20 Features Windows 7 Should Include 901
Damian Francis writes "Australian computer expert Vito Cassisi has come up with a list of 20 features that Windows 7 should have. The article includes features like modularized OS, new UAC, program caching, standards compliant browser and a whole lot more with explanations as to why these features should be included. With Windows Vista only receiving a luke-warm reception, Microsoft needs to make sure Windows 7 is a winner from the get go." What other features would you suggest to Microsoft if they are to have a hope for recovery?
I'll believe it when I see it (Score:4, Insightful)
there is one not to include (Score:5, Insightful)
1985 Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Standards-compliant browser (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft can only embrace and extend standards. Be afraid, be very afraid. Switch to Firefox, Opera or Safari, stop using Internet Explorer.
Easy backup, for everybody. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'll go along with the one-version-to-rule-them-all idea, the most important thing?
Easy external backup, for everybody.
Apple has it right with time machine. No muss, no fuss, and I had only the tiniest of glitches when I restored onto a newer hard drive.
And if they don't do this, well, this needs to be a feature of Ubuntu. That'll gain them market share.
Re:Microsoft sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
What was this guy smoking? (Score:5, Insightful)
A "Gaming Mode" to disable some services? When is the last time you said "Ah, crap, my error reporting service is making me lag?"
And Program Caching notice? The average user doesn't even know that Vista uses RAM. His suggestion would just confuse them more. We need fewer popup notifications, not more. Instead of cluttering the user's view, get stuff out of the way. Interfere less.
Re:there is one not to include (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they should definitely involve marketing -- just ask them what to do and do the exact opposite
Proper Dual Monitor Support (Score:5, Insightful)
UAC (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's scale back the flame in the Summary... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't this a bit gloomy? I know it's cool 'round these parts to bash M$, but seriously, do we HONESTLY believe that Vista, even the flop that it is, is marking some sort of very likely demise for Windows? Isn't it much more likely, that, as with 98 ME for example, users will suffer through the pains of Vista and M$ will continue to be the majority OS by a large margin for several years?
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking of which - how would WinFS and ZFS compare?
Much like chalk and cheese. WinFS is(/was) *not* a filesystem, it's a database/metadata layer that sits between the filesystem (NTFS) and the applications.
No DRM, (Score:5, Insightful)
A proper Windows Classic GUI, and MUCH lower system requirements than Vista. Dual-booting XP works fine for running games, and that's all I need Windows for. Make me want to upgrade, don't force me. They tried that with Vista but I got Halo 2 to run on XP anyways. Also try to make UAC less of a PITA.
The Colin Chapman theory of design applies here: "To add speed, add lightness."
Vista is a fatass riced-out American SUV with flat tires and the brakes stuck halfway on. Dump that POS and try again.
ANYTHING as long as it doesn't fragment so easily. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care about all the cool features. Just give me a Windows filesystem that doesn't fragment during NORMAL usage.
Re:Easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
... ...
They need to start thinking Windows needs not be a one size fits all approach. Why can I not install the most basic framework of the OS and DX in order to utilize all available resources of my rig?
What you are reffering to is called an Xbox 360. I'm not saying that it's right, but it seems like that is the direction MS is taking games in.
TFA is crap (Score:5, Insightful)
I read that article earlier today, and it is complete drivel.
One of the points is they want to do away with UAC and instead educate the users.
But otoh they complain that there is no status bar telling people that Vista is using their RAM for caching. So what do you want the users to be: Expert or novice?
And I'm all for educating users, but
a) it doesn't work if they don't care and
b) Microsoft got bashed for not protecting the users. UAC enforces the design guidelines that were not enforced up until now.
And it has to be 'productive' Fine. You tell them what 'productive' constitutes and they'll be happy enough to implement it. As it is, usability experts find it difficult enough.
Is 'the gimp' so much better?
And it has to be rewritten from scratch.
You can complain about the Shell all you want, but the Vista kernel is an engineering masterpiece, and there are some real design innovations in there. Read 'Windows Systems Internals, 4th edition' if you don't believe me.
Yes, windows has its problems, but the list in TFA is complete bollocks as far as I am concerned. It is just a bunch of easy catchphrases for getting support from the windows bashers and for getting hits on their page.
Untrusted Apps (Score:5, Insightful)
1. I want to be able to install an application without having to give it complete and unfettered access to every single aspect of my machine. As a long list of "reputable" companies (Sony, Intuit, Apple, every game engine, etc) have proven, I can't trust any of them. They all want to install rootkits, spyware, adware, whatever they can when I choose to install their app. I can't find out beforehand what they're going to install, I can't easily find out afterwards what they did install.
Give me a way to sandbox every single app. I don't care if that means that I can't install an app that hooks the keyboard, or the filesystem. I want my machine to continue to run!
2. Implement a "Snitch" mode for performance. Tell me why my computer takes 3 minutes to boot, and name names. Tell me why my computer takes 2 minutes to shut down, and name names.
These are OS-level improvements (not eye candy implemented in the windows manager) that would make my life easier. /frank
Let me make my little 5 something list : (Score:4, Insightful)
- No bloating of the system with embedded browsers, players or other shit
- Modular structure that only installs or loads stuff that is absolutely necessary
- No 2342532523 different versions that only came to being due to shit from the marketing department
- No 'we could do it, but we wont give some features to old oses to force you to go up to 7' thing, like the dx10 flop in vista
- NO 'win 7 certified' logo on computers that cant run win 7.
- Less chair throwing
that should get you going
Re:Easy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the domain of strategy games has sorely lacked footing in breaking into the console market. Sure there's a few, but they're all turn based. You just can't get games like Starcraft, Warcraft, or any other type of Real Time strategy on a console.
Re:5 features (Score:5, Insightful)
Really though, the killer app of Linux is. Customization. For MS to get more marketshare, you need to be able to customize everything on it. From the kernel to the GUI.
I'm pretty sure they're willing to let the 0.01% of people who care about this sort of thing, slide.
How about 20 features Windows 7 should NOT have? (Score:4, Insightful)
2) UAC
3) DRM
4) excessive bloating
5) DRM
Re:What was this guy smoking? (Score:5, Insightful)
A "Gaming Mode" to disable some services? When is the last time you said "Ah, crap, my error reporting service is making me lag?"
Given all the crap people install, and how damn near everything seems to want to make its presence known in the task tray at least, sucking up however much memory it cares to, having some minimal configuration that you can run that just loads the absolute essentials for gaming (customizable of course) would be great to have. Maybe you want to run a lot of that crap when you're just browsing, listening to music, working, etc. But for gaming, you want to kill all of those unnecessary background processes and services.
Re: An Innovative Product (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't want innovation from Microsoft. What you really want is a Windows 7 that is enough like XP that you know how to use it and most of your existing application still work, but includes the few features you've come to enjoy on Mac/Linux/BSD/etc. Please stop using the "innovation" buzzword.
Re:Easy... (Score:1, Insightful)
If MS were to start focusing solely on games, they would lose exactly what keeps games on their platform. The only reason games aren't on linux is lack of support, because most people use windows for their every day tasks. The gaming market isn't keeping windows alive, it's the average user and businesses. If MS abandons businesses, then businesses abandon MS, and the average user can see beyond windows. Therefore, leading to more support on the linux (and other) playforms.
How about LESS features? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, this is the root of many of Microsoft's problems. They need to stop bolting on poorly-designed "features" and work on reliability and functionality.
Honestly, if Microsoft made a solid, secure OS without all the "value-added enhancements" and profit-driven lock-in tactics, then public opinion of them would be much higher. I would be very happy to see them shift all OS business to their server-level products, because they really are significantly better than their consumer-level OSs. If they spun off their end-consumer products into another business, fine. Those people who like their bells and whistles can buy them, and those who just want a stable and secure platform would have it also.
Yes, I know, use and love Linux. But I also worked at Microsoft (Windows 2000 team,) and am proud of having worked on that OS. There are alot of good developers there, but they have no say in the management direction. While I was there, I saw ME in development, and couldn't believe that I was working at the same company. I was embarrassed for the team.
So, we'll see how Windows 7 turns out. MinWin is a great idea, and I hope (but don't at all believe) that the mentality behind it will influence the rest of Windows 7. But with Ballmer now completely unrestrained, I'm sure it will be trash. Things really went to crap there after he took the helm in 2000.
Go easy on me... "doesn't fragment"? (Score:3, Insightful)
How would any file system prevent fragmentation?
There's a physical medium, the harddisk (let's ignore flash media seeing as that is fragmented as part of its entire operation, defragmenting not having much use other than for data recovery), and the best way to store data on it is sequential, one bit right behind the other, etc. Write out a ton of bits, delete some in the middle and there you have fragmentation, regardless of the filesystem used, no?
I understand UFS and various others try to *minimize* fragmentation by grouping files in a single directory together on the drive, or more fancypants things like archival files getting stuck neatly together while files that tend to expand (log files, etc.) given a bit of headroom so that they can without fragmenting as their size increases... but eventually, all of them still fragment?
At the same time, there's background defragmenters that continually work behind the scenes and I can't help but imagine are only -adding- wear&tear to the drive (even if they make the thing less fragmented, it accesses areas that may otherwise not be accessed anyway?)
Re:Jesus. (Score:3, Insightful)
Features? It doesn't need new features, most people don't use the features it already has. What it needs is not to suck!
I think you nailed it. The article should be "20 features Windows 7 Should Remove."
Re:Easy backup, for everybody. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google "robocopy". It's been around forever and is possibly the best piece of software Microsoft has ever written. I have no idea why it's so obscure and hard to find.
Article! (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the topic, Windows should just cease to exist, or at least have the mafia OEM agreements broken (that force it down customer's throat via new Laptops/PCs). Operating System, being one of our backbones, doesn't have to be free, but it must be transparent, as in open source.
Critique of list (length)y (Score:4, Insightful)
20. Modularised OS
This example is silly. You can use different user interfaces by changing the desktop shell. Hell, there's a posix subsystem floating around there somewhere if you want to use it.
19. XP Virtual Machine
'Virtual Machine' is a big buzzword, but the truth is you're going to hit issues with drivers and this situation, and with software that does a lot of heinouss stuff on XP, and with games that hate running on VM, and no matter how much you'd like it to be the case, someone would be whining about how hard it is to sync files to and from the XP VM.
18. New UAC
The author's premise is wrong here; UAC is clearly about making sure new apps are authored for the standard user, old apps function the same for protected administrator as for standard user, and making the standard user a more viable option for people. Changing UAC significantly is a bad move for MSFT.
17. Gaming Mode
So you should reboot to play games? That's absurd. Services spend most of their time sleeping, and memory pages that aren't in use get paged out when the system is under pressure. I doubt you would see much room for an increase in perf with this 'gaming mode'.
16. Customised Install
This is probably fair. The 'advanced install' type options could give you choices like with XP. However, then you would need the DVD in order to add Windows features later. Currently, it does a full install, and just doesn't 'install' certain features that are sitting on the system waiting to be enabled. So, in a sense, you do already have that customizability - but it comes at the cost of disk space in order to be convenient. I'll stick with the option that doesn't force me to dig around for a Vista DVD to enable a webserver, though, thanks.
15. Productive GUI
GUI programming and fit and finish are TREMENDOUSLY hard. The author might as well ask for the moon in a picnic basket. He also fails to notice that Vista goes to great lengths to make the UI more accessible for the visually impaired, appease the people who like the XP feel (see the control panel options), and yes, for efficiency - see the 'search' widget at the bottom of the start menu. Explorer views are TREMENDOUSLY more featureful now than in XP, as are the search tools if you don't disable the search indexer.
14. All for One and One for All
Author says there should just be one SKU. I agree. Won't happen.
13. WinFS
The author blindly asserts the relational database would speed things up. There's a reason WinFS was canceled; to the math. Windows does need a new filesystem, but there's no need to throw out 40 years of filesystem traditions.
12. Home User Licensing
I agree, Microsoft should explore alternative licensing and pricing models. But it won't happen for Win7, I don't think.
11. Driver Availability
32-bit drivers mostly continue to work. Many services that had UI components are broken by session 0 isolation for services in Vista, requiring a rewrite - and that's a good thing. See 'Shatter attack'. As for 64-bit? Complain to vendors. 64-bit OS isn't that hard to write for. This is not MS's fault.
10. Standards Compliant Browser
Nobody has a standards compliant browser. Yes, there's the ACID test, but the test changes with time, raising the bar on browsers. More importantly, Javascript is a mess of a language. So long as it's around, the web is going to be a graveyard of usability and standardization. And the same goes for browser plugins.
9. Program Caching
Superfetch. It pre-loads stuff during the start of your process to improve start times. Most people don't even know this is occuring. Why bother them with a popup that would occur at LITERALLY, every process start, and offers no options?
8. Microsoft Toolbox
Sort of like a package management system for 3rd party software. Sounds grand. Maybe someday.
7. OS Restoration via imaging
System restore is QUICK and CHEAP, but it's not a backup. If you want to back up your system, BACK UP YOUR SYSTEM. Unless reimaging would wipe the
Re:Advanced installer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Untrusted Apps (Score:3, Insightful)
The lack of this feature becomes even more infuriating when, with every OS update and service pack, they seem to add another layer of "user friendly garbage" between me and my advanced options.
Don't get me wrong, I "get" that my little sister needs to be protected from herself so that she doesn't make her computer unusable... but I don't. So stop trying.
Looking at it from the wrong perspective. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not how it works. Vista is a shining example of the fact that new features in Windows are designed to be in the best interest of Microsoft. Sometimes the interests of Microsoft and its users overlap (for example, an OS that doesn't crash quite as much will provide a better user experience, but it also saves Microsoft tech support dollars) but more often their interests are conflicting (end users were not asking for more DRM).
The bottom line is that operating systems are not killer apps. The job of an operating system is to provide a platform for the launching of applications. Do that and then get out of the way.
Re:How about LESS features? (Score:3, Insightful)
. I would be very happy to see them shift all OS business to their server-level products, because they really are significantly better than their consumer-level OSs
So MS should stop selling the Win95-based OSs like WinME, and sell only WinNT-based OSs like WinXP? I think MS got that message 5 years ago.
Re:Paucity (Score:0, Insightful)
By default all versions of Windows since 3.0 use swapping. You can shut it off if you don't like it.
Congratulations, you've posted the dumbest thing I've ever read. Vista uses OVER 1GB OF MEMORY to show the desktop. If I disabled swapping, the thing wouldn't even boot, it'd have run out of memory long before you could even run an application on it.
You HAVE to swap if you have 1GB of memory. Vista uses ALL of it to show the desktop.
I'm not a big fan of Vista however you can get it to run acceptably with 1GB if you turn off all the eye candy and use classic mode.
If you turn off all the eyecandy, WTF is the point of using Vista in the first place? There are no other new features. You might as well be using Windows XP, and drop system requirements to a quarter of that.
Besides, my Linux desktop manages to run with all the eyecandy turned on in under 256MB. Microsoft has no excuse for requiring 1GB of memory to show the desktop when Linux can do it in a quarter of the space. And I'm artificially inflating Linux's memory usage, since I'm including a database, web server, and SSH server.
How much memory do you save disabling the eyecandy anyway? Unless it's something absolutely massive like 512MB, you're still better off using XP. Actually, even if it IS 512MB, you're STILL better off using XP.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about LESS features? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't disagree with you. Someone needs to throw a chair at Ballmer. I don't know what kind of stranglehold he has on MSFT but it's clearly very tight. I think Microsoft is suffering from bloat and lack of coherent vision from the highest levels. Buying Yahoo, for example, is just more bloat. Why buy Yahoo when, if you did it right, you could defeat them and not have to absorb their problems too?
They're suffering from incompetence. All of the talent is going elsewhere. When Gates was at the helm over a decade ago he was ruthless AND made the right moves. Ballmer is ruthless and making the wrong ones. This course only leads one place.
Re:there is one not to include (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said this before and I'll say it again-- the problem isn't marketing. Proper marketing involves studying what your potential customer base wants and needs, and producing a product that meets those needs. Microsoft hasn't been doing much of that, at least not for the past several years.
They really should have the next version of Windows driven by market demand. A big chunk of their market wants openness and transparency. They want formats that can be moved to other platforms, and protocols that can talk with anyone. Having Office fully support ODF in the next version, for example, is a development driven by marketing.
The problem isn't marketing. The problem is a lack of interest in meeting their customers' needs. If they had sat down in the early Vista planning stages and asked, "who are our potential customers, and how can we improve Windows so that those customers will want to buy it again?" then Vista would probably have been a different product.
Or if they did sit down and ask those questions, then either (a) the people who were in that meeting were morons -or- (b) the customers they were trying to market to was "morons".
Re:ANYTHING as long as it doesn't fragment so easi (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
They need to start thinking Windows needs not be a one size fits all approach.
Funny, I have more of a problem with the way in which Microsoft refuses to use a one-size-fits-all approach. How many different versions of Vista are there? How many of Windows 2003 Server? And it all feels like a scam to me, like they're hoping you'll buy the cheap version, realize that it's lacking some minor but important feature, and then be forced to upgrade to the Super-Ultimate version that's expensive because it has tons of features, most of which you'll never use.
Re:Paucity (Score:3, Insightful)
It should recomend TO the user to add more RAM
Sounds like a good idea in abstract, but think about it. You want Microsoft to build in something that recommends that a user buy hardware? How long until they have a contract with a specific RAM vendor to recommend their RAM? How long after that will Windows me recommending more RAM every day, even when you have plenty?
Ads don't belong in an OS, and therefore purchase recommendations don't either. It's too easy for the latter to become the former.
Re:Easy... (Score:1, Insightful)
(which you notice more each year with less and less good titles being released).
It is just too appealing to create console games with uniform hardware, and lower piracy rates.
I'd be surprised if there even was a PC Game market in 10 years.
Re:Number 21 and 22 (Score:4, Insightful)
How about the capability to lock my damn task tray and desktop? I really get annoyed with every little program loading some shit in to my task tray or dropping useless icons all over my desktop. It would be nice to have some way to say only these programs can be in task tray or these icons on the desktop only.
Maybe better program control is the answer. I really hate having to go into Program Files and disable the permissions on NMindex and the other shit nero installs and runs as a service with out my permission. Maybe in the task manager have an option to kill a program and add it to a list that will never be allowed to run again.
Re:Paucity (Score:3, Insightful)
Since we all THINK RAM companies will try to benefit from this, and Microsoft knows they would be blamed for it, they'll work fairly hard to make sure the system coundn't be abused (by threatening to post RAM use, memory leak, and potential abusive applications online, and actively persuing any expected activity of this kind).
Again, that sounds good in theory-- but are you familiar with Microsoft's business practices? The whole reason they've been trying to keep IE so dominant is for the purpose of selling ad-space in their OS. Those pre-installed bookmarks that come with IE are ad space. They preset their browser to use their own search engine so that they can sell ad space. They put links into folders containing pictures to "order prints online". How do you think the vendors selling prints get their links in there? And all the DRM put into Windows Vista was done amongst complaints because they were partnered with the entertainment industry.
Microsoft's whole business model consists in vendor lock-in, and then leveraging that lock in to sell you products made by them and their strategic partners. Personally, I resent that they're always trying to point me toward specific vendors for 3rd party software/hardware/services. I want to find someone as MS and tell them, "Get this straight. You make my OS. Your job is to make sure that I have a stable software base on which to run my applications and allow them to interface effectively with hardware. That's the extent of our relationship, and who I do business with is none of your concern."
Re:Easy backup, for everybody. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things:
Microsoft can innovate, the Xbox has shown that. And the new Office UI. And their various non-Xbox hardware products.
Of course, I'm now going to get attacked by 20 Slashdotters telling me that nothing in the Xbox was innovative (oh yeah, Live was just an extension of-- whatever Dreamcast had! And the integrated storage? Who needs it!), and everybody will point out that the Zune hasn't sold a ton of copies ignoring the fact that this is due to network effect and has nothing to do with innovation. And that Office 2007 requires all kinds of mythical "retraining" cost. But, oh well.
But what do I know, I switched to Vista from being a long-time Macintosh user. I got pissed off at Apple's constant habit of removing features and creating shitty UIs (including never fixing the horrible Finder UI. Explorer kind of stinks, but at least it stinks consistently without constantly switching "modes" between opening folders.)
Re:How about LESS features? (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't expect a public admission, and wouldn't trust one if I did hear it -- PR isn't generally worth the time it takes to listen. What I meant to say is that it seems their corporate management refuses to acknowledge that their current course is not a good one. I'd be happy if the senior directors tacitly agreed among themselves to drop Vista, change to more of a "quality first" mindset, and move on.
I know that such a change in approach would be initially expensive, but Microsoft has the capital to support such an approach for at least a few years, even without downsizing. If they wait until their market share significantly declines, it may be too late for them to correct themselves. History is littered with the carcasses of large corporations who were convinced they were too big to fall, right up to the end.
Re:Easy... (Score:4, Insightful)
People laugh at this, but it was OS X moving to a Unix kernel that helped it really take off.
No, it was OSX moving to something that _wasn't_ MacOS Classic (there was even a while when building OS on top of Windows NT was considered by Apple).
Anyone remember the older versions of Apple's OSes? The inability to multitask? The complete lack of memory protection, causing every segfault to be a fatal error? Yeah.
Yes, and Windows suffers none of these problems.
How about what Windows 7 should NOT be? (Score:3, Insightful)
Tops on my list of what Windows 7 should not be is Vista in a different shape box.
Seriously, if Microsoft thinks they can make a few tweaks on Vista, load up a new marketing effort and make a big hit with Windows 7, it'll be the final sign that the last of the brains have left the company.
But considering their announced delivery date, I don't see how Windows 7 can be anything else.
I think we're looking at a big splash in early 2010, not in a good way.
Re:Easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
And once they perfect this "safe mode for games" throw out everything that's turned off and release it as "Windows 7". I guarantee it will be the best selling OS in history.
The idea that you need a mode in Windows where it relinquishes enough resources to allow you to do what you want is completely insane. Windows is a means, not an end, and it needs to stop acting like it is the sole reason you have and use the computer. Microsoft needs to stop believing they own your computer, and that they can and should micromanage your use of that, but that will never happen. Unless they radically change their entire code base, their endevelopment process, their flagrantly deceptive marketing and arrogant and intolerant style of management, plus their all-consuming contempt for customers, Windows 7 or any other product Microsoft dares to foist upon an unwelcoming world is doomed to fail.
Re:Easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about LESS features? (Score:3, Insightful)
D R M ... To name one
From the perspective of Windows functionality, DRM is either irrelevant (you have no DRM-encumbered media) or useful (it lets you access your DRM-encumbered media that you otherwise wouldn't be able to).
Re:Easy... (Score:3, Insightful)
I was thinking the same thing.
If they released Windows 7 with this mode, why would I use the standard mode? So that random processes could clog my processor?