Meh, those things are hardly bloatware. Garbage that runs all the time IMO is more of a problem. It is a nice step though to have downloadable features so they don't already come on the OS. Bloatware that doesn't run in the "background", if we can even call it that, is not an issue.

'anyways'? Dat ain't good inglish.

Alls I know is I'm get'n straight A's and that aint not bad.

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

The title of the article is misleading. Someone automatically thinks, "Oh. Typical MS cutting features because they can't make a good OS anymore..." Not the case. The removal (a better word) of the programs was intentional.

I think its good that there leaving a few of these things out as optional downloads. For the average user its going to increase hard drive space.

They need to leave features for Windows 8 and this also helps by making more room for third-party OEM crapware.

Actually, Microsoft doesn't take Apple Corp as threat. They take Google as their primary competitor. We are just about to experience another bout of IT revolution that will take us from OS-centric thinking to net-centric paradigm. Microsoft is just using its advantage on OS market to lure many people to live.com instead of google.com.

it would be nice if the OS came completely bare. then we can download/ add what ever feasures.

the problem with vista is that there's so much unneeded background processes that eat away at system reasoures. i couldn't car less about them removing outlook or what ever. its the high amount of "always running" background processes that make vista so bloated. thats my opinion of what "bloated" means when it comes to vista anyway.

It's a start. Operating Systems were never meant to be multimedia or productivity packages. The OS should come with the basics and be as stable as possible. If Microsoft wants to sell other software so be it, just don't include it as part of an OS.

Nice one Ralph Wiggum! I read that a Windows 7 Beta is out. Has anyone used it? Thoughts?

Lol to funny you say OS's should come bare ok I think not. There should be everything in the OS to get the noobie up & running with out hassle or having to worry about downloading a lot of crap just to get email or to play a mp3 or even look at a friggin photo get real.

Vista's problem is not the included Windows Mail or photo program or even Media player. The problem with Vista is all that eye candy & the dam useless sidebar crap it eats up alot of memory.

I for one would like to see at least some usability out of the box & not have to worry about having to download online crap just to get my email. No I am not a noobie have been in the industry for 16 years & yes I have been there when the first OS's didn't include any perks & let me tell you it sucked a** bad.

I can see it now when & if MS release this OS without these programs everyone will rag on them because their new shiny OS is lacking features & this will also play into Apples new I'm a Mac & I'm a PC useless ad's because they will most likely show the mac guy all decked out in fancy clothes & the PC guy will most likely be dressed like a bum & unshaven & the mac guy will go whats the matter PC did someone steal your clothes or whatever...lol

Vista is really good, the best so far, by far. It's not the best OS for every possible use, but no OS is. I think it's the best OS for (decently configured) home desktops. It could be leaner in order to be the best laptop OS, I think Mac OS X is in a lot of ways the best laptop OS (definitely not the best desktop OS, since it doesn't do the basic things a desktop OS should... which is to let you run the hardware you want and the software you need).

Vista 64-bit... the horrible HORRIBLE Vista 64-bit is what I run. And I truly don't get what people are whining about. I mean it's GOOD. I run Bioshock, Gears of War, Call of Duty 4, Quake 4, Doom 3, Psychonauts, every game I've tried so far... basically, just perfect backwards support. I run Adobe CS3 and Office 2007 (which is really strange at first but grows on you in an odd sort of way). I also play Bluray movies on it (entirely impossible to do on Mac OS, period). It supports the best video cards (and DirectX 10), the best available hardware, it supports overclockable hardware, cheap or expensive hardware, etc. etc. It is a fantastic OS for the year 2008, and will be for 2009. My desktop has more hardware than I know what to do with, and I think that this is quite typical. Vista helps to tame great hardware and make it useful... all that an OS can or should do.

You say features, I say things I never use. If it makes a smaller footprint I don't think that's a bad thing, but then again I'm a guy that installs practically everthing when I install Open SUSE \^_^/

The ONLY reason microsoft is coming out with windows 7 so much sooner than origianally planned, is because vista was such a flop.

If vista was doing better, windows 7 would not be coming out til later. But ms somehow never has enough time to get things right so expect another OS with massive problems.

I personally think this is going to cause me more problems than good. Sure I don't personally use these programs, but many of the noobs I know do. And it's often these noobs who have dialup or NO INTERNET CONNECTION. Some of these people I have taught how to add/remove windows components, and how to install programs. Perhaps Microsoft could be nice enough to keep them as Windows components (not installed by default) or place all of the installers in a single handy location on their installation media.

They could as well make several installation profiles to choose from - minimum (would love this!) - baseline - standard - lots of stuff etc.

Actually all of the extras are able to be disabled. On first start Vista uses about 800 megs. Not too bad considering that bulk of it is Aero.

But the bulk of it becomes your commonly used programs being preloaded so they start faster than in XP. I like it personally as it makes it feel much faster.

And I for one love having WMC with the OS. Its easy to use and lets me watch movies via my PC on my HDTV at better quality.

It should be Alls I knows, either way, nice bart simpson.

lol, it seems the ability to quote escapes me at this moment

Unfortunately, the "features" they dropped are not going to make much of a difference (at least for me, though nonetheless at least it's something). What matters is what's under the "hood". MS doesn't have to gut the internals of Windows, but at the very least they should make a truely modular system.

Vista's Home, Business, Ultimate? More (like) marketing gimick than true modular design. Ofcourse, such a setup (where user's can really install just the internal bare essentials) could "compromise" the integrity and experience for users, but at least the users have a choice.

What's to stop a user from ruining their setup? By "hiding" the capability (to customize the internals of a system) in layers of user verification, would deter your common user. Plus the simple warning would do. What's to stop complaints due to misconfigured setups? A simple utility to verify the setup that can be relayed to the techs at MS would do (smacks the wanna-be IT/tech/users from completely blaming MS for the setup that they did themselves).

I agree the outlook has outlived it's usefulness, but movie maker and photo gallery have not.The main thing here is the fact that gutting these programs out does NOTHING to solve the Vista problem.

So... what is the Vista problem? As of September 2008, the only thing wrong with Vista was that it was launched unfinished. That's it. Check out the Mahogany experiment if you don't believe.

Apple just did a wonderful job of fueling the already growing fad of hating microsoft. That's it. Vista works great, and i'm sure 7 will as well. I'm just never buying an OS the week it comes out ever again.

Some of the statements I see here are ignoring some basic market facts. There are different needs for different markets. If an end-user buys a retail package of an OS distribution then it is in the best interest of the distributor to include apps they think their target customer will need. Microsoft and Apple will almost exclusively include their internally developed apps. They are going to be providing support so it's their choice.

Linux and BSD developers don't offer paid support direct to consumers as the OS kernel is only a single common component in a software stack (although an important one) and end-users rarely work with it directly. Instead, third-parties bundle the kernels with desktop and server applications and distribute them together, sometimes with paid support subscriptions if their target market requires it. Apple and Microsoft don't allow third-parties to make custom versions of their retail packages. The closest thing to a Linux/BSD distribution that exists in the Microsoft world are warez distributions like "Windows XP Black Edition".

OEMs provide tech support for installed applications on the systems they sell. They offer what they think their customers want for both hardware and software at specific price points. Microsoft (before multiple governments forced them to change) allowed very little flexibility when it came to OS-bundled and third-party application selection. They decided that they knew the OEMs' customers better than the OEMs did. Microsoft doesn't incur any additional support costs when an OEM decides to bundle WordPerfect or OpenOffice.org instead of Works or Office. They aren't supporting any of the OEM licensed software anyways as per the Microsoft OEM product EULA. If the OEM picks apps that their customer base doesn't like then it's their own problem. They will have reduced sales and/or increased support costs. They may decide that for their market that no OS or a bare Windows installation is best and rely on separate retail software offerings so customers can choose what they want.

Apple never had OEMs between itself and the retailers (except for that short-term experiment before Jobs return). I don't think retailers have much control over Macintosh configurations. Apple may allow more flexibility with VARs but I've never dealt with them. I'm not sure how the support load is handled between Apple and the retailers but it's probably split. It's cradle-to-grave care practically at gunpoint. It's what their customers want.

There are dozens of Linux/BSD distributions so OEMs can pick whatever they like or make their own for specific markets. With F/OSS apps there are no different application retail/OEM/VAR/Enterprise licenses with varying functionality limitations. Distribution support subscriptions may differ but that's no more complicated than existing support arrangements with Apple, Microsoft, and third-party providers the OEMs already deal with.

I almost had a heart attack when it said they were removing Movie Maker... then I saw the optional download thing. This is great. I think this is what a PC is all about: giving you a fairly simple experience to start with, then letting you put in whatever you want. The Macintosh way is to give everything that most people want right out of the box. Me, I prefer the PC, and Windows 7 looks like it's getting back to that.

Apple, Crapple!
The exclusion of mail clients in Windows would be excellent!
Not only does the program suck, and do I never use it, it also has a bunchload of security issues that make the system vulnerable!

Up untill today I never installed any outlook or equal version mail server!(Hotmail 's more than enough for me.)

In windows 7, I fear that simple grey colored windows for minimum resources won't be possible anymore.. Anyone can confirm if you can get the Win98 look on one of the pre-releases,or heard it somewhere?

Despite the better looks of Vista Windows, I'll always go back to grey looking windows ('98 theme), due to improved system response and performance.

In my opinion, Microsoft needs to make some big changes for windows 7 to be successful.
They need to do away with the system registry, replace NTFS with a modern file system, forget about backwards compatability (Use a virtual machine for that) and remove the bloat. NTFS is a 20 year old file system. Windows registry is another problem which needs to go away. I am a long time windows user whom is afraid Microsoft doesn't get it and continues heading down the wrong path.

I'm not sure about the state of NTFS as a whole but it has been improved over the years. It's definitely better than FAT12/16/32. Linux and BSD have dozens of file systems so you can choose based on speed, efficiency, data distribution, and reliability. Linux and BSD generally use text or XML files for configuration which are easier to edit without specialized tools. Each app has it's own configuration files so there isn't a single point of failure. But compared to the Windows registry it's a trade-off in reliability vs. features. Splitting the registry files up so that there is only one per app would limit the damage from a corrupted file. It could also be used to improve security via ACLs to prevent apps from messing with registry entries for other apps like what DRM and malware often does. Regedit and other registry tools could then choose to operate on one or all of the files based on need and user permissions. It would sort of act like MMC where you can choose to see the entire system from a high level (Computer Management) or just a specific subsection (Services).

Its probably more of an evasion of any future monopoly and anti-trust lawsuits, if they offer the OS free of any software that voids a user's need to attempt to get it from others. No one can complain.

They can easily offer the download link in their OS and give the user the option though.