Now that IT pros have started kicking the Windows 7 tires, it makes sense to consider the next round of improvements. Alan Norton shares his list of the changes he hopes to see.

In brief:

1: A smaller footprint
2: An alternative to the Start button and desktop shortcuts
3: A replacement for WGA
4: Improved Windows installer
5: Removing support for 16 bit and 32 bit
6: Simple backup and archive manager
7: Decimal capacities and measurements
8: A better defragmenter
9: Firewall, antivirus, and malware
10: A replacement for Task Manager

The final word

The last three items in the list share a common thread: transparency. For security reasons, I want to know what my OS is doing. I have found myself looking more than ever at third-party software because many of the tools that come with the operating system are average in performance at best and don’t do what I want them to. That is a hard statement to make for someone who has had so much respect for Microsoft over the years.

I understand that the 80/20 rule probably applies here — 80% of the people using Windows don’t care what the Disk Defragmenter is doing, what processes are running, or who is trying to connect to their computer. They trust Microsoft’s software. I don’t because I don’t know what it is doing. Perhaps a favorite quotation of former U.S president Ronald Reagan says it best:”Trust, but verify.”

Microsoft seems to be moving Windows toward a black box built for the masses. The next release would be a good time to add some windowpanes to the black box to allow a view in and some information out.

said by Matt3:

You can disable indexing of certain file types. I would investigate that if search isn't working for you. I find it very accurate and very helpful.

said by Z80:

Microsoft needs to return to this long standing every 2 years model. It stops them from biting off more they can chew.

said by Z80:

Microsoft needs to return to this long standing every 2 years model. It stops them from biting off more they can chew.

According to a supposed Microsoft Research employee's LinkedIn profile, Microsoft is working on 128-bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 and Windows 9 kernels. Consequently, the company is also forming relationships with major partners, including Intel, AMD, HP, and IBM.

said by cork1958:

Windows 7 is decent enough that MS shouldn't have any need to crank out Windows 8 ASAP!

said by Networkworld :

A lot of open source advocates like to rage against the machine at Microsoft, but when a former Microsoft Research employee says that Windows 7 won't stop Linux from market domination, that's an opinion to note. Keith Curtis, author of the book After the Software Wars, says just that. But he goes further. He thinks Microsoft and its customers would be better off if the company ditched Windows and instead built its own version of the Linux operating system.

These topics came up yesterday during my interview with Curtis for Network World's Panorama Podcast series. It was an interesting conversation with someone who has crossed over worlds, from Microsoft employee to free software advocate. But it raised as many questions in my mind as it answered. For instance (at 13:10 in the interview), I asked Curtis how he thinks Microsoft can meet its obligations to employees, shareholders and customers while also morphing itself from a proprietary software maker to an open source company. His answer was surprising: Microsoft Linux. He noted that Ubuntu was started with about $10 million -- an amount that Microsoft could lose unnoticed in the cushions of a couch.

"I think we could all be running Microsoft Linux. I sent an e-mail to Steve Ballmer about this and he said he wasn't interested," he quips, but is only partially joking. "Microsoft could very easily dominate the Linux market if they wanted to. I don't think they should release all their source code ... nobody would use it."

Given the likelihood of Microsoft Linux (zippo), I asked him if he thought the IT industry, with its giant Microsoft ecosystem, would somehow be better off if Microsoft vanished rather than having the folks in Redmond figure out how to become more open.

"There is an ecosystem around Microsoft but if you look at the ISV ecosystem, that's mostly disappeared. When I joined Microsoft in '93, there would be boxes of software that people would install. But that's almost gone. Microsoft's partners are service providers and hardware vendors. ... whether Microsoft should whither away is a difficult question. I just look at their code bases and the world doesn't need any of their code bases. From the day I started using Linux, I no longer used one line of Microsoft code -- it's been four years now."

said by Networkworld :

A lot of open source advocates like to rage against the machine at Microsoft, but when a former Microsoft Research employee says that Windows 7 won't stop Linux from market domination, that's an opinion to note. Keith Curtis, author of the book After the Software Wars, says just that. But he goes further. He thinks Microsoft and its customers would be better off if the company ditched Windows and instead built its own version of the Linux operating system.

These topics came up yesterday during my interview with Curtis for Network World's Panorama Podcast series. It was an interesting conversation with someone who has crossed over worlds, from Microsoft employee to free software advocate. But it raised as many questions in my mind as it answered. For instance (at 13:10 in the interview), I asked Curtis how he thinks Microsoft can meet its obligations to employees, shareholders and customers while also morphing itself from a proprietary software maker to an open source company. His answer was surprising: Microsoft Linux. He noted that Ubuntu was started with about $10 million -- an amount that Microsoft could lose unnoticed in the cushions of a couch.

"I think we could all be running Microsoft Linux. I sent an e-mail to Steve Ballmer about this and he said he wasn't interested," he quips, but is only partially joking. "Microsoft could very easily dominate the Linux market if they wanted to. I don't think they should release all their source code ... nobody would use it."

Given the likelihood of Microsoft Linux (zippo), I asked him if he thought the IT industry, with its giant Microsoft ecosystem, would somehow be better off if Microsoft vanished rather than having the folks in Redmond figure out how to become more open.

"There is an ecosystem around Microsoft but if you look at the ISV ecosystem, that's mostly disappeared. When I joined Microsoft in '93, there would be boxes of software that people would install. But that's almost gone. Microsoft's partners are service providers and hardware vendors. ... whether Microsoft should whither away is a difficult question. I just look at their code bases and the world doesn't need any of their code bases. From the day I started using Linux, I no longer used one line of Microsoft code -- it's been four years now."