OSNews

Now, the filesystem. This needs to be completely changed. Boot.ini does not belong in the root directory. This does not make any sense. I've seen users delete this file. I know if you are running NTFS, you can make this read only for a new user. However, how is a new user supposed to know how to do this? This is like a warning label of "For external use only" on Acne cream. If somebody is stupid enough to ingest acne cream, they're not going to be smart enough to know what external means. Hopefully if they buy a computer with XP preinstalled it will be like this, but what if they just want to install XP on a new computer? Perhaps there should be like /boot directory or something. Or even better a "Don't touch" directory.

That leads to the install itself. Yes, windows installing has gotten 100 times better since the days of DOS. Finally, users don't have to type "a:/setup" or "a:/install" anymore. And thank God "Sys c:" is history. And for the sake of all that is holy, good riddance to "format c: /s". But there's one thing that has always bothered me: What if I want to do a Clean Install and still have all my applications that I installed on let's say Win98? Here's what you can do: You can do a clean install beside Win98, but you won't have all your applications on XP. You can also upgrade win98 and most of your applications, if not all will move to XP. However, what if there is an application that I NEED that won't run on XP. Or what if XP dies. Then I have no Win98. I'd like to see an upgrade feature that let's me keep my existing Win98 installation as WELL as upgrade Windows 98 to XP at the same time. Until this happens, Windows is just not ready.

Next thing. Applications. When I pay $199 for XP per computer, I really expected for things to be a little more robust. I mean, their cd recording software is pretty slim. Now I know there's a lot of you that say I can always buy another version. I shouldn't have to. The full version of whatever I want should be there. It should just work.

Next up comes installing new software, since this is what I will have to do to get a fully functioning computer. This is our weakest spot here. There just is no standard way to install software. Yes, I know of the Windows Installer and please. Let's use three examples. Let's say I want to install this freeware game. It comes in a .zip. Great. So I double click it. What do I get? A dialogue. I don't want a dialogue box. I want to install it. I don't want to have to choose c:\Program Files\freegame directory. Why Ask me? That's what the programmer should decide. Now, there's some of you 31337 that are going to say RTMF. Or, WTF, WWF, or OMG. That doesn't help. All it does for the newbie is turn them off WINDOWS. Some of you are decent enough to say, well, if there is not enough room on the c drive this let's you choose another partition. Well, I think Windows should be advanced enough to automatically create a ram drive, store current hard disk image in ram drive, lowlevel format the HD so it will hold more data (after all, newer drives are about the same physical size as older, smaller capacity drives; the only difference is in the low level format), reinstall the image from the RAM drive and just install the software? How difficult is that? C'mon. I just thought of that off the top of my head and no XP genius can figure this out? Please. Now, for the sake of fairness, let's say Windows cannot re-lowlevel format the HD because it voids the manufacturer's warranty. Fine, at least Windows can decide which partition has the most amount of space and install the program there. And to top it off, it then asks me, "C:\Program Files\freegame does not exist, do you want to create it?" Well, DUH!!!

Example #2: How many times have you installed a program and it does not show up in the Add-Remove Programs Control Panel applet? That GAIN software does that to me all the time.

Example #3: There are always some programmers who do not follow the correct standards and guidelines. If their installer does not conform the Microsoft ideal, then Windows should prevent it from being installed. Plain and Simple. Or, if it does get installed somehow, (there's always some security exploit), then Windows should cause the program to crash. This will teach newbies not to run bad software. Or even better, all software should be pre-approved by Microsoft. Perhaps the bios will have a database of certificates that all software must have in order to run. This will make sure newbies only run Microsoft approved, quality software. How good could a program be if Microsoft has never heard of it?

Now that we've gone through the horrors of installation, let's talk about fileformats. Some of you real h4cksaws out there have come up to this. What happens if you made a document in Works, and try to open it in Word. It doesn't work all the time. You have to download the converter from MS' site which is pretty well hidden. Thanks a lot guys. Now, granted, these are Two different Program suites. But the fact is you can't open up a Word File in Excel. Absolutely unforgivable. How are we supposed to win the desktop when 2 programs that come in the same suite can't open each others files? C'mon people. And no, spouting FRTM will not help a new user.

Now I know I may have hurt some feelings here. But I want to see Windows succeed. I don't want Windows to be only for the 31173. Yes, we've come a long way from all those security holes, virii, and cryptic commands like "Edit textfile.txt" (what in the hell is that supposed to mean?). However, we still have a long way to go. I know Bill is working on it. He releases patches every day. I feel this could be the year Windows catches everybody's attention. We're really close, BMW is even using Windows in some cars. Once the bugs are worked out, I would love to have Windows in my Chevy Nova.

1. "Windows on the Desktop, Part I"
2. "Windows on the Desktop, Part II"