Hard-hitting IT columnist Simon Moores gives his personal take on
the hot issue of the day.Chairing a Microsoft Forums seminar on
Windows XP recently, I took a hard look at the future - or at least
what Microsoft tells us the future will be - with Longhorn and
Palladium. The other speakers looked at XP's features and asked
whether it was worth having or not.
What I found really interesting was that the audience was split
roughly 60/40 between Windows 2000 and Windows NT, with only a
handful of Windows XP users.
On a day that saw the release of the first service pack for XP
(SP1), it was evident that a great many businesses were reluctant
to give up Windows NT, even though they could see that Microsoft
had given up on them or, at least, supporting them, as they
persisted with such Luddite behaviour.
But can you blame them? I couldn't. "If it ain't broke, don't fix
it" is a pretty reasonable position to take where operating systems
are concerned, and why spend more money upgrading when there's yet
another Microsoft operating system lurking just over the
horizon?
That was really the position these very sensible people were
taking. Their NT installations worked and they had finally started
the long slow haul on to Windows 2000 when Windows XP appeared.
Now, just as they have come to terms with the idea that its
barely-out-the-box predecessor Windows 2000 is as dead as Monty
Python's proverbial parrot, people like me start talking about the
implications of XP's successor, Longhorn - due sometime after
2004.
You see, 2004 is roughly about the time that the larger companies
expected to have completed their Windows NT to Windows 2000
migration or, indeed, Windows 2000 to Windows XP. The question on
everyone's minds was "What's the most cost-effective and sensible
solution - staying put or upgrading now?"
My answer is simple. Forget Windows 2000 and don't worry about the
future just yet, because if it's owned by Microsoft it will be
expensive regardless of what you choose to do today.
As for Windows NT, if it isn't already dead, then it's moribund and
there's little or no point staying with it any longer. Windows 2000
might offer a couple more years of support but ultimately it's a
dead end, and there's little or no point in upgrading twice - there
are too many disadvantages.
While there's every reason to suspect that Microsoft appears to be
reinventing history and is following OS/2's "protected mode"
example with the Palladium/Longhorn combination beyond 2004,
Windows XP, with its first service pack now with us, offers a
stable, flexible and, arguably, more secure (don't laugh) platform
than its predecessors. So this is really where you should be going
and let the future worry about itself.
Alternatively, you could embrace Linux fundamentalism, throw out
Windows completely, save your company millions in licence fees and
choose StarOffice.
But that's another story involving open-toed sandals and a beard,
and an argument that most Windows NT and Windows 2000 users simply
aren't ready for yet.
What is your view?
Are you tired of the upgrade trail?
Tell us in an e-mail >>CW360.com reserves
the right to edit and publish answers on the Web site. Please state
if your answer is not for publication.
ZentelligenceSetting the world to rights with the collected thoughts and
opinions of the futurist writer, broadcaster and Computer Weekly
columnist Simon Moores.