Vista Service Pack
If they'd have been a bit more honest and called this a Vista Service Pack they'd have no trouble finding early adopters.
Microsoft wants business customers - whose offices are chugging along nicely with the company's eight-year-old workhorse OS, Windows XP - to upgrade to Windows 7 now. The firm pushed out a flurry of case studies and related happy-clappy stuff about Windows 7 yesterday, in a move to convince punters who previously turned their …
MS don't seem to understand the large organisation and its IT needs. I work in a large public sector organisation. We run XP across every desktop - we got IE 7 and SP3 only 2 months ago.
We don't actually care what OS we have, just that every single machine uses it (and the same version) and every single app runs correctly on it, and is supported on it. It makes life reasonably painless.
If MS want W7 in the workplace then they need to spend the pennies on ensuring *all* of the business apps used by large organisations are supported on it. That just ain't the case right now, so IT depts across the world just carry on as usual with XP.
"Indeed, many are likely to wait until the first service pack arrives, rather than rush to install a system that might - as tends to be a characteristic trait of Windows - have a few teething problems once out in the wild."
Anyone with this attitude should be ejected from the profession. SP1 is just as big an upgrade and so shoud be treated and tested in the same way. Any admin worth his salt started testing Windows 7 6 months ago and will therefore be ready to roll out any time now. Other admins waited for RTM, in which case they have a few more months of testing before roll out. Those waiting for SP1 will still have 6 months of testing once SP1 is out, so they will still be running XP 18 months from now. Those same admins will probably then start the long panic of getting off of Server 2000/2003 just like they did with NT4 a couple of years ago when Microsoft "suddenly" and "without warning" stopped supporting the aged OS.
I for one would NOT recommend any of our customers to upgrade to 7, some that went Vista without informing us paid a huge price for their mistake, both in time and money wise.
While Win7 is looking good, what I cant see is why most if not all of our business customers would need to upgrade, they have a tried and tested OS, and all their software and hardware are working fine with it, theres just not reason to do anything else, take Office 2007 (enough said already for Shitsta), fancy icons to look at , but to get to the real functions, you have to spent time looking for the freaking options. trying to sell a new product is one thing, trying to sell a shit product is another matter. I have just installed another 21 copies of Office 2003 after showing the customer Office 2007, on a 2GHz/1GB PC, it ran like a dog, I didnt have to say anymore before they made up their mind.
Imagined Ford's latest car, 6 wheels, chrome plated bodywork, twin gearbox, LCD reflective satnav on the windshield, then you turn on the engine, it coughs a few time, drives off slower than a 1967 mini, not even in a straight line, now tell me you would buy that.
Microsoft need to get their fingers out from that private area and find out what users really want, not what they thing we want.
Another thing, Vista and Win7 now, suppose to be stable, anyone tried to fix a broken Vista ? when it doesnt boot, the way to fix it is to ........ run the DVD from within Vista.. how teh freak do you repair a Vista from within Vista when it doesnt even startup ? and to watch a new Vista installation is funny, after installation, it will do a performance test to see how good your computer is.... without even allowing you a chance to install the normal chipset/video/ACHI drivers.
Having used Win7 on and off for the best part of this year and recently upgrading my main PC from XP to 7, a big part of me wishes I hadn't. I have usability issues with it, things that worked well in XP that are broken or changed in 7.
I hope the corporates I work for don't upgrade to 7. Staff are happy using XP, it does what it needs to do very well, and everyone is very comfortable using it. I can't think of any killer business reasons to spend money on upgrading, staff training, plus endure a period of reduced productivity while staff get to grips with it or find workarounds for usability or even compatability issues (which aren't huge, 7 is fairly good on that front. I'm running a 10 year old version of Photoshop 'cos it does everything I need).
XP was good in its day and since Vista it has been appreciated even more than it was originally. I'm not convinced it will change that much.
If anyone knows how I can feedback bug/usability issues to Microsoft please let me know.
"Any admin worth his salt started testing Windows 7 6 months ago and will therefore be ready to roll out any time now."
Er, you mean "any admin given the time and money by his/her employer" don't you?
Of course, none of those employers give a toss, because li'l old XP is chugging along nicely, running all the apps they want. Why would they waste time and money on an upgrade they simply don't need?
As for what happens when Microsoft withdraw support for XP, most employers have calculated that the cost outweighs the risk, as their current OS is reasonably stable and will be for some time.
... you could actually upgrade from xp to win7 - but you can't unless you go via vista.
Sorry but if it means finding and re-installing all my apps or putting the pile of turds previously known as vista on my machine for even a few seconds then they can sit and spin because I ain't doing it.
How hard can it be for them to design an inplace xp- win7 upgade route?
"Any admin worth his salt started testing Windows 7 6 months ago and will therefore be ready to roll out any time now"
No any admin worth his salt will be working on what THE BUSINESS requires: if they're looking at a new desktop OS then fine, otherwise they should be getting on with their work.
That's not to say they shouldn't be playing with it at home/in their own time of course... ;-)
Also, why is this written in such a sarcastic 'yeah right' tone El Reg? Windows 7 is about to be launched, of course the marketing droids are beginning to fire off their Why-You-All-Need-To-Get-Windows-7-NOW guff right about now. They'd be remiss if they didn't - it's their job!
Of course they all know and we all know that no-one takes all that much notice of it all, it's just what happens when new products are launched.
XP works fine for an office desktop machine and will for many years to come. So the reason for upgrading to a new OS is...er... "because Microsoft want you to", which isn't good enough for most businesses.
Hopefully many businesses will realise that Ubuntu works just as well for desktop machines and use that instead ;)
Have always been rubbish.
The only way to reliably install is a fresh empty partition.
You wait for Win7.. SP1 ... test and wait till replacing all the old PCs.
I don't believe an 6 or 7 year old system with 512M or even less running XP perfectly will run Win7. And if it did what is the advantage? None.
I can see no value to Win7 for existing PCs at all.
"Unsurprisingly, Microsoft disagrees with that notion. It feels super confident that now is the time to move on from XP, forget about the painful upgrade process users were shackled with when Vista rocked up, and get with the Windows 7 install program, people."
Erm, didn't MS say the pretty much the same thing 2 years ago about upgrading from XP to Vista? "Now is the time, People. Don't wait. Vista is so wonderful you will make mayonaise all day long while using it." And now they're trying the same tired mantra with Win7. Truth is, only the hardcore MS fanbois really give a shit about Vista or Win7, the rest of us just want an OS that won't make the helldesk phone ring off the hook. And after 8 years, XP still fits that bill.
The only way MS will get a massive migration to Win7 is if they can convince a large proportion of the apps vendors to drop support for XP and support Vista SP3, um, I mean, Windows 7 only. But the vendors aren't in a hurry to do that because their customers are quite happy with XP.
AC wrote: "Any admin worth his salt started testing Windows 7 6 months ago and will therefore be ready to roll out any time now"
So presumably, you started testing Vista as soon as it was released and somehow managed to get it to work well enough for the end-users BEFORE they released any service packs?
FUD and you know it.
Like most business software it's a means towards an end so Microsoft would have to prove convincingly that there is a excellent business reason for jumping to Windows 7 and the consequences to in-house and specialist software used by the business.
In this recession how many company have the money to spare for such a change?
I've been using Microsoft software since the beginning and every new operating involves some degree of pain (in the case of the Windows Millennium - Agony) and Windows XP was not exempt.
By the way I've tried Windows 7 and hated it - it may be faster but it seems to be dumb
VNC doesn't work from Vista onward ... You have to use "Remote Desktop", but you can't use this to show a user how to do something.
OpenVPN also has real issues if you want to add routes, which is kinda the point of it.
Unfortunately these are apps that we use for remotely controlling PC's, and without them the user has to come to us ...
We're better off in Ubuntu.
Why on earth would a business want to install a phat new OS on old machines?
It's just going to waste time, be slower and annoy the users.
What possible business benefit is there?
Surely you just move to the new OS gradually as and when the machines are replaced.
Or do Microsoft somehow make it difficult/impossible to run a mix of XP and Vista/7 machines?
Just came out of a meeting regarding our upgrade policy. Yes, we are going to phase out XP and no, it's not Windows 7. It's SuSE.
Goodbye Microsoft. Welcome to our new Novell overlords.
Well, it's happened and I must truthfully admit there is a strange sense of anxiety and relief...
Any admin worth his salt will realise that an upgrade to windows 7 is pointless and a disruption to smooth running IT systems. Not to mention increased support costs as users call the helpdesk to ask "why don't my computer work like it did before, how do I do x,y and z in on this new computer?"
Perhaps in several years time when windows 7 is on the home machines of the majority of employees and all the bugs that will be discovered over the next 12 months are fixed it will be worthy of consideration.
The laptop I am typing this on runs Ubuntu and dual boots into Windows 7 RC. I have booted into windows 7 twice. I thought to myself "fuck this" when I realised all the steps I would have to take to secure Win 7 from Microsoft... IMHO Windows 7 is spyware.
My company is using xp with ie6 and notes 6.5. We have 50000+ employees so I can't see it changing anything until a major lock-in kicks in and we have no choice.
Personally I dropped XP for w2000 because of genuine advantage/antivirus bloat/forced upgrades to media player etc... oh and the fact I couldn't re-install it without ringing microsoft to ask if it was ok with them to use my software...
Windows 2000, just for running Money 2004 - all running in VirtualBox on ubuntu of course.
Tux cos there's no freetard icon
I upgraded from vista to XP pro in January, and it was a massive relief. Now I'm planning to stick with XP for a few years while my target OS improves a bit more. And that's Ubuntu, not win7. Frankly, if my favourite games ran on Linux I'd have switched ages ago.
Win7 should be why7? If it's based on vista it will be crappy, slow and a resource hog. Who needs it? Oh, yes. Those people who have vista and are desperate for a way out.
... but it's to a Mac and OS X. As an end user rather than an IT support drone, all I can say is thank fuck for that as it'll be the end of 15 years plus of Windows hell/mediocrity and movement to an OS that will actually help me to do my work rather than hinder me every fricking step of the way.
>> "Indeed, many are likely to wait until the first service pack arrives, rather than rush to install a system that might - as tends to be a characteristic trait of Windows - have a few teething problems once out in the wild."
> Anyone with this attitude should be ejected from the profession ..
by Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 15th September 2009 13:35 GMT
What is it your organization does that desperatly required the mass deployment of Windows 7/SP1 I mean a lot of people out there are just drawing breath after the Vista migration ...
>> 'Windows 7 has advanced capabilities such as Remote Desktop'
> Errr excuse me, I've been using VNC since Win 2K days!
But VNC is somewhat different to RDP. RDP allows remote working from another system with a choice of resolution, VNC shadows a machine. (Useful for remote supporet, but poor for remote working.)
It was XP that introduced RDP to workstations, so the point stands.
Wow there's a lot of comments from people who don't have a clue what they are talking about. Win7 is reported to run just as well as XP runs on similar hardware - both 5 year old kit and high-end stuff you can get today. In fact some Netbook users have reported it to run faster than XP.
Businesses will end up migrating to Windows 7 slowly but surely. Your right, there's no amazing new feature, but a stack of management improvements is normally enough to invest compared to employing more IT staff as your business grows.
We deployed Vista in May 2007 (was released November 2006) and have been very happy with it. We did tests and realised it ran slowly on old hardware, but the OS ran fine on new hardware and the management advantages were worthwhile. As such new machines brought ran Vista. This meant we could image machines within 20 minutes and a LOT easier than RIS in Windows XP / 2003.
Being Vista has a stack of new GPO's, we took advantage and implemented various security options that we could only do with 3rd party products. That saved £12k by not having to renew / upgrade that!
The same with apply with Windows 7. Small things like additional GPO's, refinements in UAC and imagining technology, ability to block USB keys and encrypt them across the company, support for a modern OS that will run on our oldest PC's etc.
There's nothing killer in Windows 7. Neither was there in Windows XP or Vista (although I think security has jumped a huge amount in Vista onwards). I won't be recommending spending £30,000 on upgrading our XP and Vista boxes to 7 - but I will be recommending using Windows 7 on all new PC's from Feb 2010 onwards as there's no additional costs but you get better performance, management and administration compared to XP or Vista.
there, on windows7 it works and it works well, so businesses who would like to do stuff that works better in 64bit (big zip files for a starter), will probably want something their users are more familiar with.
Since a lot of end users migrated to laptops (as did I for 4 years :) ) and as we know a laptop often lasts only 2 years in a normal household, many people will be getting their mitts on win 7 sooner as it will be pre-installed, and of course a lot of people currently stuck with vista , because they dont have the knowledge to reinstall, will be looking for an easy upgrade because they know vista is erm.... not very good.
to retraining users wont be such a massive problem
and there are benefits from moving forward, if we didnt have progression there would still be old men with combovers and clipboards telling us what to do..............hang on , thats the council isnt it? :)
Microsoft is feeling the economic crisis, and want people to throw money their way, ofc they want you to buy their stuff, preferable multiple times.
There is absolutely no reason for buisnesses to upgrade their existing computers to windows 7, tech junkies will say I'm wrong, I'm a techie too, but I'm also a realist.
A company who is not experiencing any problems with their IT infrastructure, everything is working is not likely to rock the boat, just because of the latest and greatest From Microsoft, the most that will come out is some will buy windows 7 for compatibility tests, and not much else.
No admin worth their wages will even push for it, because it is just a huge expense for companies to change, even a service pack can create enormous problems, and therefore takes a lot of resources for testing, which is why it is always adopted long after the initial release.
Sure they will be testing, the system, getting ready for the time when they're forced to buy windows 7, preparing for this, I really do not think they're even vaugely concerned that XP support is going to go away.
The only ones that see a good buisness and point in upgrading to Windows 7 are windows fanbois, and early adapters, for everyone else it's just money out of the windows (pun intended), there is no reason at all to upgrade from XP, until you buy a new machine and have the windows 7 license forced down your throat.
TBH, this is a great argument for switching to open source, linux, freebsd, Netbsd and what not, because the support for these platforms can be regulated by the admins.. There is no pressure to upgrade, if you want to keep a platform at a older stage you can, and you can pick and choose what needs to be patched, and you can build the patches your self - if you so choose, or you can do like the windows system, and accept bundle upgrades - freedom of choice - gotta love it.
Having to upgrade programs again for compatibility, and so forth, is a good time to consider if there should be a jump to the free (as in beer) open source platforms, which would adequately cover about 90% of all IT tasks.
I have finally adopted Vista at work - but not without a fallback to the old XP box on a KVM. I do not plan to immediately convert to W7 until the end users sweat the details (because Microsoft will not have - I actually learn from history). Most 3rd party apps have caught up to Vista now also.
As for the "necessity" to upgrade, the term "Revenue Generation" is weighted toward Redmond at the moment, not to me. Think of all the course/textbook/cert revenues alone! Out of my pocket, into theirs.
As for spending my own time "learning" W7 at present, I put that time to better use with Linux.
As a *nix user and having to put up with 7 of MSDN for testing ,(wish it was 7 of 9), I would say anyone thinking of deploying a new immature OS on a desktop is insane, Its a damn good desktop and i like it, the kid likes it, the wife likes it...... but corporate usage?? gimme some time man....
The concept of 'Early Adopters' spells out their desire to be rim-rolled (c).
It seems you did such a good job with XP as is now, there is no compelling reason to move away from it. Congratulations M$, you finally did something right! Hey, it's even better than Win3.11FWG!
What? You don't care for compliments about XP anymore? But... but, I thought you cared!
As for Win7, I appreciate you telling me about it, as you did with Vista, but I'll just hang on to XP a while longer. It works SOo well...
Nice hearing from you. Take care.
Oh, I think Paris is going for it. Bless...
I work for a research center that is part of a medical school. The school banned upgrades to Vista on new machines from Vista's release in 2006 up until now. We are an XP ONLY shop. Every new "Vista Capable" PC was downgraded to XP by IT before they landed on anyone's desk. Our IT department doesn't rush into OS upgrades based on the fact that a vendor is pushing us to do it (obviously so they can make money. There is no other reason for them to push customers to buy a product. ). No one here is using Vista. No one here will be using Windows 7. The help desk has enough trouble supporting a bunch of college graduates who barely have the skills to use XP on the desktop. The interface differences in Windows 7 alone would cause a dramatic increase in support calls across the board. It's just not going to happen here, and is highly unlikely to happen on a large scale anywhere else. Microsoft's only hope is new PC sales because not nearly as many people as they hope for were willing to pay the high "Microsoft Tax" for the upgrade software. Who has that kind of money to waste in this economy? Typing this on a laptop that dual boots Ubuntu and Vista. Only touched Vista twice in two months. They lower the upgrade price to something real people who aren't rich can afford, I'll consider it. Otherwise, I don't think so.
After reading Peter Gutman's "Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection" I decided to part company with MS. But apart from running various Buntus I have just bought my first *ever* legal copy of a MS product .( I started with DOS 2.0 IIRC)
Guess what? It's a laptop downgraded to XP!
rolling out xp service pack 3, i have been told that we will go straight to 7 at some point, but personally i cant see it.
I have installed 7 (RC)twice on my machine, i like it, but in both cases i have been annoyed enough by serious niggles, to the point where i've wiped it and put xp back. I assume a higher spec machine would be fine, but the netbook i used is higher spec than every single pc we have at work.
I can't see any valid busines reason for switching, especially considering the sheer number of custom apps that would need testing, even if they didn't need changing. I wonder if Microsoft will certify visual studio 2.2 to run on windows 7 without any issue whatsoever? As porting all our code to visual studio 6 would be a massive undertaking, nevermind 2008. It would be better to rewrite from scratch, but no business will approve that without a 'damn good reason'
We don't own Windows 7. We own Vista. Most of our 35,000 desktops/laptops, recently replaced, have Vista stickers. Why would we pay to upgrade to Windows 7 when it is just a prettier version of Vista?? We will move to Vista from XP.. next year maybe. If Microsoft gives us Windows 7 for free.. we might consider that.
Windows 7 should not have been marketed as a full "new" OS. It's not really a Vista SP3 (it's more than that) and it's not really a full new OS (it's less than that).
It should have been sold as an inexpensive *update* for existing Vista users somewhere around $29.95.
On the retail shelves it should be sold as both full (for unlicensed users) and update (for existing Vista licenses) versions.
MS appear to be a victim of their own success. The very reason why XP is blocking the commercial success of other client (not server) operating systems - ie. user intransigence ('it just works', 'I'm familiar with its user interface', etc.) - is now the very reason why business appears to be resisting any 'upgrade' (the jury is still out on the appropriateness of that term) to W7.
That MS droids really think that Vista's problem was a marketing issue and not a technical one. That's why Win7 feels like vista SP3 with a forced new taskbar no one asked for.
They have fixed those issues that had a match with the marketing complaints, the rest remain unresolved as they were in vista, ie:
1) General dumb down of the whole desktop concept
2) Pushing new concepts and metaphors down people's throats just for the sake of change.
3) Too many wizards that only serve to confuse even the most seasoned admin.
4) Uses too much resources (yes even 7 still does)
I think there's a long life for XP ahead, those pesky license servers required for volume licensing won't be welcomed by many I'm afraid.
XP does mostly what I want (with a few annoying random freezes) & seems fairly stable too.
Why would I want to get W7 & have to relearn where M$ has decided to put everything this time...
Hopefully by the time I need to upgrade it will be simple enough to go to Ubuntu or similar.
I don't want to pay M$ any more to have to jump thru their hoops (eg WGA) for DRMd crap (eg fista file copy)
... how much clout Microsoft really has. My old company (20,000+ PCs) took almost two years to migrate from Windows NT and Office 2000 to XP and Office 2003 once they were released. Lots of testing we were told.
Oh well, my suspicions are Microsoft will just have to wait a while. And given the economy, it may be quite a while.
Microsoft is kidding itself if it thinks its going to persuade enterprise users to shell out for yet more licences- particularly in the current economic climate.
I work in a large public organisation- we're still running Windows 2000 across over 90% of our desktops (several thousand), and are beginning to 'trial' Win XP....... When you're using all sorts of development environments- and need to make sure you don't break either your apps, or your development tools- you are sort of stuck. Locking down to a stable environment- even if its 10 years old, is not a bad idea. Win XP is pretty zippy on modern hardware :)
I am happily working on a mixture of Win2K and Win98 PCs doing all that I need them to do (and it must be confessed sufficient play value too). No need to upgrade to Microsoft's next. As some will realise there are enthusiasts who continue to advance Win98, sorting out bugs and restrictions that MS left behind in their continuing rush to fleece their customers. Doubtless other enthusiasts will continue to support Win2K and WinXP when necessary.
Lets be honest here. What are the benefits of Vista SP3?
Does the workplace need a shiny aero interface, easy handling of streaming video, or multimedia support?
Not unless you are running high end tattyshop or graphics packages, and most of those are Mac based.
No all you need is the ability to run low spec machines, office packages, and network ability. XP just does that. And boots up quickly so the boss can see you working, rather than giving the employee an excuse for a coffee break whilst they are waiting for VIsta *Cough* sorry Windoze 7 to boot
Well, it's like this: I own an older but quite serviceable laptop which is on XP (and only then because Lightroom and Photoshop CS4 don't run under Ubuntu).
Windows 7 might indeed be good, but XP works well enough *right now* and will still work well enough after October 22nd and for some time to come afterward.
To upgrade to Windows 7 would almost certainly require a whole new system and if I'm in the market to do *that* I'll be replacing my current rig with some sort of desktop Mac for LR and PS work and the smallest Linux-based netbook I can get for when I'm just wanting to browse the internets from my couch or to take on business trips.
Microsoft lives in a dream world, where it is the most important entity on the planet, and the purpose of life is to put money in its pockets.
So many contributors have hit the nail on the head. Upgrade... why? don't need to.
But IT departments and company boards will not only have to withstand the pressure from MS; that's easy... nothing simpler than saying "no thanks" to a salesman and putting the phone down, one does it every day. The real sales pressure that *put* microsoft on every desktop was, and will continue to be the users. Why would an IT department ever have moved away from the dumb terminal on every desk, with a limited number of servers, whose configuration was under control, and which ran and ran and ran and ran, with no time spent trying to sort out different issues with identical machines on desktop after desktop.
It was the users who wanted windows; it was the users that got windows --- and it will be the users who continue to clammer for the latest, biggest, brightest UPgrade. IT managers are often in denial about this, but the Power is truly with the People. Microsoft must know it: watch out for the TV ads! Microsoft is very good at making its dreams come true.
"'Windows 7 has advanced capabilities such as Remote Desktop'
Errr excuse me, I've been using VNC since Win 2K days!"
Well, for that matter, *Windows XP* has Remote Desktop.
"VNC doesn't work from Vista onward ... You have to use "Remote Desktop", but you can't use this to show a user how to do something.
OpenVPN also has real issues if you want to add routes, which is kinda the point of it."
I'd come up with some paranoia about Microsoft breaking it on purpose, but to be honest, the graphics system in Vista did change a lot, and they redid the networking some too. Too bad they don't work though.
"Goodbye Microsoft. Welcome to our new Novell overlords.
Well, it's happened and I must truthfully admit there is a strange sense of anxiety and relief..."
I haven't used Suse specifically, but I think you'll find your job MUCH easier. There'll be a learning curve (if you haven't done some heavy Linux admining before) but it's STABLE, stats show considerably lower downtime than Windows, and there's no opaque layers so if you set a policy you can KNOW what it'll do (you won't something happen like what happened with Windows where they just recently had to release a patch because the Autorun disable setting didn't REALLY disable Autorun...) I think having an actual package manager will make that aspect easier than you are used to also.
AC wrote: "Any admin worth his salt started testing Windows 7 6 months ago and will therefore be ready to roll out any time now"
Considering that many business applications will probably start supporting windows7 properly in 2010 at the earliest, that is a load of poop.
Any Sysadmin who is prepared to run his network on Beta software is worth something far less valuable than salt...
There are common business apps that have only recently started working on Vista, and some that still do not support it.
I can think of at least 3 large software companies that do not even have a 7 beta version in place, so how can you test it?
OK if all you use is Office 2007, (and have nice shiny new machines, unless you love the new circling timer that replaces the hourglass).
All 2008 and 7 mean to most SMEs is more unnecessary cost.
We spent 9 months testing Vista, even had MS consultants in to help us, but in the end we just coudln't get all the those nasty little apps that the big boys, who pull in the clients with the dosh, use to make the company the money it needs. So we all ended up with XP on the desktops, this was only about 6 months ago!!! The company has about 1,000 desktops max and spent 4 months just testing upgrades from IE6 to IE7!
We won't be looking at Windows 7 for user desktops for a very, very, very long time I'm afraid MS!
In the past, the only real reason to go with MS was because everyone else did and you had to be running the same version of Word as your customers etc. That worked for MS in the past but is probably working against them now. Mass XP-squatting increases resistance to movement.
If businesses have a working solution then any move looks like real or potential cost and pain with no real gain.
IT folk have finally broken from their nose rings. "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM/MS" no longer holds true. Enough people got personally burned by Vista that that no longer works.
Any well run business expects some return on their expenditure. IT bosses asking to spend up huge without a compelling benefit just look stupid and get fired, particularly in the current economic conditions.
Even if Win7 is superior to XP and the latest Office is better than the last one, is there really enough to justify the movement? Where's the compelling feature set?
It's going to take a bit more than Gates and Seinfeld wiggling their bums on TV to get people to change.
Microsoft have the problem in that who believes them with this. Anyone who is pushing out Win7 to their users either has a very small user base, a very simple app profile, has too much time on their hand or like playing Russian roulette. I've been with them at a corporate level for years and the same PR stunts are pushed out like we're ready for the enterprise with NT 4
Don't believe them, XP SP3 are perfectly ok for 99% organisations. It's an OS after all not an application so there is no business value in changing.
Paris - 'cos her video will display just fine on XP ! Not that I've seen it !
Can't believe that people actually want to keep XP - have you any IDEA how slow and cruddy it is.
We've now moved a few client's PC's to Ubuntu - the users have been really please with how fast their PC's are. And I'll bet that they'll still be delighted in six months/two years time when they're STILL running fast.
As someone mentioned - the only way to run windows is to run Windows 2K (possibly XP) in a VM with nice backup snapshots ready to roll back to when they eventually crumble and fall apart.
Of course, you'll need to install FF - heavily filter all their email and web traffic, set up firewalls, try to find a decent AV etc etc etc.
Eventually companies will move their legacy apps to browser based apps and then Windows will no longer be needed.
Microsoft are living in the past. The time where corps are willing to forklift in revolutionary desktop "upgrades" is long gone.
Microsoft really need to modularize their OS and allow corps to incrementally upgrade the bits that they need to.
No more Windows This v7 and Windows That v8. There should be one product, and it should be called "Windows" and it should have absolutely minimal "features" by default which corps can expand upon in a controlled manner via selectable modules from a centralised server or optional third party servers.
These servers could be called, Oh, I dunno, lets call them "repositories", yeah, that sounds good.
The next again version of Office or some other "critical" MS app (then ALL subsequent versions of everything) will be engineered by MS to ONLY run on Win7.
OS Upgrades will thus follow, wanted or not and you'll all end up swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Again. Its endless. You are tied in. Forever.
Some people are waking up to this and voting to shift away from this model.
Jump ship now or you never will.
Does Apple pay people to troll tech sites? There was no compelling reason to upgrade to XP either and every cunt and his dad installed it and complained about security issues and blue screens. Now that Windows 7 comes along, suddenly XP is the perfect OS, where everything just works and is stable. Which is it?
Fact is that XP was out for so long it's become almost synonymous with PCs themselves. Everybody knows it and by default anything that dares to change the way computers are used will now be considered "difficult".
These companies that insist on sticking with old hardware and old OSes should be forced to use horses and carts too because only that way will they learn how badly they stand in the way of progress.
John Sanders just stop using computers you are clearly too stupid to deserve one.
This sounds familiar. Didn't we see an attempt like this with Vista that failed miserably? And since Windows 7 offers next to nothing new over Vista aside from stability and speed improvements, why oh why would an IT department need this when, once again, XP works fine?
Or are they also panicking about businesses and governments switching over to Linux, which is becoming a more frequent occurrence every day?
This is Microsoft in panic mode, ladies and gentlemen. This is not a drill.
and we've no plans to move to Windows 7 at all. New PCs that we get with Vista on are reimaged with XP before going to the users. Maybe when it becomes impossible to run XP at all we might move to W7, but before that it just ain't gonna happen.
Of course, we still run IE6 for the corporate web apps that don't work in anything else (but Firefox for actual web browsing) and we use Office 2000. No present plans to upgrade these either.
...and with a straight delivery no less. First, let's go over the gains in Win7:
-powershell v2 (yes, we all know bash has been available on Unix for years - it's nice to have a *true* scripting engine for MS that works for client and server machines)
- app-v/ med-v: if the whining commentards who think their apps will break would just use this it would be so much quieter
- vhd bootable: no, it doesn't have to be on the physically attached hdd, but it can be
- better integration of tpm 1.2 / bitlocker enhancements
- management pack for 2008 / 2008R2 is seamless
- direct access: sweet jebus, this is the single biggest reason if you have remote or roaming users (at least to shut the regional user up about roaming access requiring 2 or 3 forms of authentication including rsa token/smart card)
- branch cache: this is the second biggest reason for admins with outlying offices
- sliding UAC: from "when a gnat gets gassy" to "gentle chime when the machine is on fire"
- App Locker: better control over the machines so you don't get a rouge section executing their own "upgrades"
- VNC and RDP are for the weak. Actually, mice are for the weak, real admins use command line, ssh and scripting to get shit done - no exceptions.
- Folks still using W2k and W98? I've got an electric typewriter with an etch-a-sketch duct taped on.....but I'm still going to make you go thru a training class.
- Ubuntu fan boys: STFU. That's all.
- Waiting for Win7 SP1? Just go back to working on the boiler and fixing steam engines, luddite
Admins with their poop in a group:
- SUSE switch? Good luck, it takes time but the product is solid. If the business will go for it get SLES /SLED.
- Early tester's: test early, test often, get buy in from the other admins and from one of the big boys... everything gets so much easier with the board on board.
I think RDP is pretty neat, that's from a confirm Linux nut!
I have to run my XP desktop virtually on another box ( for mail and such like ) and using the free rdesktop tool across RDP to the XP box, very, very stable indeed, way better than VNC which can be a little ropey when the graphics starting playing silly beggers.
What does a CORPORATE machine (and the IT Professionals who support it) need in terms of an M$ windows operating system?
A SIMPLE interface.
Aero is "glizty and fun" - its not simple.
Anything that is more than 3 clicks or mousedrags away is too much. I have users with 50+ icons on their desktops becuase they don't want to go clicking thru directories or menus.
TRUST the Hardware
The best place to do things is in hardware. So if the HDD can support disk encryption then let the HDD do the job - don't try shoving it into the OS where it will just cause an I/O bottleneck.
yes, powershell is wonderful. I use it myself. But thats not an excuse to have it pre-installed on every machine so that the users get to play with it and do things that I don't want them to do.
Again, M$ isn't a mobile connectivity provider, they don't (yet) make 3G datacards and they are not (in the UK at least) a mainstream ISP. So stop trying to wedge your software in between the ISP/Datacard provider and the OS. The ISP/3G-Datacard provider is the best company to make the O/S link to the hardware/service. let them do their job and you do yours.
There are already great corporate level deployment tools. We (the IT Professionals) are using using them - we have been using them for years. We have a lot of TIME and MONEY invested in their use. Kindly leave them alone.
See Deployment above.
Now .. go away and provide us with Windows XP Pro v2 - which has the same Interface, the ease of use and installation but has the needed features. Not 100's of bells and whistles that just eat up the resources of the hardware that we're stuck with for the next 3-4 years.
In an ideal world I'm sure a lot of companies would more to some flavour of Linux or other -- alas some have invested huge percentages of their IT budget in Windows-only third party applications and, as a result, are stuck with XP until they can either afford an upgrade to Windows 7 or work out how to use Linux.
With any luck a decent percentage will do the latter.
Microsoft - what does Windows 7 do for my business, that Windows XP doesn't already do?
Not a feature list, please. A zillion new features that I never asked for and which contribute nothing to my business is a non-answer. In fact, it's probable that they'll confuse my users after the upgrade, leading to a drop in productivity and a flood of calls to the support desk. That's a negative, not a positive. I'd rater pay (yes, PAY) for continued XP support with user-transparent incremental upgrades. than for a flag-day upgrade to Windows 7.
So exactly what are the killer features that make the cost and the pain of an upgrade worthwhile?
As of this time, I am not aware of any such. Over to you, MS and your fans.
By the way, about cost. Very few of the analyses seem to include the old printers and suchlike, which still work perfectly well but which would have to be replaced for lack of Windows 7 drivers. Or the old software which we purchased for ££££ which won't run on 7 without spending ££££ more on an upgrade. Or the legacy software, whose vendor went out of business and for which no upgrade is available.
commentards aside, I've seen a few genuinely insightful views posted here. I've also seen a few comments that unwittingly gave away just how little they understand of how windows works. Eg. Remote Desktop is to take control. Remote assistance allows interactive guidance.
One theme that I've seen running through the comments is server-side management.
We currently use server2008 and SCCM to manage our multi-site system. It took me a while to get it working, but now I can schedule a complete OS reinstall on the other side of the world.
They buy a new machine, email me the mac address, and plug it in. We already have a deal with our suppliers so they configure the BIOS correctly.
On my scheduled command, the machine powers up, partitions and formats its' drive, installs windows, its' relevent drivers, any updates and a full suite of software, entirely customised for its' role. Then group policy takes care of configuring every last detail of the OS configuration from dynamic proxy, desktop theme, printer assignment, drive mappings office macro security...
The only thing the user has to do is log in, usually with the profile I also scheduled to migrate from their old machine.
This all works because we are using Vista business. What twisted my arm? The kernel of Vista has a true Hardware abstraction layer. Prior to vista we tended to build OS images catered for hardware profiles because although you can deploy drivers for XP, there are some serious limitations, and this generated a substantial amount of work. Even the BIOS is managed through SCCM thanks to intels AMT and Vpro tech.
Thankfully, all our 'problem' software was developed in-house, and it didn't take much cajoling to get our developers to switch to .net, becuase they all love the IDE.
I'm currently fine-tuning win7. The rollout will be a doddle. Yes, there some elements of it that can be a pain to configure, but that's the whole point of group policy. You only need to get the configuration profile right once (and you don't do it through the confusing interface on the desktop itself - if you're doing that you've failed to grasp the whole concept of server-client relationship)
I've worked with many seasoned unix/linux vets, and I've heard all the arguments before. Yes, unix/linux usually has a comparable app or feature to compete with MOST of these management systems, and usually that app will have MOST of the elements, but invariably they've not been as replete or well intergrated as the MS counterparts.
As for cost? We're an academic institute, so we're laughing all the way to the bank (if we weren't it would be a serious consideration though)
I'm not a complete MS lacky - our primary file server cluster is Solaris, - it simply has no downtime, and we only switched our webservers to IIS for integration with our .net apps.
I'm certainly not going to stand at the alter and preach the virtues of exchange either, as my experiences with it have not always been shiny - but we are migrating to it, because our current IMAP server doesn't do deduplication, and for obvious reasons there isn't anything else on the market that ties into active directory as seemlessly.
So, when it comes to the killer app that makes us switch? As per usual it has nothing to do with the plebs sat in front of the desktop, it's about genuine improvement of the overall system, and that is something that vista and win7 do offer.
The only sticking point is application compatibility, and I have deep sympathy for those sysadmins that have no control over those VB6/COBOL/PASCAL peices of legacy crap in their organisation.
wow, this turned into a ramble, but I hopefully someone will find insight in my meandering experiences
As someone who works in the test department of a small-medium software house I would secretly advise anyone to avoid our x.0 products. The developement team spend all their energy trying to shoehorn in the new functionality that makes that define as a major rev. say 1.6-2.0 that 2.0 will (per new line of code) not have had as much exploritory testing or just face to screen time as a more minor release. where as typically a x.1 release just fixes the problems we ran out of time on before (so are bumped down to minor*) and perhaps adds a few new scraps we ran out of time for too.
*of course the procedure clearly states that severity should just depend on functionailty but in reality one of the major factors in deciding serverity for project managment is proximity to relase date.
OK I'll bite:
"There was no compelling reason to upgrade to XP either and every cunt and his dad installed it and complained about security issues and blue screens."
Yeah they did shame on them and yes, they complained to high heaven, and rightly so, it was absolute shite.
"Now that Windows 7 comes along, suddenly XP is the perfect OS, where everything just works and is stable. Which is it?"
It is not a perfect OS, but everything does work and it is very stable.
XP has matured it isn't the blue screening insecure crock of shit it was on release. It has been around for 8 years, it is known and understood. For me it is stable, reliable and secure, as I would expect it is for most home users (at least those who don't "click here" because a dialogue box tells them to) and every admin who knows what s/he is doing.
Windows 7 is a solution waiting for a problem. And MS will create those problems over the next year or so via interoperability issues to ensure everyone who uses windows HAS to upgrade and suck on the latest foul tasting MS lollipop. In Five years time I will most likely be denouncing Microsoft's latest attempt to foist an unneeded upgrade to Windows 7 and saying how wonderful my lite, cut down, locked down (from MS spying) Win 7 install is and that I don't need to be connected to an MS server to use it.
I remember a large networking company saying that many of their existing products would not have Y2K support and then retracting the idea when the large corporate I worked for told them we would replace their non-Y2K kit with Cisco. It's the same problem for MS - the large corporates are not interested in moving from XP and, if forced into what would be an expensive and time-consuming exercise, may chose to go with Suse or similar commercial offerings.
Most large organisations have a lot of old apps, databases and the like which are somehow essential to the smooth running of the business. Migration would typically mean starting again from scratch, with all the disruption and cost that implies, so none of the decision-makers are interested.
MS are probably better off pumping their new offerings to domestic and small business customers whose needs are probably less esoteric and don't have the commercial clout for MS to worry about their objections.
I don't normally respond to trolling, but this one missed the point by such a great distance it's almost commical.
No, VNC and RDP are not the same thing, but I wasn't talking about Remote Desktop, I was speaking of Remote Assistance. Using the the same underlying engine (which is vastly more efficient that VNC) Remote Assistance does not lock the clients workstation, leaving it open for both parties to interact with.
We scrapped VNC 6 months ago because this works a lot better.
The security of which can be tightly controlled through active directory and group policy permissions.
When it comes to legacy software, as I stated before it is the primary sticking point when upgrading to a new system, but the whole point of my last comment was that the upgrading to a new system certainly in our case, offered massive improvements in system management and security, so by that measure of the stick, yes, it is indeed 'broken'.
It's no different to corporations that stick with IE6 because their intranet (or other web based systems) will only work in it. But as we all know, IE6 is slow, unstable, and appallingly insecure by modern browser standards. If those systems were built by an outside source over which you have no control, then yes, that is unfortunately a cross that you will have to bear
If, on the other hand they are all designed in-house, then it should be absolute top priority to migrate, if only to stop your users complaining.
Yes, old systems continue to 'function', but work? It's like the old frog-in-a-pot-on-the-stove analogy. These systems keep clunking away, but slowly and steadily the digital landscape around them changes.
More and more of our IT systems are becoming internet facing, while simultaniously IT is permeating into parts of our business that weren't even dreamt of back in the days of novell and DOS. Would you have believed if someone had told you 15 years ago that client computer BIOS control, the phones, your air conditioning, and even the window locks could all be managed on the same network?
And then, could you have even comprehended every nuance of the security requirements?
"Why the hell do I need a 128bit encryption security certificates embedded in my BIOS for? It's got a password!"
Another reason that we made the move to vista was that as a government body with sites worldwide, we are under mandatory preassure to encrypt any and all portable devices that may contain confidential personal data.
If there are any volunteers who would like to guide a non-english speaking office assistant through installing Becrypt on his bosses laptop at 4am, where were you 18 months ago?!?!
As is, Bitlocker meets all the requirements put forward to us, and can simply be enabled via group policy. It was a no-brainer, and any legacy software that stood in the way of this was either updated, replaced or scrapped.
I'm not pointing a gun at your head and telling you to "UPGRADE TO THE GLORY THAT IS WINDOWS 7 NOW!" But I will say this. When I first started here they were using an old version of Samba and required 3 duplicate user accounts for login, email and intranet. As such no-one could change their passwords or they'd lose sync. All new computers were installed and configured manually, and half the machines had static IP addresses due to the VB6 software that had been written 10 years ago.
I agree change for changes sake is no benefit, but c'mon?
"...what does Windows 7 do for my business, that Windows XP doesn't already do?"
Install the RC and your applications and take it for a spin yourself.
Personally, I find the interface changes increase productivity with the software that I use.
Plus some of the features under-the-hood make hardware installation and use easier.
And the video system has some improvements.
Point is, if you cannot answer the question other than "give it a go", there obviously isn't even one glaring item you could point to and say "hell yes, Win7 for us".
** Win95 had better support for the new pentiums
** Win98 brought a few wiz-bangy things, but nothing new. Install IE 4 on Win95 pretty much..
** WinNT WS brought in secure computing for the business user
** WinME.. oh dear, don't go there..
** Win2K is still one of my favorite OS's Stable, combining the secure environment of WinNT, and the user friendly features of Win95. Awesomeness.
** WinXP added better networking controls, tighter AD integration, better driver management. Almost as good as Win2K on it's release, with subsequent patches it's just gotten better and easier to control.
** Vista.. Mmm... tastes like another WinME pile of turd. UAC, need I say more? Actually, lets try. Badly thought out delivery process (who the hell thought up all the different releases). Hefty price tag. Steve "the Ball and Chain" Balmer being on record saying there's nothing wrong with it, please buy it.. oh dear.
** Windows7... this should have been a win, hands down. But, turns out there is so much disabled that WinXP admins have come to expect (without even options to re-enable or effectively replace), that it looks doubtful anyone will adopt it.
Heck, do we want to start on the stupid bumnugget idea behind Office2007? Ribbon? W.T.F???
Have they learnt and gone back to TWO OPTIONS (home and business). No. Have they fixed the shite UAC? No. Have they listened to ANYTHING users b*tched about in either Vista or 7? No.
But hey, it looks pretty. Well, here's news for you, dumb@sses.. so does Linux. Iit's damn easy to use, getting easier than windows lately. And it'll run HAPPILY on a crap intergrated gfx card. Can't say that about either Vista or 7.
I bet the "piracy" gets blamed for the poor income MS make over the next year.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019