News & Views

I was reading one of the many arguments between Windows, OS X, and Linux fans online the other day and came to the realization that all of the current crop of desktop operating systems basically suck in one way or another. None of them are truly secure. None of them have file systems which are bullet proof. None of them can recover gracefully from power loss, hard drive failure, or other modern calamities. All of them suffer from hardware compatibility issues. None of them support multiple processor cores or even multiple threads of execution in any really meaningful way. They are all based on ideas, technologies, and even code bases that are literally decades old now.

Sure, most modern desktop operating systems have been updated regularly. Most have been patched up to support modern hardware as it appears. Most allow drivers to be created which give new hardware access to the system. Most have added on support for modern communication protocols and modern storage systems. But all of the current operating systems have had to add this functionality by tacking new code onto old sub-systems in ever more creative ways.

Perhaps it's time to cut our software links to the 70's and 80's and truly start over. Maybe it's time for a clean slate approach to a modern operating system. In a nutshell, we're still using 20th century desktop operating systems and it's time for a drastic change. Somebody needs to develop a completely new desktop operating system to take us well into the 21st century. It's time for a 21st century OS.

How would one start this process? What should it include?

I say, start with a clean slate. Cast a tiny kernel in stone. Make it read-only to everything. Hell, go one step further and put it in a quick-boot ROM. Boot speeds should never exceed 15 seconds. It's ridiculous to have 8 core processors running at 3+ GHz in modern computers and yet they take 2 full minutes to start up.

Next, virtualize and sandbox every non-kernel process in the entire system. Don't let ANYTHING at any level make changes to the core operating system. Ever. Also, don't let any process change the code or data of any other process. Both should just plain be forbidden and prevented. It should be impossible for little Bobby to do something to the computer that would require reinstalling or reconfiguring anything.

Weave in a secured version of a self-healing file system like ZFS from Sun. Build-in IPv6 with DES-level security from the ground up. Make file, hardware, system, and communications security a required part of the operating system rather than an optional add on. The only way somebody should be able to gain access to the computer is by having the security key in advance. In fact, maybe it's time to put our security keys into hardware, just like our house keys or car keys. Having your key should grant you secured access to your own system whether you are sitting in front of it or sitting at a public computer on the other side of the world.

Next, define a few very strict hardware device protocols, build in support for those few, and frankly don't allow any hardware which does not conform to the specification fully. The era of adding registry keys, installing drivers, and trying to get your devices to work is OVER. Develop one way to talk to devices and if a device doesn't follow the rules, just don't support it period. No drivers. No hacks. No way.

Make the OS both massively parallel and multi-threaded. Create tools which embrace and incorporate both ideas so our future generation 10,000 core CPUs just work from the start. Treat both, GPUs and CPUs as computing resources with a generic way of describing their capabilities to the operating system so that it can route tasks to whatever processor is available which can do the work. The kernel should simply use processors as processors. If you add another one, it should just use it.

Make the OS lean and fast. Make it boot in under 10 seconds, 15 maximum. Give the OS a hardware accelerated GUI and hardware accelerated media capabilities from the start. All media encoding and decoding should be open source and specified in hardware. Keep the GUI SIMPLE and intuitive. It shouldn't require tweaking to make things work. There should be no command line. There shouldn't NEED to be.

Make the OS dirt cheap or free by selling vendors a secure key, development kit, or license for developing compatible hardware. Maybe charge for software development kits. Either way, it needs to be free to end users and perhaps even free to computer makers for it to get adopted or offered as an option as quickly as possible. To ensure that the OS can be given away for free, avoid licensing old crap from the current crop of patent trolls who now sell 20th century OSes. There are great alternatives for everything, even media formats, from open, license-free sources.

Basically, write us a brand-new 21st century OS so we can all stop using the wide variety of crappy, antique, hacked-together, 20th century OSes we are currently stuck with. There really isn't a great OS to be found right now. They all have security issues. They all have hardware problems. They all have kernel panics, system crashes, malware, viruses, and more. A lot of people like me are ready for something totally different and brand new. It's time for a change.

Maybe there needs to be a 21sth Century OS X-Prize! Offer a million dollars to the first person, university, or company to develop an OS and C/C++ compiler which meets all the criteria I listed above. We badly need to find the Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak of THIS generation. We're in a new century. We need the OS of the future and we need it now.

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, OSX, Predictions, Ubuntu, UI, User Interface, Virtual PC, Vista, Windows, Windows 7

In case you haven't already heard the uproar, Microsoft has made yet another decision nobody understands. As a follow-on to their largely-ignored Windows Vista, Windows 7 is working its way toward store shelves sometime later this year. Unfortunately, Microsoft has chosen to ignore the public outcry surrounding their Vista version madness. In a decision that shocked many, they announced that they plan to release 6, yes SIX, versions of Windows 7. For those keeping score, that amounts to 5 crippled versions and 1 complete version.

If that marketing department insanity weren't bad enough, the announcement of the most severely crippled version is, in my opinion, specifically-geared toward insulting folks living in less-fortunate countries. Even worse, we lowly consumers won't be allowed to buy the complete version in any store. More on this odd twist later.

Here are the announced versions of Windows 7:

• Windows 7 Starter Edition (for emerging market and netbook users)
• Windows 7 Home Basic (for emerging market customers only)
• Windows 7 Home Premium (the main “Media Center” equivalent)
• Windows 7 Professional (the business SKU for home users and non-enterprise licensees)
• Windows 7 Enterprise (for volume licensees)
• Windows 7 Ultimate (for consumers who want/need business features)

Microsoft says that this lineup was created based on input from users. (Seriously? Anyone believe that?) As proof, they say they came up with a great solution for the many who think there are too many versions. They will only allow you to buy two out of the six versions at retail.

I'm not making that up. That was their "brilliant" solution. The two versions that will be sold at retail are Home Premium and Professional. This means the complete OS (Ultimate) is only available as an upgrade after you buy a crippled version. They seemed so proud of themselves for thinking of this solution, it almost makes me feel guilty, like I'm poking fun at the mentally-impaired, to point out the complete absurdity of it.

Frankly, it sounds to me like somebody with a lot of "pull" at Microsoft is heavily-vested in the "purchase-then-upgrade" model and simply refuses to let it go, no matter how stupid it is. I'd love to know who that idiot is, so I could post the name everywhere. Bill Veghte, Senior Vice President of the Windows business has come out in defense of this plan, so perhaps the buck stops there? Somebody should ask him where the obsession with selling upgrades started.

As you can tell, I have numerous problems and more than a little bitterness regarding this obvious profit-pumping ploy. Perhaps, I should take a moment to elaborate on what bugs me about it.

Here are the top 10 things I hate about this announcement:

1. They are asking consumers who want the complete OS to pay twice in order to get it. That's worse than simply inconvenient.
2. They are starting with a complete OS and removing ever larger portions of it to arbitrarily create half a dozen crippled versions of that OS for the sole purpose of pumping more money out of us later with upgrades.
3. The most heavily-crippled version is an insult to the intended market, considering that even the complete OS will run on the intended equipment without any problem whatsoever.
4. They could sell us the entire complete OS for exactly the same price as the cheapest crippled version and STILL make a hefty profit by reducing the numerous costs associated with selling so many crippled versions.
5. I am insulted by their assumption that all home users do not need encryption or the ability to log onto a domain.
6. I am annoyed by the fact that they feel they can choose which features I need installed on my systems better than I can. Give me everything and I'll make the choices while installing.
7. I am sensitive to manipulation by marketing morons and alarm bells go off when I see somebody intentionally crippling their product to artificially create the "option" of upgrading it later.
8. The assumption that one billion users can be perfectly served by releasing 6 versions is as ridiculous as saying the vast majority of the public can be served by 2. A complete OS will serve more users than either 2 or 6 versions. If their intention really is to serve the needs of the most people, they would be selling one version and letting the individuals decide what to remove.
9. They are lying to my face and I don't like it. Their press release said they listened to users and came up with this solution. I've seen and heard a LOT of users complaining very publicly about the Vista version-overload fiasco. Microsoft ignored us all. Windows 7 is simply Vista marketing mistakes, take two.
10. I am really annoyed that they learned nothing despite the efforts of so many to inform them of the things they did wrong with Vista. I feel like we wasted our collective breath trying to convert a cash-obsessed company run by their marketing department into a modern, consumer-oriented technology company.
11. BONUS reason: Their rip-off approach makes me feel like I walked into one of those cult-like buyers' clubs where high-pressure salespeople continue to insist their prices are better even when you hand them reams of proof that the equipment they sell is both out-of-date and overpriced.

Truth be told, I'm disappointed, frustrated, and angry with Microsoft. I've purchased and used their products for as long as they've existed as a company, including all prior versions of Windows. (Yes, even 1.0 - yuck!) I've owned numerous copies of their developer tools and Office products. I was using Word and Multiplan on MS-DOS before there was an Excel or even Windows. Before Vista came along, their products were always worth the price to me. That has changed. With their rip-off marketing approach to Vista, and now Windows 7, my respect for Microsoft is gone.

Many are asking the question, "What can we really do about big companies like Microsoft who rip us off like this?" Well, there is really only one thing we can do. Don't buy their products. Companies like Microsoft have stockholders. Stockholders get annoyed when the company doesn't make any money. If profits tank, the stockholders and Board of Directors get involved. Then, heads start rolling and drastic changes are made.

Before Vista, Microsoft was a very profitable, steadily-growing company. When Vista was released after 6 years of development, the cold reception it received killed their momentum and created a lot of internal tension. When stockholders started asking for explanations, the quick-thinking management explained it all away as being solely due to 3rd party driver issues.

However, Microsoft completely ignored the second source of public irritation with Vista. They didn't address version madness and the resulting feeling among consumers that Microsoft is trying to rip us off by selling us cripple-ware and then pushing upgrades on us to get the features we really need.

Sure, Windows 7 has the drivers mostly working now, and it includes some great fixes to many Vista shortcomings, but Microsoft still didn't address the version madness. In fact, they made it worse. Not only do they plan to release a bunch of crippled versions, but we can't even buy the complete version. We are forced to buy a crippled version and then pay for an upgrade later. Every time I say that, I shake my head in amazement at their stupidity in coming up with that "solution."

So, why do they have so many versions to begin with? The reality is, it costs them far more to press, package, distribute, maintain, and support 6 different versions of Windows than one. So, why do it? The answer is, they believe they will make more money on the upgrades they sell later. They removed just enough features in each crippled version that they believe everyone will be forced to buy an upgrade at some point in the future.

Personally, I don't believe that's what will actually happen. It didn't happen with Vista. Using that tactic to squeeze a few more dollars from us just pisses people off and makes them look even harder at the variety of excellent modern alternatives to Microsoft's OS.

Here is what I, and many others, believe: If Microsoft sold one complete version, they could charge substantially less for that single version. In fact, if they sold the complete version for the price of the cheapest crippled version, they would likely make more money than they will by pissing people off with their buy-then-upgrade tactics. More people would buy Windows 7. They would buy it sooner. They would buy it at a faster pace. Combine that with the reduced costs of a single version, and you get larger cash flows, bigger profits, and happier stockholders. Unfortunately, they don't see this and are continuing down their obsessive path to nowhere.

While Windows 7 might do better sales numbers than Vista eventually, I still don't see it taking off like it could if they took a more consumer-friendly approach. Think about it. People are now very apprehensive about buying Windows after the way they were treated by Microsoft with Vista. Treating them like that a second time will be far more difficult to repair. Word of mouth killed Vista's momentum. By continuing the version madness of Vista, they have already created a lot of negative buzz before Windows 7 is even released. I feel this is a mistake they may live to regret.

On a more positive note for some consumers, Apple sells one complete version of their OS for one reasonable price, which is what people really want. We all want more for less. With Windows 7 being mostly internal fixes to Vista, and continuing the rip-off, crippled-version, insanity of Vista, I don't see anything at all to stand in the way of Apple's continued climb in market share. More people jumping to Apple's platform, will mean more software and hardware developed for that platform, which will draw even more Apple converts.

So, if you own Apple stock, rejoice. Your future looks bright! With this Windows 7 announcement, Microsoft has, once-again, made it much easier to take away their market share.

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, Opinions, Vista, Windows, Windows 7

To say there is some hype surrounding the Microsoft's upcoming Vista replacement would be an incredible understatement. While the reasons for this hype range from "disappointment with Vista" to "slow news season," everyone can agree on one thing. Windows 7 will be Microsoft's best chance at redemption after a mostly dismal Vista run.

Since Microsoft released Windows 7 Beta, I thought it would be a great idea to post my own experience with installing, configuring, and using the Windows 7 Beta on my own Vista-compatible hardware.  So, to start things off, I went online and downloaded the ISO of Windows 7 Ultimate Beta 64 bit. I'll just call it W7 for the remainder of this article. Then, I used Nero to burn the ISO file to a DVD.

Installation:

Because of my requirements, I performed a slightly different than usual installation process. Since I'm testing W7B on my primary computer, which I use to do other things, I decided to put it on its own drive and dual-boot my system. I grabbed an old Maxtor 500GB drive I had on a shelf and bolted it into my case. Inside Vista, I partitioned the second drive, set it active, and formatted it as NTFS. Then, I rebooted from the DVD and selected that second drive when prompted for the location. In total, the install took maybe 30 minutes tops. It probably would have gone quicker if I wasn't using an older (slower) drive. I had to answer perhaps 5 questions in total during the process before the system finally rebooted into W7 for the first time.

First run:

The first thing I noticed after getting into W7 was the landscape of the slightly-tweaked desktop. Even to folks like me who used a double-height taskbar in both XP and Vista, this new taskbar is obviously different from the previous generations. The Start button is there, but next to it are big icons for quick launch. The standard icon tray is next, followed by the clock and one more oddity. There is what looks like a skinny button with no label or icon on the far right end of the taskbar.

Moving my mouse over this skinny button, the windows on the screen turned into transparent window frames so that I could see my desktop. I'm not sure what purpose is served by turning ALL of my windows transparent. I could see turning the top window transparent so that I can see the window underneath, but a button to let me quickly look at my wallpaper? My guess is that it might allow you to view Sidebar gadgets on the desktop, but that isn't clear with no label on the button. I'll let you know what I figure out on that one when I setup the gadgets in part 2.

Next, I clicked the Start button to see what was different. The look of the menu is familiar, but the contents have changed. Search seems to be more prominent somehow. The menu seems simplified, maybe too much so for my tastes. There is still no Videos folder listed with Pictures and Music. The first item on the left is a link to that Welcome dialog. Other than that, it doesn't look much different at first glance.

Bringing up Windows Explorer, I see libraries. This seems to be a system-wide addition. It probably even shows up in file open dialogs. If you are familiar with iTunes, you know that you can have two songs in your music library that are actually located in two different folders on your hard drive. This is the difference between the "library" and the "folders" in W7, too. You can have songs all over your hard drive and have them all show up in one folder in your music library. In fact, I suspect they could be on different physical drives and be in the same library folder. I'll test this later.

As I poked around using the new Windows Explorer, I noticed something annoying. I didn't see any filename extensions or hidden directories or files. So, I searched for the option to turn those back on. Nothing. As far as I've been able to find so far, there isn't a way to make Windows Explorer display hidden items anymore. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place, but I find this really annoying.

I decided it was time to install my favorite browser (Firefox) so I opened Internet Explorer to jump online to download the 64 bit version. Looks like they shipped the Beta of Internet Explorer 8 with W7. I typed "64 bit Firefox" into the search field, hit enter, and boom. Internet Explorer 8 crashed. I closed it and tried again with better results, but it continued to behave oddly with delayed responses to clicks and scrolling. IE8 doesn't seem like a Beta to me. More like pre-Alpha. It eventually worked long enough to (slowly) download Firefox 64 onto my computer, which is all I needed it to do.

After telling Firefox to install, a UAC prompt popped up asking me if it was ok to allow this program to install. I clicked the first prompt, fully expecting more to pop up as it progressed, but nothing happened. It installed and was done. Wow, UAC has changed! That's when I realized I had been poking around at stuff for quite a while without ever seeing a UAC prompt pop up.  It only appeared when I was actually installing something. Nice change! I looked at the settings on this and immediately discovered there are multiple levels of prompting you can set or you can turn it completely off. I'm thrilled with this.

So what is the score at this point?

Install: The install process has definitely improved. Seemed faster and less annoying. Fewer reboots, for me at least, and less user involvement aside from basic information. Networking already worked when the OS came up.

Taskbar: This is different, but it isn't clear whether this is better or worse yet, so I'll call that one a wash at this point.

Windows Explorer: This is both better and worse. It's probably better for new users because it hides things that could hurt them and simplifies finding things. It's worse for advanced users who want to be able to view ALL the information and files on their systems.

Internet Explorer: This is decidedly worse at this point, largely due to the extreme instability and flakiness of what they floated as a beta release.

User Access Control (UAC): This is VASTLY improved. The default setting out of the box warns of drastic actions without being the annoying pain in the ass which prompted most power users to turn it off entirely in Vista. Big plus on this one.

Stability: I'll update on this as I use it longer. So far, not a single OS crash, hang, or reboot. This OS is really solid for a Beta release. It's the polar opposite of the IE8 Beta, in my experience so far.

So the score after my first look is a mixed bag. Overall, I think it looks much improved for average users, but power users may get annoyed by some of the walls they have built around parts of the OS. Just avoid using IE8.

In my next post, I'll take a closer look at some of the improvements and annoyances I discover about this new OS as I continue to use it.

Labels: Microsoft, Opinions, Windows 7

As soon as Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer publicly demonstrated some UI concepts for the upcoming Windows 7, I saw comments all over the Internet about how Microsoft had copied the Mac OSX 3D dock. It proved to me, once again, that there are a vast number of victims of the "Jobs Reality Distortion Field" running around on this planet. I like Apple, but come on people. Stop giving them more credit than they have earned. Let's take a look at reality.

Apple didn't invent the 3D dock in OSX Leopard. It is a copy of the 3D Sun Looking Glass dock, which was created earlier than the UI for OSX Leopard. Looking Glass wasn't viewed by the public until 2003, but remember that the pretty 3D dock finally appeared in Leopard in 2007. A Sun programmer (Hideya Kawahara) developed Looking Glass in his spare time. When Sun executives saw the first version, they gave him the full-time job of developing it further. They showed it to the public in 2003, and made it Open Source in 2004. It seemed to fizzle out in 2006. 

Giving Apple credit for inventing the 3D dock shown in the Windows 7 demo is just like believing Apple invented the windowed, mouse-driven OS, which was created by Xerox PARC labs years before Apple copied it in their Mac. If Microsoft did anything, they copied Sun (and Xerox), just like Apple did.

While Apple definitely uses innovative technology in products they create, they rarely invent it. It amazes me when people even forget that portable MP3 players existed for a while before the iPod ever came out. What made the iPod so popular was iTunes. I keep wondering what psychological trickery is involved that keeps making Apple's otherwise intelligent users think Apple invented all of this stuff. Apple innovates by using cool technology invented by others.

Here's another reality that gets overlooked. Microsoft's early work for some of the 3D desktop features of both Vista and Windows 7 was done many years ago. Microsoft has been working on various 3D desktops for almost a decade. For example, "The TaskGallery" was a project they did back in 1999. It allowed users to display normal Windows programs running in "paintings" hanging on the walls of a 3D virtual office environment.

For more reading, head to "Project Looking Glass" and look at the screen shots. Overall, it makes our current UI's look bad. Taken as a whole, it is much more advanced than Windows or even OSX. Actually, you may think you are looking at OSX Leopard on some of the screen shots. It's a shame Looking Glass never took off. Back when I first saw it (2003), I hoped Microsoft would purchase the rights and make it the new Windows standard UI. As usual, Apple beat them to the punch by folding some of the concepts into Leopard. Seeing the demo of Windows 7 with a Looking Glass dock gives me hope that Microsoft may be headed that same direction.

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

Does a tower case with a quad core CPU, 4GB of RAM, and an NVIDIA 8800 cost more if you buy it from Apple instead of Gateway? Absolutely. BUT only if you are just talking about buying the hardware. We all know there is more to a computer purchase than that. When you consider the complete OS, the included software, and the level of service, the price evens out quite a bit.

First of all, Apple includes the complete OS. Adding Vista Ultimate to a PC costs extra, pumping up the price significantly. Apple includes word processing, simple spreadsheet, and a number of other useful applications. Adding this same level of capabilities to a Vista PC will require additional software purchases. Add these costs to the price of the hardware and suddenly the price gap is a lot narrower than it seems at first glance.

Just a couple more observations: I've used both Vista and OSX. I've used identical applications available on both. Both were running on hardware "certified as compatible" and I had zero crashes on either. I also had zero mal-ware infections on either. Both were very stable and easy to use. Both have brain-dead easy installation routines that worked perfectly with supported hardware. Both started up with tutorials for new users. They both just worked for me with no trouble at all.

What about performance though? I'm mostly a Vista user these days, because there is a lot of software not available on Macs. BUT I want to tell everyone OSX just beats the heck out of Vista in one key area: resource footprint. By this, I mean RAM, GPU, and CPU usage. OSX is simply leaner and meaner. With the same CPU, RAM, and GPU in both machines, I saw less RAM and CPU being used in nearly every task I tried and despite using less resources, the OSX system felt more responsive.

I'm guessing this is why an Apple machine can often get away with using less hardware for the same tasks. This is one important difference that nobody ever seems to address for some reason. Instead the groupies say easier, more stable, more secure, etc. None of which is really true in my own experience. For a user like myself, Vista and OSX provide virtually identical levels of stability, security, and ease of use. But, OSX wins hands down on resource usage. You get more bang out of your hardware.

The standard 64 bit address space is another big difference I liked. Using 8 GB of RAM on your motherboard is no problem at all in OSX. Think about that. It needs less RAM but it is able to address more. That's a nice combination if you work with large images and video. More RAM is available for your data.

So what more could you possibly want? I'm glad you asked.

In a word, software. The Mac needs more off-the-shelf software. If you could walk into Best Buy and have the same software choices available for Macs that are available for Windows, it would become impossible for Vista to compete in any identical hardware comparison. OSX would just eat it alive. For now, though, most of us are stuck with Windows because we need that software selection. After all, it is the software that actually lets us do things, not the OS.

The bottom line? Macs may cost more initially if you only look at identical hardware, but including the full OS, and useful basic software levels the playing field on cost. Add in the more efficient use of hardware resources and you end up with an arguably quicker system with more usable RAM. The efficiencies of OSX mean identical hardware isn't truly identical. The Mac gives you more punch on the same hardware. So you are getting more bang for those extra bucks. But this isn't enough for a win. Why not?

The one glaring blemish for the Mac is software availability. If there were more software available, the Mac would win hands-down. As it is, the lack of software ruins any hope of a clean victory for the Mac. If Apple can somehow address this, the Mac will become a clear winner.

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, OSX, Vista, Windows

Here is a question: If there was a way to evaluate Mac OSX on your current Windows machine for under $150, would you jump at it?

I think for many of us, the answer to that question is a resounding "yes." Could this be a way for Apple to pump up their profits? I honestly think it could. That's why I think Apple should release a boxed version of OSX that runs as a client on Virtual PC SP1.

While I've used OSX for a short duration, I've never had the opportunity to evaluate it as a long-term solution. It seemed promising, but I'm not willing to change out all of the PC's I use daily just because an OS looks "promising." I think many feel the same. On the other hand, running a test copy of an OS in a controlled virtual environment is a safe way to dip our toes in the water. There is no risk or interruption to our daily workflow.

If Apple were to release a "client" version of OSX that ran under Microsoft's Virtual PC for under $150, I'd be one of the first to buy and install it. This would allow those of us with investments in PC's and Windows to take a good long look at OSX to evaluate whether it is a viable replacement over the long term.

Even if many of us who try OSX decide to stay with Windows, Apple will have made easy money off of us and their current users weren't hurt in the process. On the other hand, I think a large number of the folks who try it, may like it enough to switch completely at some point. Either way, this influx of new users could drastically grow Apple's market share and stimulate future development efforts for the platform.

I really think a virtual PC-friendly version of OSX would take minimal resources to implement, since their OS would be running in the controlled environment of a virtual PC. It would also allow Apple to sell its own OS onto the desktops of a lot of Windows users, closing the apparent gap in market share significantly and potentially converting a lot of users in the process.

At this point, Microsoft sells copies of its OS to both Windows AND Mac users via BootCamp, Parallels, etc. This increases Microsoft's market share and further dwarves Apple's share. Putting OSX on Windows could level the playing field and push the market share numbers closer together. It would also make Apple a lot of money.

Are you listening Apple?

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, OSX, Virtual PC, Windows

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