What To Expect From Windows 7 SP1 344
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.'"
Easiest Network config? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done. What's so hard?
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Easiest Network config? (Score:1, Interesting)
Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.
How so? You either plug in the cable and it does all the work (and setting your ip address, etc manually is equally easy as it has always been) or you choose a wireless point (enter your key) and it again does all the work for you. My grandma was able to get her laptop with Win7 to connect to the router I set up for her without any help. Why is it so hard for you?
Re:Easiest Network config? (Score:2, Interesting)
Amen to that.
It took me a while to figure why my DESKTOP BOX was loosing connection every 2 minute: power saving was enabled for the network card. Even a bittorrent client wouldn't stop it from going to sleep. Then it took me another while to figure how to disable the damn thing!
Re:Cue the morons (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, if you want to get technical and silly, Windows 7 is NT v.6.1 [wikipedia.org], with NT v.6.0 being Vista. Soo... although version numbers are hardly a way to settle an argument, Windows 7 (NT 6.1) is to Windows Vista (NT v.6.0) as Windows XP (NT 5.1) is to Windows 2000 (NT v.5.0), and they're all service packs of the venerable Windows NT.
Re:Pulling the trigger (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
They will try anything... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows XP has been out for so long now that if you still have software that doesn't work right on it, you have bigger problems to worry about.
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 that was so badly written that you cannot do things properly for fear of breaking the software.
I know a company that has just such a problem, and it is flat out impossible to properly upgrade their infrastructure because of this thing. They can't even upgrade ie6 because this software has a bizarre dependency on it.
I told them that I won't do any more IT work for them until they drop it, because they won't pay for the amount of effort required to work around this white elephant.
Re:Still waiting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Later on, MS patched in the "runas" command, a function analogous to Unix "su", making it possible to run admin commands through an administrator account without having to log out completely. This was a good thing, and while it greatly eased the hassle of running a limited account, it was still not as robust as the Unix "sudo" command. While su runs as another user, sudo elevates the current user to administrative privilege, meaning if you install a program, the installer will make changes to your own profile if necessary, instead of to a different administrator's account as the runas command would do.
Windows didn't gain true sudo functionality until Vista introduced UAC, and as much as people bemoan having to click OK whenever running a task requiring admin privilege, this is exactly how a properly security multi-user OS is supposed to function. Running as a limited account in Vista/Win7 is the default operation and it is a sane, standardized security protocol. Running all the time as an administrator is a stupid, risky, boneheaded thing to do, but unfortunately in XP the only alternative is to put up with the frustration of running a semi-functional limited account.
Re:Pulling the trigger (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
I actually prefer vista. With vista, you can turn off the crappy new UI and go back to the classic interface. Windows 7 doesn't let you do turn off the crappy new UI. This fact alone is going to delay Windows 7 deployment for years.
The other very annoying change is the way MS messed up the domain logon screen. They make the user login as "domainname\username" or "username@domainname" instead of having separate boxes for the username & domainname. This causes enormous user confusion.
This is probably the first usable 64-bit Windows version for the desktop.
Bollocks. 64-bit XP has been out for years. Works great.
Re:Still waiting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They will try anything... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's just off the top of my head and yes, a lot of them were in Vista, but your comparison was to XP.
Re:They will try anything... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, so wrong. Just about every Healthcare app in use in the UK requires either admin rights or some nasty permissions hack to get it working with regular user sessions.
EMIS should be taken out and shot for the state of their clinical software with regards to permissions.