Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 30th Apr 2008 13:16 UTC
Windows Despite the fact that Windows is the world's most-used desktop operating system, it lacks certain features and gimmicks that other operating systems do have (no, really?). PCWorld made a list of 18 features Windows should have, but in fact doesn't. While some are spot on, others are a bit of a stretch.
Order by: Score:
Vapid Max Fan boy article
by Odwalla on Wed 30th Apr 2008 13:24 UTC
Odwalla
Member since:
2006-02-01

Waa, the Mac has this... Waaa, the Mac has this..., ad infinitum.

As for #15, Windows 95/98 did come with a built in Web server. It, like any included complex service can be, was a gaping security hole. Microsoft rightly removed it. Adding in something like Apache by default and expecting non-technical users to understand it and not muck with the configuration in such a way as to open security holes is ludicrous. Never mind the fact that most residential ISP user agreements specifically prohibit the running of full time servers.

Reply Score: 17

RE: Vapid Max Fan boy article
by mallard on Wed 30th Apr 2008 13:48 UTC in reply to "Vapid Max Fan boy article"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

Actually, every version of Windows since about 1995 had a web server (Not sure which version of NT introduced IIS, but it was there by 4.0. Windows 95 OSR2 at least had one.), except for XP Home, Vista Home and Home Basic. (The article acknowleges that Vista Business, Enterprise and Ultimate have it).

Microsoft never "removed it" although AFAIK it has never been installed/enabled by default (except on servers), they just rightly realised that most Home users have no need/use for such a thing.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Vapid Max Fan boy article
by casuto on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Vapid Max Fan boy article"
casuto Member since:
2007-02-27

Vista Home Premium has IIS7, but it's not installed by default. The user can install it via Control panel - Turn on/off Windows features.

Edited 2008-04-30 14:48 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Vapid Max Fan boy article
by vimh on Wed 30th Apr 2008 17:42 UTC in reply to "Vapid Max Fan boy article"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

The author I'm sure found this all very entertaining. Much of what he listed I really don't want on my Windows boxes. My two cents.

The dock and the start menu essentially serve the same purpose. The start menu is not like the unified menu. The unified menu is actually something I dislike about Mac OS but Expose really helps it work well. As Windows does not have a unified menu, Expose would just get in my way.

All in all, I'd have to say I like the way the Applications works on the Dock on my Mac over running through the start menu on my Windows machines. However, for applications I have in the quick launch versus apps directly on the dock, it's all the same.

The whole web server thing. I like having this built into the mac. I also install Apache on most of my Windows boxes. It's great for doing stuff locally or across the network.

I'd be be quite concerned about serving either to the Internet without going through the config files and make sure things are suitable for web consumption. If I recall correctly, the default Apache install in Windows clearly states that it is not suitable to be put on the web. If you wish to do so, you need to change some things.

I'm sure there was more but I forgot what else the article talked about already.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Vapid Max Fan boy article
by protagonist on Wed 30th Apr 2008 18:04 UTC in reply to "Vapid Max Fan boy article"
protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

"Waa, the Mac has this... Waaa, the Mac has this..., ad infinitum. "

Get over it already. That is one of the ways you come up with features an OS should have but doesn't. You compare it to the competition. Love it or hate it OS X is the main competitor to Windows at this time. And I agree with some and disagree with others.

All in all it was an interesting read. It would be tough writing an article if we could not make a comparison to something else.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Vapid Max Fan boy article
by apoclypse on Wed 30th Apr 2008 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Vapid Max Fan boy article"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Not to mention that this so called whining about what the Mac has is the only reason windows exists in the first. Waa...waa this mac has these things called windows...waa...waa...and a trash can...waa...waa...whats a mouse and why don't I have one...waa... you get my drift. MS has taken a quite a lot of ideas from Apple, this whining is how they know what to steal next.

Edited 2008-04-30 19:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Vapid Max Fan boy article
by Clinton on Wed 30th Apr 2008 23:20 UTC in reply to "Vapid Max Fan boy article"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

It isn't "Waa" unless you are running Windows, is it?

Anyway, one thing Windows lacks, and desperately needs, is BASH.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Vapid Max Fan boy article
by Cezy on Fri 2nd May 2008 16:15 UTC in reply to "Vapid Max Fan boy article"
Cezy Member since:
2006-05-13

I agree: most of the thing listed in the article are just funny stuff from Mac OSX.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by sappyvcv
by sappyvcv on Wed 30th Apr 2008 13:27 UTC
sappyvcv
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't get it.

Almost all of these have free 3rd party (or in the case of Virtual Desktops, available from Microsoft) solutions available.

Would the author rather Microsoft include all these features natively and make Windows bigger than it is, so they can turn around and accuse Microsoft of "bloat" or "anti-competitive practices"?

Reply Score: 11

RE: Comment by sappyvcv
by iangibson on Wed 30th Apr 2008 13:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by sappyvcv"
iangibson Member since:
2005-09-25

Bloat and anticompetitive practices? Microsoft? Perish the thought!

But couldn't they add teeny-tiny stuff like 'focus follows mouse' and 'keep window on top'?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by sappyvcv
by BigDaddy on Wed 30th Apr 2008 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by sappyvcv"
BigDaddy Member since:
2006-08-10

Exactly. Simple and basic window manager features are inexcusable. Always on top, rollup, virtual desktops, and pin to all desktops should be a no brainer. The only reason they are not included is because of third party applications that hook into the windows or hacks.

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: Comment by sappyvcv - patents
by jabbotts on Wed 30th Apr 2008 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sappyvcv"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Not Invented Here. They don't hold the patent too those nice little features and probably avoid adding them too keep from possible infringement. This, I'd guess, is the same as keeping there developers from referencing non-MS source for fear or contamination.

Even MS get's screwed by software patents.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by sappyvcv
by lteo on Thu 1st May 2008 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sappyvcv"
lteo Member since:
2007-03-25

Exactly. Simple and basic window manager features are inexcusable. Always on top, rollup, virtual desktops, and pin to all desktops should be a no brainer. The only reason they are not included is because of third party applications that hook into the windows or hacks.


Interestingly, apart from virtual desktops, Mac OS X doesn't have those basic window manager features by default either. That was a big surprise to me when I tried the Mac for the first time, after years of using Linux and taking "always on top" and "pin to all desktops" for granted. To get that functionality on Mac OS X, I had to install the free Afloat program.

I'm still new to Mac OS X, so if I'm wrong about those features not being in the base system by default, please feel free to correct me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by sappyvcv
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 30th Apr 2008 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by sappyvcv"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

There has long been a powertoy that gives you what you want (focus follows mouse). Same with virtual desktops (though it doesn't really match the Windows way of working).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by sappyvcv - make them optional
by jabbotts on Wed 30th Apr 2008 18:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by sappyvcv"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

The pretty much are optional now since the user must find and download them but the "user must find" part means they are not easily available.

MS could easily include these in the next Windows install disk as optional (default too not included) features which users could include. Win98's themes and theme manager where purely eye candy features yet they where available but not embedded by default.

The complaint is not that MS includes everything in there OS. It's that they do so in a way that assumes the user wants everything available too be installed. It's also that they do so in a way that keeps those "optional" pieces not uninstallable. Example; Can I uninstall IE yet and replace it with another browser and still expect the install to be supported?

Reply Score: 2

Why not?
by Adam S on Wed 30th Apr 2008 13:47 UTC
Adam S
Member since:
2005-04-01

Most of these suggestions seem reasonable enough to me. There are a few exceptions: the Dock (which exists well enough via the taskbar), Coverflow and the consistent menubar ribbon. Those are just "implement Mac on Windows" comments. The desktop cube (which would be cool, but is not something Windows "should" have), and software repos are "Linux on Windows."

All the others seems fair to me. Beautiful backups, a decent Window Management tool (Expose > Flip3D), Podcast recording, a decent screenshot tool, etc are certainly fair things to expect from your OS. I also think self-contained apps are by far and away the best way for apps to exist.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why not?
by mallard on Wed 30th Apr 2008 13:51 UTC in reply to "Why not?"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

I take screenshots fairly regularly, and I've never needed anything that wasn't built-in to Windows, most users very rarely take screenshots.

Microsoft even included Tablet PC's Clipping Tool in Vista for those people who can't be bothered to do their cropping in Paint.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Why not?
by Adam S on Wed 30th Apr 2008 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Why not?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I take screenshots fairly regularly too. Here's the procedure:

1. Activate window you want to shoot.
2. Press Alt + Print Screen to capture active window.
3. Open Paint
4. Paste picture
5. Highlight section of item I want to shoot
6. Ctrl + X
7. Open paint.net
8. File > New
9. Press "OK"
10. Ctrl+V to paste content

Here's how I do it on Mac:
1. Cmd + Shift + 4
2. Highlight area
3. Click

You decide.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Why not?
by mallard on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not?"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

You realise that step 7 is entirely unnecessary, right?

Plus, I take it that you are going to do something with the image (I am often writing technical documentation)?

To insert the resulting image in Word (for instance, since it is available on both platforms):

Mac: Insert, Picture, From File, Browse to file, OK.

Win: Ctrl+V.

Edited 2008-04-30 14:29 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Why not?
by Adam S on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why not?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

If I don't want a JPG that is about 12 times larger than it needs to be it isn't. Paint makes horribly huge files. Paint.net allows me to compress and degrade items as I see fit.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Why not?
by mallard on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why not?"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

Please, please, please don't put screenshots in .jpg's!
Paint supports .png just fine.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Why not?
by Adam S on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why not?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Sorry, but PNGs are often too large for the web and unnecessary. Progressive JPGs are much better suited.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Why not?
by mallard on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why not?"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

To test that theory, I took an "Alt+Print Screen" screenshot of my Firefox window and then used "Save for web" in Photoshop CS2 to save in both PNG-24 and JPG formats with the default settings. (My objection to step 7 was not that you used Paint.Net, but that you used two image editors when one was all that you needed).

PNG: Pixel-Perfect, 121kb.
JPG: Visible artifacting, 195kb.

I know this is just a single test, but it does show my point, .png is far better suited for screenshots, since they typically have long runs of identical pixels that both cause artifacting to show and compress well losslessly.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Why not?
by suryad on Wed 30th Apr 2008 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why not?"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

If you save as a bmp yes. But in paint you can save as a jpeg. Small size problem solved.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Why not?
by MollyC on Wed 30th Apr 2008 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why not?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

If I don't want a JPG that is about 12 times larger than it needs to be it isn't. Paint makes horribly huge files. Paint.net allows me to compress and degrade items as I see fit.


The real point is that one can use either Paint or Paint.NET (or some other image editor). You don't have to use both, as listed in your steps. If you prefer Paint.NET (as I do), then you can paste the captured shot directly into it (via Paste, Paste into new Image, or even Paste into new layer) without ever launching Paint, and then do your cropping/editing/whatever.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Why not?
by makea on Wed 30th Apr 2008 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why not?"
makea Member since:
2008-04-30

Actually, Adam_S is doing it the long way.

Much faster way to take a screenshot and place it into word:
1. shift+control+apple+4.
2. hightlight area
3. Click to select area
4. Paste into word, apple+v

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why not?
by gonzo on Wed 30th Apr 2008 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not?"
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Vista comes with a snipping tool that has all the options one would need I believe.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Why not?
by raver31 on Thu 1st May 2008 06:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

And here is how I do it on Ubuntu

Click "Applications > Accessories >Take Screenshot"

Click "Take Screenshot" button

Now sir, YOU decide.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Why not?
by Adam S on Thu 1st May 2008 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why not?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I have decided. I chose Mac. How is dragging your mouse across a 20" screen to a cascade of menus easier than a key combo to capture the action?

You haven't compared apples to apples here, so to speak. The other posts described taking a chunk of a screen and properly saving it. Both the Windows way (hit PrintScreen) and the Mac way (one keystroke combo) are easier than your description above.

If you just want a snapshot, straight away, no editing at all, on Mac, it's Cmd+Shift+3 and you're done.

YOU decide.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why not?
by apoclypse on Thu 1st May 2008 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why not?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Or you could just tap Printscreen. In compiz you use the windows key and drag a selection box around what you want to make a screenshot of.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why not?
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 1st May 2008 04:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Why not?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Microsoft even included Tablet PC's Clipping Tool in Vista for those people who can't be bothered to do their cropping in Paint.

I could never be bothered to use Paint, period...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why not?
by hobgoblin on Wed 30th Apr 2008 16:34 UTC in reply to "Why not?"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

hmm, software repos. why do i have a feel that apple wants to go that way by expanding the iphone app store to include macs as well?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why not?
by jabbotts on Wed 30th Apr 2008 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Why not?"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

MS sort of tried to implement it with the software store available through Windows Update though I couldn't tell you what's become of it since I looked last. It felt like a store displaying only the company private brand merchandise but with lots of empty space if other vendors took interest.

Apple's iTunes does seem to be going the same route. They have a better chance of it since the more strict Apple certification program already vett's software. I think that was one of the things around the iPhone API anyhow.

Where they both can't compete is still the volume of software included. Apple can use the iTunes business model and there existing osX certification program to come closest. Microsoft hasn't the controls in place too become a gateway for all win32/64 available programs.

They are both also profit motivated. Due to corporate law, the profit margin is the bottom line. If a decision chooses between better quality and better return for investors then legally, the second choice must be accepted. Providing equal access too one's own products along side the competitions products does not maintain barriers against competition. Expensing more budget to hire repository administration staff also works agains the profit margin.

We'll see what Apple does though. It has the smaller software library so it may be managable for one company to maintain the library along with the rest of it's day to day product design and retail.

Reply Score: 2

Available on: Mac
by agrouf on Wed 30th Apr 2008 13:47 UTC
agrouf
Member since:
2006-11-17

GNU/Linux has everything built in.
The author just doesn't know anything but MacOS X.
Expose is available on compiz, for a start, and everything they listed, except maybe time machine.
Now should we go through the list of features GNU/linux have and MacOSX have not? That would make a huge list.
LiveCD/USB? Advanced office applications? network administration/sniffing? I can go on and on and on. You can't beat GNU/linux on features. Maybe ease of use, but not on features.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Available on: Mac
by polaris20 on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:35 UTC in reply to "Available on: Mac"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

GNU/Linux has everything built in.
The author just doesn't know anything but MacOS X.
Expose is available on compiz, for a start, and everything they listed, except maybe time machine.
Now should we go through the list of features GNU/linux have and MacOSX have not? That would make a huge list.
LiveCD/USB? Advanced office applications? network administration/sniffing? I can go on and on and on. You can't beat GNU/linux on features. Maybe ease of use, but not on features.


This article is about what Windows doesn't have, not what Linux may or may not have.

As for the article, it's of little value to me. While I agree that there's some basic things missing from the window manager, such as focus follows mouse, I think that downing Windows for stuff it doesn't have yet easily added for free is silly. But then again I am not the average user; I know where to look for free stuff ;)

And for remote access to a PC, logmein.com is free, and works like gotomypc.com does.

This article is really just a thinly masked Mac leg-humping session.

Edited 2008-04-30 14:41 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Available on: GNU/Linux
by Moulinneuf on Thu 1st May 2008 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Available on: Mac"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

You need to read the article ...

http://www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,145118/printable.html

1. Expose Available on: Mac
2. Virtual Workspaces Available on: Linux, PC-BSD, Mac
3. Back to My Mac Available on: Mac
4. Screen Sharing Available on: Mac
5. Time Machine Available on: Mac
6. ISO Burning Available on: Mac, Linux, PC-BSD
7. Stickies Available on: Mac, Linux
8. Podcast Capture Available on: Mac
9. Software Repositories Available on: Linux, PC-BSD
10. Desktop Cube Available on: Linux, PC-BSD
11. Application Dock Available on: Mac
12. Automated Screen Shots Available on: Mac
13. Multitouch Trackpad Gestures Available on: Mac
14. Cover Flow Available on: Mac
15. Pre-Installed Web Server Available in: Mac, Linux, PC-BSD
16. POSIX Compliance Available on: BeOS, Mac, Linux, PC-BSD
17. Standardized Menu Ribbon Available on: Mac
18. Single-File Applications Available on: Mac

All of those are available on the default install on GNU/Linux ...

Edited 2008-05-01 00:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Available on: GNU/Linux
by FunkyELF on Thu 1st May 2008 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Available on: GNU/Linux"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

Xfce has stickes, so if PCBSD runs XFce, it should have them too.

Also, there is a dock available in Linux. It is called avant window manager I think.

ScreenSharing is available on Linux and Windows using VNC.

You might argue that VNC or Avant aren't included in Linux or Windows. Remember NOTHING is included in Linux. Compiz isn't, XFce isn't, Gnome isn't.

If you include anything that can be installed with a package manager in Linux, then you should include anything you can install with a web browser and double clicking on an exe in Windows. If that is the case, then a lot of what was said changes.

Edited 2008-05-01 14:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Available on: GNU/Linux
by apoclypse on Thu 1st May 2008 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Available on: GNU/Linux"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Xfce has stickes, so if PCBSD runs XFce, it should have them too.

Also, there is a dock available in Linux. It is called avant window manager I think.

ScreenSharing is available on Linux and Windows using VNC.

You might argue that VNC or Avant aren't included in Linux or Windows. Remember NOTHING is included in Linux. Compiz isn't, XFce isn't, Gnome isn't.

If you include anything that can be installed with a package manager in Linux, then you should include anything you can install with a web browser and double clicking on an exe in Windows. If that is the case, then a lot of what was said changes.

Nope not the case. Any good distro should have most of these things enable by default. If that were the case then Linux would fail on all counts because at the end of the day its just a kernel, everything else is an installable package. Most distros like Ubuntu include compiz by default, as well as vnc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Available on: GNU/Linux
by FunkyELF on Thu 1st May 2008 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Available on: GNU/Linux"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

Okay, then when they say available on Linux they should specify the distro.
Or they could choose a distro that has TONS of stuff by default like Sabayon.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Available on: Mac
by jadeshade on Wed 30th Apr 2008 21:38 UTC in reply to "Available on: Mac"
jadeshade Member since:
2007-07-10

Ease of use... is a feature.

Reply Score: 1

about scale in compiz...
by apoclypse on Wed 30th Apr 2008 13:52 UTC
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

On that note I would have to disagree. Its more a matter of taste. The little bit of acceleration that compiz adds to most animations is visually appealing to me, while both KDE4 and Apple just move the window without any acceleration. There are things that compiz does that I miss seeing in expose sometimes. Compiz lets you do filtering by typing text if you know the app name or window title, another thing I keep trying to do in expose is right-clicking on windows to bring them to the front or pressing the middle mouse button to close windows. Its little things like that I think makes compiz batter in some ways. Other than that there are very little differences in how each one works. You can always turn off the acceleration if you don't like the, imo, more dynamic animation in compiz, and all of the other features could be turned off as well.

One feature I do like that iss missing in the list is the space bar thingy in OSX. I like being able to preview a file or get some information on a file just by tapping the space bar. That was genius imo.

Edited 2008-04-30 14:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: about scale in compiz...
by casuto on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:46 UTC in reply to "about scale in compiz..."
casuto Member since:
2007-02-27

Compiz lets you do filtering by typing text if you know the app name


you can do the same with the Vista built-in instant search.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: about scale in compiz...
by apoclypse on Wed 30th Apr 2008 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE: about scale in compiz..."
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

What does that have to do with Expose on the mac or the fact that I'm talking about filtering windows in in expose mode in compiz? As far as I know (and I'm using vista as I write this) you can't do that in flip3d mode. Not everything is an attack on Vista. I was comparing features between two different implementations of expose.

Reply Score: 2

Podcast App?
by asr4096 on Wed 30th Apr 2008 13:54 UTC
asr4096
Member since:
2007-09-18

What the heck has the OS to do with recording podcasts?

Besides that infamous term "Podcast" is nothing else than a Soundfile that you can create in your personal way, i don't see any connection with the OS.

I'm using Mac OS X (and occ. Mac OS 9), just wanted to add that.

Reply Score: 7

2 Comments
by fretinator on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:09 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

First off, there is definitely a reason Microsoft Windows doesn't have some of these features - it is a different economy. Microsoft has built an economy based on 3rd-party software vendors. By providing excellent development tools, from early VB to current Visual Studio, MS has paved a way for ISV to carve out a niche for themselves. This article is definitely a case of "Damned if the do, Damned if the don't". When MS integrates tools into the OS, the hurt the ISV's, and they get grief over it. Now, if they leave it to the ISV's, they are criticised. Which is it?

My second comment has to do with software repositories. I really believe this is the greatest strength of Linux/BSD. I don't just have Windows Update, I have everything-on-my-computer update. And how much easier can it get than the "Add/Remove Programs" on Ubuntu. Click the programs you want to add, and click Apply. I think package management is a must-have feature for a modern OS. It makes for a secure, easy-to-manage system.

Reply Score: 4

no menu bar please!
by Bit_Rapist on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:17 UTC
Bit_Rapist
Member since:
2005-11-13

If a unified menu is what you really want then just get a mac. Please do not bring that crap piece of design work over to Windows! Really its the one single thing I can't stand when using MacOS.

Reply Score: 10

My Opinions
by mallard on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:25 UTC
mallard
Member since:
2006-01-06

1) Expose - Kinda useful, but since Windows has a per-window taskbar as opposed to the Mac's per-application dock, not as useful as on the Mac.

2) Virtual workspaces - Microsoft already make a powertoy (for XP at least) for this and there are several decent freeware implementations available. Useful, but not really missed.

3) Back To My Mac - Windows already has Remote Desktop, but it's not all that useful outside of a LAN unless you have a dynamic DNS provider, and even then it has no NAT traversal. I could imagine Microsoft putting together something more useful under the Windows Live or Home Server banners. Until then, LogMeIn has a free version, unlike the suggested GoToMyPC.

4) Screen Sharing - NetMeeting, Windows Meeting Space, SharedView. 'Nuff said.

5) Time Machine - Shadow Copy (mentioned in article) is part of Windows, just needs a better UI (currently accessed via file properties).

6) ISO Burning - I agree, definitely needed.

7) Stickies - Outlook has them, but I've never really seen the need to clutter up the screen with imitation post-its.

8) Podcast Capture - What? Very few people do/can/should podcast. Not really something that needs to be build in to Windows, but there is always Windows Sound Recorder (updated in Vista).

9) Software Repositories - A single application update system would be very welcome at least, although I think something more like Steam, but for all kinds of apps would work better than just coping apt.

10) Desktop cube - Would only work in conjunction with item 2, but even then, it's only a graphic effect.

11) Application Dock - Not sure exactly what it is asking for, we already have the sidebar and taskbar, what's missing?

12) Automated Screen Shots - Between "Print Screen", "Alt+Print Screen", Paint and Clipping Tool (Vista/Tablet PC), Windows has just about everything the Mac has, except I can never remember the key combinations on the Mac.

13) Multitouch Trackpad Gestures - "Some PC notebook vendors, such as AsusTek, are beginning to ship their notebooks with multitouch trackpads and the drivers required to make them work." - Already coming then.

14) Cover Flow - Just eye candy. I do, however use a cover-flow-esque UI to switch apps on Linux, so maybe a useful effect, but not something that is in any way required of Windows, in fact, I'd prefer Microsoft to come up with their own graphic effects.

15) Pre-Installed Web Server - All not non-"Home" versions of Windows already have it. Most users will never use it.

16) POSIX Compliance - Not something that should really be user-visible. Application developers can already include the cygwin runtime with their ported app, Microsoft has made several attempts at this (NT POSIX subsystem, Services For Unix, Subsystem for Unix-based Applications) none of them particularly successful.

17) Standardized Menu Ribbon - Mac UI feature. Probably better than Microsoft's current strategy of building a custom UI for every application though.

18) Single-File Applications - Would be great. Even single-folder applications (as they really are on the Mac) would be good, but Microsoft follows the philosophy of hiding things, rather than simplifying them, so very unlikely to happen.

Reply Score: 7

RE: My Opinions
by devurandom on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:43 UTC in reply to "My Opinions"
devurandom Member since:
2005-07-06

1)On Linux with KDE and Compiz, I have *both* Expose-like features and the taskbar. They are both useful, especially if you have N different windows of the same application opened and you can't easily spot them from the taskbar.

2)The MS virtual desktop powertoy is next to unusable (at least, it was on XP). It allowed only 4 desktops (I am accustomed to at least 8!!) and it worked really bad.

7)I like 'em instead. If you don't want them, just don't use that. Having more features is never bad if those don't go into your way.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My Opinions
by hobgoblin on Wed 30th Apr 2008 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE: My Opinions"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

8 virtual desktops?

may i ask how your using them? it seems i do not have the number of apps going at the same time that requires that level of app sorting...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: My Opinions
by bigbadguy on Wed 30th Apr 2008 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE: My Opinions"
bigbadguy Member since:
2005-08-31

Well... for some people... they call it "bloated"... ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: My Opinions
by bigbadguy on Wed 30th Apr 2008 16:48 UTC in reply to "My Opinions"
bigbadguy Member since:
2005-08-31

3) Hamachi and Teamviewer are free as well.
4) Use Teamviewer as well
11) i think the taskbar+task-switching+icon tray in Vista is better than Mac (except Mac had Expose). Yes, Mac had even more eye-candy.

9) Software Repositories make sense to OSS world. If Microsoft implement it, it will only bring more trouble to them!

Point 8) 11) 12) 15) were added to discredit the article itself.

17) personally, i like Microsoft style. fairly speaking, i dont see anyone really had problem with using a menu. Sure, people may be confusing switching to/from Windows/Mac

Reply Score: 1

Virtual User Spaces
by slashdev on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:36 UTC
slashdev
Member since:
2006-05-14

Why isnt there a way to virtualize the user space, so whatever a user installs, it does not damage the underlying system, and when you remove the user, you remove all software/changes/data from that user.

It should be beyond file/device rights or jails, the user should have access to change everything, run services, etc, yet it does it only for that user.

Reply Score: 1

Single file application.
by Ishan on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:54 UTC
Ishan
Member since:
2007-10-24

Single file application should be spread to all OS! Yes it takes more disk space with duplicates and common files but who cares? HD space is cheap these days and it's so much easier to manage, it keeps the bloat out of the system. It'd be even better if applications were linked to their generated files/configs and those were destroyed along the app in case of a "deinstall".

Edited 2008-04-30 14:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Most of this is personal preference
by MrWeeble on Wed 30th Apr 2008 14:58 UTC
MrWeeble
Member since:
2007-04-18

I don't need or want all the flash expose/dock icon resizing. I like my menu bar to be associated with the window (and there is standardisation, File Edit View(optional) Tools(optional) Help is the standard order for windows).

Most of the rest are included third party apps. Remember MS got sued for including a web browser and a media player in it's OS, so if the powers that be believe that that is too much bundling, how would they react to an app that recorded media and published it to the web!

The only thing on that list that I agree with is ISO burning, though I wonder how often non-power-users who are not pirating software actually need to burn an ISO?

This is ridiculous list, that could easily be replaced by the sentence "Windows is not Mac OS X"

Reply Score: 4

Single-File Applications
by Phobos on Wed 30th Apr 2008 15:05 UTC
Phobos
Member since:
2008-04-30

18) Single-File Applications

Already coming. Portable Applications became a trend (http://portableapps.com/, http://www.portablefreeware.com/), Thinstall (now part of VMware), Altiris (now part of Symantec) and Softgrid (now part of Microsoft) brought easier deployment with the application virtualization and now the only thing left is that the process is standardized on all windows app.

Maybe soon will be the time for a registry-free windows?

on the rest... I agree, they mostly want a mac-on-win, and many of those things aren't even useful on windows... anyways, if you want them, go get them.. there are free docks (http://rocketdock.com/, full even with leopard stacks: http://rocketdock.com/addons/docklets/1791 and another option: http://home.cogeco.ca/~rklauncher/), free Expose clones (http://devrexster.googlepages.com/)... etc.. there are also non-free ones

for the desktop cube, there was Yodm3D, that was bought by Otakusoftware, but now there is Cubik Desktop (http://www.aqua-soft.org/board/showthread.php?t=46298)...

Reply Score: 2

exposè most useful?
by HanZo on Wed 30th Apr 2008 15:15 UTC
HanZo
Member since:
2006-03-10

The fact is... the per-window taskbar is a tool that works pretty well for me. Since I work on a mac I really miss it. Before I clicked on the right tab on the bar, I knew where the window was, so I had not to look for it. Now I either have to use Apple+TAB but that only switches beween Apps, or I have to use exposè, push the button, get a lot of windows that often look all the same, find the right window (I don't know where it is already), click on it. For me this is cubersome. Not really a must have.

Reply Score: 1

A feature I would really want is a..
by A.H. on Wed 30th Apr 2008 15:16 UTC
A.H.
Member since:
2005-11-11

..system-wide spellchecker

Reply Score: 4

transputer_guy
Member since:
2005-07-08

I really miss BeOS tiny sliding window tabs, lets you stack up windows with just the tab as the visual cue, far better than iconifying. I know KDE can make windows sort of BeOS like if you want, tried that but it didn't quite feel right, the sliding part was missing IIRC. Every OS should offer this, its not a big thing to implement in the window server.

Did anyone ever do a Windows version of sliding tabs?

Of course all apps should be single file / hidden folder.

Even the OS should as much as possible be composed of single file objects that if present are available to use, would be pretty easy to upgrade or remove each item as needed.


Also I really wish C,D,E... drive names would just go away

Reply Score: 2

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

What's wrong with drive names? It really makes sense to me, actually, to separate the different physical media of the machine in the UI so users can easily know which one is their external HDD and which one is their cdrom. It's all under one namespace in NT anyway (the drive letters are just Object Manager symbolic links to \Devices\HarddiskNVolumeM).

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I think in WinXP, definately under Server and in Vista, you can choose to mount all drives off a root directory like the *nix folks do. If I heard correctly, letter name mount points remain for compatability with programs that can't manage without a drive:/path style setup.

If you really want drive letters to go away, you can do it already. It would be nice if that was the natural layout though.

Reply Score: 2

Really...
by Cezy on Wed 30th Apr 2008 15:53 UTC
Cezy
Member since:
2006-05-13

Only stickies and ISO burning are useful, any other mac-related stuff is unuseful (please note: I don't hate Mac, simply I found it too... snazzy, as Vista). I prefear task-bar to dock: smaller, you cand see the programs by name.

Edited 2008-04-30 15:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

What a load of
by deathshadow on Wed 30th Apr 2008 16:52 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Expose - goofy eye-candy bull cookies that is hardly missed, because we have a much CLEARER list of what applications are currently running in the Windows, KDE and Gnome world - it's called a taskbar. Expose is just oh so useful when you have three spreadsheets, two word documents, four browsers and three to six text editors open... Asking for handling multitasking how an Apple does it is a step BACKWARDS - frankly they've not even caught up to Windows 95 in that department!

Virtual Workspaces - Confuses Joe Sixpack, and frankly I've never needed it as if I need more 'workspace' I add another monitor - and have since Windows 3.1 using Targa boards. These people bragging about Twinview on linux or the total train wreck that is Xinerama need to take a look at how well it worked and how SIMPLE such things were in Win98.

Hell, Ubuntu 8.04 is the first time I've been able to get more than three displays working in the placement order I want, something I've considered basic functionality since Windows 98 and Mac System 6.

'Back to my Mac' - Sounds like a good idea for the author - Oh wait, he's talking about some the overpriced service. Rather than pay for some goof assed service, how about setting up the home PC as a server or use remote desktop. This one's just a total /FAIL/

Screen Sharing - Again, remote desktop, or more specifically "request remote assistance" which even in XP, much less Vista. The writer of the article knows jack about windows.

Time Machine - No matter how simple you make it, Joe user is going to be too lazy to bother with backups. For those of us who have important data though, I can see agreeing with this one... except anyone who has data important enough to spend the time backing up gigabytes is probably just gonna .rar or tar it anyways.

ISO Burning and Podcast Capture - and if they included it, I bet you'd have third party vendors screaming bloody murder just like they do over including a browser, a media player, .zip functionality, anti-spy tools, etc. etc. etc. Even when the competitors, as pointed out, also include THE SAME THINGS. Which is why the EU should be going after Apple for including Safari and iTunes and Ubuntu for including Firefox and Totem and/or RythmBox - for a law to be fair it MUST be applied equally. But of course, your dirty hippy FLOSS fanboys and prius driving california tofu Mac zealots can't possibly believe in fair and equal treatment.

Stickies - Funny, I just have a notepad replacement in my quicklaunch and save to the desktop with a meaningful title. Oh noes, I have to double click on it.

Software Repositories - Repositories are great, right up until you want an application that is NOT in the repositories. On windows, you download the program you want and run it... It's not that hard and billions do it daily. Big ****ing deal.

Desktop Cube - Because once again goof assed eye candy that distorts everything to the point that all those text and browser windows look the same is SO useful. Maybe if they spent less time on goofy crap like this they could write some stuff that added actual functionality?

Application Dock - up, definately a Mac *** since from a functionality standpoint the taskbar with quicklaunch kicks the Dock's ass (and I do go back and forth between OSX and WinXP to say that)- if for no other reason than it consumes less screen space. The dock is such a pathetic tool for figuring out what's running (oh yeah, those crappy little four pixel triangles are SO obvious). Sleek? That is the LAST word I'd use to describe the dock. Pain in the ASS comes to mind... But then since I prefer to run my taskbar in portrait mode on the left (especially on widescreen systems since no APPLICATIONS are really useful that direction) I tend to get more functionality out of quick launch than the dock would ever provide.

Automated Screenshots - Big ****ing deal - oh noes, you have to open an application. Honestly I prefer having an intermediate application handle that, so I can control saving the file or make necessary edits (since rarely would I want my full screencap displayed without editing out account names, etc).

Trackpad Gestures - Most of which you don't need if you add a second or ***SHOCK*** third button, much less a WHEEL. Apple accomplished trackpad gestures of course, because they have their head wedged up their ass about putting more mouse buttons on a laptop - and lack the technical foresight to design a mouse with real buttons (because 'tapping' one side is a>accurate and b>intuitive) or a trackball that can be opened up and cleaned without breaking it.

Cover Flow - Because of course, the icon is SO much more important than the title, date, filesize, and file type. Again, goof assed eye candy bull that provides LESS functionality than just switching to LIST view... Which you can navigate just fine with the keyboard and sort through a HELL of a lot quicker. (especially if you realize you can change the sort order by clicking on column headers and actually KNOW your alphabet)

Pre-installed Web Server - 'some versions' - even 98 included the personal web server, and sorry, XP home has it TOO. It's been tried, and it was a miserable failure nobody used and those who did usually ended up getting banned from their ISP for violating their EULA. Of course, having a desktop computer default to responding on port 80 is SO ******* brilliant from a security standpoint.

Posix compliance - because it has 'cost' windows so much in terms of getting developers to write software for it. Instead of posix, Microsoft took the time to make it so any jackass with a 4 year degree can churn out a VB crapplet - most of which STILL beat the tar out of 90% of the legacy crap Posix compliance would bring to the table. Remember, we're talking about the company who's representative said "DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS" - if they don't think they need posix for that, they're probably RIGHT.

Single file applications - Ok, on this I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE. Every other OS has this completely *****ed up. I really like apples approach of making applications self contained to their own directories. DLL hell, dependancy hell, registry hell, inconsistant directory location hell - **** THAT SHIT. (though of course your 'binaries are evil' Gentoo FLOSS whackjobs are going to argue against this) It's one of the few things I think Apple ever did that can be held up as a shining example of how things SHOULD BE DONE. (You certainly can't do it for their rinky badly designed hardware, goof assed back-assward UI and fat bloated eye candy manure - I've seen cars built by BL that were better made)

All in all though, the article is a total miserable /FAIL/ by someone who doesn't know enough about windows to be writing such and article... Either that or they just don't use their computer to get actual WORK done on it.

Edited 2008-04-30 16:52 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: What a load of
by apoclypse on Wed 30th Apr 2008 19:26 UTC in reply to "What a load of"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Does it make you good to write a book that doesn't say much more than "Windows roxx, you sux". Give me a break.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What a load of
by renox on Wed 30th Apr 2008 19:54 UTC in reply to "What a load of"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Expose - goofy eye-candy bull cookies that is hardly missed, because we have [cut] a taskbar.

I disagree: in Windows or Linux, we have the taskbar AND the 'Alt+Tab' view/mode, Expose is a replacement (and an improvement) of the 'Alt+Tab' view/mode, this doesn't mean that the taskbar should be removed..


Virtual Workspaces - Confuses Joe Sixpack, and frankly I've never needed it as if I need more 'workspace' I add another monitor

(sarcasm)Let them eat cake!(/sarcasm) Talk about an overpriced alternative..
I'd say that with the virtual cube for switching view a casual user shouldn't be too much confused with the virtual workspaces plus it's much cheaper and doesn't need physical space or power, so it's different.


Time Machine - No matter how simple you make it, Joe user is going to be too lazy to bother with backups. For those of us who have important data though,

You sound really arrogant here..
The simpler it is to backup your data, the better it is, point.
Given that Apple controls both the hardware and the software, IMHO they should do even more on this topic: provide by default an additionnal disk reserved for backup and push for configuration of online backup at first starup (to save data in case of theft|flood|fire).

Reply Score: 5

RE: What a load of
by ari-free on Thu 1st May 2008 01:04 UTC in reply to "What a load of"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

who cares about Joe user? are you Joe user? why not an OS that was designed for your needs instead of some clueless person?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by satan666
by satan666 on Wed 30th Apr 2008 16:52 UTC
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

The only feature that Windows must have is:
"Switch to Mac or Linux"

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by satan666
by polaris20 on Wed 30th Apr 2008 18:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

The only feature that Windows must have is:
"Switch to Mac or Linux"


<sarcasm>How original and insightful!</sarcasm>

Reply Score: 4

Comment by sonic2000gr
by sonic2000gr on Wed 30th Apr 2008 17:02 UTC
sonic2000gr
Member since:
2007-05-20

I am a Linux/FreeBSD/Windows user, and believe a couple of things in the article are far-fetched:

1. Expose. Would be nice to have actually. Mac, Linux, BSD have it.

2. Virtual Workspaces. Useful. Free on XP, so no problem. Have not tried any Vista solution on this.

3. Back to my mac. So? Install an FTP or SFTP server on your remote PC and you are ready to go. There are free/ open source solutions for this. And no yearly payments too.

4. Screen sharing. Never bothered with it, but surely there are free programs to use for this.

5. Time Machine. Well, windows backup tools need a major overhaul. And yes, storing the data for shadow and not allowing the users of home premium to use it is what I'd call fraud.

6. ISO Burning - Nice to have, but then there are so many free tools for this. Not a problem.

7. Stickies. Available in Vista sidebar.

8. Podcast capture. Well, as they said, Audacity. Free app, problem solved.

9. Repositories. Entirely different philosophy from Linux here, so don't think they would apply anyway.

10. Desktop cube. Oh come on. We don't need the cube, it is just for us *NIX users to show off and piss Windows fans.

11. Application dock. I love the dock, but it would probably mean a complete redesign of Windows UI to match with it.

12. Automated screen shots. Vista has a snip tool. Other windows versions can use mwsnap. Excellent and free utility. Problem solved.

13. Multitouch trackpad gestures. Never used this, don't know

14. Cover flow. Nice, but not essential.

15. Pre-installed Web Server. THANK GOD windows does not have IIS preinstalled! It is, after all, a desktop system. It is available for some versions, though I would advise you install apache anyway. So much better.

16. Posix.This is a big discussion.

17. Standardized manu ribbon. Well, at least Office 2007 has a ribbon. And to tell you the truth, I just hate it.

18. Single file application. This is not the real problem. Just say the magic word "Registry" ...

Reply Score: 2

Three little letters...
by orestes on Wed 30th Apr 2008 17:28 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

SSH. How in the hell MS has failed to include an integral SSH solution in it's OSes for this long boggles the mind. At the very least it should be in Server

Reply Score: 6

Comment by moleskine
by moleskine on Wed 30th Apr 2008 17:50 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

A decent Microsoft email client (on Vista anyway) would be a start.

A lot of the suggestions are about eye-candy. If you put those aside, the article has far fewer suggestions for genuinely useful must-have items that won't cause security problems or be too complicated for many users. Stickies, better backup and ssh (not mentioned directly) would be my three. Linux-style virtual desktops would be my top eye-candy want.

Some of the suggestions which claim to be Mac-only are readily available on Linux anyway.

I guess the next question is whether Microsoft is any longer a company able to produce a fast, slick OS that is also responsive to users' needs. Or might these ideas be rolled up into a very special Vista bonus pack for the bargain price of only, say, 99.99 bucks plus a free 176-page EULA? One wonders ...

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

Within the osX UI, applications apear to be one file/icon because you manage them by there program folder. If you go into the terminal, you'll see that the icon is actually the start of a program specific directory tree:

" [ icon ] "
"MacProgram"

is actually

"~/applications/MacProgram/"

You'll find config files and binaries within the subfolders under /MacProgram/. I believe the program is actually in /MacProgram/bin/ or something similar.

I do like how much cleaner osX manages programs though. The first time I installed a program, the longest delay was in realizing I was trying to make it too difficult; just uncompress the file and copy the resulting program icon too your applications and it's done. It still doesn't come close to the repository and package manager method but it's closer than alternatives.

Reply Score: 2

I don't need most of what he mentioned
by hraq on Wed 30th Apr 2008 18:33 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

I only need MS to concentrate on security and to give me an included Antivirus Software especially that I paid a premium for vista premium.

I want Live Onecare included with all premium licenses of vista or XP Pro.

I don't want a Poker game in premium edition

Reply Score: 2

What I miss in Windows
by ou_ryperd on Wed 30th Apr 2008 18:35 UTC
ou_ryperd
Member since:
2005-07-06

xkill and focus stealing prevention.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Ha.. good point too mention. I can't tell you how often I open a large application then go back to what I was doing only too find half my text typed into the new program's window. When I want to start a program I will. When I want that program in focus, I'll put it there. God how I wish Windows would stop telling me what I want to do based on it's whims.

Reply Score: 2

Some thoughts
by CharAznable on Wed 30th Apr 2008 18:38 UTC
CharAznable
Member since:
2005-07-06

Virtual Desktops and Expose.. I feel crippled in Windows without them. That it's going to confuse Joe Sixpack is not an excuse to hamstring everybody who knows what they're doing.

Windows' management of applications is, at best, retarded. I know that something like apt-get in Windows is a complete pipe dream, and that's why Linux will always be superior in that department. What I really want, though, is an apt-get type system where I can download and install self-contained Mac like applications. That would really be the ultimate solution.

ISO burning... no excuse.

No built-in SSH, no excuse either.

Probably the one thing I don't like about Mac OS X is the Dock. I find it to be a usability nightmare. The Gnome panel is really the superior solution in here.

Time Machine owns. Every OS should have something similar.

As far as Web Server is concerned? 99% of everyone wouldn't care, and the 1% that does can get a web server quite easily.

I'd be nice if every retail copy of Windows came with a Visual Studio CD.

The Wifi utility in Windows is a joke, and so is NetworkManager in Linux. Everyone should just rip off OS X in here and get it over with.

Reply Score: 2

More requests ...
by WorknMan on Wed 30th Apr 2008 19:49 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Except for #9 and #18, I think you can get pretty much everything on this list (in one form or another) with 3rd party apps. Some stuff I would like to see not on the list is:

- As an alternative to #9, I'd like to see Windows Update expanded to include 3rd party apps. That way, I don't have 9 million programs trying to run at startup for no other reason than to auto-update themselves.

- As an extension to the above, have one centraized location for all startup entries, and present a UAC-style dialog to the user and allow them to approve each program's request to start up when Windows does. No more POS apps like Quicktime putting themselves back in the task try when I have already disabled it using msconfig.

- Better CD/DVD access: Why should my computer slow down to a crawl when copying a large file from the CD/DVD drive? This problem is made even worse if there are CRC errors on the disc. Ideally, it should be as seamless as copying off a USB drive

- System-wide spell checking. This is the only thing that makes me envious of Mac users ;)

- Integration of Powershell into the OS. But turn it off by default so newbies can't hurt themselves.

Reply Score: 2

What about copy/paste?
by mzilikazi on Wed 30th Apr 2008 19:59 UTC
mzilikazi
Member since:
2006-02-11

All of the virtual desktop addons for Windows fail miserably when compared to X11. The functionality just isn't there. Also missing - X11 style copy/paste. I'm suprised no one mentioned that yet. Does OSX have X11 style copy paste? I never did see the need for the extra step of CTRL+C/CTRL+V - what a waste of time. For those of you not in the know, under X11 simply highlighting the text is enough to copy it to the clipboard and middle click is enough to paste. Also missing is the X11 clipboard where you can just pull down a list of all items copied to the clipboard. Windows has a clipboard but unless I've missed it there is no direct access to it. Sure it pops up in Outlook or Word (where you can't even shut it off if you don't want it) but what about the myriad of other apps? What if you're not using Outlook or Word?

Reply Score: 1

file systems
by l3v1 on Wed 30th Apr 2008 20:11 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

Drop the whole list, just give me file systems support. Native. Proper. And yes, I mean more than "the" two. And in my lifetime.

Besides, what the pcworld fellas listed, well, most of them are not - and should not be - OS features, but applications. And - unsurprisingly - there exist apps for most of them. The whole thing is a guy having too much time and no proper idea to write about.

Reply Score: 2

RE: file systems
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 30th Apr 2008 20:51 UTC in reply to "file systems"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Drop the whole list, just give me file systems support. Native. Proper. And yes, I mean more than "the" two. And in my lifetime.


There are quite a few drivers for other filesystems for the NT kernel out there on the net.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: file systems
by l3v1 on Thu 1st May 2008 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE: file systems"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I also live on this planet. I've used crossmeta's stuff for reading xfs and reiser [I'm deeply uninterested in ext2/3 handling], which have always been a lifesaver (note: I didn't try it in vista/ws2k8). Yet, I wasn't asking for third party apps and addons. Additionally, all options we currently can find has limits. I was talking about native support for industry standard file systems.

Reply Score: 2

Totally unbiased article
by Phloptical on Wed 30th Apr 2008 22:40 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

So according to the article, Microsoft should buy Apple, is that how I'm reading that.

It's because of guys like this that I won't buy a new Mac.

Reply Score: 3

Fix it before adding
by colonel crayon on Wed 30th Apr 2008 23:49 UTC
colonel crayon
Member since:
2008-03-23

The only things I really miss in Windows are virtual desktops (a real execution, not the dysfunctional powertoy), a real command line (BASH, anyone?), and better software installation (screw the registry!). Otherwise, they should ditch the be-like-Apple eyecandy and focus on cleaning up their code and improving performance.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fix it before adding
by ari-free on Thu 1st May 2008 01:06 UTC in reply to "Fix it before adding"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22
Instant Viewer
by Mateus on Thu 1st May 2008 08:15 UTC
Mateus
Member since:
2008-05-01

Expose for Windows - doesn't Microsoft's Instant Viewer do this?...

http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/mouseandkeyboard/features/instant...

Reply Score: 1

Their list is pathetic
by cobbaut on Thu 1st May 2008 08:34 UTC
cobbaut
Member since:
2005-10-23

Their list is pathetic! (except for number 9: repositories of software)
Here is my list of features Windows should have:

1. ssh
There is no easy way to get a remote shell on a Windows server, yet OpenSSH is freely available for Microsoft to include in Windows (every other OS does it).

2. syslog
I know there are third party solutions to include syslog in Windows, but this should be part of the operating system!

3. fhs
Maybe not literally fhs, but at least a file structure that includes /etc /proc /tmp /var /bin /sbin and other common directories. The current mess in drive letters and long directory names with spaces is just unmanageble.

4. nfs
I mean real built-in support for the latest nfs, listing directories in a standard /etc/exports file. Not the pathetic attempt they call "Services For Unix" (which has not been updated in over four years).

5. built-in common file systems
They should include native support for ext2,ext3.reiserfs,zfs etcetera. The specs are open, but we still need third party drivers to use these common file systems.

6. MBR and GRUB support
Installing Windows on a machine with GRUB will destroy GRUB. Windows should at least recognize GRUB and give a proper warning before overwriting the Master Boot Record. It would be even better if Windows would add itself to GRUB (just like any other descent operating system does).

7. GNU tools and bash
A descent shell with some handy tools.

8. /etc
Did i mention it should have /etc (not C;\windows\system32\drivers\etc with five measely files) but a real /etc with a working /etc/hosts and /etc/nsswitch.conf and all the others like /etc/resolv.conf, /etc/passwd, /etc/shadow, /etc/group, ... ditch the registry!

9. file links
It should support file links (ln and ln -s)!

10. /
Stop using those pathetic drive letters and put everything under /.

11. more handy tools
It would be nice to also have vi, man, gcc, tar, gzip, dd, cpio...

12. A home directory for users
I mean a real home directory that contains all the customized user settings for applications. Not the current mix of fifteen different locations to store some simple information.

13. repositories
The same as number 9 in the PCWorld list. In windows Control Panel there exists an icon called "Add/Remove Programs". It would be nice if it was actually possible to add or remove programs with it! The thousand most common freely available programs (firefox,anti-adware,anti-spyware,openoffice.org,gimp,...) should be in there so users can easily add them!!!
The "remove" option should really remove the software and not leave (anti-piracy)traces all over the place.

14. gpl
Microsoft should gpl the complete Windows source code and focus on supporting companies instead of ripping them of with proprietary lock-in and restrictive licenses!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Their list is pathetic
by apoclypse on Thu 1st May 2008 16:58 UTC in reply to "Their list is pathetic"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

You just basically described Linux. Why not just use Linux? I'm no MS fanboy, far from it, but MS is not Linux and frankly it shouldn't try to be. Not because I don't think that Linux is superior but because I personally think that Ms would screw it up, and we also need the variety. Out of the major three Windows is the only non-unix like one.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Their list is pathetic
by Cezy on Fri 2nd May 2008 16:12 UTC in reply to "Their list is pathetic"
Cezy Member since:
2006-05-13

Yes, I agree. Windows only needs to be more *nix-friendly. Most of the things listed in the main article are just funny and snazzy stuffs from Mac OSX, but they're quite useless.

Reply Score: 2

less is more
by Bully on Thu 1st May 2008 09:54 UTC
Bully
Member since:
2006-04-07

Not more features please!
They should remove instead of adding more.

Geez...

Reply Score: 1

Expose...
by TemporalBeing on Thu 1st May 2008 18:38 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

So 'Expose' sounds a lot like what happens when I click the middle mouse button on my IntelliMouse in Windows - I get a tiled view of all application windows to choose from. It's actually rather annoying, but it is there in WinXP - I think they added it as part of SP2 b/c I don't remember it happening when I originally upgraded to WinXP SP1.

Reply Score: 2