Since then [the 90’s], improvements to operating systems have been incremental. Or in some cases, we’ve actually regressed (largely thanks to jerks taking advantage of open systems to create viruses and spyware). The 90s could be looked back upon as a time of naivetÃ© and idealism. It was in that environment that ActiveX and VB Script and Internet Explorer Outlook Express were designed that we now rue because of the exploitative nature of malicious people.
Keep dreaming buddy. The title should be changed from “Five Features Operating Systems Should Have” to “Five Features Operating Systems Could Have”…some of his suggestions sound very nice, obviously. He fails to mention how horribly unrealistic most of them are though.
I’ll only bother to discuss his purposed “Universal environments”…lets think about this. We’ll round down and say there is roughly 6 billion people in the world. We’ll be optimistic and say roughly half have access to a computer. If those 3 billion people each have only 5MB of personal settings that equates to 7,500,000 Terabytes ( 1 Terabyte is roughly 1,000 Gibabytes…roughly 1,000,000 MB). Remember, this is running on the assumption of each person only using 5MB of personal settings. Now, consider that 5MB is not nearly enough to store your personal customizations for the plethora of programs you have. Even 10MB would be a rather meager assumption and that would be 15,000,000 Terabytes of data…You see where I am going with this. Google, arguably the company with the single largest (publicly known at least) data storage capacity right now doesn’t even come anywhere near this number. Google, who is for all intensive purposes providing a rough map for a fair majority of the internet doesn’t even have this much storage. This simply is not a realistic plan unless it’s a global effort consisting of most major computer software and hardware developers jointly sharing this storage burden. The chances of something like that ever happening? …yeah, slim to none.