Windows 7 Wish List

[scratch42069]

Maybe it's a placebo effect but I find my 64-bit XP or Vista with 2GB of RAM is faster than either 32-bit XP or Vista with the same amount of memory. I'm guessing the drivers I'm using were written better or something but it generally feels more responsive. I'm hoping that Windows 7 will be the last 32-bit Windows desktop OS and that they start to push harder for migration to 64-bit.

[markwolfe Veteran]

...

Yes, Notepad++ is under the GPL and therefore cannot be integrated into a commercial product like Windows.

Even the lighter Notepad2 is likely to cause legal trouble even if its license is not the GPL.

...

Incorrect. Anyone can include any normal stand-alone GPL-licensed app with whatever they like, as long as they either include the source, or offer to supply it (such as on am FTP site). The GPL license will apply to Notepad++, not to Windows or whatever else it is bundled with. Things only get sticky if the distributer is using GPL code in their other apps, and not offering source.

[redvamp128]

Everyone I have talked with that has a 64-bit os... thier opinion varies...

Some people say the Intel 64 bit Xp is slower than the 32 bit. But others say the AMD 64 bit XP and Vista are faster...

So maybe the people who say it is slow should say some of the Specs --

I have heard the AMD 64 can run both the 64bit XP and the 32bit XP... Same should be true about Vista.

But I have heard that the Intel 64bit can only run the 64 bit XP or Vista and not the 32 bit XP or the 32bit Vista. >?

Some people also say speed increases if you disable/turn of DEP.

I only ran the 32 bit Vista... Until my computer got stolen... So I have no Idea if what I heard was true.

[PL_ Veteran]

But I have heard that the Intel 64bit can only run the 64 bit XP or Vista and not the 32 bit XP or the 32bit Vista. >?

Load of crap. And there's not two different AMD64 and EM64T versions of Vista.

[WelshBluebird]

Load of crap. And there's not two different AMD64 and EM64T versions of Vista.

that confusion probably comes from the fact Intel have their IA-64 Intanium CPU's.

[redvamp128]

That might not be true about Vista... But I can tell you of this one instance where it happened to a close friend.

He decided he would upgrade to a 64 bit Intel... with Xp.

He bought the MOBO/Processor/Memory.. then went to install the 32 bit Xp ... It failed to boot. Many Installs... He fiddled with it for about 3 weeks straight.

So about a month later he bought a Amd64/mobo did the same install and Success..

Then when Vista Came out he bought it and installed the 64 bit.... It is a fast Machine.

Edited June 14, 2008 by redvamp128

[Vykranth]

Incorrect. Anyone can include any normal stand-alone GPL-licensed app with whatever they like, as long as they either include the source, or offer to supply it (such as on am FTP site). The GPL license will apply to Notepad++, not to Windows or whatever else it is bundled with. Things only get sticky if the distributer is using GPL code in their other apps, and not offering source.

Henceforth, the need for the LGPL for toolkits used in closed-source applications.

I stand corrected.

[y_notm]

Actually at one point I heard it was removed for security reasons, and there was no time left to do a proper scrubbing of that code or to re-implement it. Could be mistaken, though.

My understanding was that WordPad didn't have (full) support for .doc's newer than version 7.0 (?), so rather than selectively supporting versions of a filetype (and older, rarely used versions at that) and its features, they cut out support entirely to prevent confusion.

Although they probably should have included Word Viewer to make reading said documents a bit easier for users.

[redvamp128]

My understanding was that WordPad didn't have (full) support for .doc's newer than version 7.0 (?), so rather than selectively supporting versions of a filetype (and older, rarely used versions at that) and its features, they cut out support entirely to prevent confusion.

Although they probably should have included Word Viewer to make reading said documents a bit easier for users.

You know that sounds like a good Idea as well as Excel viewer.

[soldier1st]

i would like to see:

1:All Legacy Code Either Removed or Upgraded in some way.

2:Lower The Cost Significantly

3:give the 64bit version an edge in some way over the 32bit version

4:Tabbed Explorer(the option could be availible to those who want it on but could turn it off)

5:Fix The Folder Forgetting Bug And Fix The Networking to a degree(ideas?)

6:Give the user more choices when installing But have 2 modes:A Typical Install(it will install the default)or Advanced Install(it gives you choices on what to install)

Who knows what will be in windows 7.

[tnsply100]

Err... you mean like Vista does?

Then how about making it work for all processes/programs? See the attachment for what I was referring to (I'm a developer who works with multiple command line windows a lot so I noticed this right away) This comes from server2008 but Vista is the same I think...

Yes it does. If there is a process being invoked with admin rights, its path shows up in the "details" part of the dialog. Sometimes there's isn't a process, though, if it's a COM elevation. In that case I think the GUID is shown. Granted, neither is particularly useful - especially in that case.

Right, the GUID case is what I was referring to - I'm not particularly familiar with the OS internals - so is there some information on what a COM elevation is, and why there is no "process" or "user action" associated with the elevation which could be shown in the UAC prompt?

Actually at one point I heard it was removed for security reasons, and there was no time left to do a proper scrubbing of that code or to re-implement it. Could be mistaken, though.

I'm all too familiar with "software deadlines" - but I would expect MS had plenty of time post RTM for an SP1 fix. I guess there isn't too much value in spending the man hours on it from a business POV, but removing this functionality seems just leaves a bad taste in my mouth ... especially when we are not told about the reason.

[tnsply100]

Incorrect. Anyone can include any normal stand-alone GPL-licensed app with whatever they like, as long as they either include the source, or offer to supply it (such as on am FTP site). The GPL license will apply to Notepad++, not to Windows or whatever else it is bundled with. Things only get sticky if the distributer is using GPL code in their other apps, and not offering source.

Right, and even if MS does not like GPL, I'm sure there are plenty of good text editors with BSD license... its one of the truly free licenses (unlike GPL which imposes restrictions on developers) available - and there should be absolutely no problems from a legal POV.

Here's one: Notepad2 Editor

Honestly, there is no reason for MS to spend too many manhours on something like a text editor at all IMO (aside from potentially updating documentation or support processes). If some benevolent folks are giving away a free text editor with no strings attached, I see no problem with using it.

Should the project die off or something like that, MS can put their old notepad back in. Security practices within the code could be a problem, but there can't be too many issues with a very scaled down text editor...

Edited June 15, 2008 by tnsply100

[markwolfe Veteran]

Right, and even if MS does not like GPL, I'm sure there are plenty of good text editors with BSD license... its one of the truly free licenses (unlike GPL which imposes restrictions on developers) available - and there should be absolutely no problems from a legal POV.

...

Ugh. One of these lines of discussion. Which license offers "more freedoms"? A license with a clause to guarantee the freedoms are not reduced and are passed on? Or one that allows someone to close the code and impose many restrictions and limitations by removing freedoms?

That is, is it really 'more' freedom to remove freedoms?

I don't believe so. But that is a whole other thread now.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Right, the GUID case is what I was referring to - I'm not particularly familiar with the OS internals - so is there some information on what a COM elevation is, and why there is no "process" or "user action" associated with the elevation which could be shown in the UAC prompt?

Well, I suppose it could know the binary the CLSID (GUID) is pointing to, though I'm sure there are complications with that. All .NET stuff would just point to mscoree.dll, for example. So you're back to the CLSID being the only distinquishing factor. I agree it's an issue. However, in Vista at least, there is an unfortunately small amount of trustworthy information that Windows can even tell you which might at all help you decide whether to allow an action to take place or not. It's something I hope to see get better in the future. Unfortunately, the limitations of time + resources / technology / compatibility all conspire against us in this case.

[tnsply100]

Ugh. One of these lines of discussion. Which license offers "more freedoms"? A license with a clause to guarantee the freedoms are not reduced and are passed on? Or one that allows someone to close the code and impose many restrictions and limitations by removing freedoms?

That is, is it really 'more' freedom to remove freedoms?

I don't believe so. But that is a whole other thread now.

Any license which forces a developer to make his own changes public (during distribution) is NOT a "free" license... period. A "free" license has NO business whatsoever imposing restrictions on a developers own hard work that was NOT a part of the original code. No way around it.

With BSD, any "closing" happens with the developer's own work.. its his work, he should be able to do with it whatever he pleases. The original work STILL remains free under the BSD license for others.

It absolutely *is* 'more' freedom to have the option to keep my hard work and changes private.

But you are correct - this is off topic here... I'd be happy to move the discussion to another thread....

Edited June 16, 2008 by tnsply100

[alphaomegainfinity]

That might not be true about Vista... But I can tell you of this one instance where it happened to a close friend.

He decided he would upgrade to a 64 bit Intel... with Xp.

He bought the MOBO/Processor/Memory.. then went to install the 32 bit Xp ... It failed to boot. Many Installs... He fiddled with it for about 3 weeks straight.

So about a month later he bought a Amd64/mobo did the same install and Success..

Then when Vista Came out he bought it and installed the 64 bit.... It is a fast Machine.

I bought my HP Pavilion notebook a year ago and it came preinstalled with Vista Ultimate 64 bit. The notebook has 2 GB RAM and a 64 bit T5300 procesor. I ran Windows XP 32 bit on it for a couple of months without any problem. So in my case the Intel 64 bit processor can handle both 32 and 64 bit versions of XP/Vista.

[stevehoot]

Things I'd like to see:

More modularity (Hopefully in MinWin)

Integrated office viewers (unlikely due to regulators)

Number of GUI updates / bugfixes as mentioned earlier on

Better ImageX/WDS management and support

More controls over UAC. (E.g. if your a local admin, I want Vista to prompt for my domain admins details for some MMC's)

Virtualisation built-in (VirtualPC native support? Virtual DVD drives)

Updated Media Centre with better controls

UPNP management

Updated and more powerful compression tool. (support tarballs, RAR, ISO etc. Allow passwords, compression ratios etc.)

MS to write their own PDF viewer that's not as bloated as Adobes and is shipped with the OS

PowerShell to be inbuilt!! :-)

SSH and Serial terminal client apps

Removal of IIS from Windows clients. That should help lower the price and keep HTTP servers where they belong - the servers

I want more from Windows defender. I want the power of MSCONFIG from a more intuitive GUI

More configuration options of VSS (e.g. where the copies are stored)

An "Advanced" option for the backup. Love the new one in Vista - but I just want the option for a bit more power

FYI regarding the MS GUI being required - see Windows Server 2008. It's running the same kernel as Vista but has no GUI and works fine.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I have heard the AMD 64 can run both the 64bit XP and the 32bit XP... Same should be true about Vista.

But I have heard that the Intel 64bit can only run the 64 bit XP or Vista and not the 32 bit XP or the 32bit Vista.

That is entirely false. The Intel x64 chips (Core 2 series, Pentium D, some Pentium 4s, etc) all implement the exact same AMD64 instruction set that AMD's 64-bit chips implement.

Any of them can run either the 32-bit or the 64-bit version of Windows.

The Intel Itanium chip cannot run 32-bit Windows, as far as I'm aware. However, I highly doubt your friend had one of those.

Some people also say speed increases if you disable/turn of DEP.

That makes no sense.

[rtk]

As for the guy that wants to run Vista in CLI mode only ... try copying the line in the Boot.ini file... to have two lines that boot to the OS... then use Msconfig to add the extra boot options.. NO GUI

Vista doesn't use the boot.ini file, it's been replaced with BCD. Maybe you did an upgrade?

[redvamp128]

That is what my friend bought... He was told that it was the Best for the time... It was right when 64bit chips were first out.

When I ran Vista (Longhorn) it was a dual Boot... So that is probably why I still had the Boot.ini.

You should really see his system it is a rack mount. He uses his system to do work... He is an architect.. So he also has a quadro 4 atit video card.

He thought it would be faster... for editing in CAD.

And The D model hadn't yet come out... this was a few years ago... and I think SP2 hadn't yet come out.

Neither was the Core 2.

In fact he is now talking about getting a quad core.

The programs he uses take a while to render and process.

He also does the 3d modeling... So his clients can virtual tour buildings in the decors/colors they request.

Edited June 17, 2008 by redvamp128

[y_notm]

As for the guy that wants to run Vista in CLI mode only ... try copying the line in the Boot.ini file... to have two lines that boot to the OS... then use Msconfig to add the extra boot options.. NO GUI. Though would be pointless if you ask me. Since Vista's main draws is the User Interface.

That's not what that option does at all.

Prior to vista, it removed the loading splash screen (the black one that said Windows XP with the flag) so you could see what was being loaded when for diagnostic purposes. It still loaded the graphics subsystem and shell.

In vista, it doesn't even do that. It sets the aurora boot screen instead of the black screen with the green progress bar.

The only way to run Windows in CLI mode was to boot into recovery console in XP or earlier, which significantly limited what you could do (only a subset of commands working only in the WINDOWS directory). Now in Vista, I don't think that even exists. AFAIK recovery console, if it exists, loads up WinPE, which still loads user and GDI (as does Server Core, which is why you see a blue background and a console WINDOW in that edition).

[Linkinfamous]

In vista, it doesn't even do that. It sets the aurora boot screen instead of the black screen with the green progress bar.

The NOGUIBOOT option is used to prevent loading of one of the modules during startup. I'm not sure what purpose it has. Maybe for systems that don't properly implement graphics hardware?

[Sigmatic.Minor]

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?

I totally agree with the better support for dual (and more) monitors - there's a lot of bugs to be fixed there..

and with the classic windows look and feel, i'd rather that be just an option (like how XP did it with themes) rather than a set GUI - i like the fancy themes sometimes (but i still mainly use the classic themes in XP ;) )

as for the file extension search, you're already able to do that though? or did you mean on a more 'fixed' basis?

[thatmikeguy2]

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?

Get rid of everything that is bloat.

Strip out all extras from Media Player, and allow add-ons to be installed as needed.

GET RID of Search extras, use bars or webpage ONLY for searching. This does not need to be in the OS.

Bring back 2 window file view for explorer! I am sorry for anyone who does not use Windows Commander ;) It is 1000x better.

Make Windows FASTER! Not just faster in some things, but EVERYTHING!! Kill the bloat K.I.S.S!!

An OS should support as much software as possible. This cannot be achieved if you can only run a couple good programs without clogging the system, because the programs will get harder on the PC at a faster rate than people can upgrade hardware always!!

If this new OS is going to run 2 years from the time of it's intro, we NEED 2x the amount of memory a gamer would want on a PC allowed on the "Home" system at the time it comes out!

AIM FOR SPEED!!!!! Make everything else addons

[Preppy Veteran]

What extras from Media Player? O_o