Microsoft Virtualization: part 5 (presentation virtualisation)

This content is 16 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Continuing the series of posts on Microsoft Virtualization technologies, I’ll move onto what Microsoft refers to as presentation virtualisation (and everyone else calls terminal services, or server based computing).

Like host virtualisation, Terminal Services is not a new technology and Microsoft has provided basic Terminal Server capabilities within Windows Server for many years, with Citrix providing the enterprise functionality for those who need it. With Windows Server 2008, Microsoft has taken a step forward, introducing new Terminal Services functionality – with new features including:

  • Terminal Services Web Access – providing a web portal for access to RemoteApps – applications which run on the terminal server but have the look and feel of a local application (albeit subject to the limitations of the RDP connection – this is probably not the best way to deploy graphics-intensive applications). Whilst this is a great feature, it is somewhat let down by the fact that the Web Access portal is not customisable and that all users see all RemoteApps (although permissions are applied to control the execution of RemoteApps). For web access to RemoteApps, v6.1 of the Remote Desktop Connection (RDP) client is required but for v6.0 clients an MSI may be created using RemoteApp Manager (which may be deployed using Active Directory group policy).
  • Terminal Services Gateway – provides a seamless connection to Terminal Services (over HTTPS) without need for a VPN. It’s not intended to replace the need for a firewall (e.g. ISA Server) but it does mean that only one port needs to be opened (443) and may be an appropriate solution when a local copy of the data is not required or when bandwidth/application characteristics make the VPN experience poor.
  • Terminal Services Session Broker – a new role to provide load balancing and which enables a user to reconnect to an existing session in a load-balanced terminal server farm.

There are improvements on the client end too – for details of the client enhancements in Remote Desktop Connection (v6.1), provided with Windows XP SP3, Vista SP1 and Server 2008 see Microsoft knowledge base article 951616.

One of the more signicificant improvements in RDP 6.1 (but which requires Windows Server 2008 Terminal Services Printing) is Terminal Services EasyPrint. Whereas printing is traditionally problematic in a server-based computing environment (matching drivers, etc.) – Terminal Services EasyPrint presents a local print dialog and prints to the local printer – no print drivers are required on the server and there is complete transparency if a 32-bit client is used with a 64-bit server. If the application understands XPS (i.e. it uses the Windows Presentation Framework) then it prints XPS using the EasyPrint XPS Driver (which creates an XPS spool file). Otherwise there is a GDI to XPS conversion module (e.g. for Win32 applications). On the client side, the spool file is received over RDP using the Remote Desktop Connection with an EasyPrint plugin to spool the XPS through an XPS printer driver (converted by print processor if required). If the print device does not support XPS, the print job is converted to EMF by the Microsoft.NET Framework and printed using a GDI printer driver.

Terminal Services EasyPrint

Whilst Microsoft’s presentation virtualisation offerings may not be as fully-featured as those from other vendors, most notably Citrix, they are included within the Windows Server 2008 operating system and offer a lot of additional functionality when compared with previous Windows Server releases.

In the next post in this series, I’ll look at how the four strands of Microsoft Virtualization (host/server, desktop, application and presentation) are encapsulated within an overall management framework using System Center products.

Hate Windows UAC? Have you actually tried the alternatives?

This content is 16 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

The next time somebody complains about Windows User Account Control (UAC), I’d like them to actually try using a Mac as a standard user (i.e. not the default setting, which is an Administrator, albeit not the root user). I’m in the process of applying Apple’s latest 10 updates, which are huge (I didn’t notice the total for all 10, but I it was well over half a gigabyte – just one HP Printer Driver Update was 142MB and the Mac OS X 10.5.5 update is 321MB).

In the intervening time, during which I’ve been writing this post on another PC, I’ve had to enter my Administrator credentials four five six times to allow Apple Software Update to do its thing. Mac OS X (and Linux) use a time-based system whereby once I’ve entered my elevated credentials they are valid for a set period but at least once I’ve told Windows Update that I do want to install a bunch of updates, that process (and any child processes) are then allowed to continue unhindered. It seems that the answer for me should really be to use setuid and make Apple Software Update run elevated but that is not necessarily a good idea either.

I guess there are advantages and disadvantages to either approach (actually, the time-based approach has a significant weakness in that any process can run elevated during that window) but the real point is that UAC is there for our protection – and it’s not really that big a problem in my experience.

Meanwhile, for hardcore Windows users that would like to implement an equivalent of the Linux/OS X setuid command in Vista (or Windows Server 2008, I guess), Joel Bennett explains how to do it with PowerShell.

Windows Mojave… the great new version of Windows [Vista]

This content is 16 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

For a while now, Apple has been poking fun at [Windows] PCs in it’s Mac vs. PC ads. The ads are usually funny – just not very accurate. I really wanted Microsoft to come back with something and they have. Not as humourous – frankly a bit “corporate” – but, nevertheless, the first phase in a $300m campaign is “The Mojave Experiment”.

You see, Windows Vista is doing fine. It’s sold 180 million copies and, comparing percentage market share, Vista is up on where XP was at the same point in its lifecycle but it has suffered from some very bad press. Ironically, it’s harshest critics are the same journalists that think Windows Server 2008 (basically the same core OS with a different feature set) “excels in just about every area […] in contrast to Vista” [Jon Honeyball, PC Pro, February 2008].

The trouble is, that perception is reality. The word got out that Vista was a heap of junk and it spread. Sure, there were some problems when it first released – and that’s one of the reasons it shipped to corporates (who generally run a well-tested desktop image on a limited set of hardware) before it was released to consumers. Lack of device driver support is hardly Microsoft’s fault – they spent 5 years getting Vista ready (and talking to hardware vendors about the device driver model all the way through) – sadly though, the lack of driver support became Microsoft’s problem.

After more than 18 months of bad press, Microsoft figured that if people saw Vista first-hand they might actually like it. They took a bunch of people – average PC users – and asked them what they thought of Windows Vista. They hated it. Most of them had never seen it, but they’d heard it was bad. Next, in an attempt to challenge their preconceived opinions, Microsoft showed the same PC users the latest version of Windows – “Windows Mojave” – and they loved it. Then they were told that Windows Mojave was Windows Vista.

The “Mojave Experiment” website was launched yesterday (although it had been previously reported by CNET and others) and it’s worth a look, although I’m sure true sceptics will still regale stories of obscure things that didn’t work for them on their home-brew PC [or perhaps they’ll just resort to calling me a Microsoft fanboy…].

So, what went wrong with Vista? Well, two years ago, I said that the marketing message wasn’t good enough – and, on the whole, I still don’t think that Microsoft has done a great job of articulating the benefits of Vista. Hopefully this latest campaign will help. Sadly, I have heard many customers say “we’re skipping Vista and moving straight to Windows 7”, like they think that’s going to make the job of dealing with their legacy application compatibility issues any easier. In fact, I believe that the answer for corporates is not a wholesale move to the next (or the next, next) operating system release, but a system of managed diversity.

I’m tired of hearing certain sections of the IT press refer to Windows Vista as Microsoft’s latest Windows ME. ME was awful (and anyway, business users should have been running NT-based operating systems, not Windows 95/98/ME) but Windows Vista is a good operating system. Really. I can honestly say that, running on modern hardware (not necessarily a new PC), I have had no significant issues with Windows Vista. It may not be a necessary upgrade for everyone (if you’re happy with your existing XP installation, then sticking with XP might be the right thing to do) but there really is no need to avoid Vista entirely, or to deliberately downgrade.

As I said last month:

“For the majority of Microsoft’s […] customers, there are very few reasons why Windows XP should be deployed on new PCs in preference to Windows Vista.”

Don’t just take my word for it: see for yourself; decide for yourself.

Useful Hyper-V links

This content is 16 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

In the week or so since Hyper-V RTMed there has been a huge amount of coverage on various websites. Here’s a roundup of some of the more useful articles that I’ve come across recently:

I hate long goodbyes

This content is 16 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Before I go any further, let me set one thing straight… for the majority of Microsoft’s enterprise customers, there are very few reasons why Windows XP should be deployed on new PCs in preference to Windows Vista.

Vista has now been available to enterprises for over a year and a half, has long since passed the first service pack release, and many of the initial difficulties are now resolved. It’s not perfect, but very few software products are. For that matter, neither is Windows XP (nor for that matter are Mac OS X or the various Linux distributions).

Sadly, for Microsoft, the general perception of Windows Vista is not a good one. Ask anybody who ran Vista from day 1 and they will have stories of the problems that they have had because ISVs and IHVs were too slow to update their applications and device drivers (hey, they only had 5 years notice…). But ask the same question from anybody who waited a few months and it’s a different story – Vista runs perfectly well on most modern PCs (and I don’t mean an exotic machine with a fantastic custom hardware specification – I mean pretty much any business PC purchased in the last few years, as long as it has enough memory). Unfortunately there is a saying that perception is reality.

So today is the last day that you can buy Windows XP. Except that it’s not really. In an open letter to Windows Customers entitled “An Update on the Windows Roadmap”, Bill Veghte (Senior Vice President for Online Services and Windows Business Group at Microsoft) explains that:

“It’s true that we will stop selling Windows XP as a retail packaged product and stop licensing it directly to major PC manufacturers. But customers who still need Windows XP will be able to get it.”

So you can get XP. But why would you? The simple fact is, that if you are looking to deploy a new Windows desktop in the next few months, then basing your plans on XP is building a problem for later.

In terms of the product cycle and future roadmap for Windows XP (Professional, 32-bit):

  • Support for Windows XP RTM and SP1/1A has already ended.
  • Support for Windows XP SP2 will end on 13 July 2010.
  • Although no official announcement has been made by Microsoft, it seems unlikely that there will be a fourth service pack for Windows XP. On that basic, mainstream support for Windows XP SP3 will end on 14 April 2009 and extended support (i.e. security patches only) will be available until 8 April 2014.

Some of my recent customers are just starting rollouts based on Windows XP SP2. By the time they have completed their rollouts, XP will be on extended support. And if they don’t move to SP3 soon, then they will be unsupported. In most cases the reason they are not considering Vista is application compatibility – in which case they should really be looking at application upgrades, or possibly using desktop/application/presentation virtualisation technologies – but why does a move to Vista have to be wholesale? A co-existence strategy involving managed diversity on the desktop is the way forward for many organisations.

So, I’ll finish up by repeating what I said at the head of this post:

“For the majority of Microsoft’s enterprise customers, there are very few reasons why Windows XP should be deployed on new PCs in preference to Windows Vista.”

Additional reading

Windows Vista and Office 2007 deployment brain dump

This content is 17 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

This week I’m working on a Desktop Deployment Planning Services (DDPS) engagement with a customer. It’s been a while since I last looked at deployment (basically I haven’t done anything since I passed the Windows Vista and Office 2007 deployment exam) so I’m revising my notes in preparation for a workshop tomorrow.

As a supplement to my previous post on a BDD 2007 overview and Office 2007 customisation and deployment using BDD 2007, this is a rollup of just about everything I could lay my hands on about Vista and Office deployment. It’s not particularly well structured – let’s just call it a “brain dump”. If anyone has anything extra to add, please leave a comment at the end of this post:

Windows imaging technologies

  • ImageX (imagex.exe) is a command line tool for manipulating Windows Imaging Format (.WIM) files. It is built using the Windows imaging API (WIMGAPI) together with a .WIM file system filter.
  • Windows Vista images are HAL-independent and make use of single instance storage. To minimise the amount of space used by Windows Vista installation images, use imagex.exe to apply images to separate folders on a computer and then append these images to the final image.
  • Windows System Image Manager (SIM) is used to create and maintain answer files.
  • To modify an image, use imagex.exe to mount it and then apply an unattended setup answer file (unattend.xml).
  • Package Manager (pkgmgr.exe) can be used to update both image files and computers that have already had an image applied:
    • When used to update computers that have already had an update applied, pkgmgr.exe can install, configure and update features in Windows Vista (e.g. installed components, device drivers, language packs, updates). It can also be used with an unattended installation answer file for new installations.
    • When adding additional drivers to an existing Windows Vista image, use pkgmgr.exe to add the drivers from a folder.

Windows Vista deployment

  • Windows Setup (setup.exe) for Vista is now GUI-only and there is no more winnt.exe and winnt32.exe.
  • Windows installation is structured around a number of configuration passes:
    • Windows PE.
    • Offline servicing.
    • Generalise.
    • Specialise.
    • Audit system.
    • Audit user.
    • OOBE system.
  • unattend.xml is a single unattended installation answer file, replacing multiple files in previous versions of Windows – including unattend.txt, cmdlines.txt, winbom.ini, oobeinfo.ini and sysprep.inf.
  • To avoid prompting users for input during the installation of Windows Vista, create an unattended setup installation file and copy this to a USB flash drive, then ensure that the flash drive is present during Windows Vista installation.
  • unattend.xml must be renamed to autounattend.xml when used on removable media during installation and replaces winnt.sif.
  • The Out-of-Box Experience (OOBE) is now known as Windows Welcome and is controlled with oobe.xml, which includes options for Windows Welcome, ISP sign-up and the Windows Vista Welcome Center.
  • Disk repartitioning can be configured in the first pass of the Windows PE section of unattend.xml.
  • When using multiple hardware configurations, create a distribution point that includes an Out-of-Box Drivers folder.
  • Windows Deployment Services (WDS) replaces Remote Installation Services (RIS).
  • When using WDS with computers that do not have PXE capabilities, create a WDS discovery image and use this to create a bootable CD for Windows Vista installation.
  • When using WDS on a server that provides DHCP services, enable DHCP Option 60 and configure WDS to listen on port 67.
  • If the WDS Image Capture Wizard is unable to capture a reference computer image, restart the reference computer and run sysprep /generalize /oobe.
  • The Windows Automated Installation Kit (WAIK) replaces deploy.cab and contains updated versions of tools previously provided to OEMs (e.g. Windows PE) for use in corporate deployments.
  • The OEM Preinstallation Toolkit (OPK) is for system builders, containing the WAIK and additional OEM-specific information (e.g. OEM licensing).
  • bootsect.exe is used to enable deployment alongside earlier versions of Windows with the Windows Vista boot manager (bootmgr.exe) – it replaces fixfat.exe and fixntfs.exe (both included with Windows Vista). Microsoft knowledge base article 919529 has more details.
  • boot.ini has been replaced by the >Boot Configuration Data.
  • The System Preparation Tool (sysprep.exe) is installed by default on Windows Vista systems in %windir%\system32\sysprep and there are several changes when compared with previous versions:
    • sysprep /reseal is replaced with sysprep /generalize /oobe.
    • sysprep /factory is replaced by sysprep /audit.
    • sysprep /mini is replaced by sysprep /oobe.
    • sysprep /nosidgen is replaced by sysprep /generalize.
    • sysprep /clean and sysprep /bmsd are deprecated.
    • sysprep /activated is replaced by sysprep /generalize (together with slmgr.vbs for managing the activation status of a computer)
    • OEMs are required to run sysprep /oobe before delivery of new computers.

Customising Office 2007 installations

  • Windows Installer Patch (.MSP) files can be used to produce customised Office installations (and then called using a script).
  • Multiple installation shares can be defined within a .MSP file.

Office 2007 deployment

  • To create an Office 2007 installation share (e.g. for scripted deployment), create a shared folder on a server and copy the installation files from the source media to the root of the shared folder.
  • To slipstream Microsoft Office 2007 updates into the deployment, create a folder called updates in the Microsoft Office 2007 distribution folder and copy all updates to this folder.

User data migration:

  • The User State Migration Toolkit (USMT) v3.0 can be used with both Windows XP and Windows Vista.
  • miguser.xml can be used to ensure that USMT captures files with a particular extension during migration.
  • The USMT scanstate.exe command can be used with the /p switch to ensure that sufficient free space exists in a target folder.
  • USMT can migrate user state using a network server during an upgrade that involves repartitioning of disks.
  • If the partition table is to be left intact during a migration, use a local partition with sufficient free space for temporary storage.
  • scanstate.exe can scan a source computer, collect files and create a store without modifying the source. The default action is to compress files and store them in image file (usmt3.mig).
  • loadstate.exe will migrate files and settings from and existing store to the destination computer.
  • The scanscate.exe and loadstate.exe commands have matching command line arguments.
  • Migration XML files include rules to define what should be migrated and are specified with the /i switch:
    • Custom XML files define components to exclude and are created using scanstate /genconfig:config.xml.
    • migsys.xml is used with the /targetxp switch to migrate operating system and browser settings.
    • migapp.xml is used to migrate application settings.
    • miguser.xml is used to migrate user files, folders and filetypes.
    • If the destination computer is running Windows XP, modify miguser.xml, migapp.xml and migsys.xml
    • If the destination computer is running Windows Vista, modify miguser.xml and migapp.xml but migsys.xml is not supported – use config.xml instead.
    • migxml.xsd can write and validate xml files.
  • scanstate /p can be used to create a space estimate file called usmtsize.txt (it will also be necessary to specify /nocompress).

Office 2003-2007 interoperability

Localisation

  • To add multiple language support to Office 2007 applications, install the appropriate language pack on the installation share and update config.xml.
  • To add a language pack to an existing computer, use pkgmgr.exe to apply a new unattended setup installation file that references the appropriate language pack.
  • If the Windows SIM is unable to access language pack settings in a customised Windows Vista image, generate a new catalog based on the custom image.

Further reading

Waiting for Windows 7: is Vista really that bad?

This content is 17 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

I was at an event last week where Gareth Hall, UK Product Manager for Windows Server 2008, commented on the product’s fantastic press reviews, with even Jon Honeyball (who it seems is well known for his less-than-complimentary response to Microsoft’s output of late) commenting that:

“Server 2008 excels in just about every area [… and] is certainly ready for prime time. There’s no need to wait for Service Pack 1”

[Jon Honeyball, PC Pro, February 2008]

It seems that, wherever you look, Windows Server 2008 is almost universally acclaimed. And rightly so – I believe that it is a fantastic operating system release (let’s face it, Windows Server 2003 and R2 were very good too) and is packed full of features that have the potential to add significant value to solutions.

So, tell me, why are the same journalists who think Windows Server 2008 is great, still berating Windows Vista – the client version of the same operating system codebase? Sure, Vista is for a different market, Vista has different features, and it’s only fair to say that Vista took some time to bed down, but after more than a year of continuous updates and a major service pack is it really that bad?

This week, IT Week is running a leader on the “migration muddle” that organisations face. Should IT Manager’s skip Vista and go straight to Windows 7, with Bill Gates allegedly saying that “sometime in the next year we will have a new version [of Windows]”?

The short answer is “No!”. My advice is either to move to Vista now and save the pain of trying to jump two or three releases to Windows 7 later, or accept a more pragmatic approach of managed diversity.

The trouble is that Microsoft has muddied the water by dropping hints about what the future may hold. What was once arguably the world’s biggest and best marketing machine seems to have lost its way recently – either maintain the silence and keep us guessing what Windows 7 means, or open up and let us decide whether it’s worth the wait. With the current situation, IT Managers are confused: the press are, by and large, critical of Vista; consumers and early adopters have complained of poor device support (not Microsoft’s fault); and even Microsoft seems ready to forget about pushing their current client operating system and move on to the next big thing.

In all my roles – as a consultant, an infrastructure architect, a Microsoft partner and of course as a blogger, I’d love to know more about Windows 7 – and Microsoft does need to be more transparent if it expects customers to make a decision. Instead, they seem to be hoping that hints of something new that’s not Vista will help to sell Enterprise Agreements (complete with Software Assurance) to corporates.

Windows Vista SP1 is available on Windows Update

This content is 17 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

One more announcement that crept out this week… Microsoft has released Windows Vista SP1 to Windows Update. Although the service pack was RTMed a few weeks back, it has only been available for download to a subset of customers until now – the release to Microsoft Update (and a standalone installer for SP1 on the Microsoft website) means that SP1 is now generally available.

Sadly, I’ve been underwhelmed by the approach by certain ISVs (CheckPoint ZoneAlarm, to name one) to the provision of SP1-compliant products but in general SP1 is a major step forward which brings Windows Vista onto the same codebase as Windows Server 2008 as well as providing a number of incremental improvements. Paul Thurrott has a Windows Vista SP1 FAQ on his SuperSite for Windows.

Why Windows Vista should not be viewed as a failure

This content is 17 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Many people expect Windows Vista SP1 to be a turning point for deployment of Microsoft’s latest desktop operating system. Critics have derided Vista, citing it as a disaster for Microsoft, suggesting that it has suffered from adoption rates. Others say that the desktop operating system model is a thing of the past – to be replaced by a “webtop” of cloud-based services. I don’t think that day is here yet – and anyway, we’ve been here before – weren’t thin clients supposed to have taken over by now?

But has Vista really done that badly?

Journalist Paul Thurrott used an interesting comparison in a recent podcast (Windows Weekly episode 48). In a market where 260 million PCs were sold worldwide, Microsoft sold 100 million copies of Vista. Some of those would have been downgraded to Windows XP but what about the 160 million PCs sold without Vista? What were these running? A few Linux machines, some Mac OS X, but mostly Windows XP – and this is what some people are highlighting as a failure to sell Vista.

Thurrott was unable to locate global PC shipment figures for the same period after the Windows XP launch, but he used another method to compare the adoption rates of the two operating systems:

  • At the time of the Windows XP launch, the global installed base of PCs was around 250 million and Microsoft sold 23 million copies of XP in the first year. That equates to an adoption rate of around 9.2%.
  • Looking at the figures for Vista, on an installed base of around a billion PCs, Microsoft shipped 100 million copies – an adoption rate of around 10%.

So, Vista has had a greater adoption rate than XP in its first year and, however you look at it, Microsoft sold 100 million copies. To my mind, that’s not stunning – but not bad either – and it seems that Windows Vista adoption is on the increase. CDW’s Windows Vista Tracking Poll (January 2008) suggests that:

  • The number of organizations evaluating and testing Windows Vista has increased to 48% in January 2008 (up from 29% in February 2007 and 21% in October 2006).
  • 30% of organizations are currently implementing or have implemented Windows Vista.
  • Windows Vista is delivering on expected benefits, with nearly 50% of evaluators/implementers reporting performance above expectation on key features.
  • And, although not part of Windows Vista, but of equal significance whilst examining adoption of Microsoft’s core technologies, 24% of organizations have implemented the Office 2007 System, up from 6% in February 2007.

All of this suggests that Vista (and Office 2007) are already pretty successful. So why the perception that Vista is not ready for the enterprise?

The first barrier is the “wait for the first service pack” mentality. Regardless of its validity, this view certainly exists and the release of SP1 may allow some organisations to start their preparations.

Other perceived barriers are the hardware and software requirements for the operating system but the reality is that any system purchased in the last few years should be capable of running Vista. And, when it comes to device drivers and application support, Microsoft is caught up in a vicious circle where vendors are reluctant to invest in updating their product to work with Windows Vista and customers will not deploy the new operating system unless their hardware and application software requirements can be met. This is the reason that, according to Paul Thurrott, Microsoft worked to ensure that SP1 will resolve issues for 150 enterprise applications that were blocking large-scale customer deployments.

The third issue that I see is that of cost. In the late-1990s, we saw organisations perform technical refreshes every three years or so, fuelled by a combination of technology advances and preparations for avoidance of the “millennium bug”. In recent years, however, the need to roll out the latest and greatest has been tempered somewhat. Rolling out separate hardware and operating system upgrades is often seen as double the trouble, and, unless there is a business benefit that exceeds the disruption and cost of a new desktop environment, organisations are slow to make changes.

Instead, many organisations are considering a system of managed diversity – running Windows Vista on new (and recently purchased) systems but sticking with XP on older machines that do not yet warrant replacement, or where applications do not yet support Vista. This was what Gartner recommended back at the time of the Vista launch and it’s for exactly this reason that I have been critical of Microsoft for taking so long to develop a third service pack for XP – by the time SP3 arrives it will have been almost four years since the last one.

Finally, there is the issue of new features. Windows, like Mac OS X, and any other mature operating system has reached a point where some think it has too many features and others say it needs more. Microsoft has a particularly difficult battle, whereby if it bundles software with the operating system it falls foul of competition laws. It seems to me that many of the Windows Vista improvements are incremental – and that makes a wholesale migration difficult to justify. Perhaps the strongest argument to date has been productivity improvements but these may be offset by people needing to learn new methods of working. With the release of Windows Server 2008 this will start to change – new technologies like network access protection and some of the networking enhancements require a new server infrastructure and that’s when we will start to see a stronger case for adoption of new technology.

Microsoft’s problem is persuading customers to make the move from its own legacy and even when Windows XP is withdrawn from sale in June 2008 (although system builders will still be able to provide XP pre-installed until January 2009), extended support will continue until 2014. Interestingly, Gartner, the same organisation that advised customers to wait before moving to Vista is reported in IT Week as warning firms to start the introduction of Vista no later than 2009 because software vendors are likely to start phasing out Windows XP support after this.

Service pack 1 for Windows Vista is now available for customer download (with some restrictions). It won’t be released on Windows Update for a few months, due to issues with certain hardware devices for which new device drivers will need to be released first, but for those 48% of organisations that are evaluating Vista, SP1 will play a major part. Further details of Vista SP1 and its release schedule may be found in Paul Thurrott’s Vista SP1 FAQ.

Windows Vista may not be perfect (no desktop operating system that I am aware of is) but it does offer improvements over its predecessor and is reaching the mainstream business market. SP1 will accelerate the adoption rate but the main change is that, for many organisations, the move to Vista may be a gradual one and strategies for managing co-existence with legacy operating systems will be crucial.