Windows 7 Wish List

By TonyLock
in The Fast Ring (Insider Previews)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Doli

Posted
Posted
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.

.txt and .html should show up in the preview plane by default when turned on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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.

Fair enough, I was only saying that if you take away the Microsoft GUI, then the system can't function. Without a GUI on Linux? Things still function. Probably it is as you say a terminology problem. It's just that it is not possible to run Windows without its GUI, that's all I was trying to say. It was deliberately designed this way.

For that matter, I'd be interested to know if you can run a Mac without its GUI. I suspect you can in principle but that they've got it set up so that it won't work (but it wouldn't be hard to make it work). To have a functioning Windows system, though, means you've got to have the GUI as the kernel and the GUI bleed into each other at essential points.

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

Somehow I seriously doubt this. Proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

ViperAFK

Posted
Posted (edited)
Less $$

I like the Vista look

Dump The UAC

Dumping UAC would be incredibly pointless and a Huge step backwards, it does need some additional tweaking, yes, but getting rid of it just wouldn't make ANY sense at ALL. It is a huge step forward in windows security.

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.

The windows kernel is separate...

Somehow I seriously doubt this. Proof?

Ummm switching to a unix base would have COMPLETELY the opposite effect of improving compatibility. It would break everything. It would also be an utterly pointless change, NT is not a bad kernel.

Edited by ViperAFK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

EnzoFX

Posted
Posted

Wow, I must say there's a lot of nonsense spewing in here.

Must be hard for Brandon to read =P

The only thing I want, well is an entire re-work of the UI, something consistent, simple but elegant. They can keep the elegant features of Vista, but ditch the busy stuff, its distracting and gives the feeling of being unintuitive. By keeping it simple, Users will stay productive and are more likely to appreciate the OS.

The taskbar, they really need to ditch it, Yeah I saw they're "dock" in the win7 demo. They need to ditch the start menu as well. They need to step up and come out with the next thing. For the most part, OSX' dock > MS' Taskbar. MS needs to jump ahead of just an OSX-like dock. Not really sure what TBH, but it should be able to handle a lot of commands, while being intuitive. Maybe have an App's entire menu(s) within it's launch icon... The Icons/should be incredibly interactive IMO, it would differ from app to app of course, but it should all feel right and make sense.

I seem to be really driving the intuitive point, but it's just that MS is so off the ball in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

zerologic

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

I want icon text configurable so it can be on the right of the icon not just under the icon. :happy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
The windows kernel is separate...

Ummm switching to a unix base would have COMPLETELY the opposite effect of improving compatibility. It would break everything. It would also be an utterly pointless change, NT is not a bad kernel.

Then what is MinWin, if the Windows kernel is separate? And how can you claim, when wikipedia and loads of other sources say otherwise, that it is possible to run Windows without the GUI?

Switching to a Unix base would not need to affect software written for Windows at all (except in the matter of privileges, which is a problem Microsoft's current attempts to deal with bad third-party software--that which insists on being run as Administrator--we've already seen). Microsoft should 'do an Apple' and clean house there. That would be a radical move most Microsoft fans would surely end up praising... if Microsoft did it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

ViperAFK

Posted
Posted (edited)
Then what is MinWin, if the Windows kernel is separate? And how can you claim, when wikipedia and loads of other sources say otherwise, that it is possible to run Windows without the GUI?

Switching to a Unix base would not need to affect software written for Windows at all (except in the matter of privileges, which is a problem Microsoft's current attempts to deal with bad third-party software--that which insists on being run as Administrator--we've already seen). Microsoft should 'do an Apple' and clean house there. That would be a radical move most Microsoft fans would surely end up praising... if Microsoft did it ;)

Minwin IS the vista kernel completely stripped down. The gui is not tied directly to the kernel; they are separate. And saying switching to a COMPLETELY different kernel would not effect current windows programs is ridiculous.

Edited by ViperAFK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

XerXis

Posted
Posted
Then what is MinWin, if the Windows kernel is separate? And how can you claim, when wikipedia and loads of other sources say otherwise, that it is possible to run Windows without the GUI?

Switching to a Unix base would not need to affect software written for Windows at all (except in the matter of privileges, which is a problem Microsoft's current attempts to deal with bad third-party software--that which insists on being run as Administrator--we've already seen). Microsoft should 'do an Apple' and clean house there. That would be a radical move most Microsoft fans would surely end up praising... if Microsoft did it ;)

i'm still convinced that you don't know what a kernel is and what it does. Also i would be very suprised if you could name a few of the advantages of the linux kernel versus nt kernel, yet you would like to see the nt kernel die. Can you give us one (only one) good reason why the NT kernel should die?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Minwin IS the vista kernel completely stripped down. The gui is not tied directly to the kernel they are separate. And saying switching to a COMPLETELY different kernel would not effect current windows programs is ridiculous.

Ok, mate, we are having a terminological problem here, as MarkJensen notes.

I am only saying you can't run Vista without the GUI. The way the OS is delivered to you as a user is to have the two tightly bound, especially with regard to graphics. (Also, for what it's worth, that 'you already have MinWin' article in the news section was about as pointless as anything I've ever seen, but that's another matter.)

And, YES, ok. I can't just run the Linux kernel on my machine. The Linux kernel depends on an extra layer to mediate user interaction. Without the GUI (Gnome in my case), I'd be stuck with a CLI (command line interpreter). Technically I can't functionally use Linux without minimally having a CLI. I wouldn't call a CLI a GUI, though. GUI means Graphical User Interface--'graphical' is exactly what a CLI is not.

So, I can run Linux without a GUI. But I can't run Windows without a GUI. Windows may have CLIs (the command prompt, the powershell). But I can't run it at that level without the GUI.

Look, mate, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just want to understand. I've tried to give you an idea of what it is I understand from reading tons of stuff about the situation. Unless you can show me how it is possible to run Windows without a GUI (please give me a list of instructions!), I'm going to continue to believe that it is not possible. I believe this is the case because, from what I have read, Microsoft (going back to Windows NT4, if not before) deliberately decided to bleed the kernel and the GUI so that this is not possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

XerXis

Posted
Posted
Ok, mate, we are having a terminological problem here, as MarkJensen notes.

I am only saying you can't run Vista without the GUI. The way the OS is delivered to you as a user is to have the two tightly bound, especially with regard to graphics. (Also, for what it's worth, that 'you already have MinWin' article in the news section was about as pointless as anything I've ever seen, but that's another matter.)

And, YES, ok. I can't just run the Linux kernel on my machine. The Linux kernel depends on an extra layer to mediate user interaction. Without the GUI (Gnome in my case), I'd be stuck with a CLI (command line interpreter). Technically I can't functionally use Linux without minimally having a CLI. I wouldn't call a CLI a GUI, though. GUI means Graphical User Interface--'graphical' is exactly what a CLI is not.

So, I can run Linux without a GUI. But I can't run Windows without a GUI. Windows may have CLIs (the command prompt, the powershell). But I can't run it at that level without the GUI.

Look, mate, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just want to understand. I've tried to give you an idea of what it is I understand from reading tons of stuff about the situation. Unless you can show me how it is possible to run Windows without a GUI (please give me a list of instructions!), I'm going to continue to believe that it is not possible. I believe this is the case because, from what I have read, Microsoft (going back to Windows NT4, if not before) deliberately decided to bleed the kernel and the GUI so that this is not possible.

and actually, as brandon already noted, there are windows versions (of server 2008) with only the command prompt and no gui

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
i'm still convinced that you don't know what a kernel is and what it does. Also i would be very suprised if you could name a few of the advantages of the linux kernel versus nt kernel, yet you would like to see the nt kernel die. Can you give us one (only one) good reason why the NT kernel should die?

Mate, I suspect I know more than you might imagine about these things. ;)

The NT kernel was the best thing to happen to Microsoft... ever. It does not mean that it is not the best thing that could ever happen to Microsoft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Then what is MinWin, if the Windows kernel is separate? And how can you claim, when wikipedia and loads of other sources say otherwise, that it is possible to run Windows without the GUI?

...

I think recovery console is a bit like "singleuser" mode in Linux, in-so-far that a limited version of the kernel is running.

No real work can be done at that level (running edit to edit files, running a web server or other 'services'). But, I am willing to wager that internally at Microsoft someone has at least played with running the kernel without the GUI, meaning running regular apps like 'edit' mentioned above would be possible.

Such is not for customers, as it is pretty advanced. Heck, most "noob" Linux users don't much care to run in runlevel 3 for the most part. If you can't run an Office app, a browser like firefox and such, you don't get much interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
and actually, as brandon already noted, there are windows versions (of server 2008) with only the command prompt and no gui

Brilliant! But that is not Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

ViperAFK

Posted
Posted
I think recovery console is a bit like "singleuser" mode in Linux, in-so-far that a limited version of the kernel is running.

No real work can be done at that level (running edit to edit files, running a web server or other 'services'). But, I am willing to wager that internally at Microsoft someone has at least played with running the kernel without the GUI, meaning running regular apps like 'edit' mentioned above would be possible.

Such is not for customers, as it is pretty advanced. Heck, most "noob" Linux users don't much care to run in runlevel 3 for the most part. If you can't run an Office app, a browser like firefox and such, you don't get much interest.

qft.

Windows server does show that NT CAN definitely run with no GUI. No one using vista i going to want to use no GUI, that's what windows server is for and that's why vista "can't". And markjensen does bring up a good point with the recovery console.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Minifig

Posted
Posted

How about an option "Advanced User - Administrator" or "Regular User - Administrator"..

Advanced user doesn't have the UAC, and regular user does.

The UAC just botehrs the ever living **** out of me, it doesn't make me worried I'm going to break something in my computer, it makes me feel like I'm ****ing incompident and I don't know what I'm doing to my computer.

:|

Theme support out of the box, so that you don't have to patch the system files in order to use a theme..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Mordkanin

Posted
Posted (edited)
and actually, as brandon already noted, there are windows versions (of server 2008) with only the command prompt and no gui

Another terminology snaffu, I think.

Core still has the window manager stuff working (And hence, a GUI), but no shell.

I think that was the right choice, though. Without the WM stuff, the OS would be useless. So much depends on window messages: even services need them to function.

Edited by MioTheGreat
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
qft.

Windows server does show that NT CAN definitely run with no GUI. No one using vista i going to want to use no GUI, that's what windows server is for and that's why vista "can't". And markjensen does bring up a good point with the recovery console.

Did you read what MarkJensen said?

The fact is, with Linux and a GUI (Gnome, KDE, Flux, Enlightenment), you can do all the nice things Windows users are used to doing. With just Linux and a CLI you can, if you know what you're up to, do a lot more, a lot more easily. You could probably bring Wall Street to its knees if you wanted to.

Now consider this, and re-read what MarkJensen said.

Oh, I give up :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Contributor

liveseven

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

  • classic Windows Look (Win 2000 LnF).

  • Good luck with that. last I heard they will ditch the 2000 skin and stick with the newer designs. nothings worng with vista, its far better then xps ugly childish UI. dont like it, dont use it. (BTW, vista still includes the old 98 skin)

kids and their dumb ideas

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.