Windows 7 Wish List

[liveseven]

lnf? speak english...

Windows 98 skin on vista:

[Mordkanin]

The "Classic" UIs don't have anything to do with the DWM. I wouldn't count on Microsoft putting too much effort/thought into them anymore.

[liveseven]

exactly. i would think they would just scrap them use something like the aero skin but with out transparency. aero basic is the worst thing ever. they could have added aero standard (no transparancy) in vista basic like they did in vista starter. vista basic should have been scraped its xp sp3 with a new look

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

I always felt with Windows I was stretching for customisability. I wanted more control over the look and feel of things.

Why can't they have, like, two 'levels' for users? One that is like 'basic' (minimal customisation for grandma and grandpa jones) and one that is 'advanced' and lets people with a clue have all sorts of neat customisability features?

---

I also thought they were going to implement some sort of automatic emulation system so that older Windows and DOS programs could run in emulation if their specs didn't match Vista's requirements.

There was a sort of 'onion' model propounded here: all about layers and emulation and compatibility. Shockingly I can run some Windows programs on Linux that won't run on Windows Vista. These people have so much money and talent. What is going on?

---

Speaking of emulation, how hard could it be for them to emulate other OSes automatically so you could run programs designed for any platform right there on Windows? Pshaaa..........

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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

We have this, it's called Tile View. Or do you mean on the desktop specifically... yeah it appears to be disabled there (not even sure why, actually. It's the same control).

[abcdefg]

I want yellow screen of death. Blue is so boring and we've seen that too many times.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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.

So... I think I see where the sticking point is for you. Windows *does* have a CLI-only mode, and you can run a very basic version of it by booting into single user mode (recovery console), as MarkJensen said.

However, it is not a user-facing feature, it is not updated / worked on / useful, and it runs at such a low level that there is no win32 subsystem even loaded.

During normal boot-up, Windows boots straight into the logon UI. There is no multi-user purely CLI environment, but that really has nothing to do with the architecture. It's just that there's no real reason to invest time in a "pure" CLI environment, and most applications for Windows are not written to work from the command-line. I wouldn't consider that a fault, it's just reality.

In fact, the CLI for Windows actually exists at a pretty low level, and CMD.exe has to "pipe" it through to the windowing environment. I guess what you're complaining about is the lack of a CLI logon mechanism and the ability to logon directly to a console session without the window manager running. But that's a pretty useless thing to do on Windows, which is why it isn't enabled/supported.

Now, if you don't mind the window manager starting up (and the logon UI, win32 subsystem, etc), then you could very easily change the default shell in Windows to be CMD.exe (or even PowerShell). You could even make it start in full-screen mode. There's a registry key that controls what shell is loaded (normally this is Explorer.exe, obviously). That's about as close as you're going to get, and have any usefulness, I think.

Then again, I don't know anyone who would want that, but you certainly can do it.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

So... I think I see where the sticking point is for you. Windows *does* have a CLI-only mode, and you can run a very basic version of it by booting into single user mode (recovery console), as MarkJensen said.

However, it is not a user-facing feature, it is not updated / worked on / useful, and it runs at such a low level that there is no win32 subsystem even loaded.

During normal boot-up, Windows boots straight into the logon UI. There is no multi-user purely CLI environment, but that really has nothing to do with the architecture. It's just that there's no real reason to invest time in a "pure" CLI environment, and most applications for Windows are not written to work from the command-line. I wouldn't consider that a fault, it's just reality.

In fact, the CLI for Windows actually exists at a pretty low level, and CMD.exe has to "pipe" it through to the windowing environment. I guess what you're complaining about is the lack of a CLI logon mechanism and the ability to logon directly to a console session without the window manager running. But that's a pretty useless thing to do on Windows, which is why it isn't enabled/supported.

Now, if you don't mind the window manager starting up (and the logon UI, win32 subsystem, etc), then you could very easily change the default shell in Windows to be CMD.exe (or even PowerShell). You could even make it start in full-screen mode. There's a registry key that controls what shell is loaded (normally this is Explorer.exe, obviously). That's about as close as you're going to get, and have any usefulness, I think.

Then again, I don't know anyone who would want that, but you certainly can do it.

Brilliant! Thanks for giving me something to think about.

I don't have any particular love for CLIs myself, but I count that as a problem in need of correcting (personally). I spend most of my time in the GUI world, but I do use the terminal for lots of things and keep a shortcut in my menu bar and use it daily. Still, you're right, the demand there is minimal.

Now, can you confirm/deny something I read about NT? I read that the fellow who created the NT kernel had previously worked on Digital's VMS, and that the NT name was really not anything to do with 'new technology' but rather they took VMS, and added a letter to each letter, yielding WNT... Windows NT. Is this true?

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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?

Well, "proof" would involve actually doing it, and I don't quite have enough spare time for that. Also, saying a "Unix foundation" is pretty ambiguous. Do you mean Linux? Something wacky like XNU? FreeBSD?

I'd be curious to hear your arguments for why you think replacing the NT kernel would be advantageous to Windows.

My initial thoughts are:

1. Modularity. NT is already far more modular at runtime than, let's say, Linux or FreeBSD.
   
2. Performance. NT has been very, very heavily tuned to the x86/x64 processor architecture. It was built from the ground-up for multithreaded environments. The few places where NT gives in a bit on modularity are entirely to benefit performance (read: display drivers).
   Also keep in mind that even with all the abstraction between NT and Win32 applications that exists, the implementation of the Win32 APIs and the app code that runs on them is highly optimized for running on NT, since that's all it ever runs on.
   
3. Resource usage. Because NT is a highly modular microkernel, it doesn't compile in anything that isn't needed. That's why it's so tiny
   (~4MB I think these days) compared to a standard Linux kernel. Of course, when all the relevant modules are loaded the total size is probably fairly close. But in the NT architecture, unused modules don't need to be loaded, whereas in the Linux world you're stuck with what's compiled in (unless you recompile, which I realize plenty of geeks love to do - but it's not really helping them take over the desktop OS market).
   

In some ways, the Linux architecture makes sense if you're compiling the OS for your specific machine. Windows focuses more on modularity on the binary side of things, so that one image can be shipped and adapt at runtime, without the need to recompile / rebuild.

Now, can you confirm/deny something I read about NT? I read that the fellow who created the NT kernel had previously worked on Digital's VMS, and that the NT name was really not anything to do with 'new technology' but rather they took VMS, and added a letter to each letter, yielding WNT... Windows NT. Is this true?

I've heard that rumor/anecdote, but I have no idea if it's true. I suspect that very few people know for sure the origin of the NT nomenclature. Dave Cutler did work on VMS and was instrumental in the design of NT (and worked on it for quite some time).

[Dev Null Zen]

They should do what Apple did and get rid of their old kernel and use some variant of Unix as the base. This would speed things up hugely, improve security and stability, and get more out of hardware.

Then they should copy all the good ideas from Mac and Linux (everyone copies others' ideas) and improve upon them (everyone copies others' ideas and usually improves upon them).

They could go open source: develop the Windows desktop to sit on top of the Linux kernel (this is probably one of the many things they do in their research labs anyway for testing purposes).

A drastic change such as going to a unix base, would destroy all backwards compatabilites, for all intents and purposes. Everything would have to be run emulated, and then your REALLY gonna see some resource whoring.

And how, on this earth, could you even utter that they should go open source? That would completely go against the entire premise of trying to make money off the operating system. Absolutely absurd.

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

As far as doing 'more, easier' concerning CLI on linux, thats just not true. While you are able to do things in CLI that sometimes you aren't able to in a GUI, it being easier is just false. Checking off boxes for options rather than having to remember all of the case sensitive flags, is by far easier. Many things run better if you do them from CLI, because you use less resources. But in all practicality, you can do far less in CLI than you can in X. Try using Links to surf the Neowin forums sometime, and see how long it takes before you want to start pulling your hair out. For a quick taste of CLI only, grab an Arch cd and do a base install. You'll be left with no X, and will do everything via CLI. Try and go an entire day, doing all the things you usually do on the computer. I guarantee you won't be able to. X is to the linux what the Windows GUI is to its NT kernel. Granted you can do a bit more over the linux CLI, but it is 0% practical for desktop use.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

I've heard that rumor/anecdote, but I have no idea if it's true. I suspect that very few people know for sure the origin of the NT nomenclature. Dave Cutler did work on VMS and was instrumental in the design of NT (and worked on it for quite some time).

Not to ignore your other comments, which I read with great interest. But this is surely too odd an occurrence to be a coincidence. Not that it matters much. It's fun trivia for geeks.

Probably these days I seem like a Linux Lout here on Neowin. But truth is, my first computer that was actually MINE had Windows 98SE on it. At some point I got a computer with Win 2000 on it, a world apart really. I got an XP machine in like 2003 or something. I loved my Windows machines. Now I use Linux (Ubuntu) I find my love of computers so much greater.

You are a Windows developer and promoter. What do you think happened to me? I was raised on Windows. I can tell you what I love about Linux and Gnome till the cows come home. But from your perspective, what is happening here?

[Calum Veteran]

I want yellow screen of death. Blue is so boring and we've seen that too many times.

LMAO!

That is an amazing post! :p

----------------

Now playing on iTunes: "Weird Al" Yankovic - Addicted to Spuds

via FoxyTunes

[liveseven]

We have this, it's called Tile View. Or do you mean on the desktop specifically... yeah it appears to be disabled there (not even sure why, actually. It's the same control).

isnt there some 3rd party software the does this?

btw all icon views should have been added to the desktop. as well as sizing <each one of> them. if we want small or large tiles then we should get it.

[Minifig]

I want yellow screen of death. Blue is so boring and we've seen that too many times.

Nah, Yellow is too awesome of a color to be associated with a crash.

How about Red screen of death.. because you already see red when your pc crashes.

[ViperAFK]

Not to ignore your other comments, which I read with great interest. But this is surely too odd an occurrence to be a coincidence. Not that it matters much. It's fun trivia for geeks.

Probably these days I seem like a Linux Lout here on Neowin. But truth is, my first computer that was actually MINE had Windows 98SE on it. At some point I got a computer with Win 2000 on it, a world apart really. I got an XP machine in like 2003 or something. I loved my Windows machines. Now I use Linux (Ubuntu) I find my love of computers so much greater.

You are a Windows developer and promoter. What do you think happened to me? I was raised on Windows. I can tell you what I love about Linux and Gnome till the cows come home. But from your perspective, what is happening here?

I toy with linux distros all the time and think linux is getting pretty damn good, I also like MacOSX. I would probably be using one of them if I didn't game, but Windows vista does the job for me. I just don't think switching to a unix based kernel would be a good/practical move.

[zerologic]

We have this, it's called Tile View. Or do you mean on the desktop specifically... yeah it appears to be disabled there (not even sure why, actually. It's the same control).

Option for Tile View - but on the desktop. Please. (Y)

[Calum Veteran]

Option for Tile View - but on the desktop. Please. (Y)

I think an option for 'Tile View' in Windows Explorer & on the Desktop, would be very good, but only if it works with the 'Large Icons' view aswell. I would love my desktop icons to be able to have text at the side, whilst maintaining their 'largeness'.

Also, an option to change the size of the text under the icon on the desktop (& have details - e.g. storage left on the 'C:\ Drive'), like Mac OS X Leopard would be awesome!

Any chance you could suggest any of these to anyone you know at Microsoft, please, Brandon? :whistle:

----------------

Now playing on iTunes: "Weird Al" Yankovic - You're Pitiful

via FoxyTunes

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I think an option for 'Tile View' in Windows Explorer & on the Desktop, would be very good, but only if it works with the 'Large Icons' view aswell. I would love my desktop icons to be able to have text at the side, whilst maintaining their 'largeness'.

Explorer already has Tile View. Are there other exceptions besides the Desktop you're concerned about?

Also, an option to change the size of the text under the icon on the desktop (& have details - e.g. storage left on the 'C:\ Drive'), like Mac OS X Leopard would be awesome!

You can change the size of that text (you've been able to since Win95 or maybe earlier). To do it on Vista, you need to go to the Window Color and Appearence dialog, then into the classic appearance dialog, then into Advanced. Select "Icon" and then you can change the text size, font, etc.

I think an option for 'Tile View' in Windows Explorer & on the Desktop, would be very good, but only if it works with the 'Large Icons' view aswell. I would love my desktop icons to be able to have text at the side, whilst maintaining their 'largeness'.

Explorer already has Tile View. Are there other exceptions besides the Desktop you're concerned about?

Also, an option to change the size of the text under the icon on the desktop (& have details - e.g. storage left on the 'C:\ Drive'), like Mac OS X Leopard would be awesome!

You can change the size of that text (you've been able to since Win95 or maybe earlier). To do it on Vista, you need to go to the Window Color and Appearence dialog, then into the classic appearance dialog, then into Advanced. Select "Icon" and then you can change the text size, font, etc.

Unfortunately, this also changes the font size lots of other places =/

[sweetsam]

Make UAC customizable. Users who know their way around can have some of those alerts turned off while others can have all alerts turned on. Warning somebody like system admin that somebody is accessing task manager or device manager is just pointless. UAC is a very good concept and I hope they retain and refine it further.

Enable access to network connections from start menu. I just don't see the wisdom behind removing it.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Warning somebody like system admin that somebody is accessing task manager or device manager is just pointless. UAC is a very good concept and I hope they retain and refine it further.

It's not pointless. Task Manager is capable of launching arbitrary commands, after all.

[zerologic]

A Business / Professional Theme. That is not light blue (Vista Basic) but instead a bit more like Windows XP's Luna. With no transparencies - that would really make a difference for me.

[PGHammer]

Complete rework of the threading. Today I couldn't figure out why my computer wasn't responding, then I realized my Pocket PC stuck in an endless CPU loop and was still connected via activesync. Why should that hang the system? WHY?!

Not to happy about all explorer and desktop windows hanging when inserting a CD.

I'm skipping Vista unless I am forced to use it for work (unlikely), but if I have to use it you can bet I will strip it down to the absolute minimal config I need or use 2007 Server.

64-bit is still not practical in a home environment. The only real 64-bit systems I have used with good results are servers, and that doesn't help a gamer.

Why not? Not many home users own Pocket PCs.

Yes; some game developers (that's right, *developers*, not gamers) haven't gotten a clue and are still doing things the Exclusively 32-Bit Way (add browser plug-in developers to that group, as there is no excuse for the lack of 640bit browser plug-ins; none at all). I have a desktop (Celeron-D) with Vista Ultimate x64 that I have no such issues with that you've had. The surprise is that it has a VIA chipset (and onboard VIA graphics to boot) and only 512 MB of RAM.

The *real* issue is that software development still has its quirks, and in some cases, the developers have not fully woken up and embraced targeting a 64-bit development platform because they are still thinking in terms of 2004.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

A Business / Professional Theme. That is not light blue (Vista Basic) but instead a bit more like Windows XP's Luna. With no transparencies - that would really make a difference for me.

Umm, you can turn off transparency in the Aero theme. It looks about a billion times more professional than Luna.

[hjf288]

A definitive be all and end all process killer that will kill a program, any threads it has and any child processes.

It burns me up when I have an application freeze and it cant be closed with Taskkill or Process explorer and I end up rebooting to get rid of it.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

A definitive be all and end all process killer that will kill a program, any threads it has and any child processes.

It burns me up when I have an application freeze and it cant be closed with Taskkill or Process explorer and I end up rebooting to get rid of it.

That can't happen. If you kill a process with Task Manager, it is dead.

There are extremely, extremely rare cases where a process may appear to stick around. Like, if you launched it with something that's keeping a handle to it open. In that case, the process object sticks around but none of the code, data, or any of the process's threads are really there.

Part of it may also stick around if it's stuck in the middle of some I/O operation in kernel land, though if that happens for more than a couple seconds you almost certainly have a busted driver. Apparently older versions of ZoneAlarm and all current versions of Hauppauge's TVR drivers are fairly good examples of drivers that get stuck with APCs disabled, preventing processes from being killed properly.

More detail:

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/.../23/192531.aspx