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?
5 features (Score:2, Interesting)
1. 3-D desktop, sure it may not be the most funtional thing, but it can sure perswade people to switch
2. Customized installs. For example, you should be able to install a ~4 GB full install with everything, or a ~1 GB minimal install with only the GUI and some programs
3. Themes. More then just a theme that makes it look like Vista, or 95, include various themes, make it look like an old school mac, or perhaps a bit like OS X.
4. -O3 for OEMs, for OEMs, MS should compile software -O3 so it is faster
5. Virtual desktops, why MS hasn't been including them is beyond me, they seem really easy to code
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.
better command line (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't want to have to run cygwin just to get a reasonable CLI. Even having done that, it's just too hard to manipulate the registry etc. through text commands. I'm sure with a little thought, MS could come up with an industry leading text based interface that I could ssh into with a reasonable way to switch between different users (with different admin privileges) on the server.
And make them
Jesus. (Score:5, Interesting)
Features? It doesn't need new features, most people don't use the features it already has. What it needs is not to suck!
The first thing Microsoft needs to do is look at everything from the user perspective. What can be faster, lighter, more convenient? What can be more stable? The absolute last thing they need to do is to--even for a second--imagine that bolting some shiny crap onto Vista is going to somehow make people happy with it.
Christ. Some of the stuff he thinks 7 needs is stuff that would make any knowledgable geek recoil in horror. WinFS?!? Are you kidding me?
"Game Mode" so I can turn off the resource hogging of my OS and run a game? NO! Pay attention! I want the OS to not hog resources.
A standards compliant web browser? It's called Firefox. Next.
Site licensing for the home user? *pause for sardonic laughter* Yea, right, that's going to happen about the time Ballmer gay marries Steve Jobs.
The only things I think he had right (aside from the impossible things like a modular os, etc) were XP virtual machine/emulation, and a better UAC interface. An XP vm would be a quick and dirty fix for compatibility issues; Mac pulled this with OS9 emulation, and it definitely smoothed their adpotion of OSX. As far as the UAC, Microsoft has always been the king of suck as far as security interfaces go; I almost always end up having to disable security to get the machine to do the crap I want it to do, and while I've got faith in my upstream security, I'm the kind of person who can't ever have enough security, and it pisses me off when some of it is useless. If you have to disable security to make your machine work, it's WORTHLESS (I'm looking at you too Symantec).
blah blah. End rant.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly what will happen is they will be slated for the final product and fail to make it in. I was really looking forward to Winfs. It design specs and features looked like a big benefit to Windows Vista. I'm still kinda bummed it was never included. :-/
Since WinFS failed to make the cut for Vista, and ZFS (gotta be better - 'Z' comes after 'W' in the alphabet!) failed to make the cut for OS X 10.5, I'm going to go out on a limb here and hazard to guess that changing a file system in a desktop OS ain't that easy.
Speaking of which - how would WinFS and ZFS compare?
(OT) If I wasn't using Macs already, and ZFS arrived, that'd probably be enough to sway me. Awesome doesn't even start to describe it...
Re:Easy... (Score:5, Interesting)
What other features would you suggest to Microsoft if they are to have a hope for recovery?
What is the one thing MS can do that no one else (realistically) can do these days? Games. 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?
I'm sure I'm not the only one at their without any choice in OS simply because my computer is most often used for games. Which if it's going to be that way, don't make a guy who tunes every bus speed and multiplier he access too use the same OS install his grandma would use to check her e-mails.
It should include (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Hardware acceleration
2) Only two versions. Home and Pro.
3) An expose function that is actually useful
4) Multiple desktops
5) IP over 1394a/b
6) NTFS support for Readyboost
7) Built-in support for running on a virtual machine
8) Better organization in the control panel and start menu.
And that's just off the top of my head!
Package manager (Score:3, Interesting)
The centralized repository of software is one place Linux really shines. It can be done more easily with open source software, but as the iTunes store shows us, it doesn't have to be open source. Microsoft could easily offer vendors a place in its own software store that's tied to the Add/Remove programs dialog. Want a freeware program, it's a couple clicks away. Want Photoshop, it's a couple clicks and a credit card number away.
I'd imagine there would be some anti-trust considerations though.
One feature that shouldn't be left out (Score:2, Interesting)
Better remote desktop support (Score:2, Interesting)
How about a New Reference Point? (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead of listing things that will never get done, let's discuss a general framework. (that will never get done....)
An OS that prioritizes consumer wants/needs BEFORE the media rights holders. How about sticking to the Doctrine of Fair Use as a start?
An OS with a simplified security scheme. I'm not talking about their blame-shifting "security" mechanism to which they are clearly committed.
They probably can't get back all of the developers they lost when they abandoned VB, but they need another VB for Schmoes to write their quick and dirty hacks.
Forgetting something? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Easy... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Yes that is the direction they are taking console games in. North American PC gaming is a different beast, always has been and always will be.
Re:better command line (Score:1, Interesting)
Too bad you still need to be logged into a GUI desktop session (or, god forbid, enable telnet) to use it. An SSH server would be at the top of my list of feature requests.
Killing Processes (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Paucity (Score:5, Interesting)
Allow the OS to be aware of it's own limitations, and adjust it caching style to accomodate that. If the OS knows it has a slow HDD, it should cach more into RAM. If it knows it's low on RAM, it should cache to disk backround paused tasks. If it's low on resources, unloading (or not loading at all) unsuled items (like fonts, textures, etc) would be awesome, thanks.
Take it a step futher and have it unload drivers for devices not currently connected, recomend the user terminate programs that are not needed, limit the use of "pre-load" application resources for items rarely used (I don't need itunes and acrobat pre loading crap if I only look at a PDF occasionally, and don't typically play music while working).
It should recomend TO the user to add more RAM, and be able to communicate the number of minutes or seconds it would save the user to perform the upgrade. If the user commonly runs a lot of programs, and it commonly caches stuff that would otherwise be in RAM, TELL THE USER TO GET MORE RAM, don't assume they know. If HDD performance is causing real-time applications to stutter, or games to have frame skip, tell the user it's too slow.
Microsoft should also list system requirements, as should EVERYONE else, based on an average system configuration, not on a clean install. Windows Vista runs OK on a cleam machine, but load Outlook, OneNote, iTunes, Acrobat, a domain connection, a few network shares, 2-3 printers, motherboard and network monitoring software, and some AV and spyware security software, and it runs like CRAP! Retailers are not equipped to explain this to people, so lets start quoting resource limitations in REAL WORLD scenarios. Also, games and other real time applications, should list not only the recomended requirements, but what frame rate to expect with a given screen resolution using out of the box settings (and all images on the box should be required to use default settings, or note otherwise that they're using "prefered" settings which should also have their own requirements listing and frame rate expectation). No, it won't be perfect, but if they use benchmarking on real word systems, it should be cloe enough for most people to understand.
"Game Mode" for the OS is a load of crap. A nice OS embeded script that automatically kills some background stuff, and unloads unnecessary drivers, thats fine, but to be honest, it should do that ALL BY ITSELF, not with a click. The application should be signed, and should be able to request those kinds of resources when it needs them, and background "helper" apps should be the first to go, followed by warnings about any applications the user launched that should first be killed before playing the game. Booting to a seperate mode? no, that's a pain in the ass... Besides, it's not really to OS settings that slow game play, but all the crap you added to the OS.
Re:1985 Technology (Score:5, Interesting)
Litestep is what you're looking for; it's a replacement window manager (for Windows), and includes virtual desktops. It's also customizable and fragmented to a ludicrous degree, but if you try a few themes you should be able to find one you like.
Re:Easy backup, for everybody. (Score:3, Interesting)
Many people have tens of gigs of pictures (which are usually irreplaceable) and music (which is less so) on their primary computer, for them an $80 external drive isn't such a ridiculous investment. And after a few years at a job (or in school) it's easy enough to rack up 5-10GB of documents (especially if you have an easy way to archive changes, which can be extremely useful).
Having set up Time Machine on my sister's laptop recently, I can agree that Apple got this one right - it's not much more than a daily cron of 'rsync -av' with a slick restore GUI, and it's exactly what's needed. I'm not an Apple fanboy (or even a user), but some things they just get right.
Re:What was this guy smoking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Although on the other side, I don't think they'd actually ever do something like that because that would imply that you don't actually need those programs/services to begin with, and demonstrate how much they really are bloated.
Re:Easy... (Score:3, Interesting)
What other features would you suggest to Microsoft if they are to have a hope for recovery? A Linux kernel.
You are joking, but I have a bet going with a good friend of mine that MS will ship a UNIX or Linux kernel within 20 years.
It just makes too much sense. They get many bug fixes for free and don't have to do kernel maintenance.
Re:Easy... (Score:3, Interesting)
You can - Microsoft sells that under the name "XBox".
Joking aside, personally, I would say Windows needs less stratification among the various versions. Have a standard version, a server version, and if really neccessary, an uber-high-end-server version. No more than that. Well, perhaps the embedded version (for those softcore wimps who think "embedded" means "only" 64MB of RAM and a CPU measured in hundreds of MHz), but that counts as something of a special case.
Within those, Microsoft should make it easy to turn off individual resource hogs (and I mean easier and more self-explanatory than the SCM). But I don't see the need to confuse users with 27 different versions just for the home market.
Feature Parity w/ Linux and OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like the low-hanging fruit would be to copy the parts of Linux and OS X where Windows is still behind. This would include:
Re:Easy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Their first commercial product, Xenix, was a unix os. They should dust it off and start from there like Apple did with Mach + BSD.
Re:How about LESS features? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How about LESS features? (Score:2, Interesting)
If you worked on Win2K, you're right to be proud. It's the only decent OS Microsoft have ever made. At this time, I'm gonna say it's likely it'll be the only decent OS microsoft will ever make.
Sure it had it's issues, but it was fairly steady, dependable, fast and not all that bloated. When the time came it couldn't run the apps I needed (nothing to do with the OS really, just Adobe wanting people to upgrade), I switched to Mac. No way in hell was I touching 2k++ (aka XP). All the bugs of 2K plus a hell of a lot more, and loads of totally unnecessary bloat, but none of the stability or minimalism of 2k. All downhill from there.
Ballmer really is the death-knell of microsoft. If you got any stock from working at MS, sell it now, cause believe me it's not gonna go up anymore.
Maybe buy Apple stock. Looks like their time has come...
Re:Killing Processes (Score:4, Interesting)
You know when you want to unplug a USB device safely? You go to the taskbar and choose the option, and Windows tells you "Sorry, can't do that, that device is being used right now".
How about telling me what the hell is using it?
Good call. Mac OS X needs this too.
Come to think of it, Linux's umount could also benefit from this feature; I normally have to use lsof to track it down (if it's not obvious).
But why not take it to the next level? Add an API that allows the OS to send a message to the offending application saying "hey, the user wants to remove this resource, could you please stop using it?" Not all apps would support this obviously, but say you had a document open in Microsoft Word; when you tell it you want to safely remove the flash drive the Word document is saved on, Word would either close the document or, if there are unsaved changes, ask if you want to save first (with a Cancel button, which would send a message back to the OS, "never mind"). The OS should know whether a given app supports this feature or not, and for apps that don't, it can just give you a list of them and say "these apps are currently using this device; please close them and try again," with "Try Again" and "Cancel" buttons.
Re:Easy... (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, this is an interesting observation, because game support is one of the most oft-quoted reasons why people cannot migrate from Windows. The success of consoles like XBox 360 could really sway this trend.
It would be doubly ironic if this were to happen, because IIRC Microsoft still hasn't framed dollar number one in XBox profits. Their entirely unprofitable games devision could help erode Windows market share.
Re:there is one not to include (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:there is one not to include (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah-- but I don't think it makes sense to say that Hollywood is "the customer" when I buy a copy of Windows. It's really more a case of Microsoft screwing over one customer with one product line in order to please a strategic partner who's interested in another product line.
Because the main point in the DRM was in order to help Microsoft sell licenses to use Windows Media formats. But even with the Windows Media formats, Hollywood wasn't the customer. Online stores and portable player manufacturers were the customers, and pleasing Hollywood was a way to get the movie/music industry to endorse the file formats. And none of this was really for the purpose of giving customers or consumers a good product.
That's part of the reason it was so hilarious to see Apple negotiate for DRM-free audio. When Microsoft determined that they couldn't grow any more in the OS market (because they had a monopoly), they sold that market out in order to gain traction in another market (licensing media formats). They'd put in a huge investment, and Apple had managed to pull the rug out from under with the first DRM-free track they sold.
But I apologize, all of this is off-topic.
Re:Some suggestions (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, they could.
Re:Untrusted Apps (Score:3, Interesting)
On a related note, NO DAMN BS process names. No reporting RunDLL32 as the process, no reporting SVCHOST, no BS with service names for antivirus and utilities with two-letter names and no descriptions.
MS can report an intelligent description of their own processes and services, and give us tools to let us lock down and prevent anything installing:
- explorer shell extensions
- system tray icons
- services and startup programs
- or changing or extending file associations
And while I'm at it, a way to easily disable treating ZIP files as folders.
And make Windows explorer do what Nautilus does; show the damned file extension but don't select it automatically when you rename the file, so the extension stays unchanged unless you specifically select it!
Love the idea of "snitch mode".
Re:Easy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's start off with the simple stuff maybe:
A usable/workable command line interpreter that supports basic scripting.
Remove the registry, as it's a single point of failure. Have each application maintain their own registry subset, stored in the application's install directory.
Get rid of notepad as the basic text editor. Add a new editor for TXT files.
Get rid of that stupid CR/LF thingy.
Allow apps easy access to the underlying kernel without going through the bloated WIN32 layer.
Full disclosure of the NT File System specifications.
Installation of software or updates without requiring a reboot.
Complete removal of Windows Genuine Advantage.
Allow reuse of Windows "OEM" versions on new machines as long as Windows is removed from the old computer first (honor system).
No Windows authentication needed.
No DRM, period.
Deliver an operating system; not a media center.
Re:How about LESS features? (Score:4, Interesting)
You hit the nail on the head here. They really need to rethink the OS before they move on. Most of the features they add are pointless memory suckers that most of the world will never use. The OS needs to be a memory lean, small footprint, stable system. I know they're in business to make money, but coming out with another OS just because they think it's time isn't really the answer. Some could argue Vista is a big flop. I for one, have been running it for a year with zero problems. I will say UAC isn't their best idea, but once you get up and running you don't really see it on a day to day basis. As far as memory, it's no worse than XP was on this box and seems to run faster and with much less issues (probably because it can use all the 64bit drivers and such, where as the bastard stepchild XP64 could barely stand up half the time). Uptime I've actually been impressed with (well, for Windows. It was up for 4 months, best I could manage with XP was 3 weeks). (/me looks at his linux box up 395 days...) Disk space, again, it's not as bad as the rumors, a full install on here was 2.5GB. Still, A similarly capable linux distro could have done it in under a gig (and does on my second PC). Though in all honesty, does it really matter that much? I mean even if it was a 10GB install, it'd still be a small percentage of a 320GB-1TB drive.
Sure there are some cool things that'd be nice. Built in Snapshots and Thin provisioning, De-duplication, Remote Replication, a good full 3d interface, ability to swap drivers on the fly, ability to trim the kernel or compile in commonly used drivers directly to the kernel as modules, a GOOD media player (10 and 11 are massive steps backwards), a real contender for the browser wars... one that follows INDUSTRY Standards. etc...
But IMLTHO, what I think they should do is JUST STOP. Vista's really fine, and I don't want them to try to fix what ain't broke, that's what got us Windows ME. Sure Vista may not run on older hardware well (though my Athlon XP2500+ with 512MB RAM and a 15GB drive runs pretty well with it), but that just means it needs polish, not replacement.
My own list of what is wrong with Windows (Score:3, Interesting)
- Kernel. Might be quite good, but it has one big deficiency: It's not Unix. I doubt they will or can change that.
- Filesystem: Case-insensitive but case-preserving is an utter fuckup and a security-nightmare too.
- Charset: Get rid of that fucking cp125x-charsets. Now! Everywhere! Make it impossible to choose it anywhere. And bid those "smart-quotes" and other non-standard crap goodbye.
- CR/LF. Do that CR away, this is not a typewriter anymore, I hope..
- Shell: Backslashes and Drive-Letters are a bloody nuisance to every (C-)programmer. Who in his right might would choose the escape-character as a directory delimiter?
- Terminal: No, a Terminal should not be limited to 25x80. You need to be able to change the resolution, and you also need to be able to switch the charset.
- Mouse-handling: I personally can't stand click-to focus. Not only I use sloppy-focuse, but I also want autoraise. Windows can't do that, and it even collides with its dozens of modal dialogs.
- Registry. Please explain the benefit of this monster over config-files with a clearly specified structure.
- Incoherent separation of user-config and system-config (resulting from the registry). I should be able to take my personal config from one account to the other by action of simple copying.
- Missing desktop-features: multiple desktops of course.
- Look and Feel: Where is the problem of letting the user specify how his widgets should look? Esepcially if I don't like this Fisher-Price-look. As far as I can tell, these are easy customisable. And yes, ALL of them should change their look simultaneously.
- Localization. This is very bad. I should be able to change the language of the GUI on a click. But at least per user. And I should not have to download a different version of some patch or some service pack depending on the language I'm using.
- Decent Editor. Per default. One where you can choose that the input uses CR, CR/LF or LF and saves only with LF. One where you can select a charset for input (and save as utf8 only), one which can open files up to at least 2GB.
- Directory-Structure. Only a fucking idiot would name the programs-folder "Program Files" -- with a space in it, and what's more, different in every language! Why not just "programs"? And more: Why is there such a mess in the windows-folder? and the windows/system folder? And why are users preferences and files there too??
- ACLs. An actually nice feature of windows -- if the default ACLs weren't so braindead. Who got the idea that users need to have write access to the root or the windows-directory??
- DRM. Either this goes out of Windows, or Windows goes out of the window.
- Standards: They exist for you to use them, not to invent stupid competing formats. Away with that WMA, WMV, DOC, XLS-trash. You can still support them, but store your information in open and standardized formats in the first place, like mpeg, mp3, ODF. I want to hear "You might loose some information if you store this Open Document Text in Microsoft .DOC-Format. Do you really want to do this?"
- Autostart: Ditch it. Not necessary just to save one click. Yes, you can turn it off, but actually it should be impossible to turn it on at all.
- Internet Explorer. Either you do it right (XHTML, CSS, DOM, EcmaScript), or throw that garbage out of the system.
- Outlook. Either you do it right (raw-text, charsets, quoting, pop3-handling), or throw that garbage out of the system.
- Active-X. Throw away without replacement.
- 32bits. Yes, it's about time for the next version only to offer a 64bit-version. Plus, if done right, this will force the morons at Adobe to finally port flash to 64bit.
Re:Jesus. (Score:3, Interesting)
A standards compliant web browser? It's called Firefox. Next.
You mean the same firefox that I just had to kill on the computer my wife's using, because it ate so many resources that explorer wasn't showing its right click context menu?? (GDI I think, need to investigate some time, I just know to kill firefox and I'm good to go). Running V3 by the way....and yes I'm using extensions, but if the extension framework lets that happen it too is flawed.
What's the bet this is modded down, because I dare to be critical of firefox on slashdot.