64-bit only does make a lot sense.  I think though that folks, old ones like me, still remember that when 64-bit first came out it really wasn't marketed correctly.  I remember it was pushed mainly for businesss then the home computer user.  We all know that has changed. 

New marketing for 64-bit needs to be done or just do way with the 32-bit.

 

5. Security. Give me back control over every darn features that i wish to adapt to my personal usage. Vista broke that promise with such a simple thing as Desktop Themes (Aero is nice, but we simply can't alter IT without going the out_of_the_box way.) or true Start_Menu structural copy-paste movements.

6. Use Account Control. Train it or dump it. In principle at least, that is as useful as web driven pop-bubs. Invasive, annoying. Do i really need continual authorization(s) to USE my own costly PC however i see fit? IF i am quite aware of the processing involved. Dummies or Expert modes should do it.

7. Des_Integration. Fix the drivers mess BEFORE final release and stop enforcing IE to the underlaying interface calls.

8. BONUS stuff... include a single non-trial-fully-working version of MS-Office (Not Works, not silly pseudo estimates - THE real genuine elements to at least loadup a mdb or even, all iterations of doc if & when necessary!) with the OS. Serious. It's as much essential to any modern age users as the engine & transmission on cars.

9. Gimmicks -- get over Apple's philosophy of indirectly offlining resources already. Be different and hand over whatever help & "solutions" straight INTO the package rather than searching for hours on end in labyrinths worth of false answers.

 

 

you can easily get RAM for under $100, try newegg.com

not to mention, prices will go down by the time 7 is done with

i waiting for W7 so much cause Vista is a full ..#%^$$#... im too want have 64 bit system with RAM memory up to 127 gig but now its impossible by that reason that 64 bit Windows XP its only SP1 and have many problems with driver, Vista 64 have many problems with drivers + work very slow (even on my dualcore proc 4400+ and with 2gig DDR2 RAM) and i absolutely dont understand why.... long booting long working too hard file searching process and many many things that really get me crazy.... one plus - Aero interface, but thanks to Stardock and Wincustomize, now we are easy can make full aero look on XP too...

64 bit is brilliant in theory, but try buying decent security app's that support it. software manufacturors have to be brought around to 64 bit before pushing it onto the end user, but hey, i would love to be able to run 64bit

Hmm I've got Vista 64 on one computer 0 Driver problems 0 problems with programs I use! On my other computer I've got XP 64 SP 2 (Don't know why that guy only has SP 1 for his XP?....) And 0 problems with my security granted I had to move over to Comodo Firewall vs my old Sygate 5.5 for both but really it's not a problem. I remember when we moved from 8 to 16 bit (You had to get everything new!) Then we moved from 16 to 32... Windows 3.0 and above made that transition smoother wasn't but a year or 2 before everything was 32 bit. Now it's been what 3 years and still have 32 bit programs being made... Kinda silly in my book! The reason because Vista wasn't 64 bit only. Instead they have a 32 or a 64 bit with the requirement that for Vista logo you've gotta be 64bit compliant. So, stating that a 64 bit only OS for win 7 is a Logical next step. And it's not that hard for Manufacturers to make drivers for the 64 bit systems just a simple recompile. The problem will be with those people using stuff older then dirt... (if it's older then 5 years it's an antique in the Computer industry). Then again my Audiogy pro (2002) is working fine on my 64 Bit XP box. Granted I will admit finding drivers for stuff was hard (about a year ago... now it's not really an issue.) Sometimes it's harder to find XP drivers for a new computer. (Had several acquaintances get me to downgrade their PC's/Laptops to XP) But Vista SP1 and Windows XP (is with in 5 FPS of eachother for gaming experience. It's no longer the clear cut choice of gamers which windows to run.) Onto the Topic: Installation rules as one user was stating make fewer SKU's the enterprise/business one with all the annoying (Are you sure prompts). The home novice one. And the Experts edition were we can tinker with everything (this will be the one I'll get) I admit with in 10 min of installing Vista 64 Ultimate I'd turned off 99 % of the are you sure prompt stuff. It's there you just gotta know where to look. Hardest part was finding the place to turn off the Mic. It was set to on from default. I like customizable install vs everything you could possibly want installed. The cloud is a sorta good idea but I honestly think our networks here in the US are about 10 years behind Europe. It'd be logical if we had 10-100 gigabit internet. Right now must of us are truly getting 1-5Mbit. So, a OS based on the "Cloud" is not logical. Then imagine the cloud getting a virus. (I never do). I'd like to see the MB limit removed or at least put so high it's inconceivable to use it on anything common (64 bit allows for 16 exabytes [16.8 Million Terabytes or 17.2 billion gigabytes] of RAM) Not that we need that much but artificial limit's are silly everyone remembers the year 2k... Well it's the same concept). I guess when we're working with full 3D holographic arrays then that kind of RAM may be required. (32 bit has the 4 GB Limit with video card + RAM being counted). I'd like to see a win customize built right into the OS... If people didn't want to customize their desktops there wouldn't be a bunch of people doing it would there? I'm all about options when I hit install/setup on any program I prefer to see a custom/advanced tab so I can install what I want.. and not some huge bundle. I agree with most people on what they'd like to see changed.

OR maybe just two: One for large businesses, one for everything else.

Agreed. A single copy is very expensive, and multiple computers is becoming more common, epecially with laptops being so popular.

Or at least make it the default on a new install. There's no real reason to be sticking with 32 bit as the default now.

They've got some big stuff about this coming up in PDC next week from what I hear. Stay tuned .

No, other software needs your authorization to use your costly PC as they see fit.

But yes, UAC should be improved.

Not gonna happen. Office is Microsoft's second largest cash cow, next to Windows.

My antivirus and firewall software both work fine. Maybe it's time to consider a company that will support its products and be around in the next two years.

Because any security software company that isn't moving to 64 bit already will not be around in two years.

 

I was just being a little sarcastic with that 'proposition'... but, after examining the situation with fresh eyes - i have to admit that (in theory) the whole OS concept could use supplemental elements which aren't that far off MS-Office 'potential'.

The entire principle behind "demands_needs" might very well benefit from a complete overhaul based on rather simplistic considerations about value; in the future, that is.

I doubt Microsoft would be at a lost -- if anything, they'd plug their X_console monopolistic dreams where they belong; **outside** the true PC markets (OEM or not!).

I'd like to dismiss ID's Item 4 because it misrepresents the Live Mesh product and the general utility of cloud computing to the OS itself. Mesh is an application, and as it is developed and shaped into its final form the integration issues will be smoothed out by the Mesh team; it does not behoove the Windows team to bend up the crown in order to accomodate a minor jewel. _________________________________________________________________________ As far as tacking my own items to the wishlist, I'd want to make the product footprint smaller via better implementation of the single-language localized-build concept seen in WinPE; when a user has no utility for Spanish and Czech and Tiawanese, he tells the setup, and no Spanish, Czech or Tiawanese support, in any individual file or reference form, is transferred to the HDD. No special fonts, no seperate help files, no hooks for multiple-orientation layouts, nothing. If that means that later on, should an additional lang capability be desired, and the user has to do a lengthier reinstall, then so be it. Core market benefits, install times go down, protection takes less resources, etc. etc. . I'd also aggressively seek out licensing and experience required to provide in-shell viewing and handling of a much, much, much broader variety of filetypes. Going 64-bit-only would be a step in the right direction, as it would force third-party entities to provide 64-bit handlers, but I doubt we're going to see that and we certainly won't see it all done in time for Windows 7 to hit shelves. Imagine you have a directory with a huge variety of filetypes in it: .avi, .eps, .txt, .svg, .cdr, .jp2, .flv, .xps, .obj, .otf, .zip, use your imagination. Now, most of these formats and the code required to preview them are proprietary to third-party developers, and if you own their software they usually provide a handler mechanism to allow for preview and thumbnail integration into the OS. But why do we have to own the software required to manipulate the files just so we can view and organize them? We don't, and it's high time MS put their foot down and native-ized these capabilities - you build your software to run on our OS, we help you make your app work with it, but you got jack and shlt unless you play ball and help us give all users the capability to seamlessly integrate the organization and viewing of your files in the Explorer umbrella, the core of file manipulation for everyone. Is it realistic to expect seamless preview support for, for example, 14GB architectural workups? No, but it's eminently do-able, and as far as complaints about prying eyes go, it's simple enough to set a previewable flag on save and no one should be using file formats as a privacy protection tool to begin with. . My last item is really more a plea to hardware developers than anyone else: Remember how Vista launch made a big deal about integrated tablet-pc functionality? Hooray! But why can't you buy any more sophisticated tablet PCs than you could three years ago? What we saw, aside from the bleeding-edge ruggedized world, was not a proliferation of actual tablet PCs, but a bunch (cough, HP) of buzzword-riding imitators cutting corners with worthless passive touchscreens. Poll the unfortunate masses who ended up with a fingerpainty touchscreen, did they like it, suddenly it seems no one wants tablet PCs anymore. I know Wacom's ready to play ball, I know Intel has tablet-pc-ready blueprints keeping up with the rest of mobile tech that never come to fruition, I know there are no hard stops between the old-tech, low-capability architecture in use by everyone today and high-end, ET, gen-step hardware.