Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:26 UTC
Permalink for comment 179417
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-06
You're totally wrong.
First, admins typically recommend waiting a couple cycles of service packs before going to a new Windows version.
Second, MS has extended Windows 2000 support for 8 years. There aren't many other vendors who will support an OS version for that period of time or longer.
Third, the reason that admins don't recommend going to a new version of Windows when it's released is precisely because it takes time to test an organization's applications with a new release. Most problems are generally resolved in subsequent service packs.
There's no such thing as a "forced upgrade artist". That's a figment of your imagination.