Why Put the SP1 Horse Before the Windows 7 Cart?
|
News Analysis. Because Microsoft wants enterprises deploying Windows 7 as fast as humanly possible. |
But Microsoft will have to wait, if I rightly read the 12-day-old Gartner report suddenly making the blogs and news sites today. Perhaps the suddenness has something to do with reprint publication, presumably by Microsoft. Gartner normally charges $195 for the report, on a one-off basis.
There's something strange about discussing Service Pack 1 before Windows 7 has even been released to manufacturing. Heck, Microsoft hasn't even issued a release candidate! Shouldn't the horse go before the cart, as the very old saying goes?
I don't exactly see much that's beneficial to Microsoft in the report, penned by Michael Silver, other than the message that enterprises needn't wait for Service Pack 1 to deploy Windows 7. What primary reason does Michael give? Most enterprises won't be ready to deploy until after SP1 releases.
Michael writes: "Windows 7 is basically an incremental release of Windows Vista." I'll say. He continues:
This has many organizations wondering whether they will be able to begin their Windows 7 deployments within a few months after it ships and without waiting for SP1. Lack of official ISV support likely will delay deployments until after SP1 arrives. That being the case, organizations should plan to integrate SP1 into their initial deployments to reduce the number of major changes that will need to be distributed to production systems.
Software developer support is a surprising red light because Microsoft has claimed that backward compatibility is a top Windows 7 design criteria. The backward compatibility is to Windows Vista. What? Are there that many applications still incompatible with Vista?
But that's OK because Microsoft finally has Gartner agreeing with the long-touted mantra that SP1 isn't important. Michael calls it a "bogus milestone," because:
Conventional wisdom has been that organizations need to wait for the first Service Pack to ship before they deploy a new client OS. This used to be a necessity. The availability of beta software to test the new product was not as broad as it is today, and people expected the initial release to be buggy and unstable. The first Service Pack usually would ship approximately nine to 12 months after the initial OS shipment, and would usually represent a marked improvement in stability. Today, SP1 does not represent the milestone it used to.
You can be sure that Microsoft slide decks for the media, conferences and sales calls will excerpt the "bogus milestone" portions and perhaps ignore the others, like:
Even if SP1 is no longer useful as an indicator of OS readiness, Gartner is not suggesting that organizations deploy a new client OS immediately after it ships. ... Organizations should not expect to deploy Windows 7 until 12 to 18 months after the OS ships. Although SP1 will probably be part of the initial deployment image, organizations won't be waiting for it because other requirements will take longer to resolve. Including SP1 with Windows 7 could result in increased stability because fewer changes need to be introduced to the environment over the life cycle.
Michael writes that SP1 doesn't matter to Windows 7 deployments because Microsoft development is so efficient and betas are so good. That said, SP1 also doesn't really matter because most enterprises won't migrate until after Microsoft issues the service pack.
He identifies several areas that will affect enterprise deployment strategies, including the aforementioned ISV support. Among others: Internet Explorer. Enterprises will encounter less pain with IE 8 than IE 7. Michael explains:
Organizations have had significant issues getting to Windows Vista because of incompatibilities with IE 7. Because IE 6 cannot be installed on Windows Vista (neither via traditional installation methods nor application virtualization), organizations have been forced to delay migrations even when they have all their fat applications running. Windows 7 will include another new version of IE, IE 8, which could introduce other incompatibilities and will require another testing and remediation cycle. (Moving from IE 7 to IE 8 will incur fewer issues than moving from IE 6 to IE 7 or IE 8.)
Something else: Six days before the Gartner report published, Microsoft revealed that IE 8 can be (mostly) removed from Windows 7. Microsoft supplies an off switch. So there's another way Internet Explorer doesn't have to handicap Windows 7 migrations.
Michael is a thoughtful analyst, and he has other great advice for enterprises. I by no means picked off all the meat from them bones (apologies, vegans). There's plenty more good IT organization advice to be consumed in the report. Michael has served up a juicy Windows 7 Service Pack 1 barbeque. You supply the napkins. Burp.
[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at gmail.com.]
Comments (25)
“Conventional wisdom has been that organizations need to wait for the first Service Pack to ship before they deploy a new client OS. This used to be a necessity. The availability of beta software to test the new product was not as broad as it is today, and people expected the initial release to be buggy and unstable.”
Funny, didn’t they say the same thing about Vista? Didn’t Microsoft try to claim the release of the first Vista public beta as “the largest software download in history” (_proprietary_ software download, certainly)? And didn’t they claim there was no need to wait for Vista SP1?
Looks like history is repeating yet again. And so soon after the last time, too.
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | March 24, 2009 6:20 PM
The day that PC OEM's could pre-install Mac OS X instead of Window$ comes closer
Mac cloner forces Apple's hand
OSX for all could be on the cards
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/902/1050902/mac-cloner-forces-apple-hand
"Mac-cloning upstart Psystar, which has been a thorn in Apple's corporate side for months now, has won the right to persue a counterclaim against the Cupertino Cabal which, if it is succesful, could feasibly lead to any old Tom, Dell or HP being allowed to sell computers preinstalled with the sacred OSX."
Posted by chips b malroy | March 24, 2009 6:56 PM
Microsoft is up against many things trying to get business to adopt a new OS.
I'm enthusiastic about Windows 7 though, and think businesses will benefit simply because Windows 7 is so much more resistent to attacks than XP, attacks both direct and through social engineering. The loss of a laptop running XP can cost a company thousands if not millions.
Windows 7 also runs with a smaller footprint than Vista, is incredibly easy to work with, and the business version - Windows Professional 7 - is *very* full featured.
Out-of-the-box Windows 7 is ready to run a much wider range of software than XP; and unlike XP it is ready to run managed code which is eminently safer than unmanaged code [unmanaged code is suceptible to all manner of buffer-overrun exploits etc. etc. etc. etc. whereas managed code, e.g. software written in C#, isn't].
On top of that, it is much much harder to spoof employees running Windows 7. The thing protects itself. Whereas with Windows XP and a little social engineering, it's game over.
I'm not going to go on, but, let's face it, it's time.
Posted by Clump | March 24, 2009 7:40 PM
I am sorry, but Michael is as clueless as someone just learning to use a PC. Windows 7 is by no means a minor release. Yes, the kernel is not a overhaul like Windows Vista was which is very good for application compatibility. Applications that are hard coded to look for Vista's kernel version will not suffer under Windows 7. Windows 7 features tremendous user enhancements and productivity. Its more customizable, faster, easier to use and more logical. Features like interactive thumbnail previews, Aero effects like Snaps, Shake, Preview Desktop all make using Windows a great experience and enhances users agility. The improvements to Search also is a great benefit, more detailed Search results from the Start menu, Search Scopes in Explorer, Open Search support all enhance the productivity of users time on the PC. On demand loading of device drivers, efficiency of Windows code, and device driver initialization makes Windows 7 a faster release of Windows to date. There are many other benefits that can be discussed that make it a major release, so I think Gartner needs to rethink its writing comprehension. When you take into account features like media streaming in Media Player and MCE, richer Windows applications like Paint, WordPad, Calculator. Functionality like Network backups, easier connection to wireless networks, simplified networking with Home Groups, how can you honestly sit in front of Microsoft Office Word 2007 SP1 and write that Windows 7 is a minor release Michael? How can you?
As for Service Packs, I would have hoped that Companies realize the benefits of features such as WSUS, Windows Update offer for simplified management of IT infrastructures. Service Packs were really designed for a time where broad band proliferation was not at the same level today or Internet access for that matter in the mid 90's. Service Packs are still important, but not like they use to be. Windows 7 offers tremendous value and Vista has started that foundation for rich compelling experiences that both consumers and businesses deserve and will continue to enjoy in the near future.
Posted by Andre Da Costa | March 24, 2009 8:23 PM
Clump you are an idiot.
Businesses wont benefit as 7 will get attacked and killed before it even gets released, its happening now, just look out of your bedroom window and youll see all the hackers ready to submit this still born crapware to death.
7 only runs with a smaller footprint in its basic limited to 3 applications version. Other versions are bigger than Vista. Indeed the footprint on your harddrive is bigger as you have all the versions installed even though you dont have a licence to use the better versions. So you carry the baggage of the ultimated version even if your only licenced to use the home version. How does that help anyone.
7 wont run as much software as XP, indeed Vista is still not as compatible with software, with linux wine running a wider range of software that Vista currently does.
C# managed code does more for virus propogation than even Microsofts crufty code. How anyone can say that layers upon layers of managed code is safer than simple elegant C code is beyond any rational sense of reason.
The more code you have the more potential exploits there are, especially windows code.
7 doesnt protect itself because it still runs 16 bit code from DOS and Window 3.0. How that is safe secure or protecting itself is simply unwise and unreasonable.
Windows 7 and social engineering is still game over, i challenge you to prove otherwise.
Posted by koppyPoppy | March 24, 2009 8:33 PM
Currently the beta I've tested runs on very dated hardware and is responsive and zippy. In fact I'm typing this from win7 ultimate installed on a six year old ultra slim Toshiba portoge 3100 with a 1 ghz p3 processor and 512 megs of memory. Ultimate with all features turned on is using 256 Megabytes of RAM.
Windows update found appropriate drivers for all the hardware except the display driver. I was able to use a vista compatible driver for that.
This means I can do in place upgrades of any piece of existing hardware we support, as even our oldest desktops host pentium 4 processors with 1 Gig of memory. Even software that presented issues with compatibility in Vista works with "BETA" code.
barring any unforseen driver issues (can't imagine what as I've tested all of our hardware) I think the outlook is very positive.
Posted by Ghostdizzle | March 24, 2009 8:51 PM
Currently the beta I've tested runs on very dated hardware and is responsive and zippy. In fact I'm typing this from win7 ultimate installed on a six year old ultra slim Toshiba portoge 3100 with a 1 ghz p3 processor and 512 megs of memory. Ultimate with all features turned on is using 256 Megabytes of RAM.
Windows update found appropriate drivers for all the hardware except the display driver. I was able to use a vista compatible driver for that.
This means I can do in place upgrades of any piece of existing hardware we support, as even our oldest desktops host pentium 4 processors with 1 Gig of memory. Even software that presented issues with compatibility in Vista works with "BETA" code.
barring any unforseen driver issues (can't imagine what as I've tested all of our hardware) I think the outlook is very positive.
Posted by Ghostdizzle | March 24, 2009 8:53 PM
Greaatttt...
Hey Joe yo shit is broke AGAIN.
Posted by CC.Torment | March 24, 2009 8:55 PM
BTW chips MC fucking moron.
It's a Fucking OS.... there is nothing "sacred" about it.
And if any such deal leads to the downfall of Apple (and it might as they make their money on HARDWARE) It won't matter HOW many of their COMPETIORS offer their software on alternate platforms.
Of course dipshits like you never consider that.
Posted by CC.Torment | March 24, 2009 9:01 PM
I agree the "wait for SP1" is a bogus milestone, but I don't know of any businesses with that attitude; I get a disctinct impression that it is a bogus attitude invented by journalists. The attitude I do see is "let's wait and see how others suffer from the transition and as the howling dies down we'll finally put some of our own money in to test the suitability for our use." So it's really more of a standoff - don't be the first to throw money at it when you already have something that works.
Posted by Anonymouse | March 24, 2009 9:26 PM
I think most adoption is going to be through new computer sales. If your computer came with a working OS that works with all the devices on your computer, why bother breaking it? XP runs .Net managed code just fine (but you should avoid web sites that run this, like Silverlight ones anyway). The increments to the OS seem to get smaller and smaller, and often most of them are quite annoying (like DRM and limitation on the number of apps you can run, random UI changes).
If you get a new computer with Win 7, you are probably better off sticking to it. If your are happily running XP, you are better off sticking to it. Why change just for change's sake?
Posted by smist08 | March 24, 2009 10:09 PM
Only one version of 7 will come with a 3 application limitation. "Starter" The vast majority of businesses won't even look at starter as an option so I don't get that argument.
As for "DRM" that's one piece of Fud that is groundless. I haven't run across a single piece of media that I couldn't use on my windowsPC's or Macs.
Exactly where does DRM hurt me? I can burn, rip, copy, any MP3, WMA, DVD or Blu-Ray I need to. If I run across any media that is DRM protected (This is done by the media vendor not microsoft) I simply don't purchase it. I don't bother with it at all. I vote with my dollars. I can get all the music I need off Amazon.... and Itunes (which will soon be DRM free if it isn't already). And if I couldn't there's a METRIC SHITLOAD of torrents. As for DVD's.... ROFL. CSS encryption has been worthless from almost day one, and there are numerous tools out there that allow you to basically ignore it. Same for Blu-Ray.
There are reasons to stick with XP both those ain't it. Cost, and familiarity are.
Posted by CC.Torment | March 25, 2009 1:10 AM
@CC.Torment :
Funny thing is if Psystar get's it's way and the the big boys join in...Acer, Dell, HP, Sony, Gateway.... it would doom Psystar. No way they could compete with that sort of distribution network.
Posted by Ghostdizzle | March 25, 2009 1:28 AM
Joe
I think you and many other people have to decide....
Either Win 7 is a minor upgrade to Vista and thus sucks as much as Vista...at least according to your opinion, or win7 is major upgrade to Vista and does not suck. You cannot have it both ways....
Posted by evan | March 25, 2009 3:56 AM
Of course there is a third possibility. Vista is a good OS in the first place...
Posted by evan | March 25, 2009 4:01 AM
Too bad there's still a recession on and it doesn't matter how good or bad Windows 7 is, as companies aren't going to do a upgrade just to make MS happy.
P.S. I'm running Vista on my home laptop and Vista blows chunks. It's pleasure to come in to work and turn on my company computer with XP on it.
Posted by just a drone | March 25, 2009 10:53 AM
Too bad there's still a recession on and it doesn't matter how good or bad Windows 7 is, as companies aren't going to do a upgrade just to make MS happy.
P.S. I'm running Vista on my home laptop and Vista blows chunks. It's pleasure to come in to work and turn on my company computer with XP on it.
Posted by just a drone | March 25, 2009 10:54 AM
Andre stated
.
"Windows 7 is by no means a minor release."
.
Of course it isn't Andre. It's one huge Vista service pack. All the junk that you stated in your comment today is just rehashed from your prior Vista comments.
Posted by Andre'sFreeLaptop | March 25, 2009 1:04 PM
Microsoft Terrified Companies Won't Upgrade To Windows 7 (MSFT)
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-terrified-the-enterprise-will-stick-with-xp-2009-2
Microsoft (MSFT) is talking about Windows XP, Windows 7, and the enterprise again.
For the moment, put aside any concerns over Microsoft's flagging online presence or the long-term threat of Office-competitors like Google (GOOG) Apps. The biggest problem for Microsoft over the next 12-18 months is whether enterprise customers, a whopping 71% of whom never upgraded off Windows XP, will embrace the upcoming Windows 7, or whether they'll stick it out with XP for years to come.
The specific problem: While a Vista-to-7 upgrade seems easy, upgrading from XP-to-7 (or even XP-to-Vista, which is how Microsoft got stuck in this hole in the first place) is a major headache. For an enterprise client with thousands (or tens of thousands) of PCs, upgrading off XP could easily be the most difficult and/or expensive IT deployment a company will undertake all year.
We heard CEO Steve Ballmer tell CIO mag that corporations should move to Windows 7 because "people will ask their boss why the heck they don't have the stuff they have at home." Now that's not the stuff corporate buying decisions are made of, and Steve is smart enough to know that. Which underscores how Microsoft is grasping at straws to get their corporate customers to undertake major IT upgrades amidst the recession.
Posted by Marco | March 25, 2009 10:41 PM
Samsung wants full Win 7 on future netbooks, no Linux plans
http://www.netbookchoice.com/2009/03/25/samsung-wants-full-win-7-on-future-netbooks-no-linux-plans/
Posted by Ridley | March 26, 2009 10:46 AM
Joe, you should have a way for readers to flag inappropriate comments. It's hard to take any of it seriously (or learn something) when people are attacking, cursing, and trashing one another. Reading the comments on Microsoft Watch is like watching a hockey fight -- amusing, but not productive. And very bloody.
Posted by Frequent Reader | March 26, 2009 11:25 AM
Joe, you should have a way for readers to flag inappropriate comments. It's hard to take any of it seriously (or learn something) when people are attacking, cursing, and trashing one another. Reading the comments on Microsoft Watch is like watching a hockey fight -- amusing, but not productive. And very bloody.
Posted by Frequent Reader | March 26, 2009 11:26 AM
Yes, Windows 7 runs great in it current Beta form. But will it be as good once it's RTM? Let's hope so.
No matter that they call it Windows 7, it will still be Windows v6.1. That does not necessarily mean it is a minor release, but it is not a major release. It truly is a reworking, revamping and tweaking of Windows Vista, which actually is a very good O.S. It is very much like Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Windows 2000 was Windows v5.0 and Windows XP was Windows v 5.1.
Posted by Ridley | March 26, 2009 2:01 PM
Samsung wants full Win 7 on future netbooks, no Linux plans
Quote:
However, whilst Microsoft is pushing the Starter Edition, Samsung say that there is a possibility of including the fuller Windows 7 versions on future netbooks. The main hurdle right now is the royalties it has to pay to Microsoft
--------
The netbook's biggest problem
--------
Quote:Patrick Pavel European Product Manager said: “The normal user, they are used to XP and how to install a printer and so on. We can do Linux if the market is demanding it. If there’s demand, let’s do it. We even started to develop some Linux platforms.”
--------
Well like; HP,Dell and another.
Posted by Marco | March 26, 2009 5:07 PM
>is a top Windows 7 design criteria
The singular of criteria is __criteron___
And shouldn't the headline read SP1 cart before the Windows 7 Horse?
>Samsung wants full Win 7 on future netbooks
>, no Linux plans...The main hurdle right
>now is the royalties it has to pay to
>Microsoft
Ah. Sh|t too bad. It could have gone with a costless operating system and enjoyed heaping profits. It could have revamped and reworked the OS to improve efficiency, enhance the GUI, market better security and stability. But instead it has to pay MS for the 'honour' of having W7 on its netbooks.
Posted by Felipe Alvarez | March 26, 2009 7:27 PM