Frogboy Administrators Posted December 29, 2001 Administrators Share Posted December 29, 2001 What are the KEY features you think that the new major version of Windows need? Here is a short list of mine: * SQL based file system * Full .NET integration with central services that are NOT web based but have all kinds of interfaces (i.e. I speak into my PocketPC 2004 and it converts it to text and puts it under "Notes" on my Passport .NET account where I can access it through the web (worst case), through software, or via a DesktopX NG object. * Distributed computing where I can see my network and if I have a 100megabit or faster connection to my network I can seamlessly have CPU intensive processes thrown to compute onto them as well if I have priviledges on those machines. * Seamless Terminal Server - I want my Visual Studio Compiler that is displayed on my machine here to execute fully on my mega machine in the server room and for this to be trivial to set up. * Document the new hooking APIs for lighter faster desktop enhancements. That's for starters. What would you add? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zornr0t Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 * Much more intelligent caching routines so that it doesn't take 3 minutes to move a 200 megabyte file from one partition to the next when I'm playing mp3s, especially when I have 384 megs of RAM. * Number lock enabled by default as set in the BIOS. * A 2D implementation close to Quartz as possible without litigation. Zoran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Gates Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 * complete personalization * free addons * no activation * no gay dogs in the search menu * no question marks telling me how to use my computer especially in the PROFESSIONAL edition * not being released before alot of hardware is supported (i'll be adding more things soon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurting101 Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 * Memory of folder view settings (all folders) * Digital signature not needed for styles by default * System Restore manager (remove seleted, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qarth Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 That's cute how people think that alot of words sounds intelligent lol... Here's what I think made XP better... *Multi user suport. *NT kernal so it doesn't DIE 8 times a day. *Luna GUI, looks are a must with me. *Cleartype once again looks cool. *Built in support for cams. The Windows drivers work beter than logitechs' on my box. *32 biy icons on taskbar is just awsome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thuggers Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 - ability to set specific ison sizes for ay folder - more secure iis - ability to template a folders look globally. ex set all folders to look like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMan Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 - better alpha/beta/RC* testing - more robust Windows Update (namely the ability to jump into the pool of hotfixes not yet implemented on your PC) - this is unrelating to the actual operating system but if Microsoft could spare us the bloody fanfare that would be nice - user account templates so if you didn't want retarded office assistants, balloons and wizards being force-fed to you every second and warning messages automatically silenced you could choose a more advanced template. - more control over the installation (on demand) so you can see what hardware it's detected and if it's got the drivers right and choose the directories all the native XP apps go into (like Movie Maker and WMP8, etc.) and whatever else you'd prefer control over that XP doesn't provide. - less centralised control over the system (right now Microsoft babble on about how it all revolves around the start button) whilst still maintaining some cohesion (big ask, I know!) :cheeky: That's all I can come up with off the top of my head! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nekrosoft13 Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 no ****ing activation, and if there has to be one, activate once, not every time you change your hardware!!! more customizable allow to password protect some folders and files. more coming soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuzzo Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 Builtin Tweakui xp,come on Builtin resume when downloading And yes total GUI+icon customizing like you can on MacOs9,please,please Faster startup ANd a virusprotection inside XP with daily updating! Give us a new mediaplayer this one sucks! more to come... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 - Improved installation procedure that always shows the progress of things. - New file system that, in addition to being based upon SQL Server, has a "firewall" around crucial system files. - Improved memory and cache protection (approach this in similar way as "firewall approach" mentioned above). - Completely customizable GUI. - Word distributed with every version of Windows as a replacement to WordPad. - Improved boot sequence that is faster, more efficient, and allows for OS control directly from the BIOS. - Ability to choose what components you can install (this is not available in XP but is in 95/98) - Built-in support for PDA's and MP3 players. - Distribute Outlook with Windows (with a newsreader) as a replacement for Outlook Express. - Make the price of Windows more reasonable. - One edition for the desktop, one for embedded (including PDA'S) devices, and one edition for servers. - New kernel (64-bit) - NO PRODUCT ACTIVATION!!!!! Those are all the ideas I can think of right now. I may post some more later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nd3r Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 a beer dispencer :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11212 Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 It should beable to please me sexually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nekrosoft13 Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 some one should show microsoft this forum, so they could read it and see what users want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoshi Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 Some of these requests are ridiculous. Improved installation procedure that always shows the progress of things. I don't have a problem with the installer now. It seems to give me an accurate time remaining as to what's left, plus what is installing. New file system that, in addition to being based upon SQL Server, has a "firewall" around crucial system files. Utterly pointless. A filesystem is built to be fast in low level accesses. SQL isn't fast in nanosecond accesses like that. Plus, NTFS is a great system, and it already does have a 'firewall' type system around crucial system files. Improved memory and cache protection (approach this in similar way as "firewall approach" mentioned above). I don't see what more they could do with memory or cache protection. Completely customizable GUI. Way overrated. I don't need to put the "X" box on the left side for me to use my OS. Word distributed with every version of Windows as a replacement to WordPad. Then why buy Office? Improved boot sequence that is faster, more efficient, and allows for OS control directly from the BIOS. They can't really improve it any more than they did for Windows XP without instituting more hardware-based boosts. It really does improve bootup times, rearranging files to the inner portion of your hard drive. Ability to choose what components you can install (this is not available in XP but is in 95/98) I do believe this is in XP. I could have sworn I customized what to add and not. Built-in support for PDA's and MP3 players. Most PDAs come with software like Outlook that already support it. Windows won't come with Outlook. Distribute Outlook with Windows (with a newsreader) as a replacement for Outlook Express. Like I said, Outlook Express is supposed to be a replacement for nothing. You're lucky you're getting that. Outlook is what makes Microsoft money, why would they give it away? Make the price of Windows more reasonable. Oh come on. You use Windows every single second you're using your PC. Why do you not think their current prices are justified? One edition for the desktop, one for embedded (including PDA'S) devices, and one edition for servers. They already have all of the above. Windows XP Home for the desktop, Windows XP Embedded for the PDAs, Windows .NET for servers. New kernel (64-bit) Why would they rewrite the kernel now after spending 10 years perfecting this one? Maybe you mean compiling it for 64 bit chips, but what's the use? No one has a 64 bit chip. Even if you did, that'd mean you'd still either have to have a 32-bit emulation mode running all your 32 bit applications slower or recompile them. 64-bit is server only for now. NO PRODUCT ACTIVATION!!!!! Bah. If you don't pirate it, it's no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nekrosoft13 Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 i have nothing against product actication. the only thing that is ****ing me off, is that i have to reactivate every time i change some hardware. you should active only one time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperJediMedia Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 1. A good Text to Speech tool. 2. Speech-to-command (ie: I say "Open Browser" and it opens up the browser. "Shut down windows", and it just does that.) 3. Take-off the DAMN Activation, put in a wheel disk or something hard to crack like that. I have another idea. Why not MS do this? Put two CDs in one box. In one disk it's got windows XP and drivers. In the second disk, put in some stuff that would sell no more than $10 dollars, (like Utilities including sharewares like Netscape and latest version of MSN explorer, Quicktime, plus other fun stuff maybe) and given free to people who buy Windows. However, free stuff is one thing, it has a bigger task. And that is when you put in the first disk to install windows, it will always ask you to insert the second disk in for verifying. I know it can be done. Have the Hackers have fun crack at that. 3. MS have Sell it for $20 dollars less, comon Microsoft, you are a Big Boss. What's $80 dollars a copy going to affect you? CHEAPER WIndows = More buys, perhaps LESS piracy due to the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 Utterly pointless. A filesystem is built to be fast in low level accesses. SQL isn't fast in nanosecond accesses like that. Plus, NTFS is a great system, and it already does have a 'firewall' type system around crucial system files. Blackcomb will have a file system based upon SQL Server anyway.Then why buy Office? Because it is too damn expensive. Besides, replacing WordPad with Word is not going to hurt MS that much, and it is already the most popular word processing software there is. And if all you need is a word processor, then why would you pay a ridiculous price for either word itself or the whole office suite. If people want Excel, Access, Frontpage, or Powerpoint, then they should by Office. Why would they rewrite the kernel now after spending 10 years perfecting this one? Maybe you mean compiling it for 64 bit chips, but what's the use? No one has a 64 bit chip. Even if you did, that'd mean you'd still either have to have a 32-bit emulation mode running all your 32 bit applications slower or recompile them. 64-bit is server only for now. Because 64-bit is faster and more efficient than 32-bit. 64-bit computing will EVENTUALLY be the mainstream, so at least MS needs to create an OS that supports 64-bit computers but can still run on 32-bit computers as well. Blackcomb may have a new 64-bit kernel anyway. And about you, Yoshi, saying that my ideas are pointless and ridiculous: people are allowed to post their ideas and thoughts on this forum. I am simply posting thoughts that may be incorporated into Windows in the future anyway, especially with .NET coming around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoshi Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 Blackcomb will have a file system based upon SQL Server anyway. Yeah, I guess you're right. I stand corrected. I'm still confused as to why Microsoft would rewrite a reliable FS like NTFS for UFS, as they call it. I mean, you have the ability now to give files metadata in its property, they just haven't implemented searching for it. Because it is too damn expensive. I see it for ~$150 at OfficeMax. For software that you would entrust to author documents that you would send to people much higher than you, I don't think that's a bad price. Plus, look at all what it does. Besides, replacing WordPad with Word is not going to hurt MS that much, and it is already the most popular word processing software there is. And if all you need is a word processor, then why would you pay a ridiculous price for either word itself or the whole office suite. There you go. That's why they don't, it makes them a ton of money. Maybe not on personal sales - consumers don't usually shell out $500 without thought. But businesses buy Office in bulk when most of their employees only need Word, and some Excel. Why would they jeopardize this business? If people want Excel, Access, Frontpage, or Powerpoint, then they should by Office. Those aren't Office selling points. Everyone (especially Microsoft) knows that Word is what sells Office. Because 64-bit is faster and more efficient than 32-bit. 64-bit computing will EVENTUALLY be the mainstream, so at least MS needs to create an OS that supports 64-bit computers but can still run on 32-bit computers as well. Blackcomb may have a new 64-bit kernel anyway. Well, aside from the fact that they did create Windows XP 64-Bit, it's not faster at all. Right now, you still have to emulate all of your 32 bit code, and benchmarks say that the Itanium processor is actually worse at that than doing it natively. The only reason 64 bit is a selling point is because of its increased RAM limits, up to 16 gigabytes, rather than 32 bit's 4 gigs. I just don't see 64-bit in the near future at all. Why would anyone want to run the tens of thousands of Windows applications slower than they do now for no noticable benefits? And about you, Yoshi, saying that my ideas are pointless and ridiculous: people are allowed to post their ideas and thoughts on this forum. I am simply posting thoughts that may be incorporated into Windows in the future anyway, especially with .NET coming around. Oh come on, it wasn't personal, yours certainly weren't the worst here. I just criticized someone because of these common expectations of Microsoft that they seemingly can never live up to because they don't want to go broke. People saying Windows should cost $20, or Office should be bundled with it. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessterw Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 Just to let some of you into a little not so secret secret, the future of the Windows file-system is to based on a future version of SQL. Some may say that an SQL-based file system will not be fast enough, but you have to remember that it will be optimized for serving and storing files, something SQL Server isn't. NT 5.0 (Windows 2000) was originally supposed to include this new file system back when it was code-named Cairo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 * To be able to repair damn IE!! :devious: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperJediMedia Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 I thought SFC may help, but some people said it won't... IN case you haven't noticed, Microsoft separates the Support for IE and Windows. Even though they bind with each other. IE is part of OS. I fear it's NOT the Windows programmer. I don't know... it's more of a Internet Explorer wishlist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 I agree with most of what yoshi has said. The 64-bit OS will most likely get work out in with the big back end servers that need that power right now. Not the home user who wants to see his games run more smoothly. I would not be surprise to not see this in the next release of a Windows OS. Also the wishing to have voice recognition software is far from close. Dragon Naturally speaking is or was the leading in this and it sucked. MS tried in the Office XP but that is not really usable. Then trying to take that into the OS would be dangerous. Think about all the what ifs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLOSifl Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 Originally posted by Qarth That's cute how people think that alot of words sounds intelligent lol... *NT kernal so it doesn't DIE 8 times a day. It's kernel. :right: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qarth Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 Originally posted by Yoshi Some of these requests are ridiculous. Improved installation procedure that always shows the progress of things. I don't have a problem with the installer now. It seems to give me an accurate time remaining as to what's left, plus what is installing. New file system that, in addition to being based upon SQL Server, has a "firewall" around crucial system files. Utterly pointless. A filesystem is built to be fast in low level accesses. SQL isn't fast in nanosecond accesses like that. Plus, NTFS is a great system, and it already does have a 'firewall' type system around crucial system files. Improved memory and cache protection (approach this in similar way as "firewall approach" mentioned above). I don't see what more they could do with memory or cache protection. Completely customizable GUI. Way overrated. I don't need to put the "X" box on the left side for me to use my OS. Word distributed with every version of Windows as a replacement to WordPad. Then why buy Office? Improved boot sequence that is faster, more efficient, and allows for OS control directly from the BIOS. They can't really improve it any more than they did for Windows XP without instituting more hardware-based boosts. It really does improve bootup times, rearranging files to the inner portion of your hard drive. Ability to choose what components you can install (this is not available in XP but is in 95/98) I do believe this is in XP. I could have sworn I customized what to add and not. Built-in support for PDA's and MP3 players. Most PDAs come with software like Outlook that already support it. Windows won't come with Outlook. Distribute Outlook with Windows (with a newsreader) as a replacement for Outlook Express. Like I said, Outlook Express is supposed to be a replacement for nothing. You're lucky you're getting that. Outlook is what makes Microsoft money, why would they give it away? Make the price of Windows more reasonable. Oh come on. You use Windows every single second you're using your PC. Why do you not think their current prices are justified? One edition for the desktop, one for embedded (including PDA'S) devices, and one edition for servers. They already have all of the above. Windows XP Home for the desktop, Windows XP Embedded for the PDAs, Windows .NET for servers. New kernel (64-bit) Why would they rewrite the kernel now after spending 10 years perfecting this one? Maybe you mean compiling it for 64 bit chips, but what's the use? No one has a 64 bit chip. Even if you did, that'd mean you'd still either have to have a 32-bit emulation mode running all your 32 bit applications slower or recompile them. 64-bit is server only for now. NO PRODUCT ACTIVATION!!!!! Bah. If you don't pirate it, it's no problem. If you keep up to date on your tech you would know that MS is releasing the 64 bit version. and on top of that a GUI that is eye pleasing makes me alot happier than the stability of NT ever did. you have your opinions and other people do too. So don't start a witch hunt without proof of magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoshi Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 If you keep up to date on your tech you would know that MS is releasing the 64 bit version. If you kept up to date with my posts, you would have seen my second post in which I sarcastically stated "Well, aside from the fact that they did create Windows XP 64-Bit, it's not faster at all." and on top of that a GUI that is eye pleasing makes me alot happier than the stability of NT ever did. Well, whatever works. I'll take NT's stability though. you have your opinions and other people do too. So don't start a witch hunt without proof of magic. right. Moving on.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts