| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Click here to calculate how much Win XP will cost you | |
|
||
| Time: 09:01 EST/14:01 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
With a month to go until Windows XP springs to life, many IT users are still unsure if the benefits are worth the expense of upgrading. So before handing over shed-loads of cash to Microsoft for its latest operating system (upgrades will cost £89.99 for XP Home Edition and £169.99 for XP Professional), it could be worth checking out the Forbes.com site. Here you will find the Forbes Windows XP ROI calculator, an online test to calculate how much the upgrade is likely to save (or cost) individuals or companies in the first two years after the switch. Surfers answer questions on expenses associated with the transition - such as how many PCs are destined for the upgrade, the percentage of machines that will need extra memory or disk space, and if many will have to be replaced with new hardware. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 314 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:10:05 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/10/2001 11:13:00 AM |
|
They seem to start with a base cost of $18,000 which is called 'engineering'. I put in my single PC at home and it's going to cost $18,240 or something to upgrade it. :)
I guess engineering costs must cover testing of your current application base. For a single PC that's a overly high number, but for a large corporation that number can get into the hundreds of thousands. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/10/2001 2:54:25 PM |
|
There is a cost to not upgrading, above and beyond the cost of supporting an old system. It's the human cost, because if I have to put up with NT 4 for another year, I am going to quit and find a new job.
These types of costs are covered in the Balanced Scorecard from the Harvard Press. It's one of the problems you have with trying to calculate ROI on a technology investment. WinXP is a huge deal, and I forsee the same thing happening to the Win9x codebase as happened to Win3.1. They'll be supported somewhat, but you'll see less and less support and within 3 years you'll find none at all. A lot of new hardware already coming out today doesn't support NT 4.0, or at least not well. This is primarily because of USB. Anybody who is not at least up to Win2k or WinXP by this time next year is a fool who should be ignored. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/10/2001 5:02:17 PM |
|
"There is a better way...Find it!" [Instead of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."] -- Thomas A. Edison
#12. I can't imagine anybody holding onto either Win9x or NT4 by this time next year simply because the opportunity costs from not upgrading are staggering. I use Win2k and haven't decided if I will upgrade to WinXP. Chances are probably not immediately, but we'll see. I know I was completely floored when I saw how much improved Win2k was over WinNT. I just haven't investigated XP enough to know what's changed. #11. My parents have a 486DX4/133 I put together for them back in late '96. It runs Windows 95, and they still use it. I recently had to come over and reinstall Win95 for them, which I think is quite surprising because it's the same OS install from '96. I'd call that a stable 9x box. Last year they decided they needed another computer. I talked them into getting Windows 2000 with this one and that they did. (BTW, the new box cost less with Win2k installed than the 486 box cost new back in '96.) Both my parents, who are not miraculous computer users by any means, even though my father is an Engineer, have commented on how much better the Win2k box is. It's not so much that it is faster but rather it's much more stable and responsive. They don't have to reboot to solve problems, etc. My point is, from the perspective of my parents... they do care. How anybody who claims to be a computer hobbyist could not possibly care is beyond me. Back in '97 I moved to NT4 completely. In '98 I tried Win98 out for about a month because I had received a free CD from Microsoft. Like I said... I only used it for a month... after that time I was ready to wipe Win98 off my box and go back to NT4. Win9x is so *MUCH* slower than the NT4/2k/XP line of operating systems. Yes, you can't run Win2k on a 486DX33. Who cares, you can't run Win95 on a IBM PC-XT either. But if you have anything faster than say a Pentium 200 and you aren't running something from the WinNT OS family, you are being foolish. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 314 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:10:05 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
