Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Businesses Don't Need to Wait for Win 7 SP1

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 17 comments

The IT departments, any new version of software is an unknown quantity--particularly an operating system.

Businesses have typically waited until after the first service pack release of Windows before upgrading, sometimes for reasons related to ‘first release bugs’ or compatibility issues. But research firm Gartner believes that no such waiting is required for Windows 7. That said, most businesses’ implementation schedules run long enough that Microsoft has usually already released SP1 even if firms planned to adopt the new OS as soon as possible.

“The first Service Pack for Windows 7 is not necessary for the operating system's stability and security readiness,” asserted Gartner’s Michael A. Silver. “However, organizations likely won't be ready to deploy Windows 7 before SP1 ships, so they will include it in their initial deployments.

“Windows 7 is an incremental update to Windows Vista, but many independent software vendors (ISVs) will not support their applications running on it for six to 12 months or more. Service Pack 1 (SP1) should be released well before organizations are ready to deploy Windows 7, so they should plan to integrate SP1.”

Silver added that SP1 does not represent the milestone it used to--calling it a “Bogus milestone for OS readiness in general”--and that the bigger beta testing group helps to ensure a more stable and compatible product. The Windows 7 beta is reported to have a testing pool more than five times larger than that of Windows 95.

While overall Windows 7 is regarded as a stable and safe upgrade for businesses, one area that Gartner cautions is the built-in browser. As more companies begin to rely on applications that run from within a browser, the addition of a new version--in this case Internet Explorer 8--adds a completely new layer of compatibility concerns.

In fact, we discovered earlier this week that some users of the new Internet Explorer 8 have reverted back to version 7 for the very reason of compatibility.

Display 17 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -5 Hide
    carver_g , March 25, 2009 4:46 PM

    Quote:
    Silver added that SP1 does not represent the milestone it used to--calling it a “Bogus milestone for OS readiness in general”--


    I beg to differ.

    Maybe for Windows 7 since it's a minor upgrade to Vista (going from NT v6.0 to NT v6.1) but definitely not in general.
  • 4 Hide
    kittle , March 25, 2009 5:16 PM
    Still running XP here where I work -- so updating to Win7 is decidedly NOT trivial.
  • 0 Hide
    FHDelux , March 25, 2009 5:31 PM
    Ah good, now i can rest easily knowing that i don't need to wait for SP1 to come out in order to run Windows 7.

    is this really news? seriously? I'm sure all those businesses out there will have their IT staff trained any ready for the release of Windows 7 because it is such a ground breaking game changing OS and will help productivity 10 fold.

    Gimme a break. Windows 7 will not out Windows XP anymore than Vista did. MS will have to pull the cord on XP before those OS even get looked at.
  • -5 Hide
    A Stoner , March 25, 2009 5:33 PM
    Basically what I get from this is what I have already said. Windows 7 is basically Vista SP2 that Microsoft gets to rebrand to get rid of the stench of Vista while at the same time soaking the owners of Vista with a cost to get the service pack.

    It might be different, it may have a new Kernel, but Windows XP SP2 and on is a pretty much new kernel from Windows XP SP 1.

    Windows 7 is Vista rebranded with a few tweaks. So of course it is just like installing a SP1 or newer version of an OS.
  • 2 Hide
    gm0n3y , March 25, 2009 6:27 PM
    Everyone in my company is still running XP as well, with no real desire to "upgrade".
  • 4 Hide
    gnesterenko , March 25, 2009 7:00 PM
    Beg to differ. I too work with XP computers at work, but run 7 at home. The contrast REALLY makes you appreciate how much smoother and easier it is to work in 7. Not that I expect my IT dept to refresh our tech what with the hard times and all, but one can hope and wish. XPs age is really beginning to show itself in some of the apps we use where workarounds and tinkering is needed for what happens easily in 7. The little things really do add up.

    "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
  • 0 Hide
    The Schnoz , March 25, 2009 7:40 PM
    Support for XP is going to run out soon and that's important to businesses and consumers alike. Business are going to upgrade after Microsoft stops supporting XP and they'll have to choose between Visto or 7, and I beleieve, based on the betas positive feedback, they'll choose Windows 7. Microsoft has got a hit on their hands and a lot of it has to do with timing. BTW, I run Vista 64 Ultimate and never had any problems, I love it, but I'm going to get Windows 7 as soon as its hacked, er, released anyway.
  • 1 Hide
    tayb , March 25, 2009 8:40 PM
    carver_gI beg to differ.Maybe for Windows 7 since it's a minor upgrade to Vista (going from NT v6.0 to NT v6.1) but definitely not in general.


    Oh dear lord. Just because the version has gone from 6.0 to 6.1 does NOT mean it is a minor upgrade. How about you see for yourself whether it is a minor upgrade instead of basing your opinion on an idiotic numbering system.

    OS X 10.4 to 10.5 was considered a huge upgrade but I suppose to appease people like you they should have gone from 10.4 to 11.4 as to make it look more a really big update right?
  • 1 Hide
    grieve , March 25, 2009 9:05 PM
    Considering Win7 is in beta I’m impressed by the positive reviews thus far, Also the lack of poor reviews.

    I run Vista Ultimate 64 and love it… I have had some minor problems, but nothing to be upset over.

    I agree with gnesterenko, XP is dated. Pick up a new OS and learn it, you’ll be impressed. I am looking forward to the release of Win 7.
  • 0 Hide
    belardo , March 25, 2009 10:24 PM
    grieveAlso the lack of poor reviews.I run Vista Ultimate 64 and love it… I have had some minor problems, but nothing to be upset over. Pick up a new OS and learn it, you’ll be impressed. I am looking forward to the release of Win 7.


    Win7 may get some neg reviews... here and there, but overall, its looking good. But you yourself have some minor issues with vista, I don't care to deal with an OS that offers no improved user experince. And yeah, I have used vista... and learn that I don't like it. I'm not impressed with an OS that requires 4GB to do the job of a 1GB XP box. Open a browser, MS-Word, Photoshop, etc... vista is just a launcher for local programs.

    I too am looking forward to Win7 and hope its retail version is as good as it should be. With that said, what PCs I built today, have Win7 in mind with 4GB of RAM... even thou I'm still building WinXP boxes.
  • 0 Hide
    cryogenic , March 25, 2009 10:29 PM
    I've been a Windows 7 64 bit beta tester since it was publicly released. Win 7 is *not* beta quality software, I play games, code, some graphics design, everything works without any issues, and not only that, it's faster at *everything* that Vista 64 bit was on the same configuration ^^.

    I can't wait to upgrade to win 7 at work, I'm so horribly tired of XP, ... I'm cringe every day when I have to use XP, especially the lack of integrated search is really killing it (and no, neither Google desktop search or windows desktop search work well enough in XP).

    However, business never upgrade straight away ... regardless of what Gartner believes, some of our enterprise clients still run win 2k on some of their machines, and they pretty much stayed away from Vista, my guess is that it will take *some* years before Win 7 is adopted in Business space, although those that "upgraded" to Vista should have more reasons to upgrade to Win 7 than those that stayed with XP ;) , (don't get me wrong Vista is fine or even great on a decent PC, but the PC's businesses use are not on that end of the spectrum)

  • 1 Hide
    carver_g , March 26, 2009 12:02 AM
    taybOh dear lord. Just because the version has gone from 6.0 to 6.1 does NOT mean it is a minor upgrade. How about you see for yourself whether it is a minor upgrade instead of basing your opinion on an idiotic numbering system. OS X 10.4 to 10.5 was considered a huge upgrade but I suppose to appease people like you they should have gone from 10.4 to 11.4 as to make it look more a really big update right?


    They are the ones who labeled it 6.1 instead of 7.0. If Microsoft themselves say it's a minor upgrade, then it is.

    Your Mac OSX reference is not applicable. They (obviously) use a different system. A minor update from them is like going from 10.4 to 10.4.1.
  • 0 Hide
    carver_g , March 26, 2009 12:10 AM
    taybHow about you see for yourself whether it is a minor upgrade instead of basing your opinion on an idiotic numbering system.


    I have used it and I like it.

  • 0 Hide
    seatrotter , March 26, 2009 2:54 AM
    I know what MS already knows: Not only will few companies use Win7, but those that would, would only relatively use few Win7.

    Why? The majority of workstations of a typical company would mostly consist of low end workstations with not-so-demanding softwares installed. Given how a "leap" in both system requirements and cost from WinXP to Win7, it wouldn't seem economical to most (especially, given the current state of the economy).

    What can MS do? For the system requirements, they can't do much (actually, they can, but I don't think they "want" to offer a streamlined Windows). For the price, they certainly can. Of course, it is still up to them. Once they offer it a lot cheaper than the current price, they can't just bring it back up. And being MS, they'd rather keep hoping more will buy an expensive OS rather than be able to actually sell more due to lower cost.
  • 0 Hide
    mtyermom , March 26, 2009 3:31 PM
    I can definitely see Win 7 filling the gap created by Vista, who's negative rep have caused many companies to delay their normal upgrade cycles.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , March 26, 2009 4:43 PM
    @seatrotter

    the irony of your statement about low end work stations that can only run xp is that most of those "low end" workstations barely run xp as it, and are probably in need of an upgrade to optimally run xp.

    Businesses are not shying away from upgrading because of hardware limitations so much as the stability and support base that is available for an OS. Xp has been around for close to 7 (or so ?) years and has a large support base available. As a result, it is seen as a better business decision since productivity would theoretically not be limited by having to troubleshoot a brand new OS, or teach employees how to use a new operating system.

    Most companies (especially ones that are not IT centric) will not be persuaded to upgrade based on the merits of the operating system alone, rather on how easily they can make the transition and how cheaply they can execute the transition from a training and logistics perspective.
  • 2 Hide
    Scooder , March 26, 2009 4:54 PM
    I love the whole situation of people downgrading back to IE7. People complained that IE8 was initially going to default to 'Compatibility Mode' so MS changed it to instead default to 'Standards Mode'. And now that it's out in the public people are rejecting it because it isn't compatible with their websites when in 'Standards Mode'.