Lets have a list of features you want in Windows 7.

Here's my wish list:

• Customisable Search (Allow me to specify my own file extentions).
• Classic Windows Look (Win 2000 LnF).
• WinFS.
• Better Dual Monitor Support.
• Better network filing support.
• Better screen reader.

What else can you add?

Less 'bloat', but hardly likely, as it will be built around Vista.......

Less $$
I like the Vista look
Dump The UAC

I seriously hate people like you who complain about such things like that. If you know what you are doing on a computer, you can easily run Windows well, with little to no slowdown. I suggest you actually try to do something or atleast use it before you go around saying its "bloated"; its just such an old and useless comment which really means "I think this is bad because it is made by Microsoft", which in itself makes no sense..

I want less crashes. Today Vista64 hung then bluescreened while running the UT3 installer - that to me is completely unacceptable. I want unresponsive apps to be completely isolated, as currently they still hang the computer. I want folder views to be remembered permanently. I want Explorer and Task Manager to take priority over all other applications and don't want them to be sluggish after closing down a demanding app. I want to be able to alt-tab / windows-tab out of an application, even a demanding game, without delay. I want Add/Remove Programs to be more responsive and not regenerate everytime it is launched. And finally... I want the Bubbles screensaver to run over the desktop in realtime and not over a snapshot.

Buy billion gigs of memory, Tyrannosaurus HD and an octocore CPU. Easy as taking a ****. No slowdowns.

A tabbed Windows Explorer!

They could easily get that to work very well, just like the way IE 7 or FF 3 deal with tabs.

I seriously hate it when I have to have so many Windows Explorer windows open.


Also, much better consistency in design throughout the OS & with Windows Live. I want my Windows Live to look like Windows - after all, it is a part of Windows otherwise it wouldn't have the name of Windows Live!

less pointless stuff, more simplification and to the point as xp was and better hardware optimization and management.

I use a lot of Microsoft products, and most are brilliant, so MS has nothing to do with my statement.

How do you know I have or have not used Vista is the question I ask? I say its 'bloated' because I have used it since early beta days, and still use it, and because my new laptop comes with the darn thing, XP is not an option due to lack of driver support, unfortunately. I'll live with it, its not the end of the world, but in all the tweaks and stripping down of Vista that I have performed, in testing, and in real life usage, day to day, its the most bloated, resource hungry software I have ever ran......PERIOD!

Sorry if that offends you, and more sorry its actually made by Microsoft.

S.

dont you mean support Dual monitors?

What do you mean? Windows already supports multi-mon. Has since Win98.

* Less bloat -- Get rid of legacy files and code that isn't needed or used 99% of the time anymore.
* Modular Installer where you can pick and choose which features to install ala nLite or vLite
* Better UI consistancy especially in the control panel where some windows open up in the new vista format and some are the old style dialog boxes
* Several new built in visual styles to choose from including Aero, Luna, Royale, Classic and one or two new ones
* Allows unsigned themes out of the box
* 64-bit Only (Yes I know this isn't going to happen)
* One "Ultimate" version of Windows 7 only for a reasonable price (no more than $200 for a full retail version, $100 for oem, $150 for upgrade) going along with the modular installer idea
* Upgraded Notepad, Wordpad with at least read only support for the new .docx format and possibly integrate Paint.Net
* Tabbed Explorer option along with more UI Customization
* More out of the box customization of Windows in Control Panel similar to TweakUI or the many windows tweaking programs out there
* Built in ISO Mounting "Virtual" Drive support

I'm pretty happy with Vista it must be said but off my head I still fins anything related to moving files slow at times even after SP1.

I'd also like to see some really smooth way to synchronise data between multiple networked computers so people who have a laptop can have it auto sync with their desktop.

Windows 3.11 with all of Vista/7/etc features.

Complete rework of the threading. Today I couldn't figure out why my computer wasn't responding, then I realized my Pocket PC stuck in an endless CPU loop and was still connected via activesync. Why should that hang the system? WHY?!

Not to happy about all explorer and desktop windows hanging when inserting a CD.

I'm skipping Vista unless I am forced to use it for work (unlikely), but if I have to use it you can bet I will strip it down to the absolute minimal config I need or use 2007 Server.

64-bit is still not practical in a home environment. The only real 64-bit systems I have used with good results are servers, and that doesn't help a gamer.

You could do that right now...


I think his point was that support is so horrible right now it's barely usable, and I have to agree to some extent.

I'd really love to see Windows natively support stretching the taskbar across (and each taskbar holding whatever windows are on that screen), as well as better wallpaper management on multi-mons.

yeh it does, but tbh to me it supporting features lack somewhat, teh OS doesnt puta taskbar on the other monitor, i have to run a separate program to give the the 2nd taskbar.

also media centre when it is in fullscreen, it locks your mouse onto one screen, so i carnt use IRC on one screen and media centre on another.

ste

Best shown in screenshots, I want Windows 7 to have...


'Spaces'


Text / Information customization


Live Preview of documents


Cool screensavers like Arabesque in OS X 10.5

One wish...

Change the name "Windows 7" to my name...

@ zerologic - so you basically want windows 7 to have OSX integrated

I wish people would stop talking about something which is so far away.

More options in Explorer!
Better control over how the OS looks (So many toolbars and boxes in Vista that cant be removed)
Get rid of the translucent boxes that cover icons when you move your mouse over them!

Basically have the option to have a professional detailed view and not the type of user interface you get on a photo printing machine in the supermarket

Well, OS X has a great Interface, Microsoft could learn a lot from Apple.

Also Microsoft should expact the 'breadcrumb' idea into something like this from Apple (Column View):

Also. The invisible 'Grid' that Icons are aligned to in Windows. It should be easier to change the grid layout size.

Plus. Add the 'Recycle Bin' onto the Taskbar.

Eww. Spaces. The Compiz Fusion implementation of multi desktops is way better.

EDIT: I would like to see a Windows mode I can run that's really lightweight, but still runs programs fine. No Aero, no extra apps, no sidebar, just the bare minimum.

MS is toying with the idea of a late 2009 release. Thats only next year. Sure thats a bit but it isn't THAT long.

I'm not familiar with Compiz Fusion. Is that the spinning 3d cube?

I think Windows needs something useful unlike Flip 3d which is just a silly gimmick.

Yeah, drag a window to the side and keep going to put it onto another face of the cube. Hold Ctrl-Alt and the left mouse button to freely move the cube around with your mouse. Hold Ctrl-Alt and push an arrow key to go to the next face in that direction. See all faces of the cube and jump to faces with an object that sits in your GNOME panel (or KDE bar or whatever). Flashing/alerted windows will show up on the task bar of every face, allowing for easy access.

It's fantastic and really intuitive. It's a great example of an area where Linux is way ahead of Windows/Mac OS.

They should do what Apple did and get rid of their old kernel and use some variant of Unix as the base. This would speed things up hugely, improve security and stability, and get more out of hardware.

Then they should copy all the good ideas from Mac and Linux (everyone copies others' ideas) and improve upon them (everyone copies others' ideas and usually improves upon them).

They could go open source: develop the Windows desktop to sit on top of the Linux kernel (this is probably one of the many things they do in their research labs anyway for testing purposes).

more advanced install, i want to choose which things i want to install, i never use netmeeting, sytem restore, messenger, moviemaker, remote assistance, built in firewall, WindowsMediaPlayer, etc.

better UI consistency

more control over applications causing crashes/"freezing" i don't want games, programmes, etc forcing me to restart my pc because they froze.(which in some cases results in f***** up windows install)

i want to see a windows where the GUI and the kernal are seperate.

Why would I want my OS to look like iTunes lol.

i guess you don't know what a kernel is...

Maybe you don't?

Mac and Linux both have separate kernels and desktops.

Well, I don't know about you guys, but I don't want Microsoft to publish UI guidelines for Windows 7, when all they come up themselves with is this crap!!! Either be consistent in your UI Microsoft, or don't give others guidelines!!!

Only one thing (actually less things).

Better Modularity.

Give me a windows core and let me choose (even buy at individual costs) the features I want.

Let me buy windows and if I so desire buy the multimedia pack (include DVD creator, etc) or buy the infrastructure pack (include active directory, roaming profiles, etc) or buy the "desktop experience" pack (include additional functionality for the GUI) my list of things to exclude could go on but I thing you get the idea...

As does Windows. The GUI and the kernel are completely separate. It would be insane to execute GUI code as part of the kernel.

1. installer modularity
2. consistent GUI
3. some sort of virtual mounting support - iso
4. provide maybe 3 visual styles to work with + give tools for allowing custom visual styles
5. more desktop composition - Flip 3D was a complete waste, do simple things like different minimize or maximise effects that are different from others
6. provide only 3 versions -> Home, Business & Ultimate
7. include a few more disk management tools -> the abilty to merge partitions or unallocated space as an example
8. try to improve and cut bloat as much - making services less resource intensive
9. work with manufacturers to a greater extent, set driver quality levels and make sure sufficient support is available
10. allow Explorer to be more customized -> tabs is one example.

Sorry, mate, but in Windows the kernel and GUI cannot be separated: see here.

In Linux, BSD, Unix, Solaris, etc., the kernel is truly separate from the many desktops available (Gnome, KDE, Fluxbox, Enlightenment, etc.). Since Mac is based on BSD, it works the same: the Mac kernel and the Mac GUI are separate too. It's never been possible to do this with Windows because they always built it as an interlocked system.

• Native Multi desktop support.
• Ability to TOTALLY customise the Windows Explorer toolbar.
• Bring back the "UP LEVEL" icon in Windows Explorer.

Yeah some of it's out of hand, then again theres another way of looking at it which is "right tool for the right job". Obviously a ribbon bar makes no sense in a messenger app or a web browser for instance. Of those a few are using the same UI too (visio, notepad, outlook and visual studio) besides colours for the panes which may or may not be adjustable in the options.

Isnt this thread similar to: I will not buy Windows 7 unless it has ... *Feature*?

Anyways some things Id like:

*More performance
*Tabbed explorer
*Update all icons (look here)
*Allow for more customization of visual styles (like change color of basic style)
*Bring back the old address bar (I dont like breadcrumbs)

it's funny to see some of these requests/desires. Half the stuff i've seen so far i'm like yeah, definitely would want that some times and the the rest is like NOOOO! Some people will say why would you complain about having the option and options is what's the problem now. IF Microsoft has to build a Windows for so many different people with different uses and different systems you can expect a fair amount of crashing going on.

Imagine the support nightmare for OEMs too when you've customized your system to all hell and then the support person tells you, "Click start and then click all programs" Well where is it, i don't have a start menu cuz i've remove that option!. Ok so most of us geeks probably wouldn't call customer support in the first place but what about all those users out there that have no idea what they are doing and totally screw their machine not knowing how to get things back.

For business (IT Specialists) it makes sense to keep things simple and consistent between machines so that probably wouldn't apply there. Then again for all us geeks that would like the customizing we can do it anyways just without the support or Microsoft making it "easy" for us to do it.

I'm not exactly sure what the first one means. But we definitely have the second.

You know if you really want WinFS you can install it on your own. . I had winFS running on Windows XP three years ago when it was still in Beta. But I am almost positive you can download it and run it on Vista now. .. as far as it becoming a standard in windows 7 O doubt it.

Oddly enough, switching to a Unix foundation would have the exact opposite effect in every one of those areas.



Sweet! We've already shipped about a dozen of those, so you should be very happy



Uhh, and Windows too.



Well that is simply incorrect.

Apple had no choice but get a new kernel, the classic Mac OS series was garbage to put it nicely. No true multitasking, crashed like crazy, etc. It would compare more to the 9x line, not NT. The NT kernel is very good, it's just the junk they pile on top of it that brings Windows down. Get rid of all the flashy nonsense and resource hogging bloat and Windows 7 could be great.

WinFS doesn't exist any more as a single product, but the technologies of it are found in quite a decent handful of other MS products, many of which will be included with a default Vista install.

They pulled the plug on a dedicated WinFS release well before Vistas launch.

as for the whole GUI + kernel thing. That wikipedia article posted earlier to me doesn't read that the kernel and GUI are not separate, but rather for windows to operate you need one and the other and thus theres dependencies at the OS level (thats how I read it anyway). Whether they should open it up to allow different presentation interfaces is up to debate. I would argue no and one of the things that makes a windows machine a windows machine is the fact they are largely configured the same and at least from a business standpoint MS doesnt want to support people using 3rd party UI's nor do businesses want to train people who are accustomed to non standard ones. I'd much rather MS implemented a good UI that I can rely apon being on all WIn 7 systems than them spending resources opening that aspect of the system up.

I think that there is much confusion in this thread because of the terminology being used and mis-used in the discussion.

Just because the Microsoft GUI is mandatory, doesn't mean it is part of the kernel. So when you say that "Mac and Linux have separate kernels and desktops", it is misleading, because so does Windows. I think that Apple and Microsoft both pretty much require the GUI for most typical operation, but they have separate kernels and GUIs.

In Linux, it is probably easier to see and demonstrate the separation by firing up Ubuntu, playing music in mplayer, editing a file with vi or emacs, checking mail with mutt or pine and browsing the web with links. Then kill X and run in TTY mode (runlevel 3) and do the same things. Play music in mplayer, edit a file with vi....

I think that clearing up the terminology will help. A GUI that is a required part of install does not mean it is part of the kernel.

I wish Microsoft include more previews by default. Vista doesn't show TXT, HTML, PDF or even Office(Doc, Xls etc.) previews in default config. While there might be some Adobe bitching for including PDF, I don't see a reason why TXT or Office formats are missing. One possible explanation for Office is - Office team doesn't want you to see previews unless you have Office installed. Still doesn't explain TXT or HTML.