News & Views

Mary Jo Foley wrote a blog asking what users would change first about Windows' look and feel. I gave it some thought and came up with the UI changes I'd like to see in Windows 7:

----

1. One button "restore OS to basic Windows install." When I buy a new laptop that is loaded with crap-ware, I want to be able to click one utility that removes ALL of it. I want it to get me back to a clean install, with a clean registry, retaining only the drivers necessary to function correctly.

I don't want pop-up, slide-out screen utilities for zooming, scrolling, fogging, misting, configuring, connecting, monitoring, or whatever else the laptop manufacturer thought would be cool. I also don't want a registry cluttered with leftover pieces of the applications that were removed. And I don't want orphaned icons and folders left behind. I just want a brand new system to work like a clean install of Windows. Too much to ask?

2. Quick Launch GROUPS. This is similar to the Apple OSX "stacks" concept. I want to be able to create pop-up menus of tools I use constantly on the quick launch bar, grouped in any way I want. Right now, you can put a folder on Quick Launch and drag shortcuts into it, but it opens a big ugly File Browser. I'd prefer a compact pop-up menu of applications to appear.

3. Quick Boot and Shutdown. I've used Microsoft Virtual PC. It is able to save the state of a running OS and close it pretty quickly. Why can't we do the same with our regular OS? Save the state and close it. Reload the state and go. Perhaps this means Windows 7 needs to be implemented as a virtual OS running on top of a small Virtual Machine kernel?

4. Modularize everything, including the UI. When I am doing nothing but browsing the Internet, there is no reason to be using 2 GB of RAM the entire time due to code dependencies. Also, unless I'm nearly out of RAM, why should the OS be grinding away at my page file on the hard drive? Reducing the RAM and CPU footprint by using modularized code should help with both issues.

5. More intelligence in UAC functionality. Perhaps they could implement a secured, server-based MD5 checksum database for all popular applications so that UAC could check to see if the running application is both valid and on the "safe" list before bothering us. Perhaps this secure server could also be used to potentially hinder invalid licenses of Windows in some way. Maybe that would be incentive enough for Microsoft to consider it.

6. Drag and drop installation. OSX has the right idea on this one. If I download an application "package," I should be able to drag it into the applications folder and have it just work. This idea may be pie in the sky, particularly because I'd like to see the launch shortcuts intelligently place themselves in the proper sub-menu on the Start menu (more on this one later).

7. Ability to prevent desktop icon installation (without aborting software installs). I hate the fact that every application is allowed to put an icon on my desktop once I accept installation of the application. Friendly applications ask permission first, but many others don't. Apple is one of the worst offenders. Every time they update anything on my PC, I have to delete desktop icons. (And don't get me started about them trying to force Safari down my throat!)

8. LESS clutter please. I have a desktop spanning two large flat panels. When I'm mostly running two or three applications, I shouldn't see 30+ items scattered all over my desktop.

Why is this important? When your eye sees something, your brain works on identifying and evaluating it, even when you aren't focused on it. This is part of our ancient self-preservation circuitry from a time when we had to be aware of predators sneaking in from any direction. In modern times, this brain activity only makes you feel tired quicker than necessary.

This is one reason why the Mac UI is so appealing to people. In many cases, they aren't even aware of exactly why they like it better, they just know it is less exhausting to look at for long periods of time. This is also why people feel better about their personal environment after they do a "Spring cleaning" and why real estate agents tell you to de-clutter your home prior to putting it on the market. When viewing a less cluttered environment, one subconsciously feels safer and less agitated.

9. Functional grouping of applications and utilities. Think about what things DO and group them accordingly. For example, why are photo editing (Paint), photo viewing (Photo Viewer), photo browsing (Photo Gallery) spread out in different locations on the Start Menu? Why wouldn't Character Map be grouped with the text editors (WordPad and Notepad) under a text editing group? The arrangement of the included tools currently follows no rhyme or reason.

10. Require software makers to place their software shortcuts in logical places. This is a similar issue to number 9 but covers third-party software development standards. For example, I should NOT have to remember the chip manufacturer's name in order to find my RAID utilities buried in a sub-menu on my Start menu. I should be able to go to the Hard Drive Tools section and find it there. This will make maintaining PCs much easier for corporate IT people and any other folks who help others with their wide variety of computers.

11. Try to make things resemble real-world objects whenever possible. This is yet another old design philosophy Apple has embraced more fully than Microsoft. Perhaps using higher resolution, three-dimensional icons would help with this. (Maybe even animated icons in cases where it makes sense.)

----

Those are my ideas for UI changes but in all honesty, I don't think the UI should be Microsoft's primary focus. While I do think that Vista's Aero Glass appearance is more attractive than XP, making the UI pretty for the sake of pretty doesn't help me get things done faster, easier, or more efficiently. So why waste the programming resources?

Frankly, I think Microsoft should get the internals right before worrying too much about the appearance of Windows 7. I believe modularization and virtualization within a 64 bit space should be the focus on Windows 7 so that they increase backward compatibility and stability while making the OS quicker and more streamlined.

Microsoft should also simplify the licensing. One license should equal one license, period. They should release one version of Windows 7 that includes everything and simply provide installation options for leaving out certain modules, if needed. I repeat: There should be ONE version at a reasonable price. People don't want to worry about whether their version of Windows included something they find they need later. They just want it to always work.

This means there should be no upgrade versions, no 32 bit versions, and most importantly, no odd variety of crippled versions.

They should also offer inexpensive multi-license packs for home users. In my opinion they should charge under $150 for single license boxed Windows 7 and maybe $250 for a 5 license box. This licensing approach is what Apple is doing and people LIKE it. When combined with a smaller, more responsive, resource (CPU & RAM) footprint, this simplified approach to licensing will drastically increase the adoption rate of Windows 7 versus what happened with Vista.

The myriad crippled versions of Vista was just the latest thing to give us that sick feeling in the pit of our stomachs that Microsoft was trying to rip us off. Apple, on the other hand, sells one version of OSX with everything included at a fair price ($129). This makes people feel like Apple is more honest with their customers than Microsoft.

While streamlining the UI might indeed improve the OS experience, I really feel Microsoft needs to pay more attention to how customers feel about them as a company, and how well the OS runs, if they really want to attract users to the next version of Windows.

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, OSX, UI, User Interface, Windows 7