Hey, Microsoft: Keep Windows 7 simple

When Microsoft announced that it will keep the Windows 7 moniker for Vista's follow-up, I was happy to hear it. After years of trying to be clever with names like XP or Vista (not to mention Longhorn), Microsoft has finally realized that keeping it simple is the best idea in the operating-system market.

And then, just as the company tried to lay the groundwork for simplicity, it blew up in its convoluted justification for naming Windows 7.

It starts out simple enough: the first Windows was Windows 1.0, the second, 2.0, and so on. But then Microsoft revealed that Windows 95 was Windows 4.0 and "Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively."

Oh, and don't forget that Windows XP, although a major release, was actually Windows 5.1, since Windows 2000 was Windows 5.0. And thanks to Vista being dubbed Windows 6.0, we arrive at Windows 7.

Yuck!

Is it even possible for Microsoft to make sense anymore? Why couldn't the company have just said, "uh, we named it Windows 7 because, well, we wanted to"? Wouldn't that have been much simpler?

See, when Microsoft first told us that it wouldn't change Windows 7's name, I was happy. I figured that the company had finally seen the light, and for once, it would try to take complexity out of the equation and start bringing a culture of simplicity to Windows.

I'm starting to think that I was wrong.

The problems with Windows Vista go far beyond incompatibility. The real problems with Vista revolve around the complexity and downright absurdity of the operating system's bloated code. Some say Microsoft is a victim of its own success and that it has no other options, but I think that's ludicrous. There's no reason why Microsoft can't simplify the code and create a more robust operating system.

Granted, many of Vista's issues were fixed after SP1, but a slew of issues still remain. User Account Control is annoying (to say the least) and it's obvious every step of the way that Microsoft tried to do too much and address too many problems when it only really needs to do two things: eliminate the bloat, and develop a front end that doesn't try to copy Mac OS X but rather stays true to Windows.

What do I mean by that? Microsoft needs to stop believing that the operating-system business is a beauty pageant and start realizing that what most users want is a simple system that gives them access to what they want as quickly as possible, without exposing them to all the security issues currently plaguing Windows. Granted, many of those security issues are created by the users, but it doesn't matter; Microsoft can do more to protect them.

Maybe it's only a name, but Microsoft's decision to keep it simple made me hope for something more out of Windows 7. I thought that Microsoft was finally drawing a line in the sand by saying it won't simply put a fresh coat of paint on the same problems, but rather finally gut the operating system and make it far more appealing to users by making it easier to use.

When I use Mac OS X, I can't help but think that Apple did something right with Leopard. It didn't try to do too much, but it made all the applications I use readily available, and in the process, it reduced the number of headaches I experience when using Windows.

There's no secret formula to making a fantastic operating system, but I think there is a way to make one that's almost perfect. That operating system would be lightweight and secure. It would offer high usability and deliver an experience that isn't nearly as concerned about beauty as it is quality.

And if we look at Vista, Microsoft didn't do anything of the sort. Instead, it created an operating system that was too resource-intensive, had low usability, thanks to an odd menu structure and annoying pop-ups, and it coveted design over security.

Windows 7 cannot succumb to those same issues. Microsoft needs to develop a culture of simplicity and remove unnecessary complexity through the OS. And if it can succeed in doing so, you can bet that a new, simple, Windows 7 will finally put Microsoft's competitors back on their heels.

Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.

[intrepidblue]

windows is in need of a diet. i hope windows 7 is fit, trim and ready to fight. i'm a mac fan, but i am in a windows world everyday, and it would be nice to see windows cut the bloat and be SIMPLY sexy.

[Quincy2001]

Good commentary. The only thing I'd add is that Windows 7 needs to be bloat-resistant. The most frustrating thing for a user is when their once-fast machine succumbs to WinRot, a.k.a. all the trash programs leave in places like the registry that kills performance. I've seen Mac OS X machines in the hands of a regular consumer that works just as fast as the day it was bought even though it's 4-5 years old. I have *never* seen the same on the Windows side. The difference? In OS X, programs are self-contained packages that don't spread out all over the system. The Windows team should learn from this.

[catch23]

I see it on the Windows side often. Mostly in businesses, where folks aren't adding and removing programs often.
There are distinct advantages to storing programs the way MS does; what is needed is developers being forced to use correct program removal techniques.
The same can be said for UAC. If applications were written to NT4 least privileged specs, most of the problems with UAC would go away.

[aztec92154]

@catch23 I agree with you, its up to the developers to clean their mess.

[KonradK]

@catch23: I see it on the Windows side often. Mostly in businesses, where folks aren't adding and removing programs often.

Right, blame the users for adding and removing too many programs. The real problem lies with Microsoft and the registry.

@catch23: There are distinct advantages to storing programs the way MS does
The disadvantages in system instability that the registry causes far out weigh any advantages.

@@catch23 I agree with you, its up to the developers to clean their mess.
You got that completely backwards. Microsoft created the problem in the first place by creating the registry.

So I guess If blaming the users isn't enough, blame the developers!

[ckurowic]

I've fixed many Windows computers over the years (for home users especially) and I couldn't agree more. The Apple machines are just as fast as the day they bought them years later! The registery needs to go, it is an antiquated system.

[aztec92154]

@KonradK

- Are you a programmer? I love developing in Assembly, but the power you get from having control of all the memory and processor can be dangerous if put in the wrong hands. The same goes for C/C++ (you reserve memory and then have to manually free it). Java has an interesting solution ( java has garbage collection ). The crazy world that is *nix said, hey, lets protect memory by forcing programs to stay within a box of memory so they dont clobber other programs. You still have the freedom to reserve and release memory, but you're in a sandbox of sorts that can be killed if the operating system or user doesn't like it.

Windows gives you the freedom to set up your registry, but it expects you to clean up your mess. *nix (which includes Mac OS X) takes a slightly different approach. I think that its the job of the programmers, and not the users (who know little or nothing about the intricacies of programming) to clean up their mess. So yes, the fault lies in both MS and the writers of applications, but the developers should be smart enough to not mess with what they dont know about. From the users perspective, its just a tool they should be able to add or remove (they should never need to know a registry even exists).

[redwall_hp]

I think it's time for Microsoft to imitate Apple in a better way and switch to a UNIX/Linux core.

[KeeganHill]

The added security of a UNIX system would be comforting, I just don't think they'll do it. Nothing would be compatible.....unless they created their own version of WINE....

[Penguinisto]

They could use a BSD core, which would in turn give them the lighter weight and the ability to lock down and proprietize the results (the BSD license lets you do that). OTOH I don't see them doing that because it would mean admitting something (institutionally) that they have been very adamant about never admitting for what, 20 years now?

BTW, @KeeganHill - they would have to do exactly what WINE does - re-write the Windows API for *nix, which would be trivial for them to do - they wouldn't have to bother with the dual obstacles of avoiding IP issues and reverse-engineering, like the WINE project does.

[Pizzookie]

dream on, that will never happen

[rnation121]

So, when will Microsoft Windows show up on the TV show Biggest Loser? The code base is overly bloated, and in desperate need breaking with the past and creating a new future.

[aztec92154]

They can do that, like Apple did with OS 9 and OS X. The problem is backwards compatibility and driver issues. If MS dumps their old OS for a new lean OS, people will see windows 7 as another Vista.

[slux]

I agree with you on many points, but not when you say that Vista is not robust. line any operating system, if you have the correct device drivers Vista is ok. Bloated, yes, but robust, very robust...
I'm also using MacOsX and vista, and I'm a longtime "NT kernel" user

[monokulen]

Can you analize or give me some links why Vista sucks so much....I don't have very last end computer but Vista is running very smoothly on my PC. I don't see why such bad publicity.

Windows 7 - don't forget that this month Microsoft will introduce first Beta of 7 (for developers only....but it will leak probably to the public)

Than we can influence on Microsoft, cause I heard they do make great community with customers, before release...am I right?

[aztec92154]

@monokulen

Check out these video, they'll give you a good idea of the troubles people are having with Vista.
http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

[Lerianis]

Yeah, aztec, like we are going to trust ads from Microsoft's COMPETITOR. Come on: give us some NEUTRAL links where people are having problems and haven't created those problems themselves.... oh wait, you can't, because there AREN'T any cases of that.

[monokulen]

Can you analize or give me some links why Vista sucks so much....I don't have very last end computer but Vista is running very smoothly on my PC. I don't see why such bad publicity.

Windows 7 - don't forget that this month Microsoft will introduce first Beta of 7 (for developers only....but it will leak probably to the public)

Than we can influence on Microsoft, cause I heard they do make great community with customers, before release...am I right?

[prototerm]

I suggest two changes for making Windows a better operating system.

1. To fix the bloat, release Windows as a modular OS. If for some reason, I don't need or want the GUI, let me run a base module that does all the command-line things that's underneath Windows and nothing else. Or, I may want a GUI, but not need to support Blue Ray or HDTV playback, in which case, let me run Windows without the DRM module(s). If I want to eliminate Silverlight or Dot Net, fine, let me do it and stop forcing me to install things I neither want or need. Hey, why not have a standard API for the GUI itself, so people can choose what they want -- e.g., Aero, Traditional, or perhaps a third-party solution (hey, software developers need to make a living, too, you know).

2. To make maintenance easier, and avoid WinRot, get rid of the Registry and go back to using ini files. One of the best things about using Linux for me is knowing that all configuration files are plain vanilla text files in one specific place (the /etc directory). That way, nothing can be hidden, and everything can be easily edited and backed up. I've hated the registry ever since it was first introduced. Keep it simple, guys.

[Lerianis]

The registry was made so that we didn't get an instance where a .ini file got damaged and wasn't able to run. The registry is backed up in two areas on most windows computers, and the registry is not very bloated. On my Windows 64-bit, it is under 30MB's in size. On my Windows 32-bit machines, it is about 60mb's in size.

That said, Microsoft need to work on some of it's installers and uninstallers..... I'm kinda getting tired of having to go registry hunting in order to re-install Microsoft Office everytime one file or registry key gets damaged.

[Motyoj]

Exactly. That registry was the most compelling reason for me to go Linux and finally Mac. Besides all the nasties out there that you have to protect Windows from. I think Windows 3.11 was a better OS than their current one. It could run on 4KB of ram as well. Think about that; now 4GB seems about right. Amamzing...

[russkeller]

Ha HA! that's so cure. Day dreaming. Microsoft would have to be competent. The only ones there that are competent are their business agents and Lawyers, it's how they're able to maintain their monopoly with incompetent managers and coders.

[compudoc318]

wow those lawyers are pretty good to keep a "bloated os" at a 95% market share for years now....come on

[deep0dark]

"There's no reason why Microsoft can't simplify the code and create a more robust operating system."

Oh yeah, throw away tens of billions of investments into its development and then invest another 20 billion into a development of a new OS that will take another 10 years while competitors eat away its entire market share.

Sure. Why?

Because some pundit thinks that Microsoft should gamble with its future just so that the same pundit later quietly changes his mind an declares it's "pure madness" to rewrite an operating system which works so well that it has captured 95% of the market. Logical.

[YankeePoodle]

For all the vilification of Vista, is a better operating system. The out-dated part is the user, who wanted Vista to be XP++. The very people who complain about feature-bloat are the fist ones to criticize the lack of compelling features or features per dollar.

Microsoft has got bad-rap because users are too complacent with XP and did not want to move to Vista. Windows 7 will not make every one happy, but I think Windows 7 with VS 2010 & .net4.0 could be the coolest developer stack.

[aztec92154]

Ahh yes, its the fault of the consumer that Windows is in such trouble. If only those pesky consumers would just run into the store, buy a copy of Vista, and take their Prozac everything would be fine.

[skodateam]

very well said ! You make a lot of sense. People are bad, nasty and tend to be malicious and contractive by nature. Vista is what WE asked for ! there we have it... lovely and stunning. Windows 7 will be another great product and set the standards in the world of operating systems. apple and other rubbish systems should not even be taken into account, businesses dont take them seriously, actually nobody does.. Microsoft is great at creating its identity and should follow its instincts on the way to success which is what they have already achieved. no point in imitating Apple, a company that does not have enough potential to develop their own core without having to steal from Linux.. foolish and out-dated.... All we need is a secure XP system with a stunning user interface.. windows 7 will deliver that.. so be patient for a while and look forward to that instead of wasting your money on buying empty white boxes with a stupid apple logo on it. no use, no purpose, no comptability, no interest from businesses.. most importantly, dont let a company create yoru identity. have an ability to customize and modify according to yoru own needs !

[compudoc318]

i totally agree, if vista didnt come out, everyone would say, look at how pretty osx is, and if vista was streamlined, youd hear, its just xp with a new name. vista is totally fine, im in i.t. and run a side computer repair business, and guess what i work on all day, virus infected xp machines, only one vista infection, and it was small spyware, heck in the time that vistas been out, ive done more repairs on macs than vista machines. i use osx and vista and they are both great for what they are made for. But if osx is so great and vista is so bad, why is vista outselling osx??? why does apple only have an 8% share....and why would apple include boot camp..well...to have vista do all the things osx cant!!

[aztec92154]

"if osx is so great and vista is so bad, why is vista outselling osx??? "

- Ugh, what a bad argument. So if McDonalds sells more burgers than anyone else in the world, they have the best burgers in the world? So if Walmart sells more clothes than any boutique store in the world, that means they have the best quality clothes in the world? No. Please read a book or two on arguing and stop using the prehistoric rhetoric that doesn't work in this modern age.

[jgoto]

I don't think people want an OS that is Simple. They want one that works well and works every time. Provided that hardware is compatible, Vista is certainly a more reliable OS than XP was and what consumers want is Microsoft to continue on that route.

[Lerianis]

True. Vista is a very reliable OS that just works 99.999999% of the time, just like a Mac, unless you are installing a program for a MUCH earlier operating system on it, and even then.... the programs usually work with minimal, if any, tweaking.

[mjconver]

Auto companies don't sell one type of vehicle, why does Microsoft. Vista is an Escalade with low profile tires and a flat-screen TV installed in the back. Forget that, I've got a job to do, I want an F-150.

[compudoc318]

vista will get the job done unless your computer is 10 years old

[morper]

While I am hopeful Microsoft will optimize Windows 7 to run more efficiently -- and hopefully work closer with the device driver manufacturers to make sure drivers are ready to go day one -- I am actually more concerned about VB runtime support. While Microsoft officially dropped developer suppport for Visual Basic earlier this year, there are still a large number of both internal IT apps, but also ISV developed applications which are dependent on Visual Basic.

To date, Microsoft has not issued an officially policy statement on VB with Windows 7, but they have verbally stated a couple of times they do not plan to support the runtime. I see that as a terrible, terrible idea. Microsoft (IMHO) has nothing better to do than to make sure existing apps continue to work, both ISVs and IT don't have to sink unnecessary investment into migrating legacy apps up to .Net. Since all indications are Windows 7 is nothing more than Vista v2.0, I really hope they don't decrement what is already supported in Vista.

[Lerianis]

Excuse me, but Microsoft WAS working with the device driver manufacturers to make sure that drivers were ready from 'day one'. The problem was that those manufacturers dragged their damn feet and though "Ah.... Vista's never coming out!" They got a surprise, and then tried to shunt all the blame on Microsoft..... It didn't work for me, but it did work with a lot of other, more ignorant people.

[CBattery]

Wow, that was really incoherent but I'll do my best to break it down. After reading this I wonder if you even use Windows on a regular basis or if you were just looking for a vehicle to rant against Vista.

Anyway, first you spiral off on a tangent about the name (the name???) then you slam it for being "incompatible" while at the same time accusing it of being bloated because of the need to retain compatibility. Then you jump on UAC right before slamming it for exposing users to "all the security issues currently plaguing Windows". I guess you missed the report that states Vista has fewer vulnerabilities than Linux, OSX or any previous version of Windows in history. Then it's on to the UI and "not remaining true to Windows" even though conceptually it hasn't really changed since WinXP was launched in 2001.

And with the Windows 7 beta not even out, you've already concluded "Maybe it's only a name, but Microsoft's decision to keep it simple made me hope for something more out of Windows 7. I thought that Microsoft was finally drawing a line in the sand by saying it won't simply put a fresh coat of paint on the same problems, but rather finally gut the operating system and make it far more appealing to users by making it easier to use."

So you're disappointed that Microsoft isn't throwing away an OS that runs 95% of the worlds PCs and starting from scratch? If not, what in the not-yet-available beta makes you think Win7 is going to be "a fresh coat of paint on the same problems?"

If you want to bag on Windows and be an MS hater then that's fine, but at least come up with something original, insightful or significant. This is the same kind of BS any Joe Blow can get from watching all those dubious "I'm a Mac" commercials.

[mmawhir]

To all of those who still question why Vista is so horrible. ...point and case

I'm a web and marketing designer. I own both a PC (Vista SP1) and a Mac (OSX10.5).

At this exact moment while running my Mac I have these programs running:
Safari (3 web sites open)
FireFox (8 web sites open)
Microsoft Word
Microsoft Excel
Microsoft Entourage
Adobe Bridge
Adobe Illustrator (several vector files opened)
Adobe Photoshop (half dozen 200+mb files opened and being edited)
Adobe Dreamweaver
iTunes
Preview
Dozen or so finder windows spread across 4 desktops (see OSX10.5 "Spaces")

My mac isn't even breaking a sweat. It doesn't lag, hiccup, or stutter. I've had far more programs open including memory hogs like video editing software After Effects without problem.

When I try this on my PC, I can (on average) only open...
FireFox (several sites opened)
Adobe Photoshop (1 x 250+mb file)
Adobe Illustrator (1 vector file open)
...at this point Vista is having major issues. It can barely keep up. Lagging horribly, trouble switching between windows / programs...
I open Adobe Indesign or Adobe Bridge and watch my programs start to freeze. Photoshop will barely move. Adobe's product line will start crashing left and right.

Mac running 11+ programs easily while Vista has trouble after 3.

Now for the eye opener. My Vista computer has faster hardware. (PC listed first)

CPU = Intel Duel Core 3.2Ghz vs Intel Duel Core 2.6 (PC is faster)
RAM = DDR2 800Mhz (4Gb) vs DDR2 677Mhz (5Gb) (PC is faster, mac has more)
Video = Nvidia 9800GTX 512Mb vs Nvidia 7300GT 128Mb (PC extremely faster)

(Side note: Vista 32 can only handle a total of 4Gb of RAM including your video card. My video card is 512Mb so according to Vista, my computer only has 3.5Gb of RAM installed. Yet another reason Mac OS is better.)

Why can't my PC handle all the same programs simultaneously like my Mac can? Because VISTA is HORRIBLE. It's quite obvious by the hardware that the PC should be kicking the mac's *** all over the place, but in fact it can barely handle a few things at once. The OS is the problem here. The mac simply utilizes its resources better.

Now a days I more or less own a PC for games. This article is very good, and I agree with the author and also hope Windows 7 will be a simple, yet a more efficient and effective tool.

[compudoc318]

our developers run more than that all the time on vista with no issues, and with slower hardware.

[Zorchenhimer]

"That operating system would be lightweight and secure. It would offer high usability and deliver an experience that isn't nearly as concerned about beauty as it is quality."

I immediately thought "Linux." ;)

[Lerianis]

I immediately though Vista, without all the drivers that it installs on the hard drive. Let's face it: Linux SUCKS!! I tried it, didn't like it, and tried MULTIPLE distros (Ubuntu, etc.)..... none of them worked for me because they were all command-line only..... and I HATE (underlined and bolded) command-line!

[aztec92154]

lol. Ditto. :-)

[aztec92154]

To clarify my ditto was for Linux.

@Lerianis
The command line is nice for so many reasons.... So many will never know. :(

[Lerianis]

Oh yeah, the command line is nice.... if you want to clutter up your brain knowing 10,000 different commands that in Windows can be done with one, maybe two, clicks of the mouse once you get to the settings screen for the things in question.

I have used computers since back with DOS 3, and I have ALWAYS hated the command line. Why? It SUCKS, takes too long to remember a command that is so..... obtuse no one, not even the people who MADE DOS could remember it, and was too easy to type in the wrong command and....... FLUSH! There goes 3 months of work or a whole game.

[aztec92154]

@Lerinis

Dude, just learn to make a batch file or a script. lol :-)

I understand what you mean, though. You hated your desk job - day in day out - tapping away on a light blue Word Perfect screen and pausing every few minutes to reference your "word Perfect cheat sheet". Just remember, behind every one of your precious icons, there is a highly efficient script launched in the background that is made by one of us.

And one more comment: Our brains might be better served with a little "clutter". :-)

[Mr. Dee]

So, basically you want Windows 95 for your next version of Windows? Check ebay

[aztec92154]

How about Windows XP ME?

[mackbaz]

Ok.. I am a little disappointed by this article. Only about half of your criticisms are fact, and the other half are opinions. The new start menu is the best thing that has happened to windows in my opinion. With a few keystrokes i can have word open in seconds, instead of navigating through a long hierarchy of folder names and such.. And sure vista hogs some resources, but do you know what it is doing with them? If you have an adequate system, it utilizes the resources and makes a much better experience. So basically, use it on your new system and not your old. And the thing about leopard... i barely see an improvement... infact with my experiences it slowed the system down loading the previews in finder. I really don't think this is an issue that vista is worse than xp. XP is simpler, but also doesn't have some of the nice touches vista has. Its a preference. Saying that all users prefer a simplistic design is just wrong. I hate how xp looks and love how vista, ubuntu(with desktop effects) and leopard look.
Compatibility: Have you used xp 64 vs vista 64... There is no comparison. Vista wins big time. I have gone back to xp mainly because i felt like i had to living in the tech world. I couldn't stand the old start menu and honestly with the system i was using (dual core AMD, 4gb ram, hd 3850) the system was much faster both with booting and usage in vista.
Windows vista is big and still does mysteriously steel from my windows partition, but honestly it is better than xp for a newer system. Also I really think windows 7 is a step in the right direction shrinking the os with modular software, but also keeping the nice parts of vista like the start menu and visuals.
and if you really want simple get DSL (damn small linux) and try to run all your programs and have a nice day getting your devices to work :) (by the way, i love linux, but it is not highly usable unless you make it, which you can.... but its not as usable as windows fresh out of the box)

[veer01]

I completely agree with this guy!!!!
Think of vista as a testing ground for new concepts and think of 7 as a refined execution (not the final execution) and things make a little more sense (or as much as they ever do in the tech world)

[Norseman]

Microsoft? Simple? Surely you jest! Besides Microsoft being genetically incapable of making anything simple, hardcore techie Windows users don't WANT simple. They like complicated. They like to fiddle with things and be able to configure everything seventy-leven different ways. They sneer at "toy" computers that actually DO make things simple. If they really wanted simple, they'd get a Mac. You're swimming upstream, Don.

[Lerianis]

Hey, Vista computers are simple. You install programs, click on them, 99% of the time, even if they are for earlier versions of Windows, they work WITHOUT having to enable any compatibility boxes.... except older games, which that twerks me off, because if a game is still being sold online (99% of them are) THEY SHOULD MAKE A PATCH FOR THE LATEST VERSIONS OF WINDOWS TO MAKE THEM WORK.

[compudoc318]

whatever, have you looked at the selection of games for osx...lol. its laughable, not to mention the mac techs i know joking about running wow on a pc since it crashes all the time on their macs.

[Seaspray0]

Don Reisinger. Bravo! My sentiments exactly.