Measuring the scale of a release

Article
08/20/2008

Thanks for all the feedback that we have been getting. That much of it is positive is certainly appreciated. I’ve been answering mails as best I can and along with members of the team we’ve been having the discussion in the comments. Everyone has done a great job sharing their views on specifics, wishes, and requests. I love getting these mails and reading the comments. It is fantastic. I just want to make sure folks know I can’t answer each one! What we are going to do is look to the emails and comments as a way of suggesting posts we should write. The team overall appreciate the warm reception from all those that have joined us--we know we have lots of energetic discussions ahead of us and we're genuinely happy to start.

With this post, I am hoping to continue the dialog on the way we think “inside the Win7 team” so to speak—in a sense this is about expanding the team a bit and bringing you into some more of the discussions we have about planning a release. This conversation about major or minor releases is very much like the one I have with my boss as we start planning :-)

When we started planning the release, the first thing some might think we have to decide is if Windows 7 (client) would be a “major release” or not. I put that in quotes because it turns out this isn’t really something you decide nor is it something with a single answer. The magnitude of a release is as much about your perspective on the features as it is about the features themselves. One could even ask if being declared a major release is a compliment or not. As engineers planning a product we decide up front the percentage of our development team will that work on the release and the extent of our schedule—with the result in hand customers each decide for themselves if the release is “major”, though of course we like to have an opinion. On the server blog we talked about the schedule and we shared our opinion of the scale of the releases of Windows 7 client and server.

Our goal is about building an awesome release of Windows 7.

Across all customers, there is always a view that a major release is one that has features that are really the ones for me. A minor release is one that doesn’t have anything for me. It should then be pretty easy to plan a major release—just make sure it exactly the right features for everyone (and given the focus on performance, it can’t have any extra features, even if other people want them)! As engineers we all know such a design process is really impossible, especially because more often than not any two customers can be found to want exactly opposite features. In fact as I type this I received sequential emails one saying “[N]obody cares about touch screen nonsense” and the other saying “[Win7 needs] more advanced/robust ‘touch’ features”. When you just get unstructured and unsolicited input you see these opposites quite a bit. I’m sure folks are noticing this on the blog comments as well.

Let’s explore the spectrum of release magnitude across a couple of (but not all) different types of customers: end-users, developers, partners, IT professionals, and influentials.

End-users are generally the most straight-forward in terms of deciding how big a release is going to be. For an end-user a release is a big deal if they want to go out and buy an upgrade or buy a new PC. We could call that a major release. Seems simple enough and a major release is good for everyone. On the other hand, one could also imagine that a release is really cool and people want to buy it, but they also want to use their existing PC and the release requires more memory, updated drivers that might not be available, or maybe some specific hardware to be fully realized. Then it seems that a major release goes from a positive to a bit of an under-taking and thus loses some of its luster. Of course we all know that what folks really want is all the things they want that runs on the hardware they want—then that is a great product to get (whether it is major or not).

Developers look at a release through a different lens. Obviously for developers a release is a major one if there are new APIs and capabilities to take advantage of in their software—again straight-forward enough. It could also be the case that a previous release had a lot of new APIs and folks are just getting familiar with using them and so what they really want is to round out the APIs and maybe improve performance. So one might suspect that the first release is a major release and the second type is a minor release. But if you look at the history of software products, it is often these “minor” releases that themselves become the major releases – Windows 3.1, Office 4.2, or even Windows XP SP2. In each of these cases, the target for developers became the “minor” release but in the eyes of the market that was the “major” release. The reason developers want to use new APIs is to differentiate their products or focus their energies on domain expertise they bring to the table, not just call new APIs for the sake of calling them. In that sense, a release might be a major one if it just happens to free up enough time for an ISV that they bet on the new APIs because they can focus on some things that are a major deal to them.

Partners represent the broad set of folks who create PCs, hardware, and the infrastructure we think of as the ecosystem that Windows is part of. Partners tend to think about a major release in terms of the opportunity it creates and thus a major release might be one with a lot of change and thus it affords the opportunity to provide new hardware and infrastructure to customers. On the other hand, incompatibilities with the past might be viewed in a less than positive light if it means a partner needs to stop moving forward and revisit past work to bring it up to the required compatibility with a new release of Windows. If they choose, for any number of reasons, not to do that work then the release might be viewed as a minor one because of the lack of ecosystem support. So again we see that a big change can be viewed through the lens of a major or a minor release.

IT professionals are often characterized as conservative by nature and thus take a conservative view of change. Due to the business focused nature of the role, the evaluation of any software product is going to take place in the context of a return on investment. So for an IT professional a major release would be one that delivers significant business value. This business value could be defined as a major investment in deployment and management of the software for example. Yet for end-users or developers, these very same features might not even be interesting let alone worthy of being a major or minor release.

Influentials are all the folks who are in the business of providing advice, analysis, and viewpoints on the software we make. These folks often look at releases through the metric of “change”. Big changes equal major release. A big change can be a “re-architecture” as we saw in the transition from Windows 9x to Windows 2000—even though these products looked the same there was tons of change to talk about under the hood. So for reviewers and analysts it was definitely a major release. Big changes can also be big changes in the user-interface because that drives lots of discussion and it is easy to show all the change. Yet for each of these, this definition of major can also be viewed as a less than positive attribute. Re-architecture means potential incompatibilities. New user-interface can mean learning and moving from the familiar.

We’ve seen a lot of comments and I have gotten a lot of email talking about re-architecting Windows as a symbol of a major release. We’ve also gotten a lot of feedback about how a major release is one that breaks with supporting the past. If I could generalize, folks are usually implying that if we do things like that then a number of other major benefits will follow—re-architecting leads to better performance, breaking with the past leads to using less memory. It is always tricky to debate those points because we are comparing a known state to a state where we fix all the things we know to fix, but we don’t yet know what we might introduce, break, or otherwise not fix. So rather than define a major release relative to the implementation, I think it makes sense define the success of the release relative to the benefits of whatever implementation is chosen. We will definitely continue to pick up on this part of the discussion--there's a lot of dialog to have.

The key is always a balance. We can have big changes for all customers if we prepare all the necessary folks to work through the change. We can have small changes have a big impact if they are the right changes at the right time, and those will get recorded over time as a major release.

We’ve talked about the timing and the way we structure the team, so you have a sense for the “inputs” into the project. If we listened well and focused our efforts correctly, then each type of customers will find things that make the product worthwhile. And if we do our job at effectively communicating the product, then even the things that could be “problems” are seen in the broader context of an ecosystem where everyone collectively benefits when a few people benefit significantly.

From our perspective, we dedicated our full engineering team and a significant schedule to building the Windows 7 client OS. That makes it a major undertaking by any definition. We intend for Windows 7 to be an awesome release.

I hope this helped to see that perspective is everything when it comes to deciding how big a release is for each type of customer.

--Steven

Comments

Anonymous
August 20, 2008
I don't see how it is a problem to bring the different camps together. If someone don't needs the touch screen feature he should be able to turn it off, or better choose not to install it at all. Many end users might like Aero, I want my classic theme back. Where is the contradiction? I'm developing on and for Windows since 10 years but lately I'm getting more and more annoyed by MS products. Just an example, I'm switching quite often between documents in Visual Studio with Ctrl+Tab, but VS2008 added the "feature" to show a preview of the documents which really slowed things down and is annoying. I have no understanding for such useless gimmicks. Can I turn it off? Don't think so. Want to sell me/us licenses? Stop annoying me. Some ideas for Windows: <Windows key> + <1> ... <9> to switch between windows, enable keyboard navigation in Windows Flip. Actually pressing <Alt>+<Tab> and then key down sends the key event to the last active app rathen than to Flip.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
I hate to say it, but Windows 7 client is beginning to sound like a minor release indeed. With both the Server and Client expected to RTM the same time, it pretty much adds up that Windows 7 will actually be version 6.1. The reason I am hearing for the code name is because you Steve likes whole numbers, but at the same time, it just does not add up why you would call the codename 'Windows 7', unless the Windows Team is considering it a 7th release of the Windows product, not technically a 7th 'version' of the NT kernel itself. We must take into account, Microsoft stop using the NT version in its branding with the release of Windows 2000 which was 5.0, XP 5.1, Server 2003 5.2. Here is the problem I just discovered after writing the above, Microsoft could not use that logic, since it would mean that XP was the 6th release of Windows, Vista the 7th and 7 being the 8th. Microsoft needs to explain themselves. If it continues with the 6.1 version by Beta 1, its definitely a Vista R2 and Windows Server 2008 R2 releases. Am I correct? During the early parts of the Longhorn development, when the OS was at Alpha, Microsoft christened it version 6.0, I am talking builds 3xxx and later. The leaked Windows 7 builds we have been seeing earlier this year have been using the version 6.1 for the kernel. Some said that was because not all of the product had matured enough to become a part of what at Microsoft is called the 'winmain' build. Persons in the enthusiast community assumed that by PDC 2008 Windows 7's kernel would reflect version 7, but with PDC only a couple months away, its looking unlikely at this stage. Based on what you have posted and my interpretation, major or minor is in the eye of the beholder. But, I wish I could get a better idea of the significance of this release of Windows in terms of should everyone upgrade to it, who upgraded to Vista, or is it just a release that you can skip and those who are still on XP in 2010 will see some reason to to take the upgrade.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
Right after I started reading the post, I came up thinking about how awesome would it be if Windows 7 had a bunch of new APIs and programming resources for us, developers, to play with on. But as I read on and got to the Developers-related paragraph, I ended up amazed by the way you had succefully pointed out how difficult it is to meet everybody's expectations at once. I've been reading the blog since its very beginning but that's the first time I write a comment here, so I wish you all the best of luck, and I'm pretty sure we're going to get a great release here. Greetings from Brazil :)
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
I have to say that every release of Windows is a major release; each and every one has added a new feature, or expanded on one and improved it. My main suggestion would be to say, "Just do a good job!" as I am not a dev, just one of the many customers who point in a direction and hope you go the right way. P.S. Still, with my little voice, I hope to remind you (not just the Windows design team, but ALL of Microsoft) to get closer to the program with 64 bit. Offerings now are okay, but could be better!
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
@SoCalCreations -- THanks so much for your thoughtful suggestions. I just wanted to use this as a chance to remind folks we really are reading all of these. We're trying to figure out how to keep up with the feedback. There are definitely many common themes and we will address these in posts for sure. I just don't want folks to think we're not listening. And of course the developer in me is hoping we don't get in the situation where not doing every suggestion makes folks think we don't listen--the challenge as every developer knows is that you can't do everything and often suggestions from customers are opposites and you really can't do both. We are listening for sure. Please keep the discussion open! We love it. --Steven
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
Hi steven i've been sending my suggestions here but none has been published i don't know why you guys are blocking it. Regards User: Eduardvalencia
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
"And of course the developer in me is hoping we don't get in the situation where not doing every suggestion makes folks think we don't listen--the challenge as every developer knows is that you can't do everything and often suggestions from customers are opposites and you really can't do both." That just takes me back to my comment on your previous post. Well, keeping all that modular approach in mind, while it is true that you can't do everything as a developer there is really no need to, at least not at once, just deliver the bare foundation upon which everything else is based, then go on releasing those other modules deemed as interesting. Like that those who are demanding something can wait believing their wish/suggestion will be delivered in turn while those not related to such particular issue can keep on going.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
Steven, Thank you for being so worried about making us sure you're actually listening. That makes us feel like you guys really care, and encourages us to keep telling you what we think. William's comment recalls me of someone (maybe Mark Russinovich, but I'm not sure) from Microsoft saying about Windows 7 being much more focused on backwards compatibility than Vista was, so I think it'd make things much easier for both of us if you could expose some of the design goals for Windows 7 that won't and can't change. For example, if you guys are really going to work on backwards compatibility it's not worth it to keep asking you just to drop it from the system, right? I mean, of course many of us still thinks it'd be the right thing to do for the system, but we also know that there are things that are just predefined, and I think they are worth mentioning, making things clearer. After all, if people know what can't be changed, I'm pretty sure people will come up with new ideas on top of the predefined features and goals you already have, instead of keep asking you guys to change or remove them completely. Ivan
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
I think the most important focus for Windows 7 should be consolidation. The Mojave experiment already (via publicity stunt) that people actually do like the features of Vista. What needs to happen is a Office 2007 style consolidation of the features and presentation. The UI needs to be made more consistent. All of the existing features need to become more obvious and more simple for power users and basic users. I don't think there is a single new feature in Office 2007 I use. But I find it the best upgrade since Office 97 (the last time I upgrade office.) The only way this is going to happen is with leadership and organization from someone who oversees all the projects and puts polish and refinement ahead of new glitz. I think the Zune team is another team which is doing a great job to make a consistent, simple and attractive product. I love my zune. And maybe in order to appease both the family PC and the UMPC business it would seem prudent to create a "Performance Center" where services that aren't necessary are important are listed and power users can easily tailor their experience for more snap in exchange for understanding what they will lose as a result. If Windows 7 were a Office 2007 style upgrade I would be more than pleased. Oh yeah and the 64 bit'ers could use some serious love.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
Steven and associated team, It's very refreshing to see the openness of how things are being handled in the development of Win7. It's also quite heartening to hear that comments are actually being addressed. I've been looking around on various forums and sites recently, and have noted a number of people who swear that Windows Server 2008 can be converted, albeit somewhat incompletely, to a workstation. There still remain the issues of some software refusing to install on a server OS, driver incompatability, etc., but for the most part, people who have done this have reported a much improved Vista-like experience.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
I agree with Ivan, if it is possible for you guys to provide the design goals then we can either restrict asking for features which atleast will not be possible on the first release or may be we can provide better or alternative suggestions so that those features can be implemented in the first release in a different way. Kannan
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
(Continuing my interrupted post from above) I know Windows Server 2008 is a product that costs a great deal more than Vista, and it's also aimed at servers, but with much of today's hardware being so powerful, many of those server features also useful on a desktop. Windows Server 2008 supposedly has the same kernel, network stack, and countless other features in common with Windows Vista. Thus, I ask the question: why does enabling the desktop features of Windows Vista on Windows Server 2008 result in a more stable, speedier system? Shouldn't it be pretty much the same? Just a few thoughts I wanted to put out.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
@eduardvalencia -- there is no moderation of comments, just a slight delay in them showing up due to the service implementation. As you can see your comments do show up :-)
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
Kids should be given some freedom to play by themselves
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
The last time I checked, Linux has been doing this exact thing for years. Windows needs to be customizable based on the user. If the user wants touchscreen support, then they should check it during the install. If they don't want it, they should be able to uncheck it. And, by putting the disc back in at any point, the user should be able to COMPLETELY add or remove system packages. If you are worried about this being too complicated for very basic users, then just make some easy presets, like (customize this computer for touchscreen use, or make this a media center computer).
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
I would just like to add my two cents to the "feature requests". I echo what others are saying about ensuring that Windows 7 has a clean and consistent UI. I would like to see close attention to little details (like icons). I would also like to see widespread usage of the Fluent UI introduced with Office 2007 in Windows 7 and its bundled applications.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
Wanted to add my kudos on the new blog. Great posts and comments so far; it's quickly become a tech blog "must read" for me. Also, a topic suggestion: I (and lots of others, I bet) would love to hear more about how integrated (or non-integrated) the Windows 7 and Windows Live development processes are/ have been in this development cycle. In the past, we've learned a bit about plans for greater integration from some of your leaked internal MSFT memos, and at the appropriate point it would be great to get more detail about whether and how true integration between the efforts has come about.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
I know that in Vista, once installed, adding and removing Windows Features is reasonably easy. However, maybe a Windows 98 style installation system should be implemented, that is allowing people to select what they want to have when installing. Additionally, this could tie into Windows Marketplace and the different SKU's very well. For instance, I could buy (using Vista as an example) Home Basic and then buy "Aero" and "Fax and Scan" duringafter the install - thereby having a cleaner install, paying less and yet with the opportunity to get new features as I need them. Having a "defrag and cleanout" for the registry is also recommended. Perhaps this can be integrated into a better "System Cleanup" that removes unneeded services, programs, registry keys and startup items. While this "System Cleanup" may require ISV to provide better descriptions for their software (and may end up being run by IT Professionals anyway), it'd be nice (as an IT Pro) to be able to sit down with a client and go through want they do and don't use, without having to Google to find out what each application does.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
Oh and even closer 360 support would be great too. Xbox Live Marketplace is fantastic but why can't I take my movies and TV Shows from one place to another? It all goes back to everything talking to everything else. That's the Microsoft dream. You have a vertical market. Let's get it connected.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
If there are more opportunities provided to decide which elements of the Operating System package make it onto the end user's machines, the 'major vs minor' release debate will be irrelevant. When people can choose what goes onto their personal boxes quickly, efficiently, and easily, Windows 7 will be a warmly welcomed release.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
Here are some of the things that irritates me in Windows today, that I would love if you could fix: o Inactive windows that steal focus. If I switch to another window after starting a program, I do not want the started program to repeatedly steal the focus. o Inactive windows that steal focus. If I am typing in one window, I do not want another program popping up with a dialog that I might accidentally dismiss while typing. o Inactive windows that steal focus. Yes, it is that irritating! o Explorer taking away my control over my files. Explorer should not hide files from me, or lock files I want to delete because it tries to analyze the files content, or hang for several minutes because it tries to search my network (without any way to make it abort). o Limited support for multiple/large monitors. The taskbar should span all monitors and it should be easy to move windows between monitors and arrange multiple windows on a large monitor. o Frustrating to use for professionals. Settings is buried in multiple levels of "user friendly" dialogs and guides. No way to select what is installed. It feels that I have less control and ways to customization Windows for each new version. o DRM. It does not work, and adds nothing of value for the customer. Rather the opposite is true. I also think that Windows 7 should be 64-bit only, since this will force all hardware manufacturers to produce better 64-bit drivers.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
I really liked Vista from the beginning and see that it's a great improvements compared to XP.. However considering the years of development I just feel like it just wasn't enough.. Anyhow,I really hope that I'm able to contribute ideas to this development. I'm certain that everyone is going to give his best to make Windows 7 awesome. (Ever thought about changing the codename to 'Windows Awesome'?) :] I'm really curious to see how Windows 7 is going to perform and wish you all achieving your vision of Windows 7.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
+1 on the window stealing focus issue. This would have to be the most annoying problem I encounter. Closely followed by baloons. When I'm working on my PC I want to focus on the task at hand and not be distracted by the endless events that occur in other programs. A "do not disturb" action would be greatly desired. As for defrag - fix the problem at the source. Create NTFS v4.0 (or 7.0, dpending on your idea of NTFS version number) or even another FS that just doesn't fragment and also performs smart placement of FS objects. Completely separate the UI from enumeration tasks. I really couldn't care if an NFS mount/SMB share/whatever isn't there. Do what the various BPAs and prerequisite checks in the installers do - drop in a progess animation and move on. UI freeze waiting for network timeout is last century. There's an incredible amount of metrics recorded. Use it. Provide health check reports and guidance on solving immediate and impending problems. Provide optimisation profiles based on usage patterns. Preload/precache based on these patterns.
Anonymous
August 20, 2008
I want to back first for the windows focus stealing problem. Indeed VERY annoying. Two suggestions I have for the system:

at installation allow to put "Usr", "Programs" folder on different locations then C: e.g. allow to put them on different partitions to allow clear separation of user data and system. Maybe have an export mode installation for that...
Allow UAC to remember a setting. I have one program running at start-up that needs admin rights. I want to tell UAC please allow it once and then forever to run this program. NO NEED to ask EVERY start-up. UAC is useful but just half done.

Anonymous
August 20, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
@daveli "two customers can be found to want exactly opposite features" IMO DRM does have it's place. The ZunePass is a perfect example. For $15/month I get all the music I want on my Zune. Without DRM this wouldn't happen. For music lovers that used to spend way more than $180/year on music this is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
Great blog, good to see it so frequently updated. This comment is about a technical issue relating to how your teams work together. The Windows Engineering team seems to work on the platform independently to other 'towers'. By that I mean that there doesn't seem to be that much co-operation between Windows and DevDiv and even the Office tower. I say this because the managed platform being built out on DevDiv doesn't seem to be propagating over to the OS team. For example, we recently had an issue with Remote Desktop and WPF. I found out that the WPF primitives are not now supported in RDP and not likely to ever be. This means that the Windows Team and auxillary apps don't seem to be planning to leverage the 'managed platform'. Rather than addressing this point, could you comment on how the teams interact and plan strategy? How do you see the value-added apps in the OS fitting in with the equivalent 'Live' apps. When will the engineering team start buying into .NET strategy?
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
I think it would be cool to see a moar customizable GUI, even if its just little things like being able to group pinned start menu items and stuff like that. Organization and productivity go well together
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
64 Bit Rock Stable Core Drivers that work on the release disk That would be a major release
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
Oo, just saw this in the very first comment, and thought I'd add my $0.02: "I'm developing on and for Windows since 10 years but lately I'm getting more and more annoyed by MS products. Just an example, I'm switching quite often between documents in Visual Studio with Ctrl+Tab, but VS2008 added the "feature" to show a preview of the documents which really slowed things down and is annoying. I have no understanding for such useless gimmicks. Can I turn it off? Don't think so. Want to sell me/us licenses? Stop annoying me." What on Earth is Visual Studio doing reinventing this in the first place? Doesn't such tabbing functionality belong in the OS? Why doesn't the OS expose usable API's for this? Why doesn't it expose API's that are good enough for Microsoft's own products to use them? Why is it that Visual Studio and Office pretty much reinvent everything? I doubt it's because they're idiots. Perhaps they just want to achieve some kind of consistent presentation. Why doesn't the OS give them that in the first place? I read on one of the VS blogs recently that they're working on better multi-monitor support for VS10. Great. Wonderful. But why isn't this the responsibility of the OS? Once again we're going to see a dozen independent implementations of the same feature, just like the infamous Office Ribbon. About windows stealing focus, as mentioned in quite a few comments above, that too is one of my most hated "features" of Windows. Please, let 7 act like an operating system, rather than a shiny toy. The OS is responsible for presenting windows, tabs, tabbing order and giving focus to windows. It's responsible for doing that well. A toy is responsible for entertaining, and nothing else. It's time Windows started living up to this responsibility of being an operating system, because it matters. It matters far more than all the transparency and animations in Aero. I don't care how shiny the 'ok' button on a dialog is if it pops up while I'm typing and I accidentally press it because I typed a space. I don't care how gorgeous windows look, if they're able to render themselves on top of the full-screen game I'm running. And I don't care if you do the most advance realtime raytracing when rendering the system tray baloon tips. They shouldn't pop up and interrupt me in the first place. Repeat after me, Windows is an operating system, not a toy. Its goal is to work for me, not entertain me.
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
Here I´d like to share some suggestions for the new Windows 7:

Release versions: - Windows 7 Home Edition - Windows 7 Business - Windows 7 Home Edition 32 Bit - Windows 7 Business 32 Bit As you see, I think you should emphasize more on the development and use of a complete 64 bit OS, as most of the newer processors support it. Remove the 64 bit suffix at the end of the OS brand, as it should already be the standard. (64 bit is getting older: It´s been already 5 years since AMD released their 64 bit processors if I´m not wrong, and when "7" gets released it will be almost 7 years!) Make some kind of pressure, so that hardware manufacturers are obliged to develop 64 bit compatible drivers for their own stuff. Older applications should run on a virtual machine, so no one would complain about compatibility issues. Remember: Restricting progress on the new operating system, due to compatibility issues would be a very wrong decision.

Anonymous
August 21, 2008

GUI: Now I begin with the interface, as it is the first thing you see on an OS. Taking as example Mac OSX wouldn´t be in my opinion bad at all if it´s about interface aspects. What I´m saying is not copying 1:1 features of another OS, like what some guy claimed two years ago at the Macworld Vista was doing. The first rule to follow is don´t try to be something you´re not (you are Windows, not Mac OS, it´s that simple). But: There are several aspects and features which are good under Mac OSX, and which could even be better if ported to Windows. Remember: As I said before, it´s not wrong to take other OS´s as an example, it´s wronger if you just ignore them all. Now to the key features I´d like to see on "7": a) Try to find something more useful than Windows Flip 3D, because it´s not much more helpful than the old windows switcher (Alt+Tab). You see, that´s the kind of eye-candy we don´t need at all. A good alternative would be something like "Exposé" (I hope you know what I mean, hit F9 under Mac and see what happens ;), which immediately resizes all open windows and sorts them nicely on your screen. Click on one of these highlighted windows and you bring them to front. Until now I´ve not seen any better tool than that for managing your windows, and I don´t really know if there´s still something to improve (maybe you have some more creative ideas!). b) The "Show desktop" feature could use some transition effects (I know, like F11 under Mac)

Anonymous
August 21, 2008
If we don't switch to a different Microsoft OS, we will be switching to something. *hint
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
hrrm... you didn't post my novel? :(
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
"We intend for Windows 7 to be an awesome release." That all what I was thinking when reading the article. In the end the only think that matters to me (as an IT and End User guy) is the experience, my experience would be a nice balance between performance (change under the hood) and a better interface (a lite one as Windows XP Classic, no Vista). Indeed, the another thing that I want from this team is that you listen us a little more For example this Youtube video tells a lot of to me hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5D43p4_qcY&feature=PlayList&p=5F82CEDB9A6B9643&index=30 Thank you
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
I think a sizable portion of users are completely neutral to an OS release, be it major or minor. Many users are only interested in changes to the software they use. So for the most popular tools that are well supported across many OSs (Office, Adobe, iTunes, Java, web applications, etc), the user's choice of OS or choice to upgrade might merely be one of convenience, personal taste, or performance. From that mindset, I give a +1 that a key motivation for Windows 7 ought to be consolidation. Optimize the user experience for the common case. Some people don't want anything from the OS; which really means they just want it to be fast, stable, and unobtrusive. Make it consistent and compatible. The best new features will be those that solve existing problems.
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
I doubt the resources requirement would go down. Many people would probably like it to go down, but I highly doubt it will. It's most likely being based off of Vista's initial code. While I wish it would instead be based off of one of the longhorn betas. They still had the XP start menu, and the Windows Picture and Fax viewer. They could still view animated gifs as well. Here's hoping Windows 7 has both of those things included.
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
What MS needs to do is make a new version of Windows. I'm sick and tired of Windows 2000, its been almost 9 years now!
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
One of the most commonly requested features, ironically, is a feature that is already in WinXP. If you type "msconfig" into the run dialog, you get a fairly straightforward start-time optimizer. It doesn't get used because no one knows that it exists. This gets back to what another commenter says about Office 2007. Without adding features per say, Office 2007 was a huge benefit because of the consolidation affect. Similarly with Windows, please work to consolidate, especially configuration. I don't want big pictures OR appletss when I go to the control panel: I want a seamless configuration panel for EVERYTHING (like a fully-loaded mmc console with better navigation). When tools and features grow organically, they often appear in odd or difficult to find places. Advertise the features that are already there and make them easy (easier) to find. Another suggestion: incent people on building up their own skillsets. Charge them an extra ten bucks for the OS license (who will know?), but then give them twenty back (in cash) if they complete the installed training course (perhaps incrementally per training module). If you incent laypeople to get some basic training, I am positive you will have a more satisfied user base. This would also allow you to "change more" of the interface with less backlash ("I can't find this, I can't find that").
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
I think it's quite obvious that Win7 should be faster in its operation than previous Win versions, so I'm not going to add my redundant vote to that request. However, something very important in terms of speed is the UI. There was a study ( http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=tough-choices-how-making ) recently about how the brain fatigues after making lots of small decisions. Well, I think that Vista makes my brain fatigued because of its poor UI. I have to make lots of clicks in order to find the feature I'm looking for. I would appreciate if the engineers behind Win 7 could think of each click as "tax" that the user has to pay. Naturally, the user wants to pay as little "tax" as possible which translates into an OS with as few clicks as possible in order to operate it, and ultimately a faster OS. I have used Windows since the 80's and never made the switch to Linux or Mac (although I have tried them). Win ME nearly drove me to a switch, but Microsoft killed WinME quickly (thankfully). XP is currently Microsoft's lifeline, Win 7 (without SPs) has to trump XP (not Vista) right off the shelves when it gets out. Otherwise, I'll consider Linux/Mac one more time.
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
Me too I take for granted, that the W7 will be faster by all means. But the performance I'm thinking is not about "better MM page locking scheme","new working set trimmer algorithm" or like this. What W7, IMHO, should do, is put the user's wishes and actions above all. I mean, when I boot the PC, I don't care if "Remote Registry service","Network list","SSTP" or other things are running or not, or that system needs to build network discovery, or that search is doing updates. I just want to launch my browser as quickly as I can to check out things. Anything else must wait as much as possible. It cannot take 7 minutes from the start to be able to launch my favorite app, just because system wants to do "x and y in the same time". The system should wait the user, not otherwise. When I'm done, I'm idle, do whatever you need. The I/O and MM prioritization in Vista should be extended in W7 to override much more system activity to allow the user actions be carried out first. I launch an app. Halt, do whatever is needed to launch, and then resume. Of course there are dependencies, things that must be done before and so on, but I think much of it should be deferred when user is making actions.
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
Great to see microsoft recognizes the categories of people your product is targeting. Keep it simple. Cheers!
Anonymous
August 21, 2008
1.) More responsive file system. - It should be possible to rename or even move a document (any file) while it is open. 2.) Multiple desktop - swithcing between desktops with Windows+[0-9] keys. 2.b.) maybe a consol available on [W+0] I love that in Linux. 3.) Quick overview of the desktops that belong to the user. 4.) Should be possible to log-in to diffrent desktops with diffrent user account. 5.) Microkernel, dont load modules that you dont need. 6.) Easy and quick (1-2 click) way to connect any number computers and share files between them. Easy way to set up a local ad hoc network. Even if the computers are in differnt workgroup or domain.

Easy way to set up secure peer to peer conection between computers from anywhere. 8.) Better safer sleep and hybernation mode. No more BSOD. Stricter rules for third party devs. 9.) Consistent UI. It should be supersimple but with a button to reach advanced features and settings. I like Office 2007 but I dont use the 99% of the featueres. Those features should load only on request. 10.) Spellchecking though the entire OS. Not just in Office and Outlook. 11.) Thesaurus and dictionary available all time in the entire OS. 12.) Wikipedia search available all time. (maybe online service but reachable from search bar); 13.) Geo search, maps available all time. (maybe online sevice but reachable from search bar)

Anonymous
August 22, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 22, 2008
lyesmith - Thanks for the comments, some good ideas in there :) A couple notes: Being able to rename an opened document isn't a matter of the filesystem, it's a matter of how the application opened it. If the application locked the file the OS (no matter what OS it is) cannot do anything about that. By locking the file the application is specifically telling the OS not to allow other changes to it, because it is in the middle of doing something with it that might change it's content / size / location, or even its name. The Windows+[0-9] keys already have a function, and changing that would be very annoying for people that are used to having them launch QuickLaunch items. Windows already uses a microkernel architecture.
Anonymous
August 22, 2008
Kudos on making the dev process public, also for taking feedback. I would make a feedback form where users can collaborate on suggesting new features. Here are my suggestions:

Put all system functions in one place: Control Panel. Currently, Windows has Control Panel which holds most system functions. However, there is also the Administrative Tools folder on the Start Menu. Or, if I want to go to Disk Management, I have to open Windows Explorer and right click Manage on My Computer. Or, to ping another computer on my network, I have to type “cmd” in my Search window. Or, to defrag a drive, I must right click the drive and click on Tools. Put all these functions in one place to make Windows easier, cleaner, and more efficient.
Include antivirus software in Windows.
On the start menu there is a frequently used program list. How programs are added and subtracted is a mystery. If I use the program once, it should appear on the list. As I use others, they appear, with the oldest used program dropping off, as is done with every other program that has this feature.
Get rid of UAC. If I am the only user and an admin on my machine, why do I need permission to delete a file? How and why is this permission then denied?
Similarly, don’t put folders on my machine that I can’t delete.
Make different versions for different levels of user. Make a Newbie version with all UAC delete protections in. Make a Power user with newbie stuff out. Make an Elite user version with extra system and network utilities installed.
Get rid of hidden files and folders. It is irritating to have to go to Folder views and turn on hidden files to go into hidden folders to make changes, and then go back and turn it off again. If you don’t want noobs to mess with them, put all hidden file/folders buried somewhere where they can’t reach them.
Beef up Windows Explorer. There used to be custom buttons for simple operations, like Cut, Copy and Paste, but those were removed. Add those back and allow for more file management features in the interface.

Anonymous
August 22, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 22, 2008
bpaddock, As far as I know the Vista and WS 2008 uses hybrid kernel essentially a monolithic one. For some reason in OSX they manage not to lock a file when you open it. It is free to rename or edit with other application.
Anonymous
August 22, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 22, 2008
Aero glass is so dull and boring looking. Black and transparent shades. It's quite frightening and repellant if you think about it a little. To have a pleasant experience with Windows 7, the end user need colourful and vivid patterns that bring us joy. Something along the Windows XP skin would be perfect. You have to make us feel that the OS is not targeted at rocket scientists. Vista with all it's technical glory has lost what I would qualify as happiness and conviviality. It's quite hard to describe the feelings given by a User Interface but I hope that you understand my point. Wishes you the best with Windows 7
Anonymous
August 22, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 22, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 22, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 22, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 22, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 23, 2008
Looks like I can be categorized as IT Professional. Some features I'd like to see at W7: >>>>Since in most Corporations the machines are branded ones, it is interesting to have more hardware administration features via AD. -I am using today 3rd-party software to administer machines boot-up configs, SMART and temperature monitoring; Wake-on-LAN and hardware inventory would be an interesting addition. >>>>Same with software. -Installed software and configuration parameters report would be an interesting addition. >>>>Non-Microsoft software configuration via AD. -Common software like Adobe Reader and JRE are a pain to configure. You need to make logon scripts to mass-configure them. Custom Software configuration would be nice too (without the need to make it in logon scripts). Actual case: I needed to configure Jinitiator, and make memory cache to go from 128 to 256. I spent almost an hour to write a script to overwrite the files, change registry keys, reboot the machine and change all the logon scripts (i have more than 80 different scripts, with non-matching patterns in the names to do a bulk editing). Also, some machines with the same logon script were not supposed to run this script. It would be awesome if I could filter from some OU with the Find command the machines I wanted to do this, not from the logon script field. I think that's it for this time. But please... think of the IT pros not only in Server OSes.. Remember, Servers are to Serve Clients. So, Clients need to have support for remote administration just as they were being operated locally.
Anonymous
August 23, 2008
There are good suggestions in this blog but Windows is now a very mature operating system and there are very few need-to-have, although many nice-to-have, new mainstream features that can be added to the operating system. Actually, in the v6 release, I can only think of virtualization as a break-through new technology integrated into the OS. The Vista "mission statement" about a better GUI and improved security has proved more confusing in its implementation than useful to most users. The GUI is certainly nicer although often inconsistent and the learning curve has proved too steep in most organisations. The UAC is resented more as a productivity drainer than a useful and efficient enhancement to the operating system especially since it asks repeatedly "Do you really want to allow this?" without learning from the user experience or considering the level of risk that an application presents. In other words, UAC is good in principle but it could be much cleverer in its implementation. Also Vista has been released with far too many bugs and although SP1 has improved on this, Vista is still too unstable in my opinion. Most businesses that I know are very happy with Windows XP SP3 and are still reluctant to upgrade to Vista just to run Office and web-based applications. Adding cluttering applications like sidebar gadgets into the operating system certainly defocuses from what a good operating system should be: robust, secure, fast, modular, and as far as client operating systems are concerned, user-friendly. My point is Vista is unfinished and before considering adding any new feature to the operating system (especially features like gadgets), please simply finish Vista and make it the robust, secure, fast, modular and user-friendly operating system that it should have been.
Anonymous
August 23, 2008
Steven, can you talk at all about the release intended release rhythm for Windows moving forward? Windows was humming along at a release every couple years before it got off-track. Mac OS X was moving at a yearly pace but it has slowed down to every couple years. What's the goal with Windows? Additionally, this post was a good opportunity to help frame Vista as a major release. I'm guessing you chose not to do that to keep the Win7 message clear? I'm anxious to see Vista finally presented in it's proper frame (as a major architectural release: whole new audio, graphic and networking stacks, security, .NET and WPF by default, componentization, etc.) Lastly, I may suggest that when we do finally see the release of Win7 features that you do a post which maps actual blog comments/community requests to implemented features. It's one thing to give the appearance of listening, but showing a tight coupling between real user feedback and feature implementation would build massive goodwill (at least among those whose comments you choose!)
Anonymous
August 23, 2008
Gentlemen: I am user of Windows from their beginnings and I can say the same of Unix; In some of the comments that I have read I believe that one of the main keys is so that new SO completes that that of the it is expected... To listen the end user that is not needed to change the computer to run new SO, in summary that it doesn't seem that the final desire is to SHINE before the users teaching the complex and sophisticated that aser can arrive. The Client that pays at the end is the modest user that requests potent solutions but that he finds reliable, simple and quick of use although they are not so spectacular. Greetings.
Anonymous
August 23, 2008
I agree, people want a lot of different things. From a developers point of view I know what you're talking about - ask three people and you will get at leat five opinions. So maybe it is the best to focus on what people really need. It makes me laugh, when I think about what our customers need. Well - they need windows XP in the end. At least they need absolute backwards compatibility, caused by their software infrastructure (talking of what companies need). That was, what makes me think of a win32 (xp?) virtualization layer im my first post. IMHO, I know no other (better?) way to bring old drivers and software to the new platform thus making the transition to the new system smooth. This would give you the possibility for a cleaner architecture and you could go on fixing all the little annoying problems without having backwards compatibility in your mine all the time. I'm interested in more details about windows 7.
Anonymous
August 23, 2008
The problem when talking about scale is, "OS" is too broad. It should be narrowed down to visible and non-visible changes, maybe split this blog accordingly. All i know is, the visible changes in Vista was MAJOR, and mostly for the worse. If the visible changes had been none (excluding bug fixes and improvements), with major non-visible changes, Vista had probably been more successful, at least for me:-) I would seriously consider splitting the shell from the rest of the OS. If I could run the XP shell on Vista, I might actually have discovered there is some interesting changes under the hood, but since I can't stand the GUI, it really doesn't matter: tried it for some days and instantly went back to XP, with my classic Win2000 look:-) If its not possible to add the XP shell as alternative shell, then you have some work to do: the shell and the "OS" is obviously too tightly integrated.
Anonymous
August 23, 2008
Regarding the desire for UI design unity, I thought I was above such things until I realized tonight that I enjoy using Windows XP in classic mode, even using IE6 over 7. I like especially how Explorer looks the same as Internet Explorer and you can type a URL into the address blank, or a local address, just the same.
Anonymous
August 23, 2008
Reading through the comments, I noticed the following (I call it the microsoft point of view) You were talking about users, developers, pros and so on. I realized the parallelism to Vista Home, Professional, Business, Ultimate, Ultimate Home and so on... And I read a comment and I thought, that could be microsoft - it was about introducing a complex rights system for keeping the registry from beeing damaged. But we have to remember kis "keep it simple". So maybe all of your problems minimize when you focus on one windows version and try to keep things simple. Imagine just two user groups, power user and normal user. The first user group can do everything with a shell - this is for the professional users, administrators and so on. The second user group gets a nice frontend that mirrors the professional superset and just needs a few mouseclicks. For the registry I suggest a layered approach, that means every programm has its own registry layer. Then the system assembles all the layers at startup. Simple, powerful the initial system layer never gets touched. To reinstall your system just delete all of the registry layers. The same is for the user interface. KIS again. Here it means reduce. Less colors, less effects, less transparency, Focus on usability, decorate it with nice effects and some round corners. Keep following interesting ideas. Display pdf or display ps is such an interesting idea. Introducing a new ms resolution independent format is not...
Anonymous
August 23, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 24, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 24, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 24, 2008
I will try very hard not to bag Vista along the way, but please excuse me if I do slip a little. I am an IT professional running an all XP network, I continue to purchase computers with downgrade rights, and I will continue do so until there is something better than Vista available. I work for an architectural firm where performance of the OS and software that sits on top is of the utmost importance. We run very demanding and memory intensive applications and I can't have the OS wasting system resources. Vista runs like a dog and a Vista rollout would be a massive performance downgrade. So, all I would like to see is an operating system that outstrips XP two fold on performance, not more (to quote another post) "lipstick on the pig". If windows 7 is just Vista R2, then I guess this will not happen. It's a great shame, it all seems to have gone horribly wrong at Microsoft. I can see the balance of power starting to tip another way. Thanks.
Anonymous
August 25, 2008
This might be a stupid question and off topic but is it too late to get invited to be a tester for Windows 7? I am interested in participating in testing early releases as I am sure many of us are and was wondering how one goes about that or if it is too late. Thanks
Anonymous
August 25, 2008
"Lipstick on a pig" - that is a great phrase. It described Windows ME and I'm sorry to admit that it describes Vista. The focus of the OS has been lost and instead of really improving the base functions all we see are GUI changes and trend-driven additions. I think virtualization is the answer to maintaining backwards compatibility. If someone needs to run a Windows 95 app, then open it in its own virtual machine. I think people would accept a slower startup of an old app in exchange for much improved startup of Vista and newer apps. In any case, it's time to dump the legacy code. If someone's app from 1992 doesn't work anymore, then tough. I also am interested in testing. I'm a developer by trade, but at home do pretty standard stuff (browse the web, run some games, record TV, play music, etc.). Where can we sign up?
Anonymous
August 25, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 26, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 26, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 26, 2008
First of all I feel compelled to provide some praise for Vista. Despite all the negativity surrounding it, I've found it to be stable, functional and as fast, if not faster than XP was on my laptop. So you've got a solid base to start from IMO : ) That having been said, I do have two requests for Windows 7:

Allow re-ordering of application buttons on the taskbar (Drag and drop preferably) - It's purely an aesthetic thing, but it would help keep applications organized in the same vein as grouping.
Provide hooks for applications to use windows explorer sorting preferences when opening explorer windows (i.e. During 'File -> 'Open' operations)- It's absolutely illogical to have to constantly resort explorer windows (Using the 'View' -> 'Details' menu, then clicking on 'Date Modified' for instance), that are spawned by applications when you have already saved your sorting preferences in Windows Explorer! There should at the very least be an option for users to enable that would allow applications to use the pre-defined sorting preferences set by the logged in user. Thanks for listening : )

Anonymous
August 26, 2008
As I went through the post and comments once again, I came up with a fundamental question: what does "re-engineering" in this case suppose to mean? Would 7 be a turn in architecture or in a specific set of features? Well, in case of adding/polishing a set of features, we can expect the same complex, unstable, developer-unfriendly OS. Please, make a clear statement what sort of change you plan. I moved to MS side because of a really great .NET 3.0, that beats Java in many aspects. But as I explored internals of Windows, its design in many areas, I ended up with simple conclusion - it's a pile of nonsense. It definitely needs better architecture, one that's as good as .NET's in terms of quality.
Anonymous
August 26, 2008
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/20228/1141/ Bye!
Anonymous
August 27, 2008
I would like to see all the networking tools displayed in its own area like the network and sharing center on vista but with more information/options like accessing the local firewall, system information, security logs, etc
Anonymous
August 27, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 27, 2008
Sorry to be negative, but this recent post gives the impression that you don't know what Windows 7 will be. If the scale of a release is completely subjective, then how does Microsoft know what sort of ad campaign to launch? Is it possible to determine whether XP and Vista were major releases, or does that depend on the client?
Anonymous
August 27, 2008
Some addition to my previous comment. System should have such parts:

core (kernel + drivers + runtime systems + own Registry part) in Windows
applications (explorer, GUI, web browser, system help, etc.) in Program Files One of applications should check on startup/after logging one central place for applications, which should be run. Some applications can't be deleted from this place (they will be equal to some current system services). And nothing more... Additionally, what I would like to see is ability of defining routing for each application on low level. For example application X will be able to use first connection A, later B and C will be unavailable for it.

Anonymous
August 27, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 27, 2008
Why is it that there is always a lag opening the Control Panel? It's a list that never changes, and yet, the first time you open it in a session... you get a nice big inexplicable lag while it loads the icons. That's bugged me for years now.
Anonymous
August 28, 2008
Hi, I think, that this is very good topic. Let's run Windows NT 4 on modern computer (of course, I assume, that it will be possible to run it) and Vista on the same computer. And compare them - in Vista there are many modules for increasing performance and NT doesn't need them... I understand, that creating something bigger in plain assembler is today maybe not possible. But maybe techniques and technologies used for creating Vista were not good...and you should start from changing them... And once again: people want small core, which will separate applications and which will not be slower after year or two because of a lot of missed files and entries (after uninstalled applications). Remove all stuff, which is not liked by people and which doesn't work like expected (like DRM) and which will make core (much) slower. Let's start from it and various prefetchers and other things simply will be not required. Without it you shouldn't go into next part of Windows 7 project. Additionally - do you remember how slow was Windows 98 when compare it to WIndows 95. People were speaking about integrating IE with system in many bad words. When this and other integrations will be removed in current system, performance will be definitely better :)
Anonymous
August 29, 2008
I think Vista already spent great deal of time on stuff under the hood. Like PC backup without rebooting to some other environment. BitLocker. Parental Control. Other stuff I can careless. I hope it will be a release with cool casual user experience. For example, WPF applications. You spend a great deal of time on WPF and yet no build-in app demo it? That's just weird. Really hope you can upgrade Paint to "Paint .Net" as originally intended. Why not buy it and change it to Live Paint? Animated Windows. This is pointless, but I am sure people would love Jelly Windows and other pointless stuff. Again, what is your objective for Windows App and Live App? Live Mail is way way way better you know.
Anonymous
August 30, 2008
What Windows 7 really needs is many different options. I think the classic Windows UI interface (Windows 2000 and XP both should be in there.) should be one of many UI options. Seven needs to be speedy and responsive. Quick start up and shutdown. I really think Seven should be 3 times faster than XP. Graphically, it should make Leopard and SnowLeopard look like a 24 year old OS platform thats out of date. Featurewise, it needs to achieve true parity with Leopard plus some new things thats exclusive. For the business users, I agree they need a special business oriented version of Seven that takes care of security, business interoperbility, ease of use for transitioning users, and the ability to uninstall unwanted features. On the consumer side, I need the ability to remove Microsoft created applications like Windows Media Player, Paint, Calender, and Internet Explorer. Unless the new WMP and I.E. are significantly advanced to counter both Firefox, WinAmp, Opera, and iTunes; we should have the right to completely take them out of Windows. This should be easily done within the Control Panel, with a few clicks. Plain and simple. Also, we need an answers to iLife. I think Office is way superior to iWork. It would be nice to see a separate suite that counters iLife bringing a digital suite for all areas of music, movies, photos, podcast, etc. That should be related to the Windows Seven launch. My idea would be that users would add to Seven what they need. At the install screen, you decide what you need. One of my favorite ideas, would be to allow you to install third party apps during install of Windows using an Internet connection. Imagine having all third party apps available as you're installing the OS? Being able to substitute Firefox instead of Internet Explorer? Being able to install WinAmp and leave WMP out? It would be revolutionary to allow competitors the ability to put their apps in Windows during install. It would do a lot to counter anti-trust issues and give competitors a chance to have a fair shake on the Windows Environment. It would make Windows the truely open to third party applications suite and the counter to the Apple platform. If anyone needs those apps later, they can whip out their Windows disk and put it back. Plain and simple. Or you guys could include it as a Windows Update, just incase the disk is damaged or missing. Finally, DRM and WGA needs to be pulled out of Windows once and for all. Find a new way to verify legitimate copies of Windows. Also, open things up and keep intact individual users rights a top priority. I understand the need to protect Intelectual Properties, however the broadcast flags in Windows Media Center has got to go. We should be able to record television without NBC or any other network blocking our rights. Guys, Good luck.
Anonymous
August 31, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 31, 2008
Hi, I have two suggestions on Windows 7:

It's a good idea to have more desktop space. Sometimes, we may have a bad habit that put all the icons, documents, etc on the desktop. Before cleaning up my desktop, I would really want more space.
As a IT guy, I would like to increase the experience in using perfmon. Hopefully the time filtering function can be better, the graph can be more detail. And even better if some major event (like PageFile size changed, software installed) can be displayed on the graph. Thank you. Regards, Steven Yeung

Anonymous
September 04, 2008
An idea for Date & Time. Use UTC. It should be possible to set the OS clock to UTC. It should be possible that different users log into the OS and set there clock to different time zone. (especially on servers but on PC as well) Personally I need to know and work with UTC all the time, and it is a big problem with all the Windows OS at the moment. I like the UNIX aproach in this.
Anonymous
September 04, 2008
An idea for Date & Time. Use UTC. It should be possible to set the OS clock to UTC. It should be possible that different users log into the OS and set there clock to different time zone. (especially on servers but on PC as well) Personally I need to know and work with UTC all the time, and it is a big problem with all the Windows OS at the moment. I like the UNIX approach in this.
Anonymous
September 17, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 15, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
November 23, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 21, 2010
thanks, nice post, keep posting
Anonymous
December 20, 2015
Great writing it is such a cool and nice idea thanks for sharing your post. I like your post very much. Thanks for your post.
Anonymous
December 25, 2015
I read your blog. That was fantastic. I like your blog. Thanks a lot.
Anonymous
January 10, 2016
I like your blog. I enjoyed reading your blog. It was amazing. Thanks a lot.

Partager via

Measuring the scale of a release

Comments

Ressources supplémentaires