I Guess We'll See ...

... 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.

Welcome to those who refuse to upgrade from XP

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.

@Pirate Dave

you will make mayonaise

Well, it LOOKS like mayonaise, but it doesn't TASTE like mayonaise.

She knows exactly what it is.

Why would they?

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

Win7? sometime in 2010, I guess.

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.

Too bad - ain't gonna happen MS!

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!

Don't believe the hype

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 !

Living in the past

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.

Give 'em time ...

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.

Wow so many dumb fucks here.

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.

Public sector here

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.

Premium Troll feed from El Reg...

...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"

Troll/Commentard Rebuttal:

- 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.

RDP way better than VNC

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.

Do you really need?

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.

Scripting

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.

Mobile Connections

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.

Deployment

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.

Remote Support

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.

@Kevin Bailey

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.

The only question worth answering

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.

There is one major reason to shift

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

SP1

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.

@windywoo

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.

@alan Bourke

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.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457004.aspx

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?

So what the hell, lets all go Mac

Cost about the same in user retraining, and a hell of a lot more stable environment that Blista or Se7en..

Paris, coz she also knows how to screw "up" a system or two..

@deegee

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.