What To Expect From Windows 7 SP1

snydeq writes "The first inklings of a public Windows 7 SP1 beta program are beginning to emerge, with hidden registry keys and a leaked list of post-RTM build numbers surfacing on the Web. 'Beyond the obvious bug fixes and security patches, we'll no doubt see support for the new USB 3.0 standard. Likewise, enhancements to the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi stacks will be slipstreamed in, allowing Windows 7 to retain its mantle as the most easily configured version ever,' writes InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy. 'But perhaps the most significant "update" to come out of Service Pack 1 will be the fact that it exists at all, and that by delivering it to market Microsoft will be signaling that it is now OK for IT shops to pull the trigger on their Windows 7 deployments.'"

Comments

Only management is fooled

[girlintraining]

...Techies know that SP2 is the new SP1. Microsoft has started rushing SP1 out the door ever since a certain *cough* Gartner Group *cough* suit-zine told management to never upgrade to a new Microsoft OS until it gets past SP1.

Re:Only management is fooled

[0racle]

Only morons trust any version number as an indicator of stability. Testing Windows 7 release candidates indicated it was good for deployment on release day for a good number of people and businesses. You probably need to stop hanging out with geek squad 'techies.'

Re:Only management is fooled

[ArhcAngel]

Only morons trust any version number as an indicator of stability.

Which he covered by saying that idea was sold to management...DUH!

Re:Only management is fooled

[girlintraining]

You probably need to stop hanging out with geek squad 'techies.'

And you probably need to cut back on the pompous asshattery. I know people that do senior software deployment for Fortune 100 companies and still refer to themselves as a techie. It's mystifying why you got so many positive mods for insulting someone and then re-stating the exact same point they made. I blame the bleary-eyed geeks rolling in on the west coast right now who haven't had their two cans of Dew yet...

Re:Only management is fooled

[MBGMorden]

Unfortuneatly there is some truth to his statement, and it's not always related to technical merits. No company works in a vacuum, and for large application deployments you often have support contracts with vendors. Many of those vendors flat out will not support a brand new Microsoft OS (we have several app vendors who still will not officially support Windows 7 - if I have a problem on a machine running it I have to either not tell them which OS it is - which if they end up remotely accessing the machine won't work, OR I have to just solve the problem myself).

For companies in that boat (which is a lot), regardless of how well it might work, you don't want to upgrade to a new OS until you've confirmed with all your support vendors that they are ready and willing to support the new OS (which sometimes takes a while).

Re:Only management is fooled

[Archangel Michael]

No it isn't.

We have software that doesn't work right in Windows 7. We have software that doesn't work right yet with XP for heaven's sake.

Of course, we can spend tons of money upgrading software to the latest greatest version, for no real reason other than it works with XP or 7.

And at some point, we'll either drop the software, or upgrade it. And that will come as soon as we can replace the computers we currently have with machines capable of running 7 adequately. And by then, Windows will be running Windows 2012 (code name Apocalypse).

Before I get Windows 7, I want a computer with 64bit CPU with 32 Gigs of Ram. And I'll probably run it in VMWare, with Linux, MacOS and ChromeOS along side.

Or, I'll just have my Driod tablet/phone and googlize all my needs.

Re:Only management is fooled

[bschorr]

That doesn't make sense to me either, honestly, but since we use TrueCrypt (even on machines where Bitlocker is available) I've never really cared much. I think TrueCrypt is more widely compatible anyhow.

If you've ever tried to use Bitlocker you'll notice it has some sneaky requirements about your hardware that even machines with the right OS version don't always meet. TrueCrypt is far more accepting (and totally OS agnostic), not to mention free.

Re:Only management is fooled

[lukas84]

TrueCrypt is also much more vulnerable than Bitlocker is, because it does not utilize the TPM. I've never seen corporate laptop/desktop offers that did not feature a TPM.

  It's also easier to manage in mid-sized environments than TrueCrypt (think automatic Key + TPM backups to Active Directory).

Re:Only management is fooled

[QuantumRiff]

Except for printing.. 64bit windows 7 doesn't seem to like printing to shared printers running off a 32-bit, server 2003 system. I hear if you don't change the default printer name, it works better, but with larger offices, you have to. I can't have 8 printers all named "HP Laserjet 4515 series"

Re:Only management is fooled

[Archangel Michael]

It isn't shoddy products. The products work fine, which is why we haven't paid to have them upgraded to the latest greatest. They work fine for the environment they were originally purchased for, and do exactly what they are supposed to do.

Shoddy products don't work, these products work fine. Just not with XP or Win 7.

And for your info, I manage somewhere around 600 computers, plus all the networking equipment, printers, and servers, mostly by myself (Network Analyst) and one (sometimes 2) Tech. How many techs do you have for supporting your user base?

Yeah, I do, no lie.

Re:Only management is fooled

[afidel]

Yes, in the context of an enterprise computer Palladium is EXACTLY what I want, Bitlocker and secure boot from LAN were what Palladium was aiming for, not some uber DRM for the content producers.

Re:Only management is fooled

[Anonymous Coward]

"It never fails to amaze me how some people insist on wanting to upgrade their machines and do this and that, but they insist on clinging onto some old decrepit piece of crap software"

and it amazes me that software people don't understand the support lifetime that can really be required for software. This is particularly true in an industry or research environment. We have some old spectrometers that interface with the computer using an ISA card, with drivers for 95/98 or NT 4. You think we're going to throw out a $50k piece of equipment because Microsoft wants us to buy something with more eye candy? Or get rid of a scanning electron microscope, because it's attached to a 486 running Win95? We have some EG&G detectors that are integrated into MS-DOS based software. Heck, I saw one lab where they're using an Apple IIe to run an old wavemeter. Still works fine, and it's not like Coherent is offering an upgrade to interface to a modern PC. Or NI, for that matter...they'll drop driver support for older DAQ cards, so moving to a new OS means you have to redesign (or at least waste a lot of time testing) with new (expensive) cards.

Software isn't just about IT systems. It's also about hardware that actually does stuff.

Re:Only management is fooled

[GameboyRMH]

I'd say "closed source loses again," but even MS would make sure your ancient Access databases can be made to work, for a price...

That is one epic fuckup.

Cue the morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue the morons talking about how Windows 7 is Vista SP3 and that SP1 is SP4.

Re:Cue the morons

[kpainter]

Win2K SP9

Re:Cue the morons

[Spad]

NT4 SP15a

Signals?

[DoofusOfDeath]

'But perhaps the most significant "update" to come out of Service Pack 1 will be the fact that it exists at all, and that by delivering it to market Microsoft will be signaling that it is now OK for IT shops to pull the trigger on their Windows 7 deployments.'

An initial release of an OS was Microsoft's "signal" that it was ready. People eventually realized that MS's "signal" couldn't be trusted, and they adapted by developing their own "wait for SP1" wisdom. This has not been lost on Microsoft.

If MS's marketing dept. sees that it takes "SP1" to get people to buy their OS, they'll call something "SP1" whenver they want to spur initial uptake of one of their products. So we may find before long that we should wait for SP2 of a given MS product to get the level of quality we want.

Marketers are often sleezebags. Their goal is to drive sales, regardless of how much misleading or deception is required to do so.

Re:Pulling the trigger

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a person that's never seen or used Windows 7.

Bring pack the family pack!

[Eponymous Coward]

I wish the would bring back the 3-license family pack. I have 2 xp machines and 1 vista machine and if I could upgrade the three for $150, I would. Right now, 3 upgrade licenses would be over $300. So, I'm not upgrading.

Re:Easiest Network config?

[WebCowboy]

I just plugged in the network cable

Cable? How quaint!

How's it work with WPA2-secured wireless? Vista kinda stunk at that in my experience, and Win7 would have to do a lot of work to just stink slightly much less be good at it.

Moreover wireless on Vista is almost, but not quite, as stable as Lindsay Lohan and Brittany Spears. On more than one Vista machine I've had the displeasure to deal with the wireless connection randomly decides to go on a bender. I try resetting the router. I try rebooting. No joy. Only fix seems to be to go into the network config, remove the connection and re-enter the security key. No rhyme or reason, and in one case there was a Macbook, a WinXP machine, an iphone a Linux netbook and an HTC Magic phone on wireless with the Vista machine. ALL OF THEM WORKED WITHOUT INTERUPTION EXCEPT THE VISTA MACHINE.

An therein lies the rub: if for any reason you must open that wreched user interface to do ANY config task of ANY kind--whether it be simple troubleshooting, selecting the SSID, entering a key, putting in fixed network settings, the Windows network config UI is the suckiest, most regressive, confusing mess on ANY modern operating system WITHOUT QUESTION. If you want to convince someone that Linux is not harder than Windows, the best way you can do it is to show them how to manage network connections in Vista compared to any current Linux OS.

I imagine that Win7 has made improvements--at least in stability...but that interface? Complete FAIL! I don't care if they've refined it--a polished turd still stinks. It needs to be completely redone again. I know "technical details" can intimidate novices but they should still be accessible. It baffles me as to why the basic details like IP address, netmask, default gateway and DNS entries being made HARDER to find than in XP is considered an IMPROVEMENT.

Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?

[Spad]

Also, you haven't *ever* been able to connect Home editions to a domain - XP Home only allowed Workgroups.

Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't normally bother replying to whiners but your post needs some attention...

Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly

Yeah, it's an obsolete scanner that came out in 2002 that Canon no longer produces and hasn't actively supported in two or two and a half years - and the fact Canon didn't go back and write a Win 7 driver just for you since you're probably the only person who still has a functional LiDe 30 is Microsoft's fault how?

HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly

Wow....ever heard of this Internet thing? HP's Website perhaps? This website thing that HP maintains specifically tells you that your CLJ 3600N uses the Windows Vista driver.

All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED. All previous versions of Windows allowed this.

No Home version of XP/Vista/W7 could become part of a Windows domain - that's one of the key difference between Home and Professional/Enterprise/Ultimate ... a simple Google search would have pointed you to that...

The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.

No, sounds like you can't set up a proper multi-boot. Again, Google before inserting whole foot in mouth.

I won't editorialize - draw your own conclusions.

I've come to the conclusion you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about...stick with what you know and don't misdirectedly rant about shit you haven't a clue about or are too lazy to bother to find or spend the 30 seconds of searching to find out how to fix.

Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?

[Nemesisghost]

The home versions of Windows has NEVER allowed Domain joining. XP Home, Vista Home, and all the versions of 7 Home. This was the 1 major difference between XP Home & XP Pro.

Re:Pulling the trigger

[mgblst]

I have used Windows 7 and I hate it. Is that ok with you? Does everybody have to like it?

I just want XP, it works for me, I don't have to learn new shit. I don't have to worry about them moving the control panel around.

7 offers nothing new for me, for it to be worthwhile spendying anytime learning new stuff.