How powerful is the new UI ? To what extent can be customized ?

[sebastian___]

I seem to remember seeing a video a few years ago - with someone from Microsoft saying that the new Windows 7 will be truly great and revolutionary . And then he said something like : it will be truly customizable. And then : "What if I wanna make my windows looking like Windows 3.1 ? (or space age futuristic) Implying that indeed we will have this power to make it look and customize with a great deal of power. Is this true ? Has those times arrived yet ?

We can have this power with W 7 ?

[cluberti]

Technically, the shell can be modified even in Vista (see Stardock's products for example), but you won't necessarily get that from Microsoft.

[computerwizkid]

The logon screen will be able to be customized

in the Win7 RC and will be supported by Microsoft.

However,it will be an OEM feature ,though.

[sebastian___]

The logon screen ???? That's very disappointing. It' like Ford will announce a new revolutionary car in which they have a great news : You will be able to choose the color of the wheel .

I've look into the Stardock products but some friends told me Windows Blinds can make the windows unstable and have compatibility problems with different programs. So - not an option.

But, I don't know, isn't this the way? To be able to customize the windows in which way you see fit ? Nobody will complain anymore. Everyone will be happy. Isn't this the reason people switch from Mac to Windows ? To be able to truly customize your OS ? Instead of "ready from the box" solution. Which sounds great but of course only for people who generally don't like to customize their things.

And as I seen here some discussion about the start menu. Everyone saying the new start menu is more advanced and more desirable. How can be more advanced if it can't be customized and is limited in behaving only in certain ways ?

SO maybe the advanced customizability planed for Windows 7 was delayed for the next generation OS ?

[fizban2]

Windows Presentation Foundation

Support for customizing applications and most likely a starting point for customizing windows in the way you are looking for

[CoffeeFiend]

The logon screen ???? That's very disappointing. It' like Ford will announce a new revolutionary car in which they have a great news : You will be able to choose the color of the wheel .

Yes, because having its GUI's looks being customizable is the only new feature an OS brings

Your comparison is like comparing 2 cars, the old one, and the new one (with ABS brakes, airbags, new/better engine, new/better transmission, better fuel economy, more reliable/breaks less often, better stereo system, comfier seats, more space inside, etc), and somehow you say it's disappointing they only changed the color of the paint.

There's tons of improvements everywhere, just not in terms of appearance "customizability". Most people don't really care about that either (I sure don't). Most people don't even change themes (the sheer amount of XP boxes still using the out-of-the-box bliss theme is simply stunning). Don't hold your breath, it likely won't be the major selling point of any version of Windows in the foreseeable future either.

Nobody will complain anymore. Everyone will be happy.

That won't EVER happen, no matter what they do. You just can't make everybody happy all of the time.

Isn't this the reason people switch from Mac to Windows?

I'd say it's having an actual choice in which hardware you get, WAY more software available (games being a major point for many), cheaper hardware, being able to upgrade your hardware, ... There's tons of reasons.

[sebastian___]

fizban2 - there are tons of links on that page. I don't know what to look for.

CoffeeFiend . I know there are much more upgraded stuff "inside" the windows . But I'm talking about what concerns a regular user. The outside.

I know that most people don't like to customize stuff. But many like to customize their cars, their clothes , their tools (including programs like Autocad and OS) even the color of their homes.

Many who don't customize the windows are beginners. That's understandable. How can they customize something if they don't know the basics yet ? But they will not remain beginners forever .

In fact Vista and Windows 7 looks like were designed with this primary goal in mind. An OS for beginners. And it's like they are saying : Wait - we have another version for you and the rest of advanced users . Here it is : Windows 7 Advanced - or something. But in fact they have only the beginners version.

If you ask a beginner - he doesn't need more options . But instead he will ask you :

How can I do this ?

I would like to increase the windows size by dragging from this . Is it possible ?

Please show me how to make the start menu a little smaller.

And so on...

And most of the times you have to answer . Nope . Sorry. Can't be done. That is not possible either. The windows is not so customizable.

And I really don't know what is wrong with the idea of a Windows with a little more options and choices /

[cluberti]

And I really don't know what is wrong with the idea of a Windows with a little more options and choices /

The problem isn't that it can't be done, it's how complex can the code get and still be supportable? How far do you go? Where's the cutoff point where being customizable becomes too customizable, causing unforseen GUI complications? Not only that, who supports it when it breaks, who maintains the code once the dev group moves on to the next OS project, and how much of this will you have to maintain going forward into the next version?

And really, how large is the userbase that wants this versus the folks who'll be fine using it as-is and will never touch the desktop in any meaningful way? How many machines do you have to see still using the default OEM logo for the wallpaper, let alone changing the UI, before realizing that other than a small vocal minority (probably similar in size to those who will complain that the old Win95 classic interface is gone from Win7 too), no one really actually wants this? Also, how much money should be thrown at considering this, mocking up code that'll run, testing it with focus groups and gathering/parsing usability data from beta testers versus the actual return on that investment of making it a feature?

I know the idea might be nice, but the realities of the world kind of crash down on it.

[sebastian___]

What you said sound logical. And I probably suspected this will be the answer. But then again the Windows Xp was a lot more customizable. For example on Windows explorer you could move things around and change almost every button. You could also remove them , add more. and so on.

What was that then ? A mistake from the programmers ? A marketing mistake ? And silly me - I thought that was only the beginning. Wait to see how much more you can change in Vista and 7.

Edited March 26, 2009 by sebastian___

[cluberti]

The code was also far more primitive, and lacked the ability to do a lot of the "wow" that Win7, for instance, can (the fact that the old Windows GUI *couldn't* do a lot was the reason a company like Stardock existed).

[sebastian___]

I just found out an interesting analogy. Is it really smart to support only the majority and simply ignore the minority ?

There are a few important Video Hosting websites like Metacafe , Youtube and others who offer video only in Flash format. And why not ? The statistics clearly show that 95 percent have flash installed (edit : 99 according to Adobe). That's good business. Why should the websites care about the rest of 5 percent ?

That would be a waste of money , converting all videos in different formats and storing them.

And still there are a number of websites like gametrailers or ted who with generosity allows you to select different formats like mp4 , Quicktime Mov , and even WMV.

So, if I'm on a street somewhere, waiting maybe for the train I can just pull my iphone and watch a video by choosing the mp4 format. Or even more common, maybe I have a new ultra portable laptop with a low power CPU. The low power CPU is a good idea because it allows longer battery time, smaller laptops - but they are enough for music, movies , browsing the internet. But they are not enough for CPU hungry flash videos.

So is it really just good business to support only the majority and simply ignore the minority ?

Edited March 28, 2009 by sebastian___

[cluberti]

So is it really just good business to support only the majority and simply ignore the minority ?

No, but we're talking about a minority when the majority is at least 500 million installed seats (legally licensed, anyway - estimates peg actual installs of Windows at close to double that number). What percentage of those folks (who aren't satiated by, say, Stardock products or the like) need to make it known they want this before it's a minority you have to consider catering to? I understand your analogy, but it doesn't scale to what Microsoft deals with when it comes to features to add or cut, or to not broach at all.