18 Features Windows Should Have (but Doesn't)
15. Pre-Installed Web Server
Available in: Mac, Linux, PC-BSD
Not everyone needs to host a Web site on their own PC. But some people do, whether it be their personal blog or just a few pages they wish to share on their internal network. And when people do set up a Web page on their computer, they usually choose Linux or Mac OS X for the job, because some versions of Windows don't come with a built-in Web server.

If you're running Windows XP Home or Vista Home Basic, however, you'll have to download and install Apache HTTP Server. Once installed, Apache lets you host Web pages, complete with SSL encryption, from a folder on your Windows PC.
16. POSIX Compliance
Available on: BeOS, Mac, Linux, PC-BSD
Outside of the Windows desktop, much of the world's software is written to conform to a Unix-based standard called POSIX. And any operating system that complies with the POSIX standard can run most software written for Unix, including the dizzying array of free, open-source software written for Linux. Linux and PC-BSD are inherently POSIX-compliant. The Mac is, too, because it's built on BSD. Even the defunct BeOS supported POSIX standards. But Windows does not. 
17. Standardized Menu Ribbon
Available on: Mac

Since Mac programs are designed with such a menu ribbon in mind and Windows programs aren't, there's no perfect way to add this feature to Windows. But with Stardock's ObjectBar you can come pretty close. ObjectBar is a skinning utility for the Windows Start menu and Taskbar. Once installed, ObjectBar's MacPC skin will turn your Windows Taskbar into a Mac-style menu ribbon. It even duplicates the menus of most Windows applications, so you can control them from the top of the screen as you would in Mac OS X. (The menus will still be available within your apps, too, however.) ObjectBar currently works only for XP, but a Vista version of it is expected soon.
18. Single-File Applications
Available on: Mac

To attain the same level of simplicity on a Windows PC, you'd have to try running portable applications (see Scott Dunn's article "Carry a PC in Your Pocket"). Of course, doing so would force you to sacrifice some of the robust features you might prefer in your favorite Windows programs, so we don't recommend it. Unless Microsoft takes a radical turn in designing the next version of Windows, you can expect Windows software to become more complicated, not less.

Add Your Comment