Slashdot Mirror
20 Features Windows 7 Should Include
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?
How about multiple desktops?! Native...that don't suck!
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.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
Perhaps we should look at the reason why we switched to Macs or to Linux. Lack of innovation and high prices. If MS can make a secure product, that is innovative, and affordable, I might buy it, or at least not wipe my OEM install of it. The fact though is, I don't think that MS can innovate, which is really sad.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
No, they should definitely involve marketing -- just ask them what to do and do the exact opposite
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
... ...
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.
Do not read this
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.
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
And the worms ate into his brain.
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.
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.
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.