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

[lukas84]

I can only agree. I work for a small ISV and Microsoft partner. Under the partner program, we've rolled out the Windows 7 RC to 75% of our laptops/desktops. Roughly a month after we were able to get our hands on RTM (i think that was around August 5th), we've upgraded 100% of our machines.

Now, roughly two months after GA, we have several smaller customers (10-20 machines) that are running Windows 7 only.

Only issue we had was laptop-hangs-on-shutdown-because-of-bitlocker. While annoying, it didn't prevent it from doing anything. In the meantime, there's a hotfix for this issue.

There's no need to wait for SP1, if you're a small, agile company. If you're a big corporation, these will likely finish there Windows XP rollouts somewhen past April 2014 ;)

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

[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

[lukas84]

Well, first of, Microsoft wants to make money. Purchasing SA to an existing Windows 7 Professional OEM license is pretty cheap for corporate standards (around 100$). This will net you Windows 7 Enterprise (and a bunch of other goodies, like reimaging rights which you NEED if you have more than 5 computers).

Also, there's the whole "shoot yourself in the foot" thing. If Bitlocker was in HP/Pro, there'd be countless people "trying" it out, then losing their USB key (for non-TPM machines) or changing the hardware configuration (for TPM machines), without having the recovery key handy.

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

[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

[halltk1983]

Did you install the 64-bit driver as an extra driver in the printer on the 32-bit host?

Every printer I've worked with did just fine after following that basic step.

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.

Easiest Network config?

[Shaman]

Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows. Granted, I like how it differentiates between "new" network connections as far as work, public, home for the purposes of firewall config, but it's BRUTAL to actually configure the network properties otherwise. All the obfuscation gets in your way and makes your teeth grind.

Re:Easiest Network config?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm assuming that Shaman is either trolling or (rather more likely) is trying to do something that isn't "1 NIC, DHCP, default firewall rules, no ICS, etc.)

If you are in an environment where that is all you need, I'd be hard pressed to think of an OS that wouldn't Just Work. Even the more notoriously hostile Linux and BSD distros with text-based installers and a hatred of all things autoconf will typically at least offer to write the config file needed to bring eth0 up with DHCP on boot.

You start to see the differences in configurability when you need to do something modestly unusual or complex.

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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I present to you for your reading pleasure right from the horses mouth.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/mojave-experiment/ Seems they have changed it since the last time I looked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment

What did they learn? People really do not care what it was called just dont call it vista. They even tested it on a group of people.

http://www.whibb.com/win-7-windows-vista-difference.html

The real differences between vista and 7 are fairly 'minor' usability changes. 'faster' should have been in a service pack (oh sp2-sp3)... The under the hood stuff was not really that compelling to warrant a full version change. It is a rebrand to make people think 'oh they fixed a bunch of things'. When the reality is they made all the hard changes in vista. Vista was miserable because of those changes. They had 4 years to fix all of that in the driver stacks... Which is why 7 is firing on all cylinders...

You look at the benchmarks coming out and they are pretty much the same between vista and 7.

Call me a moron if you will. But I see a marketing ploy that is working pretty good.

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.

Meh, relatively speaking

[Gazzonyx]

No doubt, I _STILL_ don't know exactly what a 'homegroup' is and why I can be part of a domain (or workgroup) at the same time as a homegroup. I don't know why Windows Media Player daemon sometimes pegs both my cores or what it's doing since I have the sharing service off, either. That being said, the new firewall is money compared to the old one. I just wish they wouldn't rearrange the control panels and rename all the settings every version of windows. Imagine my surprise when I had at least five separate places to configure my network and none of them sounded like what I was looking for!

Re:Pulling the trigger

[bschorr]

Somehow I suspect you haven't actually used it. Either that or you're just a huge anti-MS bigot.

Windows 7, SP0, is actually pretty darned good - especially compared to that steaming pile of mediocrity (Vista) they put out last time. It's faster, the UI is cleaner and more useful (most of the time), it's very compatible with a wide variety of hardware. Even hardware that Windows 7 cautioned me probably wouldn't work...works.

This is probably the first usable 64-bit Windows version for the desktop.

We have several clients who have, or who are in the process of, rolling it on on their desktops and in every case they're quite pleased with it and their staff is finding it to be a productive work environment.

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.

They will try anything...

[spywhere]

...to restart the dead corporate PC market. M$, Dell and HP should take a tip from the National Rifle Association by warning customers that Obama is coming to take your 'puters away."

The bad news is that the problem is deeper than any, or all, of the following:

XP suffices for most corporate needs (and it works on their 4-year-old hardware).
Vista forced companies to stick with, and develop & purchase line-of-business apps for, XP (and the app vendors were more than happy to stick with 32-bit coding, require local admin rights for everyone, and avoid UAC).
Vista SP1 (and SP2) proved that some problems are too deep to be fixed, or even improved, by service packs (honestly, build a clean Vista SP2 machine: it will still suck).

Corporations can't afford to replace 70% of their desktops, and half of their core LOB apps, just because Windows 7 is way cooler than XP. (Really, it is: I find XP boring now).

As for security, most corporate Desktop Architecture departments still think their XP boxes are secure, even seven years after the Blaster worm blew through a vulnerability that had been patched months prior by Microsoft.

There is no key business reason to migrate any company larger than 3 desktops to Windows 7.