Microsoft Windows 7 "Wishlist" Leaked

Cassius Corodes is one of many readers to point out that a recent "wishlist" of new Windows development features is floating around the net. This list was supposedly leaked from Microsoft and contains some of their key development features for the next version of Windows. Given that the next new Windows release is bound to be a long way off I would recommend seasoning this news with a hefty dose of sodium chloride.

Comments

Sand-poundingly obvious things ...

[Alaska Jack]

17 years (!) after Windows 95-style open-and-save dialog boxes debuted, and I still can't simply drag and drop the folders *I* want into and out of the "Places" bar. (Or change the "Other places" links, if I have that left-hand taskbar thingie enabled.)

In explorer, I can open the favorites in the left-hand pane by clicking the "favorites" button -- but there is no way to KEEP it permanently open. I have to click the favorites button every. single. time.

Open and save dialogs highlight the entire filename in the text entry field, despite the fact that 99 times out of 100, I don't want to change the extension.

etc etc etc.

    - Alaska Jack

PS Using Windows XP pro. Don't know if these have changed in Vista.

Am I the only person who makes a 2nd partition?

[khasim]

When installing Windows, I make a partition specifically for the swap file and temp files. That way they don't add to the fragmentation mess of the OS partition.

Speaking of which, why does Windows still use a variable sized swap file? I lock it down to 2x RAM or 4GB. Whichever is larger. I do not want fragmentation in the swap file. I'd prefer not to need one, but that's another story.

And how about moving IE's temp files somewhere else? Okay, you can still set permissions on the folder, but get it out of the user's profile.

And I'm tired of seeing C:\WINDOWS\Temp
Temp directories do not belong in the OS directory.

Yeah, I'm whining. But I spend 15 extra minutes just getting the directories and swap arranged correctly every time I set up someone's Windows machine.

Re:Am I the only person who makes a 2nd partition?

[russ1337]

is it possible to put the swap to another media, say a flash / ram drive?

It's hard to beat 3GBps on a SATAII though, and while good flash does wear leveling I'm sure it'll catch us out eventually.

Be interested in any ideas rather than spending $40 on a dedicated 40GB HDD just for a few GB of Swap.

I think its hard to beat a SATA2 for speed (at home, SCSI at work...?), but interested in any ideas...

Re:Am I the only person who makes a 2nd partition?

[phoenix_rizzen]

First of all, it's called the page file, not the swap file. This isn't Unix and this isn't Windows 3.x. If you're going to pretend to know something about this aspect of Windows, you'd do well to at least use the correct name.

What's in a name? The function is the same. That's like complaining about someone calling your Ferrari a car. Oooh, how nasty of them!

Second, and far more importantly -- You do not get fragmentation in the page file unless the page file is resized, and the only time the page file gets resized is when you consume ALL your physical memory, and ALL the memory in the page file. On a system with 1 GB of memory (which will be given a 1.5GB page file), you will have 2.5 GB of memory that you have to fill up first. Windows XP & later will display a pop-up balloon when this happen. Fragmentation NEVER HAPPENS OTHERWISE. Why is this such a major concern to you?

Yes, it does happen. The default size of the page file is not 1.5x RAM. It usually starts at 768 MB and then grows over time. For fun, you can run the defrag program in XP and check the stats output to see how many fragments there are to the page file. I've seen some systems with dozens of fragments in a 768 MB page file.

Re:Am I the only person who makes a 2nd partition?

[AncientPC]

My partitions: OS + apps, my documents + binaries, games, temp

I backup the 2nd partition on a daily basis.

I have a games partition because I don't want to reinstall and/or saved games and configs need to stay intact.

I have a temp partition for everything else simply because I don't like cluttering up my OS partition too much.

It's not that I need the data division, but since my desktop has always been multi-hdd I come up with ways to categorize the data.

Re:Am I the only person who makes a 2nd partition?

[will_die]

Unless you set your page file to the same initial and max sizes then it is going to grow in increments and cause fragmentation. If you use user swapping them it is really going to increase in size. To check the fragements of page file(s) run defrag(XP) and the report will show how many fragments, also sysinternals has a great pagedefrag(2000,2003) program. BTW a frag in the page file does cause major performance hits, which is the reason for the recommendation to set intial and max sizes.

Placing your page file on a different partition(single drive) is a bad idea, however placing it one a different drive is a really good idea. The rule is it should be placed on the most used partition of the least used drive. Also placing making sure that drive is on a seperate channel or controller from the main drive is a good idea. Do not put it on a RAID-1 or RAID-5 drive, RAID-0 is good. However do not place page files on multiple partitions on the same driveWord of warning you should keep a very small page file, under 50 meg, on drive C there there is older software that expect it and can cause problems and slowdowns if not found; also good in an emergency when your main pagging file cannot come on-line and is required if you want crashdumps or have they fixed that? yes I know about the temporary page file that windows creates in an emergency.

IIRC, The setting of the no page file was an old performance idea and will now not work, windows creates an temporary page file if it cannot find one. When this originally idea came out(windows 95,98???) it would work if you had alot of physical memory(1 or 2 gig, don't remember what the sweet point was) because windows would use the page file even if you had enough physical memory. So you shut down swapping and windows was forced to use your physical memory. However you had to be sure that you had enough physical memory to handle all your needs, or you would crash.

More to the list...

[glimmy]

An interesting choice for the article since it is a summary of an engadet summary of this article, and here is more of supposedly the leaked list.

I've done it since Win3.1

[khasim]

And ever since Win3.1 I've been complaining about variable sized swap files. Come on, Bill!

There's nothing to it. Just save some of the drive space when you install (this is a problem with some "recovery CD's" that grab everything) and format it later. Then add a swap file to it and set the swap file on C:\ to 0 bytes. Reboot and it's set.

This is indeed a mystery. Even back in the 1970's you could designate a device to use for the swap file and it was pre-extended. You even had the option to place it on the middle cylinders of a disk so it was, on average, faster to access.

Do you ever notice that we seem to be re-inventing everything we've learned before? I'd prefer to put the swap drive as close to the outer sectors as possible. That's a bitch with Windows. So it ends up on the inner sectors. I sacrifice speed to reduce fragmentation. But seeing as how the speed would be awful anyway (RAM swapping to even the fastest drive sucks rocks), I'm not bothered by it.

How about a user wishlist?

[webmaster404]

How about a user wishlist? I would probably be using Vista instead of Ubuntu if it had these things that will probably never make it into any of the Vista service packs nor Windows 7

1. A decent license, now open-sourcing Windows would be excellent but just having it under a "you bought the copy now do whatever you want with it" would be a ton better then the usual "Microsoft owns your computer" And that is one of the reasons I switched to Linux

2. Good speed. I shouldn't need 4 Gigs of RAM just to get halfway decent performance out of my operating system, 512 MB should be fast enough and at 2 gigs it should have all the power needed for anything other then heavy gaming and major video editing

3. Non-Fragmenting filesystem, Seriously, when there is file systems on Linux that never have to be de-fragmented that have been there since at least 2000, why can't Windows in 2006 not have it?

4. Acceptance of other operating systems other then Windows. When Windows can't open up simple, free open standards by default such as .ogg, .tar and .pdf without the aid of third-party software that is just stupidity. MS needs to realize that they don't have a monopoly and that the rest of the OS world outside of MS use those and they are gaining while MS is loosing.

5. Security without annoyances. Seriously, what is up with UAC. So now I need to click a dialog box whenever I want to run a binary from a CD-ROM??? When I clicked on it? On Ubuntu on an under-privileged account, I don't even hardly need to type my password for anything other then major system work such as installing software or changing accounts and even then it keeps it for a bit so every time I don't need to enter it.

Its time for MS to start listing to people and make a halfway decent OS, otherwise there will be more people like me switching to Linux or OS-X.

WHY?

[MBCook]

Can I just ask: why?

I understand backing this up. My question is: why in the world does this belong in the OS? Shouldn't it be a little program that I run once in a while (perhaps in a cron job type thing)? Or a service that does the same thing? How about a service that responds to requests from the 360 and backs the files up?

Why isn't this out now?

And are we sure the 360 will still be used when Windows Whatever comes out?

Bloat bloat bloat bloat...

Re:Who cares?

[nine-times]

I care what Microsoft does on various levels. I'm not a Microsoft fan and I think Vista is a disaster, but honestly, I would *love* for Microsoft to come out with a great new OS. I'm the sort of guy who likes good software wherever it comes from.

On the other hand, I don't care about wishlists or press releases. I also don't think that Windows can continue to compete if they keep doing what they're doing. Some key things that Windows absolutely has to do if I'm going to continue using it in the future:

• Drop activation. At the very least, go back to offering a corporate version which doesn't require activation. Activation makes it hard to manage lots of machines, image them, and I don't need my computer going into "reduced functionality" because of an error".
• Improve imagine support and booting from external drives. For a model to copy, watch how easy it is for someone to copy their whole OSX install to an external USB drive using Carbon Copy Cloner, and then to immediately reboot and run the copy on the USB drive, or boot that USB drive on *any* Mac without needing to reconfigure anything or install drivers.
• better interoperability with Unix/Linux/OSX.

That's the bare minimum that Microsoft can do before I'll even look at them again.

Short and sweet personal wishlist

[Guppy06]

More service packs for Windows 2000.

Really, that's all I could possibly want. I've got a Vista, an XP and a 2k box, and I have to say that that also happens to be the order that they give me headaches in, from most to least. In fact, it had been a while since I touched my 2k box, and upon recently turning it on I was surprised at how fast and smoothly it worked compared to XP; I had gotten used to the crippling XP bloat in the meantime and had forgotten the advantages.

Vista, on the other hand, actually introduces driver problems when I try to install it on the XP box, whether as a clean install or an upgrade. USB ports that worked fine stop functioning, and two television tuners magically turn into one.

Forget the bells and whistles. For a brief, brilliant instant, everything fell into place and worked as it was supposed to. But then XP and new versions of WMP came out and it seems to have gone downhill since. Heck, I'm finding myself wondering of NT4 gave me as many issues, was as finicky as Vista.

How about Microsoft address some of this stuff!

[AbRASiON]

First off, this post and my subsequent replies, my "general whinge with the OS"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=304745&cid=20695969

Then in a little bit more detail
(crosspost of a post I made on a forum not more than 24 hours ago, I finally documented precisely why Vista Explorer shits me to tears)
Warning: Bad language ahead.

Why does Windows Vista insist on a startup sound, despite me disabling all sounds, they are turned off but it does one at startup, I like quiet and what if I don't want to wake people up?

I've been meaning to make this post for a while, I may have railed on Vista for performance problems, specifically in Crysis, you do need to give a new operating system a 'pass' for a while, let it settle in (it's nearly been a year though!!!)

My beef still sits with Windows Explorer, something I use daily, a lot at work and home, I need it clean, simple and easy to get data into my face as quick as possible so I can react as quickly as possible (yes, I sorry to big note but I am, *that* quick on the keyboard and when working with files)

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/argh01.jpg
Apply to all folders won't let me save the options for "Computer" (My Computer) or Desktop, this is annoying.
also, fuck the breadcrumbs bar, in the ASSSSS

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/argh02.jpg
That motherfucker 'task pane' which is taking space up from my damn explorer view.
Sure, I found some website suggesting I shrink the size of it (yay) but I can still accidentally click the bastard, plus it still looks messy.

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/argh03.jpg
Mofo! I accidentally clicked it, see explanation of why it eats babies in the JPG itself.

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/whywhy01.jpg
Those little box pluses, I like them, why take them away? It's confusing and slowing down the amount of data I can take in per 'scene' I need info and you're witholding it, just so you can pretend you're neater than you actually are.

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/whywhy02.jpg
Ahh my boxes are back, this is good, also more cluttered shit.

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/wtf01.jpg
You call this a save as dialogue box?
I hit shift tab twice (yes, I do often, try it people) to navigate quickly to where I normally would on XP.
I slap backspace like 10 times fast, this should ensure I'm at desktop, almost instantly (shift tab x2 and backspace x10 takes me 1 second)
Does it work? no, of course it doesn't you breadcrumb whores.

soooo I hit browse

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/wtf02.jpg oh oh
Hot jesus, make the fucking hurting stop!
This is one of the best reasons WHY I can't deal, look at it, just look and tell me that's simple, quick and easy to work with?
This picture alone is why osx is going to gain some serious marketshare in the next 5 years.

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/shambles01.jpg
This one is a lot more subtle, this is the kind of cluttered stuff that's hard for anyone to notice is cluttered unless you analyse it.
You'll need to see all 3 JPGS to understand where I'm going with this.
Maybe I should've got into UI design? Maybe I should be a minimalist linux nerd but damnit that screams messy and awkward to me:/
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/shambles01a.jpg
Same picture, without t

Re:The company logic

[FooBarWidget]

"Remains to be seen"? Oh no.

I spent several months optimizing Ruby's garbage collector to be copy-on-write friendly, so that I can save more memory in my Ruby on Rails applications. I did this because I didn't want to spend an additional $14 per month (or a one-time payment of $150) for 1 GB more RAM in my server.
I spent at least 40 hours in research and development. If I had a fulltime job that pays $12 per hour, then I would have $480. It's obvious that hardware *is* cheaper than developer time.

Re:No, you're wrong

[Bert64]

Linux will also use the swap partition even if you already have 4GB ram and no support for PAE... Never bothered to work out how or why it does that. I don't think all your swap gets mmap'd tho, so it doesn't need available address space. Each process has its own private address space, and swap is used as/when.

Also having your swap on a seperate partition should at least remove the overhead of filesystem calls. It also eliminates any chance of fragmentation and lets you put it anywhere on the drive...

Linux also lets you define a priority for your swap partitions, if you set them all the same then it will effectively stripe the swap usage across your multiple partitions. I have a system with swap spread over 3 seperate physical disks.

Re:Lets not cast stones

[cp.tar]

Granted, Vista is an absolute PIG. But...

I remember running Windows 95 on a 100mhz system with 8mb of ram. The thing installed off 13 floppy disks, took up about 50mb of hd space, and considering the specs of the system, ran very well. If that's not a lean OS I don't know what is.

I remember installing Win95 on my mother's business 386 with 8 MB RAM.

From the 13 or so floppies, of course, since CD-ROM drives were a) expensive, b) unnecessary for such computers and c) expensive.

It was anything but lean.
It took quite a while to boot, paged all the time and was quite horrible in every aspect.
And that was on a configuration better than the minimal one.

Say what you want about Microsoft, but try running a modern Linux distro with KDE or Gnome on an older Machine (800mhz, 256mb) and let me know if it beats out XP in speed and responsiveness.

As it happens, I am running two such machines in the students' club. One is my own, the other belongs to the club.

My machine is a Duron 600, with 512 MB RAM (though I only added it two weeks ago; it used to have 256 MB), running Gentoo with Gnome, KDE, E17 - you name it.

The other machine is a Celeron 600, with 256 MB RAM (also upgraded recently from 128 MB), with a fresh install of WinXP SP2.

And yes, it is a pig, though a part of it may well be due to AVG Free Antivirus.
Scrolling in Firefox looks like stop-motion; everything is so. damn. slow.

Also, even when logging in into the pig that is Gnome, you still get a much more responsive and, yes, faster experience on the Linux machine.

Now I'm thinking about installing gOS on the Linux machine as it is bound to make it even more responsive, and with all the users, I'm running out of space for recompiles of major software items like KDE and Gnome. I just don't feel like investing more money in extra disk space.

For an even better setup, install Win2k on it, which even today will do everything you could possibly require, and it will run circles around modern Linux desktop environments.

Wrong again.

The Windows machine had Win2k installed until the memory upgrade and system reinstall.

And it was slow. Painfully slow.

Granted, I had no administrator rights on the machine back then, so I don't know what all was on the system, but it was painfully slow.
Not as slow as XP SP2, though.

The days of Linux being lean and mean are long gone, and suffers from the same "add more memory, better cpu, bigger hard drive" philosophy for every major release just as Microsoft does. When you compare similar functionally between the two, Microsoft always came on top, but then Vista happened.

While I do agree that Linux is not so lean and mean as before, my experience shows that on comparable machines it will still run circles around Windows.