How Windows Can Save Itself: Three Things We Want to See in Windows 7
With everyone calling out Windows' imminent doom from the rooftops, it's easy (though incorrect) to believe that the OS doesn't have much longer to live as a platform. While it's premature to say that we're looking at the twilight of Microsoft, it is fair to say that the trend of Microsoft's slowly-but-steadily declining market share will continue unless they make a radical change in their software design.
Since Microsoft makes a point of attempting to support legacy software and hardware, seeing them undergo the kind of sea-change that Apple underwent in releasing OS X is unlikely. But the case for it is there: Apple took a huge risk in releasing OS X, since doing so meant that it required nearly their entire user base to re-buy software and hardware or face immediate obsolescence. But Apple went through because they had no choice; with their stock tanked and the company losing money, it was either rethink their design philosophy or file bankruptcy.
Microsoft, with its dominant 90%+ of market share, doesn't feel the need to make such a leap. And despite what a lot of pundits are saying, they really can't afford to. Apple was able to introduce OS X in an environment where they had no significant market share, and then grow the user base comfortably over time. It's one thing to take the risk of asking 3% of the market to repurchase all of their software and peripherals-- quite a different thing to ask 91% of the market to do the same.
Windows Vista was Microsoft's attempt at bridging that gap between presenting a new kernel design philosophy and still offering legacy support. It didn't really work. Apple's kernel redesigning gamble paid off because it offered a suite of new features, functionality, and stability over previous versions. Vista's half-hearted attempt orphaned too many programs and peripherals to offset its few improvements.
The new "I'm a PC" ad campaign is a step in the right direction for realigning Windows' perception in the marketplace, but PR isn't really the main issue Microsoft needs to address--it's their sprawling, unaligned design philosophy that causes them to rush half-finished products to market.
Microsoft needs to innovate in order to remain competitive, and hopefully Windows 7 will show the innovation that Microsoft is capable of when it doesn't get in its own way. Not much information has been leaked about Windows 7 yet except that it may hit the market as early as next year and that it will support multitouch. Multitouch support is a good start because it argues for a stronger embedded device presence. In that vein, here are three more things I want to see in Windows 7 that I think would strengthen the platform and even bring me back from the Ubuntu fold.
1) Boot into multiple environments, and virtualize between them. Let's face it, Microsoft has been trying to have it both ways with legacy support vs. kernel design and it hasn't really been working. So split the difference: at logon, give the user the option to boot into either the latest version of Windows, or a legacy kernel that supports pre-Vista software and hardware. (My admittedly shabby "artist's rendition" of this is below.) This gives all the latitude needed for more innovative design in the new kernel, because it wouldn't be hobbled by attempts at legacy support, and eliminates the need for the disastrous "upgrading to a older version" that crippled Vista adoption. You could even get more specific with microkernels: for example, give the user options between environments optimized for certain tasks like gaming, or functioning as a media center or a server. Also, allow the environments to virtualize each other, so that you can run an older program under Windows 7 for example without having to log out and log back in under a different environment. One thing Mac and Linux have all over Windows is the ability for casual users to virtualize other environments--technically speaking it's nothing Windows can't do, and it should.
2) Integrate Live service as a package manager and software store for Windows. One thing I truly love about Linux is its incredibly well-designed package managers, such as Yum and Synaptic; you can browse a live catalog of software, checkmark the programs you want, and the software simply and cleanly installs itself, and updates itself after install whenever patches or upgrades are released. There are services like Steam and Microsoft's own Live service on the 360 that emulate this behavior somewhat in a Windows environment, but Windows 7 should take the leap to a full package management system based on Live and integrated with Windows Update. The Linux versions all provide only free (as in beer and speech) software, but there's no reason a Windows version of such a service couldn't incorporate a Steam-like store to sell "Microsoft-certified" software. And because the wide range of freeware development is one of the major arguments for still using Windows, 7 could also provide digitally signed, safe repositories for the loads of free software out there. This would supplement, not replace, the traditional method of installing programs; but besides being a huge step in selling ease of use and breadth of applications, doing so would be a step to prevent users from infecting their machines with malware by giving them a trusted market for software. Think Apple's iPhone App Store, but more open and robust, and integrated with Windows' own native update service.
3) Sell one extensible version of Windows 7, not twenty "editions". I still can't think of a defensible reason to sell multiple versions of the same operating system that vary as slightly as the versions of Vista do. The two steps above would eliminate the need to sell multiple editions: you buy the base kernel and environment, and extend it via the Live-derived software package and update manager to become the version you need. You could even sell additional microkernel environments like Micrsoft Server or Media Center, since they'd install separately and simply be an addition to the master boot record. The key caution of this approach is not to nickel and dime the customers to death in trying to meet their basic computing needs, but the core concept is sound.
The main idea here is that Windows 7 provide a unified, extensible architecture that's flexible enough to power anything from embedded portable devices to server arrays, without shortchanging the desktop user. Is it possible? Sure--all of the above ideas already exist in some form or another, they just need to be combined. Will Microsoft do it? Who knows, but here's hoping they've learned something from the Vista debacle beyond just the need for better, less alienating PR.
--Aric A.
Ari on September 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM
1) Having multiple environments would probably be too much for the average user, not to mention the fact every time I wanted to use a legacy program i would have to log out then log in into a different environment. A better idea would probably be to incorporate visualization techniques into the operating system, which i hear they will be doing. Vista introduced a virtual desktop environment that meant even administrative users were running in a standard user environment until a program was ran that required administrative access, hence the UAC which asked if the administrator wanted to temporarily run in an administrative environment for that program which helped to prevent hackers from using the computer as an administrator, so the need for a root account like in Linux was not necessary. As for the legacy programs, in Windows 7, each program should run in its own virtual environment that would emulate legacy OS environment allowing them to run almost seamlessly in Windows 7.
2) I have actually thought of a similar idea of Windows 7 having an easy way to browse, download, and/or buy software from the Windows Marketplace or a similar database. However, it probably would have to be an optional download because of the many antitrust regulations that are just itching for a chance to pound Microsoft with another lawsuit. However, if they included an easy to use link that would do that, it would be great.
3) I partially agree, at most Windows 7 should only have two versions. An enterprise version (like Windows XP Professional), and a home version. Both would offer many of the same features and overall interactive environment but the enterprise version would include certain things that are only needed when connecting a large network of business workstations or other things that no small business, home office, or typical user would ever need. The home version would however still provide the ability to access a domain, but not in the extensive manner that a large business would require.
SpaceGhoti on September 28, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Microsoft has released some details about Windows 7 that convinces me it's just going to be more of the same. They're going to continue to use the Vista kernel, so lots of DRM and nagware for users. It also means they're going to be using the same driver set, trusting that businesses will want to be upgrading their hardware to handle the bloat of the Vista kernel.
There are some things that would be helpful to see in Windows 7, but the most important ones that would make me consider it won't be there. I'll continue to pass and recommend that everyone else do so as well.
PJ on September 28, 2008 at 04:26 PM
As a non-techie, all I can say is they blew it forever with average consumers when they screwed up compatibility between versions of Word and Excel. The compatibility packs don't work 100% accurately, and I now find that people on Macs can read my documents easier than other PC users!
Meaning, there is no need to be on a PC any more.
cjm on September 28, 2008 at 04:54 PM
i have puchased my last microsoft based pc. it was an hp vista laptop that i quickly upgraded to xp (at additionl cost and trouble). from now on i will be buying apple and linix based machines only. xp i could live with; it wasn't perfect but it was very usable. vista was a cage fight from the first time i booted it, until i finally "Gave it the boot". microsoft with it's insane drm policies has truly lost sight of who their real customer is.
gattsuru on September 28, 2008 at 05:03 PM
Server versions of Windows should be dramatically different from desktop versions; they're designed for drastically different things. That said, the single install seems like a good idea for normal users and desktop environments. The difference between Home Basic and Home Premium in particular didn't seem worth the price in boxes and confusion.
I'm not sure that the virtualized environment settings are a valuable offering, though. Most of the issues with Windows Vista were not the interactions between software and operating system alone -- the sheer numbers of unreliable or unupdated drivers, especially from groups like LexMark, were far more crippling and far less viable to virtualize. They'll help for the rare software issue, but Vista can set compatibility modes capable of dealing with the same issues fairly reliably.
Mister Snitch on September 28, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Sorry, Aric, but you're missing the point all over the place:
1) MS' success was predicated on the fact that most users needed equipment that conformed to 'standards'. MS set the standards. That's less true today than ever, thanks largely to the 'net.
2) MS today is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If they don't break backwards-compatibility with legacy systems, they will never, EVER, build a sleek new modern OS. But if they DO sever those ties, there's little reason for users to continue using MS products. It all harkens back to (1), their greatness being built on standards. When those standards are gone, what's left? The answer to that is NOT in MS' institutional DNA.
3) "The new "I'm a PC" ad campaign is a step in the right direction..."
Well, NO, it's not. It's a stillborn ad campaign that is very telling re MS' corporate mindset. Incredibly, a company selling something like 80% or more of the world's PC operating systems is so "stereotyped" by a niche competitor that it feels obliged to respond to its ads. That's not leadership - it's a company out of ideas. MS is a leaderless, frightened giant.
The ads themselves offer unwitting evidence of this: Note the segment featuring a guy in a shark tank. His sign says: "I'm a PC, and I'm scared."
Now THAT is truth in advertising.
Darren on September 28, 2008 at 05:23 PM
I jumped from WinME to Vista. None of my games that ran on ME will run in Vista, even when I set the compatibility mode to ME. And Firaxis isn't making a Vista-version of Sid Meier's Gettysburg.
Andrew X on September 28, 2008 at 05:36 PM
I have been a Vista defender in these forums. I find it a fine and stable product, certainly in its SP1 version, and I think Microsofts three big mistakes with it were:
1) Releasing box specs that were way too low. Without a 2Ghz processor, at least 2 Gigs of RAM, and 256 Megs of video RAM, forget it. For that matter, no machine that is happily running XP should ever go to Vista. Make Vista a new buy or no buy.
2) Not coordinating with outside vendors strongly enough at release. (Said vendors are largely up to speed now, so that is a largely no-longer-relevant issue.)
3) Blowing it on marketing (including the multiple version nuttiness) and allowing #1 and #2 up there to define the product.
That being said, I am of the mind that MS has thrown in with Vista, and should go all in. The product can take the load. If there are still issues, solve them with SP2 or even SP3. But stay focused on making Vista the best that it can be, not some bigger version of Millenium, which Vista is not.
Windows 7 should be 64-bit only. That would add great focus and clarity to the product, and even goose the industry that will invitably move in that direction. Thus, three years from now, XP would be exclusively for legacy machines, Vista for 32-bit machines built from about 2007 on, and Windows 7 for the budding and possibly explosive 64-bit market.
Three products, coveing the whole gaumt, one finished and the last two being imporved by being focused exclusively on the machines they are built for.
Simplicity matters. ('Course, it is probably too late now to implement this strategy, but waddya gonna do.)
Larry J on September 28, 2008 at 06:09 PM
Windows Live is the most frustrating piece of software I've ever had on my system. Since I don't leave my computer turned on all of the time (waste of electricity), whenever I booted, Live took over. I'd want to check my email. Live would decide to take over 5 minute soaking up almost all of my CPU, then it'd hog by bandwidth downloading another 7 updates (HINT: if Windows needs that many updates, maybe it's time to change platforms). Sometimes, it'd go ahead and install the updates and force a reboot (and another 5 minute wait). Other times, it'd try to defrag my hard drive or run a virus scan, again bringing my computer to its knees. Also, every now and then, the computer would apparently lock up for 10-15 seconds out of every minute with no explaination.
Listen, I didn't buy a computer to only run security updates. I bought my computer to, you know, actually use it to do stuff. Windows Live acted like it owned my computer. If it had been well behaved and stated something like, "You need to get these updates. Do it now or later?" then it wouldn't be so bad. Let me tell the program when to do these things, not force me to accept a fascist piece of crap software's decisions.
I removed Live from my computer last week. It's like having a new machine. Never more will I let that piece of crap software be installed on my computer. I reactivated my regular firewall, anti-virus, and spambot programs. It made me so frustrated, I almost went out and bought a Mac just so I could get things done. If future Windows forces me to accept Live, then unless it works a lot better than what I experienced, I'll dump MS in favor of Apple.
cjm on September 28, 2008 at 06:24 PM
my laptop has higher specs than mentioned above and it was unusable out of the box. unusable. some people seem to like vista, but many many many hate it. msft did signifigant damage to themselves with vista, and i don't see any evidence that they are capable of reversing that trend. tell me how their pervassive drm (in vista) helps me as a user? the fact that vista needs "defending" says it all.
Junk Science Skeptic on September 28, 2008 at 07:27 PM
PC user since the 8088 processor IBM PC. MS user since Windows 1. Buying two Vista machines was all it took to switch to Apple after nearly 25 years.
18 months into running Vista and some of the most basic functionality still hasn't been fixed. There may be some beneficial aspects to Vista behind the scenes, but from the user perspective, it looks like the majority of the effort was focused on trying to make a crappy imitation of the Mac GUI.
Rather than paying for another crappy imitation of a Mac, from now on I'll just get a real Mac.
Kevin Murphy on September 28, 2008 at 07:28 PM
Given that both AMD and Intel are aiming at many-core designs, the next version of Windows should allow individual cores to be assigned to specified tasks or sets of tasks. For example one core could do the Windows kernel and privileged tasks like anti-virus, another 2 could share the internet tasks, etc. Virtualization would operate between cores, and a given application might be assigned to part or all of a core, or thread across multiple cores.
Currently the only support of multicore machines is a Task Manager assignment, good only this instance. This lack of multicore support is going to be unworkable very soon.
ErikZ on September 28, 2008 at 07:40 PM
I had recently opened up a web store. While poking around the administration panel, I came across a report on what OS's my customers use.
54% used Windows 2000.
27% XP
8% Vista
3% Linux
2% OS/X
That stunned me. The last time I had win2k on my machine was 8 years ago.
John on September 28, 2008 at 08:15 PM
Here's an easy one, just because I have 2 GB of RAM does not mean the OS needs to use all of it to make the graphic more "MAC" like. My first CD player program took 16k of mem, why does it require a 100M for windows to do the same thing?
Jeremy W on September 28, 2008 at 08:34 PM
I had a top of the line Toshiba with 2GB of memory and fully updated anti-virus/spyware/ everything else.
Like one of the other inmates in the Redmond, WA jail (see above), I was subject to "update attacks". Only God knows what the Redmond bloatfarmers think about allowing the poor user to use his computer - maybe between 2AM and 4AM.
It came time to get a new computer - I got tired of de-fraging and re-orging my computer and it was again time for the yearly reinstallation of the XP operating system because of WinRot (look it up in google) and Registry confusion. (These are things that naturally occur when you actually use your Windows computer.)
Long story short: I spent 7 months researching Mac before making the jump late last year.
It was like being let out of prison after almost twenty years of solitary.
My Mac works so boringly reliably that it is as reliable as a soup spoon: it is there to do its job for me; it does not constantly call attention to itself ("Do you REALLY REALLY want to copy that file from one folder to another???) and it "simply works" day after day delightfully well. I very much enjoy my Mac, something I could never say about the Bloatfarm powered Toshiba.
Boot up takes 27 seconds and shut down is 17 seconds instead of 6 minutes and three minutes. I never get Blue Screens Of Death because, well, because it is a Mac and uses 21st century software, not kludgey junk that was conceived, designed and written 25-30 years ago.
Did I tell you that my printers, scanners, peripherals and drives worked just fine, right from the start? I did not tear my hair out because the Bloatfarmers forgot to tell the peripheral manufacturers that they changed something at the last minute and the printer would not work.
Did I tell you that I never get Nag Notes from Redmond now?
Did I tell you that I never do defragging or reorging because it is done automatically (It is called AUTOMATIC data processing - something the Redmond Bloatfarm has not learned yet.)?
In short, I feel like a get an extra day to be productive each week by not having to fight that rotting pile of dung that is Windows.
I can conceive of no circumstance under I would use anything from Microsoft again. (Did I mention that I had had eleven Window Mobile devices, each of which was like exploring a deeper level of Dante's Inferno than the last. When I threw out Windows (Big!) Bloat, I also threw out Windows (Mobile) Bloat. My iPhone works the way WinMobile promised for years that it would work but never did.
Conclusion: I will never knowingly let anything from Microsoft into my life again. I have had enough of stupid software and grotesquely inane operating systems from Microsoft to last several lifetimes.
blake on September 28, 2008 at 09:12 PM
MS's decline is inevitable. The point about "standards" is right on, and the press was happy to talk about flaws (real or imaginary) in MS's competitors back in the DOS days. (The press used to run stories about how much better DR-DOS was than MS-DOS but it was "risky".) MS made mistakes, over and over again, that would have killed any company without a large stream of incoming revenue.
The same pattern held for OS/2 and Windows, though there an existing antipathy for IBM, as well as MS's astroturfing campaign played a big role.
Now they're fighting against free. Their products are commodities. They still have the Office lock-in and, of course, they try to leverage their monopoly wherever they can to expand their base. So it'll take a long, long time. (Piracy probably helps them more than harms them, ironically.)
Every mistake they make creates new converts to "free". And some of those people will come back for various reasons. But the flow to "free" is a strong one.
But you're right: They can't really make the leap Apple did.
I can think of things they could do, but history says they won't. Look to MS to become IBM in the future: Still in existence and huge, but not the dominant force they are now.
Chad on September 28, 2008 at 09:19 PM
Jeremy,
If your PC takes 3-6 minutes to boot you need to get someone with IT skill in there to fix it. Both my PCs boot in under 30 seconds and take about the same to power down.
A slow booting Windows machine is user error, nothing more.
Jeremy W on September 28, 2008 at 09:45 PM
@ Chad: I had several people (including a 22 year Intel SE) tell me that slow booting and shut down are progressive Windows problems. They can sometimes be cured by deleting the entire hard drive, reinstalling the OS and then all applications and data files.
I had been down that route a few times and got fed up with Bloatfarm stupidity.
I've had a Mac for almost a year. If someone gave me a Windows computer gratis, I would have to consider seriously on whom I would like to sic it. The problem is that I have no enemies to whom I would want to give Vista(ster).
My guess is that Mac will gradually accrete more users who have neither the time or patience or interest in being alpha testers for a blob of sludge called Windows no matter what number you put after it. Considering all the time you are forced to invest in it, a Windows computer is a bad choice: you have long bootups and shut downs; you have constant maintenance problems like defraging and reorging. You have the constant threat of WinRot and you must reinstall the OS each year.
For anyone earning > minimum wage, Windows is a loser; you spend at least 2-5 hours just cleaning up the crapware that manufacturers shove in your face because it is the only profit they can earn. Microsoft extorts all the other profit away.
Gradually, Dell and HP and others are creating "introductory" OSes on top of Vista(ster) to relieve the perception that nothing can be done. The truth is that Vista is a blob of crud that yields noting incrementally an no amount of "introductory work" will change that. (Doubt it? Google Intel and Vista. You will learn that the world's most advanced hardware company wants nothing to do with that boat anchor of an OS called Vista.)
I have friends in the software business who tell users to "upgrade" to XP from Vista because they cannot ever get the performance from Vista that they want.
If I am going to buy extra memory, I'll buy a computer that works and can actually use it for productive work and not just to support the third rate, copied eye candy of Vista.
A slow booting Windows machine is not a user error, it is a Microsoft error; it is called Vista. If you do not believe that, you have lived in a cave for almost two years.
I wish you good day.
UncleRalph on September 28, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I chuckled when I was on Dell's site the other day (looking for Ubuntu boxes) and saw little icons that read, "Looking for Windows XP? Click here." Dell, made a very big deal out of not selling XP after a certain arbitrary date this past August or whenever. I guess they're getting the message.
1) I would rather see MS split the line: A no BS XP-like business operating system for people who use computers to do serious work, and a Like-Wow! operating system that would allow you to download feature-length motion pictures to your toaster with a wave of your bio-metrically vetted hand.
I think you'll find the "multiple environments" almost mutually exclusive.
2) The fact that Windows does not use a friendly efficient package manager is mostly because Windows apps are generally not free. Many, if not most, Linux apps are. I suppose you could have a "get out your credit card" step in the download procedure--or a "Pay now with PayPal" button. It might be cool just to have package manager for free and open source Windows apps only. A lot more people would use them probably if they weren't scared of having to slog through a DOS-like install or--God forbid--build the app with make file.
3) See 1), above. Three versions would suffice:
a) Windows for Business--what it says.
b) Like, Wow! Windows--for all the stuff you dream about doing with Windows that has no practical value whatsoever except to make people go, "Like, wow!" This could be the Ultra-Bloatware or Dancing Bear edition. It wouldn't be important that it did anything well. That it could do some really spectacular stuff at all would be amazing--and enough.
c) Windows for Gamers. Muscleware as opposed to bloatware. Requires 8GB of RAM and uses every byte of it, capable of running eight dual output video cards simultaneously, costs an arm and a leg but who cares? Etc., etc.
The fact that Windows IS spy-ware will always make me wary of it. I'm less worried behind a strong firewall at work, but on a home machine you will never know why the hard drive just started up or why the Ethernet light blinked furiously for a few seconds while you were across the room otherwise occupied. MS keeps files on your machine that you, the owner of the machine, are not "authorized" to see or even get a directory listing of. This is a fact. I might continue to use MS products for compatibility reasons, but I will never trust them and my tendency will always be to avoid them.
Chaz706 on September 28, 2008 at 10:56 PM
I've used XP for a long time. The first real computer I had used 95 and it was ok. 98 was better. Then ME hit, and my dad bought it like a sucker. I think we used it for a good 2 months and realized it was crap. When XP came out, 98 was about to bite the dust. Fortunately, it was loads better than ME.
That said though, XP for all it's good, still hasn't caught back much of the stability that 98 had. Vista's just a piece of Bloatware. If Windows 7 could run in a virtual machine environment, that'd be great. If not, I'm hoping that the WINE project for XP works and switch to an ACTUAL OS, like Linux. I'm sorry Mac Fans, but I've been building PC's since 95, and I'll be damned if I go into the conformist Mac crowd.
ajacksonian on September 29, 2008 at 04:11 AM
Currently on WinXP x64 and have been since SP1. Before that I was Win2K and it is a good and solid design for a number of machines. It is not as small as Linux kernel designs, but runs a plethora of software and, once you get the drivers installed and everything patched it plain just runs. To that end I have used nLite to get all the SPs, updates, and drivers for Win2K onto a bootable CD for new installs on sub-x64 machines.
My main and critical problem with MS is the strange need to change the UI to make it look 'new', when businesses and institutions want very little change in that environment. For those who have a set, and usually very spare UI, MS should be offering those so they work the exact, same way from OS version to OS version with as little fuss as possible. With larger RAM would it be such an effort to 'sandbox' an area for an older OS kernel to run and have a virtual machine to interact with the rest of the system? Cover backwards compatibility in a VM, offer the exact, same UI for those who want simplified training and support, and make the new OS around the VM and make it damned STABLE.
Really, with multi-core processors coming down the pipeline, would it be so much to ask that one core out of two or three or more gets shifted to supporting a VM? Yes, most likely it would. Would users, especially large institutions, like that? Yes, they probably would as they could keep the same code running indefinitely as long as they need it at its current capability and performance level. It is for those reasons I think the WINE folks have a good thing going, and look forward to the future of that. The folks at ReactOS making a clean-room, open source version of WinNT that runs current software is a very, very good thing. And I hope that both of these bite MS in the business model where it hurts.
Steve Macdonald on September 29, 2008 at 04:50 AM
Virtualization can be made seamless and transparent to the user. Sun's VirtualBox can put windows from a different virtualized OS on my Vista desktop (it isn't perfect, but it's very slick). Something like this should allow MS to break free of legacy constraints on core OS.
Mark Alger on September 29, 2008 at 06:38 AM
I'm a content creator. For me, DRM is a showstopper. I'm caching copies of XP Pro in hopes that I can get a few more years out of it with my next round of computers. But, if Miscrosoft keeps trying to force me into that box, I will be forced to seek alternatives. As time goes on, the price premium for Macs begins to look worth-it.
M
DensityDuck on September 29, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Jesus, it's like a time machine back to fourteen years ago when Windows 95 came out. Only the specifics of the complaints have changed, but the general sense of Mac zealotry is here in force.
Mark Alger: As a content creator, you should be right out in front of the DRM development plan. Unless, of course, you expect everyone in the world to just give you money because they think you're a nice guy. PS thought about selling to the Chinese lately? HAHAHAHAHA
Ole Eichhorn on September 29, 2008 at 01:12 PM
I agree with (3) completely, don't care about (1) because it seems like a tool feature, not an OS feature, and don't care about (2) at all (what is it with all the Live stuff I never got it).
There is however only one thing Microsoft must do to make Windows 7 successful, and it is simple. Windows 7 must run faster than XP on all the hardware out there which is currently running XP. That's it, it is pretty simple.