If I were put in charge of Windows OS10

There is a lot of talk about the next windows version.  I have been thinking - what would I do if I were put in charge of product development for windows 10.

Windows is still the operating system for the everyman, for the every user.   Its should be taking care of the average user.  Average users are pretty dumb when it comes to computers, how many times has someone near you screamed in physical pain because something unexpected popped up on their computer, or an error box arrived with a simple message.  How many times has someone called you to say that they have had an error box pop up, what should they do, and when you ask them what it said, they didn't read beyond the word 'error' or 'warning'?

Secure data using the users OAuth identify.

Too many passwords are bad users don't use passwords properly, they reuse them in insecure systems, which get compromised, or do silly things with them.  These compromised systems can be leveraged to compromise larger systems.  Its better to have a couple of really strong systems - and use Oauth tokens to provide security over a wider degree of applications.  User security should be talked about more in the mainstream media with less radicalism and panic.  

Users don't manually encrypt data on their hard drive, and they shouldn't have to.  This is the type of repetitive task that should be automated, and done for them.  Users shouldn't have to think about it, we as developers should look after them in this regard and have a number of security options which allowed the user the flexibility to choose a security level for our data in the same way that we chose a security level for our firewalls using XP low, medium, medium high, high, using a slider. This should apply at a file level as default, and power users should be able to adjust their settings as they want.  I would prioritise security over performance - the hardware OEMs will hide the performance issues with faster machines eventually.

Windows quite rightly prides itself on servicing an ecosystem rather than enforcing its will on others.  In implementing this feature it should be noted that there are already a number of OAuth providers, and there should be no need to provide a separate windows OAuth server, unless users opt for it.  Maybe providing OAuth services would be better performed by national, or regional microsoft subsidiaries, if microsoft were to offer the OAuth option.  As an aside - this could be interesting as it would provide an interesting metric for governments to gauge the perception of their digital laws.  If this was the case in Australia at the moment a good number of people would prefer microsoft USA, or Microsoft UK to handle their OAuth identities.

Separate the operating system from applications and data.

Windows is an old operating system, and it suffers with some of the old thinking from the days when computers were laptops with big expensive hard drives of 500MB or so.  Nowadays a big hard drive is a Terrabyte and way cheaper in terms of energy, space, and cost.  Put the operating system on a small flash drive, with a little space for expansion.  Store the applications and their data on a separate disk or two within the computer.  

If you are going to use multiple hard drives in your desktop or laptop PC why not use a bit of RAID technology to improve on-device security.  This technology has been around for years, it should be simple for a operating system to incorporate raid technology in its base system. Although cloud technologies also kind of make this approach a little redundant.  I would offer the technology in the OS, and let the OEMs decide how they will implement it.

When I want to remove an application I should be able to simply remove it by dragging it into the bin.  all settings that came with it should end up in the bin with the program. Similarly if I want to reinstall the operating system - that shouldn't mean I have to re-install every application that I use since. Separating the operating system from the application layer should prevent some of the clutter that ends up on windows machines ending up slowing them down as they age. This should help with removing viruses as well. Although the popularity of the platform will still attract the majority of the problems with malware.

One product does not fit all.

People still use desktops, servers, touch-enabled devices, tablets, phablets, phones, mainframes, and soon maybe even windows watches, windows headset computers, windows desk surfaces.  Not to mention the forthcoming Windows refrigerator, car, motorbike and toaster.  In the past Windows have had a policy of convergence, the server and desktop operating systems became one.  I think that this has gone too far with desktops being bloated with features for touch devices.  It should be fairly simple to separate the part of the operating system that deals with the core computer hardware (RAM, ROM, CPU  and hard disk) from the parts that deal with different parts of the computer periphery, screens, touch screens, etc to provide a customisable cluster of sub-products.  

Yes this could mean that we have more of a series of microsoft products than a single product, but we as users only have to worry about learning one windows kitchenware, the metaphors for using a fridge and a toaster will be similar, just as the metaphors used in word, excel and access are similar.  This is an area where Windows led the way, lead again!

XP ruled, use the dominance from that time.

People were comfortable with XP.  it had a familiar interface that the vast majority of people loved and felt comfortable with.  The user experience for os10 will be exactly the same as for XP. Or at least to start with.  This will give everyone the ability to access the tech and create the environment that they can get comfortable with.  The XP interface gave a great default familiar to almost everyone.  From a technical persepcitve this does not have to be a step backwards - it just has to 'feel' like windows XP, on the desktop version at least. The touch version should probably still default to the metro layout.  I would hope that the users of the server version should be savvy enough to work out how to install thier own desktop as they wanted.

However - there should be options for customisation.  I should be able to choose to install an aero/unity-esque/gnome-like/KDE-esque desktop on a windows os 10 machine without worrying about the underlying system.  I would really like support for multiple virtual desktops to run on my machine in the background in this section as well.  A large population of users will never use these features but they appreciate having them.  

That is not to say that these things should not change in future.  I really loved some of the features that were included on the windows 7 desktop.  Particularly the ability to easily maximise, or dock a window to a half of the screen.  These improvement should be released as increments - almost unnoticed.  The measure of success should be that a release can be made and it shouldn't appear in the trade mags until the release after a feature has been introduced.  

Last version - ever!

Windows updates is woeful next to the linux and mac alternatives.  Updates is one area where I believe that a lot of headway can be made from taking a leaf out of Chrome's book.  Whilst saying that XP should be the default user experience I believe that having regular incremental updates should allow features to be added to the operating system in such a way as to be almost unnoticed, or at least uncomplained about due to the unremarkableness of constant small changes. Feature and service removal is, and should be quite rare.

When a thing updates it should be invisible - updates should occur when the user has been inactive, they should be small, and all-encompassing.  The need for the computer to restart should be minimal, and when it does occur, the computer should save the state it was in before the restart, get on with the restart, and resume from where it left off.  The default option for this should be during periods of inacivity, but this should be configurable to a time of the week, or at shutdown. My parents-in-law are typical of older users who get very angry about things changing without their control.  They like Chrome. as it 'never needs an update'.  A new version which replaces an older version should hardly ever be noticed, unless it plans to delight the user.  

Windows thrives on having a full ecosystem rather than an app-store type arrangement. However allowing developers the power to leverage windows updates to maintain their application updates using the operating system would save the user from a lot of problems. In servicing an ecosystem A balance needs to be addressed between having a centralised App-store operating a quasi-monopoly over the software that can be installed on a computer, and a free-for all allowing every malcontent access to every windows computer on the planet.  

A centralised update service has the potential to allow a lot of developers access to home computers.  There could be a midpoint where microsoft allows access to a limited number of 'update authorities' within their ecosystem to update users using the microsoft update system.  Update authorities need to be licensed to protect the reputation of microsoft, and authorities found to be distributing malware, or not following an approved QA scheme need to be weeded out.   Power users need to be able to add unlicensed updaters.  

I would also get the paper clip back - or something like it.  It is needed as things change to point out, and educate people on the changes that occur over time.  This would make for an useful tool in educating users as features become introduced, or removed.  

If the next version of Windows was to become the last version ever - that the marketing teams would need to focus on feature releases, and educating users how to use their computers more effectively. Maybe even learn to control the sense of fear when a box pops right up at them.