simple wish list for next OS

[feedscrn]

Dear MS,

Please do the following changes to your next OS:

o Eliminate the Registery.
-I don't know how, just do it please. It's very cryptic, hard to
use, and can be intimidating.
-.INI files were a nice idea.

o When Add/Remove Programs states: "Are you sure you want to delete
this program and all of it's components?" YES!!... it actually does
this.
-The only reason I ever want to erase any program would be to save
HD space. It's annoying to see files and folders still out there after
I think I deleted the entity. It files are currently used, then MS can
put the feature in to delete them at next boot; using a similar
approach to how programs/files are installed

o I want to be able to erase Outlook Express.

o a last request: do not let the next OS take up more room on the HD
or require more RAM.


Thank You,

Feedscrn

+=====================+
| The screen is hungry, feed it! |
+=====================+

 

[Tom [Pepper] Willett]

Wow, you are certainly in for a shock with Vista ;-)

Tom

 

[Dave Patrick]

:
|
| Dear MS,
|
| Please do the following changes to your next OS:
|
| o Eliminate the Registery.
| -I don't know how, just do it please. It's very cryptic, hard to
| use, and can be intimidating.
* Isn't going to happen.


| -.INI files were a nice idea.
* Too slow and inefficient.


| o When Add/Remove Programs states: "Are you sure you want to delete
| this program and all of it's components?" YES!!... it actually does
| this.
| -The only reason I ever want to erase any program would be to save
| HD space. It's annoying to see files and folders still out there after
| I think I deleted the entity. It files are currently used, then MS can
| put the feature in to delete them at next boot; using a similar
| approach to how programs/files are installed
* Get in touch with the application developer.


| o I want to be able to erase Outlook Express.
*
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q263837#XSLTH3147121123120121120120

| o a last request: do not let the next OS take up more room on the HD
| or require more RAM.
* Not going to happen that way.

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

 

[Kerry Brown]

Dear MS,

Please do the following changes to your next OS:

o Eliminate the Registery.
-I don't know how, just do it please. It's very cryptic, hard to
use, and can be intimidating.
-.INI files were a nice idea.

While I agree the registry could be improved and made more robust overall it
is the best scheme I have seen for storing program and OS settings.
Scattered ini files or esoteric undocumented config files are much harder to
deal with when things go wrong.

o When Add/Remove Programs states: "Are you sure you want to delete
this program and all of it's components?" YES!!... it actually does
this.
-The only reason I ever want to erase any program would be to save
HD space. It's annoying to see files and folders still out there after
I think I deleted the entity. It files are currently used, then MS can
put the feature in to delete them at next boot; using a similar
approach to how programs/files are installed

This is more a fault of sloppy programmers than the OS but I agree if the OS
installer service/program recorded what was happening during the install
then the OS could remove it rather than leave it up to the program. Some of
the Linux installers are getting pretty good at this.

o I want to be able to erase Outlook Express.

And IE, and Mesenger, and whatever else I want to remove.

o a last request: do not let the next OS take up more room on the HD
or require more RAM.

This last one, especially the part about hard drive space isn't compatible
with your other wishes

Kerry

 

[feedscrn]

| o I want to be able to erase Outlook Express.
*
Dave Patrick wrote:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q263837#XSLTH3147121123120121120120



Thanks Dave... a good start(?)....

 

[Dave Patrick]

You're welcome.

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

:
|| o I want to be able to erase Outlook Express.
| *
| Dave Patrick wrote:
|
|
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q263837#XSLTH3147121123120121120120
|
|
|
| Thanks Dave... a good start(?)....
|

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Dear MS,

This is a peer-to-peer newsgroup. Suggestions for Microsoft should be
directed to Microsoft *if* you actually want to insure they will be at least
sent to the right people.

Please do the following changes to your next OS:

o Eliminate the Registery.
-I don't know how, just do it please. It's very cryptic, hard to
use, and can be intimidating.

That is why it is not meant to be interacted with by the average user. I'm
sure there would be (may be) many people making the same comments about the
base of OS X - BSD.

-.INI files were a nice idea.

Much like Floppy Disks - outlived their ability to do what was needed in an
OS as complex as Windows XP has become.

o When Add/Remove Programs states: "Are you sure you want to delete
this program and all of it's components?" YES!!... it actually
does this.

That is determined by the information provider by the application
programmers - not the OS. If they wrote sloppy code - the complaint should
be to them, not Microsoft to fix said code.

-The only reason I ever want to erase any program would be to
save HD space. It's annoying to see files and folders still out
there after I think I deleted the entity. It files are currently
used, then MS can put the feature in to delete them at next boot;
using a similar approach to how programs/files are installed

I am actually unsure what you are speaking of here - can you elaborate?

o I want to be able to erase Outlook Express.

I think this was answered elsewhere in this thread.

o a last request: do not let the next OS take up more room on the
HD or require more RAM.

Welcome to the real world on this one. Not to sound harsh - but as things
get more complex - they get larger. It is true for every OS out there -
every application out there actually. If the number fo features were
reduced, then the application/OS would be smaller and use less resources.

I agree with you in principle - but unless a new method of
computing/programming is invented - things will continue to take up more
space and resources.. Not that it shold be that big of a problem given the
pseed at which hardware technology advances in reference to software.

 

[Text Stephen]

Feedscrn,

Windows Vista won't have Outlook Express. It is being replaced by an
application called "Windows Mail".

Vista will probably be a tad bigger install than Windows XP. However, with
HDD space more abundant than in 2002, this should be OK with most customers.

Vista will have a whole slew of new features, reworkings and new apps so it
may well more than meet your computer OS wish list in many ways.

 

[t.cruise]

Feedscrn,

Windows Vista won't have Outlook Express. It is being replaced by an
application called "Windows Mail".

Vista will probably be a tad bigger install than Windows XP. However, with
HDD space more abundant than in 2002, this should be OK with most customers.

Vista will have a whole slew of new features, reworkings and new apps so it
may well more than meet your computer OS wish list in many ways.

Not according to the beta groups for Longhorn/Vista. Yes, I know they are using betas,
but one gets the idea of what an OS is like even in beta. MS had just about gotten to the
point where XP had been eliminated of the major bugs, and now, hey let's introduce a new
retail version of Windows and let the retail purchasers be guinea pig beta testers for
that release version of Vista AFTER the beta testers, Hey, we can always release an SP1
and SP2 (translated as we released the OS too soon), and the public will think they are
getting something for free with those major updates, the lemmings that they are....

T.C. (Am I going to get flamed for this, but it is based on the timeline of what happened
with XP)

 

[Text Stephen]

That's the process with Microsoft operating systems. The most and major bugs
are identified and fixed and the software is released. Then the public gives
its first real workout and, usually, a service pack is prepared. Perhaps a
demand for certain feautres develops so these get included etc. etc.
Software is not completely static. And it has to be released and worked
with.

Many claim they do not bother with a Microsoft OS until after the first
service pack, others want the new stuff right away. It's a free country. And
this process has been going on with Microsoft Windows and many other
software applications that very few people can claim they don't know about
it anymore.

 

[Kerry Brown]

Not according to the beta groups for Longhorn/Vista. Yes, I know
they are using betas, but one gets the idea of what an OS is like
even in beta. MS had just about gotten to the point where XP had
been eliminated of the major bugs, and now, hey let's introduce a new
retail version of Windows and let the retail purchasers be guinea pig
beta testers for that release version of Vista AFTER the beta
testers, Hey, we can always release an SP1 and SP2 (translated as we
released the OS too soon), and the public will think they are getting
something for free with those major updates, the lemmings that they
are....

T.C. (Am I going to get flamed for this, but it is based on the
timeline of what happened with XP)

No flame but if you can tell me about a current OS that doesn't get patched
and revised I'd like to hear about it.

Kerry

 

[Micky]

Dear MS,

Please do the following changes to your next OS:

o Eliminate the Registery.
-I don't know how, just do it please. It's very cryptic, hard to
use, and can be intimidating.
Noob.

-.INI files were a nice idea.

They're still used today. The real problem is that far too many
programs (including Microsoft's) treat the registry as a database
for all program data. If it's not essential to a program's startup,
such data should be stored in an XML configuration file instead.

What Microsoft SHOULD do is ensure that Vista programs
register their private configuration files in the registry, and
present that data just as if it were part of the registry. That
way you retain all the benefits of a centralised database, but
without all the bloat. The registry itself can then be retained
purely for OS- and hardware-specific settings.

o When Add/Remove Programs states: "Are you sure you want to delete
this program and all of it's components?" YES!!... it actually does
this.

Add/Remove Programs is not the "universal" uninstaller you appear
to be implying. It's simply a collection of command lines for each
individual program's own registered uninstaller. It's up to each of
these individual uninstallers as to what gets removed and what gets
left behind. Ultimately, there's simply no way to account for bad
programming... which obviously isn't Microsof's fault (although
they're just as guilty of leaving orphans behind).

-The only reason I ever want to erase any program would be to save
HD space. It's annoying to see files and folders still out there after
I think I deleted the entity. It files are currently used, then MS can
put the feature in to delete them at next boot; using a similar
approach to how programs/files are installed

If you're talking about uninstalling programs, files in use ARE deleted
at the next boot. That's precisely why some uninstallers require you to
reboot (installers often require it, too, for the same reason).

But if you're talking about manually deleting files that are in use, simply
close the program that's using them.

As for system files, they're cached so the OS can restore them
automatically. That's a good thing...

o I want to be able to erase Outlook Express.

And just what exactly is stopping you from doing it now?

o a last request: do not let the next OS take up more room on the HD
or require more RAM.

You'll be lucky. Seems to me you have old kit long overdue an
overhaul. Ever considered Linux...?

 

[NoStop]

feedscrn wrote:

That is why it is not meant to be interacted with by the average user.
I'm sure there would be (may be) many people making the same comments
about the base of OS X - BSD.


Much like Floppy Disks - outlived their ability to do what was needed in
an OS as complex as Windows XP has become.

BS. Linux a much more advanced o/s than Windows XP keeps all its
configuration settings in numerous text files, making it easy for a user to
edit and configure. There is NO good reason for placing all configuration
within a database like the Windows registry, unless it is to make it more
difficult for the end-user to control the state of his/her computer.

That is determined by the information provider by the application
programmers - not the OS. If they wrote sloppy code - the complaint
should be to them, not Microsoft to fix said code.

MickeyMouse should never have implemented an API that allowed each
application developer to determine not only how its app is installed but
also allowed those apps to write whatever they wanted to wherever they
wanted within the silly registry.

I am actually unsure what you are speaking of here - can you elaborate?

Windoze apps on uninstall do a terrible job of cleaning up after themselves,
as we all must know by now.

I think this was answered elsewhere in this thread.


Welcome to the real world on this one. Not to sound harsh - but as things
get more complex - they get larger. It is true for every OS out there -
every application out there actually. If the number fo features were
reduced, then the application/OS would be smaller and use less resources.

Admittedly there has to be some growth in filesizes as operating system
become more complex and have more features, but really, Windoze has become
bloatware in the extreme! The Linux kernel and its associated system files
can in some cases happily run in a few megs. Why can't Windoze?

I agree with you in principle - but unless a new method of
computing/programming is invented - things will continue to take up more
space and resources.. Not that it shold be that big of a problem given
the pseed at which hardware technology advances in reference to software.

It has been invented quite a number of years ago and it's called Linux.
Sorry you've somehow managed to miss this development.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Dear MS,

Please do the following changes to your next OS:

It appears that you think you are addressing Microsoft here. But you're not.
This is peer support newsgroup. We are all just Windows XP users, helping
each other when we can. We are not Microsoft employees; even those of us
with the Microsoft MVP title are just volunteers who have been recognized by
Microsoft for supplying consistently helpful advice. You see a very
occasional Microsoft employee here, but when you do, he's here posting
unofficially on his own time.

So if you have suggestions for Microsoft to improve their products, this
isn't a good place to do it, and you should contact Microsoft directly.

 

[Kerry Brown]

snip

BS. Linux a much more advanced o/s than Windows XP keeps all its
configuration settings in numerous text files, making it easy for a
user to edit and configure. There is NO good reason for placing all
configuration within a database like the Windows registry, unless it
is to make it more difficult for the end-user to control the state of
his/her computer.

OK, now your taking one of Linux's weakest points and saying it is a
feature? When will you stop spouting FUD. I have administered many different
OS'. Linux is the hardest to administer precisely because of the numerous
text files. Many are very poorly documented. There is no standard naming
convention. Every distro uses different files sometimes even in different
places. It is a mess.

MickeyMouse should never have implemented an API that allowed each
application developer to determine not only how its app is installed
but also allowed those apps to write whatever they wanted to wherever
they wanted within the silly registry.

Now here is one place were most distros are actually better than Windows and
all you can do is call down Windows. If you are going to spout off about
Linux in an XP newsgroup at least do it intelligently.

Kerry

 

[feedscrn]

Ken Blake wrote:
It appears that you think you are addressing Microsoft here.
But you're not.
This is peer support newsgroup. We are all just Windows XP
users....

That appears to be the case. On the other hand, it can be considered to
be an open letter to MS. I appreciate your suggestion. I purposely
written these suggestions in a public newsgroup to gather momentum with
the Users. As anyone knows, there is strength in numbers, especially
when the idea(s) are reasonable.

Thanks, Feedscrn

+------------------------------------------+
| The screen is hungry, feed it! |
+------------------------------------------+

 

[NoStop]

OK, now your taking one of Linux's weakest points and saying it is a
feature? When will you stop spouting FUD. I have administered many
different OS'. Linux is the hardest to administer precisely because of the
numerous text files. Many are very poorly documented. There is no standard
naming
convention. Every distro uses different files sometimes even in different
places. It is a mess.

Sorry Kerry, but I totally disagree with you. We're comparing the Windows
registry here against Linux config files. Most config files on Linux have
some sort of usage/explanation contained right in the text file. Compare
that to a registry entry where there isn't room for any kind of explanation
at all. There are so many ways to access and edit these config files in
Linux ... even remotely should one be faced with a GUI interface that won't
respond. What do you do when there's a problem in the Windows registry and
the o/s won't start at all because of it? Fixing a seriously corrupted
Windows registry is a nightmare if even possible. A Linux config file is
extremely easy to get at and fix if required.

I can agree with you that different distros may place these config files in
different places, but they aren't all that different. Once one understands
how Linux works, this isn't a big issue. Certainly not nearly as big an
issue as the Windows registry that is totally undocumented and unaccessible
from outside the desktop.

 

[Kerry Brown]

Sorry Kerry, but I totally disagree with you. We're comparing the
Windows registry here against Linux config files. Most config files
on Linux have some sort of usage/explanation contained right in the
text file. Compare that to a registry entry where there isn't room
for any kind of explanation at all. There are so many ways to access
and edit these config files in Linux ... even remotely should one be
faced with a GUI interface that won't respond. What do you do when
there's a problem in the Windows registry and the o/s won't start at
all because of it? Fixing a seriously corrupted Windows registry is a
nightmare if even possible. A Linux config file is extremely easy to
get at and fix if required.

I can agree with you that different distros may place these config
files in different places, but they aren't all that different. Once
one understands how Linux works, this isn't a big issue. Certainly
not nearly as big an issue as the Windows registry that is totally
undocumented and unaccessible from outside the desktop.

Linux config files are only easy if you are using a fairly standard setup
and stick to one distro. Even then as the distro is updated the files may
change location and switches in the files may change. If you actually
install programs that don't come with the distro then all bets are off as to
where the config files are and how they work. The documentation, even within
the config file, is often several versions old so there is almost always
undocumented features. I believe this is one of the reasons Linux is not
more popular. You have to be a geek to administer it.

The windows registry can be edited remotely over a network. You can also
boot from a CD with BartPe and edit the registry.

As I said I have administered/maintained many systems starting with CP/M.
Linux/Unix and all the variants are by far the hardest to administer of the
current OS'. I don't think you will find many people with a lot of
experience who will argue this point. Both systems need work. A central
database as in the Windows registry is a better method in my mind. The
current implementation needs to be made more robust and better documentation
but there is no question it is a better idea than files scattered all over
with no standards.

Kerry