Windows XP's Retail Sales Are Trailing Pace Set by Its Predecessor, Windows 98

Wall Street Journal ^ | Dec 19, 2001 | REBECCA BUCKMAN

[CheneyChick]

It took me about six hours to get it all correct

OMG. I don't understand this. I don't have a spare six hours to "play" with getting my computer set up. These threads make me an even happier Mac user. OS X was installed in minutes and is extremely stable. It's like the MS OS users have a "Kick Me" sign on their backs.....

[RightOnline]

"Er, no. Win2K was never marketed as a home-user OS. XP's predecessor in the consumer market is Win98."

I suppose I must've missed the real tenor of the conversation, the thread's "title" aside: I didn't realize that we were just talking about "home users". In that context, then you're right: Win2K wasn't really marketed to the home user. More knowledgable users DID go to Win2K, though......and I've personally been very, very impressed with it (well, Win2K w/Service Pack 2, that is; quite solid). XP seems to be terrific for home users, especially those who are less technologically savvy (the overwhelming majority of new features in XP? Win2K users were already there.............). From what I've seen of XP, it's.........um..............pretty, I guess, but offers me no real reason to "upgrade" from Win2K Professional.

[ken21]

thanks.

[ken21]

thanks.

[Knitebane]

I'm sure that shipping a product with a huge hole that let's people on the Internet read, change or delete files on your hard drive will endear XP to the masses.

Between crap like that and the licensing nightmare that Microsoft seems intent on creating, you'd think that people would be hesitant to pour more money down the Microsoft rat hole.

But then again, those are as good of reasons as I can think of why their sales figures for XP aren't all that great.

Knitebane