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

[Linkinfamous]

2. UAC telling more information, example if a program require admin rigths i want it to tell me what is the reason, example: program want to to something adminish :f, or better yet, the simply install to program files, i want UAC to tell me that is the reason of the popup, if a app requires acess to some registry (the stuff of point 1) important i want it to tell me that the program x want to access/write the real registry because it really needs (most of the programs out there dont need access to the real Registry to function

That's not how the system works. You're not restricting or granting specific actions, you're simply telling the system whether or not to allow a process to spawn with administrative privileges. UAC doesn't ever stop a program from doing anything. It's only there to allow you to spawn a process at a High integrity level (that is, give a LAUNCHING process administrative access).

[y_notm]

That's not how the system works. You're not restricting or granting specific actions, you're simply telling the system whether or not to allow a process to spawn with administrative privileges. UAC doesn't ever stop a program from doing anything. It's only there to allow you to spawn a process at a High integrity level (that is, give a LAUNCHING process administrative access).

Not only that, its pretty easy to figure out what requires elevation. If you don't know why it needs it, you probably shouldn't be elevating it...

[Mayhem]

i know the reason for them, i'm speaking to the general people that having that king of a option will be great for everyone, a sandboxed registry access and only allowing it to the really programs that needed it (probably antivirus, firewalls,...)

that will allow like i said that for the majority of the programs ppl install on their computers not putting all their stuff on real registry that almost all the time you uninstall a program many stuff is left in the registry, with sandboxed registry that problem is simply gone

has of the UAC popups i was saying more to when a program needs admins rigths it tells me what is for and if its secure or not to do it (again i know what is the stuff i install do normally, i'm speaking to the general public)

For example UAC telling ppl if the permission that you are giving is secure or not, that may damage the system, that the program is putting stuff on key places propers to malware and is not safe, etc, stuff like this. this will kill many of the normal ppl that not understand many stuff on pcs what their doing and with type of information they start to learn faster to protect them selfs and will for sure "kill" many of the outbreaks of malwares, virus, trojans, ... out there

Like i see in many pcs, the ppl with Vista on UAC simply click Yes and move along because they dont see almost no information, only that requires admin rights

like many users said, the problem is not the OS, part of the problem is the programs that made for XP adminish style but the main problem is the Users, so if Windows 7 UAC do something like i said will teach many ppl what is right and wrong and prevent many bad things done by the most of the ppl that have no clue what are doing

Has a side "bonus" :p with this type of system you dont need Windows Defender on the background consuming resources because you only permit that a program puts stuff in key areas that Windows Defenders checks if you permitted it from the start

[zerologic]

One request that I would want not to see in Windows 7 - Microsoft OneCare or other Microsoft Antivirus. While we're at it, can that useless Windows Defender also get taken out of Windows 7 or be an option not to install.

[ViperAFK]

Hey,

Srap the Registry, and simplifiy App install process Like OSX

How would scrapping the registry make anything better? MS can't just scrap the registry and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. There is nothing really that bad about the registry.

The Flat file method used in Operating systems such as Linux and OSX have their advantages, but so does the registry imo scrapping the registry would be completely pointless and unnecessary change and would just cause headaches for legacy app compatibility as well.

Edited May 22, 2008 by ViperAFK

[Mr. Dee]

One request that I would want not to see in Windows 7 - Microsoft OneCare or other Microsoft Antivirus. While we're at it, can that useless Windows Defender also get taken out of Windows 7 or be an option not to install.

Windows Defender is an AntiSpyware utility. It does a serve a purpose for the many persons who are not tech savvy and don't know much about protecting their computers out of the box. Its also an important utility for managing Software Startup items whether disabling or enabling. If you have a problem with it, most third party AntiSpyware utilities will automatically disable it in Windows Security Center when installed. For instance when I install Norton Antivirus Corporate edition on Vista or XP systems, it disables Windows Defender and use its own AntiSpyware feature instead.

As for Antivirus built into the OS like Windows Defender is to AntiSpyware, it might be inevitable, but I personally have a dislike for Windows Live OneCare. But considering the Windows platform is a lucrative platform for attacks, it might be a smart move to have it implemented. Why shouldn't Microsoft be responsible for protecting their own OS? I can understand where this could rile up third part AV developers. But like many other features we now take for granted, AntiSpyware, Firewall, DVD/CD Burning, Media Player etc, AntiVirus might be the next logical step for Windows.

However, Microsoft has done a lot to improve the security of the OS, especially in the 64 bit release with Patch Guard, Device Driver Signing.

[anonymous_user]

A few minor things Id like:

-Make msstyles (themes) more customizable like they were in XP.

-Allow color changes for the basic theme; maybe I dont want blue.

-Bring back the old style address bar. I hate breadcrumbs.

[Hak Foo]

I don't think this will happen, but it would be great. I'd love to have a "Windows Seven Basic Lite" version that is stripped down to only the explorer, a basic image viewer and a few necessary services but will then cost nothing more than 30$. Great.

Further features I'd like to see:

• virtualization for running old Windows apps
  
• built-in theme support
  
• a filesystem that doesn't fragment (applies that to WinFS?)
  

To me, virtualization for drivers is probably more important.

A lot of hardware is "Good enough" -- the only reason for replacement is because it no longer works. In particular, printers and scanners.

I had to toss my perfectly good Canon D1230U scanner to go for 64-bit Vista. (They had only a 32-bit driver). The replacement cost me 50 bucks I didn't need to spend, and is slower and creates ugly fringes. I see no reason they can't "plumb" a USB port from the real hardware into a virtualized install of WinXP/Vista32/Win2000.

[Neo003]

You know what I would like a Porn folder, really I have music, pictures, video and documents folder but no porn folder. I would really go head over hill for that one seriously.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

You know what I would like a Porn folder, really I have music, pictures, video and documents folder but no porn folder. I would really go head over hill for that one seriously.

Noted.

:rofl:

[aussiefloyd_fan]

why not do away with the kill switch and activation? and quiat accusing the honest people of pirating it when we payed hard earned cash for it( actually to pay the internet bill to download it but thatss a whole nother story)

[Brandon Live Veteran]

why not do away with the kill switch and activation? and quiat accusing the honest people of pirating it when we payed hard earned cash for it( actually to pay the internet bill to download it but thatss a whole nother story)

Heh, if it were up to me, there'd be no activation. Or the restrictions would be relaxed (Stardock's activation implementation has always impressed me with its non-interference even with frequent formats, hardware changes, etc).

Unfortunately, the cost to Microsoft of Windows/Office piracy is enormous. I think the current implementation isn't too bad, though, and I don't think most legitimate customers are affected too much by it. When they are, though, I feel for them. In my opinion, every time WGA or activation affects a legitimate user it fails its purpose and damages our brand.

[zerologic]

Why isn't there a Volume License version of Vista, like there was Windows XP.

[MaJoR]

Why isn't there a Volume License version of Vista, like there was Windows XP.

Too much "Volume License Piracy".

As for the topic, if Windows 7 doesn't have WinFS, I'm not buying. It will actually make windows more EFFICIENT, something they haven't done to the OS in a while.

Edited May 23, 2008 by MaJoR

[Mr. Dee]

Why isn't there a Volume License version of Vista, like there was Windows XP.

Uh, Windows Vista 'is' available under volume license like Windows XP. Just that Volume License customers are required to activate Windows Vista under Activation 2.0. In fact it gives businesses more control over how licenses are activated and keys kept from being pirated. Instead of a single key used for installing Windows XP, Companies utilize the Key Management system where a Server is employed to handle all activations over the network. So, individuals do not have to know the product key to activate the software.

[zerologic]

Too much "Volume License Piracy".

I guess Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot. The new activation system seriously sucks for businesses.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I guess Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot. The new activation system seriously sucks for businesses.

As far as I've heard, businesses love it. Or at least enterprises (the ones using volume licensing). No more product keys to worry about, no more activating against Microsoft servers from every desktop.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

As for the topic, if Windows 7 doesn't have WinFS, I'm not buying. It will actually make windows more EFFICIENT, something they haven't done to the OS in a while.

You're going to be disappointed, then. We've said several times that WinFS as it was no longer exists. Some of its technology has become part of SQL or part of the .NET / entity framework(s). But there is nothing called "WinFS" anymore.

As for making Windows more "efficient" - you obviously never used a build of WinFS. If you think Vista's performance is wanting, you should count your lucky stars that WinFS isn't in there. Heck, the awful performance of it was one of the major reasons for the Longhorn reset.

Besides, I think we've got room left to make Windows more efficient without pie-in-the-sky object-oriented storage abstractions (which, by the way, would also likely be a nightmare for compatibility - especially with non-Microsoft OSes).

[zerologic]

As far as I've heard, businesses love it. Or at least enterprises (the ones using volume licensing). No more product keys to worry about, no more activating against Microsoft servers from every desktop.

Perhaps Microsoft needs to stop living in denial. Love and activation in the same line? If you want to find out how much my bosses care for the new activation procedure I can give you their number.

But prepare to be disappointed as your emerald tower is shaken Microsoft.

See this is one problem with Microsoft. They make an unpopular change, then they think it's clever and that people universally love them for it.

[Linkinfamous]

Perhaps Microsoft needs to stop living in denial. Love and activation in the same line? If you want to find out how much my bosses care for the new activation procedure I can give you their number.

I think he means the volume activation scheme that lets you keep the license server on site instead of activating across the internet for every computer. Also, maybe 'dislike less' than regular product activation is a better way to describe how they feel about it.

[Mr. Dee]

Perhaps Microsoft needs to stop living in denial. Love and activation in the same line? If you want to find out how much my bosses care for the new activation procedure I can give you their number.

But prepare to be disappointed as your emerald tower is shaken Microsoft.

See this is one problem with Microsoft. They make an unpopular change, then they think it's clever and that people universally love them for it.

You have to understand that this is a win for Company's, people will not steal VL Keys like how they have with Windows XP. I assume you probably got a copy of your Company's Volume License Windows XP Professional and been using it to install on your personal systems and those of your friends. Thats the only reason I can think of why you are upset over activation for volume license installations of Vista.

Also, its not a headache for businesses/enterprises, any server in a Company can be a KMS, an existing Active Directory/File Server could handle activating systems on the network, its simply an additional role. I believe Microsoft is protecting the investment of businesses. Why should you leech off Company resources for personal use or shady activity?

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Perhaps Microsoft needs to stop living in denial. Love and activation in the same line? If you want to find out how much my bosses care for the new activation procedure I can give you their number.

But prepare to be disappointed as your emerald tower is shaken Microsoft.

See this is one problem with Microsoft. They make an unpopular change, then they think it's clever and that people universally love them for it.

Your bosses use a KMS and would prefer the XP method? They are most certainly the exception, then.

[Richardarkless]

I think it should have an install feature where it can install on a VHD like wubi

and get rid of the activation

[backdrifter]

To me OEM crapware is the #1 problem Microsoft needs to take care of. Seriosly, when I learned how to bypass crapware installation with my Asus recovery cd, I was shocked that clean Vista installation was nothing like the horrible mess that greeted me when I first opened the laptop. A lot of people can't and wouldn't clean these software, and they have a horrible experience with their brand new computer.

- MS should work with OEMs and give whatever support they need for free to develop some better software. (driver tools, laptop tools etc.)

- They should include a built-in manager for crapware, maybe a list the user can configure at the OOBE wizard. Or at least some obvious way to get rid of them all at once. (ofcourse assuming they won't be able to get rid of all crapware)

[Linkinfamous]

To me OEM crapware is the #1 problem Microsoft needs to take care of. Seriosly, when I learned how to bypass crapware installation with my Asus recovery cd, I was shocked that clean Vista installation was nothing like the horrible mess that greeted me when I first opened the laptop. A lot of people can't and wouldn't clean these software, and they have a horrible experience with their brand new computer.

- MS should work with OEMs and give whatever support they need for free to develop some better software.

I completely agree. I got an HP Tablet, and the first thing when I turned it on was that it decided to go through a half hour of automatically installing crap. After the install, the system was virtually unusable. I gave it about 5 minutes before I popped in a real Vista DVD and trashed it. It runs beautifully now.