About services, maybe the 2 great choices when we launch Windows is : You need a full version operational ? Or a light one (like for Netbook / Notebook) ?

When “Light one” is enabled, applications which needs some services could be able to fire on the right services needed, sort of virtual On/Off button. Instead of messages like “service unavailable” or obscur information because a service is off (error number 72389)…

Yes, a thrue automatic gearbox for light Windows to more powerful windows…

i didnt know this thanks

http://www.mobile-computing-news.co.uk

At the least he didn’t call the Tablet features a Vista Powertool or Widget.

Sheesh.

One step forward and two steps back.

Bill, “He is talking about a modular approach to an operating system.. so some tailor it to their machine’s needs.” Yes, that was the point of Steven’s post. No, that’s not what this discussion is about.

Oh my god! He is talking about a modular approach to an operating system.. so some tailor it to their machine’s needs.

After reading it 25 times and putting it through a rube goldberg machine it appears what he is really saying is that ford motor company has not made a good engine since the 427 sideoiler. Seriously, read it a few more times, it jumps right out.

Forget about giving the “average joe user” the ability to readily turn off system features. Does anyone remember Windows NT and 2000 ? It was very easy to disable almost any service and device drivers via control panel. With XP Microsoft deliberately “dumbed down” W2K and buried system features several layers deep. The average user would be overwhelmed with the number of system services than Vista has and would screw up their OS in no time. Your typical Windoze user is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. I would would be very wary of giving them an axe to swing inside the OS kernel.

Loren, you may be right. Kevin’s post just made me think about a post on E7 discussing this sort of configurability and James’s recent complaints about Vista’s performance. Although most may not be interested in this kind of thing I believe many would be and those that would generally want to do it when they startup Windows on a new PC for the first time. Anyway, I believe our disagreement was exactly what the E7 post was all about.

Sorry about the rant above, it was way off topic.

I think it was an example that everyone can relate to and understand. The only example that I can think of that might have been better is network services. If I was in an airplane and wanted to save all the battery I can, it would be nice to be able save some CPU cycles by shutting all networking process down.

BAT files are simple and powerful. Let’s quite allowing apps to make hundreds of entries in hundreds of places in the registry. Let’s give each app 5 entries in only one place and then cut um off.

Microsoft’s benefit/curse has been that they’ve always been backwards-compatible. Sometimes it seems that Microsoft fears if they break an old feature, the masses will rise up against them. How many shims did they put into each version of the operating system to maintain backwards-compatibility of prior versions? After all, BAT files still work…

“Nice”, “simple” and “Microsoft” all used in the same sentence. That may be the first time I’ve seen that.

Gordon

Jake, I’m not so sure most users want to configure their systems. Most IT departments yes. Most users no. Now _personalization_ I can see users doing. I also agree that the ability to be able to control the OS is a good thing.

Also, I’ll take to heart the various comments here and on GBM that Sinofsky’s comment is not a big deal. It sounds like several commenters provide IT services and first and foremost they are agreeing with the ability to disable/enable features of the OS and are agnostic about what those features are. Seems reasonable.

I agree with Kevin. I think it would be great for Microsoft to include a nice, simple to use application accessible from the Welcome Screen that allows you to pick modules/features that you do/don’t want installed. This would allow users to configure Windows at a high level when they first start it up thus combatting a lot of the complaints about how hard it is to tweak the OS.

A screen like this would prevent Jo Public from having to dig around in the Services or Programs and Features applets to turn off components that they don’t need. It wouldn’t have to include all services or programs like IIS, just the main ones like Tablet PC components, Readyboost, etc. that a user may not need.

My take: he used a readily apparent example of feature modularity. Nothing more, nothing less. Since Tablet PC functionality is likely among the least used Windows features overall, I think it was the easiest and most effective example to use. Feature modules are a good thing in my opinion, and if personalized disabling of features can help performance, I’m all for it.

I disagree that he’s saying it doesn’t matter or any other interpretation that it will disappear.

To me, Sinofsky is saying that he doesn’t like TPC functionality on that system, so turning it off improves performance, but on a 12.1″ or larger form-factor, he would leave it on, because he prefers that size screen for note-taking.

I think the TPC market is fantastic, and I want to see it grow, but turning every comment into a fanatic’s viewpoint isn’t going to win over any critics. Stop and read his article again and think about it more thoroughly.

Check out the thread at GBM for proof from Steven that tablet PCs won’t be dropped in Windows 7.