving all open files and reopening them after the reboot) that was about an hour per day wasted.

When I installed XP my system was immediately more stable and I rarely have to reboot. As an experiment, I let my machine up and running for 4 days (24 hours per day) and the system never crashed once.

Separating the OS shell from the programs shell was the best thing that they could have ever done.

I use windows because I want to see my sites the way 96% of my site users do.

I also have an iBook running OS X, a PC with Mandrake Linux and a win98 with Netscape 4.7 installed - which I use for testing purposes.

However - I work in Windows, and XP has, for me, perfomed more than satisfactorily.


 6:54 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I upgraded to XP from ME because DW 2004 wasn't compatible with ME. Now I understand why nobody wants to spend the time or money on upgrades, because about half of my most important programs aren't compatible with XP and I still can't get my printer to work with it (even with the XP driver).

I've been looking for new computers shipping with Win 2000 so that I can use some of my older programs, especially AutoCAD. Does anyone know where to get new computers with Win 2000 preinstalled? I found some through Dell, but they were more than $2000 each.


 7:01 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have a single PC (partition to offer the option of booting up as '98, XP or 2000. I have found 2000 meets my needs nicely, and frankly wouldn't be able to justify upgrading from 2000 to XP. I do womder though, because this is done through partitions, am I getting the true flavor of each OS? (And yes, I also have a much beloved Mac for cross-platform testing). Thanks in advance.


 7:03 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Sounds like the "If it ain't broke, don't let Microsoft upgrade it" mentality :)

If Windows 9x works and you don't NEED any of the new features of newer versions, then the only reason to upgrade would be if you needed to burn some cash to put yourself in a lower tax bracket.


 7:03 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I really don't think it is a case of rejection. System engineers I know generally give good marks to XP for better reliability than the Win9x versions. It's no big surprise that many PCs still run the 9x versions, though - I'd bet that in almost every case, those PCs came with the old versions installed, and there hasn't been a compelling reason to change. As those PCs get changed out, the new ones will run XP.

We're now coming out of a three year crunch in IT spending. Few companies were doing the kind of mass OS rollouts we saw in the 90s; instead, stuff that broke got fixed, and that was about all. Putting XP on a PC that was working fine (and perhaps upgrading the hardware to accommodate it) didn't have the quick payback needed to justify it. Add to this equation the fact that there was a big surge in new PC installation in 1999 and many of these units are still in service, and you have a good explanation for the continued presence of Win9x PCs.


 7:09 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

"new computers with Win 2000 preinstalled"

If you want a windows 2000 machine... and a D*ll...I would go to the D*ll outlet and save some money.


 7:10 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

They simply donít have the security features needed. The inability to handle NTFS and the security features connected with this file system makes 95 and 98 useless in a modern network environment.

rubbish! :-)

They have the best security feature of all - the Mac effect. Virus writers don't bother too much with the mac because of the smaller user base (don't believe any of that nonsense that it's more secure - as we've discovered this week it's not). If their virus doesn't make front page news, can only affect .0005% of the computers out there, and have no impact on businesses where's the glory in that?

Already a lot of security risks are XP only risks, despite NTFS. Know any Windows 98 PCs that were affected by blaster?

Stick with 98 (especially if you have 98SE), do your regular housekeeping tasks like scandisk and defrag so you don't suffer PatrickDeese's fate (whose machine not crashing now is only partly XP - but probably mostly because it's a clean install of the OS without clutter). Soon you'll be laughing as virus writers concentrate on bringing down Linux, XP and Windows 2006 machines :)


 7:23 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

dcrombie, hmm that must be me with the frontpage thing.


 7:28 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I work for a fairly large company and I don't think I know anybody that uses XP. I recently got a new workstation and the IT guy put a 2000 image on it, even though it was a Dell had been shipped loaded with XP. I bet this will change eventually.

As for the older systems here, you will find some NT 4.0 and if you look real hard, maybe some NT 3.51, but they have been trying really hard to phase them out. You wouldn't find any 95 or 98 systems.


 7:29 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Security through obscurity is not security and virus is only a small part of the problem. Any hacker will walk right through an 95/98 machine, data on fat drives are also easily accessible, you canít do internal compartmentalization. Not rubbish


 7:31 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have to agree w/ bufferzone. A 98 machine is almost wide open on a network.


 7:58 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I used 98 up until recently when my desktop sputtered its last dying gasp. New one had xp preinstalled but I configured it to emulate 98 as much as possible. Xp's standard setup is just not intuitive in the least.


 8:05 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

If all you want under Lin is M$ office, Lin will do just fine as long as you use 2000 or older: crossover office runs these apps perfectly for me. Even the IE dinosaur runs under crossover office.

Frontpage is a swear word in web design. :)


 8:06 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Did someone just call FrontPage a "working tool"?!? ;)

People like me who used it to develop a network of sites into a full time business.


 8:08 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)


Try downloading OpenOffice.org...check out all the functionality this offers...and excellent compatability with MSOffice ... you can install this on a windows machine... you might find that it will serve all your needs and then you can join the open source movement via the side door...

I run (please don't yell at me) WindowsME (media version of 98) on one production machine and I recently purchased an Athlon64 bit machine that came pre-loaded with XP (the first machine I haven't built from the ground up..I must be getting lazy)...nice machine...XP works...but I will be installing a Linux Distribution on this machine to take advantage of the OS/64 bit stuff...


 8:34 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'm still using NT 4.0! (at my real job).

My personal office has an XP and 3 W2000 boxes. My laptop is still 98, only because I haven't figured out how to upgrade a laptop OS without losing all the built-in drivers.

Just have to buy a new laptop I guess.


 8:47 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

> PatrickDeese's fate (whose machine not crashing now is only partly XP - but probably mostly because it's a clean install of the OS without clutter).

FYI - I fdisk'd my entire HD several times while running under the win98 "regime". 98 just couldn't handle all the multitasking that I wanted to do.

My original workstation which was the first that I upgraded to XP was just that, an upgrade.

That machine is still in service, used by one of my assistants, and it has never needed an "fdisking" or reinstall of the OS.

I installed XP on my new workstation when I built it from scratch.

My new Dell laptop came factory installed with XP PRO (never used home ed) and I haven't had an problems with it either - but its not quite 2 months old - so that isn't much.

I could probably pull out my old Mac IIsi from 1993 and do most of what I do on my laptop with it - except that it has photoshop 2.65 installed on it, and I prefer 5.5+ ;) - so much easier to make web optimized images.

Maybe I should fire it up and see if my sites are compatible with Netscape 2.X....


 10:02 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

decaff, maybe it is time to try that, I wish there will soon be another OS then windows where you can play games, work on all programs and so on.



 10:06 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

It is true you don't updgrade from 95 or 98 you buy a new machine with XP on it. I mean you can get a great machine from dell for $338 with DVD Player and CD Burner and 256MB of RAM. Unless you need more power which very few people need.

This 111 message thread spans 4 pages: 111 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Webmaster General
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved