Windows 11 Needs: Dual Pane Explorer, Desktop Widgets, and a Real PDF Editor

Windows 11 has come a long way, but users — from casual desktop consumers to power users and IT professionals — still find themselves relying on third‑party tools to fill basic gaps in the operating system experience. A recent MakeUseOf roundup argues that several of these omissions are no longer optional: things like a dual‑pane File Explorer, real desktop widgets, a fully featured PDF editor, a more capable clipboard, a truly flexible taskbar, and the ability to change the default search engine are essential, not boutique. That argument is compelling and reflects a broader, long‑running conversation in the Windows community about where Microsoft should invest engineering attention next.

Background: why these “missing” features matter​

Windows has always been judged by the company it keeps — the ecosystem of apps and utilities that users rely on to bridge gaps in the core OS. Over the last decade Microsoft has shifted to shipping a smaller set of polished experiences and letting first‑party incubators (PowerToys) or third‑party apps shoulder the rest. That’s efficient, but it can leave everyday workflows fragmented.
The MakeUseOf piece highlights six practical areas where the OS still falls short: dual‑pane file management, desktop widgets that live on the desktop, richer clipboard history, a built‑in PDF editor, a customizable taskbar, and control over the search engine used by the Start/taskbar search. Those aren’t stylistic gripes — they’re repeated, measurable productivity losses for millions of users.

---

Dual‑pane File Explorer: the single most practical omission​

The problem​

Copying and organizing files across folders is one of the most frequent desktop tasks. Windows File Explorer added tabs and some modern conveniences, but it still lacks a native, side‑by‑side dual‑pane view (two independent folder panels in the same window) that power users have used for decades in classic file managers.
When you need to move files between folders you usually:

• Open two Explorer windows,
• Snap them to each side of the screen,
• Then fight with scroll positions and window focus while dragging files.

This is inefficient compared with a dual‑pane UI that keeps both locations visible, supports keyboard shortcuts to move/copy, and offers synchronized navigation options. The gap has driven widespread adoption of alternative file managers with dual‑pane support (Total Commander, Directory Opus, Double Commander, Q‑Dir and others). AlternativeTo and independent reviews document the market demand and the maturity of dual‑pane replacements that Windows lacks natively.

Why Microsoft hasn’t shipped it (yet)​

There are multiple engineering reasons Microsoft may be reluctant to overhaul File Explorer:

• Compatibility: File Explorer must support a huge range of legacy shell extensions, context‑menu handlers, and OEM customizations. Big UI changes risk breaking those extensions.
• Prioritization: Microsoft has focused visible engineering on system‑level features — security, telemetry, AI/Copilot, and cloud integration — leaving some desktop ergonomics to PowerToys or the community.
• Fragmentation: A dual‑pane UX requires careful design around drag‑and‑drop semantics, keyboard shortcuts, and integration with OneDrive/SharePoint; it’s not a trivial surface to retrofit.

What users want (and how Microsoft could deliver)​

A first‑class dual‑pane Explorer would include:

• Two independent folder panes inside a single window (resizable).
• Keyboard shortcuts to move/copy items between panes (e.g., F6 / Shift+F6 style) and to synchronize paths.
• Drag‑and‑drop with clear affordances and undoable operations.
• Optional “synchronized browse” mode to mirror navigation between panes.
• Built‑in filters and tags for faster comparison and batch operations.

Microsoft could ship this as an optional toggle in Explorer or via PowerToys’ File Explorer modules, then promote it into the OS after it matures. Third‑party alternatives show the user demand and the necessary feature set; the engineering lift is significant but practical.

---

Desktop widgets: bring true, placeable widgets back to the desktop​

The current state​

Windows 11 has a Widgets panel, but it’s not the same as desktop widgets: it lives behind a taskbar button and occupies a side panel rather than existing as freely placeable components on the desktop surface. The MakeUseOf article nails the user expectation: widgets should be glanceable, positionable, and persistent — like smartphone widgets or legacy desktop gadgets (and yes, Rainmeter and old Vista gadgets still have fans).

Why the Widgets panel feels constrained​

Microsoft’s Widgets design is more like a curated feed (news, weather, calendar snippets) than a set of resizable desktop tiles. That design helps Microsoft integrate live content and ads, but it sacrifices:

• Free positioning (widgets locked to a panel),
• Desktop layering (overlapping or always‑on‑top widgets),
• Third‑party widget ecosystems that can place widgets directly on the desktop.

The user benefit of true desktop widgets​

Proper desktop widgets would:

• Speed up glance tasks (calendar, timers, live system metrics),
• Support user‑created widgets or community widgets (weather, stock tickers, system monitors),
• Reduce reliance on separate apps or web pages for quick checks.

A modern implementation should be sandboxed and permissioned (to reduce telemetry and security risks) but otherwise fully native and placeable. Microsoft can integrate this safely — the core technical pieces are straightforward; the challenge is in UX, performance, and the ecosystem model.

---

Clipboard history: useful, but limited​

What Windows already does​

Windows’ built‑in clipboard history (Win + V) is genuinely useful: it stores up to 25 items, supports text/HTML/bitmap formats and lets you pin entries. However, it clears unpinned items on reboot, and the UI lacks search, folders, reordering, and larger storage capacity. These limits are documented by Microsoft and repeated across independent coverage. Key technical facts:

• Clipboard history capacity: 25 items (older items are evicted automatically).
• Item size limit: individual items have size constraints (text, HTML, bitmap up to a few MB).
• Persistence: non‑pinned items are cleared on restart unless you enable sync across devices.

Microsoft’s support documentation explicitly states the 25‑item limit and the “cleared each time you restart your PC” behavior for unpinned items.

Why the built‑in clipboard falls short for power users​

Power users switch contexts constantly and often need:

• Search across clipboard history,
• Categorization or folders,
• Persistent history across reboots (with encryption),
• More than 25 items and larger item handling,
• Fine‑grained privacy controls.

Third‑party clipboard managers (Ditto, ClipClip, CopyQ) supply all these features, and many professionals rely on them. That shows the demand is real — but it also raises a tradeoff: clipboard history persistence can be a privacy risk if not encrypted or permissioned properly.

How Microsoft could improve it​

A stronger native clipboard should include:

• Search and tagging in the Win + V panel,
• Configurable capacity (50–100 items), optionally persisted locally or to cloud with explicit encryption,
• Reordering and simple folders or “collections”,
• A resizable clipboard pane and a preview that supports long text and rich content.

Implementing secure sync (end‑to‑end or Microsoft‑account encrypted) would address persistence needs while managing privacy concerns.

---

Built‑in PDF editing: why Edge alone isn’t enough​

The current capabilities​

Microsoft Edge ships with a capable PDF viewer: you can open PDFs, annotate (highlight, draw), fill simple forms, and sign documents. But Edge is not a full PDF editor. It lacks robust page manipulation (reorder, insert, delete), smooth form‑creation and advanced PDF production tools found in dedicated editors. Independent product comparisons show Edge is suitable for light editing and annotation but not for document composition or complex workflows.

The gap users feel​

Common PDF workflows that still require third‑party tools:

• Rearranging pages, splitting/merging PDFs,
• Inserting or extracting pages across documents,
• Creating complex fillable forms and programmatic form‑field editing,
• OCR and dependable text editing without conversion to Word,
• Certificate‑level signing and audit trails.

For users who handle PDFs every day — legal, finance, HR, compliance teams — those tasks are a core part of daily productivity. Relying on web tools for these functions raises privacy and reliability concerns; paid desktop apps provide the needed capabilities at a cost.

What Microsoft could ship​

A usable, built‑in PDF editor would offer:

• Organize pages (reorder/insert/delete),
• Merge/split tools,
• Form creation (drag‑and‑drop fields) with robust saving,
• Secure signing options and certificate integration,
• Basic OCR and text corrections (or an official integration with Office apps).

Microsoft already owns Office and Edge; adding a lightweight PDF editor that anchors to both (e.g., an “Edit PDF” pane powered by Office components) would be both technically feasible and valuable for large swathes of users.

---

Taskbar customization: restore flexibility without fragmenting UX​

Where Windows 11 stands today​

Windows 11 reimagined the taskbar: centered icons, integrated widgets, and a tighter visual language. But the OS removed a number of classic customizations — most notably the ability to move the taskbar to the top or sides, resize it easily, or pin arbitrary files/folders directly to it. Longstanding community requests to return these options continue to appear in feedback channels and Windows commentary. Multiple guides and articles confirm that, as of current Windows 11 releases, moving the taskbar to the top or sides is not supported natively, and workarounds require registry edits or third‑party utilities (StartAllBack, ExplorerPatcher).

Why the taskbar matters​

The taskbar is the primary context for launching, monitoring, and switching apps. People want:

• Vertical taskbars (for wide displays),
• Larger or smaller icons for different workflows,
• Pinning folders/files and quick‑action slots,
• Per–monitor fine‑grained control (especially for multi‑monitor setups).

Microsoft has addressed some multi‑monitor friction recently, but many customization choices remain deliberately limited.

The balance Microsoft must strike​

Microsoft’s design goals (consistency, accessibility, modern visuals) sometimes conflict with power users’ desire for control. The practical compromise is to offer options:

• Keep a curated default UI for mainstream users.
• Provide an “advanced customization” panel for power users (officially supported, less likely to break with updates).
• Allow Microsoft‑vetted third‑party UI extension points so quality tools don’t rely on brittle hacks.

That middle path would allow Windows to be both approachable and configurable.

---

Default search engine: the system‑wide constraint​

The user complaint​

When you type a query into the Windows search box or Start menu and choose to search the web, the query is routed to Bing and (often) opened in Microsoft Edge. For users who prefer Google, DuckDuckGo, or other engines, this is frustrating; changing the Windows search engine is not a supported setting in Windows itself. Workarounds exist (redirectors and utilities like MSEdgeRedirect, EdgeDeflector, and browser protocol hooks), but Microsoft has closed or disrupted some of these over time — and the default remains Bing in the system search experience.

Why Microsoft locks the search pipeline​

Integrated search is a strategic product feature tied to Microsoft’s advertising, assistant (Copilot), and services strategies. From Microsoft’s perspective, integrating Bing tightly ensures consistent results, richer AI experiences, and better telemetry for improving enterprise features.

The practical case for choice​

Users expect to control defaults — the default browser and the default search engine are fundamental. Allowing a clearly surfaced switch in Settings for the web search provider would align Windows with user expectations, reduce friction, and avoid the arms race of hacks and redirectors that make the experience brittle.

---

Risks, tradeoffs, and a pragmatic roadmap for Microsoft​

Security and privacy​

Adding features like persistent clipboard sync, desktop widgets, or PDF editing raises privacy and security concerns. Any persistent clipboard must be encrypted in transit and at rest if cloud sync is offered. Widgets that render third‑party content must be sandboxed. A built‑in PDF editor that handles signing must integrate with certificate stores and support modern cryptographic standards.

Compatibility risks​

Large UI changes to File Explorer or the taskbar risk breaking legacy shell extensions and corporate tooling. Microsoft must provide migration guides, compatibility shims, and enterprise policy controls.

Incremental, testable rollout approach​

A pragmatic roadmap:

• Incubate features in PowerToys (dual‑pane Explorer, advanced clipboard manager UI) to iterate quickly with power users.
• Roll out opt‑in Insider builds for early feedback and compatibility testing.
• Add enterprise toggles and Group Policy controls for admins.
• Promote mature features into the OS in a staged release, with clear migration documentation.

PowerToys already serves as a feasible incubation model for features that later become first‑class OS functionality. The community and telemetry would validate demand and help Microsoft prioritize.

---

Conclusion: practical, high‑value changes that should be core OS features​

The MakeUseOf list is not a wish list of gadgetry — it’s a request for basic, productivity‑focused capabilities that users expect on modern desktops: a dual‑pane File Explorer for efficient file management, desktop widgets that live on and around the desktop, a clipboard that supports search and persistence (with privacy safeguards), a real PDF editor for document workflows, taskbar customization that respects individual workflows, and the ability to choose your default search engine for system searches. Those changes would reduce reliance on third‑party tools, simplify onboarding for new users, and restore a measure of user control.
Microsoft can and should approach these improvements pragmatically: incubate, test with Insiders, and only promote features into the OS once compatibility and security are proven. For users, the current ecosystem offers capable third‑party alternatives today — but the real win would be making these features first‑class, stable, and native so they work out of the box for everyone. The conversation isn’t about nostalgia; it’s about closing practical productivity gaps in an operating system that millions use every day.

---

---

Source: MakeUseOf It’s about time Microsoft added these missing features to Windows