JrDZ13 Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 a smooth new GUI is what i'm looking for... while i agree that stability and performance define a computer, a WOW! gui that is easy smooth and user friendly makes the OS a killer... ie AQUA from OSX presonally.. i think the aqua interface near prefect from a visual perspecive, but the LUNA gui is easier to use and i cant quite EXPLAIN why it feels better.. it just does... gues its a side effect of living in a windows world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshMan Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 I would like for them to change the entire way the registry works. In fact I want it gone for good. I want the programs to keep all thier settings in thier respective folders, and not need to be installed. And I want it like that so I can install my programs as usuall on my hard drive, but run XP from a DVD-R, thus making it nearly impossible to screw up my install. I agree! I use to lock some of my INI file back in the days of (Win 3.1) and my systems stayed the way set it for years but now with 95-XP, ALL the settings are in the registry and I cant lock anything and other programs can change my prefs. If only there was away to loc a branch on the Registry. Another feature I would like to see is an option that allows me to password protect a folder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Fulcrum Subscriber¹ Posted June 27, 2003 Subscriber¹ Share Posted June 27, 2003 I would like for them to change the entire way the registry works. In fact I want it gone for good. I want the programs to keep all thier settings in thier respective folders, and not need to be installed. And I want it like that so I can install my programs as usuall on my hard drive, but run XP from a DVD-R, thus making it nearly impossible to screw up my install. instead of removing the registry, they could and might include dynamic folders that are directly tied to the registry. these folders, when moved, renamed, or deleted, would make note to the registry to perform the correct operation to keep the program operational. ie. if you delete a folder in program files called Symantec. it would completely uninstall all Symantec products along with removing their icons from the start menu they could do this easily with the new WinFS that they will have in Longhorn most suggestions i would have are already included in Longhorn :yes: tho, i bet i could come up with afew more if i really thought about it. If we dont like the registry, why would we even try to make it worse by giving it another ability. I think the idea of having the program settings in their respective folders and doing away with the registry would be a great idea. Dynamic Folders just makes an extra step and furthers the lifetime of the registry which many don't want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshMan Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 I think that Windows Icons are for crap! MS should hire foood to design the icons for longhorn! I second that, his icons are among the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonze Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 Think! We wanna hear! i guess i would like intigrated anti-virus, anti-adware, anti-spyware tools. aswell as a popup blocked and cookie analyzer in IE. and spam filter for outlook express knowing microsoft's current stance on including free software with their OS, these applications would work but would be basic in order to still allow competition from software companies to build more extensive applications to carry out these tasks. this can be seen with microsoft's plan to include some sort of basic Anti-virus with Longorn and the current firewall included with XP. If we dont like the registry, why would we even try to make it worse by giving it another ability. I think the idea of having the program settings in their respective folders and doing away with the registry would be a great idea. Dynamic Folders just makes an extra step and furthers the lifetime of the registry which many don't want. sure that's the way you want it. but think about how easy it would be to pirate programs from PCs if you didn't need the registry to run them. it would be as easy to steal PC apps as it is to steal...... apps on a mac! :D we need a way to simplify the way folders/files and the registry work, but also protect the rights of software companies that sell you the software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshMan Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 instead of removing the registry, they could and might include dynamic folders that are directly tied to the registry. these folders, when moved, renamed, or deleted, would make note to the registry to perform the correct operation to keep the program operational.ie. if you delete a folder in program files called Symantec. it would completely uninstall all Symantec products along with removing their icons from the start menu I like that idea a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Frett Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 By cleaning up the code thereby shaving some of the mb off it. Make it faster on older computers possibly. I think it's already stable. And I also like the Idea of a macish idea like Fonze had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skooter_15 Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 I'd like it if you were able to drag the program boxes on the task bar and put them in any order you like... rather than having to open everything in the same order. Like dragging the tabs down the bottom in Excel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocks1985 Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 step 1. Format C:step 2. ::HULK SMASH!!!:: step 3. www.apple.com ;) j/k, I have XP and love it. I'd rather have a Mac but I can't afford one. Ha! I so agree! I have XP and like it. I really would rather have a Mac as well but I cannot afford one! Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalogRival Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 I use to lock some of my INI file back in the days of (Win 3.1) and my systems stayed the way set it for years but now with 95-XP, ALL the settings are in the registry and I cant lock anything and other programs can change my prefs. If only there was away to loc a branch on the Registry. You can, Under XP, right click on the branch or key, hit Permissions, and deny write/modify access to everyone. :) Works for me there and on certain files (have to remove ALL permissions) that ad-filled programs use. They know the file is there so it can't bitch, it just doesn't get the data. Dunno why it works sometimes, just does. The beauty of NTFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headcase2 Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 I like the idea of killing the registry, but the shell still needs some centrally located file that tells it what programs go to what files (ie. pdf -> Acrobat, txt -> Notepad), but that would be just a simple table... hell, make it a text or xml file -> easy edit I've heard Longhorn will use a module-style install system, dont like IE -> uncheck box at install, its never added (notice I said never added, not just hidden from the user but its put on your disk). This would also require that Explorer should be seperated from IExplorer. Also include Office file VIEWERS (xls, powerpoint) available on the install CD. I think that would really trim down the size of the windows install. You wanna make Windows truly better? Try adding alternative filesystem compatibility (module of course) Reiserfs, XFS, ext2/3, or whatever you can find.... I would prefer to get rid of the system drive idea (C:, D: etc) but I'm sure some people cant wrap their head around that, so mount partitions to drive letters will work, for now anyway. And to finish off my little advice rant: MAKE IT COST LESS Cmon Billy, ya already made your billions... ease up a little bit :) P.S. kill clippy, the wizard, the little robot, the parrot and the talkin question mark... thats just stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malebolgia Veteran Posted June 27, 2003 Author Veteran Share Posted June 27, 2003 I want a feature very similar to Expos? I think it would be very useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pHuzi0n Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 The way I see it, Program installation needs to be more moduler. The installer would only be able to create the program directory and put any libraries into system32 and it would all be done by making API calls. A program by itself wouldn't be allowed to do much. It would have full access to it's own directory but no access to other programs' directories. It would only have read access to the system(32) folder in order to use the shared dll's. I already mentioned that installers would be an exception to that because they would use a certain API call that would place the dll's in there for it... Since installers would have to use API calls to do everything and I mean EVERYTHING, those API calls would document where everything had been installed to and this info would be kept in the registry. The registry would ONLY be accessible to the OS (you could still use regedit because it would be considered part of the OS). Essentially the idea is that programs would exist in a little world of their own where nothing could harm them. This might possibly solve many copyright issues with programs (but not media) because if the program is "installed" then it could only be harmed by itself or uninstalled completely. Now if programs weren't "installed" in the Programs directory, they would be treated just as another file that could be edited at will. Anything that isn't in the Programs, Windows, or Users directory would be treated as a general file... Inside a specific user's User directory, there may be places to share with nobody, all users of this computer, and all authenticated users (which would be your family and freinds connecting over the LAN or internet and you would send them a little file that grants them access). You would still be able to edit user permissions for files and directories as long as you have ownership (which excludes the Programs, Windows, and all Users' directories except your own). Because these important locations would now be "locked down" somewhat, AV software become less important (only your document files would be vulnerable) but harder to implement. It would essentially need to be considered part of the OS and use some special parameters in the installation to identify itself as having special priveledges which would be the same way that the OS would use to install patches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalogRival Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 <post snipped> I see what your saying, but someone like me loves total control over their own machine, something about me being locked out of my program files directory bothers me. It feels like I can't even admin my own box. Besides, there's a file in my Windows folder that I need to edit, but guess what, locked out. I am a tweaker, and having total and free access is VERY important. This MIGHT work for a novice, or someone new (or dumb) to computers, but to the rest of us, I don't see that OS being installed on my machine or anyone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loc[a]lhost Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 there is one thing that should be improved: they should delete all their source code for explorer.exe and build it from SCRATCH! the explorer shell is just the biggest piece of shyt i have ever seen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trenzterra Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 instead of removing the registry, they could and might include dynamic folders that are directly tied to the registry. these folders, when moved, renamed, or deleted, would make note to the registry to perform the correct operation to keep the program operational.ie. if you delete a folder in program files called Symantec. it would completely uninstall all Symantec products along with removing their icons from the start menu I like that idea a lot. I disagree. i believe many shareware programs like jasc paintshop pro uses the registry to find out when the 30 day trial expires. if i can remove it so easily, i can just reinstall after 30 days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 I would like for them to change the entire way the registry works. In fact I want it gone for good. I want the programs to keep all thier settings in thier respective folders, and not need to be installed. And I want it like that so I can install my programs as usuall on my hard drive, but run XP from a DVD-R, thus making it nearly impossible to screw up my install. So you want to go back to the days of 3.1 where each program kept its own settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 Such as *.ini files? MUCH slower than a registry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 lhost,Jun 27 2003, 14:16] there is one thing that should be improved:they should delete all their source code for explorer.exe and build it from SCRATCH! the explorer shell is just the biggest piece of shyt i have ever seen! They are remaking explorer.exe in managed C# I believe in Longhorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 I don't see why there has to be a registry in Longhorn, databases don't have a registry as such and you can search for what ever very quick, with Longhorn having an SQL based Filesystem could the registry disappear for good ? I want add / remove to work properly, when I say delete something do NOT leave any remnants of the program behind at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malebolgia Veteran Posted June 27, 2003 Author Veteran Share Posted June 27, 2003 lhost,Jun 27 2003, 14:16] there is one thing that should be improved:they should delete all their source code for explorer.exe and build it from SCRATCH! the explorer shell is just the biggest piece of shyt i have ever seen! They are remaking explorer.exe in managed C# I believe in Longhorn. Where did you hear that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalogRival Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 I don't see why there has to be a registry in Longhorn, databases don't have a registry as such and you can search for what ever very quick, with Longhorn having an SQL based Filesystem could the registry disappear for good ?I want add / remove to work properly, when I say delete something do NOT leave any remnants of the program behind at all. It's not SQL based, it's still NTFS with SQL on top of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 lhost,Jun 27 2003, 14:16] there is one thing that should be improved:they should delete all their source code for explorer.exe and build it from SCRATCH! the explorer shell is just the biggest piece of shyt i have ever seen! They are remaking explorer.exe in managed C# I believe in Longhorn. Where did you hear that? In Paul Thurrots review of 4015 he mentios Explorer is being written in managed .net code (but buggy currently as to be expected) http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_4015.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 I don't see why there has to be a registry in Longhorn, databases don't have a registry as such and you can search for what ever very quick, with Longhorn having an SQL based Filesystem could the registry disappear for good ?I want add / remove to work properly, when I say delete something do NOT leave any remnants of the program behind at all. It's not SQL based, it's still NTFS with SQL on top of that. A high up MS emloyee has gone against what another MS employee said about it being a service, so we will have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshMan Posted June 29, 2003 Share Posted June 29, 2003 lhost,Jun 27 2003, 14:16] there is one thing that should be improved:they should delete all their source code for explorer.exe and build it from SCRATCH! the explorer shell is just the biggest piece of shyt i have ever seen! You obviously haven't seen Apple's Finder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts