I am running the Windows 7 Beta and I can't help noticing that many of the new features or enhancements are items Admins couldn't care less about. It takes a deeper look to find the reasons Admins will want to bring Windows 7 to their users. Of the "who-cares?" items, here's my top four:
- "Spectacular New Wallpapers". Alright, I'll give Microsoft kudos for the rotating wallpapers, which were done previously though very annoying and bandwidth-chewing third party tools. But that's yet another feature I'll be disabling through Group Policy, because the last thing I want to see while I troubleshoot anyone's PC is the 48 different pictures of you and your friends with your tongues out at the last neighborhood barbecue.
- "Improved Gadgets". They're movable and now you can "put them anywhere on the Desktop". Deep sarcastic breath in. Wow. Apparently there were enough people who didn't know you could already do this in Windows Vista that Microsoft could add it to their usual marketing onslaught.
- Yet Even More Ways to Open Programs (YEMWTOP - use that at your next party, I think it will sweep across the nation). Shortcut Keys galore, and some are given to you by default to open shortcuts. And now there are Jump Lists. . . . OK. Whatever.
- Aero Peek. Isn't that just the "Show Desktop" button?
I decided to come up with my list of features in Windows 7 that Administrators might find interesting. Here's what I've found, and these are in no way scientifically tested nor proven, and YMMV. Keep in mind that some of the following will require Windows Server 2008 R2 to implement. Most of what follows can be found here:
- It seems to be faster. I'm running mine virtualized (alright, fine, I'll admit it; I'm using Virtual PC 2007). And even through that, it seems to be very responsive. Installing applications seems to be faster and without as much "blue bar watching." Microsoft also touts a smaller memory footprint than in Windows Vista.
- Windows Powershell is now installed by default, and there are some new Powershell Cmdlets for Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2. Now, this is a big deal. I'm not sure you've found the wonderment that is Windows Powershell, but I believe this will eventually be a more preferred method for automation than Windows Script Host, but that's another blog post.
- Location-Aware Printing. Windows 7 remembers the printers you last printed at and essentially has multiple "profiles" of printer lists. It will additionally automatically switch your Default Printer according to the network you are currently on. FINALLY!
- DirectAccess. This is an alternative to Remote Access through a VPN. I can't vouch for sure on its overall security since I haven't tested it, but the beauty here is that Group Policy can be pushed out and manipulated more frequently, and as it would appear, the user doesn't even have to be logged into the network.
- AppLocker. OK, this is another feature that has been done by other vendors, but this gives Admins a less clunky and a more feature-rich way of limiting what the user can run on their desktop machine.
- Virtualization Improvements. I can't say for certain, but this may very well be the first Windows Operating System that has been designed with Virtualization in mind, meaning that Microsoft has stayed with the times in assuming that Windows 7 will be virtualized in many environments, albeit through Hyper-V. Will that translate into better virtualization though, say VMWare? Too early to tell.
So I am looking forward to Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 as well. Now, if Windows 7 can crash less often while pounding tanks into oblivion in Prototype, then I will really be excited.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
I don't get all the fuss about Vista personally
I don't get all the fuss about Vista personally. Apparently, many of the irritating things about Vista -- namely, the over protective "are you sure you want to do that" messages -- can be tweaked. And they don't irritate me, I actually appreciate protection, as I don't mind one additional mouse click. RAM is so cheap nowadays that it doesn't matter if the RAM footprint is higher, as the stuff that takes up some RAM speeds up using or at least launching those programs.
Objectively evaluating Vista, I find it to be an awesome OS myself. Searching for stuff is blazingly fast, compared to XP. I appreciate the ascetic design. I have been able to do everything I've needed to do.
I think the critical sentiment towards Vista was overkill -- and the overkill was probably due to the anti Microsoft sentiment which has nothing to do with Vista. Also, people generally don't like change. Vista takes a little getting used to, as any new OS should. Once you are used to it, changing back to XP might be irritating, in other words.
On the other hand, I do think Microsoft would be well served to have a watered down Vista for power users. I just hope the two different OS's will be identical under the hood, as I would not want to see any software compatibility issues, and as I think it would be a waste of Microsoft's resources to have two entirely separate OS's. That would only drive the price of Microsoft OS up. I guessing the two are identical under the hood.
As for being a resource hog -- computers are so cheap and fast nowadays, who cares? In fact, I'm sure Microsoft new that computers would be cheap and fast and that they designed Vista to take utilize the speed.
Microsoft of course missed the boat on what Windows 7 could be, if they had a bit more patience with the Vista criticism, which I bet would have simmered down over time. As Apple built OS X on top of Unix, Microsoft could have one-upped that wise move by building Windows 7 on top of Linux. Then the Power Shell would be the Linux command shell, and everyone would be happy with Windows 7, even Linux afficianados. This would resolve the shizm in IT between -- Macs, Windows, and *nix all cooperating together, as well as the people who administer the machines cooperating together.
A couple of things...
Vista is arguably the slowest operating system to date by any developer. It doesn't matter how cheap memory is. I hated to use Vista because my computers are a few years old. They work perfectly, however. And I'm not going to go out and buy new ones to run a slower operating system.
I like Windows 7 because it's actually faster than Windows XP. It runs better on my existing hardware, helping to keep costs down. I don't like to spend all of my money on new hardware to get reasonable speeds on a bulky operating system.
Microsoft didn't know that computers would decrease in price. They _caused_ computers to decrease in price. They actually forced OEMs to create more powerful computers to perform the same rudimentary tasks so that users could run Vista on at least a limited basis. Therefore, OEMs buy more powerful components in bulk and hardware developers rapidly deploy more powerful hardware.
You're right: people don't like change. I really don't, either. Microsoft should be developing for us, their users. The operating system should adapt to us, not the other way around.
Windows 7 uses the Vista kernel with some slight modifications, so there are a limited number of program compatibility issues. I've run into very few issues since I started using Windows 7 as my primary desktop operating system in January.
A different opinion
I have Vista since beta in my 1.5 gig ram laptop and it runs smooth and fast with all the visual candy activated. And applications start much faster than in xp.
All the time i hear "vista has problems" when i ask people to be more specific they mumble something like "my printer doesnt have drivers'' or it asks me all the time "allow this" ...
Here's a few for you.
I've resisted the Vista change at home and at work, mostly because I see the other Developers and the Admins that we share office space with, spending great chunks of their days fighting with the OS on their PC rather than fixing servers and writing code. The number of times I'm heard comments like: "I can't do that cause vista won't" or "Sorry, My PC's down, So I can't help". It's funny that this came only from the Vista users, and mostly went away when they moved to Win7, for those that moved.
Anyway, about a month ago I put Vista Ultimate on a PC that I’m using as a Media Center. As a media PC, I've Not skimped on the PC. Spec’s are: a Core2Duo 3Ghz, 2 Gig’s Hyper X Kinston Ram (DDR2 1033) on a compatible dull channel M/B. It's got a Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatal1ty Champion Series sound card, that runs to a Panasonic Receiver driving Cerwin Vega speakers, via the fiber optical SPDIF. Video is a nVidia 9400GT that runs DVI to HDMI into a 42" Viera Plasma TV.
Now in the month that I've had it,
1. I've had to reinstall the sound drivers twice.
2. Half my Flash drives / memory sticks need drivers to install and work.
3. The latest forceware drivers from nVidia has needed to be re-installed 3 times.
4. I can't find ac97 / acc3 codex's worth a installing.
5. In fact Codex's of all types have need a problem.
6. Some days, it just won't play a movie / show that ran yesterday or last week.
7. Try find a virtual CD/DVD drive that works.
Well there are seven explicit problems that I have with Vista and that's in one month of use. Please note that I haven’t complained about anything that is user interface related.
As you pointed out one can actually turn most of the annoying bit off and the rest is getting used to a new OS.
Be Realistic
Our organization supports thousands of PC's. Vista DOES have problems. Driver issues are certainly at the top of the list, but don't forget incompatibility with many corporate software packages. Our IT department has spent countless hours on compatibility and security issues. We've been testing Windows 7 and are encouraged. Microsoft may have listened to the frustrated IT world on this one. Face it, MS is playing catch-up to the Mac OS. We also support a number of MAC systems and it's obvious that MS has a long way to go.
Shutdown
Any word if they have fixed the shutdown procedure?? Nice that Vista asks you for permission to perform nearly every action except for the one that could cause you to loose all your unsaved work. Shutdown. Don't bother to ask the user if they are sure or if they would care to hibernate or sleep.
Vista = FAIL Windows 7 = Love fest
I too really like Vista. I purchased it on the first day it was available so I could support my customers. I added it to my home system and set it to triple boot with XP and my linux distro. I had every intention of using XP and switching over to Vista only to 'train up' on it. But it was not long before I set Vista as my main boot OS and started using XP on rare occasions. The only problem I had with Vista when I bought it was there were no drivers for my TV tuner card. But within 3 weeks, windows updates installed the driver for me and all was well. Vista is slower, I do agree there. The only time I switch over to XP is to play some of the heavier games (which is too bad because the main reason I was looking forward to Vista was for DirectX 10).
Windows 7 on the other hand is a pain in the patooty! I went ahead and setup a dual boot system at work with Vista and Windows 7, and Vista runs just fine, while the Windows 7 RC chugs like a fat man in the Tour de France. I'm assuming it may be because of bad video drivers, but I just can't use it. I've disabled Aero and it works slightly better, but it is still not practical for me to use as a main OS.
It cracks me up that the tech media hit Vista so hard before really even testing it, and now everyone is jumping on the Windows 7 bandwagon.
I'm convinced there a head tech cool guy that all the tech reporters watch, and if cool guy says it sucks, everyone follows his opinion so that they can look smart too.
Virtualization?
Just curious: Why dual boot these days? So many advantages to virtualization, such as data access to both OS's etc.
Genius
Bryan Sullins is obviously a genius.
It's a piece of software
So much distraction, so much hype. Really, at the end of the day a piece of software is a tool. Vista is the freaking operating system and nothing more. Is is a productivity tool? Is it a communications tool? Is it a spread sheet or word processor? Nope! Every executive should pause for one moment and think about how their IT investment actually translates into a bottom line contribution. Until they do they may be easily distracted by these inane stories about operating system features. I suppose, however, that if you're a geek these things may actually be of some import. To you I say, "God bless you!"
Post new comment