Windows 7 -- Approach to System Performance
Many folks have commented and written email about the topic of performance of Windows. The dialog has been wide ranging—folks consistently want performance to improve (of course). As with many topics we will discuss, performance, as absolute and measurable as it might seem, also has a lot of subtlety. There are many elements and many tradeoffs involved in achieving performance that meets everyone’s expectations. We know that even meeting expectations, folks will want even more out of their Windows PCs (and that’s expected). We’ve re-dedicated ourselves to work in this area in Windows 7 (and IE 8). This is a major initiative across each of our feature teams as well as the primary mission of one of our feature teams (Fundamentals). For this post, I just wanted to frame the discussion as we dig into the topic of performance in subsequent posts. Folks might find this post on IE8 performance relevant along with the beta 2 release of IE 8.
Performance is made up of many different elements. We could be talking about response time to a specific request. It might mean how much RAM is “typical” or what CPU customers need. We could be talking about the clock time to launch a program. It could mean boot or standby/resume. It could mean watching CPU activity or disk I/O activity (or lack disk activity). It could mean battery life. It might even mean something as mundane as typical disk footprint after installation. All of these are measures of performance. All of these are systematically tracked during the course of development. We track performance by running a known set of scenarios (there are thousands of these) and developers can run specific scenarios based on exercising more depth or breadth. The following represent some (this is just a partial list) of the metrics we are tracking and while developing Windows 7:
- Memory usage – How much memory a given scenario allocates during a run. As you know, there is a classic tradeoff in time v. space in computer science and we’re not exempt. We see this tradeoff quite a bit in caches where you can use more memory (or disk space) in order to improve performance or to avoid re-computing something.
- CPU utilization – Clearly, modern microprocessors offer enormous processing power and with the advent of multiple cores we see the opportunity for more parallelism than ever before. Of course these resources are not free so we measure the CPU utilization across benchmark runs as well. In general, the goal should be to keep the CPU utilization low as that improves multi-user scenarios as well as reduces power consumption.
- Disk I/O – While hard drives have improved substantially in performance we still must do everything we can do minimize the amount that Windows itself does in terms of reading and writing to disk (including paging of course). This is an area receiving special attention for Windows 7 with the advent of solid state storage devices that have dramatically different “characteristics”.
- Boot, Shutdown, Standby/Resume – All of these are the source of a great deal of focus for Windows 7. We recognize these can never be fast enough. For these topics the collaboration with the PC manufacturers and hardware makers plays a vital role in making sure that the times we see in a lab (or the performance you might see in a “clean install”) are reflected when you buy a new PC.
- Base system – We do a great deal to measure and tune the base system. By this we mean the resource utilization of the base system before additional software is loaded. This system forms the “platform” that defines what all developers can count on and defines the system requirements for a reasonable experience. A common request here is to kick something out of the base system and then use it “on demand”. This tradeoff is one we work on quite a bit, but we want to be careful to avoid the situation where the vast majority of customers face the “on demand” loading of something which might reduce perceived performance of common scenarios.
- Disk footprint – While not directly related to runtime performance, many folks see the footprint of the OS as indicative of the perceived performance. We have some specific goals around this metric and will dive into the details soon as well. We’ll also take some time to explain \Windows\WinSxS as it is often the subject of much discussion on technet and msdn! Here rather than runtime tradeoffs we see convenience tradeoffs for things like on disk device drivers, assistance content, optional Windows components, as well as diagnostics and logging information.
We have criteria that we apply at the end of our milestones and before we go to beta and we won’t ship without broadly meeting these criteria. Sometimes these criteria are micro-benchmarks (page faults, processor utilization, working set, gamer frame rates) and other times they are more scenario based and measure time to complete a task (clock time, mouse clicks). We do these measurements on a variety of hardware platforms (32-bit or 64-bit; 1, 2, 4GB of RAM; 5400 to 7200 RPM or solid-state disks; a variety of processors, etc.) Because of the inherent tradeoffs in some architectural approaches, we often introduce conditional code that depends on the type of hardware on which Windows is running.
On the one hand, performance should be straight forward—use less, do less, have less. As long as you have less of everything performance should improve. At the extreme that is certainly the case. But as we have seen from the comments, one person’s must-have is another person’s must-not-have. We see this a lot with what some on have called “eye candy”—we get many requests to make the base user interface “more fun” with animations and graphics (“like those found on competing products”) while at the same time some say “get rid of graphics and go back to Windows 2000”. Windows is enormously flexible and provides many ways to tune the experience. We heard lots on this forum about providing specific versions of Windows customized for different audiences, while we also heard quite a bit about the need to reduce the number of versions of Windows. However, there are limits to what we can provide and at the same time provide a reliable “platform” that customers and developers can count on and is robust and manageable for a broad set of customers. But of course within a known context (within your home or within a business running a known set of software) it will always be possible to take advantage of the customization and management tools Windows has to offer to tune the experience. The ability to have choice and control what goes on in your PC is of paramount importance to us and you will see us continue to focus on these attributes with Windows 7.
By far the biggest challenge in delivering a great PC experience relative to performance is that customers keep using their PCs to do more and more things and rightfully expect to do these things on the PC they own by just adding more and more software. While it is definitely the case that Windows itself adds functionality, we work hard to pick features that we believe benefit the broadest set of customers. At the same time, a big part of Windows 7 will be to continue to support choice and control over what takes place in Windows with respect to the software that is provided, what the default handlers are for file types and protocols, and providing a platform that makes it easy for end-users to personalize their computing experience.
Finally, it is worth considering real world versus idealized settings. In order to develop Windows we run our benchmarks in a lab setting that allows us to track specifically the code we add and the impact that has. We also work closely with the PC Manufacturers and assist them in benchmarking their systems as they leave the factory. And for true real-world performance, the Microsoft Customer Experience Improvement Program provides us (anonymous, private, opt-in) data on how machines are really doing. We will refer to this data quite a bit over the next months as it forms a basis for us to talk about how things are really working, rather than using anecdotes or less reliable forms of information.
In our next post we will look at startup and boot performance, and given the interest we will certainly have more to say about the topic of performance.
--Steven
Comments
Anonymous
August 27, 2008
A great post about the complexity oif making the choice, but how about this for a simple guiding principle: On a 2Gb Core 2 system, no feature/function should be slower than it was on a 1G Pentium M XP system. This is certainly not the case today and why many of us have said performance is issue #1.Anonymous
August 27, 2008
Well, I am going to stick my neck out here and say that I loved the improvements to Vista for standby and resume. It is very fast, and it improved further in SP1. For resume, it looks like the screen display is restored first, and then the other devices - (good psychology to make it seem faster!) but if I was to ask for one improvement, it is that the screen comes up with a password prompt in my case, but the keyboard takes its time to be resumed/restored, so I am left pressing keys trying to input my password, trying to see if the keyboard is working yet. Perhaps the keyboard could be restored as the second device? My system is an HP laptop, nc8430 running Vista 32 and a pretty much standard HP config. Cheers folks.Anonymous
August 27, 2008
PLS no Crapware in WIndows 7 (OEM productor)Anonymous
August 27, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 27, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 27, 2008
Here's my take on Windows performance: A clean install of Windows performs very well. Over time, Windows performance degrades. In my opinion this is Windows weakest area, and you didn't address it here. Why does Windows slow down over time, and more importantly, how can Windows protect itself from this? If you can eliminate having to "re-pave" your system every year to regain the performance that a fresh install gives, now that would be a reason to upgrade.Anonymous
August 27, 2008
You say that a must have feature for one user is a no-no for another. Why not provide the option to the user - split the OS up at setup so the user chooses what they want. If they want the pretty fun UI, let them have it, if they want the windows 2000 UI, let it be.Anonymous
August 27, 2008
Memory usage – How much memory a given scenario allocates during a run. As you know, there is a classic tradeoff in time v. space in computer science and we’re not exempt. So is important to react when something is as slow or slower and takes the double of the space. What I would really like to see in this blog is a roadmap. So far I've read a bunch of excuses on how difficult it is to please everyone when asking totally different things. So, I guess that is up to you to choose what is really important (eg: eye candy vs speed and usability) and stick to it! The worst that can happen is something like vista that does not seem to please either group and get stuck somewhere in the middle. Don't get me wrong.. this discussion you are having here is important.. but meaningless if no conclusions are taken.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
Performance is a real tricky subject. Sometimes it's measurable, you can time stuff. Other times it's subjective, "it just feels slow" One of the plus points to Vista in my opinion is that the GUI is snappy and responsive. Others that maybe don't have the hardware complain that it's fat slow useless eye candy. A point I have mentioned in other replays, If a cheap Dell laptop can handle Vista and your PC can't you are running the wrong OS for your hardware. New versions of Windows is for new computers. So please no more calls for Win7 to run on old kit! and then mention the poor performance... One type of performance that hasn't been mentioned is one of productivity. Not the OS but the user! If the GUI is complicated or causes the user to do stuff in a strange way it becomes a barrier to productivity. A well designed GUI should be an aid to productivity. How much faster does a computer feel if you can quickly get a task completed. How bad dose it feel if you have to do battle with your PC to get stuff done. So a snappy and responsive desktop with a task orientated GUI. I would like the opportunity to define what those tasks are. Even complicated multi step stuff with a single click once I have set it up. Most of the rest of the stuff, the hardware will take up the slack. This shouldn't be used to cover poor code or sloppy integration of moduals. But no one sets out to wright sloppy code. Please don't fall pray to the nay sayers that call for Win7 to run fast on slow computers. If you do we will not get the feature rich Windows experience we have come to expect from MS. It has to be super fantastic with eye candy, toys, productivity. Because you charge for your product, and charge a lot in a market where nobody else does...Anonymous
August 28, 2008
You have time to make W7 closer to perfection. I believe performance is #1 perfection point. There are many problems with WV performance, and that's because, i believe, there were a lot of 'macro-optimizations', instead of 'micro-optimizations' which were favored before.
- Spend more time polishing. There is too much small things were done badly in WV, and team leaders must know (otherwise what leaders they are?!)
- Optimize common code. Count how much different PNG/JPG 'codec' implementations are in WV? I can count about 10.
- Remove dead resources and files hanging from alphas/betas/DOS-81...
- Throw WinSxS please. That was the worst design decision ever possible. The closest example i can think of are cheap game makers filling files with random bytes to make game cost more CDs and more money.
Anonymous
August 28, 2008
Quoting: "On the one hand, performance should be straight forward—use less, do less, have less. As long as you have less of everything performance should improve. At the extreme that is certainly the case." I just about hit the floor when I read those two lines. When, exactly, is this NOT the case?! The less CPU time, disk time, memory is being used up by background processes, the more nimble the system should be in running on-demand processes.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
I can think of a case when using MORE means better performance. At a given point in time unused RAM can be sheer waste. If an OS utilises some of that "unused" RAM by preloading certain things so that when we need to use them we don't have for wait them to be read from hard disk. Because the RAM was NOT being used, it didn't impact performance and preloading saved our time and improved performance. If the user requires RAM for any process that wasn't already loaded in RAM and the available RAM wasnt sufficient, the OS should be able to release that RAM it used for preloading. This is exactly what Vista does, I believe. And that is why I like it. And I am only an accountant.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
Perhaps, since Microsoft is intent on following some of Apple's paths (I know, they won't admit that, and I understand), they could do what the Mac OS does for applications and do away with the registry altogether. Have applications maintain their own settings and info themselves. This would eliminate hostile take-overs by drive-by downloads or rogue applications installed by third party applications. For OS specific configurations, have a skeletal hive that maintains a minimum of settings and the rest are handled by the apps themselves. This would greatly improve performance, since I've noticed that the registry is about 40% the reason for performance slow-downs over time. Mostly because uninstalled apps tend to leave drops of their blood in there even though they were removed.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
I think Microsoft should definitely think about shiping only two Windows versions. A "Personnal" and a "Professionnal" one. Then, once I buy a version, I can select during the installation which use I generally make of Windows. For example, if I want "Ultimate" I'll just buy a "Personnal" Windows and then do an "Advanced" installation which will allow me to "Select All" features or to choose specific features to install. Someone who uses his computer only for entertainement (games, media, etc.) will also buy "Personnal" Windows but choose a "Games and Media" installation. I think this would really make our lifes much easier and we would be very thankful if purchasing and installing windows becomes just as "clear ans easy" as this. Plus, by doing this, you're satisfying the guy who wants a lot of versions as well as the guy who just wants few versions.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
One of the most annoying performance strategies I find in Windows is the tendency of the file system cache to take most of the memory, even the memory currently in use by programs. Or perhaps it's the other way around: the tendency for the memory manager to keep paging out the processes' memory even when it's not quite necessary. This might be difficult to experience in the kind of performance tests done in laboratories. I usually leave 8-12 applications open (some of them being 20-30 open tabs browsers... yes, browser/S/). I don't reboot my PC for weeks (thanks XP for being so stable!) nor close any of those programs if I can help it. Typically, after performing long file system operations (like copying/creating large files, watching a movie, etc.), most applications become paged out. I certainly don't want more than 512M of my 2GB used in file system caching, and even less in a single large file I will only need to access once. Since Windows 2003 server SP1 there is the SetSystemFileCacheSize() system call, which I tried to use with not much luck. I have some proposals about this, which you might want to consider (these are my own thoughts, which I hereby donate to the public domain):File system cache should limit the amount of blocks it caches for each file; that can be achieved in the read/write system calls, by counting the amount of bytes sequencially read/written and switching to a "no cache" mode after a certain threshold. Of course, scattered read/writes should be properly cached as they most probably come from some kind of database system. For video playback programs, perhaps a more refined strategy would be to cache only the latest blocks, to speed up the ocassional temporary rewind, but that's more difficult to implement.
I don't have in-depth knowledge of the Windows memory system, but it seems it tends to page out text and data from programs even if the memory is not immediately needed. If that's the case, then that memory shouldn't be immediately recalled as free; if, for example, that memory is paged out in order to speed up a potential hybernate process, it doesn't mean it's not still there and ready to be used by the process. Anyway, Windows should make its best effort to avoid paging out process memory; there is an old performance setting "Optimize for programs server", but the "Programs" setting doesn't quite cut it. PS: My currently open programs are: Opera Browser (18 tabs), Visual Studio 2005 + Help, MS Outlook 2003, WinCVS, Total Commander (three windows + several tabs), Word Magic Tools, Adobe Reader, EmEditor (3 documents) Calculator, Winamp, Miranda (3 accounts), OfficeScan, SoundControl, totaling about ~1GB VM size. Many programs have 30~70% memory blocks paged out. I have 2GB of memory.
Anonymous
August 28, 2008
There's another idea I forgot to mention in my previous comment:When idle for some time, Windows should get back from the page file all the blocks paged out from interactive processes.
Anonymous
August 28, 2008
"While it is definitely the case that Windows itself adds functionality, we work hard to pick features that we believe benefit the broadest set of customers." Have you ever thought about turning the tables on this one? Let customers pick the features they believe would benefit them? Kind of like the sidebar feature in vista, where people can search through a database of widgets they can add to the sidebar. Provide users with the bare minimum, the core of windows, then provide them with a database (with good explanations of what the feature is and does) so they themselves can pick what they feel/think is necesarry. For someone who writes alot, he could add tablet software, language packs, writing tools etc, while someone who only plays games could just add support for old/new games, directx and stuff. Pants optional is the way to go!Anonymous
August 28, 2008
@sniper511 -- Hi there. I am sorry I might not have been totally clear for you. The basic view is that more can be less--background and caches are two examples of where using more CPU or more memory for something means using "more" but those both can make things faster (not appear faster, but actually be faster). That's the tradeoff I was referring to. The broader point (@wolferey, for example) is that I think we're seeing that there is one thread of feedback that says to start from some definition of minimum and then build things up from there--we're definitely in sync on understanding this. Today in Windows Vista we have two ways to do that--first you can pick Windows Home Basic and add your own software, or you can pick a more "feature-oriented" version. With that you can then customize what is running through the "Windows Features" control panel (or via other means available within Windows depending on the feature). Most of the items mentioned by many people can be turned off along those lines (tablet PC, speech, language support, etc.), some features can be controlled via options (sidebar and gadgets, indexing) and then there are many of the user-interface elements that can be altered via the advanced performance settings. And "Set Your Default Programs" can make sure that you launch only the software you want to launch for any given protocol/file type (for pictures, for example). --StevenAnonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
Thanks, wonderful detailed post, I really appreciate the time you spend on the community (but were still thirsty for knowledge ^^). I think the problems you adressed could be solved by just give the user a bit more configuration options. For example if I´d like to "tune" my system without buying new hardware I have very few options: Switch to Win2000 style - never. Defrag...doesnt really help..by the way, got worse with Vista, still too less options and not as powerful as other apps. What else ? The "Performance Information and Tools" dialog is quite nice, helps a bit. But what I think would was really cool: modular windows. Please, tell us if its doable. So many people I know would like to turn things off, just to alleviate the system a bit. Take a look at vLite - THIS should be integrated into Windows 7.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
I think what hits most people in terms of performance is the initial boot into the OS, If MS somehow could control what applications are loaded on startup we wouldnt have so many complaints of windows being so slow. At the moment every software house wants to load an 'updater' tool into startup...seems to be in fashion i think?lol, it just means that windows boots slow. I think if windows made that part of the registry protected then that may help.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
Most people I know today rarely ever shut down their computer because it takes too long. They just leave it running. I liked Vista's improvements to shutdown but it took a while to figure out what different features were. For example, there is now sleep, hibernation and hybrid sleep, sometimes only one of these options appears on the shut down menu while other times, there may be more. This could be very confusing to the average user. Also, by default, the power button on the start menu does not shut down the computer which makes no sense to me and it is also hard to change this setting.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
Great post, many thanks...quick question here, how can I become a Windows 7 Beta Tester? Thanks - Keith Johnson, Hallandale, FL kcjwriter@hotmail.comAnonymous
August 28, 2008
Very informative and well written. A couple of things tho:
- The reason that one would turn off eye candy shouldn't generally be because of bad performance, as is the case with Vista. The reason should be solely due to aesthetic preference.
- Let's make sure the reasoning presented isn't seen as excuses. I think people want to see Microsoft recognize that it can do far better rather than delivering more of the same.
Anonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
Mr Steven is possible in future testing Windows 7 Beta or RC ? i have 3 PC for testing Enthusiast Notebook Dell XPS1530 and OLD PC (in my old PC work fine Vista Ultimate) THX DomenicoAnonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
Is there any metrics used in terms of how much power is being consumed? Both in terms of how much of the electricity from the power supply is being used as a percentage as well as an absolute figure? Will the energy consumption used in having higher performance be something that Windows 7 tries to manage, e.g. a game only needs half of the full CPU power as it bottlenecks on the GPU and so the O/S can ask the CPU to turn itself down to run at half speed and be more power efficient. JBAnonymous
August 28, 2008
I Jus'Want A "Button" I Can Click On That Says,... "Optimize Windows 7 For Web Surfing" (Then, The Speed/Performance Thing In That, Web Surfing Optimization, Would Be A Given.)Anonymous
August 28, 2008
Have I missed something ? Is it already time to talk about performance ? Ok, its good to have an eye on performance all the time, but I thought that there are some major things to do. Maybe performance will increase if the system architecture changes a little bit. There are things to be fixed like program installation, windows attractivity for malware, compatibility issues - all the things people talked about in their comments. Its always a good idea to make it work and then to make it fast. What about an analysis to find out why do people say windows is slow and what is the reason for this. To be up to date with the discussion I just installed Vista SP1. Its installed within a virtual machine, the only place for vista at the moment (IMHO). But I noticed Vista eats a lot of processing power, even when its idle, while running windows xp within a virtual machine is pleasant. So maybe it is a good starting point to ask why...Anonymous
August 28, 2008
If you talk about performance now, does that mean there will be no significant changes to the system ? I'm asking since if there will be major changes, it seems like a bad idea to fine tune performance and afterwards change parts of the system. So will Windows 7 be a Vista SE ?Anonymous
August 28, 2008
Hi, I think, that this is very good topic. Let's run Windows NT 4 on modern computer (of course, I assume, that it will be possible to run it) and Vista on the same computer. And compare them - in Vista there are many modules for increasing performance and NT doesn't need them... I understand, that creating something bigger in plain assembler is today maybe not possible. But maybe techniques and technologies used for creating Vista were not good...and you should start from changing them... And once again: people want small core, which will separate applications and which will not be slower after year or two because of a lot of missed files and entries (after uninstalled applications). Remove all stuff, which is not liked by people and which doesn't work like expected (like DRM) and which will make core (much) slower. Let's start from it and various prefetchers and other things simply will be not required. Without it you shouldn't go into next part of Windows 7 project. Additionally - do you remember how slow was Windows 98 when compare it to WIndows 95. People were speaking about integrating IE with system in many bad words. When this and other integrations will be removed in current system, performance will be definitely better :)Anonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
@pavelmaha hey, this is my Dell XPS 1530 with Vista Ultimate x86 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXS-BfTGn7gAnonymous
August 28, 2008
I Believe That, The Most Perceptible Change In System Speed/Performance Can Be "Easily" Demonstrated On This Very Engineering Windows 7 : Windows 7 -- Approach to System Performance Webpage! ...& That, Would Be That, In Order To Get The Most Current Content (Changes) Here, (i.e. The Comments Posted Below This Comment), You Still, In The Year 2008, Have To "Reload" The Whole, Entire Webpage (File)... ...As Opposed To Staying On This Webpage, On ReLoad & Jus'Importing The "New" Information/Changes (Like, i.e. Stock Quotes, Which Have Been Possible For Years, Now)!!! Do You Have Any Idea How Much Time Has Been Lost Over The Years "ReLoading & ReLoading & ReLoading & ReLoading... Ad Infinitum" The Whole, Entire Webpage (File)... ...Jus'To Get The "Current" Changes? eNuff of The Hood Ornaments, Already!!! Importing Jus'The "Changes" To The Webpage/(File) & Not The Whole, Entire Webpage/(File) On ReLoad Would Have a Signficant Impact On @Least The Perception of Speed/Performance of Windows 7/IE8! Agree? *Cross Posted To... IEBlog : Part II: Better Everyday Browsing http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/08/28/part-ii-better-everyday-browsing.aspxAnonymous
August 28, 2008
There is no question that Microsoft software, and Windows in particular, has gotten more bloated over the years due, I believe, to a combination of poor management and a lack of coding discipline. All too often, developers just shrug and say that faster CPUs and more memory will take care of larger, less efficient, but easier to write, algorithms. Unfortunately, when this attitude runs through all 40 or whatever development groups, the bloat and slowness very quickly add up. Unfortunately, too many managers don't respect the engineering process, despite giving lip service to it, and don't insist on quality nor give the time to developers to actually produce quality code. The very fact that Vista SP1 offered significant improvements in copy operations is proof positive of this thesis. One other advantage of code discipline: fewer bugs. And that saves lots of money.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
I have noticed that some of the users aren't very well aware of Vista's features or negative press that Vista got alienated them. One commentator above writes, "..make a smart option where system automatically defragmenting disk in the background, with user having to ask them to do it when system is sluggish..." Isn't this what Vista does? It performs automated scheduled de-fragmentation and it doesn't even have to be completed at one time and perhaps peaks when system is idle. I think MS has to better highlight specific features and improvements in a very specific way. And jbking made a very good point about power consumption. If Windows can manage power even more smartly it would mean better performance specially for laptops since battery hours are limited.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
Thanks for the very complete paper on system performance. I learned a lot and hope to keep learning as Windows 7 testing approaches.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
I wrote a long comment so I split it up in sections here it goes: First I would like to address the fine people who comment on this blog. Comments like “make it better” or “make it faster” aren’t really helpful, but they add to the clutter and make it more difficult to find good ideas in the comments, also please read through the comments and if you find your idea expressed in more than three comments please don’t repeat it for the thousandth time, just think about something else. Thank you. Now a few observations on the raised issues: SKU Management: is a Marketing task, the Engineering department doesn’t have much to do with this decision I would imagine, it’s not an engineering task, it concerns me too little (since I used XP Pro and now Vista Ultimate), but to set a few things straight: There is only one Vista DVD, no matter what you install there I only ONE Vista DVD, there are no Basic, Premium, Business, Enterprise and Ultimate DVD’s there is only ONE DVD, the edition you install depends on the serial number you purchased, and you can upgrade using the same DVD depending on the serial number you enter at setup, the setup option of what to install is made when you decide which license (SKU) you buy. (Tip: If you can’t decide, get a free trial from Microsoft, it contains the different versions, install the ones you’re interested in and then make an informed decision) As for having only one version, that idea is only good for Vista Ultimate users and the Windows Engineering team, because what the different versions do is save customers money by not making them pay for features they don’t use. Why would home users have business and developer features and what would businesses do with Media Center or Movie Maker? More importantly why would they pay for them and have them take up space on the drive? By now, the people who suggested a customized install where people would just install the features they need, are thinking I’m trying to prove their point, no. The Vista setup installs over 6GB of OS in 20 to 30 minutes and it does that by just unzipping an OS image and sets up drivers and options on top of that base image, ISV’s, IT pros and users are happy with the simple, mostly unattended and fast setup procedure, by contrast the XP setup installs 2GB in 20-30 minutes. So if you just want a basic Windows without eye candy use Basic, if you are a typical home user use Home Premium, and so forth.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
The biggest enhancement you can make is, (as someone already pointed out), make Windows retain performance even after months of usage. I understand that this is not magically possible because leftover registry entries, growing registry size due to growing list of installed apps and piling log files all slow down Windows but Microsoft has never attempted to prevent any of these. (Windows Disk Protection as part of Shared Computer Toolkit/SteadyState and virtualization undo disks are nice attempts). After several months of usage, typically the most memory consuming processes on my system are usually the Shell which slows down upon adding shell extensions, non plug and play drivers, IE because of IE addins which even when disabled affect IE's performance and the startup times of all I/O intensive apps. Maybe MS can add a 'Windows Registry Protection' to SteadyState which deliberately makes it lose all changes upon reboot?Anonymous
August 28, 2008
Another major turnoff I discovered in Vista is that it uses WinSxS not only to store side-by-side assemblies but also to store files protected by Windows Resource Protection and maintains multiple copies of those files (along with ridiculously long horrible names) which are updated by hotfixes/service packs. The servicing stack (Package Manager) howsoever it is designed always performs much much slower than its previous incarnation (Update.exe). Installing hotfixes is slow, every hotfix needs to be 'configured' before logon and logoff. Whatever maybe the case (poor design or simply another tradeoff), installing updates/hotfixes should not take this kind of approach. Also, the growing footprint of the WinSxS folder is a living example of how Microsoft has no concern about disk space on end users' drives and you've simply assumed modern disk drives are large enough to make disk space an issue. I've come to associate Vista with an OS that doesn't get right updating itself. The WinSxS folder doesn't seem to be a tradeoff in either time or space. (And yeah I have read http://blog.tiensivu.com/aaron/archives/1306-Demystifying-the-WinSxS-directory-in-Windows-XP,-Vista-and-Server-20032008.html but WinSxS doesn't perform the same way as in previous OSes, it does something more in Vista). Something seriously needs to be done about WinSxS and the servicing stack, I agree with one of the above posters that it's the worst architectural part of the OS.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 28, 2008
I hope Microsoft will really try to address performance of redesigned apps in Vista (e.g. the abominable Disk Defragmenter, Windows Mail performance, slow as ever Windows Media Player), again rewrite the servicing stack in Windows 7 to have the fastest performance that even exceeds that of Update.exe, makes Windows 7's UI highly customizable (TweakUI, where are you?). As for number of editions, you could merge Starter and Home Basic and keep them for new markets. The Starter/Home Basic can be power optimized for laptops, 3 mainstream editions (Home, Professional (again merge the Business/Enterprise SKUs) and Ultimate balance out things. The Home edition can be the media/gamer-oriented one. Another minor aspect is the features of the OS aren't correctly distributed across the SKUs, for example, for some insane reason, the Business edition doesn't have BitLocker, and the Unix subsystem! (what value does it give me in upgrading if XP Professional can get Services for Unix?). Home Premium doesn't have Fax?, EFS!, Previous versions?, Complete PC Backup, RDP Host/Server?, Local Group Policy (at least)! Lastly, another change of approach I would like to see in Microsoft's attitude with respect to what it calls 'feature design change'. I think Microsoft can really carefully watch the market for issues which users have and agree with unanimously with the current product and ship solutions in the form of powertoys, hotfixes or service packs. Waiting for the next release to get some major blunders right besides bugs doesn't add value to those who've purchased the current product already and are not happy with it.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
While re-engineering alot of other stuff under the hood, could we please see somekind of application-bundles (like osx) with an folder representing an application, preferably combined with something like a registry-root named HKEY_CURRENT_APPLICATION that stores it's settings inside that bundle, so we finally can move applications around without breaking their configuration... - or force us developers to use inifiles again. Oh, and while you're at it, separating the ui/kernel and making the ui very open to customization would be really fun :)Anonymous
August 28, 2008
"The Vista setup installs over 6GB of OS in 20 to 30 minutes and it does that by just unzipping an OS image and sets up drivers and options on top of that base image, ISV’s, IT pros and users are happy with the simple, mostly unattended and fast setup procedure, by contrast the XP setup installs 2GB in 20-30 minutes." What is the point of this thinking? That Vista is capable of installing 6GB of mostly useless stuff on your HD in same time, while XP installs only 2G in the same amount of time? How about if Vista would install the 2G of data it (the user) needs, and takes the 20 minutes for that? Would that be reasonable? Would that be right? I think so.Anonymous
August 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 29, 2008
As a developer and am quite dissatisfied with Windows Vista. Windows 7 should be very fast, not a resource hog like Vista. No eye candies should be installed by default on Business editions of Windows 7. And please give us more reasons to upgrade, more handy features and innovations. And just keep about three editions of Windows 7--Home Premium, Business and ultimate. And for those who want eye candies (home premium and Ultimate), please make more eye popping animations and stunning graphics for Windows 7 (let it be OS X killer). We would love to see Office 2007's ribbons integrated in Windows 7 explorer and that's what am expecting. Hopefully Windows 7 will have all those features and many new ones too. ThanksAnonymous
August 29, 2008
To add to the mix here are the most important points I'd like to see addressed:
- A universal updater. As a previous poster touched upon every application these days seems to have it's own updater to automatically download and install bug fixes, new features, etc. The OS should provide a simple mechanism for this similar to the one included with some Linux distros such as Ubuntu. This would prevent a lot of annoying popups and system tray balloons as well as developers having to 'reinvent the wheel'.
- Several previous posters have mentioned there many MS applications that do the same thing, I agree this should be sorted. Is there no-one responsible for looking at the 'big picture'? My biggest annoyance in this area is with calendars and contacts. Vista provides perfectly good calendar and contacts functionality but I can't sync this with my PocketPC (which is running a version of Windows), instead I have to install Office which provides another calendar and contacts which will sync with my PPC. Not everyone has/wants to install Office you know!
- GUI consistency - Vista looks disjointed because each part uses different GUI paradigms. Again it seems there was no-one looking at the 'big picture'. How can 3rd party developers be expected to produce applications for Vista with a consistent GUI when MS can't even manage this with the OS itself?
- Ditch the registry. I realise this would be a huge amount of work but as others have said would help alleviate the gradual system slow-down over time.
Anonymous
August 29, 2008
I have spent much time discussing performance with users of all stripes - love Windows, hate Windows, indifferent to it. Strongly technical, wannabe technical, nontechnical. My feeling is that the biggest problem around performance is that people don't really understand how to put it into perspective. Windows actually has a wonderful perf measuring tool (PerfMon), but few people - even technical ones - few people take the time to learn and understand it. It's a deep topic. So I (humbly!) suggest that you set aside a few people to rethink performance visualization and explanation. The Experience Index is too simplistic; PerfMon too complex. TaskMan is often misinterpreted (especially the memory numbers; few people understand the concept of backing store). Maybe some middle ground? I'd love to see some sort of pie graph, or group of pie graphs, which allow a middle-of-the road user to instantly spot which programs are using the most cpu/ram/disk/network. Importantly, these graphs need to be able to show all programs, not just Windows and its services. In many 'Windows slow' complaints, the real slowdown is actually some 3rdparty program. Users need to be able to see and quickly understand where the hogs are. Over and over we hear people talking about 'bit rot' and 'stuffed registry'; these are mainly illusory pictures painted by people who aren't able to tell what's really going on. Give them the tools, and less-technical overview docs, and they'll start to have a better understanding of reality. Additionally, I was very sad to see BootVis go away. We need that (or something like it - maybe with those piegraph views) back again. We also need a ShutdownVis, so we can see what's causing those 5 minute shutdowns. Startup and shutdown are, as you say, very important to the overall performance perception. Thanks for hosting the dialog, Mr. Sinofsky. It's valuable!Anonymous
August 29, 2008
Nice post TheNetAvenger !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GREATAnonymous
August 29, 2008
Couple things to add to my prior post: First, I do love Perfmon in its present form, so in no way am I suggesting it should be replaced with simpler tools. It could be extended, or an additional tool created, but hopefully Perfmon's existing features wouldn't go away. Also, I wanted to take note of a couple of missing perfmon counters I have always wanted to see. All in the Process object: Process/disk IO: per process counters for disk IO in megabytes/sec and/or as averages over last sample period. If there were another counter which expressed this as 'percentage of current disk queue length', that would rock! Process/paging counters:Anonymous
August 29, 2008
Couple things to add to my prior post: First, I do love Perfmon in its present form, so in no way am I suggesting it should be replaced with simpler tools. It could be extended, or an additional tool created, but hopefully Perfmon's existing features wouldn't go away. Also, I wanted to take note of a couple of missing perfmon counters I have always wanted to see. All in the Process object: Process/disk IO: per process counters for disk IO in megabytes/sec and/or as averages over last sample period. If there were another counter which expressed this as 'percentage of current disk queue length', that would rock! Process/paging counters:Anonymous
August 29, 2008
Oops, sorry, that last post got submitted too soon. Here's the rest. Process/paging counters: Right now you can't see page-ins or page-outs, broken down by which process is causing them. This data would be invaluable! Process/network counters: and continuing on a theme, network IO broken down on a per-process basis. Process/CPU queue. We do have the %CPU counter on a per-process bases. Would be nice to also be able to see which processes have the longest CPU queue lengths. The general thrust here is, essentially the computer has four main resources we want to use effectively: CPU, memory, disk, and network. If we could clearly see how each process is using these resources, we'd have a lot better understanding of how to intelligently shed the load when the system isn't as performant as we'd like.Anonymous
August 29, 2008
I second the fact that 3rd party programs are usually the culprit. The Mojave experiment proved it clearly. Vista is up to the users expectancy. So Microsoft has to find a way to struggle with these 3rd party applications which put the Windows brand reputation at risk. A desirable idea is to extend the signed drivers concept to 3rd party applications. You should put in place a certificate program enforcing strict energy and efficiency rules to deliver a "WHQL" like signature in 3rd party applications. So ideally, if a user wants to launch an unsigned application, Windows 7 would warn him in a UAC way, warning him about power consumption and explaining him the impediment towards the efficiency of the OS.Anonymous
August 29, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 29, 2008
Philcm - the background defragger is optional already. Just open the defrag program and turn off the automatic scheduling if you're going to be doing a video conference. It should never run while you're playing a game, since it only runs when the system is idle.Anonymous
August 29, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 29, 2008
I would really really love it if Microsoft actually gave it's consumers the option to do a customer install alongside the express install option. What I mean by this is things like Windows Media Player, Live Messenger, Windows Mail, Internet Explorer, SmartCard, etc. should be optional to the consumer. Why must I have every single program and/or service and/or process installed on my system by default? Sometimes turning it off isn't enough. I realize you have the ability to uninstall the above items after install. But why does the consumer have to uninstall it? If I fork out my hard earned cash for a retail copy of your OS, why can't I say what things I want to never be put on my hard drive? Please at least consider my plea. I really do beg of you to seriously consider this install option.Anonymous
August 29, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 29, 2008
As everyone has said, one SKU. Also, in order to appeal to the general market, maybe there needs to be a "Mac Mode" that simplifies the user experience without sacrificing features. Easier to use remote access would be very nice, as well as giving gamers a better reason to switch. Maybe make Valve's Steam Digital Distribution service integrated with it instead of trying to compete with them. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!Anonymous
August 29, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 29, 2008
I forgot to add to my above post:: But it does matter. To the end user, the developer, the power/ tech user, and even businesses. Functional code, something that works. Elegant code, something that works with greater efficiency of hardware resources and software. Something that's just better. Please, optimize the code. Reorganize it. Make ever part of the Windows OS optimized and tweaked. After seeing Vista, we will wait. Take as much time as you need. Take an extra year. As long as Microsoft gets this release correct. Please.Anonymous
August 29, 2008
I'm a system developer and regard myself as a power user of computers. I've got a quad core CPU, 4 GB RAM and lots of disk space. I don't care about power consumption and keeping the CPU load low. I have a quad core CPU so please use it. You talk about optimizing for multi user scenarios, that's fine for a server OS (at least it might be). But for a standard file server/web server or desktop PC with a single purpose/user unused hardware is wast imho. If you can use 3 of the 4 cores at 100% and do something useful that will make my work experience faster and more performant then please do so. The conclusion must be to do more stuff and try to anticipate the users actions when ever resources are idle. Use the CPU, disk and memory for what it's worth.Anonymous
August 29, 2008
A lot of time my Vista using HDD for no apparent reason. I consider my PC install is fairly clean, no crapware, otherwise PC recover. Most of time Vista waste time on HDD activities and Network Device Detection. Like when I tried to print, it will stop for awhile to check my network printer's status.Anonymous
August 29, 2008
"We see this a lot with what some on have called “eye candy”—we get many requests to make the base user interface “more fun” with animations and graphics (“like those found on competing products”) while at the same time some say “get rid of graphics and go back to Windows 2000”" I don't really think this is a contradiction though. It's just people being lousy at explaining what they want. What most people mean when they say "go back to Win2k" is not "I want it to be all grey and square and boxy with no animations". It's "I want it to be as fast to work with as 2k was". I don't mind flashy graphics, but Vista annoys me because 1) the animations create artificial latency. If I do something, I want it to happen now, not 200 milliseconds from now, when some animation or fadein/out has completed. And 2) the Aero interface in Vista just is not as efficient as it could be. It places some heavier demands on CPU/GPU, which also slows things down a bit. Now, everyone can agree that 2) should be optimized as much as possible. 1) is the tricky one. I don't mind colors or a nice-looking theme. I've always used the default XP theme, even when all the cool people stuck with the 2k one because it was "simpler" and XP looked too "childish". I even think Aero looks nice in still pictures for the most part. But all the extra flashy bits just get in my way when I try to use the OS. Keep those concerns separated. Yes, a lot of people are saying "Just make it like 2k", but people are lousy at separating different concerns. What (many of them) mean is just that it should be as fast as 2k, not that it has to look identical. Similarly, the groop asking for more eyecandy are not also asking for the interface to be slower. They're not asking for longer animations when they click a button. They just want it to look nice.Anonymous
August 30, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 30, 2008
I'll try to keep it simple. The file management system needs lots of improvements. My personal main problem is the number of times I lose/corrupt my files whenever I move them from one folder to another & the system suddenly crashes. Microsoft shouldn't miss taking care of that issue with Windows 7. Improve the speed & handling of copying & moving files to what it should be like for a 2009/2010 operating system. Unlike Vista, where it just kills me whenever I see the transfer speed goes down to 2MB/sec when I'm copying large chunk of files. Good luck!Anonymous
August 30, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 30, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 30, 2008
Thank you for sharing this information. A suggestion on how to improve (user) performance: take into account the time he has to spend relearning previously mastered procedures. Build his knowledge, don't force him to waste time relearning the same things. It's OK to need time to learn how to do new things, but not the same ones if they work well. The champion offender is MS Office 7 which replaced the menu system with the ribbon without the courtesy of offering a choice. The message is please don't be trigger happy when it comes to reorganizing where you place features. I have a lot of software in my PC and replacing it has become a dreaded experience. It used to be fun. I wish I could just upgrade the motherboard and be done. I would be willing to buy new licenses for the new motherboard in order to avoid the hassle of an upgrade. Consider offering that option. Sorry to be nagging, but this is an important issue, at least for this user.Anonymous
August 31, 2008
Thanks for listening to our comments steven. You should be able to handle both partys (complaining about wanting something, and the ones complaining they don't want that) using options. When i program i try to make it win/win by making layers depending on which options are chosen, so there's no performance impact either way (even theoretically), And then step into the user's shoes to find out the most easy and unintrusive place to setup those options. In relation to the 'eye candy', that seems to be pretty much taken care of in vista anyway. People can go back to windows 2000 themes if they choose or even disable the DWM service. When we talk about performance, I think the majority of people primarily care about the speed applications do their job (i.e. FPS for games), And secondly startup performance. Those of us that hunger performance want functionality too, but if it comes to a call where you can't setup a way to do both, please choose performance.Anonymous
August 31, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 31, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 01, 2008
make it smaller and they will buy it 75% of vista is bloat. time to get the axe out one more thing - is there any way you can persuade the government to make installing crapware on new PCs an offense punishable by death? just wonderingAnonymous
September 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 02, 2008
Common guys, you can do better and (lighter) than VISTA. It's a shame that on the same 2 new CORE DUO systems one with XP the other with VISTA, the same programs run slower in the VISTA machine. And things than we used to do with 2-3 clicks now on VISTA need twice more. Things we need:
- Less memory consumption (600MB usage after a format is unthinkable). And don't say that VISTA caches all that memory, or even more, for faster recalling when you need it, it DOESN'T WORK, XP are still faster. (TESTED ON IDENTICAL MACHINES MENTIONED ABOVE)
- Simpler interface (simple and productive, without all that shining, glowing but of course eye-attractive........ he,he) MAC OS X is waiting just around the corner....
Anonymous
September 03, 2008
Hi, it is possible to show me driver performance. Under Vista all driver are located inside the system process and it is difficult to find out, which part of the system is the bottleneck. In my case the bluetooth was the problem. Thanks JensAnonymous
September 03, 2008
I don't care about Aero and stuff like that. I care about the system performance. I want a fast and flexible os, not a slow one.Anonymous
September 03, 2008
Gaming performance is very important. i play a lot and I think that Windows 7 should be a better gaming platform than Vista.Anonymous
September 04, 2008
Do we really need a rough 0.7 GB with drivers copied to our disk? Can’t we just insert the disc that came with the printer, search the web or simply put in the Windows disc during setup? The removal of security center, Tablet PC Input or easy transfer, speech tool among other parts, reduced the Vista Business installation from 11 GB down to a modest 4 GB. I loved it. Vista became everything I wanted it to be, and without the sacrifice of compatibility, security and usability. What should be done:
- The possibility to fully customize the installation: removing everything that’s not crucial for stability and security. If such features are needed at a later time, put the Windows-DVD back in and install it.
Anonymous
September 04, 2008
@OHD There are a couple of good observations here and some good discussion. We do include a large number of drivers in the standard install of Windows and there currently isn't an obvious way to reduce that footprint. We do select drivers to install based on the broad applicability of those drivers (based on real world device installation and configuration, through our anonymous, opt-in data). We can definitely imagine removing drivers but keep in mind that many of them are used to get to drivers in the first place (networking, storage, etc.) And also keep in mind that when you need a driver you also might not have connectivity (say a hotel printer when there is no network you can use or the connection is too slow for a driver download, which happened to me this week). Many of the things you mention above do not have a supported means to remove (TabletPC does) and doing so can leave the PC in an unsupportable state (i.e. windows update will stop working). It is perfectly great to use the Windows Options (in Programs and Features) to remove things. The reality is that the code of Windows is not where the bulk of footprint resides. It takes removing a lot of code before you save a significant amount of disk space. However tHere are some disk footprint steps that I personally take--I remove the hibernate file (disk cleanup supports this, or powercfg -hibernate off), and I also turn off system restore on the volume since I have not had issues with needing rollback. Those two along allow me to run my primary vista SP1 machine with Office Enterprise on a 16GB SSD. THe base OS+Office+apps (Reader, for example) is about 10GB. I keep all my personal files in a foldershare.live.com sync'ed folder on an SSD card in the laptop. There are many ways to reduce the footprint. In general, I want to encourage folks to stick to documented and supported ways. --StevenAnonymous
September 06, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 11, 2008
Mojave or not, I have not come across a caching that matches RAM disk performance, and for me, loading a 400MB file in notepad is an excellent test. Also whereas Vista did not allow me to go above the 128GB of XP x64, I wonder whether W7 ecosystem will include anything else than llp64, so that the dual-processors motherboards now reaching 288GB (Nehalem) or more (Magny-Cours) can be used with W7. Also I'd like to see what the direction is in terms of DMA abstraction vs performance, especially when using over 128GB memory (while not bouncing buffers over 4GB). Thanks !Anonymous
September 14, 2008
Like PAStheLoD said, how is it even possible for Microsoft's installers (all of them, it seems) to be so slow? I recently tried installing Gears of War for PC... Baad idea. Took me something like two hours. Most games install in 5 minutes. A month ago, I installed VS2k8 Sp1. Bad idea too. Another 2 hours out the window. Windows updates too, are ridiculously slow, considering how little is usually updated. Ironically, the only Microsoft product that seems to install in a reasonable time is Windows itself. Yeah, you can give yourselves a pat on the back for that. It's not perfect, but it's acceptable, and on par with other OS'es. But really, the situation with other software is just beyond ridiculous. Please solve it. I don't care how. I don't care if the OS has to expose the One True Installer, make it free for all to use, and put InstallShield and all the other third-party installers out of a job. I certainly don't care if it replaces Microsoft's own 5 or so different installers. But this isn't a problem with individual Microsoft products, it's every single one of them. (And third-party installers have plenty of issues too, even if they're some 30x faster than Microsoft's) So it'd make sense to solve it once, at the OS level. Good luck with that. ;)Anonymous
September 16, 2008
Just a quick question, for a probably-future Networking post. What TCP congestion control algorithm will W7 use? Will it be modular/selectable/modifyable?Anonymous
September 20, 2008
I want to talk about your staments: "customization and management tools Windows has to offer to tune the experience" I enjoy tuning up my computer. I hope Microsoft will add a tool for cleaning the regitry, removing broken links, and unnecessary files, and foldersAnonymous
September 20, 2008
Microsoft should add a system that will let the customer see the computer during the defragmenting job. All the Window systems, before Vista, have permitted the customers, see how much, was needed, to defrag their computers. The system would give us an ideal of how long it would take to defrag the computer. We can only look at a little ring, going around, in a circle, to let us know that the system was defraging..Anonymous
September 20, 2008
Microsoft should include a PC, Turn-Up, system like Dell. This is a link to Dell's "Automated PC Turn-Up: http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=DDCWDA3&s=dhsAnonymous
October 01, 2008
Hi developers, compared to Vista, I think that in Windows 7 efforts should be concentrated on two main focus points: reducing the 'always-on' system services and minimizing the times of read/write access on disk while indexing files. Thank you for the opportunity given to share our opinions.Anonymous
November 13, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 25, 2008
Further up the thread somebody talked about the slowdown overtime from a clean install due to the registry being clogged. What if you had some sort of 'sandbox' for registry settings for 3rd party applications. An isolated entity. You could make references to those app specific isolated settings in the system specific part. If a program is deinstalled, the entire 'sandbox' dissappears and the next time the loose (null) reference(s) are queried they are removed before they're released to the inquirer. Some other reference 'garbage collector' could be thought of as well. This way the registry doesn't get clogged. For extra-lifespan settings or values you could make another form of 'registry' concerning historical changes. The registry in my opinion serves only the current needs of the system. This might also seriously reduce the hardship for 3rd party developers putting their apps n sync with the system. It's only an idea :) Worth looking into though.Anonymous
February 26, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 15, 2009
Microsoft should add a system that will let the customer see the computer during the defragmenting job. All the Window systems, before Vista, have permitted the customers, see how much, was needed, to defrag their computers. The system would give us an ideal of how long it would take to defrag the computer.Anonymous
November 23, 2009
Today in Windows Vista we have two ways to do that--first you can pick Windows Home Basic and add your own software, or you can pick a more "feature-oriented" version and also keep in mind that when you need a driver you also might not have connectivity say a hotel printer when there is no network you can use or the connection is too slow for a driver downloadAnonymous
November 23, 2009
Today in Windows Vista we have two ways to do that--first you can pick Windows Home Basic and add your own software, or you can pick a more "feature-oriented" version and also keep in mind that when you need a driver you also might not have connectivity say a hotel printer when there is no network you can use or the connection is too slow for a driver downloadAnonymous
February 21, 2010
thanks, nice post, keep postingAnonymous
May 01, 2010
Couldn't defragmentation be in progress while your computer is in sleep mode. It could be done on regular base. Everytime comp is in sleep mode it could be doing other jobs which are important but are time consuming.Anonymous
July 31, 2010
Hello, Today surfing the web I found a site selling original windows 7 key and windows DVDs， http://www.onlinekey.org the key is priced at $20, . It also has other licenses at discounted prices. You may also request a copy of the installation DVD and the dvd will be sent to you through USPS. wholesale windows 7 product key free windows 7 download cheap windows 7 product key cheap office 2007 product key cheap office 2010 plus product key cheap windows xp product key Norton 360 product key Windows 7 Ultimate key (32/64 bits dvds) 30$ Windows 7 Professional key (32/64 bits dvds) 20$ Windows 7 Home Premium key (32/64 bits dvds) 20$ Office 2010 Professional plus key (32/64 bits dvds) 30$ Office 2007 Ultimate key (dvd)20$ Office 2007 Professional key (dvd) 20$ xbox 4000 xbox 12 + 1 The key only works with the final retail versions of Windows 7 and office The page URL is: http://www.onlinekey.org According to users who have bought works perfectly , and the complete Windows passes validation Windows Genuine Advantage.Anonymous
July 16, 2011
can't get my oyle Casino game to work. it keep coming up with the fact it needs d3dAnonymous
December 28, 2011
why my screen become black suddenly i have to shut my laptop and remove the electric power in order to let it work againAnonymous
October 27, 2013
The comment has been removed