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

[REM2000]

That's why I'm here :)

That and the E7 blog are the real reasons im optimistic for Windows 7. I get a real sense that this time around Microsoft is listening to its users, i did feel that certain things were added to Vista which were thought to be a good idea without actually thinking about end users.

When Vista was first released i didn't really think much off it, i found it slow, offering no incentive over Windows XP. However in September at work, i swapped from dual boot WinXP and Vista to just Vista. It run's really well, and handles memory very well also. An example of which is when running Virtual machines on WinXP, after shutting them down, it seemed that XP had a problem returning the unused memory and made the hdd thrash a little bit. With vista however, i max out the RAM utilisation with virtual machines and find that all of the memory is reused in caching.

The only problem i have with Vista is that sometimes copying large files over the network in vista is seems to slow the machine down, which i can only put down to drivers (however that's for another thread).

The feature i would like to see in Windows 7

custom install, i.e. selecting the components to install during setup not after.

Adopt some kind of disk image system like the Mac's use. i.e. I can create a 10GB encrypted disk image and then mount it to save data, it's really handy when moving large amounts of secure data around. I know there are some freeware tools out there but having it native in the OS would be nice.

Better ejecting of USB memory sticks.

Better support of USB drives when booting and logging onto a network. For example some users have plugged in a USB memory stick during boot only to find that the USB drive takes the drive letter of mapped network drives, again this is fixed via third party, but it would be nice if it was native.

Please save PC gaming. Vista introduced some good ideas as did live. However Microsoft really needs to make up some sort of team similar to the xbox team to really push windows gaming, there is defintley enough space in the market for pc gaming and console gaming.

[Emon]

Actually its not bad if you think that different UI's work in different windowing schemes. Not everything is gonna look right with the same UI throughout the operating system. Keep in mind what might look good on one window might look or is impractical in another. Which is what I think is the major challenge at hand for MS. The ribbon UI looks great but it might not work for everything, if they come to a medium with 2 or 3 schemes for different aspects of the OS then i think things will look alot better.

Did you actually read the article?

Even apps that share the same look are different, Mail and Calendar - Search box is in a different place. Media Player and DVD maker, both are black one has a much fatter bar for some reason. Even the back and forward arrows are different on these apps!!

[Toxicfume Veteran]

In Windows Vista, right click the Desktop > click 'Personalization" > click Themes > select 'Windows Classic' > click Apply > OK. Done

You can further adjust effects and animation in the OS by clicking Start > right click 'Computer' > click 'Properties' > under Task > click 'Advance System Settings' > select the 'Advanced' tab, under 'Performance' > click 'Settings' under the 'Visual Effects' tab, select the appropriate options for best performance, you can also uncheck some of the visual effects listed.

Its that easy.

But that's not what I want. I want a modern GUI that is not gimmicky. I don't want to have to go back to the days of Windows 95 like you suggested. I want something nice, just not useless. Look at Windows XP, OS X, Ubuntu (minus their sucky fonts) for reference. (Which would make the start menu look equally as vomit inducing)

More and more, I really think Windows XP was most definitely the ideal OS by Microsoft. It worked great, looks just nice, and was very fast, no frills.

[Mr. Dee]

But that's not what I want. I want a modern GUI that is not gimmicky. I don't want to have to go back to the days of Windows 95 like you suggested. I want something nice, just not useless. Look at Windows XP, OS X, Ubuntu (minus their sucky fonts) for reference. (Which would make the start menu look equally as vomit inducing)

More and more, I really think Windows XP was most definitely the ideal OS by Microsoft. It worked great, looks just nice, and was very fast, no frills.

Please! Realize its an operating system, not a toy. Its great that you have an interest in aesthetics, but what you are suggesting is either confusing or not achievable. Windows has to meet the expectations of over a billion users already. The purpose of an OS is to manage the interactions between your applications and device drivers and to avoid them from invading another's memory space to avoid crashes. Lets focus on the fundamentals, performance, improved device driver support, improved networking. These are things that matter the most. If you can't get the out of box experience you want in Windows, its best you look to a third party.

[rdxg0d]

Did you actually read the article?

Now you read this, and go by what the developers are saying not by joe shmoe is saying. Seems logical that certain aspects of the UI will be different throughout different windows and applications.

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/10/0...ws-windows.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/10/0...ws-windows.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/09/2...-switching.aspx

...sounds more realistic to look at the facts and think that MS has to try and please a very broad range of customers.

From home users to enterprise users and people in the IT field finding a medium that everyone agrees on is gonna be a challenge. Especially when ppl want more features and more control over the operating system and want control over what features get installed into the operating system. As for the UI setting up and dividing the window schemes and parting them into 3 seperate schemes wouldn't be a bad idea. One scheme for system windows, another for window applications, and another for wizards and such. You also have to take into account branding and other issues.

[Andre S. Veteran]

But that's not what I want. I want a modern GUI that is not gimmicky. I don't want to have to go back to the days of Windows 95 like you suggested. I want something nice, just not useless. Look at Windows XP, OS X, Ubuntu (minus their sucky fonts) for reference. (Which would make the start menu look equally as vomit inducing)

More and more, I really think Windows XP was most definitely the ideal OS by Microsoft. It worked great, looks just nice, and was very fast, no frills.

If Microsoft ever designed a gimmicky theme it was Luna. It looked childish and not very professional. Also, it's very hard to revert to a software-rendered GUI one you've used to the smoothness and power of hardware acceleration. And besides the looks, the UI of Vista is a lot easier to use. The start menu doesn't expand to fill your whole screen when you have too many programs installed, the search bar is a versatile tool (it also acts as a run dialog!), My Computer is better organised, etc.

I find that an XP install tended to degrade over time, and sometimes alarmingly fast. Also, you had to love explorer crashes. Vista is such a trouble-free experienced compared to XP, I wouldn't revert any day.

[markwolfe Veteran]

... The purpose of an OS is to manage the interactions between your applications and device drivers and to avoid them from invading another's memory space to avoid crashes.

...

Seriously, if that is the "purpose of an OS", then it was met long ago in various Unix flavors.

Windows got there with the NT kernel.

The rest is exactly what you look down upon - aesthetics, user experience, ability to customize to fit a user's specific (and individual) needs.

[Mr. Dee]

Seriously, if that is the "purpose of an OS", then it was met long ago in various Unix flavors.

Windows got there with the NT kernel.

The rest is exactly what you look down upon - aesthetics, user experience, ability to customize to fit a user's specific (and individual) needs.

Actually, I don't look down on it. But, I think a lot of us in this forum have some wild expectations we are expecting to be met that are either asking too much or just ridiculous. We are complaining over how the boot screen looks, which is just no essential. I am a big believer in the OS, its all three of my systems. Of course customization can go further. But, I think we are not appreciating what we have right now. You dispute that UNIX met the key requirements of an OS long before Windows and NT. Then again, Windows met the stability and carried with it compatibility, large support from ISVs and IHVs and continues. Linux and UNIX are trying to meet those expectations for many years. Even with consumer oriented distributions of Linux such as Ubuntu, it still can't be met. The return rate for Linux based netbooks is 4 times higher than Windows. But, I believe we need to focus on what is most important in Windows, doing things in a way that we expect. The remembering explorer views for eg. is a valid one. But some of the stuff we rant about are just irrelevant.

[markwolfe Veteran]

I don't dispute that Unix met the application separation/management requirements of an OS. I assert that it did before Windows. NT was a good solid foundation for Microsoft, and with Vista, they have done with it as they should have.

XP brought NT to the home, and Vista made it more properly secured by default. Both good moves.

You make it sound like Linux is competing only in the desktop market. It is going strong in servers, HPC, and embedded, due to its incredible scalability and customizability. It is under 1% on the desktop, but that doesn't bother me. It suits my needs perfectly, but I never begrudge others from using the OS of their choice.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

Actually, I don't look down on it. But, I think a lot of us in this forum have some wild expectations we are expecting to be met that are either asking too much or just ridiculous. We are complaining over how the boot screen looks, which is just no essential. I am a big believer in the OS, its all three of my systems. Of course customization can go further. But, I think we are not appreciating what we have right now. You dispute that UNIX met the key requirements of an OS long before Windows and NT. Then again, Windows met the stability and carried with it compatibility, large support from ISVs and IHVs and continues. Linux and UNIX are trying to meet those expectations for many years. Even with consumer oriented distributions of Linux such as Ubuntu, it still can't be met. The return rate for Linux based netbooks is 4 times higher than Windows. But, I believe we need to focus on what is most important in Windows, doing things in a way that we expect. The remembering explorer views for eg. is a valid one. But some of the stuff we rant about are just irrelevant.

The return rate you quote has only to do with the fact people aren't used to Linux's various interfaces. Having mind 'lock-in' is the issue here, and Microsoft, because of their monopoly, wins there. It is not a comment on Linux. ;)

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I see an OS as several things. It's the platform that provides useful reuseable functionality through its APIs. It provides standardized integration points so that apps can interact (drag-drop, copy-paste, etc). It provides abstractions to things like hardware and storage (so apps can use the Common File Dialog and things like the shell storage abstractions). It provides a set of applications that demonstrate the platform (and prove + test the platform).

And to be honest, I love it when Windows obviates the need for third-party craplets to do fairly basic things. How many god-awful brightly branded wireless networking utilities does one user need? Why did my Sony laptop come with 18 different little background processes that all have goofy one-off UIs just to control some extra buttons or monitor settings or whatever. The less of that the better, in my humble opinion.

The return rate you quote has only to do with the fact people aren't used to Linux's various interfaces. Having mind 'lock-in' is the issue here, and Microsoft, because of their monopoly, wins there. It is not a comment on Linux. ;)

How come the return rate on Macs is so low even for first-time buyers? Surely they've all been "locked in" and won't be used to OS X, right?

Oh wait, no they haven't, and people who use Windows aren't mindless idiots who were "tricked" into it by some evil corporation. They return their Linux PCs because the Linux user experience sucks for them. Not because they "aren't used to it." Unless you meant that they aren't used to suckiness, in which case I guess you'd be correct.

[rdxg0d]

I see an OS as several things. It's the platform that provides useful reuseable functionality through its APIs. It provides standardized integration points so that apps can interact (drag-drop, copy-paste, etc). It provides abstractions to things like hardware and storage (so apps can use the Common File Dialog and things like the shell storage abstractions). It provides a set of applications that demonstrate the platform (and prove + test the platform).

And to be honest, I love it when Windows obviates the need for third-party craplets to do fairly basic things. How many god-awful brightly branded wireless networking utilities does one user need? Why did my Sony laptop come with 18 different little background processes that all have goofy one-off UIs just to control some extra buttons or monitor settings or whatever. The less of that the better, in my humble opinion.

How come the return rate on Macs is so low even for first-time buyers? Surely they've all been "locked in" and won't be used to OS X, right?

Oh wait, no they haven't, and people who use Windows aren't mindless idiots who were "tricked" into it by some evil corporation. They return their Linux PCs because the Linux user experience sucks for them. Not because they "aren't used to it." Unless you meant that they aren't used to suckiness, in which case I guess you'd be correct.

Gotta love sarcasm...as for the linux fiasco, linux in itself has grown yea look at Fisherprice-ubuntu its gaining popularity cause its just that fisherpricedup if you dropped joe shmoe to the console they'd be totally lost, or tell them there slackbox needs to have there kernel recompiled from source...they'll look at you like your talking chinese. Seems the user experience on windows is better for the average person thats why theres more people using it not cause MS is pushing it on them. Dont know how a windows thread got linux involved in it.....

[Toxicfume Veteran]

Please! Realize its an operating system, not a toy. Its great that you have an interest in aesthetics, but what you are suggesting is either confusing or not achievable. Windows has to meet the expectations of over a billion users already. The purpose of an OS is to manage the interactions between your applications and device drivers and to avoid them from invading another's memory space to avoid crashes. Lets focus on the fundamentals, performance, improved device driver support, improved networking. These are things that matter the most. If you can't get the out of box experience you want in Windows, its best you look to a third party.

Windows (save the Server versions) is an Operating system that's meant for consumer usage. Not a bunch of programmers or systems people. If you want to penetrate the mass consumer, you do have to put high importance on the aesthetics. And Microsoft is a BIG company with a HUGE number of teams, you realize that right? They have different departments working on different aspects of Windows, one of which is definitely the aesthetics. So pointing out that somehow more focus needs to be put on the system/functional aspects of the OS than the GUI makes no sense. I'm sure if the same amount of the work that went into the likes of Translucency in Aero actually went into creating a more sensible, useful GUI would have made things a lot better. Hell, I'd say HALF of the work that went into Aero could come up with something highly beautiful and productive in terms of aesthetics. Yes, Vista's translucency impedes productivity, and I shouldn't have to switch to a design based on Windows 95 to overcome that shortcoming. Just because you do not care about the aesthetics and want to focus on the fundamentals (which ARE important, I do not disagree one bit) does not mean the entire userbase of Windows thinks the same way.

Which brings me back to my earlier point: "Refer to Mac OS X, Windows XP, and certain flavours of Ubuntu for good aesthetical designs of the GUI"

If Microsoft ever designed a gimmicky theme it was Luna. It looked childish and not very professional. Also, it's very hard to revert to a software-rendered GUI one you've used to the smoothness and power of hardware acceleration. And besides the looks, the UI of Vista is a lot easier to use. The start menu doesn't expand to fill your whole screen when you have too many programs installed, the search bar is a versatile tool (it also acts as a run dialog!), My Computer is better organised, etc.

I find that an XP install tended to degrade over time, and sometimes alarmingly fast. Also, you had to love explorer crashes. Vista is such a trouble-free experienced compared to XP, I wouldn't revert any day.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Luna, it's nowhere near as gimmicky as translucent windows. :rolleyes: How the hell could one even find that productive or useful is beyond me... the only way I see it, MS wanted to look cool, and so they decided a Translucent would bring oohs and aahs out of people. It impedes and functional or a productive purpose.."but you can see through windows"..yeah right, don't get me started on that.

And all the good things you mention about Vista's start menu are true and I completely agree. I've always been an avid Run fan, I used it almost exclusively to load many apps in XP, and this further improved my experience in Vista. HOWEVER! That has nothing to do with the aesthetics, that's completely a functional aspect, some of which I think have been greatly improved in Vista (breadcrums view in Vista's explorer are a gothsend, really).

As for XP's explorer crashes... I'm not sure. I almost never had any bluescreens in XP. It had always been a snappy OS (oh Lucifer won't thy resurrect BeOS? :() and the aesthetics were simple and to the point.

[ViperAFK]

you can turn off the transparency in aero easily so idk why people bitch about it. I personally think it looks good.

[Toxicfume Veteran]

you can turn off the transparency in aero easily so idk why people bitch about it. I personally think it looks good.

Only to have solid bricks of nothing with dynamic wavy patterns on top of every non-maximized Windows.. It's just fugly eitherway. :x

[Denholm]

-New screensavers

-Less resource hungry Sidebar

-Nice rounded start bar (on the edges), it's too 'sharp' and 'square' for my taste

Everything else looks like it's been suggested.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

We'll have to agree to disagree on Luna, it's nowhere near as gimmicky as translucent windows. :rolleyes: How the hell could one even find that productive or useful is beyond me... the only way I see it, MS wanted to look cool, and so they decided a Translucent would bring oohs and aahs out of people. It impedes and functional or a productive purpose.."but you can see through windows"..yeah right, don't get me started on that.

Well, all the design and useability research disagrees with you :)

The glass look allows for:

1) Larger borders that are easier to grab with the mouse

2) A clearer (no pun intended) depiction of what is draggable to move the window around

3) Visual focus to be placed on the window content (so it looks more like it's "floating" on top of the glass sheet, instead of sunken in as in Luna).

Nevermind that most people find it's far more attractive and less fisher-pricey.

[Kirkburn]

3) Visual focus to be placed on the window content (so it looks more like it's "floating" on top of the glass sheet, instead of sunken in as in Luna).

This especially is a reason why I like aero. The bright green/blue of XP is waaay too distracting.

[Sem XL]

Only to have solid bricks of nothing with dynamic wavy patterns on top of every non-maximized Windows.. It's just fugly eitherway. :x

+1

people always says you can turn off transparency blah blah blah

looks crap on/off

[rdxg0d]

Nevermind that most people find it's far more attractive and less fisher-pricey.

I have to totally agree with you on that. Aero looks awesome and is a hellava jump in UI aesthetics.

I just hope that Windows 7 brings something new and sparks some more interest into the OS.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

I only meant by mind lock-in that people like to stick with what they know or think others use. It's like office suites: people are used to Microsoft so they find there is a mental barrier to using other office programs.

If everyone out there could look at things from a slightly higher level and realise that these are variations on a theme and that moving from one to the other is a mere matter of adjustment, then they would be less frightened of change and actually better computer users. A better computer user is one who can switch easily between programs that all serve a similar purpose, rather than feel they just can't cope. That is what mind lock-in is. Microsoft has it for its core products. Adobe has it too. Quark has it for DTP users in professional settings. Adobe would love InDesign to take over from Quark--and for most things it could quite easily do so, but long-term Quark users are mentally locked in. Same with Windows.

[Malskazz]

This especially is a reason why I like aero. The bright green/blue of XP is waaay too distracting.

Luna in XP was overall crappy.. Can't figure why ANYONE uses it.. Much rather use Classic than Luna

[Mugwump00]

Perhaps Brandon can comment on this - Is it not true that Luna was destined only for Windows XP Home at one stage before XP RTM, but there was not enough time/effort to develop a more appropriate XP Professional theme?

[Mr. Dee]

Perhaps Brandon can comment on this - Is it not true that Luna was destined only for Windows XP Home at one stage before XP RTM, but there was not enough time/effort to develop a more appropriate XP Professional theme?

My understanding is, more themes under Luna were being developed with different color schemes. But usability testing showed they did not meet a certain level of quality like Blue, Olive and Silver, so they were discarded. Microsoft promised though to deliver them as free downloads after RTM. The only ones I have seen since are Royale and that Zune Theme.

[Toxicfume Veteran]

Well, all the design and useability research disagrees with you :)

The glass look allows for:

1) Larger borders that are easier to grab with the mouse

2) A clearer (no pun intended) depiction of what is draggable to move the window around

3) Visual focus to be placed on the window content (so it looks more like it's "floating" on top of the glass sheet, instead of sunken in as in Luna).

Nevermind that most people find it's far more attractive and less fisher-pricey.

Just what we need, a "useability research" to decide what's good for us. No science, beyond the fundamentals, can depict what people find comfortable. Aesthetics are a part of that. Hell, if you use science to depict what is good for people, Microsoft Bob would have been an immense success. You need a more human approach to this than leaving it to scientific research to try and analyze something as vague as aesthetics.

And it's funny, these research approven "improvements" you suggest that comes as a result of glass, are exactly the kind of things I get rid of at Vista's first installation. I get rid of all thick Window borders because they look very bloated and unnecessary (Appearance Settings -> Advanced -> Set "Border Padding" to 0).

I think dragging content was very clear in XP. And I'm not sure about focus being placed on a windows content, but millions of people did not have a problem with that in XP.

Most people I've talked to find Aero very unadaptable and more overwhelming to use, again, I don't know what your research poll suggests, but for sure I and many others find the Aero UI unintuitive when compared to other interfaces such as OS X's. (Don't mistake me, I use Windows (and already highly used to Vista and Aero) and not OS X, but I prefer Apple's UI design choices). There are many reasons why a vast majority of users despise Vista and have made it a point to stick to XP, and the aesthetics are a significant part of it. Not many had problems navigating around XP, really.

Let me make it clear: Functional wise, Vista is definitely an improvement (however not too much) over XP, definitely. But Aesthetics wise, it's highly a gimmick. It's done based on a manner very unbalanced between semi-sciences of what people might find useful and what looks "cool". Vista is overwhelming to look at and use for many, many consumer people, in comparison to XP. XP has a no-frills, highly usable UI. Vista is full of frills. IMO.