What Do You Think Windows Version 7/Vienna Will Look Like?
Of course, Microsoft has kept secret every and any details regarding their new operating system known as both Windows 7 and Vienna, of which more can be found out, here. The question arises however, what features should it have? What improvements NEED to be made? Hopefully, Windows’ security problems will be dealt with by then, which I doubt sincerely.
Personally, I feel a new interface will be inevitable, with perhaps a slight adjustment to the RAM-eating operating system Windows vista has turned out to be. “They don’t want to commit because they don’t have a good idea what’s in it,” said Michael Silver, an analyst with Gartner Inc. “We’re three years out, so you can’t really expect that much detail.”
What changes do you think need to be made to Vista? What do you think Windows 7 could or should possibly hold?
Get the latest news in our RSS Feed, Newsletter or follow us on Twitter.
I think Microsoft should complete the transition, and make it look like a Mac.
Yeah, with the the widgets and smooth interface, windows vienna will most definitaley look like a Mac operating system. I can almost guarantee it.
Hi
I think they should make Windows 7 a modular OS. Ensure 2-4 feature upgrades IE: Multimedia etc.
They should be able to produce a base system that will be secure and stable enough for business and home users to use without all the havey hardware requirements.
If you want the fancy stuff….you pay extra for it…and get it.
I think the new Windows FS that was promised for Vista should be incorporated into Server 2008, nevermind Vienna…
NTFS was great for NT/2000, but the file system is not enough for the current security concious world.
That and some cool gadgets too!
If Microsoft really wants Windows to be more Mac-like, it should rip off Linux like Apple does. Personally, I hope “Vienna” will lose or alter the Aero Glass interface. I think too many of its elements look like cheap shiny plastic. The same goes for OS X. I’d really like to see some choice in (un)installing “features” like Media Center, Windows Mail, and IE. We all know /that/ ain’t going to happen any time soon.
The way things are going, I think my next operating system is going to look a lot like Linux.
cheers,
Gard
I am ready for slick. I want to be very impressed (think outside the bun!). If so, I will imediately upgrade.
When you talk about a new version of an operating system, one should differentiate between features, functions, and security, plus more, which we can not anticipate.
That said; let me try to explain what I would like to see in the next version of Windows:
=== No backward compatibility. Start fresh. Look forward.
=== Redesign the registry; assess its utility. If you keep it, make it “bulletproof”, from rootkits and other malware.
=== Integrate Virtualization which might be preferred to System Restore. I want the physical OS protected, while I use the virtual OS. (Just a question: Does Linux have virtualization? Apple-Mac?)
=== Continue to improve User types. Most of the family in my house use the “Guest” account, even though they live here.
=== Make home networking simpler.
=== Support the ISPs efforts to thwart piracy, phishing, netbots and other malware with better server software.
Please, please, bring back “filmstrip’ It was the best thing in XP. Indispensablewhen you come from the field with 1000 digital shots top sort through, it is the best thing going to rapidly find, discard or save shots of an event.
I think it should have a “mode” feature, that allows it to act/do/and be as any of the “popular” former Windows, so that people that are used to “Old Windows” can still use it and not wonder where everything is, and suffer the “lag” or “learn term” / “learning curve” and people that like to see “New Windows” can play around and see what it does. That way it get’s the best of all worlds, and people will purchase it since it’s just like before, but “more stable” and supported for years to come. A FAST system that doesn’t require a lot of resources, but if a program requires it, allows shutdown of various background programs, like,, all but necessary.. Simple stuff.
A lot of people suffer learning curves just getting a computer, and then to have to suffer learning a new OS, is a stressful and hindering block that probably stops and slows sales of a “New Product”, when the old one seemed to work fine. So , make it able to do what ever, but make it able to revert to it’s comfort zone, and allow the user to explore new features at a pace, rather than force feed people “new”, give them “choice”..
Also, if you want to give it that extra kick, allow it to be an “EXCLUSIVE” point of entry into a new internet protocol, that is “child safe” that has no pornography, which would remove the need for “securty settings”… Maybe one exclusive to Business or corperate sites,, that can not be connected to by any other means, but by the New Windows.
There, that should make someone a paycheck.. But where’s mine?
What Vienna will look like and what I would like it to look like are going to be poles apart.
I would like it to be a minimalist OS with a good visual presentation. At install time you should have an option to customise from minimum OS. Add any options, start with fonts Arial, Times New Roman, Courier New. Include networking or not, IE or not, OE or not, more than one KB, more than one language. All the sort of things that I slipstream into my configuration of XP and more. Let have back a fast OS that doesn’t need all the bells and whistles that the marketing guys say we need. I don’t want Linux with the opportunity to build it myself, I want a consumer product I can choose what facilities to include. No compromises on security, no third party drivers without certification, all APIs published so software vendors were on a level playing field with MS.
Split MS into two like AT&T was to separate OS from Applications.
I echo the calls above for more modularity - and the depression (?) that we aren’t going to get it.
An alternative would be to install every last bell and whistle that “they” (?) think we need - but then give us FULL control, so we can turn them all off.
Something I’d like would be configuration and software portability: I’d like to be able to carry, probably on a USB drive, both my preferred settings for the OS, and all my favourite software _and its settings_. The idea being that I could plug it into any PC running Windows Salzburg (or whatever), and have it come up how I am used to it, with access to my software, also running how I like. (I’m _not_ trying to avoid paying for the software - I wouldn’t expect it to let me use it on more than one PC at a time.)
The idea here is to isolate how the software (that _I_ want to run) runs, from the hardware and drivers needed: possibly some sort of portable registry, though I agree with the comment above that (implied that) the registry has had its day.
I also think that the suggestion of having a “be like any old Windows” option is great - though I don’t think it will happen: the view that we _have_ to use the newest seems to prevail. (And yes I know about “Classic” settings - they’re usually well hidden, only a partial imitation, and only allow one step back if that.)
It will look and function just like xp. Xp does everything that a normal user needs. There doesn’t need to be a replacement for it. That’s why not many I.T. shops are moving their orgs over to vista. Too many problems.
L.D.
Bloated! And we will probably have to wait for the next version of the Mac OS before we get a better idea what the next Windows will look like.
ACtually would be nice if you could put ou a LESS restrictive version, that doe snot memory hog, to run, you keep adding on things that I and a few others keep trying to remve, the program forces you to more memory, fine the heck with you, you keep this up, I DONT need you, I CAN go else where, Linux works just fine… and does NOT memmory hog your ass all over the place
I thought of another fix/feature. Though I know Windows is marketed towards the business community, no one can deny it is used for media that (in some cases) may be for a business but, usually visual/audio editing for the home user. I notice that installing various softwares that work in the same task areas, sometimes conflict with each other. Whether this is a vender exploit or a by “chance” experience, it is most troubling that Windows requires a default program for any specific task. Though it is understandable for a “default” program for Windows to recognize an execution, there should be a means by which one program never conflicts with the other, since some vendors offer features that another does not. Installing a competitors software should not be a battlefield on my or any other customers system, after they pay for software, despite “end user aggreements” which make them, “virtually immune” to any penalty, other than blogged complaints. Each program should or could have a virtual isolated platform that they run on, so that conflicts of dll / codex and other resources don’t become apposed to your running software that resembles and uses the same settings as a rival / competitors version of same type software.
I could name said vendors, but, could go on and on about it too. It’s frustrating to learn a program, discover it’s limitations, install another program of same properties, and then discover that my previous program, doesn’t work any more,, or crashes or hangs..
How about *useful* stuff like:
+ Getting rid once and for all of the file “path\name” length limitation of 255 characters… Make that either unlimited or else an extremely large number.
+ Shortcuts that will always keep track of the original file no matter what, transparently, and being notified (if so desired) that such and such shortcuts will automatically go to the recycle bin whenever one attempts to put the original file there.
+ Improve the uninstallation of applications so as to make sure every file, folder and registry entries associated with the uninstalled application are properly deleted. In the case of registry entries pertaining to file extentions: if entries for default actions existed before the uninstalled application was installed, the OS would intelligently restore the affected entries to point to some earlier (or later) valid action string transparently. For example, installing Photoshop would (in particular) capture the “.BMP” file extension. Uninstalling Photoshop would get the file extension recaptured by PAINT. Another example: Installing Paint Shop would capture .BMP from PAINT; then installing Photoshop would capture .BMP from Paint Shop; Then, uninstalling Paint Shop would leave .BMP associated with Photoshop, and whenever Photoshop is later uninstalled, PAINT would recapture the .BMP file extension.
+ Like someone else suggested, have virtualization capabilities fully built into the new OS, enabling one to run either the new OS or any past one(s) for which the user has a valid license. One should also be able to concurrently run as many virtual machines as they wish. Adding the capability for any virtualized OS to use selected virtualized parts of the host OS (Windows 7) or applications (in particular the host’s hardware drivers) should take care of the “UI choice” feature that a few persons have suggested. By extension, this would enable one to have their currently installed host’s antimalware, software firewall, file system or service (+ whatever), just to name those four (or five), be selectively virtualized in the old OS through the use of some sort or virtualization wrapper to ensure compatibility.
… These are only a few examples of things that could be done regardless of the *look* of the UI in the new OS.
I think they should first expend their efforts on adding/changing useful stuff that the increasingly faster/bigger hardware allows, and only then change the UI if necessary to support the new/changed functionality, or if the UI can be made better in terms or usability, not for the sake of “eyecandyness” alone.
I think that they should give multiple desktops like linux does. When I first tried Linux and saw that you could run three programs on one desktop, hit one icon on the bottom of the screen and be switched to a clean desktop, while still running the other programs. WOW! It would also be nice if it was more open; instead of creating proprietary non-standard standards, publish the standards for all programmers (pro and amature) can write programs for it.
To follow up on Dennis D:
Yes, the path name limitation is a pain, for anyone who organises their data in any way other than thousands of files in the one directory (as is increasingly necessary on today’s huge drives and other storage).
The shortcuts suggestion is genius (and well overdue).
Uninstallation/registry: I think the registry has reached the end of its usefulness; if it _must_ be kept, there should be some mechanism by which the application (or whatever) to which any part relates should be immediately obvious. In particular, those long meaningless strings of hexadecimal should be banned - even for legacy applications.
The rollback of file associations is also well overdue. What is more, new software “taking over” an extension should _always_ involve user acquiescence (even if ticked by default), and also icons should be agreed _separately_ - I know someone who opens most image and movie files with just two applications, but likes to see them shown with different icons - which he then curses whenever he installs/upgrades, because they all become the same icon.
The old-windows virtualisation requiring the user to have a licence for the older versions, I do not agree with.
However, I fear that nearly all of the things asked for so far in this thread are useful tweaks (or more than tweaks) that existing and fairly experienced users would appreciate; the call to have them before UI changes (including, but not only, “eye candy”), will have no effect, because there’s still some feel in the powers that be that they have to attract people who haven’t used a computer before (or haven’t much), and tht if the look doesn’t change, they won’t. What proportion of the world (that has any money) this covers would be interesting to know (to Microsoft too, I’m sure).
I don’t care what it looks like as long as the get rid of the registry. It’s got to be the source of more problems than anything else MS has ever thought up.
I’m SO fed up with the continuous “JUNK” coming out of M$crosoft! XP works fine! I think they should focus on making XP function in a more user friendly manner. Fix the darn bugs, continue with their bug updates, lay off all the lard trying to reinvent the operating system for money’s sake (and screwing it up in the process). If M$crosoft just focused on making XP a really outstanding product, I would consider paying a yearly fee (Reasonable) to keep them working! But I know they wont. I will hang on to XP till the very end! Maybe by then, their will be a nice cottage industry that provides support for that old XP that people just wont let go of! I will convert this workstation to Linux before buying that retched VISTA DRM demon monster! NO-WAY! I just hope that Pro/E and Autocad will port to Linux. If they did, I would junk M$crosoft in a heart beat.
My only hope is that now that the European Union has said no to M$crosoft in favor of Linux, More software providers will port over to what ever version of Linux they settle on. Then, that’s the one I will move to. I’m sick of short sighted greedy M$crosoft grinding to line the corporate purse with nothing but grief for the customers. I can see it now: No more operating system! We are all “Dumb Terminals” logging on to the M$crosoft servers to boot. All software and access will be billed or pre-billed monthly. No pay? No PC! Not even local operation. Ugh!
What I want is an OS with a fast kernel, the way i liked it on BeOS. I don’t care about see through windows, widgets, gadgets and all that other stuff eating away processing power and memory. I don’t need security on file level, it’s an home computer NOT a coorporate computer. If it crashes I want to be able to access MY bits and bytes anytime. So give me a fast kernel and on top of that user interfaces.
OS’s are not important. An OS is just that - an OS. You don’t make money (unless your MS) or have fun with an OS.
The question should be: what kind of application(s) do I want / need? If you can answer that question, you also have the answer as what an OS should be.
But i’m affraid we have to wait for someone like Dan Bricklin (inventor of VisiCalc, the mother of all spreadsheets) to come up with software so brilliant, yet so easy, that everybody asks: why didn’t we have this before?
I _can_ tell you what I _don’t_ want in an OS: keyboard and mouse to control it. As for that, I don’t want to ‘talk’ to my computer either. I want it to read my mind and pick up what I want it to do. MS: there’s your challenge!
I have a NEW HP w/AMD 64 X2 Turion and 2 gigs of memory. The Vista Premium on it reacts and functions slower than my 32 bit 4 year old Averatec Home XP sp2 thats maybe 1.8 gig machine with 1/2 gig of memory. Also I find many abilities and intuitiveness of XP is gone. I find myself letting my wife ‘Surf’ on the Vista while I do business on the ’slow’ XP. M$ got me AGAIN!
Windows will never secure his OS, how do you want them to know you are using a copy, and what driver did you just installed, what internet provider are you using.
All ready doing updates its a weakness in security you just opened a port and they cant get in without trouble. that is same for anti virus who they create virus to sell or they use outsiders…
this new windows its like all of them, even vista booting has the same application the linux, they only copy and paste from others.
to me who create Linux are more genius, i am sure if they push linux further, we wont need windows anymore, for work or gaming…
conclusion Microsoft lost creativity, to be honnest they never had, and if they want to stop selling windows to regular user, we invite them to do so, you buy a program who bring you more trouble then good in your work.
if they dont want people to copy free, they just have to close the opening and to stop opening any ports to verify or to input file *.dll that do there work to send invisible info about what you do.