Windows Windows 7 : Your hopes and dreams?

i hope Win7 will have a working RAMdisk along with ability to automatically put temp files in it and resize on-the-fly when needed. (eg, i have 8GB, and my 2GB RAMdisk is only used for unRAR files, what a waste)

i hope Win7 is 64bit only

i hope Win7 have better stability with nVidia drivers

i hope Win7 keeps the sidebar (loving it)

i hope Win7 keep Vista start menu (loving it)

i hope Win7 have an GUI option to turn the auto-folder-property assignment OFF (eg, almost every folder i open automatically goes to Thumbnail)


i dream Win7 have Firefox as default browser

i dream Win7 is open source

 

I hope win7 actually has nice GUI this time around (whoever has been designing the themes/interface for windows up until now needs to be shot)

I dream win7 will not glue itself to my motherboad and insist that I am illegally trying to install a billions copies of windows to a billion different computers, and not that I had a hardware failure.

 

I had a gargantuan amount of quotes in here, but I'll start with the biggest one word answer I have to this "VIRTUALIZATION".

I've been pondering this for a while, and I'm not so sure I want to tell the whole world... even the Bit-Tech forum world... my secret ideas for making the operating system interface better... but, I will anyway *sigh*

For starters, hardware level Virtualization with strict developer guidelines and transparency that does not contain the operating system (i.e. hypervisor). Essentially a CLI type modular environment that translate physical hardware (i.e. GTX 280) into a specific single series of coding ports that allow games to be single archetechtured, and that would allow you to essentially run only the game when in game mode. Imagine it, from a gaming perspective, as a hardware level console gaming emulator. This would allow for much more interactive games and would defeat the "PC is a dying platform" theory (which makes it very attractive to any company producing PC gaming products). It would also allow you to never... ok almost never... have to reboot due to program crash or... ever. The modular hypervisor setup allows you to implement desktop level redundancy and never, ever, reboot (i.e. you've two graphics cards running in software "SLI" as a pooled virtual resource, when it's time for a driver update, one card goes offline, updates, and then the second, no reboot, and you can even flash the firmware. This is how hospital (hot swap PCI and processors) level redundant systems work). This would also be a good competitor of VMWare ESX (at the server level).

Virtualization beyond single system units and "fat thin-clients". For example my setup: Home Server, Torrent Machine, Workstation (Kinda Gaming Machine), Home Theater Computer, Laptops, and an in progress HPC cluster. When I'm sitting at my workstation, my file server may get some very non strenuous use, my home theater computer may get a wee bit as well (playing music, very resource taxing) and my torrent system is probably (like always) at 110%. Any my little "project" is off. My laptops may or may not be on, ranging around the house. That's essentially 6+ cores of varying speed and like 10GB of ram that is doing nothing, while I max out my CPU and RAM browsing with firefox . What if the operating system (or more like a program node off the hypervisor ) ran a network of my system resources, all connected to gigabit, and could pool out non real time tasks? Say for instance, I'm playing a game, while AutoCAD renders (just you try it and see how it works) and instead of just not working, the render is sent as a task to the RAM and CPU's that are not in use and renders there, much faster than here, and I can still game on my machine!

Along with that comes application level processor throttling, just how fast do you expect your programs to run, if your computer can "watch" you, and by watch I mean you can click a button that says "speed this thing up" or "meh" just at the drop of a hat, it can prioritize the programs you use, and make those background tasks you may or may not even run have a lesser impact when you're running something important. In a world of multitasking your computer should adapt to your task style, not prioritize everything the same.

Another cool benefit, though a more far fetched one... I'de say in windows 9 or maybe even 10, would be pervasive computing. Again, take for example my house where there is a computer in every room, not always fast, but it's there. What if the computers new where you were, and via pooled resources could do simple things like make the music you're playing or the video your watching be on the screen in the room where you actually are? Or even better (for you home theater buffs) if it could track your position within a room and using a calculated algorithm adjust the output level of your speakers to always put you (or the average of the room occupants) in the "sweet spot". In order to make this occur, a completely new RDC that operates within the "pool" would need to exist. There are more details to this, but I'll spare you.

What about contextual user experience? Photosynth (or the official site) is just dreamy... to die for even, and a good show of how Microsoft is going to blow you away when you're too fed up with their operating systems! Making every part of the GUI a dynamic component, you mouse over the programs menu, it opens, first to the common programs, then if you stay moused-over to the more expanded view, then if you stay moused over to the details about the programs (like update status, version history, processor throttling options and more). Don't want to wait for it to expand, scroll wheel.

Take that last option and make it even better, with the new vista voice engine and nuance dragon naturally speaking 9 voice recognition is getting somewhere, now lets make some general commands that people can grow into. Say "Open Internet Explorer" and IE opens (or FireFox!) say "Open Internet Explorer and Browse to Bit-Tech" and voila. This isn't something you'de use all the time, but if you're across the room making coffee, or if you're busy clicking away on something (working in AutoCAD and you need a spec, you can open a window without ever releasing the mouse). What about home theater?

Built in contextual PC health monitoring that isnt for an idiot. Show me the fan speed, temperatures, hard drive smart status, update status, overclocking speeds and more. Make it even better by building it into sideshow and let some high end case manufacturers build 3in screens to display it on the cases.

All this combined with some nice hardware (that I may or may not have plans for too ) and we could be smiling happy little people in the end!

Btw... Microsoft... if you pay me enough I am available for hire as a product concept tech or r&d guy!

*dreams*... but isn't that the topic of the thread?

ed. Whoops... I missed the reply I had in mind for the post above mine. User customizable interface (a skinnable OS).

Oh... and a lower but repeating cost on a modular basis. Don't want to pay for WMP, don't. something like a yearly or bi-yearly license, in exchange for new ideas like these being implemented right away, instead of years down the road. Call it Windows∞.

 

I don't actually think the GUI is that bad. What needs sorting is the coherence between apps/settings.
There are far too many styles of windows, and different looking windows for different types of settings. It all needs to be in one place, looking the same.

 

But, else it would be all bland and boring!

 

your going to burnout you keyboard LordLuciendar.

I doubt we will see any of those ideas for years, there just so complicated. And why would a company such as Microsoft which to invest so much time and pay of expensive programmers when currently they can rest with slight changes (in comparison). It doesnt make sence for them to try such a thing at this time

 

As long as they don't try to force you into using those exclusively (and from several context menus I've seen, it looks like they WILL try to do just that - it's even present in the IE8 beta), that's fine. Better, I'd say.

 

- Instant restart
- A new filesystem
- Built-in, autorunning Ccleaner
- Show the size of folders without freaking hovering over them, or adding an app
- Keep the the Windows Classic theme, at any cost
- Don't assume that the user is a complete idiot
- Don't make annoying sounds at the worst moments
- Don't bother supporting old apps/hardware, just include parallels-style virtualization.
- Be usable at high resolutions, as well as low resolutions.
- KILL FOCUS-STEALING
- Allow the option for ZERO applications built-in.
- Don't take up more than 500mb.

Do it, Microsoft.

 

I guess I would like to see better GUI implementation of features. There are numerous "shortcuts" that a lot of people dont use. Visual interaction with a PC is going to affect its use, and if people dont know how to "use a shortcut" then the software is limited to the knowledge of the user.

The way I see the computer is that its still in its infancy anyway, it'll become more and more intuitive so that people that have never even used a computer can get it going.

The next several decades, or better, are going to be on a learning curve for sure, both PC and user.

 

Oh No! God fore sake that Windows takes 500Mb on your 2TB HDD!
Dude I have a 80GB HDD on my lapy with Vista 64-bit (which include all processes and most applications it comes with in the 32-bit version for compatibility), and I have no space issues. Get out of your cave.

Just press your computer reset button.

 

Hmmm, I think he might mean 500MB of RAM, which would be nice, I'm sure nobody in this day has HDD space issues.

 

New computer are build with 4 or 8GB of RAM... still not problem.

 

500mb is still a fair chunk just for the os, im using less then that know with many ff tabs, exaile (audio player) and compiling openoffice from source, also operating systems are not designed with what computer enthusists are buying (hard ware wise) there built for whats considered normal which is 1-2gb

 

Just googling for SuperPI cuda and found there's been an M1 build of W7 around for months, and yeah it only uses about 500MB of ram once booted and at the dekstop

 

current mid-range computers are selling 3GBs and even slightly high end are 4GB now. it's just stupid to buy 1GB even by entry-level standard.

my entry level Sempron had fitted 1GB about 4 years ago. my 8GB is running out with 3 VMware and Crysis running, RAMdisk space also needs expanding. i shall be getting 16GB with P45 or 24GB with x58 (if Nehalem's gaming performance is worth it) next year

 

You must remember that we have too see what the 500MB is about. It's like Vista, it eats up ~1GB if you have 2GB of RAM but that is because of Superfetch, which as we know doesn't reserve RAM, so it's no issue. Perhaps Windows 7 has a different Super Fetch approach where it starts lower, and expends as you run bigger applications, rather than start big and go smaller. We can only speculate.
OR maybe it's a lot of debugging system that traces the whole OS...

While my computer was running and playing internet radio, I was cleaning the inside of my computer and I disconnected my SATA cable of my HDD (where XP SP2 is running), (This was when Vista was in beta), the OS gave me a nice BSOD as expected.
Once I got Vista official released, I tried to replicate the issue, and surprise! The OS is still usable! My internet music was still playing, my mouse and keyboard worked, and I was able to type in Word 2007. However, when I tried to open folders or select any right click item of the right click menu of a desktop icon or desktop itself, nothing occurred. When I plug back my SATA cable, everything catch up. Every action that I executed was perform in order. It would seams that Vista kernal was loaded on the RAM, and it was building a queue list until the HDD was responding again (plug back in this situation).

Perhaps, Windows 7 puts more stuff on to the RAM rather of the HDD, as HDD speed sucks compared to RAM. If the came then this might be good for laptop, as the HDD is used less.

 

Its standard in linux/unix (not sure about windows), for the kernel to be loaded into ram for the whole session, due to how often its accessed. Thats pretty cool about the sata cable, id be to scared to attempt it. Kinda think would be smart for windows 7 not to advertise "super fetched" ram as used, just so there isnt a million one threads of windows 7 is a memory hog (which its probably safe to say it will be, but at least it will be accurate to the reason)

 

I don't have space issues, but I do have bloat and feature creep issues. I also wonder why it is possible to create a similarly featured OS that is under 100mb, has most of the programmes you need included and can run solely from ram. (okay, maybe that is not an entirely fair like-for-like comparison, but the fact is they do basically do much same thing).

It isn't the space Windows takes up that is the issue, more that a small footprint would represent a more elegant, streamlined Windows.

 

Microsoft has different goals than Linux.
I can't talk for Microsoft, but Linux is an OS that runs on about anything, so everything has to be VERY well engineered and the code optimized. Microsoft is about like every other software company, I mean the programmers or project manager goes "Ok people have xx GB of RAM, so lets relax on optimization, and focus on new features". In result Windows does eat up more resources, but we are faster, so we still have our computer fast. It must also be noted that the main things that slows down the computer is: HDD activity and CPU usage. Your HDD doesn't get slower if you have more data on it (assuming you defrag), and same applied for your RAM. So it's no issue really.

If you want a conspiracy approach, Microsoft controls the computer market, if everyone uses Linux then no one would necessarily need a more powerful computer so no one will buy computer parts. That means ~2000$ on average every 3 year spend on a new machine. down with the establishment... down with the establishment... :|

 

And that right there is the issue. I don't feel like I'm asking too much to want very well engineered and optimized code, relatively free of bugs and vulnerabilities, especially if I'm going to pay $100-200 for it and if the competition offers it for free.

All the OS is is a container and launcher for other apps. There is no reason that the OS couldn't be pared down to 100 Mb or less. The issue is not a matter of storage, it's the time it takes for a 500 Mb or 1 GB or whatever OS to be read from the (slow) hard drive, written to memory and run. The smaller and cleaner the OS, the faster it can be loaded and the faster it can operate. The OS should be designed in such a way that outside drivers / applications cannot lock it or damage it. Given the expierience MS has had with the last few iterations of Windows, a degree of hardening and fault tolerance should be expected.

I love the idea of running everything in a virtual machine, including the higher lever functions of the OS itself.

I'd like to see more unified driver models, and a development model that encourages / requires small, effiecient drivers. I'd like to see MS set an example of beinf minimalist and streamlined in theid software, and set up interfaces and APIs in such a way that it makes it harder for 3rd party devs to be lazy.