I will not buy Windows 7 unless it has ... *Feature*

[toadeater]

I would like for the next version of WinOS, to removed or have an option to be installed, all the components elements.

That's my primary gripe. MS discourages the use of third party software, which is better than the mediocre bundled junk and legacy services support MS ships with its kernels. This stuff shouldn't be installed by default, and it shouldn't be tied to the kernel.

This isn't some irrational hatred I have of MS, I don't like KDE for the same reason--too bloated. Users should have the option of how they want to customize their systems, and the OS shouldn't try to sabotage or limit their choices.

[Aldur82]

windows 7 should not order folder contents according to what it thinks its best.

If i decide that i like viewing avi's in a list, each time i visit a folder with avi's they should be in a list. They should not appear as thumbnails or anything else. All ms os's to date including vista lay out folder contents the way they want, not the way i - the user want. Its so annoying to have to go in each time and set the view accordingly.

Ridiculous.

Once you've set the choice for that folder, hold down the left 'Ctrl' (Control) key, and click on the 'X' to close the window. It will save the settings for that folder.

Not sure if someone will have already posted this little nugget of info, but I'm not reading through 3-4 pages to find out.

[Mathachew Veteran]

I'd really like to see:

• Automatic defragmentation tool.
  

Vista already does this apparently: http://www.worldstart.com/tips/tips.php/4455

[Watters]

Correct, Windows Vista appears to defragment in real-time. Anyone runnning windows can open up the task manager and see the process running for the windos defragmenter.

[sweetsam]

It would be nice to setup the gui based on novice, power user, system admin. Better UAC. For God's sake stop asking for permission for silly things atleast things that will not make changes in the system. Things that can be set up to require permission -

Driver Installation

Modification of system files

Installation of programs

Chage of startup items (Addition/deletion)

Items that should not require persmission -

Looking at task manager, device manager, windows update etc.

[Internet]

yeah but that will unconditionally set all folder views to the view type i have chosen for that folder, i want to selectively choose how to view certain filetypes, eg i like viewing music as tiles, images as thumbnails, videos as a list, etc...

windows should accept what i have chosen and not revert back to what it thinks is best every time.

and if there is a mix? yeah didn't think that one through did ya.

[Linkinfamous]

It would be nice to setup the gui based on novice, power user, system admin. Better UAC. For God's sake stop asking for permission for silly things atleast things that will not make changes in the system. Things that can be set up to require permission -

Driver Installation

Modification of system files

Installation of programs

Chage of startup items (Addition/deletion)

Items that should not require persmission -

Looking at task manager, device manager, windows update etc.

I disagree on the Windows Update thing. Keep it behind a UAC prompt. You shouldn't have access to install that kind of stuff on your system without elevation.

As for the task manager, you shouldn't be able to play around with higher integrity-level processes, or processes you don't have access to without elevation (Hence the UAC prompt) or the entire system would be worthless. Perhaps showing the processes, maybe grayed out, or with an asterick or something, but not allowing you to end them until you restart the task manager as elevated.

As for the device manager, I partially agree. Viewing the list shouldn't require Admin privileges. In fact, you can get all of that info without elevation (Pulling win32_pnpentity from WMI seems to do the trick. You don't need anything above "User" to do that.) However, obviously making changes does.

Edited February 2, 2008 by MioTheGreat

[tetrahedron]

I want windows 7 to be like Microsoft Bob.. but updated to be newer and flashier looking, with the ability to choose the breed and color of the dog :)

[waruikoohii]

Items that should not require persmission -

Looking at task manager, device manager, windows update etc.

The beautiful thing is, none of those things require permission. Task Manager shows and gives control over processes other than your own if you elevate, but it works without elevation.

Device Manager doesn't let you change anything without elevation (thank god), but you can look at it.

Windows Update lets you check for updates without elevation. Installing updates requires elevation (again, thank god).

I don't want any rogue process running as me changing system settings or installing/removing devices.

As for Windows Update, if that didn't require elevation, then any process running as me could install things to the system folder. That would be bad.

What possible reason could you have to want WinFS? WinFS isn't a feature. It was a technology that didn't work and wasn't useful. We already have most of the features that were going to be powered by WinFS.

You don't want WinFS. You may think you do, but trust me, you don't.

The problem is that most people don't know what WinFS is. This thread is a fantastic example of that.

But it sounds cool, and everyone seems to think it's an amazing file system, so they jump on the band wagon. It's pretty funny to watch, actually, when you think about it.

[1Frothy]

So I think UAC needs work.

Here is what I would do. An application that needs user elevation should just itself be blocked from execution not blocking the whole desktop and the whole Windows experience just to get the users attention. To me it's wrong to stop work happening on my desktop just because 1 application needs elevation.

[dysmatik]

....lower hardware requirements.

[Minifig]

I want to see something I doubt Microsoft will even be able to do.

----

I want a single disc, single install, two different boot processes.

One for DX9.0 C through Zed support, and one for DX10 support.

That way you don't have to have two different installs on your system of the same OS.

--

Edit:

To take it even further:

I'd like to be able to have both of these processes recognize software from the drive and run it according to what system mode you're running in.

For example: If you have a game that supports both DX9.0C-Zed and DX10, you'd be able to install it on your drive and when you get to the boot selection menu, it'll say OH, He's running DX9.0C through Zed, so it'll run in DX9.0C through Zed, but if you run it on the DX10 process it'll initialize everything that DX10 brings to gaming, all on one hard drive, and the shortcuts and everything else would run just like a normal windows shortcut.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Andrew-DB

[1Frothy]

....lower hardware requirements.

Than what? Windows XP, Windows Vista?

Keep in mind Windows 7 isn't due to be released until maybe 2010, do you expect an operating system in 2010 to work super fast on a single core Pentium 4? I have a feeling that isn't really realistic.

[Mathachew Veteran]

....lower hardware requirements.

That's what Linux is for, those old PIIs you have lying around.

[fcuknaphobia_1]

The entire platform was built in a more flash like factor as is OS X. I think it would run smoother and i dunno.. windows is jus really bloated and i dunnno i just wish it resembled MAc OS x more.

[1Frothy]

The entire platform was built in a more flash like factor as is OS X. I think it would run smoother and i dunno.. windows is jus really bloated and i dunnno i just wish it resembled MAc OS x more.

Mac OS X 10.5 comes on a dual layer ~8.54GB Disc, Windows Vista comes on a single layer ~4.7GB Disc. So which operating system is 'bloated' again?

As far as the looks of OS X 10.5 and Vista, I use both and I think they both have advantages but IMHO neither is perfect.

[xfodder]

there needs to be only 2 versions of windows ! a client and a server ... do away with all this ultimate and home premium ****

[S7un7]

SkiFree.............

[Mathachew Veteran]

there needs to be only 2 versions of windows ! a client and a server ... do away with all this ultimate and home premium ****

Now that is something I think we can all agree on. Simplify the release versions.

[drbobiii]

It already works exactly how you want it to. The "Apply to Folders" button applies to all folders of that type. So if you're in a music folder, you set it up the way you want, then click Apply To Folders and it makes all "music" folders look that way. Then you can go to an image folder, and do the same thing.

Otherwise if you change an individual folder and don't use Apply To Folders, Explorer remembers for that folder.

That is how it is intended to work, yes. However, I recall at least one large thread on these forums where Vista users gave their experiences with Explorer continually failing to temember view preferences or arbitralily choosing unwanted view settings for folders.

Edit: ...Myself included, on several different Vista installations.

[Digitalx]

dear microsoft,

Please buy linux instead of yahoo. It'll pay off more.

Thanks,

Digi.

lmao jk

[cropcircles]

Folder views might actually hold.

[remix17]

The ability to select basic or advanced installation... please!

a. Basic mode: about the same way Vista is installed, the most quick/unattended installation possible

b. Advanced mode: you can select every component you want to install, every service you want to activate, with a few recommended settings: preset for office, preset for gaming... Another method could be Windows 7 ask you... but maybe is more tedious.

(Y)

[Brandon Live Veteran]

So I think UAC needs work.

Here is what I would do. An application that needs user elevation should just itself be blocked from execution not blocking the whole desktop and the whole Windows experience just to get the users attention. To me it's wrong to stop work happening on my desktop just because 1 application needs elevation.

First of all, the desktop isn't blocked "to get your attention." The blocking of other applications is a side-effect, not the intended functionality. The feature is called Secure Desktop. It displays the consent dialog literally on another desktop so that windows and processes in the user's desktop cannot manipulate the screen on which the consent dialog is shown. If they could, there are a variety of attacks that could be carried out against it.

Second, you can actually get the behavior you desire by disabling the Secure Desktop switch. It's an option in secpol.msc

The problem is that most people don't know what WinFS is. This thread is a fantastic example of that.

But it sounds cool, and everyone seems to think it's an amazing file system

But it wasn't even a file system (at least not in the sense that NTFS and ext3 are file systems). Despite what some seem tot hink, the FS in WinFS never stood for "file system."

[1Frothy]

First of all, the desktop isn't blocked "to get your attention." The blocking of other applications is a side-effect, not the intended functionality. The feature is called Secure Desktop. It displays the consent dialog literally on another desktop so that windows and processes in the user's desktop cannot manipulate the screen on which the consent dialog is shown. If they could, there are a variety of attacks that could be carried out against it.

Second, you can actually get the behavior you desire by disabling the Secure Desktop switch. It's an option in secpol.msc

Perhaps the Secure Desktop option should be more accessible to users then.

Either way, locking the desktop because an application wants your attention is very primitive behavior and shows lack of forethought. It makes users feel like they have lost some control over their windows experience, perhaps just one of a handful of reasons why some customers go back to Windows XP.

To me, when an operating systems starts dictating the 'what' and 'when', then annoyance and resentment builds.

Seems to me Microsoft would do better listening to it's customers rather than telling them 'by design' or 'working as intended'. Just a thought.