Your looking at the wrong target market for WinXP.
Most of WinXP's sales are going to come from two places:
 
OEM's for installation on new PC's
People running Win9x
 
A lot if not most Win2k users simly wont bother with the upgrade as WinXP only offers them what they have been experiencing for the past 18+ months.
Win9x users will be tempted as the code in WinXP is far superior to what they are using now, WinXP to a Win2k users is simply Win98-Win98SE.

The computer knowledable running 9x (are they then really knowledgeable? ) will upgrade to XP. This market isn't very big tho so new PC's will be the market that XP excels in.

I have to disagree.. I myself have been running Win2k since Beta 1, and well, to this day, to make the system stable enough to play games, i have to do a TON of tweaking. It's not just games though, I use it for my virtual office applications as well. Now, on the same system, with the same hardware, I put WinXP in, and boom, rock solid since Beta 1, never had to tweak it or fiddle with different settings, try this and try that - "out of the box" I have yet to get this XP to lock up, freeze, crash, take a dump, whatever you want to call it. Until XP I was not a big MS fan, but they have earned my respect with this OS. My machine has been running the best it ever has, and I thank MS for that.

I couldn't have said it better myself. This is the first time I actually confess that I LovE a Microsoft Product! (Well, besides MotoCross Madness 2 - that being a given!) heh

Well I'm with DosFreak and BladeRunner on this one.
XP is just a minor upgrade over 2k, and really not worth the $200-300.
If I can get them at a discount price, I'll probably warm up to it a little more, but XP doesn't offer anything I don't already have.
I do think it's better for home users, but I personally find more annoyances than anything else. There's just more crap I don't want that I have to turn off. I don't like MSN Messenger, the new 'look' the control panel default view, the autoplay feature in general, dropped NetBEUI support offically, Product Activation, the annoying guides that get in my way, the contination of personalized menus, no choice of much of the installed stuff like movie maker--which is easily beaten down by any store bought software...
 
It's good for newbies, but it's just a pain in the neck for me personally. All the games I want to play run on Win2k.
I feel that MS has gone after the newbies and abandoned the vets.

Quote:
I have to disagree.. I myself have been running Win2k since Beta 1, and well, to this day, to make the system stable enough to play games, i have to do a TON of tweaking. It's not just games though, I use it for my virtual office applications as well. Now, on the same system, with the same hardware, I put WinXP in, and boom, rock solid since Beta 1, never had to tweak it or fiddle with different settings, try this and try that - "out of the box" I have yet to get this XP to lock up, freeze, crash, take a dump, whatever you want to call it. Until XP I was not a big MS fan, but they have earned my respect with this OS. My machine has been running the best it ever has, and I thank MS for that.

We are not disagreeing about 2k home users upgrading to XP. Of course. What we are talking about is the "market" for XP. The common ammount of users WILL be New Pc's. I can 100% guarantee you that an "average" home user with 95/98 who "upgrades" to XP will have so many problems they might as well buy a brand new computer which is the recommended suggestion for that situation.

anything less than an 700mHZ maybe even higher shouldnt be running XP. I tried running it on a 500 with a little over 300 megs of ram (96+256= whatever) and it runs OK, it doesnt run half as good as it does on my system. So most 9x users unless they have new boxes and can't get a copy of 2k don't have the horsepower to run XP. So they are better off getting a new box.

let's face it: there aren't that many ppl whose regular tasks require anything above 300-500 mhz and 64-128mb RAM. Checking email, web surfing (even my 133t pII 166mhz can handle web surfing), spreadsheet, word processing, etc. are not really cpu-intensive tasks. hell, i have pIII 550mhz and i can easily run the majority of today's games with geforce 2 pro. i'm planning to bump that up to something around 800-1000mhz but that's another story. Gamers and people with high-end cpu-hungry software are probably the only ones truly concerned with having top-notch hardware. All in all, earlier win9x versions require far less resources than winxp. win95b/c is great for lower-end boxes. Actually, if anything is going to make winxp DOA in the eyes of upgraders, it's going to be the outrageous prices and hefty system requirements.

A few points.The majority of comp users are probably satisfied at the moment with their os and comp setup ie corporations,buisnesses,home users etc.Why pay to upgrade the os if everythings is ok for present?
 
W2k users,why bother upgrade to XP? it's basically the same.
 
98 gamers will take caution,w2k is not all that compattible with a lot of games so why should XP be.
 
Current comp market is in a slump at the moment,most comp users as i've mentioned are probably happy with their setup,power users who have to have all the latest hardeware for apps,games,whatever are the minority compared to the masses of comp users,so XP's inroads into the market through purchasing of new comp's pre setup with XP wont be that substantial for quite some time.
 
To upgrade from 98 for gamers remains to be seen,depending on XP compatibility.To upgrade from w2k just to run apps? well we'll see.
 
The technology behind hardware is moving ahead phenomenally fast and the consumer market cant keep up,high end users are the minority and they usually buy components seperatly to build their own systems and they will usually stick with an os that they know,XP will have to prove to be somthing supperior to warrant upgrading to this minority.The majority are not going to upgrade hardware because they dont need it or need to.Their satisfied running what they already have so why bother with XP.
 
XP climb to the top will be slow and remains to be seen,my experience with it so far is far from life changing and I am sure there will be many others who will agree.
 
 
ASUS: A7M266 motherboard
ASUS: V8200 gforce 3 deluxe
SEGATE: 2x20gig 7200rpm ide hdd
SAMSUNG: 512meg pc2100 DDR ram
HERCULES: XP game theater
AMD: 1.2 GHz athlon cpu
GLOBAL WIN: wbk38
PHILIPS: 109P 19inch monitor
ACCTON: 1207D cheeter pci adapter
CREATIVE: 52x cdr
RICOH: MP7200A 20x10x40 cdrw
OS: 98se dualboot w2k

 
I have to agree with you guys.
Win 2000 is very solid and fast operating system.
I personally like NT4 as well but the only thing that bothers me is that NT4 is not so ACPI compatible as Win 2000 is.
 
I've tried XP too - I like on XP fast user switching.I am the whole day at work so I really hate when my mates sometimes reset my computer,which I lock when I am leaving to work in the morning.
And what about new look of XP ?
 
Yes it is nice.But after couple of days or weeks it will become ordinary and not so exciting ...
 
Is it good idea to upgrade stable solid system with new one which is not just cheap for few new features ?
I think that everybody has to make up his mind alone ...
 
Regards D.

"I feel that MS has gone after the newbies and abandoned the vets"
 
Brian, did you/do you play Ultima Online by chance, a very classic statement from their messageboards!

"98 gamers will take caution,w2k is not all that compattible with a lot of games so why should XP be"
 
But that's just not true.
Any game released in the past 2-3 years as a rule runs fine under Win2k.
Games from EA are a problem, but that is a problem with EA going out of their way to make Win2k gaming a no go, not a problem with Win2k.
The compatability toolkit irons out even more of the problems and the only games left that don't run, we'll most people will be happy to leave behind in return for an OS 100x more stable.
All future games will be WinXP compatable, the gaming houses tend to see what is out there and make damn sure their products work with them.
WinXP compatability by concequence will mean Win2k compatability.

Nope. Don't play Ultima.
 
Bug: I've never heard of a 166MHz Pentium II.

Quote:
I don't like MSN Messenger, the new 'look' the control panel default view, the autoplay feature in general, dropped NetBEUI support offically, Product Activation, the annoying guides that get in my way, the contination of personalized menus, no choice of much of the installed stuff like movie maker--which is easily beaten down by any store bought software...

I just wanted to point out, in case you were not aware, messenger can be removed, all of those other features can be turned off or their behavior changed, PA haas been revamped slightly (i've never really found it that annoying but that's just me) and NetBUI is included on the XP disc, and can be installed, but am curious as to why you would want to.

A Webcam in the corner of your bedroom isn't annoying either if you don't know about it (or if that's your kinda thing).....

Quote:
Nope. Don't play Ultima.

Bug: I've never heard of a 166MHz Pentium II.

maybe it's something else...you still get my point, right?

i skipped most of posts here cause first few were crap
 
win2k sux donkeyz nutz - xp is the best os since DOS - anyone who disagrees either has a real **** pc or they havnt run it for more then a day

Tapek, thank you for your valuable, intelligent comment.
Pls press del+ctrl+alt twice fast now.

Tapek: was that a serious comment?
Or are you just trying to start a war here? If so, you've got one.
 
You do know there are quite a few people here that use, and like Win2k.
Win XP is just Win2k with some extra goodies, and for me a few extra perks isn't worth $200-300. I've found many of the extra items in XP that I don't want are not a choice, unless you go ahead and edit this and that.
Win2k is stable, runs the games I want, doesn't have a ton of stuff I don't want, use or need. My hardware works fine, I can burn a CD and play games without either program hosing up. I can change my hardware as often as I want without worrying if I can use my system after I boot up into Windows again. I also leave both of my machines on all the time, except when I'm on vacation or changing a part. I don't have lockups, errors, or other stability problems. It's safe to say that other's have had good results with Win2k.
 
Have you really evaluated Win2k, or did you just take a glance at it and decree that it "sucks donkey nutz"?
 
Oh, and I don't think these posts in this thread suck. I know for certain DosFreak is well educated on his stuff, and has more than enough knowledge to state and backup his say. BladeRunner and ThC are also knowlegable guys here too.
 
You say Win2k sucks and have given no reason why, except that you think so and everybody else is totally wrong to disagree with you.
 
I'd like you to back up why Win2k sucks, with some intelligent reasons. If you don't know what that means, a "because it sucks" *reason* doesn't count.
 
You seem pretty juvenile for a 30-year old.

i don't need 1500 posts to be confident when i say that the guy is either a troll or is just a village idiot.
 
Brian Frank:I think it's just pentium, not PII (the processor i have is a socket 7 one).