Comprehensive planning and preparation make a huge difference in the execution of a successful OS migration.  Some organizations fail to achieve migration at all. They flounder as the complexity involved and time taken to move the users and applications is overwhelmed by the ongoing environment upkeep.  Lack of internal expertise and resources can mean that processes designed to manage the transition are incomplete or cannot be followed.  Projects are subject to delays and in some cases, application readiness is never achieved, preventing even a partial rollout.

Mapping out all of the vital processes, understanding the resources and expertise required and adhering to a well-formed program make for a highly successful transition.  Organizations that establish ongoing systems are able to retain an agile environment which can more readily adapt to future changes – and with less cost and disruption.

Windows Vista makes greater demands on hardware than Windows XP.  Windows 7, while better performing by all accounts, carries the same hardware specifications as Windows Vista [http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx].  A number of tools are available to analyze your current desktop environment and classify the capability of existing workstations to support the new OS.  Accurate knowledge make for more accurate hardware budgeting and also may be used to identify areas within the business where early or deferred rollouts are advantageous.  Phasing the upgrade with hardware swaps enables more efficient rollout of the new OS to regional or functional groups within the organization.

With Windows Vista, the ability to maintain a single OS image for diverse hardware platforms became a reality.  The provisioning of the OS as a Windows Image (WIM) file means it can be tailored and modified prior to deployment.  Drivers required for different hardware platforms can be managed separately and injected late in the deployment process on a per-machine basis.

Taking an entire organization through a migration all at once is a risky proposition at best.  The more common approach is to identify logical (e.g. finance, sales) or physical (geographic office locations) collections of users and organize the roll-out along those lines.  The readiness of these groups can be determined in terms of applications used and their compatibility, along with current hardware and its suitability to run the new OS.  Breaking up the organization’s migration in this manner is an effective way to trial and mitigate issues in smaller groups and ultimately, complete the overall process with less operational disruption.

Solutions for moving a user’s files and settings from one machine OS to another have been around for some time.  This is recognized as a vital part of the user upgrade process, and Microsoft built it into Windows Vista.  There are also various ways to manage user state more centrally, rather than on a per-device basis.  But for most organizations, the ability to retain user data and settings stored on their local workstation will be the key objective, and both Windows Vista and Windows 7 provide tools for this.  Allowances should be made for temporary storage of this user data during migration, and systems put in place to handle any user data not necessarily stored in expected locations.

It’s important to factor in an educational process to allow users to get a feel for the new OS before it lands on their desktops.  Disruption and frustrated users result in a poor perception of the process and rollout of the new OS.  The immediate impact of the changed user interface on users accustomed to the old system is often overlooked.  This is where a little end-user training can go a long way toward resulting in a successful OS migration. 

Change happens.  There is constant pressure to upgrade.  Whether it’s buying new hardware that ships with the next Windows version, or a business application requiring an upgrade that’s dependent on a new OS, or frustrated users running the latest OS at home but not at the office, or a myriad other influences.  In addition to external pressure, IT operations are constantly driven to do more with fewer resources.  One might assume that economic pressures would pose a barrier to OS upgrades—and on the surface, they do.  But in reality, technology advances, in particular OS component improvements, can provide some budgetary relief.

The new generation operating systems from Microsoft (Windows Vista and Windows 7) have a number of performance and management features that make them significantly easier and cheaper to deploy and manage.  Large organizations can easily translate these features into cost and time savings.  For example, the sleep and hibernate capabilities introduced in Windows Vista can be configured to reduce desktop power consumption by up to $35 per desktop per year.  This kind of saving is real and tangible, and combined with the ability to have a single OS image for all hardware platforms, plus rapid deployment and build times, the case for improved IT efficiency and cost savings begins to mount.  Convincing business managers, however, can still pose a challenge.

OS evolution can produce some easily identified usability and security improvements: searching, faster Internet browsing, access to data and applications, boot-up times, reduced downtime and disruption via robust security and error handling, all add up incrementally.  Small time savings for hundreds or thousands of users performing familiar tasks a bit faster also can translate into real value for the business.  Operational productivity might be difficult to quantify, but it can add up to significant savings over time with many users.  Other features, like collaborative functionality, require a new way of thinking and working to access the benefits.  Those may not be suitable for all organizations.

Then, of course, there is support.  Microsoft provides “mainstream” support for its operating systems for five years and “extended” support for an additional five years.  The essential difference between these two levels is that extended support requires payment to handle incident coverage, and updates extend only to security updates in extended support [http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/ ]. In all cases the organization must maintain service pack updates for each OS.  Running an OS that no longer receives security updates or other types of support becomes a serious operational risk.  Windows XP passed out of mainstream support on April 14, 2009, but will continue to receive extended support until April 14, 2014.  Organizations still on Windows 2000 should feel the most pressure to upgrade, as its extended support will be retired on July 13, 2010.

Ideally an organization should have systems and processes that support rapid evaluation and adoption of new operating systems with minimal disruption.  This maximizes the efficiency benefits and minimizes the costs, allowing the organization to maintain the desired position on a flattened technology curve rather than suffer major periodic disruption.  The good news is that “big bang” migration is no longer a prerequisite for every OS migration.  There are many technologies and processes available to organizations to smooth the way forward.  Microsoft has actively invested in support systems to assist organizations in assessing their current state to maximize their efficiency [http://www.microsoft.com/io].

Based on a slew of positive reviews of its beta releases, Windows 7 is already attracting more attention – certainly more positive attention -- than Windows Vista ever did.  But will Win 7 be the OS that Microsoft had intended Vista to be?  Whether it’s Vista or Win 7 or whatever comes next, changing an organization’s OS always has a major impact on the bottom line.  Every person using a Windows computer is affected. Yet the challenge for IT is to refresh the OS with little or no business disruption.  And IT also has to justify the level of effort and cost to the business.  This can be a tough sell when things may appear to be fine as is.

The much vaunted “business value” proposition for operating systems has become a target of critics.  An OS is ultimately a platform on which to run applications.  It’s the applications that manage the business and they are the reason the significant license investments are made.  The right OS should run applications quickly and efficiently, providing a smooth experience for users.  On this basis alone, the business case for an OS upgrade becomes difficult.  A business just wants its applications to work, period.  Going through a disruptive, expensive change to a new OS for a marginal gain just doesn’t seem worth the hassle.

This time around, organizations thinking about a Win 7 upgrade have an advantage, some new technologies and solutions that support and automate what has traditionally been a protracted, risky and very expensive process. For most of us, the preparation, planning, rationalization and assessment for adopting a new OS remain the same.  But there are emerging technologies to help get the applications onto the new OS AND facilitate better ongoing management, agility and stability for the application portfolio.

So there are some key arguments in favor of the business case for a move to Win 7.  With the right tools, you can reduce the cost, risk and business disruption of migration, increase application stability and reduce the cost of ongoing IT management.  In upcoming posts, I’ll offer my thoughts on various aspects of the OS upgrade challenge, including some tips that might reduce your pain if you’ve decided to move to Win 7.  I hope you’ll share your thoughts here as well, or let me know if there’s a particular OS upgrade challenge you’re facing.

Paul Schnell