What Do You Think Windows Version 7/Vienna Will Look Like?
Filed under: Computers, Software | By: Ryan
Posted on: July 29, 2007 | 25 Comments
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?
CLICK HERE to keep updated with the latest news, share a comment or problems with products and services. Follow us on twitter or read more news.
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.