EDIT: Sonova bitch. haha sorry bout the title. I meant 2k - XP. I'm on loopy drugs for my cold. Sorry :/.

I'm trying to convince from an economic standpoint the migration from windows 2k to XP. He's on the edge but I'm having trouble wording arguements that he would be convinced of. I'm sure many of you have had to do this and I'd like your input here.

So far I have the obvious reasons

- Time. Average format takes 5+ hours per machine since I have to format the drive, install 2k, install the 4 service packs (already downloaded for ease), then do the patches, install office used software, virus protection (Symantec Managed), email (Exchange). It's just a waste of my time.
- Support - win2k not supported after next year
- Compatibility
- Security

Help me out with some solid arguements to justify spending $139 per machine. Total of 17 machines. Cost figure arguements would be great!


[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 8:39 AM. Reason : I'm stupid!]

12/12/2005 8:26:47 AM

Quote :

"How to convince your employer to go to XP from 2k"

Quote :

"migration from windows 2k to XP"

12/12/2005 8:37:26 AM

Doh!

12/12/2005 8:39:38 AM

do you work for a corp or a private company? If its a corp, usually if other factories are using xp you can make a call to corporate and see if they can convince your boss. Seems that IT guys who work for the bigger companies make things happen more quickly when they call the smaller company.

139$ per machine? * 17? You can get a site license for a lot cheaper I do believe. Which usually comes bundle with free upgrade offers, and i think you'll get discounts on other software (i.e office, etc)

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 8:42 AM. Reason : dd]

12/12/2005 8:41:05 AM

I still don't know if I see a prob with the title, "to go to XP from 2K"

and then he's talkin bout migrating from 2k to XP...is that no the same thing here?

12/12/2005 8:41:39 AM

2k is vastly superior to xp

12/12/2005 9:05:54 AM

your opinion is vastly inferior to a burlap sack of fresh manure

12/12/2005 9:21:53 AM

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.html

Windows 2000 may seem slower on the surface, but properly configued it will outperform XP consistently. Windows XP adds functionality but also a massive amount of bloat. If you don't have a need for the "extra features" of XP, don't waste your time.

12/12/2005 9:25:58 AM

Grr, okay I did do the title right. Sorry guys I'm heavily medicated for a lung infection but I'm trying to get together a proposal for my boss.

Noen I don't believe I can get a site license for less than 30 users. That's according to one local rep (at RMSource). The cheapest they would go was $169. I popped up TigerDirect and walla, $139. If you know someone who will see XP Pro (not education version) for cheaper that would rock.

^ Though I used to agree that 2k is better than XP, 2k is soon becoming upsupported, and software not written for it. Add to that the fact that some of the software they use is no longer going to support 2k it's time to move on. Plus the look itself is brighter, more "high tech" and most of the employee's here have been working on shitty systems which I'm upgrading for them. Might as well upgrade to the OS at the same time.

Some systems are being replaced with entirely new computers so no need to buy XP, but many are getting upgrades hardware wise, more ram, etc. Hell there are computers here with 300mhz processors. That's got to go.

I'm trying to bring the entire business up to current levels especially since the growth of this company is incredible. A new store opened up in Wilmington, we are overwhelmed with work requests and we're expanding to meet the demand.

When I came here I was shocked at the lack of IT that was going on. They were USED to servers CRASHING or locking up multiple times daily. They were USED to email not working, and internet connection being poor. They were used to waiting a week before their computer got fixed by some guy from First service who didn't fix things. Hell, their Point of Sale system had not been backed up in 6 months.

This is all part of me making their business more efficient and streamlined. Upgrading 2k to XP is a part of that and I believe a necessary part. I'm just looking for help in explaining to a non IT oriented person why we need to upgrade from an economic standpoint.

What's the cost of supporting 2k systems compared to XP? Etc.

12/12/2005 9:29:47 AM

Nice charts Eraser. However that's counterproductive to my needs lol.

12/12/2005 9:36:32 AM

Is there an upgrade to xp pro that might be cheaper? I'm not sure and don't feel like looking at the moment. Talk him into upgrading the most important computers first or something...upgrading 10 or so at that cost should be a little easier for him to swallow cost wise and if he likes what he sees from those, he'll of course probably not mind upgrading the other 7.

By the time 2k isn't supported Microsoft will have released another new OS anyways (IMO) so I venture to say the price of XP might go down.

12/12/2005 9:46:15 AM

uh, I never posted in this thread.

And forced upgrades to XP in a business environment is 100% a waste of money.

You do realize you can slipstream SP4 into the install right? AND the hotfixes? AND build a silent install cd JUST for the purpose you want?

You realize you can do this with either OS right?

Win2k support is not dropped until 2010. They will continue with all security and bug fix updates until then, just no new features after June 30th 2005 (which has already longsince past)

-Anything that runs on XP will run on 2k, period. There is no better compatibility, especially not in an office environment. Hell there are business apps that will still ONLY run on 2k.

So you basically have false reasoning for everything you have mentioned so far.

12/12/2005 9:54:12 AM

^ i was researching most of that right now...you are correct and I agree there really isn't much reason to upgrade.

12/12/2005 9:56:53 AM

jesus christ he called me neon

12/12/2005 10:09:35 AM

Quote :

"- Time. Average format takes 5+ hours per machine since I have to format the drive, install 2k, install the 4 service packs (already downloaded for ease), then do the patches, install office used software, virus protection (Symantec Managed), email (Exchange). It's just a waste of my time. - Support - win2k not supported after next year - Compatibility - Security"

-Time. 5+ hours? Do you install SP1, then SP2, then SP3, then SP4? You can save some time by just installing SP4. It includes all the updates from previous service packs. Norton Ghost might be a better investment if time is the real issue. You spend the 5 hours on one install getting everything perfect, then spend about 15 minutes on every other machine you want to get up and running.

Windows XP also has service packs (2). Here again, you only need to install one service pack , not each in the order they came out. You can get a copy of XP that has SP2 slipstreamed in, but by the time you get it SP3 will be released and it won't save you much time.

-Support. That is your selling point. There won't be any support. When the next security vunerability comes out you won't have any way of keeping your computers safe from them. I guess you have other means of security that make your boss not be concerned about it.

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 10:21 AM. Reason : And what Noen said]

12/12/2005 10:20:23 AM

^did you not fucking read my post?

MICROSOFT WILL SUPPORT HOTFIXES AND SECURITY UPDATES FOR WINDOWS 2000 UNTIL 2010.

And ghost is a bad bad idea unless all your computers are the exact same hardware. Which, based on his comment about partial replacements, is probably the case.

12/12/2005 10:25:05 AM

Quote :

"jesus christ he called me neon"

Considering your normal posting habits in here, you should take that as a compliment

12/12/2005 10:25:46 AM

Quote :

"Nice charts Eraser. However that's counterproductive to my needs lol."

exactly.

Quote :

"And forced upgrades to XP in a business environment is 100% a waste of money."

Yes, and see graphs.

Quote :

"Win2k support is not dropped until 2010. They will continue with all security and bug fix updates until then, just no new features after June 30th 2005 (which has already longsince past)"

Yes, you see, MS can't just drop Windows 2000 support.

Why can't they, you ask?

Quote :

"However, the popularity of Windows 2000 has remained high, with the venerable operating system still in use in 48 percent of business PCs during the first quarter of 2005, down just four percentage points from the third quarter of 2003. "The findings of this study suggest that Windows 2000 still plays an important part in many IT environments," Steve O'Halloran, managing director of Ottawa-based AssetMetrix's research division, said in a report."

http://news.com.com/The+slow+road+to+Windows+XP/2100-1016_3-5746046.html

12/12/2005 10:26:42 AM

if install time is really getting to you use ghost + sysprep + UIU top make a universal image you can install on any machine. 30-45 minutes and you'll go from whatever to a fully installed copy of windows + office + whatever apps you want with all the updates and customizations you want.

http://www.bigbangtraining.com/universal_image.html
http://www.binaryresearch.net/UIU/About.htm

Quote :

"And ghost is a bad bad idea unless all your computers are the exact same hardware. Which, based on his comment about partial replacements, is probably the case."

thats what makes UIU so great, its basically a huge driver cache that means you don't have to wprrty about different hardware platforms

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 10:32 AM. Reason : ]

12/12/2005 10:30:45 AM

^ and how much does it cost?

(You can make a Windows CD/DVD that will install a completely custom OS and set of apps for a broad base of hardware for free with the MS Deploy Tools - I work on this often)

12/12/2005 10:36:43 AM

Quote :

"Nice charts Eraser. However that's counterproductive to my needs lol."

what are your real needs that you dont want your employer to know??

12/12/2005 10:39:34 AM

basically he wants XP

everything we're telling him is saying 2k is fine and to save the companys money for now

he quit responding

12/12/2005 10:43:57 AM

^^^ its $19 per license for under 100 licenses, then cheaper from there.

12/12/2005 10:47:56 AM

god damn I'm out of it right now. Sorry Novicane. I apologize again for being drugged up and making posts.

Interesting. Just tested the SP4 for win2k on another machine and it said "Needed SP1 before install would take". File I have is

W2KSP4_EN.EXE (111mb)

Redownloaded it just now from MS and it's the same name

W2KSP4_EN.EXE (129mb).

And this one works fine now. Odd. My bad for not researching why SP4 wasn't working.

As for Nortons Ghost there are too many mixed machines, far older hardware than it could probably handle. My experience with it (though minimal) didn't allow you to ghost correctly to vastly different machines and had a lot of errors with the computers after use. Plus they are using a lot of older software that also has to be installed. I don't want to waste my time sitting by a computer trying to figure out why the ghosting didn't work when I can just do it right the first time.

As for Windows XP not being worth the upgrade I have to disagree with you. First off alone is the look and feel of the operating system. It's newer, fresher and gives the user (not hardcore user like you but normal joe) a better experience. I won't go more into this as this is mostly aesthetic.
That is a huge thing to most of the employee's who compare what they have to newer machines. One is bland the other is colorful, bright etc.

There are some newer programs that they will be using that are supported on 2000/XP but have better functionality with XP. TigerPaw is the software for you that want to know.

Support is my main issue. The majority of support for win2k will end next year. Sure it will be supported until 2010 but not through microsoft update which means I have to do even more shit manually if I have to do a reformat. Plus the patches will be geared toward XP and not 2000.

Also future software will no longer be geared primarily for 2000/XP but for XP/Longhorn(whatever it's called now). Through bad code or what not... there is reason alone to avoid that problem.

So though I agree that there are is no DIRE need to upgrade I want to upgrade before it's a necessity. Now is a great time especially since in 2-3 months they will be using new software. Having all machines using the same OS will be a godsent if any problems are encountered. I do not want to have to support multiple OS's with a new PoS system.

That said... and hopefully not too confusing from my loopy state, I'd like good reasons TO upgrade that I may have missed. If you disagree with my reasoning for upgrading I understand that. But those of you who would like to help it is greatly appreciated.

12/12/2005 10:52:20 AM

nice find on the UIU, If I ever do a massive office retool again, Ill look into it. But yea I'm a big fan of using the MS deployment tools and an actual install.

12/12/2005 10:52:26 AM

Quote :

"That said... and hopefully not too confusing from my loopy state, I'd like good reasons TO upgrade that I may have missed."

I understood that you wanted to go to XP. But myself and a few others felt like pointing out that you might be better off where you are.

12/12/2005 10:58:00 AM

Again I will state,

EXCEPT for games and hardware 3D applications,

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BETTER PERFORMANCE OR SOFTWARE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN 2000 AND XP.

None. Zip, Zilch.


A brighter, friendlier interface does not even begin to justify $100+ dollars per station. And if you are running a mixed mess of older computers, why the hell even burden them with a heavier, more resource intensive GUI?

How is it giving the user a better experience? At work, they should only be using it to do work, and those interfaces will be EXACTLY the same on either platform.

Quote :

"Sure it will be supported until 2010 but not through microsoft update which means I have to do even more shit manually if I have to do a reformat. Plus the patches will be geared toward XP and not 2000."

I don't know where you heard that. And the patches are geared toward the OS they are for. You don't download a damn universal patch.

AND YOU USE A FUCKING SLIPSTREAMED IMAGE. You download the hotfixes as they come, slipstream to a build image. YOU HAVE TO DO THAT FOR XP TOO.

12/12/2005 11:03:45 AM

If you're in the pharma industry, you gotta be careful because the FDA has NOT validated XP as an operating system that is suitable for handling of clinical data.

thats the reason we're on 2k still.

12/12/2005 11:08:13 AM

^ damn that's interesting... I never thought about that

12/12/2005 11:10:13 AM

Hell, when I left the Military 2 years ago we were running NT...2000 had too many holes in it to be secure

12/12/2005 11:19:16 AM

Yo Noen calm down. Go kill some puppies & get that anger out.

In your opinion you don't see a reason to upgrade. However in mine I do. Here are my reasons

1) Aesthetically XP is superior, normal usage, webusage etc. I don't force anyone to use IE or Mozilla, they like it that way. XP looks much better to the eye to most users.

2) Compatability mode lets some of the techs use vastly older software for customers who have no interest in upgrading. Though most of the higher end items use Linux based interfaces, some have windows gui's internal and can only be programmed by programs that ran in wn98 but won't in 2000. I don't know the reasons why, just that they will on XP.

3) 2k has issues some vender software they use to program devices. Like the above, I don't know who's fault it is but I do know it doesn't work right freshly installed. I/they have to remove parts of the tools or it generates errors and they can't use a lot of pre created templates. The vendor knows of the issue and told us how to fix it... removing the template portion. XP does not have this issue. It's a database thing that I didn't want to get involved in.

And of course what I've previously mentioned in my above posts.

I use Windows 2000 at home. I used to use 98 for the longest time because it worked fine and I didn't want to upgrade. I'm about to upgrade to XP at home because I do game, etc.

I respect your opinion Noen and from your point of view in your job you may be correct. However in my situation I want to make sure they have all the necessary tools to use the full functionality of all software they use as well as enjoy using their computer. Right now they don't. Most of them use the XP machines and that's becoming and issue.

Also there are multiple new computers being ordered to replace very antiquated ones.

BUT... I will look into slipstreaming as I was unaware of this. I was hired here as a Cold Fusion coder with light IT, and it turned into a full IT support job. I'm trying my best to address the needs/wants of the workforce, my own needs/wants to support and maintain them and keep my boss happy at the same time.

12/12/2005 11:28:44 AM

Quote :

"1) Aesthetically XP is superior, normal usage, webusage etc. I don't force anyone to use IE or Mozilla, they like it that way. XP looks much better to the eye to most users. "

So the "Luna Blue" is worth an across-the board slowdown? I hope none of the machines you would upgrade have 256 MB of RAM or less. No amount of 'pretty blue window' will save your user from tossing their machine out a window when they are just watching their HDD light blink but nothing else is happening.

Quote :

"2) Compatability mode lets some of the techs use vastly older software for customers who have no interest in upgrading. Though most of the higher end items use Linux based interfaces, some have windows gui's internal and can only be programmed by programs that ran in wn98 but won't in 2000. I don't know the reasons why, just that they will on XP. "

... and asking stubborn techs to dual-boot or use a VM-Ware-style product is worse than making everything slower for everone else?

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 11:48 AM. Reason : At first I was just playing devil's advocate but finding real reasons to upgrade to XP isn't so easy]

12/12/2005 11:45:09 AM

install some programs to make each 2k machine look like it is running xp if you want something that is aesthetically pleasing.

12/12/2005 11:48:21 AM

take a computer, install vmware, make an xp image and a 2k image. run winstone on each in front of you boss during lunch one day (should take an hour or so to do on older hardware with vmware overhead). he will see the difference first hand in as real and applicable a benchmark as possible. also, if you ordered new systems I doubt you managed to get them without xp

12/12/2005 12:28:53 PM

^ are we trying to convince him to upgrade or not to?

12/12/2005 12:32:37 PM

Thanks for the PM's and solid comments about the difference.

http://www.cit.cornell.edu/computer/system/winxp.html
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/performance.mspx

There were some others. Looks like I've got a lot of reading to do before I make a final decision whether to push for the upgrade or not.

12/12/2005 12:39:03 PM

I thought I've seen something that will allow you to basically build your own installation cd (bundle the service pack(s), all custom options, internet, java...etc) Was I just smoking crack that day or is there a way to do this?

We have been using 2000 at my office forever. Now our IT dept is switching everyone over to XP. I asked him to please not put it on my laptop unless he has to. 2000 is stable and I have some programs that WILL NOT run on XP. I don't feel like installing VMware or doing a dual boot.

12/12/2005 1:34:37 PM

Quote :

"I thought I've seen something that will allow you to basically build your own installation cd (bundle the service pack(s), all custom options, internet, java...etc) Was I just smoking crack that day or is there a way to do this?"

Microsoft deploy tools.

You can even integrate full applications into the setup process. It takes time to configure properly but when it is distributed to a lot of people it saves countless many hours.

12/12/2005 1:43:36 PM

Quote :

"Plus the look itself is brighter, more "high tech""

ehe


dude you cant defend your push for XP in :

A) economical way
B) IT way



just tell the boss you are sorry

12/12/2005 2:00:11 PM

Windows 2000 has application compatibility mode too, see

http://www.activewin.com/tips/win2000/1/2000_tips_43.shtml

And if you REALLY are concerned about the pretty UI, just install WindowBlinds. It will look like XP and be just as slow for half the price!

As far as template issues, if it's a database problem, I don't see how that gives a damn about the OS. I'd be willing to bet a dollar to nothing that it's not an OS issue, or at least it's an issue that can be rememdied without the loss of the feature.

12/12/2005 3:16:25 PM

Quote :

" be just as slow for half the price!"

haha yeah i normally turn off almost all the appearance settings in XP

12/12/2005 4:52:01 PM

Raige, I'm not seeing a solid reason/cost justification for going to XP. The best way I can think of is if you can prove (without a doubt) the total number of hours per week it will save everybody in your company. Also, make sure EVERYTHING would migrate perfectly from 2k --> XP ... last thing you need is somebody telling you something no longer works and they have an angry customer on the other end of the line.

12/12/2005 6:21:59 PM

Why would you pay money to "upgrade" to an arguably slower operating system (espescially on older machines) with no definitive benefits about half to a year before the release of a new windows OS (vista)?

Sounds like you're just wasting your company's money because you want a prettier desktop. If you're concerned about asthetics over performance, just get some macs with virtual pc on it. That'll run priettier and slower than just about anything per dollar.

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 6:56 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2005 6:52:19 PM

^ Thats what it seems like :-\

12/12/2005 6:54:03 PM

ding ding ding

but i have a feeling he'll still try to find some way to justify upgrading for whatever reason.

if MS wasn't about to release vista, then maybe I could possibly see upgrading (but not really) but right now is a pretty bad time to do it

12/12/2005 7:11:13 PM

My reasons were based on performance and compatability of current XP machines that we have in office and the 2000 machines. The XP machines are extremely stable and the 2000 are constantly having network issues, software not looking like it should (not pointing finger. The fact is it's not a setting it's the OS), etc.

Originally, before I got there, people were setup with very wack setups as far their OS, some didn't have virus protection, some didn't have updated systems, etc etc etc

My goal was to bring everything in line where it worked and looked the same. Every single machine that's XP runs smoother, runs the software we use better (Accuterm, Filemaker (pro, 5, 5.5 and 6), exchange, office products, and others). It doesn't ask for windows 2000 disk, or the office disk when I install a new program. True... some issues wouldn't be issues if they were installed right in the first place, but it's the fact that I have to go back and address these issues that's the problem. I honestly can't sit here and name all the problems I've encountered with 2000 machines and patching that I have to constantly address that I don't have to with XP.

However, at this point I've looked over your arguements and I believe that the majority of workstations we have do not need to be upgraded at this time. These are things that will just be a hassle to me and I'll deal with them.

Currently I have a directory set up on the network on a server that I just copy paste onto their machine and then install each of the programs in it. They are all corporate licensed items. Since the hardware is so different on ALL of the machines that run windows 2000 I never even considered Ghosting.

I'd like to know better methods to doing this if any of you are up to exploring $0 cost methods to improving this.

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 7:47 PM. Reason : I hate spelling and grammer]

12/12/2005 7:45:50 PM

Several have already been outlined for you in this thread.

12/13/2005 12:18:09 AM

i see a money saving opportunity for Raige's company



fire Raige.

12/13/2005 12:36:42 AM

Quote :

"1) Aesthetically XP is superior, normal usage, webusage etc. I don't force anyone to use IE or Mozilla, they like it that way. XP looks much better to the eye to most users. "

you listed LOOKS PRETTY as your number one reason for migrating corporate computers to a completely new OS

hoooollyy shit. you probably ought to start looking for a new job because any company stupid enough to hire you into an IT position won't survive much longer

12/13/2005 1:42:29 PM

heh guess you've never worked for a company where their business is 70% appearance. Look is everything to a company like AudioAdvice. I get hounded all the time asking if they'll get XP on their laptop because it looks better.

Aesthetic qualities are important. But not a single defining nor #1 reason for selecting an OS. Just because I said it first doesn't mean it's the most important but it still is important. If you don't understand that... then you would fail at my job miserably.

12/13/2005 6:59:51 PM